KDA Umbra (EUW)
: > More so... why do players lose the SAME amount of points when you have an AFK on your team? Because giving people the opportunity to lose less would be exploitable. And I don't doubt for a second that that's exactly what would happen, were Riot to implement something like that. > Id be happy to lose some points if the AFK loses more! Don't give me that Garbage around bad internet You cannot predict power outages or any other events that could possibly lead to you having to step away from the game. Sure, someone might have a really bad internet connection and cause issues for their team, but let's not look at it so one-dimensionally.
> Because giving people the opportunity to lose less would be exploitable. And I don't doubt for a second that that's exactly what would happen, were Riot to implement something like that. Then penalize the AFK's premades the same as if there were no AFK. Nobody would quit a game to save LP for strangers, but lose more from his own. > You cannot predict power outages or any other events that could possibly lead to you having to step away from the game. Sure, someone might have a really bad internet connection and cause issues for their team, but let's not look at it so one-dimensionally. Yes, it can happen. That's why we do not want to ban them on the 1st occasion, neither on the 3rd... But losing more LP, for example scaling with the frequency of AFKing, should be a good system. Or at least i think.
Dragart (NA)
: About to punch a hole through my monitor. Please talk me out of it
Can you please record it, it would be kinda hilarious?
Jo0o (NA)
: If a portion of players preemptively opt-out of chat, folks like me can no longer have a reasonable expectation of our teammates receiving our communication.
So you want other people suffer serious brain damage (seeing a "kys" written), just because YOU want to shotcall. It's pretty selfish in my opinion...
: I removed an insult from your comment. If you have any questions about this moderation, feel free to reach out to us in the [Boards Discord](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/7rtKBZLi-boards-moderation-discord-verification).
You forgot to remove the "sane". I do not want you to lose censoring points ;)
: Mainly boils down to the number of players in a day with the ratio. I'll try to explain, please bear with me. For simplicity sake, we will use the same number of total players as you are right the ratio matters. ___ Both games have 1 million playwrs, so 100k people are elgible to review. This next is where the number of players matter. It was a slow day for both games, the number of players for CSGO was 10k and LoL was 13k. Even though you can play csgo with bots in the match, lets assume each game had the max number of each side for both games. At least 1 person in each match was reported. This gives us 1k reports CSGO and 1.3k reported LoL. 300 extra cases may not seem like a lot, but it is more likely to back up. ____ Now that CS:GO is free to play, I am willing to wait a bit and see if their system change much.
> It was a slow day for both games, the number of players for CSGO was 10k and LoL was 13k. And what if it happens the other way around? With your reasoning CSGO's system should not work, because they can have fast days as well. You are trying to prove that the CSGO system is bad, but not with the number of games. > Even though you can play csgo with bots in the match Can't you in LoL? XD EDIT: TBH i have no idea what you wanted to say with this. You started with the assumption: "we will use the same number of total players " After that whatever you say is not an answer to my question.
: The point I was trying to make was that trolling is subjective and can't be discerned just from someone's scores. I don't **actually** think the OP was trolling or inting in any of those games. I was trying to use that to prove a point. Maybe I should have used <sarcasm> tags. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that chat-based offenses are easy to detect. They're not subjective - they're **objective**.
I understood your "sarcasm", my point is that you make it look stupid. Nobody <removed by moderation> would say that 0/8/8 Thresh in 23mins is trolling, just based on these stats. You are trying to invalidate the "troll" calls, with an "example" fake troll calling. But no sane person would call him troll, just based on these stats.
Hotarµ (NA)
: >Aren't their teammates involved in their strategy? I mean, the whole team has to adapt to these 2 players. I think this is akin to a premade going bot lane or camping their premade when playing the jungle. Teammates will always have different strategies (such as playstyles, build paths, rune setups, etc.) but as long as they're trying their hardest to win it's not really fair to punish them for deviating from the meta. Metas in video games give guidelines to players but are restrictive and crush the development of other playstyles. >These things were bannable (singed, nunu) when the player did it quiet succesfully, why would it be not now? If I can be share my honest opinion, I think that was a huge double standard on Riot's part and I disagree entirely. Those players performed well but got punished because it deviated from the set path - yet a year later Riot releases the "#IsItMeta" video to try and get players to play differently? It just doesn't seem right.
> Metas in video games give guidelines to players but are restrictive and crush the development of other playstyles. Well, this is usually the developers fault(?), since their changes make a given strategy better than others. Failing to balance between these they very often make other strategies not even viable. Just how the jungle changes forced the jungler to play with smite. Now in a balanced game a jungler with no smite will lose. I can not blame anybody if he calls a jungler without smite troll in the current meta, since he is not trying his hardest to win, by putting himself on a huge disadvantage. OFC camping somebody should not be punished. > If I can be share my honest opinion, I think that was a huge double standard on Riot's part and I disagree entirely. I'm very glad to see this :D You are the firsts person with any kind of tag, who is not a complete Rito worshipper fanboy/girl :)
: i said if they reviewed the 1% of the most reported players. 1% of 50% is .5%. in cs:go it would be 1% of 1%. = .01% of games. glad i could help.
