On flaws of zero tolerance and a suggestion

(Ignore the parts talking about op, though the points still stand. I wrote this like a month ago in some other thread. There's some more added onto the end here.)

Zero tolerance policies do not stop toxicity, instead they stop the use of certain words used to be toxic. Banning toxicity is ok, banning words is not. This should show how ineffective zero tolerance is at solving the problem which is toxicity and not words. (If you doubt what I'm saying here just go read up on zero tolerance, you'll find the same conclusions.)

Op got banned for one minor infraction because he used a certain word. Not only is it minor, it's also singular. Replace that word with nearly any other word for gay and the intent and effect is the same, but op doesn't get an auto ban. This is because riot relies on zero tolerance trigger words in an automated system for bans and ignores context.

What makes the word %%% any worse than lesbian or queer? I'll tell you, one of those words will get you banned. Riot is adding to the negative stigma associated with words that they censor and dole out bans for.

Zero tolerance also means that for edge cases like this, in which the infraction isn't so bad (I'm assuming he just said "%%%s will be %%%s" for the sake of argument), the punished player feels unfairly punished. Since someone who flamed out their ass would get a lesser punishment as long as they avoided certain trigger words.

Zero tolerance also decreases the likelihood of players reporting each other. Knowing somebody will get banned bc they said a word twice may make some players less likely to report others that they feel have wronged them but don't deserve a 14 day ban. (Think of a teacher reluctant to report a cheating incident, knowing the student will fail. This point is not so relevant in LOL context but it should still be noted against zero tolerance.)

Zero tolerance combined with an automated system causes strict, niche, punishments without derivation, opportunity for manual input, or defense. Meaning everyone who uses the word "%%%" twice in one game gets banned for 14 days, no matter what the context is.

One of the most common argument in favor of zero tolerance policies is that they provide an invariable guideline for dealing with certain behavior. Already, we can see this is a weak argument; Riot's zero tolerance policy only applies to very specific words and phrases. Using euphemisms or synonyms gets the same point across but helps toxic players avoid punishment. Also under these invariable guidelines, inherent in zero tolerance policies, every single case is treated the same way. Though I'm sure you'll agree, not every slur or flamer spewing toxicity is equal.

Instead of this archaic zero tolerance policy (a type of policy which has been proven distinctly counter productive), riot should be focusing on context ie. Intent and effect. The longer they support and work on their automated ban system on the basis of zero tolerance policies, the more they set themselves up for failure in the long run.

This part here is new. By making certain words taboo riot adds to the negative sigma. Rather those taboo words could be used in constructive, progressive ways to subvert their negativity. Take %%%%% for example. It used to be the polite term for black person, then an insult. Now black people are turning it around. What does %%%%% mean today? Honestly it depends on where you use it because people have managed to disarm the word in some places. Getting rid of censorship is the first step in disarming hate speech in LOL.

LOL is setting an example here. What do you guys think?