Originally Posted by GuinBro
Please clarify - how does saying impact > intent make it more difficult to ban or establish a dangerous precedent?
It's just like in court - you can tell the judge you didn't mean to rob the bank, but you will still probably get the sentence. On the other hand if it's jaywalking and you have a clean record, you'll probably get off.
It's like this - if you've left 30 games out of 100, it doesn't really matter if you're a rager or if you've had lightning strike your house 30 times. Either way you frequently harm the game experience for a lot of other people. Why does intent matter?
Guinsoo(Bro), I agree 100%.
My point is on Reginald's ban, which was done last night. Someone said "Yeah but he didn't feed on purpose, he just died cuz he was playing a bad game" to which Pendragon replied "impact>intent". Now, if I understand correctly, that means that since he had an impact on the game, that's more important than his intent (which, in this case, his intent was NOT to feed but to play, he just had a bad game).
If he fed on purpose, raged and all, then said "I didn't mean to", then fine, I agree. But now, he died, not on purpose, that caused some backlash (especially given his status as an elite player), and he got banned. THAT'S the dangerous precedent; if I play a game, do my very best but end up having a really bad game where every decision I make is the wrong one (which happens, to almost anyone), then am I at risk of being banned, even though I am just having a bad game and not feeding on purpose ?
(On the subject of leaving and/or raging, that I agree, there's 0 excuses)