Ah i see, so you just implemented your own ideas in the CSGO system as well, i missed that part :)
: they are just totally different games. you cant even compare them. the amount of impact a troll has on you in CS:GO is tiny compared to league of legends. that is why there are not many trolls. what are they going to do? flashbang you? ok if they throw flashbangs on you it is annoying but you can turn away from them and they are out in 10 seconds. feed the enemy? who cares. in that game the enemies dont get stronger and stronger as they get more kills and then the troll has to sit out and wait the remainder of each game after they are dead. it just doesnt happen very often. it is much easier to review games if people are only getting reported in 1% of them. LoL however is a troll's paradise. they can feed your enemies and make them into huge unstoppable monsters. when they die they are right back at their trolling in 30 seconds. they can steal your farm and make you useless. and the games regularly last 30+ minutes. you cant get away from them. plus chat is not really much of a thing in cs:go. in league of legends you get people just raging for 30 mins. with your teammates having a much bigger impact on your own game in LoL there are a lot more people getting mad at each other.
Okay, so it has basically nothing to do with the number of players, but the difference in the game. > it just doesnt happen very often. it is much easier to review games if people are only getting reported in 1% of them. You just wrote in your previous post, that in LoL even 0.5% (half of the games * 1% of most reported) would be impossible to handle. Can you decide what do you want to say? Ps.: Doesnt a kill give money to the enemy in CSGO? So they are helping the enemy team. So the enemies objectively get stronger. OFC it probaby has a smaller impact than LoL, but still you were wrong.
Łμst (NA)
: Can someone define riot's version of honorable?
For Rito it is, that you say always only positive things, or nothing at all. If you see trolls inters you just accept your faith, and report at the end. Always try to win the game, no matter what. Well, basically this.
Hotarµ (NA)
: As long as both/all involved players are comfortable with trying the strategy and they're trying their hardest to win, it's not reportable. It also probably shouldn't be bannable at all considering it would further enforce a meta that players wouldn't ever be able to deviate from without risk of punishment.
> As long as both/all involved players are comfortable with trying the strategy and they're trying their hardest to win, it's not reportable. Aren't their teammates involved in their strategy? I mean, the whole team has to adapt to these 2 players. And if we count teammates as involved players (since they are), then it is OBVIOUS that not everybody is comfortable with it, that's why this thread happened. > It also probably shouldn't be bannable at all considering it would further enforce a meta that players wouldn't ever be able to deviate from without risk of punishment. These things were bannable (singed, nunu) when the player did it quiet succesfully, why would it be not now?
: I think you've got a point - the number of players in the game doesn't matter, it's the ratio of players who are willing to participate in such a system vs the ratio of reports that matters.
Thanks for the confirmation! I was worried my brain started rotting or idk, if i can not understand such a basic thing :D
: because there are hundreds of millions of games each day and someone is getting reported in probably half of them. do you know how long it would take to review 1 day worth of games? even if you only reviewed the 1% with the most reports, thats probably still 1 million games per day. if you could somehow convince 50,000 players that you could somehow trust to review games, that means they would have to review maybe 20 games each. every day. and thats for 1 review per game. you would want backups just for mistakes. so you would need maybe 5 reviewers per game. that means the 50,000 would have to review 100 games per day. fastforwarding through most of the games would help you could probably review a game in 10 mins or less. lets pretend 5 minutes. that would be 500 minutes of reviewing games every day for 50,000 people. for free. good luck with that.
I still do not understand what's the difference between LoL and CS:GO. Since OP said, we should trust the top 10% of the playerbase. Nobody cares about exact numbers, but only the ratios. I'm not saying it would work or not. I just do not see the reason pointing out CSGO having less players, when the proposed system has no scaling in workload per capita with the size of the playerbase.
: Remember how the tribunal would take months to issue out a punishment? You basically want to bring the tribunal back and limit it to a smaller portion of players. Comparing the CS:GO system doesn't really work either. The all time peak number of CS:GO players concurrently is apparently 850,485. Granted I haven't checked LoL recent numbers, pretty sure it is more than that on a DAILY basis. Edit to fix stat clarity.
I do not really want to argue with you, i'm just curious, why does the number of players matter in this case? O.o
: Bot lane inting after Lux wouldn't let Ryze solo baron
It happens to everybody, since trolls are quiet common. No matter what the Rito fanbois say. Ryze was obviously a smurf, he does not care about win/lose since he wins a game anytime he wants. But do not dare to say anything to these people, because then you will get banned! Lovely Rito policy <3
: Hi. I see some things in your match history - - 2/8 as Zilean - 2/11 as Thresh - 0/8 as Thresh - 3/13 as Katarina - 3/12 as Katarina Were you running it down mid on these games, or were they bad games? Do you see what I did there? I made the assumption that you were "trolling" in these games just because you did poorly. Everyone has their own definition of intentionally feeding, usually people accuse others of inting because they had bad scores. I'm pretty sure you weren't inting in these games from your history, but who knows? Should you be banned? Chat-based offenses are very easy to detect. Intentionally feeding does get punished, but as I said in another thread today, I've been playing this game since the end of Season 1. Out of thousands and thousands of games, I've encountered maybe dozens of TRUE inters, but thousands of toxic jerks. True intentional feeding is not as bad as some people make it out to be. You had some bad games, that's OK. Having bad games is not against the rules.
Well, if you call for example the 0/8/8 Thresh (in 23min game) trolling, just based on your stat, then you have no idea what trolling is. Later you admit, that you do not think, it was trolling. Then why did you even bring that match up? O.o I don't remember anyone saying, that a 0/8/8 Thresh, in 23 min. means you are surely trolling...
Nhifu (NA)
: Why is trolling not regarded as highly as toxic chat?
BeCaUsE It's sOo mUcH EaSiEr tO CaTcH, hUrR-DuRr! - Rito
zPOOPz (NA)
: > Obviously. This is how the world works. When a professor says that black people might be genetically less intelligent than others he will be bashed to the ground. If a random dude says this is a pub, just some other people might think he is stupid. People who lead an example should be held to higher standards. More like when a professor said that IN THE UNIVERSITY, he will be punished according to the school rules. When the same professor said that in a pub, people will think he's stupid.
