If you intentionally feed in a game once it should be a one day ban and more then once it should be permanent because losing 22 lp because someone did not get there preferd role and is now just storming mid and suiciding should be banned
I say at least ban them from ranked for the rest of the season in addition to nullifying any Victorious skins they might own and starting them at Bronze V at the beginning of the next season for their first offense. As for doing it a second time, ban the account and send an email with a spinning middle finger gif or something.
Intentionally feeding should be damn well punish worthy however please understand that not everyone is an intentional feeder, and just because someone plays something uncommon doesn't mean they are trolling the game.
Some players prefer certain roles because they do better in 2016, everyone can get any role they like, which is why I think that toxicity will drop a lot, Yes as a player I admit I feed in 3 roles, not intentional but half the time its because I feel the other player has no idea what they are doing in the game for example I am running a defense comp to try to avoid feeding, and they are just auto attacking all the CS and pushing the enemy hard which in the end is like stepping out with 
support vs a enemy 
and dying in like 3 seconds multiple times within 5 minutes because your positioning is bad. Basically shoving the lane makes things go bad especially doing this before level 6 then using the small advantage against the enemy.
The best thing right now is just to let players who do their worst in roles play what they can, I mean if I got a player who tells me he is a good mid laner, and willing to setup a combo even though I know I suck bad at some of the other roles, I would choose a better team play build over having a player who is going to likely do bad for sure and try my best to deal with it.
But honestly not all players are intentionally feeders, I have done Top Lane against a jax went 8-0 and it sadden me to hear the enemy team raging at him because he died in lane like 8 times to me, he wasn't intentionally feeding, he was just bad, and when the enemy jungler came to help him guess what (Double Kill) but still it wasn't intentional just he got behind after losing trades to me and I got ahead so therefore I kept putting out more DPS/Defense than he could do and he fed to me but was trying.
Now there are players who will tell you in chat Mid or Feed, they could just be saying they are bad, but how many times has anyone tried to tell someone in chat they are bad at sometime, and the only response they get back is (Uninstall) (Don't play ranked.)
This is the type of behavior I want to see improved with the 2016 Role Patch, its something that I wanted in the game for 3 years and now its finally going to be here.
To the best of my knowledge, the first punishment for Intentional Feeding skips up the punishment scale to a 2-week ban. Which means the next punishment would be a perma-ban.
intentional feeder detection is already on live. it just needs more tuning.
hey but i was just having a bad game experimenting jungle 
did i say the trolls always escape? seems like ur putting words in my mouth to further your point
i said the system doesnt work as in its broken
people do get banned for it, but my point was it takes a shitton of games to get flagged by the system
but i guess that point went way over your head
and did u see what he said in that? when he knew he was going to lose he would buy all tears etc
wonder how many games he lost (if anything like everyone else its 50%)
he is in gold so i take it he has played at least 200 games give or take
so like i said around 100 games of doing this constantly
if it takes 100+ games of building all tears then yes i would say the system doesnt work, btw he also mentions ragequitting/dcing etc also
dont defend lytes broken system, its garbage.....and yes if he has to ruin 400 peoples games b4 it flags them then yes i stand by it being broken
oh btw, i wouldnt belive everything you read...he says he has just just as many honors as reports and i highly doubt that considering he has under 75 honors
but tell me, how does it feel to be a riot fanboy?
Do it once, get perma banned imo.
please explain how you get "trolls always escape"
from
"even then i doubt it would"
doubt=a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction.
always=at all times; on all occasions.
notice how one leaves room to go either way and one leaves no room to go any other way? "As in... "even then, the system wouldn't punish them.""....wrong, its as in even then the system PROBABLY wouldnt punish them
you did put words in my mouth, because you totally changed doubt with always...hence why i said u did
"But here's the thing. If the system is designed to punish people for a certain behavior, and people are punished for that behavior, the system isn't broken. By definition, it is fulfilling its function."......by this definition i can say a broken clock is not broken simply because it is right twice a day....its broken dude face it, maybe not 100% broken but broken enough it doesnt work efficiently
"Do me a favor. Stop following me around with this garbage." ive legit said one thing, and responded to 2 of your inquiries? how is that following you lmao
"You hold the same single game as evidence" actually this dude alone im showing 30+ games, and trust me when i say he is not the only one ive seen do this...in fact today i had a lux flash under a turret level one because simply put he is a child throwing a hissy fit.....but ive seen plenty
"And hey, maybe while you're at it, learn what an ad-hominem fallacy is, and learn to avoid it." if something (like the word doubt) goes over your head, dont be mad when i say it went over your head....because it did and you assumed**** i meant always
"In gold? Really? Because according to Match History, he's never played Ranked" with this your correct, i used the in game profile finder and it showed my league with his name (which should probably be fixed) i will give you that one, i saw his name and thought it was him (my mistake i guess?)
