I'll be your friend. My name is Leni.

Same. I'll be your friend, as can others I know. You're doing it correctly.

Leni here. I'll be your friend, as well as others I know. Also am someone from uni.

How did they meet?

My actual home has neither an attic or a basement, but the garage does have an attic (albeit no basement). It's super hidden, super high up, and the only way to access it is by a ladder. I could be like "alrighty, I'm going to the Bahamas for the week" and lounge there the whole time and nobody would know the wiser, or hypothetically escape capture by hiding there (unless special agents were after me, then they'd probably find me). Not that I use it that often though; the last time I gave the garage attic a second thought, some relatives decided to squat there for a couple weeks, and I don't even remember at what point I learned about it.

A repeat offender in this situation would refer to people who are operating based on something like a three strike system (as in they can get in trouble three times before they're removed) and used up the other strikes before using up the last one by being in trouble for upsetting the person in question who later has a change of heart. In this situation, you could surmise that, since the last strike was unfairly used up, you could undo it and let them back. Or you could think "well, it kind of blends in the other two strikes and how those past rule violations fairly used up those strikes".

A one-chance policy would simply be the opposite of that. That's where you say one rule violation seals one's fate.

The specific example doesn't have to be deceptive in nature. Suppose the way in which the "John" corespondent violates the boundaries of the "Jane" corespondent is to make recordings of the latter or challenge their conception of privacy. Or maybe one verbally offended the other. These are not what one would call universally set lines. You remove the offender, but later their removal is lamented. "I am sorry but I want to revise those lines [which would be in favor of the John correspondent who may come back if you decide they can]" the Jane correspondent says. And technically you could have an analog to this that doesn't need all those people; people go to jail all the time for breaking laws that get removed a month later, to demonstrate what level that can work on. It's here the question of what to do lies if it were up to you. ~~Not that I've ever met an honest Jane.~~

I was a few minutes shy of going the whole day without being rickrolled.

I wish I had this kind of thing figured out. There is a "side" of me where I go by my instincts, and people criticize me for it, saying it is inconsiderate to how perspective works (because they say they aren't seeing any acknowledgement, and this is related to a lot of the dark triad accusations I get). Sometimes (especially in the context of what people might call my anhedonia) I might shut all that down and out inside me (constituting another "side") and do things completely based in cold hard analysis, such as with the code of honor system I showed you that one time, and people say it comes off as too robotic and "recklessly inhuman". And sometimes, like here, one might find a third "side", one where I can be found asking people for their input and not reflecting on my own, which has to do with what you have seen here, and people accuse me of being a weak enough decision-maker to potentially go back to those dark triad accusations. People even pejoratively/derogatively call these "[Leni's] tripartite autism" (as well as claiming it reflects duplicity like anything is of a concealing nature). And then there's a fourth "side" which has me trying to be an "opportunist" about things, especially as an alternative to being objecting to so much that I experience, and people flip, calling it "manipulative" to make lemonade when life gives you lemons. If you have a secret to your success with people, I'd love to know it.

I don't have a phone due to the lack of use for one, and I'm not big on clothes (and don't need any), but I guess clothes.

It depends on which animal involved is native to which environment or part of the world. Imagine being a squirrel in Upstate New York and being terrified because Murphy's Law now demands that you be worried about these fierce creatures the hoomans call komodo dragons.

As opposed to any other day?