Well, i brought an example from real life. He said it in a documentary about his life, he was bashed to hell.
: > [{quoted}](name=Aladoron,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=js9O1ILi,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-15T13:42:58.267+0000) > > Or they could investigate the issues submitted to the support? O.o > They already have a support staff (i think they are almost all bots). Actively searching for this content is really out of question, but reacting to user submitted reports at least for famous streamers should be something. A system which would be far more biased against anyone with any sort of following. Joe Schmoe Streams with his 2 viewers would not be held to the same standard because they simply would not get the same number of reports. Besides, the support system is already backlogged to high heaven with Intentional Feeding cases, do we really want this added on top? > Rito is only collecting the SJW/PC points, with the ZT filter. If they would really care about the community, they would not allow streamers throwing kysses around. The community Riot cares about is the community that interacts with each other in the game. They don't (and shouldn't) care what those community members do when they're a part of other communities. Streams and YouTube channels represent a subset of the community that have a common interest. You're not forced to interact with *any* streamer in order to play this game, so why should you care what they do outside of the game?
> A system which would be far more biased against anyone with any sort of following. Joe Schmoe Streams with his 2 viewers would not be held to the same standard because they simply would not get the same number of reports. Obviously. This is how the world works. When a professor says that black people might be genetically less intelligent than others he will be bashed to the ground. If a random dude says this is a pub, just some other people might think he is stupid. People who lead an example should be held to higher standards. > Besides, the support system is already backlogged to high heaven with Intentional Feeding cases, do we really want this added on top? They are doing nothing, just copy pasting prewritten messages. > They don't (and shouldn't) care what those community members do when they're a part of other communities. While he throws the kysses (if he does it), he is part of the LoL community. OFC Rito should not ban XY's account who streams Fortnite and streams it. I just mean, Rito playing the white knight for SJW points, and then not caring about what people representing the game (bc streamers do, if Rito likes it or not) do, is hypocrite.
: There are at least 55 million league of legends videos just on youtube. Someone more skilled with search-fu could dwarf that tiny number with ease. "Take some responsibility" would mean Riot paying thousands of people $10/hour to be bored out of their skull watching Kled one tricks play silver 3 matches. All for the glory of catching someone saying a naughty word, where zero of Riot's customers could notice. They'd also have to watch all, that is specifically: ***all*** of Dragonball Z, because some strange person tagged their videos with "League of Legends". Yes, I'm going to be condescending in the face of that suggestion.
Or they could investigate the issues submitted to the support? O.o They already have a support staff (i think they are almost all bots). Actively searching for this content is really out of question, but reacting to user submitted reports at least for famous streamers should be something. Rito is only collecting the SJW/PC points, with the ZT filter. If they would really care about the community, they would not allow streamers throwing kysses around.
Jo0o (NA)
: That clause gives Riot legal protection against being forced to justify a ban in court or similar. They'd never actually implement it to police action outside the game. Doing so would be a massive scandal and breach of privacy.
You said, they have no right. I pointed out they have. That's all. And i think holding your streamers to a higher standard could be a good thing to do. Of course, it would be very hard to implement consistently, since you can not check all streamers, and defining a limit where you start monitoring them or not (or at least caring about submitted issues) But since they are really into this "We do not allow anything offensive in game...", it feels bad that they do not care about people throwing kysses in stream. (If it really happens.)
Jo0o (NA)
: Riot isn't paying him, Twitch and subscribers pay him. Riot has no right to weigh in on how he behaves on other platforms.
Rito has every right to do so. From the TOS: > We may terminate or suspend your account if we determine, in our sole discretion, that: ... (c) doing so would be in the best interests of our community, the Riot Services, or the rights of a third party. If Rito really cares about "self harm encouragement" as they punish it, "kys" which basically means fck off, being a ZT word. Then this asshole, (if he really does, what OP states), could be banned for the sake of the mental health of the community. But ofc Rito does not care about these things, and wont punish him since he promotes the game. And the racism/homophobic/self harm filter is only implemented for PC/SJW points, they do not care what happens to you :) Ps.: If i was not clear, people watching him on YT and Twicth are mostly part of our "community". So regarding the point in the ToS, they should take actions.
nonstart (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Aladoron,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=js9O1ILi,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-01-15T12:40:17.979+0000) > > Have you tried not watching him? O.o > > I saw one of his clips, he is an asshole imho, i do not watch him. > > Also, if he breaks Twitch or YT rules, go and complain there. I don’t watch him I just think he gets away with a lot of things he shouldn’t
If he doesn't break rules ingame, then i do not think Rito has too much things to do with it. It would be still a nice gesture from them to take some actions, but it's not worth it for them. They can just push the responsibility on Twitch or YT, so Rito does not lose a streamer who promotes their game. But if what you state is true, then it is very very hypocryte from Rito.
nonstart (NA)
: Hashshinshin
Have you tried not watching him? O.o I saw one of his clips, he is an asshole imho, i do not watch him. Also, if he breaks Twitch or YT rules, go and complain there.
