: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=HtAihato,comment-id=000100010000,timestamp=2019-12-10T08:56:05.776+0000) > > It's hot topic *because* it got such a ridiculously unlikely amount of upvotes, though. > > Looking at one other thread on this subforum, you will see something with **twenty times** the amount of views this thread has, while only having an up/downvote participation **half** of this thread. Not even talking about the subject matter or how much it was upvoted vs downvoted here. Already just looking at the votes per view there's something wrong here. > Knowing that there has been a vote bot active in recent days that seems to be the much more likely explanation to be completely honest. > > Edit: As numbers change over time (and already have changed) let me include the current numbers: > 68 upvotes, 7 downvotes, 626 views. That's more than 10% views resulting in a vote. also depends on the time of day. I browse later at night and don't really up or down vote but just comment. During the day boards is more comment-feeling
I'm not denying there's some variance in there… but you can even see the absurd vote per view ratio fall off incredibly quickly. Since I last checked the number of votes has perhaps increased by one or two, while there have been 200 more views. I'm fairly certain my initial view of the thread also already had 60-something upvotes and 6 downvotes, at less than 400 views and in less than 20 minutes. So here are the numbers: Over 66 votes in less than 20 minutes, with a vote per view ratio of over 16.5% And after that: Less than 8 votes in about 1.5 hours, with a vote per view ratio of less than 2.2% I understand that threads can lose momentum rather quickly… but you have to at least admit that this is anomalous.
: I see what you are asking now. A good point. Well maybe a Mod can confirm to us if their post was removed because of this. I believe their post (the mods) was removed because my parent post was removed which was deemed as spam (which was not but its not related to this current topic). My second post ( which is the one i described in my first post of this topic) was removed as being offensive. I believe removing my post after letting the post of the Mod stay on for so long indicates something sinister. It was removed after I pointed out his mistake. I will leave room for the benefit of a doubt. I might be wrong. The only person who can tell us is the mod himself.
Oh, I have to admit I did not realize the first post was also removed. I mean, in the strictest sense it was off-topic. But not to the point where one would usually expect the comment to be immediately deleted. Especially after getting a reply that any *more* posts on this would be considered spam. Seems to imply that post alone was still within bounds. Yeah, I'd say that warrants some clarification by the mods about what happened. Will remove the downvote I so hastily decided to cast.
: There is something wrong for sure. I posted it and after a few seconds only it had like 50 up-votes
: > [{quoted}](name=Wimbledofy,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=HtAihato,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-12-10T07:57:24.556+0000) > > 48 upvotes in 20 minutes? Is this normal? Considering it's a hot topic with fair points, yes, it is.
It's hot topic *because* it got such a ridiculously unlikely amount of upvotes, though. Looking at one other thread on this subforum, you will see something with **twenty times** the amount of views this thread has, while only having an up/downvote participation **half** of this thread. Not even talking about the subject matter or how much it was upvoted vs downvoted here. Already just looking at the votes per view there's something wrong here. Knowing that there has been a vote bot active in recent days that seems to be the much more likely explanation to be completely honest. Edit: As numbers change over time (and already have changed) let me include the current numbers: 68 upvotes, 7 downvotes, 626 views. That's more than 10% views resulting in a vote.
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=HtAihato,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-12-10T08:42:51.540+0000) > > So... where exactly is the double standard? > Have you considered that the way you felt about that response may have been precisely the reason why it was deleted? I have considered it. However when I see the notifications the reason for removal of my post was "offensive". So no. The reason that I made this thread is to get a response for that as well.
You didn't really answer my question here. I'm not even really talking about your post. Let me be a bit clearer: You claim there is a double standard… but your example for that are **two** deleted posts, which may have very well been deleted for the **same** reason. So again: Where do you see the double standard?
: Why people feel they are treated unfairly by the Mod team - A friendly discussion with the Mods
>However, since the post was deleted I cannot quote him/her directly. So... where exactly is the double standard? Have you considered that the way you felt about that response may have been precisely the reason why it was deleted?
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=R8Q1cu76,comment-id=0002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-09T16:18:58.338+0000) > > Good thing I read through all of your posts before deciding how much effort I will put into a sincere reply. > I would have been willing to look past the pointless exaggerations like I am glad you spent the time reading through my posts. Maybe you care to contribute a little more to the discussion next time. > and strawmen like strawman? Do you mean taking a sentence out of context as you did? > for the sake of a sensible discussion on how to best create rules for a forum, that have as little ambiguity as necessary to avoid loopholes. I am not even sure what you were trying to say in this one. > But this right there is not just bullshit, it's propaganda. Whether you merely believe it to be true or not, there is no place on earth right now, where not calling a person "ze" or "hir" is enough to be fined, let alone put in jail. Newsflash buddy: https://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-issues-new-guidelines-on-transgender-pronouns/ You can also do a background check in what is happening in the UK on similar topics. > And the fact that you try so hard to make this political makes me honestly wonder how this thread is still up. Trying to make this political? No, I am interested in discussing what is fair. The fact that you are trying to make it sound that this is political though won't keep this post up for much longer.
Have you *read* that article? >The updated regulations are meant to address “situations in which individuals **intentionally and repeatedly** target transgender and gender non-conforming people with this type of harassment >[…] >Penalties of up to $250,000 can be imposed for violations that are deemed to be the **result of malicious intent.** These fines are about intentional and malicious harassment. So saying that you can be fined for "not calling a person 'ze' or 'hir' " is like saying you can be fined for "driving a car" and omitting the "into a bunch of pedestrians on the sidewalk" part. >Trying to make this political? No, I am interested in discussing what is fair. If you're not trying to make this political, why do you make this about PC culture? That P doesn't stand for pasta, you know. And why, and this is the more important one, would you start talking about your take on current laws?
Rewt (NA)
: we should be able to see who is queued together and report entire stacks
>The stereotype of the toxic 4 stack exists because it's like 90% accurate. Which is what people say about every stereotype, even those that are demonstrably false. "Stereotypes exist for a reason" as people tend to say. The problem being that the reason stereotypes exist is rarely that they are accurate, and more often lies in a variety of biases (pretty much always including confirmation bias)… in fact that's even the case for most stereotypes that **are** accurate.
iMidg3t (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=Q8eTXm3c,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-12-09T13:37:16.724+0000) > > Saying "this server has higher toxicity than others in my experience / the experience of casters talking about it" is not insulting to specific EUW players any more than "NA is the least competitively skilled region" would be to specific NA players. Thats not what was said. It was said that a player cannot get the honor back because he's on EUW, implying that hes toxic because hes playing on EUW. Thats just generalizing. If I said that some random-ass player is garbage at the game because hes from NA, would that be okay? I dont think so. > Calling people "American scum," however, is directly insulting based on nationality. Hell, if the original comment had been "EUW scum" it would be gone alongside yours. As it is, however, one is directly insulting and one was just a statement about aggragate toxicity on the server. For the third time, and i hope the last time I AM NOT ARGUING IF MY COMMENT WAS PUNISHABLE OR NOT I KNOW I FULLY DESERVE IT. Oh and it wasnt a statement, read it again pls. Sice when is saying "a player cant get his honor back because hes from EUW, even casters say that server is toxic" a statement? Thats not a statement, thats just an insulting jab at the entire region. But since I dont have mental energy to deal with this shit anymore, I'll just be straight forward, Is it okay to insult a server/region? Yes or no?
> [{quoted}](name=iMidg3t,realm=EUW,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=Q8eTXm3c,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-12-09T16:06:19.982+0000) > > Thats not what was said. > It was said that a player cannot get the honor back because he's on EUW, implying that hes toxic because hes playing on EUW. I don't see that implication, to be honest. If the server is more toxic than most, that would make it a harder environment to get honor in. Toxic atmosphere, even if one decides to stay neutral, doesn't really spark positive behaviour. In fact, it's precisely this kind of thinking that Riot consistently displays when it comes to the question of creating a "prisoner's island". [Edit: To offer a bit more on how I read this: The way I read it is as a counterpoint to what they quoted. And as a counterpoint to "it's easy to gain Honor if you're not toxic" it doesn't make much sense to point out that the person in question is toxic, since that doesn't actually mean the original statement is necessarily false. If the statement was meant as a counterpoint, the only reasonable interpretation would be that it's *not* always easy to gain Honor if you're not toxic. As such, pointing out the region is very toxic wouldn't imply the player is toxic… just that it is harder for players to gain Honor in a toxic environment.] >Sice when is saying "a player cant get his honor back because hes from EUW, even casters say that server is toxic" a statement? A) That's not what was actually said. B) Even what you said is objectively a statement. What else would it be?
: > [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=R8Q1cu76,comment-id=00020000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-09T07:50:06.977+0000) > > You’re so focused on words. Words only have meaning because of the way they’re combined into phrases. A word can be part of an offensive phrase even when it is not inherently offensive. You are missing the point of this discussion. Of course a combination of words can be offensive. I never implied the opposite. What I said is that one thing that you find offensive might not be offensive to person A or person B. Where do we draw the line? This is the topic of my post. > Furthermore, you do not get to force your opinions on others. You thinking something is foolish does not mean it is, nor does it mean others must think it is. As such, you have no inherent “right” to call it foolish. You also refuse to accept that when someone produces something and you insult their work, you are by definition applying that same insult to the person who created the work. When you say an idea is foolish, you are saying the person who had that idea is a fool. That is not a valid discussion point - that is you attempting to win an argument by calling them names. That’s the definition of insulting behavior. I never implied that I have the right to force my opinion on others. Quite the opposite in fact. No, calling an idea foolish is my ultimate right (cf. human rights declaration). If you publish an idea then you should be prepared to listen to criticism on it. You should also be prepared to be called foolish if your idea is foolish. Why should I suffer listening to a foolish idea but the person who expressed the foolish idea gets a free pass? An idea might be foolish to some, genius for others. I have the right to express how I feel about it without being scared that my head will be chopped by the PC king. > None of this is new. This isn’t b “PC culture”. This is how society has been for centuries, and in fact this code of respect is what makes society work. Without respect and civility, you have anarchy and a breakdown of society. Period. This is in fact VERY new. Not even a decade older! Laws that sensor/ ban words, making not using the desired pronouns an offense, you can be literally finned or even jailed for not calling a person "ze" or "hir". These are all laws that arrived in the post-PC era and more are to come. The same set are rules are being imposed on the only free space left: The internet. Having to sensor your words can lead to a very dangerous game and times. > I am done trying to explain this to you as it is clear you are going to attempt to weasel your way into not having to be a member of society while still reaping all the benefits of society. Fair enough. I never forced you to have this conversation. You are free to participate at will. However, I would like to point out how someone might find your last 2 sentences offensive and have your post removed (which would be unfair but hilarious).
> [{quoted}](name=SirTauntsALot,realm=EUW,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=R8Q1cu76,comment-id=000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-09T08:28:51.907+0000) > > you can be literally finned or even jailed for not calling a person "ze" or "hir". Good thing I read through all of your posts before deciding how much effort I will put into a sincere reply. I would have been willing to look past the pointless exaggerations like >Western culture has become so sensitive that every word is deemed offensive. and strawmen like >I don't thing the boards welcomes democratic free ideologies... for the sake of a sensible discussion on how to best create rules for a forum, that have as little ambiguity as necessary to avoid loopholes. But this right there is not just bullshit, it's propaganda. Whether you merely believe it to be true or not, there is no place on earth right now, where not calling a person "ze" or "hir" is enough to be fined, let alone put in jail. And the fact that you try so hard to make this political makes me honestly wonder how this thread is still up.
: like what you have said have somthing in common with the real situation, most of times totally unskillds jsut get carried. And i face it many times i have a choice whether to lose or to carry these ones
>most of times totally unskillds jsut get carried So... it's statistically more likely for a team to win if they have an unskilled player on the team? Shouldn't you be **happy** then, to have unskilled players on your team?
IVSakenz (NA)
: I actually think thats a good idea.. make Senna Q ability an target direction instead of needing to actually target a person/mob. It would raise the skill needed to play her But if they kill her dmg ability in this nerf likes it seems, it would not be required
I mean… the way Senna's Q works is likely to a thematic choice, rather than a gameplay/balance choice, mimicking the Q of her lorewise husband. Don't get me wrong, if a thematic design choice results in terrible gameplay consequences it's clearly a good idea to axe it, but it wouldn't be my first choice to alter for balancing purposes. Thematic choices are the salt of champion design.
: Continuing the initial comment due to character limit; --- > Which leads to me to fixing the report system, I say announce a re-read of the banned players if they choose to, take into account the situation and the explanation they are giving, and unban them if they are not in the wrong. I can already tell you that's not going to happen. Your own explanation didn't hold up in the slightest. I've seen countless permabanned players try to explain their behavior on these boards, and - ignoring the obvious outliers of those who were unjustly permanently banned (which are rare, BTW) - pretty much _all of them_ failed to give a compelling argument. > Imagine, losing your account that you have been using for so many years off 1 game. Scary thought but it's a reality, I am a victim, I'm sure many other people are a victim, I am just tired of this terrible report system still being in the game and there should be change. When someone gets permanently banned, _they earned that punishment._ They had to go through _at least_ three separate punishment tiers (10-game Chat Restriction, 25-game CR, 14-day ban) before getting there, each time warning them of the fact that further misbehavior will result in heavier and heavier punishments down the line - the 14-day ban reform card _explicitly tells players_ **If you misbehave again, you WILL be permanently banned.** Some players run a shorter route to a permanent ban, using hate speech and encouragements of self-harm (which warrants an immediate escalation to a 14-day ban), and they're warned that further misbehavior will result in a permanent ban. And judging by your chat logs, I can guarantee you that you did not legitimately earn a permanent suspension out of nowhere from this one match. You had a history of misbehavior, and you _had_ to have prior punishments of some sort to warrant the permanent ban. The report system is not terrible. There should be change, certainly, but not the kind of change you're proposing or wanting. Your punishment was warranted. Permanent bans are not going to be changed. What _should_ change is your style of jokes and your behavior as a whole. 'Cause like I said; throughout the majority of your chat log, you were insulting, offensive, obnoxious, and even blatantly homophobic. You harassed and coerced and threatened to troll, and that's not something you can absolve with a half-hearted "I'm joking and you should know this". It'd be too little, too late for this account, considering the permanent ban, but regardless, it should still serve as a wake-up call that your behavior isn't acceptable. If you intend to continue playing League of Legends, you need to actually take this punishment as an invitation to figure out what you're doing wrong, and _fix it_. Because if you continue to behave like this, I can just about guarantee you you'll be getting punished over and over again.
> [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XM1KPs9B,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2019-12-07T17:17:03.780+0000) > > Continuing the initial comment due to character limit; I know this is in part a result of you quoting a lot of the OP's very long chatlogs, but **damn**. Don't think I've ever seen somebody run out of space while explaining a punishment to somebody. Kudos for typing such a long and detailed analysis.
Trias000 (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=MrSîsterFister,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=VnqxUvnE,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-07T16:00:11.044+0000) > > https://eune.op.gg/summoner/userName=Trias000 > > Hmmmmm....... the past 6 seasons...... your IQ seems pretty low. I suggest Riot delete your account, since you dont fit the required IQ requirements. You didn't understand my post at all. > [{quoted}](name=BBKong,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=VnqxUvnE,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-12-07T16:03:51.909+0000) > > Get out of low elo, and your experience will improve. Don't berate the skill Did I say anything about skill? I'm talking about the most basic logic and rational thinking. You don't even need to know anything about the game to understand that fighting 1v2 is bad in nearly all cases.
> [{quoted}](name=Trias000,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=VnqxUvnE,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-12-07T17:11:31.231+0000) > > You don't even need to know anything about the game to understand that fighting 1v2 is bad in nearly all cases. Actually… that is most definitely the case. You may not have to know anything about the game to understand that fighting 1v2 puts you inherently at a disadvantage assuming no other factors coming into play, but there are a lot of games where this advantage may be negligible in some scenarios. In fact that's even the case for LoL. I play a lot of Brand mid, and I promise you that if there are no minions for my ult to bounce, my chances in midgame to win a fight are astronomically larger in a 1v2 than in a 1v1. So yes, this is exactly the sort of reasoning skills that can only be formed by learning about the game specifically.
Arammus (EUW)
: according to op.gg my main (jennifer420) whos in plat 3 is in the top 9% of euw. my experience didnt improve. its not as frequent anymore but everything the OP says happens STILL MANY TIMES. i dont think an IQ test would solve this but man if pinging more than 30 times in 15 seconds would result in a pingmute for 10+ games (kinda like the CR system) that would be really nice.
> [{quoted}](name=Arammus,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=VnqxUvnE,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-12-07T17:07:51.692+0000) > > if pinging more than 30 times in 15 seconds would result in a pingmute for 10+ games (kinda like the CR system) that would be really nice. Completely agree. Especially as somebody who plays mainly ARAM and rarely sees any chat, because it feels like at any given moment in time the last 40 lines or so consist of people pinging other players' item, rune or summoner choices. I know, it's not as annoying as the loud and flashy pings like question marks… but seriously, how often does one really have to be able to ping somebody else's Warmog's per second? Scratch that. How often do you need to ping somebody else's Warmog's **per game**? I really think for those kinds of pings 30 times in 15 seconds is being pretty damn generous.
: Dude has a point.
Completely agree with your examples. And it's definitely a good idea to try to educate people on these things. However something I'd like to add: You seem very focussed on specific arguments. But neither ad hominems nor strawmen have to be about specific arguments. They can also be found when people try to attack more general stances, like support for a system that is in place. Also, while it *is* common for a strawman argument to be built around a distorted version of somebody's argument, it doesn't even have to be that. Some people built strawmen that are in no relation to anything that was said. To give a handy example of each: If people generally support the banning system, it would be an ad hominem to point out their hypocrisy, rather than any flaw in the actual system. In fact, this particular kind of ad hominem falls into the more specific category of the "hypocrisy fallacy". If now people come and point out flaws in your argument, and you then accused them of, I don't know, only supporting the banning system because they enjoy a false sense of moral superiority (without them actually even having said that they support it), then that would be a strawman **and** an ad hominem. Keep up the good work. You wouldn't believe how many people falsely accuse people of such fallacies. Worse though, a lot of people inadvertently use these fallacies. Maybe threads like this can also help educate those people.
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4NveyOEn,comment-id=0003000000000001,timestamp=2019-12-06T06:10:54.870+0000) > > What you said was: > > You used phrases like: > > "never" > "for any reason" > > The content you quoted, however, uses phrases like: > > "almost never" > "usually" > "generally" > > These two groups of phrases have different meanings. Effectively, your claim is false. > > The key is this: > > If Riot doesn't think they made a mistake, they don't lift a ban. And usually they don't think they made a mistake. But sometimes, they see that they have made a mistake, and in those cases, they may - and occasionally do - lift a ban. even if it's incorrectly placed they won't appeal it. they just go "tough shit. we not appealing it" don't you think with all the permaban stories that show up on the boards there would also be stories of those getting bans appealed? the reason there aren't any appeal stories is because riot never appeals them.
> [{quoted}](name=Inkling Commando,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4NveyOEn,comment-id=00030000000000010000,timestamp=2019-12-06T06:16:37.013+0000) > > even if it's incorrectly placed they won't appeal it. they just go "tough shit. we not appealing it" don't you think with all the permaban stories that show up on the boards there would also be stories of those getting bans appealed? You mean like the stories somebody only recently dug up when yet another person claimed permabans can't be lifted? Besides, between the relative rarity of permabans and the extreme rarity of false positives... how many false positive permabans do you actually expect to happen? Serious question, I want you to put a number on that.
: ARAM dodge
I know it's unlikely they'll do this given the amount of effort that they would have to put into something that complex, but it would be interesting to see dodge timers that scale with how often people dodge with those champions. Your poll, unfortunately, is a bit binary. I have to shamefully admit that there were instances were I dodged because of the champion I ended up with. But in my defence, it's only when I want to play one last game before going to bed, and I keep getting screwed out of awesome champions by other people dodging, only to wind up with some champion I absolutely don't want to play. At least that means I'm not abusing the short dodge timer, given that I just go to bed after something like that happens.
