If he intended to secede knowing that something would result, then he intended whatever the foreseeable consequences of his action were.
While it seems like you are attempting to troll, in case its simply a lack of understanding I will prove that false through a counterexample: If I get in a car I know it ups my risk for injury and death but I that is not my intention. My intention is to get somewhere faster.
And if you are unaware, a counterexample proves an implication false.
Penchant that is MY reading of the rules as well. I was answering in regards to using the football analogy that boiled down to, well in football the handball rule does not take into account intent, thus NO rules in things completely unrelated to football must take intent into account. If intent wasn't important in the world, we wouldn't have man slaughter everything would be judges as murder, nor would we need to prove pre meditation. Obviously there are rules were we are meant to judge intent, I believe the wording of this rule implies this is one of them. I'm willing to be wrong, though I have spoken English my entire life it is not my first language nor the language I predominately think in.
Two things,
First, my apologies on the misunderstanding as it seemed to me, you were saying you agreed with the quoted user.
Second, it was not an attack upon the post I seemed to misunderstand, but all those arguing that when intent is stated as being a part of the definition that it can be ignored.
I just briefly flipped through past Magistrate rulings.
As best I can tell, the Magistrates have not ruled on strategic secessions yet.
I would caution either side against saying the rule IS about either outcomes or intents. Say it has been interpreted that way, fine. But the rule IS about whatever the Magistrates say it is about, unless Tom decides to intervene.
Most of the arguments up to this point do not seem very germaine. The core debate here is how to interpret the text of the rule. Specifically, we should be arguing about the phrase "in order to circumvent." Does that imply "With the psychological intent and expectation of circumventing?" or "With the effect of circumventing?"
Once that debate is resolved, we can argue about efficacy: can we police intent? How far removed must the effect be, or how incidental? But until we settle, based on the text itself, the intent/outcomes question, the rest is moot.
Also, while Tom is free to intervene, unless and until Tom does intervene, we cannot base any rulings on how frequently or not he has chosen to respond to accusations. We haven't usually gotten detailed explanations and justifications of those decisions, so we really can't reason from them. And, to reiterate, the Magistrates are not inheritors of a pre-existing set of rules. Tom's previous decisions and Titan decisions were not always consistent, not widely understood, not regularly recorded, and do not constitute a basis of principles or rules to which we can reliably appeal. The only exceptions are in stated rules like the IRs and Social Contract, and if Tom decides to speak on this case specifically.
So, someone convince me that "in order to circumvent" means something other than intent.
Even if somehow "in order to circumvent" could be interpreted in such a way that intent does not matter, interpretation does not matter when the one who wrote the rule has stated the reasoning for the wording, which is that intent matters. Any arguing of that simply seems like rules lawyering, something Tom is against and obviously wouldn't approve of.
Intent of the rule should be considered when deciding rules lawyering though because of cases like no merger rule that was brought up and rules lawyering was said to be done but Tom proved after explicitly repeating his intent after it was already stated several times in the thread. Running to Tom to decide on intent of the rule when it is easy enough to deduce shouldn't be done IMO. In this case, given that the wording included circumventing, it seems obvious the intent of the rule is to prevent those who attempt to "win" battlemaster to not be able to do so through unfair means.
