This is false. Intent is a HARD thing to deal with I grant you. But we often "prove" intent in the real world without admission from the suspected guilty party. Just like in real life anything to do with intent is also likely to involve controversy. For instance the recent Terran-D\'Hara Realm Merger case hinged on intent. The magistrates had to decide if it was a friendly merger, or if the merger was a "surrender", though they did not surrender to the force arrayed against them. Yet in a previous case the magistrates declared
"Realm mergers are only allowed if all its regions are taken over through war. This would be the meaning of 'no friendly realm mergers allowed'."
It was decided that although the regions were not "taken over" through war, the intention was basically similar, it was a surrender.
That rule is also written around intent, but it is not quite the same in my reckoning. There's more of a gray area about who exactly is getting hurt in the event of a realm merger, as well as a decidedly different intent behind the rule. Most of BM's rules are designed to protect players from each other. The realm merger rule is not. I'd elaborate but that would be decidedly off topic. In short, I do not accept the equivalence you are posing.
Edit: Also, as to intent, it's virtually impossible for us to prove, reliant as we are on evidence provided by others. Unless the defendant has been relatively open with at least one person about their intent, a person who then comes forward with the evidence to prove it, there's not much we can do other than look at what happened and the evidence provided and try to guess what the actual intent was. Sometimes it may seem like the only reason to do something is for advantage but we can't really know, and our decisions will end up being essentially arbitrary and heavily weighted toward innocence in virtually all cases that invoke this rule since it is so narrowly interpreted.
