TrulyBland (EUNE)
: None of that backs up what you say. In fact, none of those quotes actually talk about their methods. And both quotes actually feature phrasing that suggests that the decision to intentionally feed came after the chat restriction. If you want to argue that the setting/experiment wasn't conducted properly… but you are still basing this opinion on how you **assume** the experiment was conducted. And it seems you are basing your assumption of how the experiment was conducted based on your idea of what the results should have shown. This is confirmation bias with extra steps. You claim to dismiss the experiment based on the methods, but you assume which methods were used based on the results. That means in effect you are simply dismissing the experiment because its results don't confirm what you believe to be true. You are even going as far as inventing theories that do not make any sense. Why would people even believe that inting would make yield additional chat restrictions? So again, I kindly ask you: Back up your claims with sources. Otherwise any discussion is pointless.
There is nothing to find on this topic apart of what i posted so this discussion is over. Oh and also, your first claim that everything is manual is not true, they used automated systems to review the data. The rest isn't further specified, it may have been manual, it may not. My main contention still stands that it has not been attempted in a correct setting and that this will only lead to more toxicity than not.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: Are you able to back that up with a source?
> [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=bGQmZLUc,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-06-07T19:48:00.620+0000) > > Are you able to back that up with a source? http://www.surrenderat20.net/2014/05/red-post-collection-lyte-wookiecookie.html "The observed behavior of those which were banned was that they used what little chat they had in game to harass and berate others. In other cases they decided to feed or play against their own team in order to "prove a point". But what I find most interesting is that of the players we chat restricted last week (and there were a lot!)we only had to place manual suspensions on less than .05% of the players. By and large, the vast majority of players had no problem adjusting their behavior in game with limited chat." 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 'large restriction' 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. As i can remember people who had the huge chatrestrictions back then inted to get more restirctions, making it a game to see how many one could accumilate, which waters down the numbers of people who's behavior actually got better. Now we do also not have the numbers on these cases, but as the suggested in the first link, it seems that people 0.05% of people acted toxic when being chatrestricted, as they don't have the means to do so. Now if the bann would shift to an indefinite chatbann, people wouldn't have the insentive to look who can get the most restricted games. Another thing that is faulty with this reasoning is, that they didn't take into account that players who were in the 'large restriction' already had permanently banned accounts, therefore having no reason to behave better. As my biggest contention is the cycle of creating new accounts and becoming more and more apathetic, whilst also increasing the number of people becoming like them, this setting/experiment wasn't conducted in a to me satisfying mannor. Nevertheless i must apologize, i hadn't read the second link upun till researching for further sources.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: >The permanent chatbann won't lead flamers to become inters, they were beforehand and weren't recognized as such, because the system recognizes inting to slowly. There **was** no [edit: automated] system for intentional feeding back then. This was all manual. And it wasn't just manual reviews of intentional feeding cases, but a manual investigation in the effectiveness of chat restrictions, which means obviously their findings are the result of actively comparing games before a chat restriction and after. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is based not only on a completely hypothetical data set, but a completely hypothetical way of Riot handling that data.
> [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=bGQmZLUc,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-06-07T16:53:17.872+0000) > > There **was** no [edit: automated] system for intentional feeding back then. This was all manual. And it wasn't just manual reviews of intentional feeding cases, but a manual investigation in the effectiveness of chat restrictions, which means obviously their findings are the result of actively comparing games before a chat restriction and after. > > You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is based not only on a completely hypothetical data set, but a completely hypothetical way of Riot handling that data. You maybe should read into it, it turns out they didn't make a side by side comparison, they just looked at the results of how toxic and much they inted compared to the average player, which doesn't show any of the former behavior.
: I'll address one point of yours, because this comes up in a lot of posts. I'll call it the "ZOMG THIS IS RANKED" Syndrome. > There are a lot of people who are extremely invested in this game, they sink their time into it, try and climb and get better No single person's reasons for playing this game are any more important than anyone else's reasons. An investment is something that **gains** value. Time spent on a video game is not an investment - it's an exchange of free time (a valuable resource) for entertainment. The rules put forth by the organization that owns the game (Riot) are clear - as long as you're not intentionally trying to ruin the game, you're good to go. I'm getting extremely tired of this "I was inted 5 games in a row" horseshit. I've been here since the end of season 1. I have **NEVER** experienced that kind of thing multiple games in a row, and rarely see it **period**. The problem with everyone who takes their imaginary rank in a game as seriously as you do is they start equating **everything** to intentional feeding and make it seem like Riot and every other player is out to get them and prevent them from climbing. Meanwhile, these people never change how they play the game and just expect things to fall in place and be Diamond in 50 games. It's not realistic **at all**.
> [{quoted}](name=GatekeeperTDS,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=bGQmZLUc,comment-id=00000002,timestamp=2019-06-07T18:00:23.066+0000) > > I'll address one point of yours, because this comes up in a lot of posts. I'll call it the "ZOMG THIS IS RANKED" Syndrome. > > No single person's reasons for playing this game are any more important than anyone else's reasons. An investment is something that **gains** value. Time spent on a video game is not an investment - it's an exchange of free time (a valuable resource) for entertainment. The rules put forth by the organization that owns the game (Riot) are clear - as long as you're not intentionally trying to ruin the game, you're good to go. > > I'm getting extremely tired of this "I was inted 5 games in a row" horseshit. I've been here since the end of season 1. I have **NEVER** experienced that kind of thing multiple games in a row, and rarely see it **period**. The problem with everyone who takes their imaginary rank in a game as seriously as you do is they start equating **everything** to intentional feeding and make it seem like Riot and every other player is out to get them and prevent them from climbing. Meanwhile, these people never change how they play the game and just expect things to fall in place and be Diamond in 50 games. It's not realistic **at all**. Sure, tell that to the people who say "i just brought this account, haha". Both my banns were issued after i had games with people who intentionally fed. Not the playing bad and losing, but purely intentional. Also i've had a lot of those people, i believe i was in the promo to plat 1 13 times before i got it in season 6. Mostly due to afks and trolls. Also you may not have heard of it but there are things like inting lists in higher elo, people you don't like and just play sightly worse with so that you lose whilst it's not detectable. I don't have as much issue with bad players, more like you said with delusional ones. People who start flaming when they are losing the game alone, or can't take fault. BUT and now a big but, it isn't juse beacuse of my bann that i'm writing this, i believe there are other ways to get this community to a state that these sort of behaviours aren't as normal. The problem with not being able to mute yourself, the permanent chatbann, NOT being tried fully, and the cyclic nature of people becoming toxic and creating more toxic people are here and could be worked on. IP-banning people would be the right choice in my mind and then giving them banns that take a year or something like that to expire. This whole nonsense about Permanently banning an account will just lead people to become apathetic to the players and the game itself. Oh and on the point of reason for playing part: Saying that it's not an investment is not true at all, people GAIN ranks, which is the outcome of the time they invested. Others want enjoyment, a leisure activity, which are 2 different worlds. Equivicating those 2 is really disingenuous. Though for the point i was making there, is that people who invest time to GAIN elo, makes them them vunerable once they lose elo. Toxicity, inting, being ignorant, all of these things build up a lot more.
: Why in the world would you suggest this when you clearly acknowledge that Riot already tried it and it didn't work? Riot won't lift your ban; deal with it.
> [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=bGQmZLUc,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-06-07T17:55:48.168+0000) > > Why in the world would you suggest this when you clearly acknowledge that Riot already tried it and it didn't work? Riot won't lift your ban; deal with it. This isn't the only point i made, my main point is to reduce toxcity and inting. Riot trying it doesn't mean that they did it in a good mannor. I looked long for the relating posts where they claimed it to be ineffective, where they only stated that people griefed in those games and were passive agressive. Nothing about prior behavior, which could very well have been the norm. I just look at it from how i act, as i am from the target group of permanent banned accounts. I believe i have never inted, can't reacall every game, but i try to win every game. That being said i don't believe that people who have a conviction to win the game and not int won't change that just because of a limited chat.
Ginama (EUW)
: Permanent Chatbann vs Permanent Bann and other relating topics
Okay, this is my first post on this forum, would be nice to get some feedback instead of having people just downvoting the post. If there is something wrong with my thoughtprocess, you can correct me. But just downvoting is kinda boring.
Rioter Comments
: GIFTS FROM RIOT GAMES
Same here, i just got reaper soraka, and roadwarrior mf, though i think i already had reaper soraka. It came in my notifications box

Ginama

Level 148 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion