EmanKenway (EUNE)
: LEAGUE OF LEGENDS IS DYING
>Lol is slowly dying Must be incredibly slowly. If random people on the forums are to be believed it has basically been dying since it was released. Which now that I think about it is a pretty valid (albeit depressing) way to look at it. Carry on.
: Exactly no system is perfect this system especially is the furthest from even decent... I said you can't believe the truth even if evidence slapped you to the forehead I am not going to think for you on everything life is too short enjoy being delusional for the rest of it
Oh, I believe the truth now that you have supplied evidence for it. The problem is only that this "truth" you showed evidence for, is a moved goal post of a moved goal post. You've strayed so far from your original premise that I wonder if you yourself can even remember. You've showed me evidence that the system is not perfect [edit: and even that you really didn't, because again: She could have been chat restricted], which I never believed in the first place. And if it is what you believe to be the furthest from even decent, then that's your opinion. But don't pretend for a second that what you have shown has anything to do with the rules not being applied equally, or that it in some way supports the idea of scanning all games regardless of whether there were any reports.
: Why not? If people shouldnt have to use it then why is the mute button even there? That was the main question of this post yet no one wants to answear it.
People shouldn't have to use fire extinguishers either. That doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose.
: Tristana from the game I last played was a toxic pos reported and they continued to play for an other year gotta love how fast the system reacts to some people breaking rules but not others
Might have gotten a chat restriction, might not have been on thin ice, might have just escaped the system since no system is perfect. Still does not in the slightest show that the rules are applied differently. And, as a bonus: It doesn't even have anything to do with the topic of this thread anymore.
: Yes my match history but if you are blind to the truth and the constant complaints that this system is trash and continue to pretend it has no issues not even hard evidence will convince you it's garbage
How does your match history prove that people don't get punished when exhibiting negative behaviour despite being reported?
: People who don't get reported or don't get banned for some reason when they actually get reported but some people are red flagged sooo fast
>People who don't get reported Those people clearly abided by the rules. If they had annoyed strangers, those strangers probably would have reported them. > or don't get banned for some reason when they actually get reported Do you have any evidence to back up the existence of those people? >but some people are red flagged sooo fast People with recent punishments? They are still judged according to the same rules. The fact that they are on thin ice for a while is essentially part of the previous punishment. Think of it as parole.
: Rules that don't apply to everyone league of hypocrites "nuances" lol no this not an essay it's just a crappy system How TF am I supposed to know what annoys the royality that's strangers people are different I have to extremely censor myself all the time just in case I am matched with a snowflake to not get banned
: "you broke the rules, deserved" song you keep hearing here it sounds like a morality issue but apparently not, you get banned for annoying strangers
Since you've made it sufficiently clear in this thread that you don't really care for nuance anyway: Those are the rules. Don't annoy strangers.
dAsKiLzZ (NA)
: Is it bannable to play off meta strats or champs?
When it comes to gameplay offenses, what it ultimately **always** comes down to is: Why did you do what you did? Even intentionally dying can be okay... if you are doing it in good faith, e.g. by intercepting a projectile to save a more valuable member of the team. Inversely, however, pretty much everything is bannable if it is **not** done in good faith and instead is only done to incite negative reactions. It's not hypocritical to say that it's not **inherently** against the rules to die 15 times in a game, while still demanding punishment for intentional feeders. Likewise it isn't hypocritical to say that nothing Nubrac did ingame was **inherently** against the rules, while still holding the opinion that he deserved punishment.
: Mandatory linked bank account tied to your LoL account for IRL fines for Griefing (for ranked play)
>Easy work around actually. >New rule should be that you have to have a set minimum amount of riot points to play Ranked. For the sake of the argument lets say 500rp. If you get penalized for bad behavior in game RP gets deducted instead of actual money. Since you have to buy RP WITH real money it functions the same. Yeah… sure… the same. Except now you actually have to pay the fine upfront just in case you might be punished at a later point. That's not better, that's worse.
iiGazeii (NA)
: There really isn't a good reason. The only semi-decent reason is a situation where you know a champion is pick/ban, and the teammate hovering it simply won't get it in time and you will lose the game if the enemy has that champion. That's pretty much it. Hijacking lanes in draft/ranked is reportable, regardless of if they ban your hovered champion.
> [{quoted}](name=iiGazeii,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=3mgQopxl,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-07-09T07:25:23.207+0000) > > There really isn't a good reason. The only semi-decent reason is a situation where you know a champion is pick/ban, and the teammate hovering it simply won't get it in time and you will lose the game if the enemy has that champion. That's pretty much it. I mean… you've basically just described one of the biggest reasons why bans exist in the first place. Personally, I'd argue that calling the exact situation a feature was intended for a "semi-decent reason" is a bit of an understatement.
Hotarµ (NA)
: > You don't lose accounts for AFKing. You only get up to 20 minutes of low-priority queue. Nothing else. [Incorrect, please don't spread misinformation. ](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/QEFKkEf3-thank-you-rito?comment=000200000000) It takes consistent offenses to receive a permanent ban for it, but yes, it is possible.
I could be wrong about this, but I was under the impression that afking is only bannable when used as a method for griefing, as opposed to afking because you no longer wish to play the game. For the record, I don't agree with OPs mentality, but I'm fairly certain that this kind of mentality was exactly what Riot thought to be more fittingly punished with LPQs. I mean, there has to be a reason why leaverbuster itself (to my knowledge) no longer hands out bans.
: It decided to not highlight those words in the games chat Log, When I got top first blood I had said Gj, which he then flamed me for saying that. Then when mid roamed I thanked him for roaming. The chat bot doesn't like to focus on the good in the game tho.
The chat bot literally just gives you the entire chat log. That's what it does. It has often been criticized for it, even, by people who were confused as to why very positive lines ended up in their chat logs. So either your human memory (which has time and time again been proven to be terribly unreliable) is wrong, or a terribly specific bug that has never been seen before specifically filtered out your positive chat lines. The system isn't out to get you. The system hasn't mistreated you. You did what you did, and you didn't do what you didn't do. I recommend practicing some serious introspection and owning up to your negative behaviour, or I suspect we will see you again when you receive your 14-day ban; and eventually your permaban.
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=aPKjBGXQ,comment-id=00010000000000000000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-07-04T21:57:21.660+0000) > > And what nationality does somebody have who doesn't speak? Or somebody who speaks English? > > Edit: And that's before getting into the pretty large problem that it's not exactly unlikely to find somebody who is German (in terms of nationality) who may talk Turkish in a premade team; and inversely it's probably not unlikely to find somebody who is Turkish (in terms of ethnicity) who may talk German. I mean we're not talking about people who don't speak here. Why would we care about people who speak English and bother to communicate? Also it is exactly unlikely to find a German who's speaking Turkish. Let's be real, who is learning Turkish? It's not a business language, it's not like learning Chinese or French. If someone speaks Turkish, they're Turkish in one way or another, they may live in another country, they make even speak English and communicate; but they're still from Turkey. It's more likely that there'll be a Turk who speaks a foreign language like French or German (as you said).
> [{quoted}](name=slimey jimmy,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=aPKjBGXQ,comment-id=000100000000000000000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-07-05T14:18:18.449+0000) > > I mean we're not talking about people who don't speak here. Why would we care about people who speak English and bother to communicate? Because you never excluded those when you made a claim about the majority of Turkish players. Also because you claimed it's easy to tell somebody's nationality by what language they speak. By excluding people who are willing to speak a non-native language you are already filtering out those who are evidently cooperative on a certain level. That's a selection bias that is bound to skew any statistic, mental or otherwise. >Also it is exactly unlikely to find a German who's speaking Turkish. You do realize about 4% of people living in Germany are ethnically Turkish, right? And about half of those are German citizens. Since you spoke specifically about nationality, those people are German.
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=aPKjBGXQ,comment-id=000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-26T19:47:14.318+0000) > > Because stereotypes are ultimately maintained not by evidence but by confirmation bias. And that's always a problem regardless of whether they are true or not. Case in point, I strongly doubt that you or the OP actually have any evidence that this is factual. You believe it is and your brain pretty much automatically gathers anecdotal evidence to support that theory, while ignoring how unreliable the information you have actually is. > > Here's an interesting question: > Off the top of your head, what percentage of Turkish players that you have played with, have not given you literally any information that allowed you to deduce their nationality or ethnicity? > > That question, btw, works very well with most stereotypes in online gaming. No, this has nothing to do with stereotypes. In fact, I don't believe there is a well known stereotype that generalizes Turkish people as 'non-communicative' and disruptive to League of Legends matches. Like I said, it appears to only be the case in this specific game. It's actually fairly easy to deduce someone's nationality through speech, Dutch speak Dutch, Germans speak German, Turks speak Turkish.
> [{quoted}](name=slimey jimmy,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=aPKjBGXQ,comment-id=0001000000000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-07-02T19:59:48.395+0000) > > It's actually fairly easy to deduce someone's nationality through speech, Dutch speak Dutch, Germans speak German, Turks speak Turkish. And what nationality does somebody have who doesn't speak? Or somebody who speaks English? Edit: And that's before getting into the pretty large problem that it's not exactly unlikely to find somebody who is German (in terms of nationality) who may talk Turkish in a premade team; and inversely it's probably not unlikely to find somebody who is Turkish (in terms of ethnicity) who may talk German.
Aladoron (EUW)
: > No, even when statistics backs up the stereotypes. Mind the word I used: Maintained. Not formed, maintained. Can be, but not necessarily. If the statistic really holds up, you do not need confirmation bias to keep your stereotypes... > Your data set is inherently biased, as it can only contain: Of course, when you base your stereotypes on a handful of examples, that can be easily misleading, and after that you can easily trick yourself with confirmation bias. I totally agree with this part. I really just wanted to point out, that stereotypes and generalization can be very useful (and is useful), so the "stereotypes and generalizations are bad" mentality is simply against how the human brain works, and is against common sense as well.
> [{quoted}](name=Aladoron,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=aPKjBGXQ,comment-id=000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-27T12:39:45.454+0000) > > Can be, but not necessarily. If the statistic really holds up, you do not need confirmation bias to keep your stereotypes... You don't need it, but it still happens. And that's precisely my point: A statement is as reliable as the method by which that statement was determined to be true. **BUT:** Once that statement becomes detached from the original method, then regardless of what the original method was, and regardless of whether the statement is true, it becomes unreliable. And the biggest problem with stereotypes is exactly the fact that people overestimate their reliability.
Aladoron (EUW)
: > Because stereotypes are ultimately maintained not by evidence but by confirmation bias. Except when statistics backs up the stereotypes. I did not want to exactly talk about Turkish players, since i do not know them, do not care about them neither want to find out anything about them. You just sounded like you mean that "stereotypes are bad all the time", which is clearly not true....
> [{quoted}](name=Aladoron,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=aPKjBGXQ,comment-id=0001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-27T11:06:31.991+0000) > > Except when statistics backs up the stereotypes. No, even when statistics backs up the stereotypes. Mind the word I used: Maintained. Not formed, maintained. Even when backed up by statistics, when facts are phrased carelessly they become detached from said statistics. It's also worth mentioning that just like true statistics can be used to create false impressions, stereotypes derived from true statistics can ultimately still be false. It's hard to give examples without immediately turning this extremely political, but the gist of it follows the standard rule of "correlation does not imply causation". Another huge thing though: Even if you don't want to talk about Turkish players, as I mentioned, the question I asked works for virtually all the stereotypes when it comes to online gaming. Your data set is inherently biased, as it can only contain: A) Matches **you** have been in (which can be a factor if you yourself actively engage in chat) B) People you can actually identify as being part of the group you are looking at (which is not necessarily representative for the group as a whole). And that's all before getting into the fact that most people don't write down their experiences (meaning they rely on memory, which is terribly unreliable) or have those numbers evaluated by some third party (meaning their findings are vulnerable to confirmation bias). Bottom line: Stereotypes that are backed by statistics don't cease to be stereotypes. They are still unscientific in nature and not more reliable than a rumour.
Aladoron (EUW)
: > "The majority flame/spam" gets into problematic stereotyping. What is the problem with stereotyping when it's mainly true?
Because stereotypes are ultimately maintained not by evidence but by confirmation bias. And that's always a problem regardless of whether they are true or not. Case in point, I strongly doubt that you or the OP actually have any evidence that this is factual. You believe it is and your brain pretty much automatically gathers anecdotal evidence to support that theory, while ignoring how unreliable the information you have actually is. Here's an interesting question: Off the top of your head, what percentage of Turkish players that you have played with, have not given you literally any information that allowed you to deduce their nationality or ethnicity? That question, btw, works very well with most stereotypes in online gaming.
Aladoron (EUW)
: > It maximizes the amount of wasted effort and thus, the punishment. And ruined games.
By the ones who are not deterred by the additional punishment? Yes. By those who are deterred by the additional punishment? Clearly not. It's one of the most counterintuitive aspects of punishments: Those who are punished are rarely the reason why the punishment is in place. Those who are affected by the punishment in best possible way never **get** punished, because the threat of punishment actually convinced them not to do it in the first place.
: simple logic question answers all dilemas: If he can get rank 1 without trade,why does he need to win trade to win lower elo games>>??? If he is good enough to get rank 1 why does he need win trade to win master elo game??? Think about it. Even with million proofs you will stand on same side defending your favorite streamer...It is not about witch hunt,it is about JUSTICE.And no one needs high moral ground to say Fucking Cheater deserve punishment...I do not have to be judge it is simple logic
>simple logic question answers all dilemas: If he can get rank 1 without trade,why does he need to win trade to win lower elo games>>??? If he is good enough to get rank 1 why does he need win trade to win master elo game??? Think about it. Where's your evidence that he "needed" to wintrade in the first place? Some people just cheat to make things easier/quicker, not just to make it possible. >Even with million proofs you will stand on same side defending your favorite streamer… I never watched his stream, so... no. But how is peoples' hypothetical reaction to hypothetical evidence in any way relevant? You don't have evidence. Other peoples' irrational behaviour, especially if it's completely hypothetical, doesn't change that. >It is not about witch hunt,it is about JUSTICE. If you cared about justice, you would care about the core principles on which modern justice systems are actually built. The kind of justice you want is precisely a witch hunt because it isn't built on evidence. It's built on an emotional reaction to somebody's presumed guilt.
: In this case, don't take flame as a negative, take it as a positive. If your teammates are so unhappy with your build to the point of flaming you, then perhaps you should listen and build more optimally. If you were building correctly then your teammates wouldn't be so upset. But of course if you still want to take flame negatively you can ignore or mute them
>If you were building correctly then your teammates wouldn't be so upset. Following the same logic: If OP's teammates were right to flame, OP wouldn't be so upset. Being upset and being right are two completely different things.
: Anyone else harrassed for making a GOOD build?
There was a time when a significant amount of players was completely convinced that spellvamp didn't work for physical damage. And back then gunblade was pretty much worth it even without having absolutely any use for the AP, making it a really good choice on a lot of AD casters. So, in short: Yes.
: If you say so
Do **you** feel like somebody's punishment should be up to somebody who is "100 percent sure" while acknowledging they have "no evidence" and not considering it their job to "investigate anything"? If you had called for Riot to investigate, I doubt many people would have disagreed. I know I wouldn't have. But your insistence that punishment is necessary without having any proof is akin to a witch hunt.
: It is not my job to investigate anything,but simple logic shows he is 99% win trading on main as well.If you can hit rank 1 without win rate then you would newer need win trade to boost account.It is just simple logic. there is noting sad in people desire that cheater get what he deserve.He is earning money from cheating.He stops others to progress with his cheating...What can do teammates of that lee sin when he win trade with Tarzaned??? Does those players deserve justice??? There is nothing hateful in simple desire to stupid cheater get what he deserve
> [{quoted}](name=captaincomando1,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=f6BdyPJn,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-24T17:37:19.240+0000) > > It is not my job to investigate anything Then it's also not your job, and frankly not your **place**, to say who deserves which kind of punishment. It's that simple.
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=JkkrHnp3,comment-id=00030000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-06-16T04:51:02.416+0000) > > Following that exact same logic: > If where you're supposed to be on the map as a midlaner clearly doesn't apply to roaming midlaners, what is the justification for not being able to attempt to play midlane in another lane? > > Leaving a lane occasionally (or even frequently) to build global pressure is not the same as completely abandoning a lane. The justification is you haven't gotten approval from Riot to play the game in this manner. Additionally, a support going either mid or top instead of bot is not completely abandoning a lane where as if you did this from the mid lane you would be.
Both fair points. My problem was primarily with the argument as it was presented, not with the point you were trying to support. And the way it was presented it implied (despite you explicitly claiming that you are not trying to do so) that roaming and leaving a lane entirely are equivalent to the extent that if one is allowed the other one must be, too. Edit: Or the inverse, which started this argument, that if one is not allowed then the other one must not be allowed either. In fact, we can use the same logic again to attack the second point you are making about the midlaner: So any [mid] that roams to say help [bot] lane is also trolling and should be receive punishments / be banned?
BestCho (NA)
: Whole NB3 situation made me stop playing until issue is addressed
>I call out for every player that plays off meta champs to voice their opinion I love playing off meta, so here's my opinion: I agree with Riot's decision. Reason being that this is just like all those other bans that were supposedly for playing off-meta. Every single time people take it out of context, deny that Riot's official reason is true and predict that soon everybody will have to conform to the meta or be banned. And then nothing happens. People forget it happened, continue to play off-meta and remain unpunished. Until in a couple of months another case gets blown out of proportion and the cycle repeats.
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rrnxkhXw,comment-id=000200000001,timestamp=2019-06-18T08:29:40.388+0000) > > Meta doesn't stand for most effective tactics available… it's not even an acronym to begin with. > It simply refers to the metagame, neutrally, without any implication of how effective it is. > > The meta is simply the way people play. Nothing more, nothing less. And while that will typically converge to **an** effective strategy, it's really more about stability across all the possible scenarios than being the most effective in all possible scenarios. > > I know you're taking a stand for the off-meta, so most of that doesn't actually contradict what you are saying, but backronyms being perpetuated as if they are definitions is one of my pet peeves. > I mean... come on... it's not even correct to call it a tactic. It's a strategy. I think you need to look up the definition of tactics.
The difference between tactics and strategy is typically how large/small scale they are, tactic being on a smaller scale than strategy. Given that the largest scale there can be is for a decision to encompass an entire match, and given that such things as picks, designated lanes, etc., clearly fall into that category, it makes little sense to call it a tactic. Edit: That said, I agree it may have been a bit much to call it an "incorrect" label, since it's fairly subjective.
: > [{quoted}](name=JackMcCarry,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rrnxkhXw,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-06-18T06:14:28.992+0000) > > Going to your designated lane isnt meta. > Playing your role isnt meta. > > If your toplaner decided to go 2nd mid without asking and ignoring your midlaner, would you be okay with it because that player said "it's just off meta bro"? The concept of a designated lane location is based on a most effective tactics available or META strategy. Yes I would be okay with it as long as the player was trying to win and not just inting my lane.
Meta doesn't stand for most effective tactics available… it's not even an acronym to begin with. It simply refers to the metagame, neutrally, without any implication of how effective it is. The meta is simply the way people play. Nothing more, nothing less. And while that will typically converge to **an** effective strategy, it's really more about stability across all the possible scenarios than being the most effective in all possible scenarios. I know you're taking a stand for the off-meta, so most of that doesn't actually contradict what you are saying, but backronyms being perpetuated as if they are definitions is one of my pet peeves. I mean... come on... it's not even correct to call it a tactic. It's a strategy.
kurdt911 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=8MrMYAGK,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-06-18T05:22:35.225+0000) > > Maybe there's just literally no reason for them to comment any further. The main source of complaints is from those who don't believe Riot's official statement on the matter, and those won't be swayed no matter what. Honestly...looks like their official statement: 1)You can stay afk and flame in chat if you have in team someone who you don't like 2)You can ask a "friend" from Riot Employe to ban this player But with some exceptions: In first case you will be banned because you are regular player and not a popular streamer. In second...you don't have "friend" in Riot Games. Oh wait. Double standarts. What a iconic duo <3
If that's how you choose to look at it, you are precisely one of the people I mentioned.
kurdt911 (EUW)
: There no reason anymore to complain abount situation with NB3 and Nubrac
Maybe there's just literally no reason for them to comment any further. The main source of complaints is from those who don't believe Riot's official statement on the matter, and those won't be swayed no matter what.
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=wKO0cznx,comment-id=00000002000100000000,timestamp=2019-06-17T15:26:35.922+0000) > Edit: Ask yourself this: Would they have been able to write **anything** that didn't make you more suspicious? Assume for a second it's the truth… how would they have had to write it for you to believe it? Truthfully. Or if they lie...at least lie in a way where I can't instantly disprove it by looking at a few games from Nubrac's match history.
>Truthfully. Circular logic yet again. Whether it is truthful or not can't be used to determine whether it is the truth. >Or if they lie...at least lie in a way where I can't instantly disprove it by looking at a few games from Nubrac's match history. You can't really "disprove" anything there. They specifically said "most often". A few games are not going to be 100% conclusive in that aspect. That said, as long as you are basing your belief on evidence, that's fine by me.
: This doesn't say anything to me...it's looks more like WookieCookie trying to put out a fire: Hypothetical WookieCookie: "uh...Riot XYZ employee did what? Why are we catering to NB3 and banning a player we already investigated and cleared? Oh, you thought it was give you a chance with Zephyr if you did this ban for her which is actually for NB3? Dude you realize we're in the middle of sexual harassment allegations right? You want me to say on reddit that we did some investigation that we didn't really do? GEEZ. Okay.(rammus tone) Hold my beer I'm going in."
Are you an alien lizardperson trying to enslave mankind? Be aware though, if you answer "no" it will look more like you are trying to put out the fire of having been found out. In all seriousness, this is a picture perfect example not only of confirmation bias, but of circular reasoning. Obviously people are going to look like they are making things up if their statement contradicts what you have already decided to be the truth. Edit: Ask yourself this: Would they have been able to write **anything** that didn't make you more suspicious? Assume for a second it's the truth… how would they have had to write it for you to believe it?
Keyru (NA)
: Boards Moderation Discord Verification
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=cFcPl6Ey,comment-id=00070001000000000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-16T02:46:44.566+0000) > > I think I now have a pretty good idea who you are. The style of arguing and all that. Ofc, cause you act the same every time and argues the same every time and I beat you in that argument every time, Im lovepet.. Your old buddy who allways beat you in a discussion. From 2.5 years ago to now, back to back ass-kickings. > > Look mate, there's either some language barrier or you have trouble understanding even the most simple things. As the newest piece of evidence: You say Sure you can say that and re-direct the focus from the fact that you got checkmate from your own arguments. Not my fault your arguments didnt hold water, mine did. > > literally directly after quoting me saying the exact opposite. I said you are **not** lying because you **do** believe it yourself. > That is no thow a lie works. The way you worded it suggest that I did lie. Accept the language you use or define the words you use. > But if you really are the person I think you are, I've spent enough time trying to explain to you what "evidence" and "lying" actually mean. Your inability or unwillingness to actually understand what people are telling you, rather than just reading what you want to read, is making any discussion impossible. > This is not true and its not the first time you stear away from the truth. You have not explained anything and in fact you cant even answer the 2 quesitons I posted... Cause as I said: They would expose you and embarrass you, I was correct about this as well, like I allways am. Its very easy to discuss vs you casue you have so much pride and no substance. You dont argue from facts, you argue from feeligns. > My advice: Learn to read what people write and **then** make up your mind about what they want to tell you. Not the other way around. > And my advice is to learn to answer quesitons that are posted to you as they can be points someone makes to prove to you that you are in fact ignoring the facts. Too bad you dont play ball nor by any otherones rules but yourself... guess you cant lose in a game where you dictate the rules, right? <- Feelings can not be hurt! > Edit: Yup, just checked your last discussion and now I'm 100% certain who you are. Not worth it. Have a nice day. Good! Then you know that I checkmated you 2.5 years ago, then every 6 months until now... Its the same every time and I enjoy it just as much as last time. Forum-dweller, I wish you the best until next time, when I will just as easy beat you again, and again, and again. <- Cause just like riot, you never learn and you never change while I do and still keeps the knowledge of how to deal with you. Take care, even though you are checkmate. -------------------------------------- Here are the last sentences that killed your entire argument. Hopefully its a reminder for you and you can put up a better fight next time: >Problem for you is that you dont, you are not interested in the evidence you are interested in something else. >Its easy to prove, if I were 100% correct <- what will you do about it? >If Im 100% wrong, what will you do about it? >Also, you are dead wrong again, that is not at all what I think. I think you talking high and mighty about evidence and such when reality is that you >have alternative motives and that is rather embarrassing when its exposed.
> [{quoted}](name=MuteAllFromStart,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=cFcPl6Ey,comment-id=000700010000000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-16T09:45:17.104+0000) > > The way you worded it suggest that I did lie. You mean when I literally said that you didn't? I don't even need to respond to anything else. This right there is proof that it is impossible to have a discussion with you. You don't acknowledge what other people say. And I don't mean that you disagree with it... you just completely ignore what they say and pretend like they said something completely different. You are in effect engaged in some weird solipsistic conversation with yourself. You merely use other peoples' posts as inspiration. You can feel free to ignore this. This isn't as much a response to you as it is a warning to other people.
: > [{quoted}](name=Bettnachleger,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=JkkrHnp3,comment-id=000300000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-06-15T21:01:17.865+0000) > > Stop acting stupid. > There is a huge difference between roaming and completely abandon a lane for the entire game. I never said they were the same. If where you're supposed to be on the map as a support clearly doesn't apply to roaming supports, what is the justification for not being able to attempt to play support in another lane? From my understanding Numbrac specifically opened a ticket and asked if he could play Teemo support in lanes other than the bot lane and they said it was allowed.
> [{quoted}](name=C9 Aphrolift,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=JkkrHnp3,comment-id=0003000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-06-15T21:25:30.541+0000) > > If where you're supposed to be on the map as a support clearly doesn't apply to roaming supports, what is the justification for not being able to attempt to play support in another lane? Following that exact same logic: If where you're supposed to be on the map as a midlaner clearly doesn't apply to roaming midlaners, what is the justification for not being able to attempt to play midlane in another lane? Leaving a lane occasionally (or even frequently) to build global pressure is not the same as completely abandoning a lane.
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=cFcPl6Ey,comment-id=000700010000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-15T14:07:50.599+0000) > > Then that still leaves the problem of it being a loaded question without a proper answer. The only reason you even ask the question, is because you have already made up your mind about the **false** idea that the account is doomed. The only other way to answer your question is to say: Your entire premise is wrong and your question doesn't make sense. > > Frankly, I would have preferred if support had decided to answer it this way. 1. I dont know what "loaded question" you are talking about nor why it would be a problem. 2. No , you have been given plenty of proof and also able to look up the proof yourself, for you to ignore the proof is not my problem. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/3jEVVlsY-permanently-banned-with-ingame-log?show=new Read the comments in this thread as some of them explains how the "doomed account" works... If you dont listen to me then maybe you listen to someone else? > > How would they have called you out on it? You can't prove something doesn't happen. > Prove to me that elephants don't prey on lions when they are hungry. > Prove to me that the moon doesn't occasionally turn into a gigantic discoball. Now you are just silly and missunderstanding royaly what is going on. I made the claim that: MY account was permanently banned because I said "Morgana" <- I also made the claim that my accont was permanently banned for making a thread asking for help on how to end a loss-streak. <- Moderators knows this happens (as I previously explained to periscope or whatever his name is) , you should read that comment. If they thought it was "out of this world" and something they couldnt believe, then they could have questioned me or called me out on it, now they didnt cause they know it happen. Im telling the truth and there is no way around it, sorry mate... Checkmate. > > And I told you, that you are in fact not lying. So I'm not sure what your pride has anything to do with this. One may lie cause they have pride. You should read up on pride, look for it on any search engine. "The only reason why you are not lying is because you believe what you say to be true. That doesn't make it true, though. It's still just something that you believe despite no evidence for it." <- No in your wording you are saying that I am lying, but I dont believe it myself. > > Great. Then show me that evidence. > You spend a lot of time explaining how you have evidence, yet spend surprisingly little time showing said evidence. > Okey, what evidence do you need and what will you do about it? For me to give evidence about a crime to a civilian that aint going to do anything about it is just a waste of time, you realize that, dont you? > I have no problem with the world knowing that I base my world view on evidence, regardless of whether I'm wrong or right. The fact that you seem to think being wrong is more embarrassing than being convinced of something despite lack of evidence tells me a lot about you. Problem for you is that you dont, you are not interested in the evidence you are interested in something else. Its easy to prove, if I were 100% correct <- what will you do about it? If Im 100% wrong, what will you do about it? Also, you are dead wrong again, that is not at all what I think. I think you talking high and mighty about evidence and such when reality is that you have alternative motives and that is rather embarrassing when its exposed.
> [{quoted}](name=MuteAllFromStart,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=cFcPl6Ey,comment-id=0007000100000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-15T23:56:44.896+0000) > > alternative motives I think I now have a pretty good idea who you are. The style of arguing and all that. Look mate, there's either some language barrier or you have trouble understanding even the most simple things. As the newest piece of evidence: You say >No in your wording you are saying that I am lying, but I dont believe it myself. literally directly after quoting me saying the exact opposite. I said you are **not** lying because you **do** believe it yourself. But if you really are the person I think you are, I've spent enough time trying to explain to you what "evidence" and "lying" actually mean. Your inability or unwillingness to actually understand what people are telling you, rather than just reading what you want to read, is making any discussion impossible. My advice: Learn to read what people write and **then** make up your mind about what they want to tell you. Not the other way around. Edit: Yup, just checked your last discussion and now I'm 100% certain who you are. Not worth it. Have a nice day.
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=cFcPl6Ey,comment-id=0007000100000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-06-15T12:32:20.817+0000) > > What did you expect them to say to such a loaded question? Maybe they even misunderstood you and thought it was permabanned already. > Hello and welcome to the discussion. "Maybe they even misunderstood you and thought it was permabanned already." <- No this was not the case as they had all the context and all the info together with the ability to look up my account and the stats for it. No missunderstanding there... I even posted another question after this that they refused to answer. > The only reason why you are not lying is because you believe what you say to be true. That doesn't **make** it true, though. It's still just something that you believe despite no evidence for it existing. Ehh, where did you come up with this? No, the reason Im not lying is because what I said happen, it happen. If It was out of this world then someone with inside information would have called me out on it. If you were to look up every claim Imake you would find that every claim I make is true... so the stuff that is really hard to look up... If everything I said up to that point is true, why wouldnt the "hard stuff to look up" also not be true? I have nothing to gain from lying and Im not a person with pride. Im telling the truth and only the truth. So problem for you is that there are plenty of evidence for my claims... making you dead wrong and really need to re-think your stance and position. This time its in a dead forum, next time you might have a camera in your face and your utterings will be exposed and your embarrassment be broadcasted to all over the world. Its easy to lie to 1 person in private with no records, its much harder to lie to a huge crowd when there are cameras, sound recording and people look up what you are saying <- In my case you can look up anything and everything I said here. Again, sorry to prove you wrong. It was not my intentions to hurt your feelings.
> [{quoted}](name=MuteAllFromStart,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=cFcPl6Ey,comment-id=00070001000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-06-15T12:42:55.060+0000) > > Hello and welcome to the discussion. > "Maybe they even misunderstood you and thought it was permabanned already." <- No this was not the case as they had all the context and all the info together with the ability to look up my account and the stats for it. Then that still leaves the problem of it being a loaded question without a proper answer. The only reason you even ask the question, is because you have already made up your mind about the **false** idea that the account is doomed. The only other way to answer your question is to say: Your entire premise is wrong and your question doesn't make sense. Frankly, I would have preferred if support had decided to answer it this way. > Ehh, where did you come up with this? > No, the reason Im not lying is because what I said happen, it happen. If It was out of this world then someone with inside information would have called me out on it. How would they have called you out on it? You can't prove something doesn't happen. Prove to me that elephants don't prey on lions when they are hungry. Prove to me that the moon doesn't occasionally turn into a gigantic discoball. >I have nothing to gain from lying and Im not a person with pride. And I told you, that you are in fact not lying. So I'm not sure what your pride has anything to do with this. >So problem for you is that there are plenty of evidence for my claims.. Great. Then show me that evidence. You spend a lot of time explaining how you have evidence, yet spend surprisingly little time showing said evidence. >making you dead wrong and really need to re-think your stance and position. >This time its in a dead forum, next time you might have a camera in your face and your utterings will be exposed and your embarrassment be broadcasted to all over the world. I have no problem with the world knowing that I base my world view on evidence, regardless of whether I'm wrong or right. The fact that you seem to think being wrong is more embarrassing than being convinced of something despite lack of evidence tells me a lot about you.
Sukishoo (NA)
: Well almost always then. Ive never had anything more than a 10 chat ban (and that was years ago), so I'd never run into the other tiers they might have had then.
Yeah, it's definitely not a new decision. The 3-day bans iirc were removed when Tribunal became a thing, and when chat restrictions became the new "slap on the wrist"-punishment, they removed all but the 14-day bans (and permabans, obviously).
: > [{quoted}](name=Pika Fox,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=xpjOhxIW,comment-id=000100010000,timestamp=2019-06-14T10:57:54.696+0000) > > The situations you list are by definition griefing your team. Going "sorry, i dont want YOU to play that champ" is griefing, regardless of context. No, its not. If it was, we wouldnt be able to ban hovered picks. Ask riot.
Yes, you would, because there are other reasons to ban champions even though they are hovered. On the other hand there is no explanation as to why you can't ban champions the enemy doesn't own, if you were indeed intentionally allowed to ban your teammates from picking champions.
: > [{quoted}](name=Periscope,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=cFcPl6Ey,comment-id=00070001000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-14T22:11:13.362+0000) > > ------------------ > > He wrote the punishment system. I have never seen anyone punished for typing "hello" twice, so I'm not sure where you've gotten that information. Fact: I did ask riot support ticket crew "what use do I have for this account?" and they straight up told me "For nostalgic reasons" ... Meaning it was useless to them as well, it only hold nostalgic value to myself... and to me nostagia doesnt hold much value . I wish that I was in fact lying to you right now but Im not. If I were lying this would be much better and actually make sense... but now Im telling you the truth (I allways am) .. and the truth should scare the living shit out of you... Cause this is where you work, these are your colleges and this is your system.
>Fact: I did ask riot support ticket crew "what use do I have for this account?" and they straight up told me "For nostalgic reasons" What did you expect them to say to such a loaded question? Maybe they even misunderstood you and thought it was permabanned already. The only reason why you are not lying is because you believe what you say to be true. That doesn't **make** it true, though. It's still just something that you believe despite no evidence for it.
Sukishoo (NA)
: Riot's punishment tiers have always been Tier 1: 10 Game Chat Ban Tier 2: 25 Game Chat Ban Tier 3: 14 Day Suspension Tier 4: Permanent Ban The fact that you intentionally fed and hard, is straight to tier 3 with a 14 day ban. There is nothing less that would have happened for this case. Riot doesn't do bans of 1 day to a week like other games.
Not always, actually. It's precisely **because** they had shorter bans at some point that they do no longer have them, because they found bans shorter than that to be pretty ineffective.
: > [{quoted}](name=Quackers II,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=xpjOhxIW,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-06-14T05:02:09.005+0000) > > @Riot this guy. > If I have honest reasons for banning a character even if you happen to want to play it, sorry but tough luck. You aren't entitled to flame me either simply because your pick was banned, and I'd be in all right to report you for it. There's like 140 champs in the game. Surely there are others to choose from. Griefing = purposely harming your team's chance of victory. You KNOW it will hurt your team's chances to tilt someone pre-match and force them to play a champ they're less familiar with. Therefore banning your teammate's pick = griefing. >You not getting your way doesn't mean you throw a tantrum about it. You purposely tilting your teammate because they picked something you didn't like is throwing a tantrum. You don't like AP Shaco, I get it. But not getting a normal jungler isn't something you get to throw a fit and sabotage your team over. Flaming your team is counterproductive and wrong, but banning a champion your teammate wants is precisely as counterproductive and wrong.
> [{quoted}](name=Metal Janna,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=xpjOhxIW,comment-id=000100000001,timestamp=2019-06-14T18:01:57.236+0000) > > Griefing = purposely harming your team's chance of victory. > You KNOW it will hurt your team's chances to tilt someone pre-match and force them to play a champ they're less familiar with. > Therefore banning your teammate's pick = griefing. By that logic, doing anything that has the potential of upsetting your teammates is griefing… which would include picking certain champions. Either your definition of griefing is too broad, or both parties are griefing; with one party simply being more successful than the other. To make an even stronger argument: What if somebody threatens to feed unless you swap lanes with them? Is it griefing not to swap lanes with that person? The irony in all of this is that the one thing I heavily disagree with - which is banning a champion **only** so your own team can't pick it - is very clearly not griefing, even by your definition, because the only reason people do this is because they believe it will increase their chance of winning **despite** forcing that player to pick a less familiar champion. Even if you disagree with banning hovered picks, by labelling it something that it just objectively is not, you are only making any civil discussion harder.
: You gave me an example of how the system doesn't work while arguing it does. If you can't get over the fact that you made a mistake then I'm sorry but there really is no point in continuing this discussion. Feel free to leave.
What mistake? I've acknowledged it's a potential false positive from the start, and I have explained why it's still a sign of a working system. Just because you choose to ignore the points I made does not make them disappear. It's precisely this dishonest style of arguing why I'm asking why anybody should engage in a discussion with you. You are not addressing points, you are wilfully misrepresenting arguments that were made, and you are shifting the goal posts whenever somebody is able to undeniably prove you wrong. Let me rephrase my question, as a matter of fact: Why do **you** start discussions when you are so very clearly not willing to engage in any viewpoint other than the one you already hold?
: It's also a testament to the fact that the punishment system isn't doing it's job. I have yet to see a post about being banned for griefing or inting.
Just to see how you weasel out of this one: Here's a ban for an Anivia that deliberately used her wall to trap teammates: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/MKBQUoKd-banned-for-intentionally-feeding Here's somebody banned one time for trolling, then permabanned for doing the same thing a second time. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/3FAb9lqj-account-suspended-for-feeding-in-aram https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/4bchKgdr-my-account-has-been-permanently-banned-for-feeding-in-aram-despite-having-a-positive-kda Here's one where somebody was banned for "soft inting" iirc, which is something a lot of people think never comes with any consequences: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/RAfb0McT-got-banned-for-intentional-feeding-for-a-game-with-02-death Since it's a permaban, one can also assume that there had to be another gameplay related ban before that. And I've deliberately limited myself to threads that I personally remember. I could easily google more of these, including more recent ones.
: It working as in it's active is different from working in an effective sense. If we consider that a small portion of the people that got banned would post on here, wouldn't we have seen some true positives come up at least? Here's an example of IFS getting a false negative and it wouldn't suprise me if there were more given the lack of posts here. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/sNjGrJf0-riot-our-intentional-feed-system-detect-and-ban-feeders-usually-after-1-game
> If we consider that a small portion of the people that got banned would post on here, wouldn't we have seen some true positives come up at least? And I have. Again, if you haven't, you must not be looking very hard. I merely decided to give you one very recent example. But I suppose I should have anticipated you'd move the goal post. Here's the deal: You said there were no posts complaining about bans for feeding. I've shown why that's not true. You said you ignored that post in particular because it still reinforced the point that it isn't doing its job. I've explained why that's not true. Now you're starting to no-true-scotsman the definition of "working", while pointing at completely irrelevant false negatives. Honest question: Why should I - or anyone, for that matter - continue talking to you?
: Yup we should never let prisoners out of prison. It's their fault, they're in there.
The government has different obligations than private entities. The rights prison takes away are also much more fundamental than the right to play a video game (which, interestingly enough, doesn't exist). Prison and bans from LoL may be comparable in their effect as punishments, but their social and moral implications are not even remotely similar.
: >It's also a testament to the fact that the punishment system isn't doing it's job I left that out because it was a false positive, further reinforcing my point that it isn't doing it's job
Unless you are surmising that Riot set up the system to deliberately ban innocents, it's actually very much reinforcing that it **is** doing it's job. If the system is sensitive enough to create false positives, it's sensitive enough to create true positives. As sad as it is to see false positives, they are still a sign of a working system. Inversely, only a system that is doing literally nothing will be able to produce zero false positives. And all of that is still under the assumption that it even **is** a false positive, which it is not necessarily.
: > [{quoted}](name=VindicatorOfThey,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=yjaaIF5a,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-06-10T03:59:07.800+0000) > > Sharing/giving accounts is illegal. Isnt illegal just for against laws? Its technically only against tos.
I mean… *technically* it can also be used to describe something that is against the rules of a game. Hence why there are for example "illegal" chess moves.
: It's also a testament to the fact that the punishment system isn't doing it's job. I have yet to see a post about being banned for griefing or inting.
Then you're not looking really hard. Ironically there is a very recent one that looks like a potential false positive. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/BdEnQEBJ-suspended-for-2-weeks-for-intentionally-feeding Edit: You even posted in that thread.
: Chat restriction for literally just common competitive talk between opposing teams.
>competitive talk between opposing teams. It's **very** obvious from context that several of those lines are directly targeted at members of your own team. I wouldn't really advise calling the enemy garbage or trash either, but it's certainly not what you should be focussing on in those chat logs.
Show more

TrulyBland

Level 39 (EUNE)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion