That is not the case.
As a Math Mage, you should know this.
There is a fine line between doing something because you can, and doing it because you enjoyed doing it.

I can go play in traffic.
But I enjoy not playing in traffic.

If you're PHYSICALLY harming someone that's a completely different story. He is using an emote in a game DESIGNED (by a dev consent, advertised and everything) to be spammed.

That's not even close to the same thing and you know it. He was causing no harm to anyone by spamming emotes. Mildly annoying as it may be, he was not actually HARMING anyone.

Player support or customer service tells you "just mute that guy" if you report them for harassment when they are legit harassing you. So why is it all of a sudden a huge deal when someone spams an emote, that it's no longer acceptable to mute said person? It takes the same amount of effort or less.

In one instance where someone is actually causing you emotional distress, it's perfectly acceptable to just say "just mute him and ignore him, it's no big deal!", but in another instance where someone is playing with in game emotes that do not hurt you in the slightest, suddenly that response is unacceptable.

The fact that you people don't grasp how stupid this ban is, and in fact SUPPORT it just baffles me.

I am glad that Riot responded to this thread. It is great that Riot cares enough about its community to communicate with the player-base even about controversial subjects such as bans.

The game I used to moderate for had the policy of instantly moving such threads to an invisible section of the forums. I personally hated this policy. For reasons I believe you understand.

I am slightly disappointed, though that the Riot post seems to be saturated by name calling. My own posts certainly are not free of every literary taboo either, though I find it necessary to give feedback on what I find issue with so that things may improve in the future.

To clarify for those who do not obsess over literary techniques:
Name-calling is a very easy to use form of propaganda if you want to demonize a member in the eyes of those who see it. This is why it is used so often in political debates. Why prove your argument purely based on facts when you can equate them to something that everyone hates. The more times you do it the worse they look and the better your argument appears to be. I digress on this point for the sake of not dwelling on what style of writing/speech someone chooses to use in order to convince others.

I do not wish to say that his argument lacked any legitimate substance. His post makes one point quite clear (paraphrasing): "You should use the functions of the game in a good way and not in a bad way." Who could disagree with that? The problem is that things are not so black and white. The concepts of right and wrong are different for each culture, religion, and each individual person. "Jerk" in my eyes may very well be "hero" in someone else's eyes."

Many people may view the act of offending someone else as an act of "being a jerk". Others, sometimes very well educated individuals may find this as a necessary means for interacting with others or even a means of improving society.

One such highly educated person would be Linus Torvalds (the person who created Linux): "I like offending people, because I think people who get offended should be offended." Another such educated individual would be Stephan Fry.

My point in referencing such outstanding individuals is to point out that there is a place for going against the grain within a community. People are easily offended by things. I believe we should be mindful of the views of others, although I do not believe their low tolerance for a specific thing should dictate another's actions. This is common-ground where the majority of people agree that something is "bad", but this common-ground must be made clear in order for it to be accepted by the masses as law (the rules of the game).

There are reasons why in larger structures of society than a game, we have very specific rules (laws). Society has come to understand that words do not hold the same meaning to all who read them; rules should be detailed for the sake of clarity for those outside your own moral/ethics/cultural mindset. When we place our own views as universal, those who do not share our views will feel alienated, cheated, or feel that actions taken against them are in some way "illegitimate", even if it may seem so clear from your perspective or from my own.

You have made it clear that the system is vague for a reason. The reason as you explain it, however, would not be less fulfilled if our rules were specific. We can have a set of rules that specifically state "you are free to use curse words as long as you are not using them for the sake of demoralizing your teammates/opponents."

Every time I see someone get banned, they always appear confused. Usually Lyte comes in and explains to them which actions were considered bad. We can take a list of such reasons why people get banned (Using curse words for the sake of demoralizing others,Sexist remarks,racist remarks towards teamates, ect.) and make it into a set of objective rules for this game.

Examples of such clearly defined rules would look something like: "You may not make racist remarks towards your teammate." "You may not follow your jungler around for the sake of bothering him after you did not receive your preferred team position." From my experience, other games with such rules usually do not have near as much confusion over bans as we see here.

I'm going to end this post now due to how long it has become and how late at night I am now typing. I apologize for any rambling/repeating I have done within this post. ;x

Please consider what I have said. I typed this because I want the game to continue to improve. I am slightly frustrated by some Riot actions, though overall I feel Riot does a good job.

Do not disappoint us. ~

Being an ass hole because it's how you have fun is still being an ass hole.

Do you read the things you type out before you post them?

It's the Wil Wheaton Rule of the Internet: Don't be a Dick.

You're leaving premises unstated. Person A could do many other things, which means "Because I can" is an insufficient motivation to perform this specific action as opposed to one of the many other possible actions (like logging off). The typical completion of such a statement is "Because I can, and because I enjoy rubbing people's noses in the fact that they can't stop me from doing it."

Similarly, "Because I can" is an implied premise of Person B's reply, as well; if he couldn't do it, he wouldn't, even though he would enjoy doing it.

Logic 101, folks. Nothing to see here, move along.

wtf!!!!!!!!!!

This is absolutely true. However, the degree of assholity does matter.
It will not change the guilt level, but it would (in theory) turn a 7 day ban into a 5 day ban, perhaps even a 3.

And no.

Deriving enjoyment from the discomfort, pain, and anger of another person is sadism; its terrifying as it shows a deeply disturbed mind. That behaviour is not normal. Healthy people do not enjoy hurting each other.

Sorry, "I derived personal enjoyment from my offensive action" is not a mitigating circumstance that would merit consideration at sentencing.