Recently we've had [a controversial thread](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/pcInTYKw-mistakenly-banned) about the Kindred JG main being perma'd for "inting and not building meta," despite character witnesses to the contrary. I find myself reminded of the Singed main in high ELO also being banned for playing Singed Support, despite having a similar KDA to their Top Singed play.
The Riot Support reporting FAQ quotes verbatim that ["Choosing unusual champions, building unusual items, or experimenting with new ideas that don’t match the current 'meta.'"](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/201752884-Reporting-a-Player#h1q2) does ___not___ warrant a ban. It is this loophole in the rules that most griefers and trolls exploit when ruining games.
And yet, in cases such as the above mentioned, people are banned for this very same behaviour that is supposed to be an exemption. When pressed, the ban is defended with the ___flimsiest___ pieces of evidence. BMing opponents with dance spam? Taking a bad fight? Buying a particular branch of boots? (and that last one doesn't even apply according to the FAQ)
It really worries me to see this level of outspoken commitment in specific, public cases when we hear nary a peep on less well-known complaints about trolls and griefers. Honestly, this kind of behaviour smacks of an attempt to save face rather than promote discussion.
In conclusion: A 0/0/0 Botlane Nunu is just as destructive, if not more, than a 0/8/1 Kindred or a 4/10/10 Singed. An Anivia wall or Tahm Devour intended to put their teammates in danger is just as much a problem, if not more, than taking a bad fight or refusing to communicate to the team. KDA and itemization is not the only thing we should be taking into consideration when judging these cases, and it pains me to see replies from Support falling into this trap again and again.