Boards›Player Behavior

What constitutes "Intentionally Feeding"

Kindred Spiritus·8/31/2016, 8:36:40 AM·1 votes·888 views

So i just had a game with a summoner (on the enemy team) who proceeded to complain that a person was AFK and that the remake system didnt happen.

As a result, they announced this "Since the game isnt going to remake don't mind me if I speed things up." He then proceeds to attack the tower (level 3 Vayne) and then kills himself to the bot lane. His team then says to Report him, to which we say we will and then a whole argument breaks out about why he did it and how he is justifying it.

By his own words (mind you ALL of this is in the game chat logs that Riot can read) He admits to feeding because he wanted to speed up the game to lose because of the afk.

Fastforward and their AFK comes back and they win they match despite my efforts to carry.

So he then says (in the post game lobby) he wont get banned because of the following reasons.

  1. He apparently has no prior strikes.
  2. He only fed intentionally once.
  3. Because humans do not handle the verdicts on the bans and therefore it wont tell the difference between the chat and the game. Meaning that just because in chat he said he fed intentionally doesn't mean that his death will be considered intentionally feeding.
  4. He got an S+ at the game and 4 deaths meaning it overrides it.

So I am asking Riot.

What IS considered under the intentionally feeding/assisting enemy team?

Because I was under the impression that no matter how many deaths, intentionally feeding is ANY form of assistance to the enemy team.

Example: I have 0 deaths. But I walk around with the enemy (not attacking them) telling them where my team is. If they are in a bush, if they are doing baron or dragon. Where the wards are placed. Etc.

Just because I have 0 deaths does not mean I don't fall under the category of "Intentionally Feeding" because it clearly says "Assisting Enemy Team"

Therefore it should matter that he only fed 1 time. It is STILL Intentionally Feeding.

He even ADMITS to it IN GAME. Meaning the chat log and death can be correlated together to show that he indeed fed with the intent of

-> Losing the game for his team quicker so that he wouldnt have to be with an AFK.

Only to have the AFK return meaning he fed for NOTHING. To which his response was "then that means my feeding is also nothing"

I am not saying the summoner name here because you can just check my latest game and see its the Vayne.

6 Comments

Sarutobi8/31/2016, 9:15:20 AM1 votes

Intentionally feeding is just that. You are giving up your deaths to to the enemy team. Especially since he said it in chat just basically proves that he is in the wrong. With that said I really hope you guys reported him. Granted like with any punishment because this could be a "one time" thing, but at least how you put it I wouldn't doubt that he does this when ever he gets an afk on his team.

With that said he does need to be careful. He assumes he won't get punished but with the cases of feeders/trolls they get hit much harder in terms of punishment as they don't use the chat reatictions and go straight to a 14 day ban.

Pew Pew Lasers8/31/2016, 9:22:11 AM1 votes

He admitted to intentionally trying to throw the game on his team at some point. Win or lose, he's guilty.

And how the fuck did he get S+ with 4 deaths? I get denied S if I die even once.

Kindred Spiritus8/31/2016, 9:46:59 AM1 votes

That was my response. I told him that even 1 death is enough to be considered guilty of intentionally feeding especially if he admitted to it. I should've screenshotted it at least.

At any rate, He seemed very confident that he wont get banned.

EvilDustMan8/31/2016, 10:12:18 AM1 votes

What gives him the right to make that judgment for the team? No, he should get punished and likely will.

Twisp8/31/2016, 10:54:28 AM1 votes

What about blind pick ceasefires where both sides decide to just emote and /all type instead of playing the game? These happen more often than I'd think and I usually go along with it, will that one person who doesn't get what's going on be justified in reporting everyone?