One thing I know is brought up but can't understand..
With a game that has BOTH Mute and chat filter... why punish people for giving "toxic" criticism...
You know it gets brought up, but do you also know that it gets answered whenever it is brought up?
Every time, the same question will get the same response.
The mute feature is a tool for people to defend themselves from further toxicity - it is not an excuse to allow toxicity in the first place. The rules exist, and if you can't abide by them, you're going to take the punishment - the mute feature does not change that.
And the mature language filter is also not an excuse to allow toxicity. It's there to allow people with different sensibilities to not see mature language. It's there for them, not you.
There's an analogy we use frequently on the boards - the existence of a bullet-proof vest should not be an excuse to allow people to run amok and shoot each other. It's a defense against such actions, not an excuse to allow those actions.
I don't understand why my Jungler, for example, can go 0/9 and I can't let him know he's bad without seeing "Reported" after I tell them..
Calling someone "bad" is not constructive criticism, it's not even neutral criticism. If you can only provide destructive criticism, you're better off not providing criticism at all. Nothing can be gained from destructive criticism.
And besides - you're not perfect, either. You absolutely have had matches where you've done impeccably poorly. Would you want people to call you "bad", "trash", etc? Have people mock and deride you for having a poor KDA?
...it makes no sense to put your development team through the time of adding said mute/filter features when you don't make them accountable during a ban evaluation.
"Judge, the guy owns a bullet-proof vest. I deserve leniency."
"Do you own a bullet-proof vest?"
"Yes..."
"And were you wearing it at the time of the attack?"
"No? Why would I be wearing a bullet-proof vest on a day I didn't expect to get shot?"
"You had the tools at your disposal to lessen the harm, and you didn't use them? The defendant is ruled not-guilty. Next time, wear your vest."
D'you see how asinine that scenario sounds?
The person who should be held accountable is the one committing the offense - the guy who flames, the guy who shoots people - not the people who would have to resort to using tools of defense - mute feature, bullet-proof vest.
...but to actually Permaban someone for simply saying someone else isn't good is just beyond me
You have to be a deliberate kind of jerk who ignores the rules to get permanently banned just for telling someone they're bad at the game. Most people wise up after the first Chat Restriction.
