Escheton (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Garffiljorg,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pty8Eosn,comment-id=0002000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:51:09.966+0000) > > I feel like you are the only one here who has actually played a game of league ;/ Really? Because I feel he's trolling.
> [{quoted}](name=Escheton,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pty8Eosn,comment-id=00020001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T04:12:09.952+0000) > > Really? Because I feel he's trolling. Hello? Name-calling please. Just because I am defending a player that has been punished, I am automatically trolling?
Escheton (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pty8Eosn,comment-id=000200010000000000010001,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:54:33.626+0000) > > Yeah, well I find that you seem to have no issues with actively berating this guy and thinking that you're taking the high ground. But hey, you're not a toxic player and he is, so it's alright, yeah? > > Saying someone is playing poorly indicates that they are playing poorly. It's a statement of fact. If they guy is 0-5 and 30cs at 15 minutes, he's playing poorly. Pointing out an observable statement of fact is about as wrong as pointing out that "the sky is blue today". Sure, it's annoying as all hell if someone sits there saying "the sky is blue today" 50 times, but apparently we have /mute buttons (did someone throw this argument at me yet on this thread, because it seems to be the go to argument for why we cannot retaliate to toxicity). He isn't name-calling (as far as I could see) aside from stating that someone is intentionally feeding (and if they have already said in chat, "I'm going to intentionally feed" I don't think that is considered name-calling anymore). This isn't "the sky is blue". More like "you are ugly".
> [{quoted}](name=Escheton,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pty8Eosn,comment-id=0002000100000000000100010000,timestamp=2017-06-19T04:11:11.543+0000) > > This isn't "the sky is blue". More like "you are ugly". Ugly is an opinion. This is more like "you have a broken leg" or "your skin is white" or "you have six fingers". Annoying as all hell if someone repeats it to you constantly, but toxic?
: > "So I returned the favor" is worse than "lul that flash"? In context, absolutely. > "They made me suffer, so I chose not to sacrifice myself for them" is worse than "you made a really bad flash"? You're begging the question my misrepresenting the meanings of the two phrases. I could present them as "you picked a stupid fight so i'm going to call you out for it" vs. "your flash made me laugh". That's not a logical way to frame the problem. > Again, because English is my native language, I am unsure of what "Get more idiots" means. [7:02] Rakan: Yeah I'm done with blind [7:04] Rakan: Get more idiots He feels like he gets more idiots in blind pick, exemplified by his teammates this game. A more grammatically correct sentence might have been "I'm done with blind pick games because I get more idiots in my games", which isn't something that a person would say unless they felt it was true in the game they were currently playing.
> [{quoted}](name=sixdogman,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=0001000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T04:06:15.717+0000) > > In context, absolutely. Except, we are interpreting their intentions. We do not know. You cannot know, unless this was your chat. > You're begging the question my misrepresenting the meanings of the two phrases. I could present them as "you picked a stupid fight so i'm going to call you out for it" vs. "your flash made me laugh". That's not a logical way to frame the problem. Exactly. It's a choice of representation. How do we know which representation is correct? We _don't_. Therefore, we can only judge the words themselves, not the connotation behind them. > [7:02] Rakan: Yeah I'm done with blind > [7:04] Rakan: Get more idiots > > He feels like he gets more idiots in blind pick, exemplified by his teammates this game. > A more grammatically correct sentence might have been "I'm done with blind pick games because I get more idiots in my games", which isn't something that a person would say unless they felt it was true in the game they were currently playing. Even going off of that interpretation (and that is only one interpretation), can you really say that he is insulting any particular person or persons? Is there a specific target? I can say that I feel like I've met more idiots in my life recently, but does that mean I am referring to anyone in particular? Is it even negative to say that "I feel like I have met more idiots in blind pick than in other game types?" Is that not a quantitative expression of experiences?
Barkhoof (NA)
: If you're implying that that study has been completed and that's the author's conclusion, I'd like the author and title of the paper.
> [{quoted}](name=Barkhoof,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=PY4jKKW6,comment-id=00060000000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:58:29.784+0000) > > If you're implying that that study has been completed and that's the author's conclusion, I'd like the author and title of the paper. Google it. I'd probably have to do the same, considering it's one of many papers I've read.
Aeszarck (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=00010000000000000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:40:26.541+0000) > > Uhm... okay? What tangent? I gave an example to support my argument. > The tangent is the surrender vote and the supporting another lane thing. Neither of those are chat related so that's a tangent. That's minorly negative behavior, we're judging negative chat. (And for the record, that behavior is so minor that it will not get anyone punished.) > Show me where you've seen excessive negativity? The guy wrote about 20 lines of text and the majority of it is harmless. I'll go line by line later if you really want to. > I'm not talking to you about the OP. I am talking to you about the system of THE VERDICT. There's a reason why I haven't mentioned the volunteer in our conversation. > Okay, where in the heck did you find this guy being severely depressed and talking about giving up the game from the start? Nowhere in this chatlog does the Rakan state that he has given up. He does state that he's done with blind pick, but hey, is that really negative or just someone expressing that he dislikes the game type? He seems to be a guy who got trolled and is taking it as well as most people would be in his situation. I thought I made it clear that was part of my example, but I guess the paragraph break made it unclear. That last paragraph is a hypothetical. If you saw a severely discouraged player's chat log, the imaginary chat log that I gave sample lines of, how would you vote if there was no toxicity whatsoever? You were arguing before that there was no toxicity in the volunteer's lines. What I am saying is that toxicity should not be the only thing you should vote negative on.
> [{quoted}](name=Aeszarck,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=000100000000000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:52:53.077+0000) > > The tangent is the surrender vote and the supporting another lane thing. Neither of those are chat related so that's a tangent. Okay, fine. You can call the surrender vote a bad example, not a tangent. The "supporting another lane" was taken directly from the volunteer's chat. It's chat related. > I'm not talking to you about the OP. I am talking to you about the system of THE VERDICT. There's a reason why I haven't mentioned the volunteer in our conversation. Okay? Well I was staying on topic and like you said "not going off on a tangent" by talking about the volunteer's chat. > That last paragraph is a hypothetical. If you saw a severely discouraged player's chat log, the imaginary chat log that I gave sample lines of, how would you vote if there was no toxicity whatsoever? You were arguing before that there was no toxicity in the volunteer's lines. What I am saying is that toxicity should not be the only thing you should vote negative on. The issue is, that we are voting on this volunteer's chat. Plenty of people include negativity in toxicity (if you want, I can link you to some other person's response that says those exact words). The rakan here was not toxic. He was barely, if at all, considered negative. The guy just got trolled (apparently) and his chat log is clean of insults (unless you really want to argue "get more idiots") and full of effectively neutral things such as "I'm happy doing my thing".
: That's not really censoring history when it's used to insult someone
> [{quoted}](name=AngusBoomPants,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=000400000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:50:45.679+0000) > > That's not really censoring history when it's used to insult someone Where was the insult? Please, find it and you can just ban me right now.
