Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
One pick at captain’s discretion does not constitute trolling/griefing especially when he clearly played to win. If you feel your opinion must be listened to in order to play games that you don’t consider trolling/griefing you should just captain. Request denied.
Processing
You can have the same deal you were given in LTD. This can’t happen again though considering it wasn’t supposed to happen again this time. Appeal approved.
Processing
Situation was low impact and correctly early on in the game, however it was unacceptable behavior in the beginning. The next time this happens regardless of the impact there will be a long ban. Warning issued. Request approved for warning.
Processing
If you are position 5 and your captain is telling you to ward it is pretty much your job to do so and from what I can tell dc bought plenty of wards. You were being told to ward at frequent intervals through the first part of the game because you weren’t warding; this doesn’t really qualify as flaming or antagonizing you it was a captain call that wasn’t being listened to. When you did finally respond you flamed him for telling you to ward, threatened a ban for ghosting (this was not ghosting), and asked if leaving the game meant you couldn’t play LTD which from now on yes it will. In the future please ignore each other and play on within the rules for the sake of the rest of your team. Request denied.
Processing
After review there are clearly issues between the two of you that played out in this game. Having an issue with someone doesn’t give you the right to refuse to play by the league rules. I hope in the future when you two are on the same team you can ignore each other and play within the rules for the sake of the rest of your team. Soul is banned for 1 day for the refusal to follow captains orders and 1 day for the flaming. Request approved.
Processing
The request is pretty thorough and has all been checked and confirmed. The ban will be 2 days for the toxicity/flaming and 1 day for the game ruining behavior in the first part of the game. Also a side note as position 5 you are not allowed to give position 4 the courier and make them share. You are indeed the only one who does this and in the future if you do it you will be banned for it; it falls under not playing you assigned role and there is no valid reason to be doing it. Request approved.
Processing
26:15 Allies Bash ur very dumb
This doesn’t really qualify for a flaming ban please don’t waste our time with a very weak case like this. Request denied.
Processing
After reviewing the game there were a few incidents that present as griefing to me they were needless dives that made no sense. As for the rest of the accusations, there was no assignment issue, he did not feed sven 5 times in lane he died once to neutrals timing his double edge wrong, and twice in lane before rotations and team fighting for the other deaths, he did not respond that the reason he didn’t go full woods was because of troll picks he was stating that he thought it was a troll pick unrelated to his play. He actually did partially neutral in his lane and was leveling faster than the other position 3 and the call for jungling was just a suggestion. It did not have high impact on the outcome of the game, but there were still instances of griefing. Flesh will be banned for 36 hours for griefing. Redhawk you were instigating and being toxic to flesh and you sold your items to mass sentries at the end of the game you will receive a warning for both of these. Request approved.
Processing
I’ll start by reiterating the rule just for clarification. “Everyone has to play their assigned hero (you cannot share control with allies and have them control your hero, or vice-versa, except in certain situations – such as lag, emergencies)”. What happened obviously doesn’t fit within the acceptable times to play another player’s hero and that has been dealt with with warnings and a ban, which it seems we can all agree with considering you stated it yourself in your post. Yes it is an in game function, but that does not mean it acceptable to do or negate the fact that it is against the rules of the community. Using that logic the in game function to leave the game exists, but it is against the rules and is punished appropriately. The difference between a ragequit and what happened here is that a ragequit is entirely one player’s decision so only one player is punished. If the team coordinated to have a player ragequit specifically to benefit from leaver gold or items the game would be vetoed as well. The hero swap was against the rules and had high impact on the outcome of the game, which was admitted by you and allchatted excessively by reading. This like you said was a team effort hence the warnings to clarify the rule to you all and the ban for the player who forced the situation. We vetoed the game because we are not going to reward that kind of team behavior nor punish the team that played without breaking any rules.
Processing.
