Zed genius (EUNE)
: How do I keep my cool when people intentionally feed?
Personally, I like to see it as an opportunity to train playing at a disadvantage without feeling any pressure whatsoever.
: An artificial intelligence cannot be both specific and sensitive. only fools and riot game think they can do everything with it. Second, Like most of the people responding to it you're like "Player judge then it's bad" If you don't look why it failed, of fucking course you're not gonna know. In Cs:go there is also an automated system , but strangely , these people that are not as stupide as many knew there are edgy cases because an neural networks have often a lot of trouble with cases that are almost considered toxic , but it might be a false positive. ----------------------------------------- Why did tribunal fail ? 1- People were barely not tested (they could answer randomly) and opinions were based on the community however , the community standards are somewhat biased, and it was not always efficient. 2- People could start to judge at level 20 and not know much about the game. 3- people were rewarded to judge cases, and it was the biggest sources of bias as the judge would rather try to guess what other judge will pick instead of being completely neutral a judging the case regardless of others opinion (judging objectively) 4- Due to all the reasons above, sometimes player having a non extreme behavior were banned permanently of facing an aggravated ban for something that did not deserve much. 5- Some expressions are a big nono in the game but not in the community for instance the famous "Kys" ------------------------------------------------ How does CS:GO OW solve that ? - Only experienced player can judge case (not experienced in terms of ranking but in terms of sheer games played) not everyone is suitable to be a judge, and the requirement are unknown , you just know you're accepted and that's all , so people don't try to abuse the system. - Judges are randomly tested on cases that are 100% sure they should be banned OR not banned. failing these cases almost permanently hurts your ability to judge (quite hard to gain back) - judges are barely rewarded with a little exp, no skin , nothing, it works on a "Make a lot of judgment , get rewarded for your accuracy." but it's not a good source of exp, most player to it for the sake of helping cleaning the community and having a fun time doing it. - Tribunal is in game and based on a replay which helps contextualise the situation as opposed to a shitty website that would be used on phone. ------------------------------ In league of legends it could be just a bunch of players, well selected that are constantly rated, that judges replays and give their opinion on that person. It's not much, but it is efficient.
> [{quoted}](name=The Anivia OTP,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=F2x6hjUp,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2019-09-22T00:54:28.100+0000) > > An artificial intelligence cannot be both specific and sensitive. So an AI cannot possibly with 100% specificity and sensitivity determine, say, that somebody sent a message that contained the letter 'a'? Specificity and sensitivity can be considered to be generally anti-correlated (though the degree depends on the task), and it's **technically** true that you cannot reach 100% of both regardless of the task… but that is absolutely without any shadow of a doubt true for human supervision as well. It's an uncomfortable but undeniable truth that regardless of what justice system you have, innocents will be punished and guilty will go free. Setting 100% specificity and sensitivity as a bar to clear is advocating for anarchy.
Midg3t (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=GatekeeperTDS,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=F2x6hjUp,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-09-21T23:56:31.603+0000) > > We had this. It was not simple. It was not proven. It was not effective. The how come it works in another game? :thinkingemoji:
Different level of complexity and different level/kind of awareness of what your other teammates are doing. Griefing others can take many different forms, including some that are very difficult to pin down just looking at a single moment of the game. Sometimes somebody's intent is only really apparent when looking at the player's behaviour across multiple games. Shooters are less nuanced in that aspect. If you want to grief you usually also want people to know that you are responsible for ruining their game (even if you might not want them to be able to prove your intention). There are only so many ways you can pull that off in a shooter… and they tend to be not exactly subtle. The most subtle way of griefing in CS I can think of would be intentionally screwing up a flashbang throw so it bounces back (been super long since I played, though, to be fair). But even that is obvious in comparison to some of the things you can do in LoL.
: Behaviors That Should Result In Auto-Punish
>This kind of crap the system should be catching the easiest because they are blatant. What is easy for humans is not always easy for machines, and vice versa. Detecting a lot of the things you mentioned isn't that easy. At least not with a reasonably low false positive rate. As a matter of fact there are systems in place to detect things like that. I've seen rage-afkers getting banned. And these subforums regularly produce threads complaining about bans for inting. Here's the latest I've seen: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/vFEbAV3O-let-me-get-this-straight All game play related punishments result in a 14-day ban first time (since Riot holds a firm belief in giving people a chance to reform) and a permaban on second offense, which is harsher than your proposed afk-punishments, and only mildly less harsh than your proposal regarding inting. The chat offenses are even treated *much* more harshly by Riot. [Edit: Upon second thought, not necessarily. I don't know if threatening to afk/int is met with a punishment on first detected offense. It might be it requires multiple instances.] Starting with longer restrictions than you propose (15/25 games for the first two offenses respectively) then transitioning to bans. 14-day on the third offense, permanent on the fourth. (Small sidenote: Permanent chat restrictions look good on paper, but in practice they cause more problems than they solve. Bans are more reliable.) >Pinging an ally members items more than five times in sixty seconds (disables pings for two minutes the first time, rest of the match the second time). That part I can agree with, though. That said… I personally just mute the pings of that person myself when something like that happens.
