No, I don't. Neither did my parents. I got in a bunch of fights. Whenever I got involved, they let me take my punishment. Especially the ones I started.

But there were two times I remember clearly where I did NOT fight back. At all. One in particular where someone punched me in the face and that was the full extent of it.

My father was in there in a heart beat both times, coming straight from work (in full officer uniform still), yelling so loud everyone in the office could hear it all behind closed doors.

This was the 90s though and, while zero tolerance was basically just as extreme, the district's ability to turn a blind eye in a less digital age was a bit more there.

The first time he scared them into submission. I had done nothing wrong. I hadn't even MOVED or spoken to provoke. Sucker punched unexpectedly. The epitome of why zero tolerance makes no sense.

The second time I forget the details, but the high school wasn't going to back down like the middle school did so easily.

They said I wasn't to attend school for a week.

He said I'd be there, he'd personally drop me off each morning.

They said they wouldn't let me in the door.

He said to try it, our lawyer would also be there each morning waiting to see them try it.

I walked in the next day with no consequences.

Today, that wouldn't happen. Too many lawsuits that have favored the district, or at least been settled so the precedent wasn't there. Administrators are a lot harder to fight zero tolerance on. And instead of written slips (which can be... conveniently misplaced or whatever), there is a digital record of incidents that has to be answered. How they respond is on record, and under far more scrutiny. So it's far worse. And most kids don't have a parent, of powerful status in the community around them, that can defend them like that from zero tolerance. He was never empty bluffs. He said if they reneged and tried to turn me away that first day, he'd already spoken to his lawyer about potentially being required there the next. He never backed down in his life, and if it were today we'd have gone to court.

So yeah, no, I was raised to fight shit like Zero Tolerance. It's absurd when their aren't exceptions to the rules, and personal judgement.

But in this case, is there an exception to the rule you can think of to justify this behavior? They didn't accidentally cause the button to click. The evidence is there in the code. The malicious intent proven. Do they deserve some sort of retaliation, even if we could find them? No! It's a stupid game on reddit, not murder. And users should be smarter than installing random, untrusted extensions. But should we support malicious content in any form? Technically yes, but never when used to cause harm. It's like at institutions that advocate teaching hacking. Some say you shouldn't do it. But the best way to learn how to prevent hacking is to be more informed on as many ways it occurs as possible. So they teach it via a closed network, with permission to make their attempts on targets they've setup willingly for that purpose.

So yes, malware isn't ALWAYS bad (since there are cases for teaching how it works), but in this context it is always bad - in the context of being used to cause harm to unwilling participants.