Shiwah (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Aladoron,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=3jBKNbua,comment-id=0007000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-13T15:09:27.087+0000) > > Should I take your word for it or what? :D Since what I&#x27;ve almost never seen a good player being flamed, only trolls and inters. Then prove your statement. Because I'm not taking your word for it. > You did not even read or understood what I wrote. I did. I just don't care about your justifications, because they always circle around about what YOU feel and why YOU are justified in what you do, even when it breaks the rules you agreed to uphold when you signed your account. Ultimately, you're next level egotistical. You have absolutely no doubt that what you perceive is the absolute truth and fact, and if you deem someone to be a troll, he must be a troll, even though in their point of view he's trying to play good with an uncomfortable pick. I repeat for those in the back: ** your opinion is not a fact**. > Would you feel sad if a chatbot, which you can turn of anytime trashtalks you? If yes, then I simply can not talk to you anymore, since we have such a different mindset, that we can not discuss this problem. If not, then why is it any different from ingame trashtalk. Way to miss the point. It's funny because you keep trying to minimize your nisdeeds by calling them "trashtalk"... while in reality you are afraid of getting banned for typing a highly toxic phrase. You *know* you're doing something horrible - you just don't want to acknowledge it to yourself, and instead you're minimizing it to keep feeling good about yourself. It's also ironic how much time you spend claiming that written verbal abuse has no effect on the receiving end, yet you cry about how much you're affected by other prople's gameplay. Quite amusing. I thought you were a tough guy? > Back it up with scientific papers, related to anonymous ingame mutable flaming, and i&#x27;ll belive that science says this. Until then, it&#x27;s only your word. Why don't you prove your claims, first? You made the claim - then prove it. I'll amuse you with the paper called Toxic Behaviour in Online Games (it's a pdf). Have fun reading it. And don't forget to bring evidence supporting your statement that "every flamer doesn't mean the horrible things they say", because it suspiciously sounds like projection.
> Then prove your statement. Because I'm not taking your word for it. K, you do not have to ;) How do you want me to prove this? Somehow ask Rito for all my previous matches chatlogs, and send it to you? I cant, simply not possible. > even when it breaks the rules you agreed to uphold when you signed your account. This is completely irrelevant here, we are not talking about "kys" being punishable or not. It clearly is. We are talking about if it should be or not. > You have absolutely no doubt that what you perceive is the absolute truth and fact, and if you deem someone to be a troll, he must be a troll, even though in their point of view he's trying to play good with an uncomfortable pick. Well, you are probably one of the guys on Boards, who claim that trolls do not exist, only bad games, right? XD I again, can not argue with this one, I can not prove what was in other peoples mind. I can just have simple expectations for a given level match, and call somebody troll, If he doesn't meet those expectations. > It's funny because you keep trying to minimize your nisdeeds by calling them "trashtalk"... while in reality you are afraid of getting banned for typing a highly toxic phrase. Almost nobody wants to get banned, nothing to wonder about here :D > It's also ironic how much time you spend claiming that written verbal abuse has no effect on the receiving end, yet you cry about how much you're affected by other prople's gameplay. Quite amusing. I thought you were a tough guy? You clearly did not understand my example. Trolling has an unavoidable effect. You can mute a flamer. Read the example again, and again, you will see a difference, once. > And don't forget to bring evidence supporting your statement that "every flamer doesn't mean the horrible things they say", because it suspiciously sounds like projection. As I stated it is impossible to prove this. (Or the other way around.)
: It's not about feeling insulted, it's about being reminded that at some point you had what you believed were excellent reasons to hang yourself. Nyuxiie also specifically stated that it wasn't due only to one person telling them such words. As in "depression" and "abusive childhood". Also, for all we know, they might already be seeing a therapist. Reopening a wound won't help it heal; in the same way, being reminded of the things you try your best to avoid is harmful.
> It's not about feeling insulted, it's about being reminded that at some point you had what you believed were excellent reasons to hang yourself. Well, then people should not be able to talk about any kind of their problems, because it might remind somebody else about the same problems they had. Can I not write, "fck i'm depressed", because it might remind somebody of something? Can I not write "kms", because it might remind somebody of their suicidal thoughts? Restricting yourself, just to be overprotective with others is not a way to go. If you would use this logic in real life, nobody would be allowed to say anything, since there are soo man fcked up lifes out there, that it would surely remind somebody of something.
Shiwah (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Aladoron,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=3jBKNbua,comment-id=00070000000100000000,timestamp=2019-01-13T14:25:08.778+0000) > > Look, there is a difference between these 2 things. Most flamers flame trolls or inters, or at least i&#x27;m &quot;defending&quot; these ones. Funny. Most people int *because* they have been flamed. > If you are flamed by an idiot, it has no effect on you what you can not mitigate by muting. If you press the mute, your flamer disappears. Problem solved. And? Why should I care more about your emotions than about my own? Why do you assume that anybody you flame suddenly feels better, like nothing happened? To parrot you, it's natural to get upset. Yet you expect everybody to deal with *your* feelings and cater to *your* emotions, while they're supposed to suppress theirs. Hypocritical. Your feelings aren't more important than your victim's. It's high time you understand that. > While trolling has an effect on you what you can not chose, flaming only has an effect on you IFF you want it. That's bullshit. The basis of communication is that *words mean things*. So yes, whether you choose it or not, getting flamed has a lingering effect. You have no right to proclaim that, while science shows the opposite.
> Funny. Most people int because they have been flamed. Should I take your word for it or what? :D Since what I've almost never seen a good player being flamed, only trolls and inters. > And? Why should I care more about your emotions than about my own? Why do you assume that anybody you flame suddenly feels better, like nothing happened? To parrot you, it's natural to get upset. Yet you expect everybody to deal with your feelings and cater to your emotions, while they're supposed to suppress theirs. Hypocritical. Your feelings aren't more important than your victim's. It's high time you understand that. You did not even read or understood what I wrote. > That's bullshit. The basis of communication is that words mean things. So yes, whether you choose it or not, getting flamed has a lingering effect. Would you feel sad if a chatbot, which you can turn of anytime trashtalks you? If yes, then I simply can not talk to you anymore, since we have such a different mindset, that we can not discuss this problem. If not, then why is it any different from ingame trashtalk. > You have no right to proclaim that, while science shows the opposite. Back it up with scientific papers, related to anonymous ingame mutable flaming, and i'll belive that science says this. Until then, it's only your word.