: People that constantly ask for reports deserve to be banned
As far as toxicity goes this is on the lighter side, so one single instance won't result in a punishment. But it is generally recognized as toxic and punished as such. Chat offenses (except slurs and encouraging self harm) also don't usually result in a ban as the first punishment, so it's not really possible to know whether your report had any effect.
: Oh it does for me.
Really? So when you play ranked you are no longer in control of your own thoughts? Because that's the only way I can see one's intentions being dictated by a gamemode.
SS1986 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Tele II,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=juxEdEmB,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2019-09-17T01:42:12.955+0000) > > Jungle easily gets the most flame. But there is no double standard. Infact, having rules specifically against flaming jungle, would be a double standard, which is what you suggest in your other post right? You seem to WANT double standard. You even lied in that post too and said riot thinks its okay lol. You do know banning people for flaming and blaming their jungle is kind of the opposite of supporting it right? Silly. People get banned for it all the time. Its a double standard that jgs get flamed for not playing like challengers in gold and riot is ok with every game being about harassing your jger whenever I flame lanes back as much I am instantly punished so there is an obvious double standard that the lanes don't get held as accountable cause there not 4x for the team having a bad game not just themselves .
Even if it was a double standard, it would be a double standard by the community, not by Riot. There's nothing even remotely suggesting they are fine with the jungler being harassed. But it's not even a double standard by the community. When people make a mistake, they look for somebody else to blame. Typically they go for the person that has the most responsibility (except for themselves, of course) in regards to what just happened. So let's look at who they **can** blame: Top does a mistake. Assuming nobody from a different lane came to gank: Mid has virtually no responsibility regarding toplane: Can't be blamed. Bot has virtually no responsibility regarding toplane: Can't be blamed. Jungle has a little responsibility regarding toplane: Can be blamed. ---> Jungle is blamed by top. Top is blamed by everybody else (assuming everybody else is reasonable). Mid does a mistake. Assuming nobody from a different lane came to gank: Top has no responsibility regarding midlane: Can't be blamed. Bot has no responsibility regarding midlane: Can't be blamed. Jungle has a little responsibility regarding midlane: Can be blamed. ---> Jungle is blamed. Mid is blamed by everybody else (assuming everybody else is reasonable). Sup does a mistake. Assuming nobody from a different lane came to gank: Mid has no responsibility regarding botlane: Can't be blamed. ADC has responsibility regarding botlane: Can be blamed. Jungle has a little responsibility regarding botlane: Can be blamed. ---> ADC is blamed by sup. Sup is blamed by everybody else (assuming everybody else is reasonable). ADC does a mistake. Assuming nobody from a different lane came to gank: Mid has no responsibility regarding botlane: Can't be blamed. Sup has responsibility regarding botlane: Can be blamed. Jungle has a little responsibility regarding botlane: Can be blamed. ---> Sup is blamed by ADC. ADC is blamed by everybody else (assuming everybody else is reasonable). Jungle does a mistake. Assuming nobody from a different lane came to gank: Nobody is really responsible for jungle apart from the jungler. Assuming everybody else is reasonable, everybody (except for the jungler) will blame the jungler So let's now take a look at what happens if every person does one mistake: Toplane is blamed 4 times. (Everybody blames them for their mistake) Midlane is blamed 4 times. (Everybody blames them for their mistake) Sup is blamed 5 times. (Everybody blames them for their mistake, ADC blames them for the ADC's mistake) ADC is blamed 5 times. (Everybody blames them for their mistake, Sup blames them for the sup's mistake) Jungle is blamed 6 times. (Everybody blames them for their mistake, Top/Mid blame them for their respective mistake) Now factor into that the fact that people most of the time are **not** reasonable, and suddenly support and adc both have a chance to blame the jungler rather than the other person on their lane, and others have a chance to actually agree that it was the jungler's fault; especially when they have already blamed the jungler for their own mistake earlier. There's no bias against junglers. It's simply a result of basic deflection of blame and the fact that the jungler has the most widespread responsibilities, simply on account of the fact that no other lane has **any** innate responsibility for any other lane.
: i'm confused. so why would riot even implement the hover system in the first place? so your own team can fuck each other over at queue? i allowed my team to know i'm playing my champion. and you expect me to lane with someone who intentionally banned my champ? LMAO, fuck no. since no one dodged, they completely deserved the loss plain and simple.
>i'm confused. so why would riot even implement the hover system in the first place? As a tool of easy communication so that there is less chance of somebody **accidentally** banning your champion. People can take into account the fact that you want to play a champion and then choose whether or not that convinces them not to ban it. >i allowed my team to know i'm playing my champion. No. You allowed your team to know you **intend** to play **that** champion. >since no one dodged, they completely deserved the loss plain and simple. So other people should have dodged because of something that affected you, and only you? And if they don't, then you get to decide they deserve to lose the match? If **you** don't want to play that match **you** dodge, it's that simple. How do you even get the weird idea that it's somebody else's responsibility to take an LP hit for this? Really have to agree with Gatekeeper on the size of your ego. Frankly, even though I absolutely stand by Riot's choice to give everybody a second chance, with that attitude you definitely would have deserved to just be permabanned on the spot.
