When am I getting permabanned?

70 games in a row is crazy. but just think if you had spread those games out some.... say you did 1 game of feeding then 2 games of regular play, would you ever have gotten banned?

that is the next test you should do.

{quoted}

Sorry for not elaborating well, I'll touch upon those points.

I don't think the punishment should be harder or changed or anything like that, and completely agree with it. Before I started intent feeding after the two-week ban, I was already aware that the next punishment would be a perma ban, and completely agree with the severity of it. The main point I wanted to get across was not the severity of the punishments, but the issue of how long it took for me to be punished.

I would be lying if I said testing the workings of the ban system was my primary reason for intent feeding, but I would say that I had quite a bit of interest in this matter. It took me 50 games of int feed to receive a two-week ban, and 20 afterwards to receive the permaban (I don't have photographic evidence, but on op.gg you can see a gradual trend in elo decreasing). In other words, I singlehandedly ruined 70 games before I received a permanent ban. I definitely think these numbers are insanely huge, and they should be reduced.

One issue I see is the removal of the "Unskilled Player" report. Before, players would vent off their frustrations of bad players on their team by utilizing said report. However, with the removal of it, players now use the "Intentional Feed" report button in replacement of the "Unskilled Player" to report bad teammates. As a result, fraudulent reports have increased, blurring the weight of an "Intentional Feed" report. This is the reason I believe it took me so long to get banned. I believe that the "Unskilled Player" report should return, so the amount of fraudulent reports can decrease, thus increasing the weight of genuine reports.

Of course, this is based of the assumption that the "Unskilled Player" removal resulted in an increase of fraudulent "Intentional Feed" reports, which I have absolutely no evidence of.

I don't think I elaborated too well honestly, but my reasoning for the system being horrible is that I personally felt that it took too long for me to receive punishment, and I think the majority of the community would agree with that. In conclusion, I support the idea of intent feeders receiving punishment at a quicker rate.

Okay so 50 and 20. You were suspended and then permabanned. You agree with the punishment but feel it took too long for the punishment to occur. Is the system "terrible"? That's a subjective evaluation that I'm not sure I agree with. The constructive question is: how many games should it take before you are punished?

You raise an interesting point about players using the intentional feeding report option to vent. The system needs to be able to reach a statistically significant number of reports before it takes action. If players flood the reports with venting over bad games, then it might not be possible to punish in a fewer number of games. From that perspective the system might actually be doing pretty well. It's a subjective evaluation, but if the system punishes before it the reports become statistically significant, then it can punish a significant number of players that weren't intentionally ruining games.

So how much should be too much? Did you expect punishment after 30 games and ban after 10? In order for us to understand how terrible you felt this was, we need to have an idea of when you actually expected to get punished. Did you expect to get punished after the first game? Because that's not a very realistic expectation. If I expected you to get punished after say 5 games of feeding and it took 50, then I might think the system is "terrible", but maybe I think 5 games is not enough. Maybe I think 50 games is reasonable.

I don't have an opinion on how many games it should take, but from a purely statistical point of view it can be difficult to make predictions in sample sizes less than 30. In a court of law, a jury has from 6 to 12 members. A good system will set appropriate benchmarks for detection and punishment. What should the benchmark be? And what can RIOT do make detection both more swift and more accurate? Maybe RIOT could bring back the unskilled report option or something similar to help players vent and help RIOT filter the data more efficiently so that they can punish within a smaller margin of difference to player expectations. Maybe there are other creative options that can be explored as well.