: And why would he try to look innocent to us? To get a reaction? To demerit the bots? If they have the ability to edit like that, then they should know that such efforts would be completely futile in restoring the account. By virtue of knowing how to handle files. What makes you think "there is no history of the current punishment system issuing bans unwarranted"? That sounds like Riot propaganda backing up the bot's zero contextual comprehension judgement. The only way the above statement is true is if someone decided to make every ban by the bot be warranted. Reality is that Riot HAS lifted bans, and recently, in a few cases. This wouldn't be the first if they did. There's no denying that it is *possible* to edit a chat log like that, but it's inane to do so.
> [{quoted}](name=Nightsky Pirate,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EYOyjnAZ,comment-id=000b00010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T09:22:19.443+0000) > > And why would he try to look innocent to us? To get a reaction? To demerit the bots? If they have the ability to edit like that, then they should know that such efforts would be completely futile in restoring the account. By virtue of knowing how to handle files. >[…] >There's no denying that it is possible to edit a chat log like that, but it's inane to do so. For the record, I don't believe the OP has edited the logs. In part because, as a mod has pointed out already, there was at least one case in the past where the logs were not displayed correctly. Mostly, however, because I believe that there's little point to this forum if one immediately assumes that people are lying when they present evidence. But the argument that it would be inane to edit logs like that… I mean, at it's core that's a sensible argument. I truly do not understand why anybody would put so much effort into something that is so obviously pointless. And yet there were cases where people have done exactly that. I've seen cases of much more effort going into lies that very obviously could not deceive Riot. Absurd amounts of effort, that to this day still baffle me when thinking about it. Sometimes even bizarre amounts of effort that couldn't even fool regular players if they were looking thoroughly enough. Regardless of their reasons - assuming they have any - "why would anybody do something so pointless?" stopped being a convincing argument for me quite a long time ago.
: I was informed by mods on this board that a permaban is something that is impossible to redact. And I don't assume anything, I like to have actual proof
Would love to see a quote on that. You're either taking things way out of context, or you stumbled across a mod that most definitely should be fired. Or whatever the volunteer-equivalent of fired is. Also, if you really like proof so much: Why do you accept so readily that they are **un**able to lift permabans? The lack of proof thereof didn't keep you from throwing it around as if it was an indisputable fact.
: You are wrong, bans are not able to be lifted. You should look more into it.
This is demonstrably bullshit **and** dangerous misinformation for the few people that might actually end up false positively permabanned. Think about this for a second. Maybe even two if you really need to. Riot is in complete control of all the data, they're in complete control of the source code, they are in control of everything pertaining to permanent bans. Now tell me how exactly you think they managed to create a situation where they can't lift a permaban.
: Are you not allowed to make bad decisions? Maybe Intoxicated?
I don't think moving into hook range of a Nautilus and starting to dance qualifies as a "bad decision".
: I'm fine with my case specifically- so long as it isn't begging for chat logs and after not giving it because it's irrelevant then calling me toxic and deserving then i would not want to right? But overall yeah if it wasn't touched for a year but i play regularly. Avg.. 2 hours 4 days a week at least? And i got back to honor two. Whether that is me or not.. clealry some reformation has taken place, otherwise they or me wouldn't have honor 2 playing regularly. Buuut permanent for one game i got a bit mad. The ban system does have statistics to know it's bad though. This example I'm having it a serious wtf moment. One game in a whole year after a 14 day of regular play results how? Not even a chat restriction between these. And hey, if people disagree that the BAN system (not punishment system as whole) is not broken when in my opinion it clearly is, that's fine! I can't change your mind myself. Normally i thought it was kinda reasonable but still kinda bad.. but OK.. now i just hate it. Not even because this was ME. I have other accounts anyway.. even if someone else made this to complain I'd get on their side and hate it. Is it possible I'm lying? Yeah. What's the point? Literally nothing. I'm just here to discuss, lying would do no good since you guys can't do anything and only rito games can.
> [{quoted}](name=BlueFire Mark II,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=WhoREh4p,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2019-12-05T02:23:08.122+0000) > > Is it possible I'm lying? Yeah. What's the point? Literally nothing. I'm just here to discuss, lying would do no good since you guys can't do anything and only rito games can. And yet people consistently do it. I'm sorry, but if everything written on these forums was taken at face value "garbage" wouldn't even begin to describe how horrible it would be. But most of the time people's claims just don't hold up, and rather than "discussing" the system, all they want to do is paint it in a bad light. For what reason? I have absolutely no idea. But it happens. And it makes it very hard to trust anything anybody says about their own punishment. That doesn't mean I'm going to immediately assume somebody is lying, though. I'm willing to grant people the benefit of the doubt when they have no way of producing proof of a statement. A good example for that kind of statement would be your claim that you were behaving properly in the year leading up to this ban. There's no point in accusing you of lying about this, because it would not be falsifiable from your end. So I'm not going to question that, and I will try to operate under the assumption that what you are saying is true. But what I *have* to question are things that people *could* prove; or at least support with much more tangible evidence. That is even more the case when there is the possibility for that person to merely misjudge the circumstances they are describing, rather than outright lie about them. A good example for that kind of statement would be your claim that the game you were banned for only contained "ordinary flame". **If** all of what you are saying is true, I urge you to write a support ticket. But I see little point in discussing the system based on a (from my point of view) hypothetical that falls into the second category.
: Lets talk the ban system shall we?
> if someone has been really good for nearly a year- is it okay to just straight perm ban them for an ordinary flame game? Operating purely on that hypothetical? Depends on the amount of games played in that time. Obviously you shouldn't just have your punishment level reset because you didn't touch the game for a year, as an extreme example. Assuming normal frequency of games, no, that wouldn't be okay. Returning from that hypothetical into the real world, however, the question remains whether that happens in the first place. If you don't want to discuss your case specifically, that's fine. Not being sarcastic here, I know how these forums can be when people share their logs. If you don't want to subject yourself to that, then that is absolutely understandable. But without that your argument that the system is "garbage" (great job at starting a civil discussion, btw) really has no leg to stand on.
: > [{quoted}](name=L2P BlackRose,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EYOyjnAZ,comment-id=000c,timestamp=2019-12-04T06:21:21.160+0000) > > we don't know the score (suicide time 0/15 ?), and he can permaping in game, we don't know, you can take a ban for other reason. If he were inting different window would have popped, but this is like chat related ban, which seems utterly broken.
>If he were inting different window [**should**] have popped ftfy. While my money is on chat logs being displayed incorrectly, it also wouldn't be the first time the wrong message popped up after a punishment. Been a while since I've seen either, though.
Ph03n1xb1rd (EUNE)
: Have you ever considered that it might be because he talks absolute bullshit in 90% of his posts? :D (The guy cant even read dates normally, but would argue with you how a liar you are, because you didn't play games on the given date (what he could not understand)) PS.: I would also downvote him, i just cant since im not lvl 30 yet.
