"Finally some woice of sense in this duscussion. "
This means that a guy who disagree with you is obligatory wrong?
Well as i told i think "flame" should be ban-able when it's too much. Most of games you play and you flame you have a reason to. This doesn't excuse you to flame, but some times flame is understand-able than doesn't deserve a ban, i agree with that. But the problem is : there are a lot of replays and ban request on league and admins can't just give all their time to watch and try to understand the flammer if he got a good reason to flame or not. And if flaming isn't ban-able then more players will flame (like in quali) because they won't be "punished" for that.
I know you and i know that you never flame for free and you flame only when a guy is pissing you off, but still, they must be objective rules. If you say : you can flame a little but not to much it is too subjective when a request is made. This can't happen.
This means that a guy who disagree with you is obligatory wrong?
Well as i told i think "flame" should be ban-able when it's too much. Most of games you play and you flame you have a reason to. This doesn't excuse you to flame, but some times flame is understand-able than doesn't deserve a ban, i agree with that. But the problem is : there are a lot of replays and ban request on league and admins can't just give all their time to watch and try to understand the flammer if he got a good reason to flame or not. And if flaming isn't ban-able then more players will flame (like in quali) because they won't be "punished" for that.
I know you and i know that you never flame for free and you flame only when a guy is pissing you off, but still, they must be objective rules. If you say : you can flame a little but not to much it is too subjective when a request is made. This can't happen.