Chermorg (NA)
: If someone's trolling and you say "stop feeding" to them 500 times, you're doing what's called "feeding the troll". A common occurrence in the internet world is that trolls who are fed go away much more slowly than those who are not fed. And yes, spamming that in general is toxic, doesn't matter if directed at Obama or someone who just murdered a kitten.
> [{quoted}](name=Chermorg,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pty8Eosn,comment-id=0001000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:34:55.484+0000) > > If someone's trolling and you say "stop feeding" to them 500 times, you're doing what's called "feeding the troll". A common occurrence in the internet world is that trolls who are fed go away much more slowly than those who are not fed. > > And yes, spamming that in general is toxic, doesn't matter if directed at Obama or someone who just murdered a kitten. Okay. So someone in your game is genuinely intentionally feeding. You want to win this game, so you attempt to offer some constructive criticism. What is the constructive criticism that you offer someone who has announced "I am going to intentionally feed this game" other than "stop intentionally feeding"? Sure, you might be feeding the troll, but you're not given a lot of choice here right? Say nothing and he will continue to intentionally feed anyways.
Escheton (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pty8Eosn,comment-id=0002000100000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:29:26.729+0000) > > You cannot be punished for being unfriendly. If I go into a game and tell everyone "leave me alone, I don't want to be friends", I am not going to be punished. Being mean and saying things along the lines of "you are playing poorly" when the guy is actually playing poorly, will not get me punished. > The OP repeatedly says "stop feeding" to someone that (assuming he is telling the truth) stated that they were actually going to intentionally feed. He says in all chat that his lane opponent lost lane. He tells someone that they are very behind. > Sure, the OP is annoying as all hell, but like so many people have said, the mute button is an option (thus there is no need to retaliate or whatever). You shouldn't punish someone for being whiny and annoying. This isn't just whiny and annoying. This is actively berating teammates and creating a negative environment. That should be punished. Especially given the OP actually thinks he's taking the high ground. Saying someone is playing poorly helps nothing but your ego, and is conscious active negative behavior. Ergo, toxic. The fact that defenders of OP are blameshifting to a supposed feeder is both unnerving and doesn't change that he was harrassing his entire team for everything he perceived them doing wrong. Which, as you might imagine, has as much to do with the limits of his own insight as their (lack of) game skill.
> [{quoted}](name=Escheton,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pty8Eosn,comment-id=00020001000000000001,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:39:18.660+0000) > > This isn't just whiny and annoying. This is actively berating teammates and creating a negative environment. That should be punished. Especially given the OP actually thinks he's taking the high ground. > > Saying someone is playing poorly helps nothing but your ego, and is conscious active negative behavior. Ergo, toxic. > > The fact that defenders of OP are blameshifting to a supposed feeder is both unnerving and doesn't change that he was harrassing his entire team for everything he perceived them doing wrong. Which, as you might imagine, has as much to do with the limits of his own insight as their (lack of) game skill. Yeah, well I find that you seem to have no issues with actively berating this guy and thinking that you're taking the high ground. But hey, you're not a toxic player and he is, so it's alright, yeah? Saying someone is playing poorly indicates that they are playing poorly. It's a statement of fact. If they guy is 0-5 and 30cs at 15 minutes, he's playing poorly. Pointing out an observable statement of fact is about as wrong as pointing out that "the sky is blue today". Sure, it's annoying as all hell if someone sits there saying "the sky is blue today" 50 times, but apparently we have /mute buttons (did someone throw this argument at me yet on this thread, because it seems to be the go to argument for why we cannot retaliate to toxicity). He isn't name-calling (as far as I could see) aside from stating that someone is intentionally feeding (and if they have already said in chat, "I'm going to intentionally feed" I don't think that is considered name-calling anymore).
Chermorg (NA)
: Saying that one line? No you won't get punished. Saying "you're not playing good" once? Probably not. Repeatedly saying things over and over after having observed that they have no impact on the game? Yes.
> [{quoted}](name=Chermorg,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pty8Eosn,comment-id=00020001000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:33:42.656+0000) > > Saying that one line? No you won't get punished. Saying "you're not playing good" once? Probably not. > > Repeatedly saying things over and over after having observed that they have no impact on the game? Yes. So, if you have someone, who is genuinely intentionally feeding and not just having a bad game (like the dude is just running it down mid - which you and I do not know, he could have been) and you repeat to them "stop feeding" despite it having no observed impact deserves a punishment? Well then, do tell me, what do you say to someone who is intentionally feeding then? What sort of constructive criticism would you like to offer? You are trying to win the game (and communicating in an attempt to achieve a greater likelihood of winning). What do you tell someone that is intentionally feeding?
: > Seriously? You can choose not to help in a fight if you believe that you're going to have to die for it. That's fine, but the unnecessary taunting afterwards is unnecessary and still toxic. > You've never wrote "lul that flash" or anything to that effect before? that's not even close to what he said.... [9:34] [All] Rakan: Pre game lobby from you and MF letting me die [9:40] [All] Rakan: So I returned the favor > "Get more idiots" as far as I can tell is a nonsensical statement that involves the word idiots but isn't specifically directed at anyone. Is English not your native language? In the context he is indirectly calling his teammates idiots.
> [{quoted}](name=sixdogman,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=00010000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:32:13.054+0000) > > That's fine, but the unnecessary taunting afterwards is unnecessary and still toxic. > > that's not even close to what he said.... > > [9:34] [All] Rakan: Pre game lobby from you and MF letting me die > [9:40] [All] Rakan: So I returned the favor > > Is English not your native language? In the context he is indirectly calling his teammates idiots. "So I returned the favor" is worse than "lul that flash"? "They made me suffer, so I chose not to sacrifice myself for them" is worse than "you made a really bad flash"? Again, because English is my native language, I am unsure of what "Get more idiots" means. I mean, I don't know about you, but I am fairly certain I have not heard or used the particular phrasing in my day to life. We can speculate on meaning, but in the end, it's just speculation.
