News of Legends

Welcome to Tribunal Cases of the Weak. Every week you’ll get the best/weirdest/worst Tribunal cases. As always, purple text is the accused, green text is the team-mates, and red is the opponents. The title of each case is a link to the full Tribunal case, but don’t click through unless you’re ready for NSFW language. Unsure of what the Tribunal is or how it works? Read Riot’s FAQ.

 

There was a potentially overlooked change in the last patch, Patch 3.06:

Boots

• Limited to 1 Boots item at a time

This change may have ruined the dreams of trolls.  No longer can six boots of mobility Master Yi terrorize players everywhere.  This marks the end of an era, and to say goodbye we look back on some of multi-booted that have graced the hallowed pages of TCotW.

 

Case #5: “Nid”ing a Ban submitted by Geonice from Volume 20

This Nidalee is guilty of basically ever violation possible.  According to Geonice, her inappropriate name was “HomoBut”.  Then there’s the intentional feeding:

There’s also the verbal abuse:

She got seven reports out of a possible nine.  This Nidalee was a real beast.

 

 

Case #4: Putting the “Intent” in Intentionally submitted by LuBuFu from Volume 13

This case has been submitted by an observant NA Tribunal judge.  In his words: “So, what makes this case interesting? Well let’s start with [an] average of 5 reports a game… That’s a lot…”  Reports like:

LuBuFu goes on to ask, “So, what could have caused this?”

Multiple mobility boots huh?  That last Pantheon must have been running on all fours.

 

 

Case #3: A Game of Cat and Mouse from Volume 13

The Lux in this game had a bad score and what appears to be a troll “build”.

And what is the explanation for four pairs of boots, 20 deaths and no CS?

Well, that makes sense.  Maybe the four pairs of boots were for the cat.

 

 

Case #2: The Feeder submitted by Vokuhilla fromVolume 18

Vokuhilla passed this case along because of the direct and obvious feeding.  What kind of feeding?

While sprinkling in fun comments like:

Not much to discuss here:

 

 

Case #1: The Cobbler submitted by AmudielWW from Volume 15

Another submission by AmudielWW, who sent in one last week as well.  In this case, Dr. Mundo has developed a shoe fetish.

Intentionally feeding and spending all the money on shoes, he really is the Madman of Zaun.  There isn’t much of an explanation in the chat, other than:

Mundo goes where he pleases, but apparently this Mundo needs six boots to get there.

 

 

RIP Mundo’s Shose Shop.

 

That’s all for this week! We’ll be back next week with another round of Tribunal Cases of the Weak.

Welcome to Tribunal Cases of the Weak. Every week you’ll get the best/weirdest/worst Tribunal cases. As always, purple text is the accused, green text is the team-mates, and red is the opponents. The title of each case is a link to the full Tribunal case, but don’t click through unless you’re ready for NSFW language. Unsure of what the Tribunal is or how it works? Read Riot’s FAQ.

 

Case #5: The Master of Feeding

This player really has figured out how to feed.  His motivations are unclear, but the results can’t be questioned:

42 deaths, now that’s some serious feeding.  He did ask one question:

The Tribunal sure loves punishing players like him:

 

 

Case #4: Unhappy Ending

Unlike the case before, this player didn’t give you a lot of notice that something terrible was coming.  Right at the end of the game, this player likes to add:

That was game two.  Here is game three:

And here is game four:

And here is the punishment:

 

 

Case #3: Spamalot submitted by HDDragon

HDDragon, for reals this time (sorry Geonice!), passed along this case, saying: “Oh…my…goodness… I have never seen such spamming!!”  Frankly, it’s hard to do this case justice.

Imagine someone doing that, over and over, for 30 minutes.  The mute feature was made for people like him…  But he did sprinkle in a little:

The Tribunal got the last laugh here. Tribunal es # 1.

 

 

Case #2: Worst Troll of the Week

You may have read about Restricted Chat mode in a NoL article recently.  The basic idea is to limit the number of times a player can speak in chat as a way to instruct them on being more polite.  This is rehabilitation, as opposed to the banning system previously in place. For example, you take a player who says things like this:

And instead of giving them a Time Ban, you give them limited chat.  Now there have been cases of this working on the official forums, but in this case…

Yeah…  This player doesn’t look like he’s reforming any time soon.

 

 

Case #1: Permaban of the Week

Our permaban of the week shows just how ineffective bans can be. This is certainly not this player’s first account. On this smurf, he feeds like crazy:

And his motivation isn’t exactly pure:

And he’s definitely not afraid of the other players or the Tribunal. He even tries to recruit his fellow smurfs into trolling too.

You can see the dilemma Riot is in. Permaban these trolls and they just create new accounts and terrorize new players. Restrict their chat and some will just troll anyway. Hopefully with enough data they can figure out which one to give to whom. So remember to report the trolls you see, and if you have some time, judge some players in the Tribunal. The next game they ruin could be yours.

 

 

That’s all for this week! We’ll be back next week with another round of Tribunal Cases of the Weak.

Welcome to Tribunal Cases of the Weak. Every week you’ll get the best/weirdest/worst Tribunal cases. As always, purple text is the accused, green text is the team-mates, and red is the opponents. The title of each case is a link to the full Tribunal case, but don’t click through unless you’re ready for NSFW language. Unsure of what the Tribunal is or how it works? Read Riot’s FAQ.

 

Case #5: Darkly Dreaming Darius submitted by Moobu

Moobu sent along a case of a very demented Darius.  There are five filthy games within, but the fourth game is particularly awful.  The accused is on a smurf and isn’t very happy about having to duo-top with Garen.

How would he get Garen’s credit card numbers you might ask?

He works for Riot, that could give him access.  Or does he:

Works for Riot and is undetectable by the police.  Watch out community, cause he’s still out there:

 

Case #4: The Terror of Twisted Treeline submitted by Elephox

Elephox summed up this case nicely: “This guy seemed to be a riot. Not only did he accuse the enemy team of being hackers, he called the enemies “cowards” and “gipsys” and repeatedly offered “10k Euros” for a variety of objects, from Jax to Fiddle to “family tags.” I think there was something mentally wrong with this player. I now understand why most people avoid the Twisted Treeline.”

That’s six minutes into a game when he starts losing lane to Jax.  But it gets personal:

10k euros, that’s some serious money.  But what does he mean?

Instead of that hackers home address, all it seems like he got was:

 

Case #3: Obvious Troll is Obvious

How obvious?  Here are the scores:

Blatant feeding.  How ’bout the chat:

He’s just begging for it:

 

 

Case #2: Worst Troll of the Week

Game 1 of this case features seven reports.  Most games, no matter how foul, tend to have one or two reports.  To get seven, you have to really be making people mad.  Perhaps by feeding:

Check.  And then some verbal abuse:

Check.  Followed by some sexual taunting:

Check again.  And Xin gets to the core of the matter.  Caitlyn just doesn’t care, which makes her a crappy teammate when things start going badly.  She’s on her way to a permaban at this rate.

 

Case #1: Permaban of the Week submitted by Geonice*

Another great submission by Geonice*.  You hear a wide-variety of excuses when people start playing badly.  Mostly players seem to blame other players, like the jungle or the support.  This player suspects his opponents are the cause of his problems:

A little paranoia with your flaming.  Now we’re getting somewhere.

Some narcissism with your paranoia?  But wait, there’s more:

Now we’re there, a narcissistic paranoid racist.  The top 3% of ranked is going to have to go on without him.

 

*Earlier versions of this article mistakenly did not credit Geonice for this submission.

 

That’s all for this week! We’ll be back next week with another round of Tribunal Cases of the Weak.

Welcome to Tribunal Cases of the Weak. Every week you’ll get the best/weirdest/worst Tribunal cases. As always, purple text is the accused, green text is the team-mates, and red is the opponents. The title of each case is a link to the full Tribunal case, but don’t click through unless you’re ready for NSFW language. Unsure of what the Tribunal is or how it works? Read Riot’s FAQ.

 

Case #5: The Boobie Prize submitted by mhykah

This tribunal case was submitted not just because of intentional feeding but because “in Case #2 the reported seems to have found an alternative to surrendering by re-purposing wards”.  Here’s the feeding:

And here is the unusual use for wards:

And here is the Tribunal’s judgement:

 

Case #4: The Enigma

Here is some straightforward feeding, the score speaks for itself:

And here is this player’s retort when he’s threatened with reports:

And he’s right, the Tribunal is relatively powerless over this kind of player.  But you have to wonder, like this reporter said:

It is confusing, but some people just want to watch the world burn.

 

Case #3: The Serial Flamer

Speaking of burns, this case showcases how not respond to being flamed.  This Ashe has to go solo-bot in a low-level game.  He’s not getting the support he wants from his team and decides he just wants the game to be over:

His team responds negatively to his negativity, and the flame war is on from there:

He’s then threatened with reports for the language above, to which he responds:

Clearly he knows how this process works and what’s coming if he keeps behaving badly.

Unfortunately, he has the common misconceptions of players who hear about the Tribunal but don’t use it.  Sweaty nerds or not, the consistent flaming got him a very familiar:

 

 

Case #2: Worst Troll of the Week

This player doesn’t even have the excuse of being “provoked”.  He views bad play as “trolling” and he just starts ripping into his teammates:

His all-caps yelling didn’t seem to improve the situation, so he moved on to:

Complaining to the other team for sympathy.  That also didn’t seem to help, so then:

Some very direct (and racist) insults; also not very effective at making his team play better.  So then:

At the end of the game he gives up.  Riven’s sentiment is probably correct.  No one is perfect, but bad play wasn’t trolling, it was just someone playing badly.  Either way, yelling at them wasn’t going to help anything.  But something tells me this player knows that already and doesn’t care.

 

Case #1: Permaban of the Week submitted by Joux

Joux sums up this permaban succinctly: “Apparently, everyone is a failed abortion”.  But in addition to that “friendly” sentiment, this player had this to add:

He’s swaggin’, but he’s also insultin’:

And all that swag couldn’t save him from a deserved permaban:

 

That’s all for this week! We’ll be back next week with another round of Tribunal Cases of the Weak.

Welcome to Tribunal Cases of the Weak. Every week you’ll get the best/weirdest/worst Tribunal cases. As always, purple text is the accused, green text is the team-mates, and red is the opponents. The title of each case is a link to the full Tribunal case, but don’t click through unless you’re ready for NSFW language. Unsure of what the Tribunal is or how it works? Read Riot’s FAQ.

 

Last week’s post generated a lot of comments about the Tribunal being too strict and inconsistent.  Many left comments and sent emails decrying the unfairness of the Tribunal and demanding that it be removed, changed or fixed.  Others responded with a flood of submissions detailing horrible offenses actually worthy of bans.  Below are five submission from readers like you.

 

Case #5: The Queen of Rage submitted by That One Six

That One Six says, “I can’t even begin to describe the level of rage this guy expressed in his Elise game.  He was hyper racist and openly malicious towards his fellow players.  He deserved a permaban, in my eyes, but this is probably the worst I’ve ever seen in my 2,500 cases judged.”  Here’s a sample of this player’s behavior:

And:

And:

The Tribunal probably didn’t have to think too long on this one:

 

 

Case #4: The Misplaced Rager submitted by Mashedi

and ends with:

Do I need to say anything more? quite obvious.”  The only thing to add is this gem from just before the end of the game:

Well, she got what she wanted:

 

 

Case #3: The Gatekeeper submitted by Tirain

“This is hilarious because he claims he has anti ban runes per level and flat quints that cost 56k IP each.  He also claims to be the plat gatekeeper and not let “trash” players finish their series in a win.”

Looks like the Ez stopped trying part way through the game, and started feeding the towers:

And then claimed he was losing on purpose to prevent his team from getting promoted:

And finished that up by claiming his anti-ban runes would save him:

You can see where this is going.

 

 

Case #2: The Feeder submitted by Vokuhilla

Vokuhilla passed this case along because of the direct and obvious feeding.  What kind of feeding?

While sprinkling in fun comments like:

Not much to discuss here:

 

 

Case #1: Worst Troll of the Weak submitted by KDragon5

“This summoner swore consistently in his games, did not manage to say anything positive, and repeatedly used the N-word in all of the games in this report.  Also, he/she was reported in 36 times in 5 games.  Thats an average of more than 7 reports PER GAME.  I have never seen a case with this many reports, or this many reports per game.”

Here’s a sample report page:

That’s nine reports in this one game.  To say that another way, this guy was so bad everyone else in the game reported him.  Now that’s some epic trolling.

 

No Permabans submitted this week, but there doesn’t have to be to get the point across.  The Tribunal is a community enforcement tool, one that is designed to reflect the mores of the players.  It’s also designed to give toxic players a chance to reform.  It’s not perfect, but Riot would say that it’s making the game a better place.  The best way to “fix” the Tribunal is for everyone to use it.  So if you have some free time this week, pop over to the Tribunal and see what your fellow players are doing in games.  Punish a troll because the next game he ruins could be yours.

 

Welcome to Tribunal Cases of the Weak. Every week you’ll get the best/weirdest/worst Tribunal cases. As always, purple text is the accused, green text is the team-mates, and red is the opponents. The title of each case is a link to the full Tribunal case, but don’t click through unless you’re ready for NSFW language. Unsure of what the Tribunal is or how it works? Read Riot’s FAQ.

 

Case #5: The Sore Loser

This player is smurfing on a low-level account. He feels that the level of play, surprisingly, isn’t very high. He ends every game with the same send off:

Got to love the “bg nobs”; nobs is just a wonderful misspelling of noobs.  He was reported in every game for his poor attitude, and received:

 

 

Case #4: The Sore Winner

This player is also smurfing on a low-level account. Unlike the player in Case #1, this player only taunts his opponents when he wins. Here is how he ends every win:

In Game 5, which he loses, he doesn’t say anything. This player was reported for his taunts at the end of his wins, and he got:

 

Case #3: The Blatant Feeder

Intentionally feeding is pretty clear cut in the Tribunal. Some players take an ironic twist on it though. Here are his scores:

And here is his statement in the only game he talked in:

Well those “bitches” reported him, and he got:

 

 

Case #2: Worst Troll of the Week

There’s awful stuff in all five games here, so don’t click through unless you’re into that kind of thing. What stands out, though, is the “psychology” that this player is projecting onto his victims. Like this in Game 1:

Game 2:

Game 3:

Game 4:

After all of this, you have to wonder who really has the daddy issues. There’s plenty of other inappropriate behavior in there, but it looks like he was a first time offender:

 

 

Case #1: Permaban of the Week

The Permaban this week might not be a clear cut case for a lot of people. The player is negative overall, but not harshly so. He does, however, use a term that many players, including streamers, use quite often. Here it is in Game 1:

And in Game 3:

Share your opinion in the comments below. The Tribunal can be a vanguard on player behavior and hold higher standards than the streamers exemplify or people experience in real life. This may be a case of that for some readers, where this word doesn’t offend, much like “faggot” and its pervasiveness. In this case, however, it seems to have caused this player’s permaban, if only by a simple majority.

 

That’s all for this week! We’ll be back next week with another round of Tribunal Cases of the Weak.

Welcome to Tribunal Cases of the Weak. Every week you’ll get the best/weirdest/worst Tribunal cases. As always, purple text is the accused, green text is the team-mates, and red is the opponents. The title of each case is a link to the full Tribunal case, but don’t click through unless you’re ready for NSFW language. Unsure of what the Tribunal is or how it works? Read Riot’s FAQ.

 

Case #5: Judging the Judicator

The player in this case is guilty of one simple offense.  There are five games total, and they are pretty clean, except for right at the end of two of them:

That was game three, this is game five:

Poor sportsmanship at its simplest.  Whether this is really punishable has been debated often on the forums, but in this case it was.

Case #4: Dunking the Dunkmaster submitted by wes3449

Submitter wes3449 of NA had this to say about the case: “While this isn’t the most blatant case of abuse, I find it particularly funny because of how he thinks that what he is doing is perfectly fine, and that he’s actually following the summoner’s code.”

First Darius says this:

And then goes on to explain:

He’s so confident that calling people noobs is ok and that the reports won’t affect him.  The Tribunal said: Get Dunked!

 

 Case #3: Silently Feeding

The player in this case didn’t say anything in these three games, but his scores do tell a story:

Certainly those are unusual builds.  Now you might be tempted to say the Lux game was good, but that was a game against bots.  His fellow players didn’t appreciate his play or builds in these three games, and the Tribunal didn’t either:

Case #2: Worst Troll of the Week submitted by Thrasher33

Thrasher33 of EUNE sent along this case, saying: “He was raging all game long, but there are lines that deserve special attention”.  Lines like this:

That probably explains the all-caps raging.  PSA: Don’t play drunk.  You’re mean when you’re drunk.

Case #1: PERMABAN OF THE WEEK

This player picked a very particular insult to hurl at his enemies:

No idea how he knows what his enemy’s crotch smells like, but he went on:

And on:

Yeah…  so strange and uncalled for.  This player got what was coming to him.

 

That’s all for this week! We’ll be back next week with another round of Tribunal Cases of the Weak.

Welcome to Tribunal Cases of the Weak. Every week you’ll get the best/weirdest/worst Tribunal cases. As always, purple text is the accused, green text is the team-mates, and red is the opponents. The title of each case is a link to the full Tribunal case, but don’t click through unless you’re ready for NSFW language. Unsure of what the Tribunal is or how it works? Read Riot’s FAQ.

 

Case #5: The Cobbler submitted by AmudielWW

Another submission by AmudielWW, who sent in one last week as well.  In this case, Dr. Mundo has developed a shoe fetish.

Intentionally feeding and spending all the money on shoes, he really is the Madman of Zaun.  There isn’t much of an explanation in the chat, other than:

Mundo goes where he pleases, but apparently this Mundo needs six boots to get there.

 

 

Case #4: The Recidivist

Another intentional feeder here.  In this case, there are two games in the report and both are bad:

And the explanation in this case is one of the worst:

You can understand why Riot is trying to find solutions other than banning people, because players like this just troll on their smurfs while their main is banned.

 

 

 Case #3: The Teacher

This type of troll is typified by his self-righteous attitude.  It’s not his fault he is feeding or playing badly, it’s your fault.  In this case, the player fed in two games to the tune of:

And in both games he was going to teach them a lesson.  In Game 1, it was for “slandering” him early on.  In Game 2, it was for not surrendering when it was clear the game was over.  In both cases, he tried to show them who’s boss.

 

 

 Case #2: The Rager

Reading the Tribunal, you can sometimes see exactly when players hit their breaking point.  Some hit it and pull back, uttering just a line or two.  Some hit it and lose all control, like this guy:

Don’t hold back, tell us how you really feel…

 

 

Case #1: Worst Troll of the Week

This player left decency behind a long time ago it seems.  In all five games he displayed a terrible attitude and attacked his teammates mercilessly, saying things like:

And like:

And even:

And there’s more:

Five games in this case; probably countless games in total.  This player is deservedly on the way to a permban, but for now:

 

 

PERMABAN OF THE WEEK

The permaban this week is a very unusual case.  The ban comes from ARAMs on the Proving Grounds.  It’s a pretty subtle form of trolling, but it becomes clear in context.  Here is the scorecard from one of the games:

He only participated in two of the team’s 45 kills, and they were just assists.  How is that possible?

His team went on to win, despite this player just staying in the fountain and ulting whenever it was off cooldown or joining the fights late so that he can get kill steals.  Even in an ARAM, it is possible to get banned.

 

That’s all for this week! We’ll be back next week with another round of Tribunal Cases of the Weak.

Welcome to Tribunal Cases of the Weak. Every week you’ll get the best/weirdest/worst Tribunal cases. As always, purple text is the accused, green text is the team-mates, and red is the opponents. The title of each case is a link to the full Tribunal case, but don’t click through unless you’re ready for NSFW language. Unsure of what the Tribunal is or how it works? Read Riot’s FAQ.

 

Case #5: Troll-”Master” Yi

The Yi in this game is blatantly feeding. According to the reports, he just ran down mid lane over and over. He ended up going:

But in a stunning turn of events, his team actually won the game. Having failed to successfully troll his team-mates, he turned on the opponents.

It’s a good question. By reading the chat, his team stayed positive and didn’t turn on each other. They just played hard and somehow won. Trolling fail.

 

 

Case #4: Dedicated Troll

This player was committed to feeding. He fed in all five games to the tune of:

Two things make this interesting.  First of all, the choice of Trundle is probably intentional. When trolling, you might as well play a troll. Secondly,  two of those games are wins.  That’s right, even with a Gragas intentionally feeding and going 0/30/0, it is possible to win.

 

 

Case #3: Trolling to the Next Level submitted by AmudielWW

The Leona in this game didn’t appreciate the level one invade her opponents did. Her solution, for some reason, was to feed like crazy:

The enemy Kog’Maw tried to talk some sense into Leona, but it didn’t work:

This player was intent on feeding as many times as she could, voting no on surrender votes to feed more.

Congratulations?

 

 

Case #2: Speak No Evil

Moving from the obvious trolling to the more subtle. If a player never says anything, is he trolling? Here are the scores from this player’s five games:

Not obviously troll scores.  Here are some of the reports:

OK.  There isn’t much to go one here, but Tribunal voted:

So do we have a player being banned for failing to communicate, which in theory never happens? Here is Riot WookieeCookiee:

In all the cases I have reviewed (thousands and then some), I have never seen someone banned for “not communicating”.

An argument could certainly be made that the only thing this player did wrong was not communicate enough. What do you think?

 

Case #1: Worst Troll of the Weak submitted by Wr3ckYoSelf (NSFW)

This player wanted to play Fiddlesticks but someone else picked Fiddle before him. This player tried to teach that Fiddle a lesson:

When the Ezreal jumped in to scold the Kayle, things got messy.

Yeah, that really happened. The Kayle ended up going 0/7/0 and openly begging for an IP ban so his room-mates would get banned too. That’s pretty shitty.

 

 

PERMABAN OF THE WEEK submitted by m4dm

Reader m4dm sent this case in and mentioned that the player had a positive KDA and barely said anything negative during the games.  He never outright curses, and quite often says that he is playing badly. His negativity is more defeatist, with things like:

And:

And:

He was reported in all of these games, presumably for Negative Attitude. It does seem like he wanted to give up once it started going badly, but he never fed or obviously trolled. Nonetheless:

 

That’s all for this week! We’ll be back next week with another round of Tribunal Cases of the Weak.

 

Welcome to Tribunal Cases of the Weak.  Every week you’ll get the best/weirdest/worst Tribunal cases.  As always, purple text is the accused, green text is the teammates, and red is the opponents. The title of each case is a link to the full Tribunal case, but don’t click through unless you’re ready for NSFW language.  Unsure of what the Tribunal is or how it works? Read Riot’s FAQ.

 

Case #5: Putting the “Intent” in Intentionally submitted by LuBuFu

This case has been submitted by an observant NA Tribunal judge.  In his words: “So, what makes this case interesting? Well let’s start with [an] average of 5 reports a game… That’s a lot…”  Reports like:

LuBuFu goes on to ask, “So, what could have caused this?”

Multiple mobility boots huh?  That last Pantheon must have been running on all fours.

 

 

Case #4: Premade to Fail submited by WPZionLion

This EUW case contains five games featuring the same five-man premade team.  Every game features reports by the enemy team.  Because there is no chat. it’s hard to tell exactly what the premade team is doing.  But their scores are consistent, and consistently unusual:

All five players with ghost/heal?  No kills, no CS, just deaths?  And there are five games of this behavior? It’s certainly a strange kind of trolling.

 

Case #3: A Game of Cat and Mouse

The Lux in this game had a bad score and what appears to be a troll “build”.

And what is the explanation for four pairs of boots, 20 deaths and no CS?

Well, that makes sense.  Maybe the four pairs of boots were for the cat.

 

 

Case #2: “Carry” Hard, Get Banned

The Akali in these game is clearly pretty good.  Here are her scores from two of the games:

But despite this strong performance, both games are losses.  And she got reports for her behavior.  What gives?

She rages at “feeders” and verbally abuses her teammates.  Despite doing very well personally, she’s a terrible teammate.

Now that explains everything.  This player’s main was permabanned and is now on a smurf.  This player has been pubstomping  low-level players with Akali and raging when they “feed”.  Hard to win like that.

 

 

Case #1: Worst Troll of the Week

Some players have so much rage in their personal life that it spills into the game.  They find an outlet, which is good, but it’s on their fellow players, which is bad. This player has a very specific wish for his victims:

Game 1:

Game 2:

Game 3:

Game 4:

Game 5:

Very specific, very consistent, very inappropriate.  Hopefully this player’s time away from the game will be time spent finding a better outlet for his rage.

 

 

PERMABAN OF THE WEEK submitted by evilsaint

The permaban this week comes courtesy of a level 22 summoner, proof positive that Dr. Lyte and Riot are correct to let players into the Tribunal when they are level 20+.  Evilsaint sent this along because it is interesting and potentially controversial.  In his words:

“What is so strange about this is that aside from one mention of being drunk, I don’t think he even violated the Summoner’s Code at all during the games (according the logs). With the punishment he received, I’m sure that he has violated it many times prior, but in this case, he didn’t swear at all (in-game), didn’t directly insult anyone, and didn’t do anything more aggressive than threaten to report people on his teams (most of whom seemed to rightly deserve it). He taunted a guy at one point, but that was after the guy threatened to have three other people report him or some such. What he apparently said in pre-/post-game chat, however, is what makes this guy quite the unique little blood-covered snowflake -”

Evilsaint goes on to say, “Dunno about this one – is hearsay enough to permaban someone? Take a closer look and you’ll even see that the Tribunal only managed a Majority vote instead of a Strong or Overwhelming majority. Strange, eh?”

It is strange.  While this player was negative, he wasn’t overly so.  It was close for a reason.

Ironically, the punishment makes the guilt more likely, because this player had been banned several times before and Riot hand-reviews all Permabans before they take effect.  That being said, if this player hadn’t been found guilty by the Tribunal, Riot probably never would have looked into it more and potentially confirmed the post-game verbal abuse.

What do you guys think, fair or unfair?

 

That’s all for this week!  We’ll be back next week with another round of Tribunal Cases of the Weak.