: Let Me Get This Straight...
Yes. Because somebody else's actions don't give you permission to break the rules yourself. And that is especially the case when your actions forcefully drag the entire rest of the team into it. And it is super especially the case when the other person didn't even break any rules to begin with. Bans take precedence over hovers for a reason. If it were inherently against the rules to ban somebody's hovered champion, it wouldn't be possible.
: Well, I'm glad you asked! If there was a crime committed, and you know who committed the crime, and you reported that person for committing that crime, and then you look out the window every day for a month and see the same person committing the same crime in the same place, instead of being in jail... You see where I'm going with this I assume.
Yes. I see we are right back where we started: Whether somebody should have gone to jail is not your call to make. You **say** you know a certain crime was committed by somebody. And hey, maybe you're right. But maybe next time you're wrong. Maybe somebody else is wrong constantly. It is impossible to distinguish between people who know and people who think they know. It's not even possible for **yourself** to distinguish whether **you** know something or merely think you know. So either everybody is allowed to do whatever they want to punish whatever crime they believe to have taken place, regardless of whether or not that crime **has** taken place, or nobody is allowed to take matters into their own hand. Those are the only real options.
: They'll do something about it, as in they will investigate, but they won't be able to take any action because nothing actually happened, as you said... Hmm, I see your point. But yes, depending on the person's level of sanity, they will take whatever actions they deem necessary in that situation. Let's hope it's just taking it to the news. BUT! What if the crime does or doesn't happen, but it doesn't matter whether the crime does or doesn't happen, because the police don't investigate it either way? Hmmmmm?
And now to cycle back to the case at hand: How do you **know** it wasn't investigated?
: Both, actually. Riot can't directly control how people perceive the system, but they can control the system itself. If the system is not only inadequate for dealing with the situation, but is making the situation WORSE, then the system is flawed and needs to be changed. It's often said "You can't control the actions of your teammates, but you can control your own." The same basic principle applies here.
You're begging the question here. My point is that the system **ISN'T** what is making the situation worse, and the thing that **IS** making the situation worse is not actually in Riot's control, which is the vast amount of reports, including a large amount of reports that can not be confirmed. It's easy to say that something needs to be changed without making any suggestions about **how** it should be changed.
: If I report something to the police, and they don't do anything about it, I report it to the news.
What if somebody reports a crime that wasn't actually committed? The police clearly won't do anything about it (since no crime actually was committed to begin with), at which point the person that reported the "crime" can choose to do whatever they want to handle the crime on their own, right?
: The inting punishment system is an infinite feedback loop.
Sounds to me not so much like the punishment system is an infinite feedback loop, but peoples' attitude towards what they believe to be inting.
: An anecdote.
A) The first story has many similar real cases, which ultimately are built around the fact that you have certain duties regarding safety. If somebody gets hurt due to your negligence, whether they were trespassing or not may not be completely irrelevant, but it also doesn't immediately absolve you of all fault. B) A burglar hurting themselves based on your negligence (which just to reiterate, can also get you in trouble) is far far away from **intentionally** hurting them. You are not a window. You are not an inanimate object. You make an active choice by harassing a soft inter, and that active choice can most definitely yield consequences. C) It's not about whether that person deserves the harassment or not. It's about the simple fact that you don't get to **decide** whether somebody deserves something or not. If you do something illegal to a criminal, even if you 100% accurately inflict the punishment that they would have received in court, you are still going to be convicted of your own crime, for the simple reason that it was not your call to make.
GilxeN (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=CharDeeMcDenniz,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9Bqypx7G,comment-id=00020001000000000001,timestamp=2019-09-17T12:13:52.470+0000) > > that just shows its possible, nothing about what you said shows encouragement from RIOT Riot indirectly encourage perma banned players to create new one account... the rest you know.
Encouraging the creation of a new account (which is arguably not even true) is still not the same as encouraging "more trolling". You're moving the goal post further and further away from the point you originally made.
: Nope. Then it becomes something people will use as a goalpost.
Well, obviously. Anything that increases the transparency of the system will **have** to allow people to gauge the impact of their own reports. And that will obviously make some people focus, perhaps too much, on such things. It's a question of finding the right balance. And I personally think in its current state the system could use some more transparency. If people don't feel like their reports make a difference then that can be a serious problem. How many people come to these forums with serious misconceptions about whether their single reports actually make a difference when others gang up on them? How many of those people then mistakenly think retaliating is the better alternative to reporting? How many people, as a more general point, behave the way they do because they don't believe they will get caught? I'm not excusing those people's actions, but the ultimate goal of Riot's system is to reduce toxicity. If toxicity can be reduced already by increasing trust in / fear of the system then I believe that is an angle that needs to be explored. I come to these forums often enough to know that the system works reasonably well. If I didn't, I would have probably stopped reporting people by now, because I hardly ever see any tangible evidence that my reports actually have any impact at all. If my reports were completely discarded without any review whatsoever I couldn't tell the difference. And that's just shitty transparency.
: To fight against those who seek to end toxicity, is to support toxicity.
I think we should just get rid of all pings, and chat, and any player interaction whatsoever. Let's also get rid of 5v5 gamemodes. At most games should be 1v1. Preferably though, everything should just be single player PvE. Since I seek to end toxicity, clearly you won't object to my ideas, right?
: > They need to either make it 100% or make it 0%. The point of this whole thing is that none of us are supposed to be focusing on what happens to another player. We're aren't supposed to hang on to the bad feelings from a previous match, because there's no benefit to doing so. There is no "win" here for Riot. Tons of people will have problems if it was 0%. ("ZOMG RIOT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING!!!!!") Tons of people will have problems if it's 100%. (Trophy hunters, as you mention.) Tons of people, including yourself, have a problem with any number in between. There is absolutely no way to please players when it comes to OTHER PLAYERS punishments. Move on.
I still think a monthly(ish) summary of how many of your reports had an impact would achieve the same, while ultimately providing much better closure. Maybe not with that one particular case you really were upset about, but generally about whether your reports make a difference or not.
: Seeing as in theory they are still playing to win, it isn't at this point.
I'd argue it's at least a grey area. The whole point of ultimate **bravery** is to handicap yourself by committing to a randomized item build regardless of how good you personally think it is. If you intentionally handicap yourself, regardless of whether you **then** play to win you are sabotaging your team's chance to win. To make a somewhat exaggerated comparison: What if I decide I will always give first blood because it provides more of a challenge early game? I'd still technically be playing to win.
: > [{quoted}](name=Eedat,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=iFK3dpIM,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-09-09T16:22:56.116+0000) > > Short answer: No > > They don't unban accounts unless an error was made which is pretty rare That or if you're a Twitch streamer with 15,000 concurrent viewers.
Which account specifically are you talking about? Mind how I said account. A person having their ID-ban lifted does not include - and is not the same as - an account being unbanned.
: > [{quoted}](name=Prandine,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=ha0P9Vmy,comment-id=00000001000000020000,timestamp=2019-09-09T17:37:21.111+0000) > > This would just be open to abuse and encouragr losing teams to try to bully someone into afking just so they can avoid losing LP. It also would just increase the afk problem and not solve it. Sorry but that's not gonna happen. That isn't a thing that actually happens, and I can prove it by pointing at DOTA2. [They have a system](https://dota2.gamepedia.com/Stats) where if someone abandons too many games, they get sent to low priority queue and take a loss in their stats. Everyone else is free to exit that (now trashed) game at that point, free of consequence. Somehow, DOTA2 doesn't have this mythical problem with "bullying people into afking". > [{quoted}](name=DOTA2 Wiki,realm=Valve,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=ha0P9Vmy,comment-id=00000001000000020000,timestamp=2018-07-11T17:37:21.111+0000) >Once a player has abandoned, other players are free to leave the game without danger of being placed in Low Priority or receiving an abandon count in their stats. The abandoned player's gold is divided amongst the remaining players on their team, as well as the passive gold gain. Gold gained from selling items in the inventory will also be redistributed. Abandoned players who reconnect will begin to gain gold passively again, but will not recover any of their lost gold.
I can't talk about dota2, but I distinctly remember this being a **huge** thing in the original dota. The moment anybody was perceived to not carry their own weight, people would start demanding they leave. And that was in situations where win/loss/whatever wasn't even of any relevance. Also, the suggestion here was to effectively not have a game count as a loss if there was a leaver in it. The quote you provided doesn't say anything about that matter, which to me implies it's still going to be considered a regular game as far as win/lose statistics are concerned.
: My main account was banned 3-4 years ago, curious if its possible to reverse it
Sadly the answer to that is a solid "no". I still wanted to take a second and reply to this thread just to say that it was a welcome surprise to read a post like this. No demands, no threats, and generally no false sense of entitlement. Just a calm inquiry. Kudos to you for cleaning up your act, and best of luck. As a sidenote: Don't pay too much attention to the downvotes. These boards bring out the cynic in people; myself included.
: Matchmaking is random so it's completely unfair
Considering that among the millions of players a 4+ loss streak, or a 25% winrate over the last 20 games - simply by chance and not as a result of their skill - is not unlikely to happen to a lot of people, who do you suggest they get matched with?
hanabero (EUNE)
: So...apparently even mentioning a certain non-existent event in 1989 gets you insta 2 week'd
How exactly do you figure this would work? Did Tencent say "Hey, you know about this ban system you have? I want you to include it automatically detecting things we want to censor!"? And by simple word-detection no less, since there's no way a machine learning system can pick up something that is mentioned so rarely and, I should suspect, even more rarely reported. Or do they just hire a virtual shit ton of extra people who exclusively scan for politically problematic statements… who for some reason completely ignore all other sort of deplorable behaviour? And even then: Do you figure Tencent is micromanaging Riot so hard that they get to directly decide to ban individual players? Yeah, I'm sorry, but I'm calling bullshit. You either have a tinfoil hat of epic proportions, are delusional about why you actually were banned or are straight up lying. My personal bet: Since apparently you were talking about China in that game, you probably said a certain two-word phrase, both words starting with "ch" and only differing in one vowel, which is used to mock Asians and in particular Chinese. That phrase is a zero tolerance phrase and instantly yields a 14-day ban.
Ýisus (NA)
: https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/legal/termsofuse Odd - because there it is. The EULA. Which covers the boards use.
Yes, it does. And it very clearly states you have to "abide by the Code of Conduct and any other posted rules". The EULA itself doesn't feature forum rules other than the ones that also apply to gameplay. Instead it clearly references the universal rules of the boards.
: How come EU players can post on the NA boards, but NA players can't post on EU boards?
Didn't know NA players can't post on EU boards, to be honest... My guess would be they never wanted to have either of the two, but decided to accommodate people from older days. You have to know that initially Riot didn't maintain the EU server themselves. And since it was maintained pretty badly (sometimes 2-3 patches behind) a lot of people from Europe still had their main account on the NA server. So some people (like me) have kind of grown accustomed to it, even when Riot took over the EU server. Initially wasn't a problem, as there was no way to transfer accounts at that time, so people just continued using their NA account for the forums. But after that, people who had spend years on the NA forums, suddenly had no account on NA anymore. So the short version is: There are more EU players who have an active interest in posting on the NA boards than vice versa.
: PSA for 3-4 man premade teams:
>The [others] on your team are not your enemy. Them telling you what play they think you should make is not a physical attack on your person, nor is it implying that you are incapable of higher brain function. It is simply trying to coordinate in a team-based game. […] We're all here to play the game. We're all trying to win. Sometimes, you DON'T know what the best play is, so at least take into consideration the other players on your team, as they might have come up with a plan that you had overlooked. Do not always assume you are right 100% of the time with no room for suggestions. Changed one word, removed one sentence, now it applies to literally everybody. Not really sure why you insist on calling out 3-4 man premades specifically, but I suppose the point you make is fair enough in general. Especially the part after (and including) "We're all here to play the game".
Skreame (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=AeroWaffle,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=bkubwFMH,comment-id=000200000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-05T22:32:30.058+0000) > > Then I reinforce my previous statement. > > If you're willing to troll with seemingly no remorse then any punishment you receive is falling on the right person. You've lost any sort of sympathy for your situation since you've proven that you're completely willing to be malicious and lash out at unrelated players if you don't get your way. He said "if" making it a conjecture about the broken system. Don't take the position out of context just to discredit him.
Here's the context: > [{quoted}](name=MuteAllForeverer,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=bkubwFMH,comment-id=000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-05T21:53:06.280+0000) > > Im just going to create a account dedicated to trolling, Let see how many games it will take before I get banned as a social experiment.
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=MuteAllForeverer,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=bkubwFMH,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-05T21:51:38.843+0000) > > Man you're dense, you got to **WATCH** the video to see him roaming with teemo support. And if he was wearing a blue shirt while doing what got him banned, he would have been banned for wearing a blue shirt, I suppose. After all anything that happens after some action must have been directly caused by that action.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: "Recommended". Yes. It's not a requirement, and it's not a rule. It **can** be a solution for somebody who feels the urge to respond in a negative manner, but it's not what you get punished for. You're not any more held accountable for not muting people than somebody who goes above speed limit is held accountable for their poor time management.
> [{quoted}](name=Wham III,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XXoxrwhl,comment-id=00000001000000000001000100020001000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-05T15:37:46.909+0000) > > We're only human and we're going to speak our mind sometimes. I don't know about you, but I do know most people aren't saints. Most people also aren't punished by Riot's system, so clearly you don't need to be a saint in order to not get punished. You're trying to pretend that you are being held to some kind of impossible standard… but it demonstrably is not an impossible standard. You don't need to be saint. You don't always have to be nice. You can speak your mind, and even occasionally lose your cool. You weren't punished for any of that. You were punished because you lost your cool significantly more often than a large majority of players. And then you were punished again because you still made no effort to improve. And then you were punished again, with a harsher kind of punishment, because the previous punishments had not enough of an effect on your behaviour. And then, finally, you were punished one last time because even under the threat of a permanent suspension you continued to behave the way you had behaved previously. [Late edit: Misread the OP, assumed you had been permabanned already, sorry about that] And until you come to grips with all of this, and acknowledge that you were neither punished for not using the mute button, nor punished for not being a saint, there really is no need to discuss whether or not the punishment fits the crime, because evidently you still haven't even understood what your "crime" really was.
Wham III (NA)
: I'm saying about seventy-five percent of people have recommended muting to not see negativity and therefore not feel obligated to respond, but if you do respond in a negative manner; Why would it matter if everyone can just mute you and not see your negative response?
"Recommended". Yes. It's not a requirement, and it's not a rule. It **can** be a solution for somebody who feels the urge to respond in a negative manner, but it's not what you get punished for. You're not any more held accountable for not muting people than somebody who goes above speed limit is held accountable for their poor time management.
Wham III (NA)
: I'd actually expect them to do nothing at all because It's not hacking or intentional game throwing so people need to wipe their tears away and get over it. Not to include the people who are starting things are probably on rogue accounts looking to get reactions. If you hold one accountable for not muting, why not all involved? Better yet; How about none?
What exactly do you mean when you say "hold one accountable for not muting"? Nobody in the history of League of Legends has ever been "held accountable" for not muting in any way I would define that phrase.
Arcade Lulu (EUNE)
: I mean, if they're a 5 man premade and everyone agrees to surrender, why would it be against the rules? Making smurfs isn't against the rules. Surrendering isn't against the rules And i mean, free wins, yay
Because they are deliberately screwing around with the ranking system. It's been a long while since I've seen Riot make a statement regarding this (tried to find it, but couldn't), but I distinctly remember three different cases where people have been punished for such behaviour, each using a different method. Two of those are no longer possible, one is exactly what the OP is describing. The quintessence of the statement was: If you are intentionally screwing around with the ranking system to create setups that wouldn't happen if you played legitimately, you can be punished for it. [Edit: If somebody else wants to give searching for it a shot, iirc the phrasing included something along the lines of "hurting the integrity of the ranking system"] The rule exists. It's just difficult to enforce.
rujitra (NA)
: I wish we could, but the bottom line is humans are, by nature, selfish assholes that are incompatible with society. Society has a system in place (parenting, school/education, laws, etc) to attempt to mold people into productive members of society... but there's not much society can do if someone refuses to comply.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=c416r9PX,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-09-04T00:20:02.001+0000) > > I wish we could, but the bottom line is humans are, by nature, selfish assholes that are incompatible with society. Society has a system in place (parenting, school/education, laws, etc) to attempt to mold people into productive members of society... but there's not much society can do if someone refuses to comply. I think you might be missing a "some" in that first sentence. Humans as a species are generally social by nature and even tend to strive to be compatible with whatever society they currently consider themselves a part of. That is, after all, essentially how cults work. The problem with gaming communities is more nuanced than that. There are simply still a lot of people to whom anything that happens on the internet doesn't really register as a "real", including their interactions with other humans, or consequences to such interactions.
: Okay, so lets get this out of the way. If two people start are in a fist fight it 100% matters who started it. In fact the entire LAW is based on who started it and who was defending themselves. You can see the chat logs, please copy paste where I was belittling anyone. I did not say a word to the ezreal so not sure where you are getting that from. I said he wouldn't of normally gotten, that is 100% true, you do not by any means no matter how good you are get a 7 minute win. That is what he received due to the inting ezreal. Accounts are $1, I can be permabanned and not feel any consequence. This is the principal that riot is absolutely refusing to look at the game and you white knights and specialist run on here to call me a liar, insult me (the thing you claim I did), and claim I edited footage. Tried to be the big boss? I responded to a question the enemy team asked...definitely trying to be the big boss. In fact most of your post seems condescending, passive aggressive, and accusatory. Which is all reportable is it not? In fact, most of it seems worse than what I said in game.
> [{quoted}](name=KimbleeNA,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EZEhTZad,comment-id=00010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-04T05:43:30.388+0000) > > Okay, so lets get this out of the way. If two people start are in a fist fight it 100% matters who started it. In fact the entire LAW is based on who started it and who was defending themselves. I really hope you are not a cop. The last part (who was defending themselves) is relevant. Who started it is only relevant to the extent that it points towards who was, in fact, defending themselves. And even then this only applies to something like a fist fight. If you burn down my house and I burn down your house in retaliation it absolutely doesn't matter who started our fight. It might be considered mitigating circumstances if I'm lucky, but I'd still undeniably be considered guilty of arson. Self defense only applies when you are actually defending something. Something tangible, I might add. Your ego, your stats, or your winrate don't count.
blade15x (NA)
: 1 game is one sample. You add all the samples together and you still have an exact split of 50% of people winning and 50% of people losing. You're saying their ultimate goal is to have everyone happy, meaning everyone would be at a 50% win rate, theoretically. However, that's not fun if you can't climb. In order for some people to climb, others have to have more losses than wins. Also, what about the player that only plays once or twice a month, who has had an account for years, and hasn't spent much money. They have no effect on queue times, so there's literally no reason not to use those players as fodder. There's absolutely no incentive to keep those players playing, so why not use them to make those who spend money more likely to keep playing and spending? Your argument is that money spent as well as popularity of the game are what lead to profit maximization. What happens when a player does not contribute either popularity or money spent to the game? In Riot's eyes that player has no value and is incredibly expendable, of course they would use that player to boost the more active players. Also, the term 'stupid greedy' implies that there is actually more money to be made, but at high risk. If you're saying it's not a potentially profit maximizing action to take, why would it still be 'greedy'?
> [{quoted}](name=blade15x,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EtaOeXk0,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-03T08:49:21.207+0000) > > 1 game is one sample. You add all the samples together and you still have an exact split of 50% of people winning and 50% of people losing. Terrible way of phrasing it, but sure. >You're saying their ultimate goal is to have everyone happy, meaning everyone would be at a 50% win rate, theoretically. However, that's not fun if you can't climb. In order for some people to climb, others have to have more losses than wins. Nope. Not actually true. Matchmaking aims at 50% winrate. Climbing happens as a result of matchmaking being "wrong" about you. Once it is "right" About you, you will win 50% of your games, which means if you keep playing you will approximate 50% winrate, because climbing from x MMR to y MMR will always just take a finite amount of games. >Also, what about the player that only plays once or twice a month, who has had an account for years, and hasn't spent much money. They have no effect on queue times, so there's literally no reason not to use those players as fodder. Apart from the fact that you don't know whether he could become a more active player in the future. This suffers from the same problem as your theory did initially: it is incredibly short sighted to make such a decision. And so far we haven't even gotten to the question of how short sighted it is to commit to such a ticking PR nightmare bomb. That theory you have could be fairly easily tested by any skilled player, and it would basically make sure the game dies out regardless of whom they decide to throw under the bus to increase winrates. >Also, the term 'stupid greedy' implies that there is actually more money to be made, but at high risk. If you're saying it's not a potentially profit maximizing action to take, why would it still be 'greedy'? When I say "stupid greedy" I essentially mean: So short sighted it is no longer a reasonable way of maximizing profit, even though it techncially makes you a lot of money in the short run. I'm basically referencing a principle in programming which is just called "greedy". Greedy algorithms always find a local optimum (you can't get a better result by changing any individual decision that was made) but depending on the problem you are dealing with that local optimum can still be pretty shit compared to the best possible path. [super late edit: fixed the lack of a > for quotation]
blade15x (NA)
: 5 people win and 5 people lose every game, so 5 people will happy, and 5 people will not be happy. You can only keep 50% of people happy per game, so not everybody. Riot sold their company to arguably the most evil company in existence, but yea they're not stupid greedy at all.
>You can only keep 50% of people happy per game And? What's your point here? Most people, surprisingly, play more than one game, giving you more chance than enough to make everybody happy enough to continue playing the game. >Riot sold their company to arguably the most evil company in existence, but yea they're not stupid greedy at all. What's stupid about that? As I've said: "whatever you want to beileve about Riot". I don't give a shit whether you believe Riot is evil incarnate. It has no relevance to my argument. Your theory would be economically stupid.
: > [{quoted}](name=Lost R,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EJLNkTWk,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-09-02T05:11:28.147+0000) > Instant, absolute, immediate IP permaban. You could've said anything, and you chose the one thing that doesn't do anything if you know what you're doing?
Or even if you don't know what you are doing as long as you have a dynamic IP and the occasional disconnect. It'd literally require more effort (or money) for me **not** to circumvent an IP ban.
blade15x (NA)
: Matchmaking Based on 'Potential for Income' Variable
>Who better to keep happy and laughing and having fun and wanting to play more? Everybody, because a f2p game that only caters to paying customers (which usually make up a pretty small fraction of players) sooner or later dies out, which makes queuetimes skyrocket, **especially** if you want paying customers to have a larger chance to win. That in turn lowers popularity of the game even among those who were paying customers which lowers your income. There's greedy and there's stupid greedy. Whatever you want to beileve about Riot, I don't think there's much evidence to find that they're stupid greedy.
: It also blocks "Pan is", "are under", and "diablo". Pan is could be because penis and I would guess are under is because it contains runder. Diablo doesn't make sense though. They literally have a skin called "little devil" but won't allow Diablo for some reason.
That's the other thing... the language filter (like most language filters) is also pretty terrible. If that system was responsible for dishing out bans we'd be seeing false positive punishments left and right.
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=NarVTVEc,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-30T00:52:48.098+0000) > > But it's not ID ban vs regular ban. > It's ID ban **and** regular ban vs regular ban > > And that's a bit of a pointless comparison. No, its a comparison of how a high profile player is treated different than normal players. The ID ban is the greater ban, the account ban is the lesser, if you want to be accurate. They are not the same thing, but lead to the same result.
>No, its a comparison of how a high profile player is treated different than normal players. Yes. And because it is precisely the question of "id ban *and* regular ban vs. regular ban" the very obvious answer to that is that high profile players are treated unambiguously worse in the aspect of punishment. [Sorry for a late edit, given the quick discussion... but kept fucking up my post when clicking save, because I accidentally used signs for formatting] a+b is larger than b as long as a is strictly positive. a+b is less than b as long as a is strictly negative. ID ban and a regular ban is worse than just regular ban as long as an ID ban is bad. ID ban and a regular ban is betterthan just regular ban as long as an ID ban is good. Past the question of whether being ID banned is a good thing, this is not a matter of opinion. There is one, and only one, logically correct conclusion.
: > [{quoted}](name=AeroWaffle,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=NarVTVEc,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-08-30T00:24:13.948+0000) > > I think he should still be ID banned but that's not my decision to make. > > I find it strange that you're comparing his treatment with how normal players are treated when the ID ban itself is something that no normal player would ever get. You can't use the decision to un-ID-ban as some sort of preferential treatment when normal players don't get ID banned in the first place. "comparing his treatment with how normal players are treated when the ID ban itself is something that no normal player would ever get." Is the comparison. Why can't I compare that? Its him compared to normal players, ID ban vs regular ban.
But it's not ID ban vs regular ban. It's ID ban **and** regular ban vs regular ban. In fact it's ID ban and regular ban for all accounts proven to be his, now and until the ID ban is lifted, vs regular ban of a single account. And that's a bit of a pointless comparison.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Shuriman God,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMo5yu5Y,comment-id=001600000000000000000000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-29T11:38:49.362+0000) > > The european EUW server offers english, german, french, spanish and italian as our language options. This means that the words are judged based on if they are toxic in one of these 5 languages. By that logic, everybody who doesn't speak all of those five languages runs the risk of being banned for something that is not in their control. Don't want to be banned? Better learn up to five foreign languages!
>No, by "that logic" you won't have a problem if you speak a single one of those. If that is what you meant, fair enough. I recommend changing the way you worded it, though. >words are judged based on if they are toxic in one of these 5 languages. The way you worded it clearly implies that something being toxic in one of these 5 languages is enough to be punished for it.
: The european EUW server offers english, german, french, spanish and italian as our language options. This means that the words are judged based on if they are toxic in one of these 5 languages. "Kys" is an insane edge case, because you'd be giving everybody a free pass on a "kill yourself" phrase just because they might have used a different language. I could quite literally say "Kys Tyrek", fully using the english meaning here, and the second I get banned for it I could claim that I meant to "kiss Tyrek" and I just resorted to danish because I like the language. If you support that you might as well support anarchy when it comes to chat.
> [{quoted}](name=Shuriman God,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMo5yu5Y,comment-id=001600000000000000000000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-29T11:38:49.362+0000) > > The european EUW server offers english, german, french, spanish and italian as our language options. This means that the words are judged based on if they are toxic in one of these 5 languages. By that logic, everybody who doesn't speak all of those five languages runs the risk of being banned for something that is not in their control. Don't want to be banned? Better learn up to five foreign languages!
Coins (NA)
: The bad words system blocks out 'cancer' but not 'autism', and 'idiot' but not 'fuc'. It's garbage and Riot doesn't care to improve it.
Given those specific words I can only assume you are talking about the language filter you can activate in the client, which is only designed to keep you from seeing strong language if that kind of langauge is not to your liking. It's a completely separate feature from the zero tolerance filter. Case in point, neither fuck nor idiot are met with an automated 14-day ban. And just to be clear: They don't even warrant chat restrictions depending on context. Saying "Fuck... sorry for being an idiot :(" is perfectly acceptable.
: ***
Sure. It's fair to start with that assumption. Especially in regards to an automated system. What is absolutely not fair (and the exact definition of willfuly ignorant) is dismissing additional information that contradicts your previous assumptions.
: At this point it's common knowledge that typing "kys" nets you a ban. We're literally talking about a person being ignorant, STILL typing it and then pulling a confused pikachu. It doesn't matter if it means "kiss" or whatever in danish. It has a different meaning in english.
> [{quoted}](name=Shuriman God,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMo5yu5Y,comment-id=0008000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-27T21:08:45.102+0000) > > At this point it's common knowledge that typing "kys" nets you a ban. And? That is a statement on how the system works, not what the rules are. That has been shown in the most extreme when people were coerced into saying obscure slurs by trolls. Riot undid those bans. Less extreme but still a valid counter argument are the plenty cases where people repeat what is said to them as metalanguage. These cases, too, tend to be reduced. And while certainly not standard procedure, I've even seen cases where the punishment was removed entirely. While I've never heard of such a case specifically, I'd also like to point out that the difference between the word "bigger" and a certain well known slur is literally just slipping to the left on one keystroke. Would you argue that people should be banned for typos, as long as their typos form a auto-banned word? The bottom line is: There is a need to differentiate between a rule and the method(s) through which that rule is enforced. If one doesn't differentiate between those two things, everybody who gets punished by the system has by definition broken the rules, which renders the whole notion of a manual review obsolete. That's why, for the record, I think the blame here lies not so much with Riot's system and more so with the support agent that has effectively outsourced their job of supervising the system to the very system they were supposed to supervise.
1101436 (NA)
: I disagree with Riot
> They deserve to be flamed. Nothing else you say is of any relevance to your punishment and punishments of that kind in general. This is the one argument you have. And it's flawed because of one simple reason: It's not your call to make. You are not entitled to carry out justice, you are not entitled to vigilantism. And you show the reason for that perfectly in your post: You are incredibly biased. > fuck you for not permanently banning them. > you're not satisfying our need for justice so we flame them because you guys never do anything about it. >You let them hijack our games and you give them at most a temporary suspension and they come back and do it again You operate under the assumption that the system doesn't do what you want it to do. But you don't do that because it's true (because it demonstrably isn't), you do it because it's what *needs* to be true for you to have a justification for your own actions. So in your own words: >Fuck your twisted sense of justice.
: dont afk dance when you're winning
Whenever one of my friends starts feeling like the game is already lost, one of us is sure to just say "Dancing Ezreal". It's basically a reminder of a ranked game we had pretty much already lost. The enemy Ezreal (last person standing) literally would have just had to attack the Nexus one more time. But because he initially decided to dance instead, he didn't manage to before one of us respawned and killed him. We immediately went baron (old AD/AP boost baron), they arrived just barely too late, we aced them and pushed mid for a win.
Show more

TrulyBland

Level 47 (EUNE)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion