penalty in rating match (4)

I will continue the story. This time, it is an explanation of "Block the teammate's attack area (with the intention of flickering a friendly fire penalty)" and an idea of countermeasures.
This behavior seems to be a nuisance against the rules, but I don't know if it is the actual problem. If so, I will proceed.
The official operation weighed down on damage reports due to intentional misfires (including melee attacks with down effects), and implemented a function that causes a penalty for the action in rating match and quick match (the mechanism is confidential. However, it is still in operation.) Most intentional misfires are likely to be retaliation. Players involved in misfiring are often subjective, and doing so has little benefit to other teammates, and also detracts from the goal of winning.
Although the measures against accidental fire are effective from the background, it is a topic of this time that some methods of operation may be a kind of private sentence.
Could it be that a malicious player is setting up another player for a trap?  This means that.
For example, suppose "Person A attacked both allied B and enemy C with a broad stumbling weapon, repeatedly preventing allied B from defeating enemy C." And if "B lost his cool and became enraged and retaliated against A," then it is B who is disciplined.  In this way, A's own losing points can be written off.  It is vicious if factual, and I have no sympathy for the inability to take it in a winning direction.

It is unavoidable that B, who retaliated, got what he deserved, but there are extenuating circumstances that require extenuating circumstances.
Now, as a countermeasure to this problem, the person A in the example should use the part of the system that is protected by "B being penalized" as a clue.
It is a self-defense measure and may be a methodology that cannot be done in "official operation".
The team members (especially the player who was mistakenly fired) in which the "disposal by accidental fire" occurred are considered as "not just victims". That is, the player is a "suspector who has trapped". If that player is then a teammate of the match in which the misfiring person occurred, and if he was directly injured, he will be identified as a "warned player".
The "penalty disposer" and the "warned player" will no longer match other players. There is a penalty for both the "misfire victim" and the "misfired player" in the matched match.

A player who is misfired many times may be performing a kind of annoying behavior. Of course, you are allowed several times, but eventually you will be identified as a nuisance.

Although penalties are not permitted, you should also examine the circumstances that led to the penalties.

This time we're talking about judging penalties, or "one person judging another". If I can't be impartial, it's not worth the story so far. Maybe my underlying desire is to somehow get rid of the players I don't like. But there's no guarantee I won't be an annoying player myself, and I could be punished across the board no matter what idea I'm being recruited for. People make mistakes, but I don't think mistakes can be tolerated more than once. I'm sure the official management will take various measures in the future, but I want to continue to be a normal player in the future.

That's it for this time.