Reign of Gaming

The non-blue build considered is pretty weak imo.  Why buy IE if you're not going to buy any crit chance with it?  Why BoRK and Bloodthirster both?  You're overpaying for sustain, which is a stat this comparison doesn't really value.  Substitute out the BT for a Shiv or PD, then we're talking.  Don't like buying an attack speed item when you already have BoRK?  Buy Atma's instead, hell, you'll have armor just like the Blue Ez build then!  Sure, you *could* sub out the BoRK for BT, but BoRK is a lot better on Ez than most people give it credit (same reason why Blue Ez is decent - procs apply on Q).  

Against a real ADC build, I think it'd be pretty obvious that blue's damage doesn't keep up.

1)  This already happens.  Also, the only difference with calling is that whomever calls last gets forced into their bad role.  Honestly, the only time such a thing doesn't happen is when you have compromise, which is always the best case, but when it breaks down?  You need a fallback.  The fact that first pick is higher MMR isn't important.  The fact that it's somewhat random and a fair chance for each player (over a course of games) to get the role they want?  That's what we want.  In the same way, plenty of people call roles & then fail miserably at them - people will have bad games in any system you come up with.  Your last point about not being able to play a role is the exact same problem today as it would be if pick order was enforced.  The ability to compromise isn't going away, and people can still stick you with a role even today.

 2) You're completely wrong here.  Striving for Riot to endorse pick order shows that you support a fair system for determining when you get to play the role you'd like.  Such a system doesn't prevent you from considering your team's strengths, but it also doesn't enable those players who expect to always get the one role they want (usually the same players who think they're better at that role than everyone else on their team).  

Your point about pros isn't exactly right either.  Look at Chauster, Hotshot, Aphromoo - all have played multiple roles.  Crumbzz too if you're going to try to dismiss my earlier list because you dislike CLG...  Also, what do you think happens when they queue for ranked?  Do you honestly think they always get their role?  They don't.  If Nyjacky and Scarra are on the same team, what happens?  

"communication, compromise, and knowing strengths" is no better than "don't be a jerk", which is Riot's current policy that allows the jerks to walk over the considerate players in champ select.  In particular, "knowing strengths" is basically a welcome mat for callers to demand they get the one role they want because it's their "strength".  Like Emerald said, any system which benefits the bad members of a community at the expense of the good ones is a bad system (like the one we have now).  Lastly, this "refusal to communicate" argument needs to end.  If I'm first pick & I want to play mid, I need to communicate that I will be going mid...and nothing more.  I don't need to defend that decision, and I certainly don't need anyone's permission (this isn't a pick order thing - no one should need to do these things).  Also, just to be clear:  "refusal to communicate" implies a refusal instead of a lack of communication.  If you don't ask your teammate a question & he doesn't reply?  That's fine.  If you would report without making this distinction, you're just as bad as those players who throw "intentionally feeding" reports at anyone on their team who's having a bad game.

I'm not so sure queue times would actually be longer for getting your desired role.  If you only want to play mid, but you run into 1 or 2 other guys in every queue who also want it, assuming you share fairly, you're needing to play (at least) 2 games to get your role, which comes out to ~20-25 minutes in queue on average.  I think  a dungeon finder system could beat that.

There are only 2 types of players such a system would hurt:  1)  those willing to fill to get very short queues and 2)  those who call and expect to always get their role.  I have no sympathy for the second group, and I think the first group WOULD benefit from an option to queue as "fill" or even the option to queue for multiple roles (mid/top/jungle, for example).  

Lastly, it's not the good players' burden to reform the bad players, and a prisoner's island system WOULD remove said players from the queues of decent players.  I can understand if someone fears the system would punish you for having a bad day, but this could be accounted for by tweaking the threshold for getting punished.  If you're having a bad day today?  Fine.  If you're "having a bad day" most of the week?  Not so cool.  The system's already used in Dota 2, and with the similarities between that and LoL, I see no reason it wouldn't work here.  At worst, you have people making smurfs, like they already do today... 

I saw a post by Eyebrows which spent a considerable amount of time talking about how to work within the system to ease friction raised at the time of champ select.  Riot's refusal to endorse a meta has come into the spotlight recently with Quality Player's case, and pick order vs calling (and Riot's lack of a stance) has been getting discussed for awhile now.  Players getting reported and punished for playing non-meta probably isn't going away no matter what you do, but a stance as flexible as "don't be a jerk" certainly isn't helping matters.  Calling vs picking is probably the same thing - Riot's current stance isn't helping.  An easy solution to maybe both of these is the dungeon finder system, which Eyebrows details in a way that assumes very little about the meta. However, in order to use these solutions, small things about the meta must be assumed.

I figure the playerbase already is assuming these things, so if creating a system to help champ select stress would imply a meta?  I'd be fine with this, and I'm growing a bit tired of hearing people pretend like that would ruin Riot's great vision of a no meta game (unrealistic and already not the case).  I guess I didn't read his post and see "Riot should force my hand in champ select", but instead read "some normalcy in the game and/or champ select is a good thing".

I read the red post.  He said the tribunal case was "OK" and that, after digging further, findings were "controversial".  Those were his words.  For as often as someone complaining about an unfair Tribunal ruling gets Pendragon'd I'm surprised Riot couldn't have at least used stronger language like "offensive" or "here's the evidence:".  

The question of locking/communication is a cute one though:  How often do people report their first pick for not first consulting the team about their pick?  If first doesn't need to check with the team, why does anyone else?  Riot won't endorse pick order, after all.  QP said he did communicate, and the evidence for his claim is actually there (videos of his stream).  Either way, communication should only require that you let your team know what you're playing, nothing more.  I think it's crazy to require them to defend their selection or (even further) get the team's permission.  Once you start trying to argue that QP has to do this, but not his 4 teammates (because he's non-meta), you're right back to a scenario where you have Riot implicitly enforcing the meta.

Yeah, if you'd read the last line of my first paragraph:  "by carrying out the punishment deemed necessary by your peers".  I actually went out of my way just to avoid that misconception coming up, yet you still somehow managed to stumble into it...  Though, it seems you're confusing the idea of reporting and voting to punish.  As for whether Riot does anything about it, what about Quality Player's case, that reds have posted on?  Their language is weak at best on the matter, and they still haven't followed through on their promise to deliver a more conclusion report (which they said they'd do this Monday).  Riot's stance is "don't be a jerk", which means whatever you want it to mean, so when Riot says they'd like the players to self-govern, I'm not at all surprised that a non-meta player gets punished for it.

Did you even read it?  He has a lot of suggestions that aren't forcing your hand in champ select.  Seriously, your sentiment is the same crap we get when people think gun control (for example) means the government coming into your house and taking your belongings.  Sure, the headline is extreme, but how far do you really think Riot is from enforcing the meta?  When people report their team for playing non-meta, that guy shows up in Tribunal and is dependent on the pardon (not skip) votes from the voters who are as open-minded as yourself about the meta, then that guy gets punished... Riot's already enforcing the meta by carrying out the punishment deemed necessary by your peers.  

(See the post above yours for an excellent example of one such peer already enforcing the meta for Riot)

Yeah, you're right about player attitudes, and I agree that doing away with smurfs would help new players.  However, bullying someone for playing non-meta happens even to level 30 players - how will you help them?  How do we make champ select less painful to deal with?

I think his suggestion of a dungeon finder queue is the best win-win solution out there, and I'm tired of seeing non-meta play being posed as the reason we can't do it.  What if you queue for lane instead of role (as Eyebrows suggested)?  The only thing you need to assume is that mid is a solo lane, exactly one person jungles, and all the farm in the duo lane goes to one player. A majority of the playerbase already takes these for granted (people wouldn't need to call mid if it wasn't solo).  I don't think Riot needs to tell us how to play, but they can't uphold the rulings of tribunal punishing non-meta play (Quality Player, recently) while continuing to try to play pacifist.  I'm fine if this means Riot would pardon non-meta players, but a lot of the playerbase depends on the meta and logs on to play a meta game, no matter how much they believe it's an oppressive thing.  If you're ADC, you probably aren't going to enjoy getting a support with no utility or no support at all.  Top won't appreciate sharing a lane if your team has no jungle, and the lack of ganks makes everyone else sad too.  And so on...

This is a good point.

The meta's already being enforced by your peers.  Look at Quality Player's case for an example.