You should answer in Discussion view, Chronological view's answers are broken at the moment and don't correctly put your answers into the discussion they belong into.
I see your point tough i dont agree with it by manly 2 reasons...
First beeing that its a team game, so obviously if your doing something that your team completly disagrees on since the pick, its not likely to be a enjoyable experience for anyone. That beeing said i dont think the meta cant be broken, i just belive at least one more player on the team should agree with you doing so, if not your just ruining other ppls game by doing whatever you want... so if you wanna go vayne ap carry i belive you has the right to do so, but not if 4 other ppl think that wont allow them to play decently...
The team as a unity is responsible for playing decently, and saying "I can't play decently because Player Y took Champion X" is nothing more than an excuse. Furthermore, I believe you have to approach Ranked with the mindset of doing better than just pulling your 1/5 of your weight. You should approach every Ranked with the mindset of carrying the team, and carrying along those players who do not or cannot carry at least 1/5 of the team's weight.
And my second point actually completes the first, i dont think that the person should necessarly be punished, just going back to wait for another game would do it, where a new team may agree with his tatics
Teams are not a majority vote, even for surrender you need 4 of 5 votes. Neither has anybody the right to decide he is the shotcaller. The reason for this is, while you are playing together, there also are a lot of times where you have to do your own thing without the others (Laning phase is just one of many examples), and being somebody else's slave hardly feels like fun. Furthermore, if somebody feels the need to try out something particularly anti-meta he's within his rights to do so. "Try normals" just doesn't cut it, because there are things which work only against certain sets of players. Also, if you start restricting a player's freedom, where would you end? You could force a restriction on him to only using champions he has played at least X amount of times, or even have the team being decided by majority vote, with the player in question being forced to play a character he might even hate. I know you don't suggest we should do this, but I find it hard to draw a line between objectable behavior and allowed behavior.
Also, how would you even know the person in question is any good with his character? For example, when I was playing Ranked for the first time, I took Udyr. A teammate strongly disagreed and told me to take J4. The problem: While I did have him, I had not played J4 much before. We did not have much time in the pregame and I wasn't able to communicate this correctly, which also was partly due to the teammate arguing that everybody can play J4. In the end, I did pick Udyr, because Udyr was a jungler I was at least comfortable with, while I didn't know jack about J4, and had neither the runes nor the masteries for him.
You don't have much time for communication at the start of a Ranked. You get a minute or so and that's it. In other words, not nearly enough time for a serious discussion on the pros and cons of certain champs. Also, not every champ is for everybody. You don't win or lose a game at champion select, no matter how you see it. No, not even troll picks count. I had many enjoyable experiences with people troll picking and then completely surprising the enemy. More than enough reasons for me to trust that the people who actually have to play the champion in question know best.
This is why I feel a system like this is a really bad idea. You already have the chance to decline joining a team composition you might disagree with, and it's calling dodging. Nobody should be forced to play like other people wanted them to. If you have a problem with your teammates, it's within your ability to leave the team.