"So. 5 games out of 20, for a 25% rate. But yes, obviously it's "constant."" again with this logic, if a clock was right only 25% of the time, its not broken to you?
"I'm not defending anything. I'm pointing out that your terrible arguments act against you." it doesnt work against me, if it works for some people and not others then it doesnt work correctly hence the DOUBT*** of it working for this said person, there is more than one case proving both our points chief, thats not "acting against me" thats showing facts and the doubt was simply an opinion.....sounds like someones holding grudge against the author rather than lookin at the actual fact that this did and does happen....Ad Hominem much? might wanna look into a mirror before you accuse others of it cuz honestly idk who you are nor do i care but i guess ive met you before and rustled ur jimmies to the point you remember me from something (side point, you are defending riots systems no matter what, look at every post you make and tell me they arent about riots systems and your taking riots side on each of them? no need to lie)
"You make absolutist claims that are easily shown to be false, which forces others to wonder what else you could be wrong about." again with the absolutist as if i said it ALWAYS*** doesnt work as to i DOUBT**** it will work...but again i guess that word you fumbled over and thought it said always....easy reading mistake......but i am human and i could be wrong, just not in this case =)
"You make ad-hominems anyone who disagrees with you, which simply makes you look unable to actually support or defend your position." my fact(s) werent irrelevant and the post had nothing to do with you personally except saying that what i said obviously went over your head because i said doubt and not absolute/always like you are implying i did, again l2read b4 whining...my fact was that this person did what op stated and didnt get banned, i think it is very relevant in this case so idk where your getting this from.....again from my other point, if your looking for Ad Hominem's then you shouldnt look to far from the mirror
"And all just to prove that something which is performing the function for which it was created is "broken" - a word defined as "no longer in working order."" again i can say the broken clock, if its only working 25>% of the time....sure its working but not optimally and honestly i would go with broken before working if it doesnt do its job more than half the time i call it broken.....but again even a broken* clock is right twice a day....but since its right twice a day it must be working right?
have i talked to you before or something? cuz u seem to get your pants in a jiffy because i said either that someone did this and didnt get banned (which happened and more than once) or that i said the word doubt obviously went over your head (in which it did because you assumed i said absolute/always)
btw cherry on top Broken=not functioning properly; out of working order. you read that first one? "not functioning properly" if its a system to ban all the people feeding and it doesnt ban all the people feeding, wouldnt that be not functioning properly?
stay mad kiddo, l2read and not assume next time maybe?
[zombie-brand-facepalm]
more than happy to rustle your jimmies tho [slayer-jinx-catface]
"Your uncertainty that it would ever actually perform its function indicates that you believe that it would not perform that function.
If your entire position on this point is based on the fact that I extrapolated that into a slightly exaggerated position, I'm afraid that's not a particularly strong argument. It's a pedantic sticking point."
my entire point was that it doesnt always* detect and ban people for feeding, in which it doesnt so im not wrong in saying so.....showing that it does not always happen isnt a strong argument that it doesnt always happen? i dont get how you get to this conclusion...and fact of the matter is you did exaggerate what i said by switching doubt with always
"A clock's function is to tell time - more specifically, a clock's function is to turn hands around the face of the clock at a particular rate. If the hands do not turn, the clock is not functioning.
Which makes that a really poor analogy."
its actually not that poor of an analogy....both the clock and the system would be "working" less than half the time in which was my point to begin with that it doesnt always* do its job....so i stand by it because both a broken clock/system dont do their job over 50% of the time
"In answer to this and your other question in the same vein, you've replied to me on multiple occasions with this same argument. It holds no more weight now than it did then - mostly because you've yet to provide any new evidence since the first time you did so."
ive literally said this twice ever, first when it happened like a month ago and now when someone else brought up the system...sure your right in multiple occasions but its literally 2 in which this is the 2nd one....it holds plenty of weight considering they are talking about the system banning feeders and i said the system doesnt always*** ban them....and i dont write down everytime someone feeds and doesnt get detected by the system, if you dont belive me thats fine but to suggest it doesnt happen or only happened once is just plain ignorance to the situation
"My apologies for the typo - I intended that to read "you hold the same single case as evidence."
Good job. You found a mixed-up word to hang an argument on."
you have literally said single more than once, you didnt mix up the word... there has been alot more than one case of this ever happening and again if your ignorant to that fact just look at the forums
"No, you've simply misrepresented my point - again, creating a pedantic sticking point.
You still seem to be confused, though, so let me be clear: I'm not mad. I literally, genuinely do not care one whit about you. You can call me whatever you want, say whatever you want about me. I won't be mad. I won't care. But you'll look incapable of actually supporting your argument - that's generally how personal attacks are recognized. They're shorthand for communicating "I have nothing of substance with which to back up my claims, so I'm going to try to discredit you."
So understand, when I'm pointing that out? I'm trying to help you not look like you're incapable of rational debate."
when did i say you were mad? i said this is rustling your jimmies in which case its obvious that it is wether you can see it or not....never said you cared about me?....i didnt call you anything?....and how do i look incapable of supporting my argument against the system not always banning people when i show you a case of it not banning people? that doesnt make much sense to me and you keep going back to this like what i said has nothing to do with the system not banning people... personal attacks? because i said the word doubt obviously went over your head in which case it did because again you confused doubt with absolute/always?.... i have nothing of substance with which to back up my claims and im going to try and discredit you? how do you even get to this notion? first i said it doesnt ALWAYS ban people in which case ive stated that this person has done it in 30+ games 30% of the time and that has nothing to do with the system not banning people all the time? how do you get to these conclusions?....if anyones incapable of rational debate id have to say its you with denying that this person ever did this or at the fact that again this case shows the system doesnt ALWAYS ban people, is an example of the system not always banning people...again idk how you get to these conclusions
"You've shown one case. Over and over again, the same case. Yet you claim to have more. But where is all this other evidence? I've asked for it. You've failed or refused to produce it. And yet, every time you post a reply to me in a new thread, I offer you a new case contradicting the single piece of evidence you've brought to bear.
And no, pointing out that your arguments are terrible isn't an ad-hominem. You see, the ad-hominem fallacy refers to arguments made against the person, rather than against their argument. I've yet to say anything about you personally - and frankly I won't, because there's no point to it."
again with the single/one case....over and over again, as in twice.......i claim to have more, yes and i didnt save the links to any of them because i dont care enough to save em after everytime ive had one...and im not the only one this has happened to so to say this has only happened ONCE ever again is just ignorant af if you dont want to accept that this does in fact happen....ask all you want im not going to go digging but your welcome to dig and there is plenty more than even one more other case out there but again if your going to not look and hold me to producing more evidence or it didnt happen then again thats just ignorant to the fact it does happen.... you say everytime i post a reply to you in a new thread i offer a new case contradicting the SINGLE piece of evidence i brought to bear? thats like saying literally everytime someone talks about someone swimming you say they get wet (in which case they do)...sorry if you dont like that fact this does happen im not going to be ignorant like yourself to the fact it does but i dont hold it against you personally since your just oblivious to the fact it happens or you just dont care it does enough to belive it actually does....but either way it does happen wether you belive it or not so be ignorant all youd like but it doesnt make it not true.....btw my argument (literally there is only one subject we are talking about not 2+) isnt an adhominem, im not arguing against you and saying you this and you that im saying the SYSTEM doesnt ALWAYS ban people....but i dont get how you put yourself in there and declare it me attacking you because im not agreeing with you and stating the system in fact doesnt always ban people....honestly it sounds like you are when you keep saying my argument is terrible yet it is exactly on topic of what was being discussed but that fact that you dont like it or that it is indeed a fact that this doesnt ALWAYS happen doesnt make my argument against it terrible by any means
"Again I can say that analogy is terrible. Though, that really shouldn't surprise me. The biggest problem with the analogy is a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of a clock. Just like the biggest problem with your argument here is a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of the system. See below."
actually the analogy isnt that bad granted they are both different things but at the same time there are correlations...like the fact it is right less than even 30% of the time was my point and again if you want to be ignorant to that point thats totally fine.....the function of a clock is to TELL time not have the hands move etc, if that was the case all digital clocks are broken? the word broken like i linked a definition of doesnt have to not work 100% of the time for it to be broken and hence was my case in even a broken clock is right twice a day meaning that its not always working but least works twice in a day by judging its function (to tell time)....to sit here and say also that the system doesnt try to prevent ALL cases of intentional feeding is just absurd, the point of the system is if ANYONE intentionally feeds it punishes them.....look at that word, anyone, thats not everyone but X person or everyone but this group of people...its deters ALL people from doing it because its against the rules...to sit here and say its a fundamental misunderstanding of the system is just wrong on every level...it doesnt cherry pick people its meant for all people to not do it and punish all people if they are doing it...there are no special cases
"That would be a great point... except it's NOT a system to ban all the people feeding. It's a system to discourage feeding by attempting to detect it and applying bans to detected cases.
There is exactly NO expectation that it will catch all cases (this is effectively impossible, anyway) - nor is there any expectation that it will do so on the very first occurrence.
It is, in fact, performing the functions it was intended to perform just fine."
it IS a system to ban all INTENTIONAL feeders....you even admit it yourself right after saying it isnt...."except it's NOT a system to ban all the people feeding." then you go on to say right after "It's a system to discourage feeding by attempting to detect it and applying bans to detected cases."....or are you trying to say there is a minority group of people that this doesnt effect? if thats not the case then im right in saying it is a system to ban ALL people that do this......and to the statement that "There is exactly NO expectation that it will catch all cases (this is effectively impossible, anyway) - nor is there any expectation that it will do so on the very first occurrence." it is not impossible to ban all cases where people build all tears and go like 0/10...its actually quite simple, want to hear how? you detect someone building all tears and ban them...i know its hard to comprehend but boom you just got a system where it works 100% of the time to ban all people building just tears....again claiming ignorance to the fact doesnt make it impossible and thats a terrible assumption....
"There is exactly NO expectation that it will catch all cases (this is effectively impossible, anyway) - nor is there any expectation that it will do so on the very first occurrence.
It is, in fact, performing the functions it was intended to perform just fine.""
never said anything that has to do with the first time, and its not performing the functions it was intended to perform just fine, you even said before that both it needs tuning and for that one example you posted it was him doing it in 25% of him games...to ban people for breaking the rules only 25% of the time isnt "just fine"
alot of this conversation has to deal with your assumptions to something and you taking things not entirely out of context but simply ignoring basic facts like this stuff does happen and that the system doesnt work around at least half the time....and to say its not broken and working fine is again just ignorance
let me shoot you and example, if you went outside to start you care and it didnt start half the time....is that car "working just fine"? or is it broken in the sense that it doesnt do its job half the time?
sorry dude, your to intent on proving me wrong your ignoring basic facts about the situation and also on top of that assuming things like me meaning always instead of doubt.... you should forget im the one posting these and look at it from a factual point of view rather than how can i prove him wrong and saying things dont exist when clearly you know these cases happen
but again im not going to sit here and squash everyone assumption you have, the facts are there -the system doesnt work around half the time -these games do happen -the system is made to punish ALL people that do this, not a select few or excluding a minority of people doing it
sorry dude, ill leave you with that and if you dont wanna face facts then im not going to try to do any more than show you the facts because like they say "you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink" so im not going to show you facts and sit here till you come to the revelation that these things do happen
stay salt [slayer-jinx-catface]
I had a nid who fed like hell and went like 1-13 but I didn't report her. because by some miracle we won the game
This behavior is one with a fine line, if the player has no other way to play(such as with evelynn, what can she do if behind? Not much) Leading to apparent suicides.
Then again, sometimes this behavior is extremely obvious when intentional.
In ranked Champion Select is half the battle, unfortunately.
http://na.op.gg/summoner/userName=ioewasddsjpfasd
feeding for 100 of games. still not banned. fail riot
