You didn't personally see it, therefore it doesn't exist. Really? You can't say **anyone** and **ever** unless you've personally seen every single permaban since the beginning of LoL. And you haven't.

> "Also why are you talking about Yi getting off an easy pick WHEN HE WASN'T DOING THAT. So stop talking hypothetically and look at the situation objectively and and factually!" How about you do that? OP: > "[...] Master Yi jungle that only ganked when the enemy was either **easy to kill or when they were low health** [...] he never missed a dragon [...] he would wait off for teamfights to end to **start picking easy kills if he could**. Clearly, he was ganking, making picks, cleaning up after teamfights, and generally clearing his jungle and taking every dragon. That's not 4v5. And your final argument is just a massive "slippery slope" fallacy. You call it solo carrying because, "if one person is AFK, the three others will start failing, and you will be forced to carry alone." However that's not "fact". The three other players don't have to start failing. Sure, that's possible, but again, you're making things black and white, while the world is gray. Same with your "a good team" argument. Sure, a perfect 5 man team will never lose from a perfect 4 man team. But the fact of life is just that **nothing** is perfect. Even a good 5 man team will make mistakes. And even a 4 man team can take advantage of that.

There you go, you finally accepted you weren't making sense. Exactly, it's a factor, maybe even a major factor. But it's NOT the ONLY factor. So you can't ask: Is it punishable "that he made us lose". Because he didn't. His passiveness added to the loss, but so did the deaths on other people, and that free dragon you maybe missed, or the fact that the entire team wasn't warding to their full potential. Glad you now accepted that. Like I said, it's very possible and sometime even easy to win a 4v5. Even if Yi only took easy kills, and did *nothing* else. You can still win that game. And when Yi does take one off his easy picks, at **THAT POINT** you're 4v4. That's when you press the other team or force an objective. Also, why the hell do people keep talking about **solo carrying**. If ONE person is AFK or very passive... You're still playing WITH FOUR PEOPLE. Not solo.

> "And 1 player out of 5 playing passively can make you lose, it's simply a fact. 1 player out of 5 being in a bush a lot can make you lose, another simple fact." No, it can be a **FACTOR** in losing the game. It can't be the only reason. Note how **CAN** is the operative word there,.. "can" not "will". Because as I've said, winning a **literal** 4v5 isn't impossible, and sometimes not even hard. So if you lose a 4v5 there are **other** factors involved than only the 4v5. And that doesn't even take into account that this isn't a "true" 4v5. The Yi was still playing until before the very last fight apparently. Maybe super passive, but he was getting "easy kills". Read the OP. Losing a game is never just because of 1 thing. The game is more complex than that. Give League some credit. --- >"Tell me that's normal? Do you truly think my friend was playing like a good teammate on the LB? No he was playing for KDA, for personal gains like getting a S. --- That is disgusting behaviour, and rather rude as well. He is basically spitting on his teammate's efforts, and while it may not be punishable, it's definitely judgeable." But the point is the QUESTION is: _**IS IT PUNISHABLE?**_ Not: Is it normal? Is it good team spirit? Is it good strategy? Is it "judgeable"? The question is: Is it punishable? NO, it isn't.

It's not valid **exactly because** I'm looking at the whole picture. 1 player out of 5 playing passively doesn't make you lose. 1 player out of 5 being in a bush a lot doesn't make you lose. For example, you ignore the fact that they aren't playing 4v5. The Yi was going for easy kills, like an assassin should. After Yi gets an easy pick, you're 4v4, if Yi get's two picks, you're 4v3. At times like that you push your advantage. You can't just say: This one guy played super passive and safe, therefore we lost, is that punishable. Because realistically there were multiple reasons why that game was lost. I've won games that were literal 4v5 because a teammate never connected. I've won games that were worse than 4v5 because we had a teammate intentionally feeding and suiciding into towers. "Playing safe" =/= "Losing the game" Therefore blaming the entire loss all on the passive player, makes the question invalid. > Second of all, I never said it was punishable. But that was the question. You said so yourself. I already stated myself that having such a teammate isn't ideal, before you even commented on this thread in the first place. **PS.** If you've lived under such a massive rock that you don't realize "git gud" is an overused meme joke, and not serious advice... I don't know what to tell you.

The question stated in that way is invalid, he didn't "lose the game" because his teammate played safe. It's because the teammate went AFK and he specifically excluded that. And **besides ALL OF THAT**, none of what you say in your whole novel there is punishable. You could argue it's not good teamwork, you could argue it reduces your chances of winning. What it 100% isn't is punishable or against any rules.

Yes, they absolutely do. There've been plenty of examples on this board alone. People that got permabanned right away after games where they wish cancer upon peoples mother's etc.

Oh fair enough, apologies then. Most of the people on the boards here will refuse to change their point of view no matter what. And be d%cks about it. So I took your joke the wrong way. But yeah, anyway, playing super safe and passive to the point where it maybe hurts the team isn't good. In my opinion anyway. But there's no rule saying it's not allowed. Kind of impossible to have rules saying when you should or shouldn't engage. Only thing you can do is try to communicate with them in chat. But if their strategy is, I'm being supersafe to get S rank, you'll just have to accept that.

I don't know man. The whole rank thing is a mystery. Had a game on Sivir, went 12/3. 64% Kill participation. Highest CS on both teams. Did nearly half of the damage of my whole team. Got like A or B rank. And I've had games on other champs where I've done worse (less kills, more deaths) and received S-.

Not sure why you're being passive-aggressive about it. That's literally Riot's stance on the matter. They'll never enforce meta. They'll never enforce champion picks or builds or strategies. You can play any champion you want, in the way you think you should.

> Is it okay to disregard teamfights and go for easy kills in order to get Rank S? --- > Is this punishable? Aside from the afk bit. The question was, is it okay to play safe and go for easy kills. I answered that question. You lost because he went AFK, and you specifically *excluded* that from the question. Just playing safe doesn't make you lose. There are 4 other people on the team. Him playing safe and not dying, if anything, helps you more than hinders you.

If you want to play Braum that way,.. you do you. There's no rule telling you how you should play champions. Do what you want.

If anything was nonsense, it was your incoherent near-unreadable babbling. If they camp your lane, keep it warded, play safe, just farm near/under tower. This is in your team's advantage. If the jungler is constantly in top, hiding in the bush. It means none of your other lanes are getting ganked. So instead of raging, and talking back to your opponents and *getting salty* (which is just factually what you did) you should be happy that the opponent is handicapping themselves.

Yes. If following your ADC means you're going to die, it's fine to decide not to follow him into a certain death situation. You're not "ignoring your ADC", but more "denying your opponent a double kill".

That's unrelated to the question: Is it okay to go for easy kills.

Er? .. I never said Riot isn't strict enough with their punishing system. I'm just saying that toxic French players are constantly speaking only French in chat and throw around "ftg" and "fdp". That way they're not only clearly labelling themselves as toxic player, but also as French. And that's giving all French players a bad name. I'm not frustrated with Riot, I'm frustrated with their fellow French players who just have a conversation with them in /all instead of telling their clearly trolling/toxic countryman: "Hey dude, chill out, stop flaming and stop giving us a bad name by doing it in French."

If you actually read the post, you'd know I'm not hating.

Yes, that's perfectly okay. No, it's absolutely not punishable. You can play this game according to whatever strategy you want. If he wants to play safe and take easy kills, that's fine. That's actually a really good way to play an assassin.

Haha, yeah. Count your blessings I guess. :')

How about the lovely people that are AFK or standing around in lane because: *"omg I have the lags, omg 145000ms, I can't do nuthing."* *"sorry guys I have lags, I'm AFK."* {{sticker:slayer-jinx-unamused}}

You're flaming: >So if I tell enemy ekko he is scum for spamming mastery emote You're blaming: >then camp me with his buddy jungle and always ulting in fights only me. You're harassing: >After we won the game I ask why now he dosen't spam them. So go ahead, tell me, what am I "not reading"?

1. You don't get punished for just 1 game. 2. *"i wrote in all chat to please report these players"* - That's a punishable offence. 3. Post your report card chat logs.

"Throwing assumptions"? .. I'm **literally** quoting you. Where you say you called him scum. Emoting isn't punishable or toxic. Calling people scum and harassing them is.

> "So if I tell enemy ekko he is scum" --- > "Btw as a side question don't you think there should be an option to block such emotes?" No, not really. But I am really glad there's a *mute* option to mute toxic players like you.

1. Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to your interaction with private companies. 2. No it's not for me to decide, it's for Riot to decide, and they've confirmed a million times, **retaliation is NOT okay**.

The waves of posts here every day of people crying about their bans disagree with you.

> "GUIDELINES **_Welcome to Player Behavior!_** [...] Keep in mind that naming & shaming is NOT allowed!" So first off; better remove most of your post before you get punished yourself. Also: > I noticed he's Silver 1 thus I tried to tease him a bit about it. You mean you immediately insulted/flamed him for it.

Dude, you can't even keep your own argument straight. You say; permabans = money, because it makes players happy. And then you say; permabans = stupid, because they make more sadness than happiness. It's actually very easy. There are rules to this game. There is a certain kind of behaviour that is *not* accepted by this community. If you want to play the game, you have to follow the rules, and behave yourself. If you consistently don't. Riot doesn't want you to play the game, and the community doesn't want you to play the game. So you get permabanned.

If you just played the game, and didn't talk back to them, or flame them, or get in an argument with them etc. Yeah, pretty much. As long as you behaved yourself and weren't toxic, their reports do nothing because they're invalid. And if they were report calling you, the report you put on them *is* valid.

> he was afking in games No, they were AFK in *ONE* game, and you don't know why that is. Maybe they had connection issues that game and didn't even load in? You don't know. > trolling The only "proof" you have of trolling, is that OP claims they said so. Again, you don't know. They have really great games on Akali, and really bad games as well, doesn't immediately mean trolling. > He wasnt supporting so And now you're grasping at straws. You have 0 proof they "weren't supporting". Furthermore you don't even know if Akali was queued as support for all of those games in the history. ---- What you see from the history is a player that plays far off the meta, with varying degrees of success. And the only "proof" we have of trolling is just the OP telling us so. And OP might just as easily be a b*tthurt toxic person trying to take out his anger on someone that lost his game by picking off-meta. None of this is proof or justification for a perma-ban, and *no*, Riot hasn't said that it is either.

> So basically, can people actually report me for this? Technically, yes they can. Does it matter? No, because you don't get punished for having "wrong" summoner's spells. So the report becomes invalid. >But since they said they will report me, I guess I can report them for verbal abusement, right? Yes, you can. Report calling falls under flaming / verbal abuse, since they're threatening you. Especially if they do it as a group. Those would be valid reports.

Are you seriously trying to say, the only way to keep players happy is by permabanning? New champions, skins, icons, e-sports events, cinematics, merch, fun gamemodes like URF... none of those ring a bell? And really? .... really? Going by bus is dumb? *"Just go by bicycle or airoplane."* I'm not going to go 40 kilometers on a bicycle twice a day. And an aeroplane? Who's being dumb now?

Wow, you need a life. If getting (rightfully) banned from a videogame, equals "this entire world needs to be destroyed", ..you have problems. --- Let's just look at your examples, and see *why* they're problematic: >People trolling your games.. Trolling? Or did they just pick something off-meta? 90% of the time I see people crying/flaming over a "troll" it's just because someone took an unusual champ, or took a champ in an unusual lane, or tried a different build. None of that is punishable/reportable. >Refuse to help you.. Why should people always help you. This is a strategic dispute, again not something they can get banned/punished for. You maybe thought you were doing the right play and deserved help, but maybe your teammate looked at the situation and thought it was too dangerous to go in with you. >Run out of teamfights to troll the team.. Or do they maybe just want to play things safe? Maybe toxic players like you have been flaming them all game for "feeding" and now to avoid dying they run away from the teamfight too soon because they don't want to keep dying. >Run into the enemy team and die.. Or maybe they thought they had an opportunity. (Just like you did when they "refused to help".) They thought they had a good chance to make a crazy play, and it didn't work out. ---- Sure, sometimes these accusations are right. Sometimes you really do get a troll, that just keeps on running into the enemy/mid-tower and end the game 0/31/0. But like I said, 90% of the time people cry *"omg troll, report this troll"* it's one of the other situations. Where there is just simply a misplay, a lack of skill, or a dispute over tactics. What however 100% of the time is the case, is that the one crying and flaming over the troll deserves a ban as well. It sucks if I get a game with a troll mid feeding on purpose to 0/31/0. But it's even worse if that whole game I have to deal with another player wasting his time on raging and throwing insults and report calling.

I take the bus to my work. Does taking the bus "make me money"? No, working does. Taking the bus is just a tool to get there. Similarly. Permabanning players doesn't make them money. Happy players do. Permabanning is just a tool to get there.

If you want tot believe someone that swears and insults with rank, and admits to buying his account. He wasn't the one that KS'd, and I didn't "flame" the person that did. This guy decided to argue with me in the post-game chat, then just said "KS doesn't exist, it's called "teamplay"" together with more insults and left the post-game chat. I figured I'd add him as a friend and see if I could explain why it's not "team play". He apparently assumed I added him to spam him with rage, and then did so himself first. And for some reason thought it was a good insult/defence to admit he bought his account.

You look at it the wrong way. They make money by having happy players. Permabanning consistently toxic players keeps the rest of the people happy. So permabanning doesn't "make them money" directly, like you were suggesting. It's a tool to keep the community friendly and happy and enjoying the game.

Thank you~ {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-thumbs}}

Agreed, and I'd even take the games with a bad score with a grain of salt. Them having a bad score, doesn't mean it's their own fault or intentional. Maybe they just got paired up to someone very skilled and got completely destroyed. Or maybe they get one of those teammates that goes like: *"Omg u play dumb stupid troll pick, I'll never help you and feed your opponent."* I sometimes play off-meta picks, and they're not even as off-meta this Akali, and even I get those people sometimes. And then I end the game with a bad score, simply becaue you get sabotaged by your own team refusing to play with you.

So they're AFK in one game on that whole list of history, and that deserves a ban? And while you say they're trolling, there are just as many games where they played TP Akali and clearly carried. (22/6, 25/6, 19/7) So they deserve a ban for that? You can't report someone for playing an off-meta champ/pick, or for trying an unusual strategy. The only word we have that they were "trolling" is because you said so. What I see from that history is someone that plays an unusual pick that works just as often as it doesn't, and that's not punishable. Being AFK once isn't either.

First of all: Stop lying. You **don't** get an immediate 14 day ban, for 1 game where you might have fed intentionally. {{sticker:slayer-jinx-unamused}}

Why should he be banned? I don't see the issue.

Also, you're playing in a team with 3 other people besides you and your friend. And 8 other people if it's in /all chat. Even if you are just flaming "your friend" because you and "your friend" are the type of people that enjoy giving each other sh*t, it creates a very negative environment for any of the other people trying to have a fun game. I know for a fact if I was in a game, and some player started throwing around insults and swears at his premade, I'd report them. It creates an atmosphere of toxicity, whether it's "true" flaming, or just sh*t talking among friends.

Hey, here's a new idea! Don't AFK and/or leave games in progress! Then you don't have to worry about anything. {{sticker:slayer-jinx-unamused}}

So? What are you trying to say? If the reports are valid, and people are getting banned, the system is working. You are doing your part in reporting people behaving toxic, and the system is recognizing that and banning people. If the reports aren't valid, you're setting your report-value to zero and you're risking punishment on your own account for abusing the report-system. There was a whole wave of bans related to that some time ago. So why are you here raging about the report system? When you literally just confirmed that it's working fine.

... I can't even wrap my head around what you're trying to say. It just makes absolutely **NO** sense. At all. How is Riot **GETTING** money from perma-banning? Do you think there's some evil overlord watching all the League players and every time one gets perma-banned he gives a sack of money to Riot?

1. Riot will **never** "unban" anyone, so don't waste your breath. 2. You don't get banned for "trolling one game". You can deny it all you want, but experience has shown time and time again, people that get banned are consistently toxic throughout multiple games. You see them here soo often. _"Omg, I troll only 1 game and now I permab&"_. And then someone from Riot shows up, and posts the chatlogs of like 4+ games in which that person is being a massive b*tthole.

Yeah, just made a thread to ask the same thing. Some guy was raging at me after a game, and then admitted "I bought this account". (Probably to avoid me bringing up his rank or something, because he flamed me for "bronzie".) Have a screenshot of him saying, "I bought this account". But no clue how to get that to Riot.

Yes, and where does one go to "open a ticket"? Since I don't have a report option anywhere.

1. That's not relevant to the question I asked. 2. Were you there, you didn't see any of the situations.