First of all, the entire report system is a joke: The reform card said I was banned for intentional feeding, while the first Rioter said I was being punished for not actively participating, and finally the last Rioter did mention I also wasn't actively participating but only because I triggered too many in game reports(and even admits players who have committed the same offense in moderation are able to get away).
The IFS looks for gameplay trolling of any kind when a report is made for intentional feeding. "Intentional Feeding" is just something of an umbrella term - it encompasses things like intentionally feeding, trolling your teammates, or otherwise assisting the enemy team/acting to the detriment of your team.
The reason the second Riot Support Agent mentioned that players who committed the same offense in moderation got away with it is because of just that. They're not making a continued effort to fuck over their team, they're trying - for whatever reason - to not die every now and again. Maybe they're trying to do something of a personal challenge (win an ARAM without dying once), or they're doing the same thing you claimed to do of denying the enemy gold for one match.
The issue with your case is that you didn't do it in moderation, you did it frequently enough that it became a problem.
This "escalating" offense, happened after I was banned for I got suspended for 14 days for intentionally feeding in ARAM as a 0/5/2 Udyr. Making me reluctant to try at all if don't get a good champion if playing someone that wasn't good in ARAM meant I might die too many times and get reported again.
Wait...You mean this case? The game where you AFK'ed in a bush, sitting way out of XP range?
Don't try to sell it as you getting punished for "not getting a good champion" - you straight up were not participating. It doesn't matter how bad of a Champion you get in ARAM, you have to participate, or that bad Champion becomes effectively worse.
Also, where's the rule says that not actively participating in a game would result in an immediate ban or even a 14 day suspension. I've read the entire summoner code and have not found it. Furthermore, why am I the only player who's getting permanently banned without so much as a warning for this kind of behavior when Riot is "working on more effective ways of handling afkers and inters in game". Why aren't the players who repeated the same offense years ago free from the same suspension or punishment.
Well, first of all, it should be common knowledge that when you sign up to play the game, you should actually play the game, and not hang way in the back and avoid doing anything. That much should be a given.
The thing is, Gameplay-related toxicity (trolling, feeding, active AFK'ing, etc.) cannot merit a chat restriction, because, outside of otherwise assisting the enemy team (calling out team locations, helping the enemy team through chat), it's all gameplay. What's a Chat Restriction gonna do if your offense isn't chat related?
And the minimum punishment available that isn't a chat restriction is a 14-day ban. That's the first offense. After that, permaban.
As for the Summoner's Code;
Play as a team, win as a team!
A coordinated team is extremely difficult to take down. No matter how hard you feel like you're carrying individually, blaming others and refusing to cooperate with teammates gives your opponent an advantage.
Never feed intentionally and don't give up the fight!
Seeking revenge on your own team by intentionally feeding and helping the opposing team does not promote fair play. Keep a cool head if you fall behind, don't give up and always do your best.
Italicized noteworthy snippets. It's already been discussed on your other threads that your deliberate non-participation in matches helps the enemy team more than it does yours.
As for Riot's endeavors to come up with a better solution, that's just that at the moment. We only know that Riot's working on a better solution. And as for other players...They're neither here nor there. We're discussing your punishment.
Even if I wasn't actively participating or AFK, where is the evidence, tell me exactly what I did wrong in - game. In U.S court, if you cannot prove someone is guilty, they cannot be charged. Oh wait, I forgot, Riot is owned by Tencent a company in China and in their court system, the defendant who can't prove his innocence gets sent to prison.
Seriously? First of all, good work playing the nationality card, that really makes you look mature and respectful. Anything to make you look like a victim, I guess.
Second; You have two separate threads where players detail to you exactly what you did wrong. You can't just ignore them and say "What did I do wrong?". We've TOLD you.
In the case of your 14-day suspension, you were actively AFK'ing, and in the permanent ban case, in all three games, you were participating as little as possible, sabotaging your own team.
And what I find most amazing of all this, you got permabanned for what was, essentially, the exact same thing you got the 14-day ban for. Even after being told that it was not okay for you to do nothing throughout the entire match, you did it again. Three. Separate. Times.
How did you not learn that non-participation is a bad idea after the 14-day ban?
People have pointed out my comparatively low amount of damage, but how is that proof at all, I am not good at playing certain champion and held off of buying items until later down the game.
Your low damage is a pretty glaring piece of evidence, alongside your admitting to trying as hard as possible, above everything else, to not die. You were actively screwing over your team. You could be absolute garbage with whatever Champion you get, but you'd still be able to commit something.
It's proof, because if you actually tried to commit something, if you tried at all to help your team, you would not have such abysmally low damage. ARAM is a gamemode of hectic teamfights, there is no excuse for having such low damage, period.
Which, if your low damage isn't proof that you were screwing over your team, how is your mostly positive KDA's proof that you weren't?
