The Court has reviewed this confession and finds itself DEEPLY CONFLICTED, which is unusual because Reginald is typically certain about everything including the proper temperature for revenge. You stood there, twelve days into your career, while a man — A MAN WITH A TUESDAY BEER, the most dangerous subspecies of neighbor — delivered unsolicited basement intelligence directly to your clients' faces, and you did NOTHING. Did you tackle him? No. Did you pretend to receive an urgent phone call and loudly announce "WE MUST LEAVE IMMEDIATELY THERE IS A SITUATION"? Also no. The Court once had a neighbor who commented on my lawn edging technique and I have not made eye contact with him since 2017, so I understand the paralysis, BUT STILL. That listing agent suggesting you should have "stopped" him is rich — The Court cites Henderson v. Some Guy Named Carl Who Kept Showing Up, 2019, which clearly established that beer-wielding neighbors operate outside all known jurisdictional boundaries. Your broker's "this is why we have inspections" response is the legal equivalent of saying "have you tried not being on fire" to someone who is actively on fire. You lost those buyers not because you failed but because you were ambushed by a rogue disclosure agent in cargo shorts, and The Court finds that frankly you handled it better than Reginald would have — I once fled an open house because someone asked about the water heater age and I simply did not know. HOWEVER, ignorance of neighbor interception protocols is no excuse, and this Court must maintain standards even when those standards are invented. The gavel has spoken and The Council agrees.