> Either you believe Red harasses Blue or you don't. If you don't, fine, but don't pretend you didn't just pick a side. I can imagine another possibility: you

> Either you believe Red harasses Blue or you don't. If you don't, fine, but don't pretend you didn't just pick a side. I can imagine another possibility: you believe that Red harasses Blue, but also that Blue harasses Red. Then neutrality might be sensible, unless perhaps there's a big difference in magnitude. Another possibility: you think that either you're not qualified to act as judge, you're not suited to act as executioner (what would the action be—retaliatory harassment?), or that, while you could serve as both, it would be better from a societal perspective if people in your position did not do so—it might be "vigilantism".