"So, to summarize, you believe that by joining a community, you're taking part in an implicit promise to assist one another - or, at least not be an active detriment? And people who are capable of convincing others to do great harm are actually worse than the people who do that harm, both because they are deliberately breaking that promise, and because they're proving that they could benefit the community with their skills but have chosen to do harm instead?"

Assuming she did have that right, her follow-up questions were very simple: "Where are the lines? How much must we do to benefit our community? How much can we do for our own benefit before we break our promise to it? You have said killing and convincing others to kill for no good reason puts you outside the acceptable standards of community, but what else?"