What I'm trying to get at is that I see no moral "they were mean bullies!" high ground here, since a final is not required for one to be educated by a class. Anyone wanting the screw the rest of the class over was "mean" first. Anyone who intimidated anyone else into going along looks bad; so does anyone who didn't want to go along so that their fellow students would do worse. It's absurd to look at is as "I paid for that test." Education as paying for tests is a bug, not a feature.
Elsewhere in the thread you call it "clowning." I call it "hacking." The educational value of learning that sometimes you can get things done in non-traditional ways, and everyone ends up well off as a result, is far higher than the educational value of taking yet another exam.
"Moral high-ground" has nothing to do with it. As stated in the article, there is absolutely no ethical obligation to play along. The expectation that everyone should follow along is absurd for the reasons that I laid out, but those points are not about morality or ethics.
I have laid out how to perform this "hack" ethically however: If, and only if, an anonymous unanimous vote performed would there be any ethical obligation to go along with it. Without that it is not a "hack" ...unless your definition of "hack" permits coercion. If coercion is considered unnecessary, then there is no reason to not hold an anonymous unanimous vote.
Each participant must be given the opportunity to opt-in, without any coercion whatsoever. Is that really an unreasonable ask?
If I were handed a ballot for this prank, I would vote No. (Why do I want to take the test? Many reasons, some I have already covered, some I have not. Frankly it is no ones business but my own and has no bearing on the ethics of the situation) If they then proceeded to attempt it anyway, their failing grades would not be my problem. If they neglected to hold the vote and assumed my participation, their failing grades would similarly not be my problem. If they held a vote, and I voted Yes, but then took the test anyway, then I would be the jackass.
You can "hack" as much as you want, but others do not have obligation to follow your wishes. The fact that so many people think others are obliged to do what they want and if they don't they are "jerks" who "screw them over" is a sad symptom of current entitlement culture, where everybody considers himself king of the world for no reason at all but for being there.
You are free to hold yourself to any standard you like. It still does not create any obligations on others. If you give to charity, that doesn't mean your neighbor is obliged to match your donation. If you think he has - this is a clear sign of entitlement, you feel entitled to control his actions and have hin behave the way you like.
What is the practical difference between "person A being obliged to do something for B", and "B being entitled to something from A"?
If you universalize your moral obligation, then we end up with a system that is in practice no different than everyone feeling entitled to things from others. That you choose to handle yourself in that manner is great, but you cannot universalize it without creating a society of entitlement.
Elsewhere in the thread you call it "clowning." I call it "hacking." The educational value of learning that sometimes you can get things done in non-traditional ways, and everyone ends up well off as a result, is far higher than the educational value of taking yet another exam.