: > [{quoted}](name=Aladoron,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=3jBKNbua,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2019-01-13T13:38:49.023+0000) > > Are you empathic with your dishwasher? Or you have no empathy for people who have no empathy, ultimately turning you into a dishwasher? O.o Or you think hating &quot;bad people&quot; is OK? Funny people cry about empathy, but nobody shows some for the people who does not have it. Actually people with no empathy can be even more interesting than the normal ones, since you can not expect what they will do. xD Where in your book does it say that having no empathy means being, err, "bad", whatever that means? I specifically used the word "interesting", to make absolutely sure no one would take it as a moral judgement. I suppose I'll add a line such as *__~~WARNING: THIS IS NOT A MORAL JUDGEMENT~~__* next time, just in case. I also did write "as interesting a human as a dishwasher." Dishwashers aren't human, so they aren't interesting in that regard. A person who has no empathy is, to me, uninteresting as a human, though usually still interesting in a number of other ways. Is it clearer that way, or do you still see stuff that a board terrorist could transfigure and make say irrelevant things? > Thanks! That is exactly the point there! (Also, I hope the ~~dicks~~ mods remove the imbecile, why would you be offensive with them?) Because demanding some stranger, through a computer screen, to kill themself is, to me, a proof of extreme stupidity, for forsaking tens of thousands of years of refining social behaviours into useful policies, acting like one's actions have no consequences and doing things based on concepts that, if widespread and expanded upon, would make for a society that would be difficult to live in. Or blatant ignorance, which can be cured if the person wants it to be, but could be worthy of a few harsh words, especially when said ignorance is harmful to others. Also, most people are imbeciles in a number of ways. As an example, I'm stupid enough that I'm spending some time to explain my thoughts to a stranger over the Internet: you don't know me, you probably won't even remember this chat tomorrow, and whatever I write likely won't stick in your brain long enough to change any of your behaviours (implied: durably, and for the better). > Nice empathy there man! Lets laugh on the unfortunate fellas who were in a stupid accident. You can laugh if you like, but I find it pretty sad that someone would die in e.g. trying to prove a grenade has been defused (and it hasn't). It still goes to show that stupidity sometimes comes back to bite, which can be comforting to some.
> Where in your book does it say that having no empathy means being, err, "bad", whatever that means? I specifically used the word "interesting", to make absolutely sure no one would take it as a moral judgement. I suppose I'll add a line such as WARNING: THIS IS NOT A MORAL JUDGEMENT next time, just in case. Well, I really misunderstood this part. i'm sorry. I just met too many people who just bash on flamers, like they were some kind of subhuman trash, so my reading was kinda biased here, which is no excuse, but whatever. > Because demanding some stranger, through a computer screen, to kill themself is, to me, a proof of extreme stupidity, I was already discussing it with somebody, but one point you should realize "kys" is not "demanding some stranger, through a computer screen, to kill themselves". It's more likely a fck off, or fck you in the current times and community. Or just look at "kms", for example I've written "kms" when I fcked up a play, flashed accidentally etc.. I've never meant to kill myself because of these reasons. Would you be worried about my life if I write "kms" after I blatantly fail to flash over a wall in game? > for forsaking tens of thousands of years of refining social behaviours into useful policies, acting like one's actions have no consequences and doing things based on concepts that, if widespread and expanded upon, would make for a society that would be difficult to live in. Or blatant ignorance, which can be cured if the person wants it to be, but could be worthy of a few harsh words, especially when said ignorance is harmful to others. But the thing is, some actions have no or negligible consequences. If I say "kys" to a random stranger online in a video game, never meeting him again, has no consequence, or at least for sane people. Of course, if we would use it for every action, the current community would collapse, and that is desired by nobody (hopefully). > Also, most people are imbeciles in a number of ways. As an example, I'm stupid enough that I'm spending some time to explain my thoughts to a stranger over the Internet: you don't know me, you probably won't even remember this chat tomorrow, and whatever I write likely won't stick in your brain long enough to change any of your behaviours (implied: durably, and for the better). Whatever you say, calling someone imbecile is a toxic behaviour according to the game and Boards. You can not justify saying imbecile, by calling imbecile/stupid yourself. > It still goes to show that stupidity sometimes comes back to bite, which can be comforting to some. So you are empathic with these people, but you link a site, where the whole point is to make fun of people (even the name Darwin award makes fun of them). What you basically say: "I know, I know, they said "kys" to you, but look at these idiots dying! Do you feel better yet?" This just shows you have NO EMPATHY for the people who died this way.
Shiwah (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Aladoron,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=3jBKNbua,comment-id=000b00000000,timestamp=2019-01-13T14:15:11.616+0000) > > You believe that all &quot;kys&quot; in game was told in the meaning &quot;kill yourself&quot;, and really suggesting the player to kill himself. Why should I take your word for it?
Well, because people are not so evil as you imagine them. But look, I surely can not argue with your twisted reality where everyone wants others to die over a video game. I know when people use it on me, or I use it on somebody else, they and I do not mean it. But I honestly do not want to argue about it with you, keep believing "fck yourself" means commanding somebody having sexual intercourse with himself, that "kys" means a honest suggestion all the time. I really do not care ;)
Shiwah (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Aladoron,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=3jBKNbua,comment-id=000700000001,timestamp=2019-01-13T13:43:57.927+0000) > > Yes, exactly. If a random guy on the internet who doesn&#x27;t even know you, and will probably never meet again says something bad, then you should NOT FEEL INSULTED by it. Exactly. You're one of those who advocate "being human and expressing your emotions" to defend flaming - but then demand the targets of your *emotions* to be like robots. How hypocritical. Don't worry, I'll keep calling that out.
Look, there is a difference between these 2 things. Most flamers flame trolls or inters, or at least i'm "defending" these ones. If you are held hostage in a game, you do not enjoy, and wastes your time. Then it is natural to get upset, because you have no way to mitigate the negative effect on you, it HAS an effect on you, ruins your game. If you are flamed by an idiot, it has no effect on you what you can not mitigate by muting. If you press the mute, your flamer disappears. Problem solved. You can not do this with trolls. So here is an example: You hate spicy food. You eat at a restaurant and you HAVE TO eat that food, what they serve you. But sometimes the food is spicy. Here we have 2 different scenarios: - If this spicy food is the spicy bc of flaming, then you have a button to make your food not spicy, you press it, eat your food, you are happy. - If this spicy food is the spicy bc of trolling then you have no way to make it better, but you still have to eat it. Obviously this will make you upset. While trolling has an effect on you what you can not chose, flaming only has an effect on you IFF you want it.
Shiwah (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Aladoron,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=3jBKNbua,comment-id=000b,timestamp=2019-01-13T13:32:53.320+0000) > > It became simply a synonym for &quot;fck off&quot; and things like this. Says whom? Do you have proof that most players don't mean it, or you're simply projecting? And why should anybody take *your* word for it over *their* interpretations of what you wrote?
You believe that all "kys" in game was told in the meaning "kill yourself", and really suggesting the player to kill himself. LoL okay. You must have an even worse image about humanity than I have. Do you think the "fck yourself" means what I said too? xD
: > [{quoted}](name=LoganPaul4Life,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=3jBKNbua,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2019-01-13T09:22:58.954+0000) > > If some random nobody saying &quot;Kys&quot; hurts you that much that you might consider it, then you should really check out a therapist So...people should not feel insulted or bothered when people state negative remarks? Your name makes so much more sense now.
> So...people should not feel insulted or bothered when people state negative remarks? Yes, exactly. If a random guy on the internet who doesn't even know you, and will probably never meet again says something bad, then you should NOT FEEL INSULTED by it. Exactly. Also, the guy said: "that you might consider it, then you should really check out a therapist" He did not talk about being offended, he talked about considering suicide. And he is totally right. If somebody considers suicide just because somebody else was mean to him on the internet, he HAS TO SEEK HELP.
: No, actually I believe everyone should care about such things. Anyone should feel ashamed to even think about telling some fellow human they never even met to kill themself. That's the lowest you can achieve in terms of empathy, and someone who doesn't have empathy is about as interesting a human as my dishwasher. Stay strong, dear. These imbeciles don't mean it, and while that doesn't make them any less stupid, you're absolutely safe from them. Do you happen to own plushies? Bigger ones are incredibly comforting to hug, and even a small bear you can talk to when you need to get something off your chest. It's cheaper than a psychologist, and more cuddly, too! Have faith! And if you ever want to know what happens to the kind of person who's moronic enough to say such things to other people, there are [Darwin awards](https://darwinawards.com/). Have an excellent day, dear fellow, and see you around!
> Anyone should feel ashamed to even think about telling some fellow human they never even met to kill themself. If a given player's only effect on my life was to ruin my game and waste my time, I could not care less. > That's the lowest you can achieve in terms of empathy Well, you do not want to hear my ideas then xD > and someone who doesn't have empathy is about as interesting a human as my dishwasher. Are you empathic with your dishwasher? Or you have no empathy for people who have no empathy, ultimately turning you into a dishwasher? O.o Or you think hating "bad people" is OK? Funny people cry about empathy, but nobody shows some for the people who does not have it. Actually people with no empathy can be even more interesting than the normal ones, since you can not expect what they will do. xD > These imbeciles don't mean it, and while that doesn't make them any less stupid, you're absolutely safe from them. Thanks! That is exactly the point there! (Also, I hope the ~~dicks~~ mods remove the imbecile, why would you be offensive with them?) > And if you ever want to know what happens to the kind of person who's moronic enough to say such things to other people, there are Darwin awards. Nice empathy there man! Lets laugh on the unfortunate fellas who were in a stupid accident.
Nyuxiie (EUW)
: Use of "Kys"
"KYS" = "end your life!" "fck yourself" = "Please have a sexual intercourse with yourself!" Do you honestly think the "fck yourself" means what I wrote? If you doesn't think so, why would you think it about the "kys". It became simply a synonym for "fck off" and things like this. > Sometimes I'll end a game and cry, it's not very often but it does happen, and probably happens to other people to... Do you honestly start crying because somebody told you something bad once? Or are you chopping onions while you play LoL? O.o > Telling someone to kill themselves isn't flaming, it's way worse. And this is my point, "kys" doesn't mean this anymore.
: Calling me a liar isn't helping me.
AR URF (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Aladoron,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=HYfbthku,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-01-10T20:17:57.675+0000) > > idc, if somebody flames you, I find it funny. > > See? ;) If you find it funny, you're part of what's wrong with this community. See if riot thought mr spamming was toxic, they'd remove it.
But it is funny. They're showing off for the most part and sometimes do something stupid. Then that gives you the opportunity to spam your mr. Again if riot thought it was a problem, they wouldn't put it in the game. It's actually funny that i do not have to change anything in your comment, and it perfectly fits your comment as well :D It looks like you are arguing with yourself :D Just for clarification, the "Again if riot thought it was a problem, they wouldn't put it in the game." Is now directed at the flaming, so you do not lose track :)
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: So about 1% of games would be influenced by your own calculation. That's a **huge** number of players who are impacted by this change. It also disregards that the number of players this decision is **about** is already miniscule. When weighing the benefit for those permabanned players against the downside for other players you are comparing **two** very small numbers. Just focussing on how small **one** of those numbers is misleading. One could easily take your arguments and use them to support not punishing serial killers for the first, say, 10 murders. Yet another tiny group that has a huge impact on a comparably tiny group. Consciously deciding to punish serial killers later won't even make a dent in the average life expectancy after all, and the chance of being killed by a serial killer **just** because of this change in law is miniscule.
Yaaay, let's compare a "kys" in an online game to serial killers <3 I just love when people start doing this. And your example is even still wrong. Not punishing serial killers mean, that killing somebody leads to NO PUNISHMENT. Here flaming leads to punishment, aka chat ban. Also, not punishing a serial killer means, that they can kill again. Chat banning a player means, that he can not flame again. Your example is wrong on just every level. > It also disregards that the number of players this decision is about is already miniscule. So 0.1% of the playerbase is miniscule, but 1% of the playerbase is "huge". How does your scaling work? - 0.05% Does not exist. - 0.1% Miniscule. - 0.5% Something. - 1% HUGE! - 10% REALLY HUGE! - 50% THE HUGEST HUGE! - 100% Oh, God!
AR URF (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=ToxiBot,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=HYfbthku,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-01-10T19:47:27.494+0000) > > Spamming emotes and masterys are bad manners...the thing your complaining about Idc if someone spams emotes. I find it funny.
If you find it funny, you're part of what's wrong with this community.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: But it is more difficult to detect and has a larger impact on people. Giving the few people who would profit from a permanent mute yet another chance isn't worth the additional damage to the experience of regular non-toxic players. The decision of **when** to issue a permaban is a balancing act, always has been. So having something "ultimately" lead to a permaban is hardly relevant.
If the statistic that said that the playerbase's less than 0.1% is permabanned for chat. Make it 0.1% and lets assume, all these people troll all their games. The chance you meeting with at least one troll in your game, caused by not permabanning a chat abusing player is: 1-0.999^9, assuming you are not trolling. That's around 0.9%. I meet much more trolls than this, so i would not feel anything from this. (And we did not even count, that they will get permabanned. They will not troll ALL their games. etc etc...) EDIT: Not permabanning for chat related issues would also not fck up the ladder with a lot of smurfs, and would make the new player experience better as well. EDIT2: Also, if you reached the "you should be perma'd" level on the chat related scale, the trolling should result in an instant permaban.
: You may think it has lost the meaning behind it, others may feel it hasn't. I personally stay away from using it because of my history of depression/friends depression. I'm not going to call you a monster or anything for your opinion on it though. As for the "grow a pair" unless you are talking to a Zyra or Mao'Kai (because plants/saplings) I wouldn't really consider this in the same ball park. Growing a pair isn't something that is readily available for someone to do. Sure there are surgeries and what not that can be done, and maybe gene therapy in the future; but at this time not something physically capable to do in a timely fashion.
> You may think it has lost the meaning behind it, others may feel it hasn't. In this regard i really think we are just on the current overreact everything state with it. The reaction to the "kys" is basically the same as the reaction for the following things. (Correct me if i'm wrong, im not from NA, and i can only talk about my experience from the EU) - Did you just assume my gender? Outrage. I literally NEVER heard this IRL, if not for joking. Are there really people running around there getting butthurt with this, or do people just hype this up. (I know, now the "It's ma'am!" is the currently hyped stuff in this thing.) - Manspreading. The internet blows up this bullshit as well, but i've never met anyone complaining about it IRL. - Tide pod eating. There were less than 20 people doing this (as far as i know), but it just blew up again. - etc... It's not excatly what i was refering to, but it's closely related to this hypersensitivity on everything on the internet. And making up problems, when there are none, so you can look as the saviour of humanity, when you start fighting against a not existing issue. I'm almost sure that very few, if even one of the "kys"s was meant as a real encouragement to self harm. There was no real problem with it, nobody suicided because of LoL(as far as i know). (I'm not saying that nobody suicided, who played LoL, i'm saying LoL was NOT the reason.) People here just see a chance to make themselves look like white knights in shining armour being the defenders of depressed and mentally ill people with almost no effort. They just come to Boards, say a "Bohoooo, you said a ZT word, you are evil." and they can feel good about themselves. There were people posting pictures of the "IFS popup", being extremely happy that they fcked the account of somebody else, but they are the heroes who saves everyone from toxicity. And the Board support this behaviour, because a lot of people are doing the same shit. The same with the troll defenders, there were posts about obvious trolls on the Boards, but there was ALWAYS somebody, who defended it. Because booohooo bad player, i'm the defender of bad players, look how nice i am! This is the problem with the Boards, and the punishment system. I wanted to say the world too, but the world has bigger problems :D
: Two things: 1. Please remember I am focusing solely on things that may be considered ZT. 2. Maybe. Depends how you want to define sexual intercourse. If masturbation with or without tools count, then maybe. If you mean go to a different universe (multiverse theory) and find an alternative version of yourself. Also maybe but more difficult without that sort of tech.
> Maybe. Depends how you want to define sexual intercourse. If masturbation with or without tools count, then maybe. Well, to be honest i really did not expect this answer :D Now i'm really curious about your answer for the second question (sorry i edited it in later), since i did not expect anyone to understand the "fck yourself" this way. You can probably already tell what my point is. "kys" lost its meaning as encouraging self harm (so it shouldn't be ZT), now it means something like "fck off" or "fck yourself" (not for you, apparently, but for most people).
: That is usually the most prominent example normally seen. There are other ways to say it too though.
When a flamer says "fck yourself" does he encourage the victim to have sexual intercourse with himself? When somebody says "grow a pair", do they mean, you should physically grow a pair of testicles? Ps.: The 2nd question was edited.
: To nit pick, trolling is toxic as well. There is verbal toxicity and gameplay toxicity. Mute button does exist, but so does the backspace and esc key to not even send the message. Does that mean you think people using hate speech or encouraging things like suicide should be allowed to act like so?
> encouraging things like suicide Do you mean the "kys" here?
Prandine (NA)
: 1) The mute button is not a get out of jail free card and is meant to be a band-aid solution at most. 2) Riot tried perma-mutes in the form of infinite chat restrictions. What they found was not only did that not help with reform but most people with them just resorted to gameplay-related means of griefing their teammates instead. From [Riot Tantram:](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/wsObUaFj-if-tyler1?comment=00010001000000000000) > It really breaks down into two categories. > > 1.) Helping players reform > 2.) Shielding others from the behavior, at a cost. > > We used to issue chat restrictions that essentially scaled indefinitely. > > We were able to determine that after a certain point the penalty no longer helped with reform. The 10-game and 25-game counts for chat restrictions are based on data that they were both light enough, and felt strict enough to encourage people to understand their behavior is unacceptable in game and change it. > > We also saw that the players in this &#x27;large restriction&#x27; category defaulted to gameplay altering means of harassing their team. It caused an increase in feeding and trolling. > > The sample size of this population and time frame is huge. Essentially the time spanning from the introduction of chat restrictions to the introduction of IFS. > > So my question for you is, would you rather have more feeders and less negative chat? If someone isn't gonna behave properly despite being given multiple chances to do so then why shouldn't they be removed from the game?
> 2) Riot tried perma-mutes in the form of infinite chat restrictions. What they found was not only did that not help with reform but most people with them just resorted to gameplay-related means of griefing their teammates instead. Which leads to their permanent ban.
GreenKnight (EUNE)
: Let me guess, you got perma'd? Chat banning doesn't work, people will just troll in games, instead of flaming.
> Chat banning doesn't work, people will just troll in games, instead of flaming. And that will make then permabanned.
PH45 (EUNE)
: They tried chat banning, but it didn't work. It just lead to toxic people inting and griefing games. Permaban is the last action taken against people who choose not to reform even when given multiple opportunities to. If you break the rules, that is what happens. Permabans for toxic people should absolutely stay.
> It just lead to toxic people inting and griefing games. Which ultimately leads to permaban.
iPogoZ (NA)
: some talk about riot's garbage leavebuster system and awful mentality towards punishment
> but I think its a complete failure for the continuous punishment of players who have done nothing wrong. How does leaverbuster punish anybody who did nothing wrong? O.o I was never punished by leaverbuster, so i do not know what you mean.
: Can you make a board post about it? No, it would clearly break the rules. The only "exception" would be Discuss the Boards to discuss the actions a Moderator (maybe Specialist) has taken [Specialist's have no power but recognition though]. There is a difference between a post going "Djinn is a potato who is abusing his mod authority to enforce the fry initiative." And "I'm not sure about the action Djinn took on this post removal. Could I get more details?" While both of the prior examples name Djinn in them, only one would be to shame or harass him. ___ You can also make a positive post about someone. Say we somehow played a match together and I am just doing horribly. Maybe you are being a supportive person and trying to help because I'm tilting. I could come on here and make a post to go "Aladoron was supportive of me dispite how poorly I did. And as such would like to thank them again." You may never see that post (because not everyone uses forums. Just an example), but again, it is a positive naming. ___ As for your example specifically, it probably depends on how and where that is being said. If I make a while post about, then it is rubbish. If we are actually having a discussion and I say something like: > Aladoron, you call me a liar and I assume are down voting all my posts (not that I care about that part). Without providing any evidence that I am lying and simply saying I am, is not helpful to me or our discussion. Your post history, makes it uncertain if you actually want to discuss anything or if you want to argue just to argue. Granted, I can't be 100% certain without a mod replying to this comment, my example should not be removed for Naming and Shaming.
Thanks for your reply and more detailed explanation. Honestly, i do not really care when somebody name/shames me. So the whole question came up, when a moderator replied to a comment containing the quoted example in my post. He did not take any action against this post, nor warned the "offender" that it breaks the rules. But i would have expected a moderator taking actions when they see something like this.
: From the **Universal Rules**. Specifically, the first sentence about the _**Naming & Shaming**_ rule: >No personal attacks or witch-hunting, _**for any reason**_. Emphasis mine.
Thanks for your help!
Kei143 (NA)
: Wouldn't that mean that you've personally dropped your winrate by 2%? I mean, if you cared about winning so much, wouldn't it be part of the META (Most Effective Tactic Available) to not flame and not tilt your teammate?
> Wouldn't that mean that you've personally dropped your winrate by 2%? What are you talkin' about? Where did he say this? O.o
Show more

Aladoron

Level 17 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion