any pro LCS team or high ELO player, diamond and up, who does not believe the Shuriman Emperor Azir or Kalista is a high enough priority pick to permaban unless can first pick or so...does not know how to pick and ban and the amount is irrelevant.

In a competitive game there is a rotating meta of op champions not worth playing against and or securing for yourself - and if assumming 1 player who is randomly selected to be in charge of champ select is up to date with the meta and cares....is really annoying.

Too often ranked/draft bans are a player's most hated champions, not necessarily the team concensus bans or the super meta op bans no one can handle playing against.

More bans? Maybe.

1 ban per player? Maybe 3 teammates care about the meta and 2 ban for lane or troll ban so worth?

Yet, players banning the trollest champs every game will do so regardless.

Possibly with better tribunal bot functionality ranked will weed out the trolls more and serious players will remain so settings can be made for the goodhearted gamer, not to tread softly around abuse cases in champ select.

The key more than ban amount is maybe a voting system per ban like a surrender vote where a teammate proposes a ban and your team votes on the ban.

Could lead to possibly more team coordination about bans.

Yes, champ select would take longer, but would seem fairer to have quality bans with your teammates invested in strategizing than the players who ban like the same champs every game since beta because of their ranked nightmares.

Tons of players do not even engage with champ select so maybe a ban voting system could be just the functionality to encourage a gameplan and less upset players spamming, "we all said ban X champion, and X champion is now 20-0, but you had to ban Y useless champion so you can play an easier lane...GG."