Aeszarck (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=000100000000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T02:57:08.396+0000) > > If being negative and giving up is punishable, practically everyone who has surrendered a game needs to be punished. Hell, people who say "I don't think this match is winnable" in chat need to be punished. We cannot punish being negative about your circumstances. You're down 0-10 in kills and throw a surrender vote, should be you punished? Your ADC is 0-5 and 30 cs at 15 minutes. You decide to go "supporting another lane". Is that negative and requiring of punishment? And again, we _do not know_ this guy's circumstances. You're attacking a straw man and then going off on a tangent. I am going to reply to your post as an aside, but this discussion is not about the aside I wrote. This discussion we two are having is about THE VERDICT and THE VERDICT's definition of negativity. ######Aside: Being negative is punishable. If you aren't especially obnoxious about it and you don't be negative on a regular basis, you'll never be punished. If the only negative line you say is "I don't think this match is winnable" then you're NEVER GOING TO GET PUNISHED. The system will punish _excessive_ negativity. If you write that line constantly in one match and you do that over multiple matches (especially if you write it early on), you have a chance of being punished because you are discouraging your teammates. Still, you're probably not going to be punished because that's not very bad negativity. If you were more blatant about it, for example, "you morons made this game unwinnable", then you're much more likely to be punished. Surrender votes are not punishable. They're not chat related. Supporting another person's lane is not chat related and also not punishable. ##Now the part I want you to focus on. AS I SAID BEFORE, "Negativity is open to interpretation." THE VERDICT is looking to see how the community judges the chat, positive, negative, or neutral. Obviously, the community is going to view toxic speech as negative. However, if some player's log got put up and it was full of stuff like "i was thinking about what a terrible piece of s***** I was today" and "I'm dead again, what a surprise, no point in even fighting back" and "this game is so pointless, i am not even trying anymore" and "after this game i think i will hurt myself" "sona maybe you should hurt yourself too, life is so pointless" and more stuff along those lines, I think it would be voted negative. My point is that **negativity in THE VERDICT is not just toxicity**, but you're implying otherwise with your statement "The words have no toxicity in them." If you read a discouraging log from a severely depressed player that talked about giving up from the very beginning, both giving up the game and giving up in life, would you really vote neutral or positive?
> [{quoted}](name=Aeszarck,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=0001000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:29:35.617+0000) > > You're attacking a straw man and then going off on a tangent. Uhm... okay? What tangent? I gave an example to support my argument. >The system will punish _excessive_ negativity. If you write that line constantly in one match and you do that over multiple matches (especially if you write it early on), you have a chance of being punished because you are discouraging your teammates. If you were more blatant about it, for example, "you morons made this game unwinnable", then you're much more likely to be punished. Show me where you've seen excessive negativity? The guy wrote about 20 lines of text and the majority of it is harmless. I'll go line by line later if you really want to. > If you read a discouraging log from a severely depressed player that talked about giving up from the very beginning, both giving up the game and giving up in life, would you really vote neutral or positive? Okay, where in the heck did you find this guy being severely depressed and talking about giving up the game from the start? Nowhere in this chatlog does the Rakan state that he has given up. He does state that he's done with blind pick, but hey, is that really negative or just someone expressing that he dislikes the game type? He seems to be a guy who got trolled and is taking it as well as most people would be in his situation.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: > I've played many games of building weird crappy items on random champions **to see if the items are any good** Then your intention was not playing poorly. Your intention was experimenting on whether or not a certain decision has good results or not, willingly (but not intentionally) lowering your chance of winning. It's a nuanced discussion, I admit, but the key question here is: Is losing or at least lowering your team's chance to win the **intended** result of your actions? When you are trying out new builds, that's obviously not the case. If you realize half way through that your new build is actually brokenly overpowered and you are steamrolling the enemy team, you'd probably be happy about it.
> [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=ZvrRwBIH,comment-id=000100020000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:26:40.162+0000) > > Then your intention was not playing poorly. Your intention was experimenting on whether or not a certain decision has good results or not, willingly (but not intentionally) lowering your chance of winning. > > It's a nuanced discussion, I admit, but the key question here is: Is losing or at least lowering your team's chance to win the **intended** result of your actions? > When you are trying out new builds, that's obviously not the case. If you realize half way through that your new build is actually brokenly overpowered and you are steamrolling the enemy team, you'd probably be happy about it. Okay, I've played off-meta builds that probably lower my chances of winning. I think those builds are fun. I still actively try to win. I have, however, intentionally lowered my chances of winning. This is not a punishable offense. The OP just needs to take this to an extreme (i.e. find some fun build, maybe one that emphasizes high movespeed through use of actives) but that is statistically very unlikely to win him games.
Escheton (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Chermorg,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pty8Eosn,comment-id=00020001,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:20:55.908+0000) > > Being negative, unfriendly, and mean **is** toxic. The fact you do not see anything wrong with it and consider it to not be "toxic" is not a problem with "people on(of) the boards", it's a problem with you. ^This
> [{quoted}](name=Escheton,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pty8Eosn,comment-id=000200010000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:22:34.546+0000) > > ^This You cannot be punished for being unfriendly. If I go into a game and tell everyone "leave me alone, I don't want to be friends", I am not going to be punished. Being mean and saying things along the lines of "you are playing poorly" when the guy is actually playing poorly, will not get me punished. The OP repeatedly says "stop feeding" to someone that (assuming he is telling the truth) stated that they were actually going to intentionally feed. He says in all chat that his lane opponent lost lane. He tells someone that they are very behind. Sure, the OP is annoying as all hell, but like so many people have said, the mute button is an option (thus there is no need to retaliate or whatever). You shouldn't punish someone for being whiny and annoying.
Chermorg (NA)
: If it's constantly berating your teammates by saying "omg stop feeding" and similar, you can and will be punished for that. It's overly negative and abusive and not constructive in any way.
> [{quoted}](name=Chermorg,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pty8Eosn,comment-id=00010000000000010000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:19:41.232+0000) > > If it's constantly berating your teammates by saying "omg stop feeding" and similar, you can and will be punished for that. It's overly negative and abusive and not constructive in any way. What happens, as is sometimes the case, when the target of these statements is _actually_ intentionally feeding. If, as the OP says, the target of these statements admitted to intentionally feeding in chat and is continuously intentionally feeding, is it so wrong to ask many times for them to "stop feeding"? Hell, at that point, it may as well be constructive criticism. Your team is more likely to win that game if the intentional feeder stops feeding. Sure, spamming it at someone who's having a bad game is probably pretty toxic, but at someone who has admitted to intentionally feeding and is continually doing it?
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: So harming **a** victim is always a bad thing? So anybody who has ever been the victim to any crime is never going to get prosecuted for their own crimes? The phrase "victim blaming" refers to blaming the victim for the crime that they were a victim of. It does not refer to accusing the victim of actually crimes they have committed. A rich guy walks into a bad neighbourhood and gets robbed. "Well, why would you go there with this much money on you? It's your own fault, really." ----> Victim blaming The rich guy then pays somebody to find and beat up the robber. "That's illegal. You just committed a crime. It doesn't matter if this guy robbed you." ----> Not victim blaming. Rule of thumb: Blaming somebody for something **they** did is never victim blaming. Blaming somebody for something that was done **to** them is victim blaming.
> [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=000200000001,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:14:46.482+0000) > > So harming **a** victim is always a bad thing? > So anybody who has ever been the victim to any crime is never going to get prosecuted for their own crimes? > > The phrase "victim blaming" refers to blaming the victim for the crime that they were a victim of. It does not refer to accusing the victim of actually crimes they have committed. > > A rich guy walks into a bad neighbourhood and gets robbed. > "Well, why would you go there with this much money on you? It's your own fault, really." ----> Victim blaming > The rich guy then pays somebody to find and beat up the robber. > "That's illegal. You just committed a crime. It doesn't matter if this guy robbed you." ----> Not victim blaming. > > Rule of thumb: Blaming somebody for something **they** did is never victim blaming. Blaming somebody for something that was done **to** them is victim blaming. So again, I give the example of an abuse victim who somehow gets the upper hand (e.g. takes the abuser's only weapon) and now has the choice of running away or using that weapon on the abuser (or a variety of other options). If the victim uses the weapon on the abuser, do you still choose to blame them?
Chermorg (NA)
: No, you can't. Because that's accusing them of intentionally feeding. If you believe they're doing that, just report them after the game. Don't subject 3-8 other people to have to look at your messages to that person just because you're mad at them.
> [{quoted}](name=Chermorg,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pty8Eosn,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:12:24.748+0000) > > No, you can't. Because that's accusing them of intentionally feeding. If you believe they're doing that, just report them after the game. Don't subject 3-8 other people to have to look at your messages to that person just because you're mad at them. Uh... dude you will not be punished for saying "stop feeding".
: I understand. I just dont see why you arnent allowed to be negative in a ranked competitive setting if your teammates are losing the game for you. I mean the yi for instance was 0/13 at one point. That is rediculos. And the singed even said they inted.
> [{quoted}](name=Garffiljorg,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pty8Eosn,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:13:24.463+0000) > > I understand. I just dont see why you arnent allowed to be negative in a ranked competitive setting if your teammates are losing the game for you. I mean the yi for instance was 0/13 at one point. That is rediculos. And the singed even said they inted. The general consensus of this board is that it's okay to punish the victim (or even if it's not okay, they will at least choose to ignore it) if the victim chooses to retaliate. You're supposed to suffer in silence and then report them.
: 14 day suspension where I feel like i wasnt toxic.
Unfortunately, posting things like this on these boards will almost always (note the almost) result in people on the boards being extremely negative towards you. The majority of people here will straight up think that you deserve your punishment (or worse) as soon as they read that you were punished. You weren't toxic, but you were definitely rather unfriendly and mean. I don't believe being unfriendly and mean warrants a punishment, but unfortunately I don't make the final decisions. If you had no punishments prior to the 14-day ban, then you may have a decent case, however the people of the boards tend to be terribly biased against people that they stereotype as toxic and are unlikely to support you if this is just an escalated punishment from 25-chat restrict to 14-day ban.
Aeszarck (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=0001000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2017-06-19T02:43:36.192+0000) > > Except... You're not getting what I'm saying. If I start to talk about my (nonexistent) crippling depression all game and say how this world is meaningless, this game is meaningless, I want to kill myself, nothing matters, etc., I am going to make the whole game experience pretty sad for my teammates. I'm not being toxic to anyone, but my chat is still negative. That's why I'm not saying that we're not just judging toxic speech. There are other forms of speech that can be considered negative _outside_ of toxicity.
> [{quoted}](name=Aeszarck,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=00010000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T02:50:31.328+0000) > > You're not getting what I'm saying. If I start to talk about my (nonexistent) crippling depression all game and say how this world is meaningless, this game is meaningless, I want to kill myself, nothing matters, etc., I am going to make the whole game experience pretty sad for my teammates. I'm not being toxic to anyone, but my chat is still negative. > That's why I'm not saying that we're not just judging toxic speech. There are other forms of speech that can be considered negative _outside_ of toxicity. If being negative and giving up is punishable, practically everyone who has surrendered a game needs to be punished. Hell, people who say "I don't think this match is winnable" in chat need to be punished. We cannot punish being negative about your circumstances. You're down 0-10 in kills and throw a surrender vote, should be you punished? Your ADC is 0-5 and 30 cs at 15 minutes. You decide to go "supporting another lane". Is that negative and requiring of punishment? And again, we _do not know_ this guy's circumstances.
: If you're intentionally losing games and the system catches you then yes -- you will likely be punished for doing so, since intentionally losing games isn't acceptable behavior.
> [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=ZvrRwBIH,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-06-18T21:50:13.326+0000) > > If you're intentionally losing games and the system catches you then yes -- you will likely be punished for doing so, since intentionally losing games isn't acceptable behavior. What about intentionally playing poorly? Refuse to look at your minimap (which many players don't look at already), split push without grouping (but still try to actively take towers) regardless of circumstance, build off-meta (not troll, so no 6 boots, but a lichbane on Irelia still gives scalings to her E) items. Not every player needs to play at their best every game - it should not be punishable to play (still trying to win) in a manner that lowers your odds of winning. e.g. I've played many games of building weird crappy items on random champions to see if the items are any good. I've lost a good majority of those games, despite actively trying to win. I would hardly think that is a punishable offense.
Aeszarck (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T03:09:26.422+0000) > > Hey, mate. > > The words themselves have no toxicity in them. He is not insulting anyone. He is not disparaging anyone. He does not use profanity or racial slurs. Sure, the intention could be negative or trolling or whatever, but we do not have any evidence to indicate that. Moreover we are supposed to be judging solely based on the words alone. Negative is open to interpretation. We're not _just_ judging toxic speech here, though that is primarily what we will see. Negative can mean anything, including giving up.
> [{quoted}](name=Aeszarck,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=000100000000000000000001,timestamp=2017-06-18T21:42:58.846+0000) > > We're not _just_ judging toxic speech here Except... > Remember, you are only voting on the volunteer’s chat.
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=0001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T18:21:49.370+0000) > > What...? I think you need to elaborate before you can even begin to call me "extremely ignorant" or a "borderline racist". I can't believe I actually have to write this. Alright. First, we need to establish a scale. The best way is to imagine League of Legends as a video game club building with lights and a table where you can view all the stuff you have access to(BUT DON'T OWN). You get in a room with four other people. You start yelling at one of the other teammates. It could be because they are yelling at you, it could be because they are intentionally feeding, it could be because they are playing poorly, it could be because you are having a bad day. Either way, the yelling does nothing to help the situation, so Riot gives a warning to everyone doing wrong and if you get enough warnings, you are banned from the club. That should give you a sense of scale. It's like being kicked out of a restaurant or from a miniature golf course. The rules might be harsh, but it's to keep things from escalating. Now, it is tough to see an intentional feeder on your team and feel helpless. But flaming doesn't DO anything, and it is most likely to make the situation worse. Is it hard to hunch your shoulders and try and go on? Yes. But it is the better option. Because flaming does nothing. So what you are doing is comparing the plight of someone who broke the rules and got thrown out of the theater to a jewish person in Germany during WW2. When on Nov. 9 1938, thousands of businesses and synagogues were burned across all of Germany just because they were Jewish. 8000+ buildings in a single night. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/00/81/cf/0081cffdbc12bbba256c398676a8b913.jpg Or how they were all forced into ghettos and wore brands just because they were jewish, and threatened with armed guards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Lwow_Ghetto_%28spring_1942%29.jpg Or how they were eventually forced into concentration camps and starved to the point that many actually died immediately upon rescue because they drank and ate so much their bodies couldn't handle it. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/64/b5/9c/64b59c7e7a363b25da5f8edaf421afe6.jpg Or how they were executed systematically like animals. https://furtherglory.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/dachaumorgue1945.jp-g (Warning, disturbing and graphic photo of the room next to a gas chamber) The difference of scale is so off the charts, you are actually being offensive, because by comparing the two, you are lessening the plight of the people in these photos. That's what Godwin's Law actually is about.
> [{quoted}](name=EvilDustMan,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=00010000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T20:27:39.714+0000) > > The difference of scale is so off the charts, you are actually being offensive, because by comparing the two, you are lessening the plight of the people in these photos. That's what Godwin's Law actually is about. See, the thing is, where do you get off on being the definer of this scale? No man, men, nor group of men (note: I use man here as mankind, not male human beings) has the right (nevermind capability) of properly ranking events on a scale of morality. Morality is affected per individual and it is never able to reach a culminating consensus for all human beings. Moreover, I compared the similar situation of blindly following rules in both scenarios - where people of similar origin oppressed one another because they were told that it was the right thing to do - _not_ the end results of the events. There are few instances in history that mimic such a scenario and Hitler's oppression of the Jews is definitely the most prominent (thereby the most capable of facilitating discussion since people need to understand the reference in order to discuss it). Yes, comparing a genocide to wrongful banning is probably offensive. But again, that is not the comparison I have been making. Comparing the treatment of two peoples by their peers under the encouragement of those in positions of power is not offensive.
: Ula was right, this is bad bait
> [{quoted}](name=AngusBoomPants,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2017-06-19T00:29:55.708+0000) > > Ula was right, this is bad bait Was it? We had a pretty huge debate on the topic in their moderation discord. By the end of it, even if he disagreed with my standpoint, he still needed to respect it. Where there are a hundred reasons against, there were a thousand reasons for. Censoring history is downright crude.
Xidphel (NA)
: Yes. If, for example, I said something like that to you, you're victim of harassment and you're able to defend yourself. Mute and report is the better form of defense since A. You don't have to deal with my shit anymore; B. OTHER PLAYERS won't have to deal with my shit anymore when I inevitably get punished and C. OUR TEAMMATES won't have to deal with both of us flaming eachother. If you chose to flame me back, well, try that in a restaurant if you want a realistic real world comparison.
> [{quoted}](name=Xidphel,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=0002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T20:17:41.171+0000) > > Yes. If, for example, I said something like that to you, you're victim of harassment and you're able to defend yourself. Mute and report is the better form of defense since > > A. You don't have to deal with my shit anymore; > B. OTHER PLAYERS won't have to deal with my shit anymore when I inevitably get punished and > C. OUR TEAMMATES won't have to deal with both of us flaming eachother. > > If you chose to flame me back, well, try that in a restaurant if you want a realistic real world comparison. Okay, so you're willing to stand by the notion that it's okay for you to say "kys" because the option to mute and report exists. It doesn't matter that the person may then go and actually harm themselves, because hey, they can mute and report. Also, you need to consider that not everyone that gets reported will be punished. The system is flawed and quite a few people will slip through the cracks. Moreover, by that logic of muting, why don't you and your teammates just mute the two toxic players so that they can flame each other while the rest of you don't have to deal with it?
: > For all we know, he saw the two of them in a 2v5 and chose not to sacrifice his life for one of theirs. Is that intentionally assisting the enemy? There are two options really. Either there was a situation where he could have helped but chose not to out of spite (seems likely given the chat log) - punish, or there was a bad fight which he watched happen and decided that taunting his team in all chat for dying was the correct response - punish. > He is not insulting anyone. He is not disparaging anyone. Also, yes he is. Right here. > [7:02] Rakan: Yeah I'm done with blind > [7:04] Rakan: Get more idiots He called them idiots.
> [{quoted}](name=sixdogman,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=000100000000000100000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T19:29:39.661+0000) > > There are two options really. Either there was a situation where he could have helped but chose not to out of spite (seems likely given the chat log) - punish, or there was a bad fight which he watched happen and decided that taunting his team in all chat for dying was the correct response - punish. > > Also, yes he is. Right here. > > He called them idiots. Seriously? You can choose not to help in a fight if you believe that you're going to have to die for it. Unless you mean to say that any support who chooses not to sacrifice himself for his ADC needs to be punished? Yeah - fine - he taunted his team. You've never wrote "lul that flash" or anything to that effect before? "Get more idiots" as far as I can tell is a nonsensical statement that involves the word idiots but isn't specifically directed at anyone. That's about as toxic as "get less idiots", both of which I still have no idea what they are supposed to mean. Or do we punish every time we catch a single less than optimal word in speech regardless of what it actually means?
: When the chat admits to intentionally assisting the enemy team by letting a teammate die, then the actions admitted to are the context of the chat logs. I would punish.
> [{quoted}](name=sixdogman,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=0001000000000001,timestamp=2017-06-18T18:37:27.972+0000) > > When the chat admits to intentionally assisting the enemy team by letting a teammate die, then the actions admitted to are the context of the chat logs. I would punish. The chat admits to returning a favor (unspecified). He states that he was trolled in the pre-game lobby and then two of his teammates apparently left him to die intentionally. He then states that whatever action that occurred and that we do not know about was his manner of returning the favor. For all we know, he saw the two of them in a 2v5 and chose not to sacrifice his life for one of theirs. Is that intentionally assisting the enemy? Not sacrificing your life for someone else's?
Prandine (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=PY4jKKW6,comment-id=00060000000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T13:11:07.757+0000) > > I find it a hard sell when the option to mute problem players is used a justification to dismiss players who retaliate while simultaneously being stated as not being enough justification to allow toxicity. > > e.g. > > "You should mute the toxic player instead of responding back." > vs. > "Mute being an option doesn't mean that the harm isn't already done." > > I don't necessarily think blaming a victim for taking an option that is less than perfect is something that we should be doing. Let's say there is a victim of domestic abuse for many years. In one session of abuse, the victim somehow gets the upper hand (say, the victim manages to take the abuser's only weapon). At this point, the best response for the victim is to just run away. But I really don't think we'll find many people who would blame the victim for using that weapon on the abuser. > > Sure, this scenario is not as extreme (maybe, but then again, so many people have been arguing that words are just as impactful as physical violence). Yet, it still parallels very closely. Can we really say that what we're doing is so different than blaming a victim for retaliating against the abuser? I think the problem here is is that in your example the victim would be justified in using the weapon because their life is in danger and it's self defense. With words however the self-defense via retaliation excuse loses allot of its weight, because there's the option to walk away and ignore them (in-game you could also just ignore them and/or mute them) instead of giving them the negative reaction that they're often looking for. The reason why the mute button does not excuse toxicity in-game is because players shouldn't need to rely on it to interact with others in a neutral or positive manner or force others to use it just so they can act however they want. Think of the mute button as a band-aid of sorts where yes it helps with the problem short-term but we still need to take actions to try to prevent that problem from happening again.
> [{quoted}](name=Prandine,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=PY4jKKW6,comment-id=000600000002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T18:35:03.727+0000) > > I think the problem here is is that in your example the victim would be justified in using the weapon because their life is in danger and it's self defense. With words however the self-defense via retaliation excuse loses allot of its weight, because there's the option to walk away and ignore them (in-game you could also just ignore them and/or mute them) instead of giving them the negative reaction that they're often looking for. The reason why the mute button does not excuse toxicity in-game is because players shouldn't need to rely on it to interact with others in a neutral or positive manner or force others to use it just so they can act however they want. Think of the mute button as a band-aid of sorts where yes it helps with the problem short-term but we still need to take actions to try to prevent that problem from happening again. That's the thing though. If the victim has the only weapon (and let's just say for the sake of this discussion that the victim has full opportunity to run away) would anyone blame them for choosing to use the weapon instead? What I'm saying is just because there may be a "better" choice available, is it so wrong for a victim to choose the other option? With regards to the mute button, what I'm getting is that you are saying that once someone is hurt, they need to choose to just put a band-aid on it. They just have to take the pain and hope that some sort of cosmic balance (which when referring to punishments - does not always occur) takes place. They shouldn't take the guaranteed chance to vent over the possible chance of the offender being punished. Why does that seem a little lacking?
Xidphel (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T18:26:12.477+0000) > > Really? So if a rape victim fights back, they aren't a victim anymore? To understand the gap between rape victim and people who refuse to mute and report, look at the distance between the sun and Pluto.
> [{quoted}](name=Xidphel,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=00020000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T18:28:16.874+0000) > > To understand the gap between rape victim and people who refuse to mute and report, look at the distance between the sun and Pluto. Again, why does a person who chose to retaliate through chat suddenly deserve absolutely no respect? They are a human being, their feelings have been hurt, and their self-esteem damaged. Does this not matter all of a sudden? If you want to argue that the level of damage is different, I want to ask is it really? If someone told a person who is a suicide-risk to "kys", is the level of damage really different? Is that person suddenly not a victim if they use derogatory terms in retaliation?
Xidphel (NA)
: When people retaliate, they lose their victim card.
> [{quoted}](name=Xidphel,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T18:23:36.054+0000) > > When people retaliate, they lose their victim card. Really? So if a rape victim fights back, they aren't a victim anymore?
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=00010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T18:16:32.058+0000) > > What? I am not comparing myself to the Jews. > > I think you are misunderstanding something. I am not and have not been a toxic player. I simply am trying to defend _some_ of them. > > I am comparing the oppression of Jews to the oppression of victims of toxicity who chose to retaliate. > > Oppression is oppression - regardless of the uniform being worn at the time. Your comparison doesn't help. All it does is either prove extreme ignorance, or profound arrogance bordering on racism.
> [{quoted}](name=EvilDustMan,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T18:19:32.631+0000) > > Your comparison doesn't help. All it does is either prove extreme ignorance, or profound arrogance bordering on racism. What...? I think you need to elaborate before you can even begin to call me "extremely ignorant" or a "borderline racist".
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T16:53:55.905+0000) > > Not all of those are as effective in the particular case of championing the oppressed. Comparing yourself to the Jews during WW2, again, is so arrogant and out of proportion, it's offensive to the memory of those people. I suspect you've never been to a holocaust museum.
> [{quoted}](name=EvilDustMan,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=0001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T18:06:50.829+0000) > > Comparing yourself to the Jews during WW2, again, is so arrogant and out of proportion, it's offensive to the memory of those people. > > I suspect you've never been to a holocaust museum. What? I am not comparing myself to the Jews. I think you are misunderstanding something. I am not and have not been a toxic player. I simply am trying to defend _some_ of them. I am comparing the oppression of Jews to the oppression of victims of toxicity who chose to retaliate. Oppression is oppression - regardless of the uniform being worn at the time.
: The one giant flaw with your comparison: There's no consequences for **following** the rules.
> [{quoted}](name=Reket DeAlk,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2017-06-18T17:08:46.743+0000) > > The one giant flaw with your comparison: There's no consequences for **following** the rules. The consequence of following some rules, such as how we punish players for retaliating to toxicity with toxicity, is that we are also harming a victim. So many people have posted about how wrong victim blaming is - regardless of the situation - how can we maintain double standards and not allow it to apply here?
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=zH77mvBw,comment-id=00000000000000010000,timestamp=2017-06-18T13:49:40.027+0000) > > Reforming players (who already have had a 14-day ban) will be more likely to receive a perma for saying the same things that you and I get away with on a daily basis. Look for a thread by 4Jhin on this board (his name has the i with a weird accent on it). He basically received a perma-ban for saying "the ult did 1300 fucking damage" (according to the support ticket he submitted). > > Edit: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/BUrtv2EB-in-what-way-was-i-being-toxic > There is the link. That isn't an example of double standards. Punishment ramps up as the offenses add up.
> [{quoted}](name=BigBellBrute,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=zH77mvBw,comment-id=000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T17:44:49.993+0000) > > That isn't an example of double standards. Punishment ramps up as the offenses add up. The double standards are in why he is being punished. There is nothing that violates any rules in his chat. You can see in the support ticket exactly what the Riot Support Staff indicates is apparently "toxic". Tell me you've never said _anything_ like that - and have you been banned for it each time?
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=zH77mvBw,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T03:04:20.417+0000) > > What about someone being toxic to you first? We're all fundamentally wired differently. Some people find responding to be too much effort and just /mute then report. Others would be seriously aggravated not being able to retaliate. > I personally prefer people who are nice if you are nice to them but will be toxic if you are toxic to them. These are good folk who have no reason to be stigmatized or punished for someone else making them suffer. I personally prefer people with integrity. Not someone who sinks to low levels just because other people do. And if you call someone being toxic to you online making you "suffer"... maybe those people need thicker skin and perhaps a little awareness that these are anonymous strangers who will say anything to piss you off. I prefer people who recognize that and aren't bothered by random insults that are completely unfounded. You know, intelligent people. Not simple, sensitive, egotistical people who get insulted by people online who could potentially be 9 years old.
> [{quoted}](name=Telephone Booth,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=zH77mvBw,comment-id=000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2017-06-18T17:40:16.726+0000) > > I personally prefer people with integrity. Not someone who sinks to low levels just because other people do. Shrug. What you call no integrity, I call forthright. Someone who respects others that respect them? That's a darned good person in my book.
: >Then you should know just as well as I do about the importance of not just blindly following rules. Then make a comparison with a pointless stop-sign in the middle of nowhere, overblown public urination laws that lead to 100.000 unnecessary courthouse hearings / year, or the technically-still-in-effect Memphis-Tenessee law, which, in theory, would require every car driven by a woman to be accompanied by a man, on foot, waving a warning flag. There are plenty of comparisons for not blindly following rules, that do not insult the memory of 6.6 million human beings murdered by a terror-regime.
> [{quoted}](name=Martensitic,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T16:07:14.322+0000) > > Then make a comparison with a pointless stop-sign in the middle of nowhere, overblown public urination laws that lead to 100.000 unnecessary courthouse hearings / year, or the technically-still-in-effect Memphis-Tenessee law, which, in theory, would require every car driven by a woman to be accompanied by a man, on foot, waving a warning flag. > > There are plenty of comparisons for not blindly following rules, that do not insult the memory of 6.6 million human beings murdered by a terror-regime. Not all of those are as effective in the particular case of championing the oppressed.
: I am usually not in favor of the moderation policy on the NA boards (I am sure DTN can confirm this ^^) but in this case, I completely agree with the removal of the post. My family lost cherished members to the Nazi regime during WWII. Seeing this being brought up by someone in comparison to something as trivial as discussing a player behavior control system, is an insult to their memory, and the suffering of millions of people who were murdered during the biggest crime in human history. This cannot stand, simple as that.
> [{quoted}](name=Martensitic,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T15:49:16.696+0000) > > I am usually not in favor of the moderation policy on the NA boards (I am sure DTN can confirm this ^^) but in this case, I completely agree with the removal of the post. > > My family lost cherished members to the Nazi regime during WWII. > > Seeing this being brought up by someone in comparison to something as trivial as discussing a player behavior control system, is an insult to their memory, and the suffering of millions of people who were murdered during the biggest crime in human history. > > This cannot stand, simple as that. Then you should know just as well as I do about the importance of not just blindly following rules. It would follow that because there was a direct relation between the message intended and the message received, this analogy was used with appropriate context.
: At no point do you need to be bringing up Hitler or comparing his actions to an account punishment. The comparison is way out of proportion and the example is offensive. If you aren't ok with this you are welcome to visit us on the [Moderation Discord](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/7rtKBZLi-boards-moderation-discord-verification) and discuss the removal, otherwise this is not a position we will budge on.
> [{quoted}](name=Deep Terror Nami,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-06-18T15:38:47.266+0000) > > At no point do you need to be bringing up Hitler or comparing his actions to an account punishment. The comparison is way out of proportion and the example is offensive. If you aren't ok with this you are welcome to visit us on the [Moderation Discord](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/7rtKBZLi-boards-moderation-discord-verification) and discuss the removal, otherwise this is not a position we will budge on. Therefore, you are saying there is just going to be blatant censorship on a prominent historical event regardless of whether or not it was used in an appropriate manner.
4Jhín (NA)
: MAMA MEEP Today at 10:19 Hey again, I can only emphasize that the ban was rightfully placed. There is no justification for your behavior in game and you have had multiple chances to reform already. As the context of your situation has been explained, if you don't have any new questions or concerns then I will be considering this matter closed. Mama Meep Player Behavior, Game and Tech Support ❄️ Meep Collector ❄️ ------------------------------------------- UPDATE: Riot has decided to stop answering my tickets and just gave me the blanket response when they have no justification for their ban. THIS IS THE TRUE FACE OF RIOT!!
> [{quoted}](name=4Jhín,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=BUrtv2EB,comment-id=004f,timestamp=2017-06-18T15:31:30.338+0000) > > MAMA MEEP > Today at 10:19 > Hey again, > > I can only emphasize that the ban was rightfully placed. There is no justification for your behavior in game and you have had multiple chances to reform already. > > As the context of your situation has been explained, if you don't have any new questions or concerns then I will be considering this matter closed. > > Mama Meep > Player Behavior, Game and Tech Support > ❄️ Meep Collector ❄️ > > ------------------------------------------- > UPDATE: Riot has decided to stop answering my tickets and just gave me the blanket response when they have no justification for their ban. > > > THIS IS THE TRUE FACE OF RIOT!! Hey, you mentioned that you would screenshot the whole ticket after it was closed? I'd like to help bring attention to this, if possible.
F3ORA (NA)
: They want you to tattle. It's the 1st game with a real tattle tail gestapo system.
> [{quoted}](name=F3ORA,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EXG0oVcE,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2017-06-18T15:26:44.853+0000) > > They want you to tattle. It's the 1st game with a real tattle tail gestapo system. I genuinely have no idea what you mean here. Can you explain?
Rioter Comments
: How was I toxic
> [{quoted}](name=QuickerBlade,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=mko3XX1T,comment-id=,timestamp=2017-06-18T05:49:00.175+0000) > > Game 1 > iOnlyPlayOffMeta: another autistic jg > iOnlyPlayOffMeta: why do i get monkeys playing non enchanter supports > iOnlyPlayOffMeta: monkey retards > iOnlyPlayOffMeta: ape team > > Game 2 > iOnlyPlayOffMeta: autistic twitch > iOnlyPlayOffMeta: u ahve autism > iOnlyPlayOffMeta: gj ahving autism > > Game 3 > iOnlyPlayOffMeta: dumbass monkey > iOnlyPlayOffMeta: that's what ur mom said > iOnlyPlayOffMeta: when i put my cock inside her > iOnlyPlayOffMeta: ur mom's virginity > iOnlyPlayOffMeta: trash team I'd say using autism as an insult, comparing your teammates to primates, and making derogatory comments about someone's mother would probably do the trick.
Ulanopo (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Martensitic,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=04ozhzaY,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-06-17T15:15:32.160+0000) > > Forget it. > > There is a reason why I don't do serious discussion on the NA boards any more. The whiteknighting and political correctness movement here has made the boards a "safe space" where everyone is a precious flower, and no unsupportive thing is ever to be uttered. How can you claim to desire "serious discussion" when you so casually dismiss the opinions of those who disagree with you? It sounds as though you want an echo chamber rather than debate.
> [{quoted}](name=Ulanopo,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=04ozhzaY,comment-id=00010002,timestamp=2017-06-18T14:15:38.484+0000) > > How can you claim to desire "serious discussion" when you so casually dismiss the opinions of those who disagree with you? It sounds as though you want an echo chamber rather than debate. The thing is that it's really hard to have a debate when the majority of the crowd is throwing emotion at logic (I'm not referring to this particular case of course). _I know this following part is going to be slightly off-topic, but I don't see anywhere else to challenge this at:_ Similarly, getting emotional over a controversial topic that is used appropriately in its context does not merit deleting said post.
archerno1 (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=svRGEpEc,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T14:26:44.564+0000) > > Like I was saying, because using a community consensus leaves the minority underrepresented, it is a poor indicator of the weight of each insult. Let me put it this way, of those thousands of people who report for "kys", which of them is actually suffering from being a suicide risk? However, the two people who reported for mom jokes are seriously likely to have been extremely offended or hurt. Yes, more social justice warriors or those convinced of their moral upbringing have reported the "kys" phrase, but the actual amount of mental damage done is about equal. Its not about mental damage, its about intention to hurt. I know for example that telling someone to end their life might actually make them do it, so i wouldnt do it. While for example i find jokes like "Your mom is so fat she gave Vladimir a diabetes" funny, but if i offend someone i would apologize to him instantly. Riot doesnt ban cause of words, but cause of intention.
> [{quoted}](name=archerno1,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=svRGEpEc,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T14:27:41.364+0000) > > Its not about mental damage, its about intention to hurt. So it's not about the fact that someone died, it's about whether or not the person intended to kill them? What about the people who are saying "kys" without the intention to hurt then? Should those people get a free pass?
archerno1 (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=svRGEpEc,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T13:56:52.723+0000) > > The problem with the community defining things, is that the underrepresented minorities are often left voiceless. Sure, the _majority_ of the western community considers your mom jokes to be a just a joke. But isn't it also true that the _majority_ of the western community isn't suffering from depression and thus isn't likely to be encouraged to commit suicide from a "kys" phrase? We cannot weigh the impact of insults on anonymous individuals, thus the punishment that they merit needs to be of equal weight. What are you bumbling about? Riot uses feedback from social media, forum and reports (you know when u type that little text when reporting someone) to determine what community considers minor and major offenses. If thousands of people report for KYS while 1-2 for mom jokes, then Riot determines which of the 2 are considered bigger offense by community. But in the end Riot decides.
> [{quoted}](name=archerno1,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=svRGEpEc,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T14:21:03.430+0000) > > What are you bumbling about? Riot uses feedback from social media, forum and reports (you know when u type that little text when reporting someone) to determine what community considers minor and major offenses. If thousands of people report for KYS while 1-2 for mom jokes, then Riot determines which of the 2 are considered bigger offense by community. > > But in the end Riot decides. Like I was saying, because using a community consensus leaves the minority underrepresented, it is a poor indicator of the weight of each insult. Let me put it this way, of those thousands of people who report for "kys", which of them is actually suffering from being a suicide risk? However, the two people who reported for mom jokes are seriously likely to have been extremely offended or hurt. Yes, more social justice warriors or those convinced of their moral upbringing have reported the "kys" phrase, but the actual amount of mental damage done is about equal.
: To everyone
@Ulanopo How is using a historical event as evidence that following rules blindly may lead to terrible consequences inappropriate? It did not bait or mock anyone. It did not derail the thread since it argued the counterpoint to the original stance. Blindly censoring controversial topics is blatantly a misuse of power. Edit: I posted here because I saw no location to refute this censorship.
: We all just need to keep reporting them and eventually they will get some kind of repercussions. I feel you though, about 90% of my losses are from toxic people who think it makes them cool to throw temper tantrums. :\
> [{quoted}](name=Llama Lady,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=RLAqG56O,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-06-18T09:25:48.716+0000) > > We all just need to keep reporting them and eventually they will get some kind of repercussions. I feel you though, about 90% of my losses are from toxic people who think it makes them cool to throw temper tantrums. :\ You can't really report someone for playing poorly though... Sure, if they troll, report them. But if they just suck, do nothing but farm, and act as if they have zero map awareness...? Can you really report that...
: So, naming and shaming is against the rules of the boards. Your post will most likely be edited to remove the other summoner's names.
> [{quoted}](name=Periscope,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=YvPKwcpz,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-06-18T13:57:17.047+0000) > > So, naming and shaming is against the rules of the boards. Your post will most likely be edited to remove the other summoner's names. Okay, I think in this one particular case, the naming and shaming is deserved if the guy is getting away with the summoner name "kill yourself".
archerno1 (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=svRGEpEc,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-17T08:35:03.725+0000) > > What exactly defines a 'mild offense'? > Who ranks 'kys' as a greater offense than 'f*ck you'? > Does God? Which god? What about those who don't believe in a god? > Does society? The society of which nation? What about smaller societies within the larger communities? > You do realize the issue with attempting to classify an 'offense' as mild relative to another offense? > > Apologies, this always triggers me. Well in this case Riot defines it. And they already stated that GG EZ is considered mild offense and by itself it cant trigger a punishment, but can contribute to it. As for your other question, community decides whats major offense and whats minor. For example Rioter recently gave example where mom jokes are considered by western community as just a joke and isnt offensive or punishsable , while by Korean(i think) community its considered highly offensive and punishable
> [{quoted}](name=archerno1,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=svRGEpEc,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-17T10:09:03.983+0000) > > As for your other question, community decides whats major offense and whats minor. For example Rioter recently gave example where mom jokes are considered by western community as just a joke and isnt offensive or punishsable , while by Korean(i think) community its considered highly offensive and punishable The problem with the community defining things, is that the underrepresented minorities are often left voiceless. Sure, the _majority_ of the western community considers your mom jokes to be a just a joke. But isn't it also true that the _majority_ of the western community isn't suffering from depression and thus isn't likely to be encouraged to commit suicide from a "kys" phrase? We cannot weigh the impact of insults on anonymous individuals, thus the punishment that they merit needs to be of equal weight.
: Oh wow, they confirmed the logs were accurate and then picked out a piece that doesn't seem toxic at all. Encouraging people to keep trying and farm up. Meep had to feel like an idiot typing that.
> [{quoted}](name=twogirlsonelane,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=BUrtv2EB,comment-id=004e,timestamp=2017-06-18T04:34:12.329+0000) > > Oh wow, they confirmed the logs were accurate and then picked out a piece that doesn't seem toxic at all. Encouraging people to keep trying and farm up. > > Meep had to feel like an idiot typing that. Yeah... I'm mainly just replying to bump lol.
IR0N III (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=zH77mvBw,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T02:57:45.808+0000) > > Yeah, history lessons are nice. He wanted to be an artist of some sort as well but was rejected at a prominent art school of the time. However, that is not the point I was making. Following rules is nice and all, but sometimes you really need to question whether or not the rules are ones that you _should_ be following. Riot's rules have massive amounts of double standards and it is just not okay. > rules have massive amounts of double standards and it is just not okay. You can't just make this statement without any examples. Provide us with proof where Riot has given preferential treatment to someone who breaks their code of conduct.
> [{quoted}](name=IR0N III,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=zH77mvBw,comment-id=0000000000000001,timestamp=2017-06-18T04:45:05.084+0000) > > You can't just make this statement without any examples. Provide us with proof where Riot has given preferential treatment to someone who breaks their code of conduct. Reforming players (who already have had a 14-day ban) will be more likely to receive a perma for saying the same things that you and I get away with on a daily basis. Look for a thread by 4Jhin on this board (his name has the i with a weird accent on it). He basically received a perma-ban for saying "the ult did 1300 fucking damage" (according to the support ticket he submitted). Edit: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/BUrtv2EB-in-what-way-was-i-being-toxic There is the link.
Show more

Blood Lyrics

Level 30 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion