I prefer not to post it at this point because I don't want the thread derailed into a discussion about whether or not I deserved my ban. That's not really what I'm posting about.

As to whether it was egregious behavior or not, I can tell you that the result was a simple Majority vote, so clearly it wasn't anything like a crazy racist rant or afk feeding. It was something about which reasonable people can differ, and many did, but more felt it was punishable. Well, fine. But this was the first time I could see that.

But in your OP, you were asking for a (possible) second chance yourself as well.
The severity of your offences is crucial for me to determine whether Riot should consider it or not.

The Reform Cards give information, but I'd say many players could come to the same conclusion if only they objectively review their own behaviour.

If you do not want to post your reform card, I respect that and wish you the best of luck.

This is in fact why I don't want to post it, because I strongly suspect that the result is simply a rejudging of the case. If you would have voted to punish, then you think the idea is bad. But if you would have pardoned, then you think the idea is good. But the reality is the idea is independent of any single situation.

Even if you were to read the cases and decide you would pardon, that isn't particularly helpful, because I'm not looking to actually dispute the legitimacy of the ban itself. As I've said previously, the result was only "Majority," which means there were clearly people who felt my conduct wasn't punishable. My point in saying that isn't "hey, look my ban is unfair." Rather, it's "hey, now I know what they are actually banning for."

To illustrate the point, take a pure hypothetical situation. Company A runs a MOBA game with behavior guidelines. For most of the history of the game, they conduct enforcement and hand out punishments with no feedback on offending behavior. Then, they state they are interested in helping players avoid future reports, and so they release Reform Cards. Is it a good idea for Company A to reconsider permanent suspensions for players who have never before received a Reform Card? I think it is. Other people may not.

Nevertheless, here it is. http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/en/case/5730747/

Actually, this is the unfortunate problem. Allowing permanently banned players another chance is an extremely damaging cost. Do you know what the success rate of the Level 20 Challenge was? 5%. Do you know that for each person, they clearly outlined the toxic behaviors and had 1 on 1 conversations with the players to try to improve their behavior? These are players that were hand-picked by Player Support staff because they felt the pleas from these players were genuine. The success rate was still 5%.

Do you know how many games on average these players played? 100 games / month. When a permanently banned player fails to reform, they are creating miserable experiences for hundreds, maybe thousands of players a month. That's not a cheap cost or a low risk and I cannot consciously justify that.

Well, went through all 5 games. A couple I would've pardoned for, a couple I would've punished for...and that's all it takes for a punish across the board. Honestly though I think you were pretty borderline, and if you haven't seen many reform cards, there are varying levels of "majority". Yours was simply "majority", while there can also be "large majority" (or something like that) and "overwhelming majority", so you actually had a fair amount of pardon votes...not that that's much consolation at this point.

Anyway, more to the point, as I can't see your account history and past behavior and reports, it's hard to know how your behavior has improved (or declined or maintained), if you've tried at all to reform. But, I do see your point, that you've recieved your first reform card giving you the chance to analyze your behavior and how it effects those around you (though on the other hand I also feel it's slightly common sense, sorry, no offense, just how i see it).

I think though, if I were someone who had this power, I would decide to give you a second chance. Judging by your posts here, you're intelligent, well spoken, good reading comprehension, and open to advice and opinions. Those are all great quality, and in my opinion, it means you have it in you to learn from your mistakes and from your peers. However, Riot has stated they are stricter than the majority of Tribunal voters, so they might not see it this way.

It may sound silly and sappy, but honestly, it's all about positivity. It's frustrating as hell, but it doesn't matter how much you wanna rage, how rude someone is, how badly someone plays...just keep it positive, lead by example, encourage and constructively and politely instruct those around you. Don't call people ****, instead try to help them understand how they could've handled the situation differently. Tell them it's ok, mistakes happen, but the team can bounce back. Never give up til a Nexus explodes and offer your a team a firm and friendly voice of guidance. Consider trying to adopt some of these habits, talk to Riot about it, and perhaps they'll see fit to see if you can follow through.

Damn, was hoping to get in before Lyte commented. Idk if my opinion would effect his at all, but for your benefit, I was hoping .

First of all, thanks for replying. Personally, I don't think I would have entered a thread that was just "@myname."

That chance may have improved if players were furnished with feedback and illustrated exactly why the people were punished in the first place. [EDIT: Ah, I see by Lyte's comments that they were offered feedback. But it is still useful to know how many of the 95% failed on purely objective standards, how many on subjective standards.]

Of the 95% that failed, how many were punished on purely objective factors like afk, feeding, assisting the enemy team?

How many of the 95% had patently racist rants?

How many of the 95% were for more subjective (but note that I'm not arguing illegitimate) "negative attitude?" And of those players, how many of them could potentially have remained in the clear if they knew exactly what was punish worthy?

A simple percentage like 95% sounds really impressive, and perhaps the true picture really was that dire. But the fact is, it's not like a report is a report. There is a spectrum, and while I can't say for sure, I'm pretty confident in the assertion that a certain percentage of the 95% could have corrected themselves with feedback. Now, to be sure, Riot is under no obligation to provide that feedback. But having decided to do so, shouldn't you give people the chance to actually use it?

I have over 2k games this season alone. Obviously I've been reported. But how often do I report? I'm willing to bet from a per-game standpoint, I report far less than the average LoLer (or at least any reports for harassment or negative attitude since, as I play a lot of games, I should get feeders and afkers). Why do I bring this up? Because it indicates to me that I have a thicker skin than the average player. And that means my assessment of what is negative or harassment or what have you is less sensitive than the average (I'm sure this is born out by my Tribunal activity as well, where I am probably far more sympathetic than the average user on subjective factors, and absolutely ruthless on objective ones). That is what makes Reform Cards useful, because when you can see what is the average, then you know.

As for my account history, clearly I've been banned before if I'm being permabanned now. However, my last ban was over 5 months ago, whereas the time between actions previously had been much shorter. A reasonable (but not necessarily correct) belief would be that whatever conduct modification I had been making was effective. And that was conduct modification in the dark. Since I don't afk or feed, knowing exactly what you've said to set someone off on the internet is not always easy to divine.

As for it being common sense, my opinion is because everything is subjective, common sense is actually a fairly poor barometer. I stated in an earlier post that I almost never report for negative attitude or harassment, and it is likely that my threshold is probably higher than the average LoLer. That means, without any other indication, it is difficult to know where the average is.

As you've said yourself, it was a "borderline" case. I do not say that to question the legitimacy of the ban. But rather, if it's close and I was in the dark, don't you think it's likely I could avoid the line if I knew where it was?

It's usually easier to have the thicker skin when you're the one doing the harassing.

What is harassment is subjective. Which is the point. When people say things to me, I shrug it off. When I say things to people, they report. Since I do not consider their conduct to be report worthy, it is natural that I would tend to view my own actions in the same way. It's not like "gee, I'm reportable but this guy calling me a blankety-blank is awesome."

So long as that is the only metric available to me, it is difficult to judge where the line is.

Remember, this is a simple matter of statistics. No matter how repulsive I may be, I will encounter other "toxics" at the same percentage rate as anyone else. Thus, if I didn't have a thicker skin, I should be reporting at a higher rate than I am, regardless of the rate I'm getting reported myself. Now, I don't actually have the numbers, but I would be very surprised to learn that I report negative attitude or harassment near the average.