Wait....isn't boosting just inverse smurfing?

ActivatingEMP·5/1/2017, 12:34:25 PM·4 votes·322 views

In both you are purposefully getting to a rank you do not deserve (ruining games on the way as you either purposefully lose or there is such a high skill difference the enemy team might as well afk). Once you get to said rank, it is unlikely that you stay there unless you purposefully lose (smurfing) or continue to be boosted (boosting).

If these two are very similar, why is one condoned and any participants are perma'd, while the other is allowed to do whatever they want.

12 Comments

EvilDustMan5/1/2017, 12:47:11 PM3 votes

Purposefully losing is punishable and bannable.

Last avatarname5/1/2017, 1:26:12 PM3 votes

Smurfing is condoned because smurfs are often needed for high elo players to get at least normal queue times. They also use their smurfs to practice rolls they are horrible in. Most actual smurfs are in their original elo within weeks. Boosters, however ruin games for longer times.

  1. the players they boost get also bumped making the problem twice as bad by default.
  2. the players they boost keep siting in a elo that is too high for them causing them to ruin games for months
  3. the players that are boosted are getting end of season rewards they have not earned.
  4. boosters both intentionally win and intentionally lose games(to get back for another boost)
pulledchicken5/1/2017, 12:39:21 PM2 votes

the majority of players r low elos. u talking like all players r high elo and 90% r smurfing... just calm down and play Teemo tho