> [{quoted}](name=Ph03n1xb1rd,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4io3AAKR,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-12-03T10:20:54.197+0000) > > Have you ever considered that it might be because he talks absolute bullshit in 90% of his posts? I have. I'm aware rujitra isn't exactly popular among a lot of people; and that includes me. I've contributed my fair share of downvotes, in fact. Only one at a time though. But that doesn't explain why posts that are neutral in tone and informative are downvoted so heavily. It also doesn't explain why the first "wave" of downvotes always has the exact same amount. You will also find that since my edit (which I think I made at about 8 minutes after rujitra posted) there has not been a **single** additional downvote. That's 18 downvotes over the course of 8 minutes or less (with only the standard upvote any post gets unless you remove it yourself), and then **zero** downvotes over the course of 11 hours (and 8 upvotes). That's quite the statistical anomaly there. Again, there is an indisputable pattern of voting manipulation going on here. And apart from people who feel the manipulated votes reflect their own voting behaviour, I have not seen anybody deny it.
plz ff (NA)
: Riot's Moderation on Post Regarding League's Toxicity
There's one particular player that gets around 20 downvotes on every single post within a minute of the post. And it's absolutely true that these kind of threads tend to not get that many upvotes, let alone in such a short time. There's *definitely* somebody screwing with the votes at the moment, and pretending otherwise is just silly. It's not even of any relevance, because as you said yourself, that doesn't remove it from the front page. So I wonder what kind of ulterior motive you think intentionally restricting votes would help accomplish. Small sidenote: You show to me as "level 0", so there's definitely something wrong with your account specifically. So unless you somehow feel important enough to be silenced specifically there's really no grounds for a conspiracy theory there. Edit: rujitra is the player I mentioned, and is, as you can see, comfortably sitting at 18 downvotes despite even helping you with your forum problem. Feel free to tell me that's normal.
: Wait did you really just say I said only inters should be punished when I literally said >both feeders and inters should be punished in the exact post you quoted wtf bad players **are** inters
The exact post I quoted specifically says inters have the end goal of ruining the game. And now you say bad players [which implies they do not have the end goal of ruining the game] are inters. Either inter includes both, or it specifically refers to one of them. But you have managed to use the word to **explicitly** refer to **each** of them **individually**, as if the other was not included. And that's literally impossible from a standpoint of elementary logic, and it's completely nonsensical from a standpoint of pragmatic communication. There's nothing wrong with using a word differently from other people, as long as you can make yourself understood and as long as you put an effort into trying to understand others. So, would you be so kind as to make your position clear, and answer whether your definition of inter: A) Refers to bad players, yes or no? B) Refers to players that actively try to lose the game, yes or no?
: Yes, if you ruin games you should be punished.
Then why do your arguments so frequently revolve around those who **intentionally** ruin games? >Most people agree that inters should be punished. Apart from this being an argument based on what the majority thinks, this has no relevance to non-inters. And, just to clarify, it is absolutely not true when extended to those who unintentionally feed. >Feeding = Inting >both have the end goal of ruining the game for your teammates >both feeders and inters should be punished Here you even **only** make the call to punish those who intentionally ruin games. >So your team should be forced to carry inters that will never get punished? Here you make a counter argument, yet again, only focussing on inters. If you want to punish people for playing badly, at least have the guts to stick to that opinion and defend it, instead of consistently jumping to the argument that is much easier to defend, that intentional feeders should be punished. Especially since literally nobody is objecting to that, making it nothing but a strawman argument. tl;dr: People agree that inters should be punished. People **don't** agree that bad players should be punished. Stop confusing the two.
: Both are "toxic" but one is gameplay toxic and one is chat toxic. Currently it's incredibly hard to be banned for being gameplay toxic.
Then this point pretty much still stands: >So your solution is to allow toxic players to be toxic in other game modes? I don't know why people think this is a good idea as it's not.
: Reread your post, it makes no sense.
I thought it was pretty clear: Do you want to punish people who **inadvertently** ruin the game **without** having the intention to do so or not?
: Not toxic behavior, trolling and griefing behavior ( inting ) should be met with a ranked ban.
Both of these **are** considered toxic behaviour.
: Feeding = Inting both have the end goal of ruining the game for your teammates both feeders and inters should be punished
If it has the end goal of ruining the game for your teammates, it is obviously intentional. But previously you argued people should be punished "whether intentional or not". You can't have it both ways. So, which of these is it?
: What in the hell kind of horseshit ISP would do such a thing? Jesus.
Not sure how much this still is a thing… but there were quite a few in Germany still a couple of years back. Does depend on the "type" of connection you have though. Edit: The way I understood it, part of the reason used to be to check whether an IP is actually still in use. Side effect also was that people with a dynamic IP would get a new IP at least once per 24 hours. Edit2: Upon consulting Wikipedia I found there only exists an article on the subject in German and not a single other language. So yeah, 99% this is pretty much exclusive to Germany.
: > [{quoted}](name=DuskDaUmbreon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=k59Ku1y0,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-12-02T03:07:45.679+0000) > > TIL losing isn't a consequence. > > Being bad isn't punishable and has no reason to be punishable. Inting is punished, which you'd know if you actually paid attention to this board. > > Because flaming trolls just feeds them, and flaming bad people is explicitly against the rules. > > --- > > EDIT: Also, nice blatant upvote botting. 28 at 17 is *not* normal. TIL losing is a consequence to someone intentionally trying to lose
"Throw" has gone through the same process as "feed", where even if the literal meaning implies intention behind the action, it's now more often used when people are *not* intentionally trying to lose, unless specified otherwise. Some people in this thread are assuming OP is talking about people who literally are throwing the game, some people assume it's about people who are making bad plays that result in a loss. I think it's honestly the source of most the arguments in this thread.
: I have an example actually in my building, the internet has always gone off for a few minutes at exactly 3 am sharp. every night. i've never discovered why. sometimes i forget to check the time before playing another game {{sticker:zombie-nunu-bummed}}
Is it really your building's internet, or perhaps just your router? Some ISPs do 24 hour disconnects if you have a dynamic IP. Might make sense to look into it, because in some cases it's possible to control when that disconnect happens. For example, with my old ISP it was really every 24 hours of being connected, so if I manually reset the router at a certain time, that would shift the 24 hour reconnect to that time as well.
: this is not the only thread i've seen recently with this issue
Yeah, I even doubt this was done at OP's request. Seems like a random "vigilante" who can't accept people having a opinion different from their own, to be honest. Would also explain the unusual amount of downvotes rujitra gets on pretty much every single post. Probably somebody they've had an argument with.
Cõmega (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Sinful Succubus,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=vryBqz7d,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-12-02T07:42:38.968+0000) > > so if my power goes out for some bullshit reason out of my control, i get a ban on rank play for the next few weeks? yeah. seems totally fair! > You mean i lost my promo game because some rando didn't pay his electricity bill?
>some rando didn't pay his electricity bill doesn't really sound like >some bullshit reason out of my control Let's also not forget that you can easily **win** your promo game because some rando didn't pay his electricity bill, as long as they are on the other side. So there is a long term balance in this system, which does not exist in the punishment that OP proposed. There's also no mention of reimbursing those who have a DC on their side, so this scenario would still be possible. And in fact, because it has absolutely nothing to do with LoL, I doubt the frequency of such occurrences will change significantly just because you start punishing people for it.
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=SymbolicFear,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=iz44l8xf,comment-id=000100010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-01T09:49:50.860+0000) > > Incorrect yet again young one What is incorrect? >Asking if birds are black is not a yes or no question as it encompasses many different species and subclasses, "Birds" isnt a specific. And asking if making the game unenjoyable is bannable is not a yes or no question as it encompasses many different types of behaviour. "Making the game unenjoyable" isn't specific. >Asking if its bannable to make the game unfun, is a specific, im specifically asking if i make the game unfun for others, knowing thats what im doing, is that bannable? Just because you say it's specific doesn't mean it is. Admittedly you are getting more specific as you are now including "knowing that's what I'm doing" in the question. But there's still a whole lot of ways you could be doing that. There are plenty of lane combinations that specifically aim to make the opponent's game hell. That's not bannable. Some people dislike certain champions in certain roles, to the extend that if I pick such a champion (even if I know I'm improving my - and therefore the team's - chance to win) I make their game less enjoyable. That, too, is not bannable. So the answer to your question, just as with the question of "Are birds black?" is: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You can keep pretending as if all actions that make the game unenjoyable are 100% identical and should be treated 100% identical. But it's simply not the case. And that's why your question is, frankly, bullshit. You are putting your own views and assumptions in there, forcing anybody who would try to answer the question to implicitly agree with those assumptions. Well, here's the thing: I don't. I don't agree with your assumption. That doesn't mean I'm overthinking things, doesn't mean I'm underthinking things, doesn't mean I'm a fanboy. It just means that I disagree with you. Is that really such a strange concept to you?
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=iz44l8xf,comment-id=000100010000,timestamp=2019-12-01T09:36:36.496+0000) > > That's like asking "Are birds black?" and insisting on the answer being either yes or no. > You are taking something extremely vague and asking whether something extremely specific applies to it. That might not be rocket science, but it makes no sense either. > > Riot doesn't want people to do things that make the game unenjoyable. > Within the things that make the game unenjoyable, **some** things are such that Riot believes it's acceptable to punish people for it to try to deter people from doing those things. > > That's as much as you can generalize it. Incorrect, it may be a blanket statement, but it all revolves around the same issue. Whether it is or it isnt. And if it is, why are so many held unaccountable for the problems they cause, while chat gets the biggest focus?
>Incorrect, it may be a blanket statement, but it all revolves around the same issue. Whether it is or it isnt. Again I ask you: Are birds black? Yes or no? That too, is a question of whether "it" is, or "it" isn't. So it should be easy to answer, right? >And if it is, why are so many held unaccountable for the problems they cause, while chat gets the biggest focus? "Focus" is not a measure of effect, it's a measure of effort. How much effort do you think a completely automated system takes? How much effort do you think is actively applied to chat? And the **effect** of the punishments for chat is simply larger because it's much much easier to hold people accountable for their chat than to hold people accountable for their intentions. And that's the point of what I was trying to say: Making the game unenjoyable via, for example, feeding is only deemed worthy of punishment if it happens **intentionally**.
: ***
That's like asking "Are birds black?" and insisting on the answer being either yes or no. You are taking something extremely vague and asking whether something extremely specific applies to it. That might not be rocket science, but it makes no sense either. Riot doesn't want people to do things that make the game unenjoyable. Within the things that make the game unenjoyable, **some** things are such that Riot believes it's acceptable to punish people for it to try to deter people from doing those things. That's as much as you can generalize it.
forist (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=sA60QM4U,comment-id=00070000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-01T03:37:58.939+0000) > > And by asking this he **is** justifying his own chat beyond the use of the word "boomer". Otherwise there would be no need to ask whether that one particular thing was the reason for the punishment. > > If the police finds a dead hooker and a tiny bag of weed in your trunk, and you ask "was it the tiny bag of weed that got me into trouble?" that reveals a very severe misunderstanding of the situation. And I'd say clearing up that misunderstanding is more important than clarifying whether it is or isn't legal to possess a small amount of weed. Don’t give me any terrible non-league analogies please. Also, the chat listed was not deserving of a ban imo, considering it was 100% banter. Either way, the op doesn’t need an annoying automated response about how reactive behavior gets you punushed.
>Don’t give me any terrible non-league analogies please. The subject matter **isn't** League related, because the issue you brought up is simply the matter of answering questions, specifically loaded questions. The question of whether the use of the word boomer was the problem here only makes sense if there is the underlying assumption that if OP **hadn't** used the word boomer, things would be okay. Answering the question implicitly confirms the assumption, so it's impossible to answer the question directly without effectively misinforming the OP. Inversely, any answer that is actually informative is going to have to be broader than the OP wanted. I agree KFCeytron's answer could have been more specific, but it's still more helpful than a reply that only and directly answers the loaded question OP asked.
forist (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=sA60QM4U,comment-id=000700000000,timestamp=2019-11-30T11:06:17.077+0000) > > Point out where anything I said was irrelevant or incorrect. If you had bothered to read the op’s post: you’d realize that he was not justifying his own chat. He was asking if his use of the word boomer was the reason he got banned. So your condescending, copy-paste lecture on behavior is irrelevant to the current discussion. The real question is whether or not banter is acceptable, because there were no bannable words in the log provided.
> [{quoted}](name=The Hanged Man,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=sA60QM4U,comment-id=0007000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-01T02:28:48.823+0000) > > If you had bothered to read the op’s post: you’d realize that he was not justifying his own chat. He was asking if his use of the word boomer was the reason he got banned. And by asking this he **is** justifying his own chat beyond the use of the word "boomer". Otherwise there would be no need to ask whether that one particular thing was the reason for the punishment. If the police finds a dead hooker and a tiny bag of weed in your trunk, and you ask "was it the tiny bag of weed that got me into trouble?" that reveals a very severe misunderstanding of the situation. And I'd say clearing up that misunderstanding is more important than clarifying whether it is or isn't legal to possess a small amount of weed.
: im confused... i also checked at know your meme and honestly now i know even less. from the page, some random 4chan dude said that in 2015 and suddenly it becomes a meme that seems to be the same as saying "ok r%%%%%" if this is true, then i guess its an insult? lol
The way I understand it's less a way of saying that a person is stupid and more of a way saying somebody is out of touch with the today's world, since boomers grew up in a very different kind of time and stereotypically(!) make arguments based on what they learned *then* to be true, even if it no longer applies. It is an insult to some extent, but it's one of those weird political insults that are just used to dismiss somebody's argument without any effort. So it's less an "ok r%%%%%" and more of a politically charged "cool story bro". Either way, dismissive and slightly passive aggressive. Not something I'd expect Riot to punish instantly in a first-time offense, but certainly something that can contribute to a punishment, and therefore also something that should be displayed in chat logs if a punishment has happened.
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=2QqE2i4d,comment-id=000e000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-26T12:19:13.438+0000) > > Wall-of-Shill Yeah dude I get it, you do not believe Riot does anything inadequately and therefore take every criticism personally. I have nothing to discuss with you.
> [{quoted}](name=Zero Drive,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=2QqE2i4d,comment-id=000e0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-26T12:25:59.307+0000) > >Strawman Yeah, I doubt this would have been a sensible discussion anyway.
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=2QqE2i4d,comment-id=000e0000,timestamp=2019-11-26T11:43:43.011+0000) > > And what exactly do you base this on? The general dissatisfaction the community expresses regularly on toxic players not receiving punishment and the automated/copypaste responses Riot Support gives to any inquiry regarding player behavior.
How does that allow you to make any deduction of whether or not it is likely that 3 players were not punished for their toxic behaviour? The copypaste responses are not even in any way relevant, and when it comes to the "general dissatisfaction" you only really know the amount of people who are dissatisfied (often **also** because they blindly assume that the people they reported were not punished). And without knowing the amount of people who are **satisfied** that doesn't even make it possible to gauge the **subjective** view of how effective the system is, let alone the actual **objective** chance of somebody being punished.
: The issue being those 3 toxic players probably were not punished.
And what exactly do you base this on?
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=bUL7TmQP,comment-id=00020000000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-25T15:49:35.333+0000) > > "I want cs because other people are mean to me." > Care to elaborate on that? I don't see the logic here. Allow me to spell it out sinse apparently you dont get it. You are an adc and you treat the support player like reheated DOGSHIT. You dont get to turn around and cry "but its for the team" when support tells you to fuck off and focuses on building themselves up. No its not "i want cs because others are mean to me" its "I want CS because my teammates are self-entitled narcissists who will stop the game to throw a tantrum in lane the moment things dont follow THEIR schedule. > > If this is how you feel about playing support... how about just **NOT** playing support? > Scratch that: If this is how you feel about the **TEAM** aspect of this game, how about you just stop playing this game? Sorry But YOU do not get to dictate to others who can or cannot play this game. YOU do not get to dictate how others play the game. > > Thereby imposing your playstyle on others. > You're not playing a single player game. I know you'll say "But others are so mean to me, they make me not want to play for the team anymore!" > That doesn't change the fact that this **IS** a team game. And if you don't want to play a team game **as** a teamgame, then again: just stop playing it. Oh kindly shut the fuck up with that "muh team game" as we both know that is a bullshit cop-out used only when its convenient for you. Yeah, they may have -designed- it as a team game. But it is not PLAYED as such. Especially when people are only concerned with "ur garbage cuz kills" completely ignoring assists or other forms of helping the team. and yeah actually, Players DO treat it like a damn single player game, and only pull the "its a team game" when the enemy kicks their ass for only farming kills because they want someone to throw under the bus. > > And just to be clear, that goes for the idiots who only care about their own stats, too. But you're not better than them; in fact I consider you to be one of those. > I'd rather not have you **OR** them playing this game. I really dont give a fuck what you "Consider" me, I lost any respect for this community a long time ago when you turned a good strategy TEAM game, into just a fucking pissing contest over who has more kills than who. Ignoring towers for 30 minutes so you could farm kills, then acting shocked when your killstreaks dont automatically destroy towers FOR YOU. Doesnt matter who you want playing or not. This is what your game has become, so embrace it. > > If it's really about **this** little gold… care to elaborate why you don't just buy the gold item? Because if you're just taking 2% of the ADCs cs, I can safely say you would earn more with the gold item. > Besides, if it really was such a negligible amount of gold: Why do **YOU** insist on having it? > > You can't on the one hand pretend that the gold is so significant that it is vital to your playstyle, and on the other hand pretend that it's so insignificant that it makes no difference to the ADC. I take the farm because I want to. I am focused on MYSELF. There is no rule saying I face banning for taking minions. And considering how they are that eager to degrade the support role, then so be it. I will make up the difference by taking it out of the minion waves. If I get more gold to build myself up by going after minions, than thats where i will go. and I never once said it was insignificant to the adc, I am saying I DO NOT CARE what the adc does. because the moment i take ONE minion, Kill ONE CS. Adc goes completely apeshit and reverts to a toddler in a candy store who didnt get the chocolate bar. So they drop to the ground kicking and screaming and causing the biggest fit. I am under no obligation to extend ANY courtesy to a screaming toddler. > > Yes. And if you had read my first post in this thread, you'd know that my point is precisely that it's stupid to go into the same lane with two gold dependent champions. Play a proper support champion and what you "need" is absolutely zero cs. > More doesn't harm, of course, but it's definitely not something you "need" to make meaningful contributions all the way into midgame and - with the right champion - even endgame. again, all I am hearing from you is "shut up and fall in line. who cares if adc treats their support like shit, do what you are supposed to "for the team" Nah, I have a spine and I like it right where it is. > > Don't want to do that? Play a different role. > Don't want to do that, either? Play a different game. How about you take your own advice and play your OWN game instead of trying to force everyone else to fall in line. > > Edit: Oh, and I still didn't hear an answer from you regarding my two questions. > Just as a reminder: > Does your team as a whole get more gold if you buy a gold item? Dont give a fuck if they do or they dont. I am playing to build myself up sinse my 'team' is too busy sucking off their own ego and bragging about how "hard carry" they are despite never touching a tower. Again, Maybe when i find an actual 'team' I will let you know. > Do partial or full items give more power per gold? again, dont give a fuck, whatever damages the tower, damages it. and I want to bring it down sooner rather than later. > > I know why you don't want to answer them, though. You'd have to admit that your choices undeniably hurt your team. What part of "this stopped being a team game long ago" are you unclear on. I am building MYSELF up while my 'team' is more interested in admiring themselves in the mirror talking about how 'trash' their teammates are. So if it hurts the team? oh well. thats not MY problem. I am trying to win, i have no interest in being my adcs personal cheerleader section. Riot fucked over the gold income from supports, so I am taking it out of minions. Adc doesnt like that, they have two choices. Adapt or shut the fuck up and go pout in spawn while I pull the smallest violin. While they are busy throwing a shitfit because support taxed their minion waves for the job of keeping them alive, I will just take more and more farm and let them go have fun in thier 'safe space' where they can remember when supports knew their place to just "shut up and heal" So yeah, dont know how many ways I can say I no longer give a fuck about your season 2 "rules for support" Maybe when adcs stop seeing supports as disposable dogshit, maybe then they can EARN back respect. Till then I play for myself, take your "not team" game and shove it
>So if it hurts the team? oh well. thats not MY problem. Theeere you go. I'm not even going to reply to all the rest of your flawed arguments. You wanted to know which rule you are breaking? Summoner's code, first headline: Support your team. Rant all you want, keep trying to convince yourself with all that "there's no rule against taking cs" and "everybody else refuse to play this as a teamgame" bullshit arguments. You've admitted right there to break the rules. You are not supporting your team, you are willingly hurting it. A different way of putting it would be: You are sabotaging your team. Yet another way of putting it: **You are griefing.** And no bullshit semantic arguments (which I know you will try to pull) will make what you said disappear. You. Admitted. To. Griefing.
: No, actually I dont give a fuck about your precious stats, thats why I will take as much cs as I need to build MYSELF up. Why? because most if not all (with the rare exception) ADCS have been Nothing but spoiled, entitled little diaper-rash toddlers who will throw a fit the moment someone doesnt play how THEY want. And no, dont give me that "for the team" bullshit. I have tried playing "for the team" and what does it get me? nothing but stress and headaches when I throw everything to pull the adc out of a fight just for them to throw me under the bus anyways. So no, I am not imposing any playstyle on anyone. I am Playing MY playstyle for MYSELF. Because I am sick of being thrown under the bus because my adc wants to cash in a "Get out of blame free" card. And besides, I am not the one who throws a fucking temper tantrum in the spawn because the support takes 1/6 minions and then ints while telling everyone "its supports fault I am inting". So yeah, keep trying kiddo, maybe something will stick. I Do not care who gets more or less gold, I am playing FOR MYSELF because I am sick of being thrown under the bus and being told "its for the team. Its all your fault, take the blame for the team" and yeah, you are the one trying to convince me that its somehow MY fault that an adc cant work with 98% gold instead of the full 100% gold. You are the one obssessed with your stats and numbers. I dont give a fuck who gets what kill in what hole. I take what I need. Maybe if my "teams" didnt act like a bunch of narcissistic rich kids I might have a bit more respect. Go back to fighting over who is more "Trash" than who.
> [{quoted}](name=Freaktory,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=bUL7TmQP,comment-id=0002000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-25T15:10:47.264+0000) > >No, actually I dont give a fuck about your precious stats, thats why I will take as much cs as I need to build MYSELF up. Why? because most if not all (with the rare exception) ADCS have been Nothing but spoiled, entitled little diaper-rash toddlers who will throw a fit the moment someone doesnt play how THEY want. "I want cs because other people are mean to me." Care to elaborate on that? I don't see the logic here. >And no, dont give me that "for the team" bullshit. I have tried playing "for the team" and what does it get me? nothing but stress and headaches when I throw everything to pull the adc out of a fight just for them to throw me under the bus anyways. If this is how you feel about playing support... how about just **NOT** playing support? Scratch that: If this is how you feel about the **TEAM** aspect of this game, how about you just stop playing this game? >So no, I am not imposing any playstyle on anyone. I am Playing MY playstyle for MYSELF. Thereby imposing your playstyle on others. You're not playing a single player game. I know you'll say "But others are so mean to me, they make me not want to play for the team anymore!" That doesn't change the fact that this **IS** a team game. And if you don't want to play a team game **as** a teamgame, then again: just stop playing it. And just to be clear, that goes for the idiots who only care about their own stats, too. But you're not better than them; in fact I consider you to be one of those. I'd rather not have you **OR** them playing this game. > and yeah, you are the one trying to convince me that its somehow MY fault that an adc cant work with 98% gold instead of the full 100% gold. If it's really about **this** little gold… care to elaborate why you don't just buy the gold item? Because if you're just taking 2% of the ADCs cs, I can safely say you would earn more with the gold item. Besides, if it really was such a negligible amount of gold: Why do **YOU** insist on having it? You can't on the one hand pretend that the gold is so significant that it is vital to your playstyle, and on the other hand pretend that it's so insignificant that it makes no difference to the ADC. >I take what I need. Yes. And if you had read my first post in this thread, you'd know that my point is precisely that it's stupid to go into the same lane with two gold dependent champions. Play a proper support champion and what you "need" is absolutely zero cs. More doesn't harm, of course, but it's definitely not something you "need" to make meaningful contributions all the way into midgame and - with the right champion - even endgame. Don't want to do that? Play a different role. Don't want to do that, either? Play a different game. Edit: Oh, and I still didn't hear an answer from you regarding my two questions. Just as a reminder: Does your team as a whole get more gold if you buy a gold item? Do partial or full items give more power per gold? I know why you don't want to answer them, though. You'd have to admit that your choices undeniably hurt your team.
: Ahh here we go, the precious "you cant attack A unless you meet Quota B" thing. I have gone in and attacked a tower with a basic{{item:1036}} , You dont need a wealth of gold to do damage to a tower, to chip away at it. Again you people seem obsessed with your precious stats. Who has more gold, who has less gold, who has more kills, who has less kills. who cant attack what without 200cs and a 4800 gold sword. Give it a damn rest already. Take your bean counting somewhere else. I dont care about your precious stat pissing contest. My objective is taking down the tower, not sitting around farming some 10,000 gold E-penor sword before taking down my first tower. I chip away at the tower and break it down bit by bit, Not spend the entire game waiting to bring it down in one showboat "big playz bruh" Here is a secret....thats MY PLAY STYLE. You know those things the precious league puritans want scrubbed from the community, along with individuality. So yeah, I do the best with what I have. I adapt to the situation, I change my builds based on what I NEED, not the precious flavor of the week meta. And I dont remember asking or caring what you play. You jump down my throat because I am not towing the line. And people wonder why I will not extend the COURTESY of uncontested farm. I have stated my intentions. so again, ADCs can either adapt or go have a tantrum in the corner for all the fucks i give.
Four paragraphs… and not a single answer. >Again you people seem obsessed with your precious stats. Who has more gold, who has less gold, who has more kills, who has less kills. Where exactly do you see me obsess with that? Please quote the segment where you see me obsessed with stats. Or even who has how much gold. If you go back to my question you'll find I asked about **TEAM** gold. That was by design. Edit: >And people wonder why I will not extend the COURTESY of uncontested farm. Nobody is wondering that. It's clear that **YOU** are the one who obsesses with stats, and who has the most gold, and who makes the flashy plays. It's **YOU** who insists on having a pissing contest with the ADC instead of prioritizing what is best for the team. It's **YOU** who imposes **YOUR** playstyle on everybody else with no regard to the team. **YOU** are doing all those things that you accuse everybody else of doing.
Show more

TrulyBland

Level 65 (EUNE)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion