Pika Fox (NA)
: It would be a good idea, but politics would get in the way where it shouldnt. Then again, the US is an oligarchy, so if theres money to be made theyll probably be all on board.
> [{quoted}](name=Pika Fox,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=tzLXA81R,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-06-29T16:24:14.287+0000) > > It would be a good idea, but politics would get in the way where it shouldnt. > > Then again, the US is an oligarchy, so if theres money to be made theyll probably be all on board. An "oligarchy" yeah okay. Lol.
: Which brainiac at riot decided that the amount of Items you get be RNG?
The same idiots that balance champions--Looks like Riot leadership found another area of the company to employ, exclusively, members of homeless community in Los Angeles.
: Normalize Item drops NOW!
This mode wreaks of corruption and favoritism. Think of how easy it would be for Riot to grant certain players better or more frequent drops over others. We would have no way of really proving this beyond conjecture and it's clear potential for existing. **However, my comments about corruption notwithstanding, it's a garbage game mode because it depends too heavily on randomization. I hope in the long-run it bombs, blowing up in their stupid faces. **
: Forgotten Project, The King of Fiora
Just about every play he made in that montage required him to use flash to outplay. Fiora's Q speed shouldn't be affected by slows. That has always bothered me since her re-release. I also miss old Fiora's old E-Burst of Speed. I want a non-Master Yi melee based auto-attacker again.
Rioter Comments
potchiker (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=By Force of Will,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=iY8PnQ9U,comment-id=000c,timestamp=2019-06-17T20:44:36.891+0000) > > I said this in one of the other NB3 discussions, but it applies to this one so here is a repost: > ______________________ > > NB3's behavior is entirely out of line, but at the same time I agree with some of the points he is raising. When you are assigned support you are then commissioned to support the ADC. You are ASSIGNED to bot lane; the fun champion select animation proves that as much. The Sivir was AFK at base unappreciative of the Teemo abandoning his role and abdicating the duties he was otherwise bound to fulfill, and the Irelia appears to have also afked, upset he didn't leave her lane. We know Neeko's feelings on the matter as she was active in chat, however, she was in a lane unto her own. > > Nightblue3 may have handled the this situation poorly by flaming, but his underlying contention notwithstanding the flame is 100% in alignment with the rules, summoners code, and Terms of Service. > > Also the IFS was updated a couple years back to handle people who troll by not being in team fights instead deciding to CS, and those who are not in the lane they were assigned. If it were the IFS that issued this penalty and not a manual human issued one done only because NB3 has friends at Riot, I would especially agree with Nubrac's punishment. But because it wasn't the IFS, I have to say this stinks to high heaven of corruption and favoritism. > > If Irelia and Sivir were both on-board with his "strat" I would alter my viewpoint as he harmed both of them by not gathering a consensus, but his punishment is unjustified given the way it was handled. so basically his whole teaming was griefing while he was trying to win?
> [{quoted}](name=potchiker,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=iY8PnQ9U,comment-id=000c0000,timestamp=2019-06-17T20:58:20.790+0000) > > so basically his whole teaming was griefing while he was trying to win? The issue at hand isn't whether the team was griefing, rather it's if he was and if the ban he received was warranted. I argue he was griefing evidenced by the fact he up-and-left Sivir in a 1 v 2 lane to lose--a direct and open violation of role assignment. Had the IFS issued the punishment I would be fully supportive of it's judgement, but we know that isn't the case. Corruption and favoritism is what got him banned, unfairly, and that isn't okay. It is grounds for his punishment to be nullified along with other remedial action. But make no mistake, I still hold Nubaru principally at fault as there is undeniable evidence he was in violation of the TOS, as I mentioned earlier. He imposed his will on the team rather than building a consensus and proceeding with an agreed upon plan of action. He is still wrong, but his punishment was issued unfairly and thusly he isn't deserving of it.
Asudurga (NA)
: While NB3 deserves every bit of comeuppance coming his way, we're forgetting another...
I said this in one of the other NB3 discussions, but it applies to this one so here is a repost: ______________________ NB3's behavior is entirely out of line, but at the same time I agree with some of the points he is raising. When you are assigned support you are then commissioned to support the ADC. You are ASSIGNED to bot lane; the fun champion select animation proves that as much. The Sivir was AFK at base unappreciative of the Teemo abandoning his role and abdicating the duties he was otherwise bound to fulfill, and the Irelia appears to have also afked, upset he didn't leave her lane. We know Neeko's feelings on the matter as she was active in chat, however, she was in a lane unto her own. Nightblue3 may have handled the this situation poorly by flaming, but his underlying contention notwithstanding the flame is 100% in alignment with the rules, summoners code, and Terms of Service. Also the IFS was updated a couple years back to handle people who troll by not being in team fights instead deciding to CS, and those who are not in the lane they were assigned. If it were the IFS that issued this penalty and not a manual human issued one done only because NB3 has friends at Riot, I would especially agree with Nubrac's punishment. But because it wasn't the IFS, I have to say this stinks to high heaven of corruption and favoritism. If Irelia and Sivir were both on-board with his "strat" I would alter my viewpoint as he harmed both of them by not gathering a consensus, but his punishment is unjustified given the way it was handled.
AmazoX (EUW)
: If NB3 goes unpunished then your rules mean nothing, it only means you play favorites.
NB3's behavior is entirely out of line, but at the same time I agree with *some* of the points Nightblue3 is raising. When you are assigned support you are then commissioned to support the ADC. You are **ASSIGNED** to bot lane; the fun champion select animation proves that as much. The Sivir was AFK at base unappreciative of the Teemo abandoning his role and abdicating the duties he was otherwise bound to fulfill, and the Irelia appears to have also afked, upset he didn't leave her lane. We know Neeko's feelings on the matter as she was active in chat, however, she was in a lane unto her own. Nightblue3 may have handled the this situation poorly by flaming, but his underlying contention notwithstanding the flame is 100% in alignment with the rules, summoners code, and Terms of Service. Also the IFS was updated a couple years back to handle people who troll by not being in team fights instead deciding to CS, and those who are not in the lane they were **_assigned_**. If it were the IFS that issued this penalty and not a manual human issued one done only because NB3 has friends at Riot, I would especially agree with Nubrac's punishment. But because it wasn't the IFS, I have to say this stinks to high heaven of corruption and favoritism. If Irelia and Sivir were both on-board with his "strat" I would alter my viewpoint as he harmed both of them by not gathering a consensus, but his punishment is unjustified given the way it was handled.
: > [{quoted}](name=By Force of Will,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=tlbkN7Xz,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-06-16T22:43:06.555+0000) > > That is helpful information, for sure, but I thought Riot deliberately made it so QSS couldn't remove ultimate ability effects like Fiora ultimate and Zed Ultimate.... why are they so wishy-washy in the implementation of policy regarding items, abilities, and other such guiding principles (i.e. the stealth rework and the following release of Akali's new shroud)? So much for the whole "clarity" mantra they used as justification to fundamentally change this game in 2014, 2015, and 2016..... QSS has been able to remove both skarner and malz ult for the longest time. Also Akali's shroud is it's own thing. It has it's own separate wording. You not wanting to learn what it means is not riot's fault.
> [{quoted}](name=ZephyrDrake,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=tlbkN7Xz,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-06-17T01:50:03.336+0000) > > QSS has been able to remove both skarner and malz ult for the longest time. Also Akali's shroud is it's own thing. It has it's own separate wording. You not wanting to learn what it means is not riot's fault. It's definitionally stealth, which they created in diametric opposition of the prior and supposed _guiding principles_ used as the underlying justifications for the stealth rework. Using your line of reasoning, Riot had no grounds to go about the stealth rework in the first place as each of the campions stealth they reworked were also "[their] own thing." To your point of QSS removing suppression ultimates (e.g. Skarner and Malzahar's): QSS was created and released as an item to remove _**all**_ disables including knock ups and suppression ultimates; in short, its purpose is to remove suppression ultimates, not status effects like Fiora and Zed's ultimate. If Mord's ultimate is being considered a suppression, then case closed; however, that has yet to be explained by Riot. All I'm asking for is-- funny enough--**clarity**. Knock it off with the hostile and derogatory subtext. My criticisms of Riot for their repeated, complete reversals of former policies, without a single explanation for any one of them, are justified whereas your attitude towards me is not.
Xavanic (NA)
: a 1300 gold item successfully removes an ability from his kit, additionally a lot of champs can cheese away from him unless he has flash # #TheMoreYouKnow #FlashIsTooOPPlzNerf
> [{quoted}](name=Xavanic,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=tlbkN7Xz,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-06-16T00:56:17.310+0000) > > a 1300 gold item successfully removes an ability from his kit, additionally a lot of champs can cheese away from him unless he has flash > # #TheMoreYouKnow #FlashIsTooOPPlzNerf That is helpful information, for sure, but I thought Riot deliberately made it so QSS couldn't remove ultimate ability effects like Fiora ultimate and Zed Ultimate.... why are they so wishy-washy in the implementation of policy regarding items, abilities, and other such guiding principles (i.e. the stealth rework and the following release of Akali's new shroud)? So much for the whole "clarity" mantra they used as justification to fundamentally change this game in 2014, 2015, and 2016.....
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: The clock is "limited time". Not sure what it means in this context since AFAIK they don't actually expire; it might just refer to the prestige points so the shop option is set up to 'expire' at the end of 2019 so they technically have the symbol.
> [{quoted}](name=Lord Dusteon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=kwnNHbfR,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-05-02T06:28:27.152+0000) > > The clock is "limited time". Not sure what it means in this context since AFAIK they don't actually expire; it might just refer to the prestige points so the shop option is set up to 'expire' at the end of 2019 so they technically have the symbol. I feel like there has to be a better way of indicating "limited" for the prestige points outside of using this current framework. It leads me to believe they'll be limited to this patch only...so, to put it shortly, it's misleading. Perhaps it was an oversight or maybe it was done with intent to push frantic purchases. Hmmmmmm. But anyways, thank you for the insight!
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Sasogwa (EUW)
: Don't like the amount of damage there is in the game
Ah the good old days--season 2,3, and 4. Wish we could go back...... {{sticker:zombie-nunu-tears}}
Rioter Comments
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqB1uoDTdKM
> [{quoted}](name=CaptainMårvelous,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=MoxcLITw,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2019-01-22T07:29:04.347+0000) > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqB1uoDTdKM This is homophobic. > A direct quote from the video: "You're a genuine dick sucker." I hope this isn't going to be held to a different standard just because a mod posted it, though, I fear, I'll be let down.
: you know what my absolute favorite part of league is
Minion block is really a terrible game mechanic in general. It does need to be reassessed in terms of ally minion block. That is the WORST.
Kikiyu (NA)
: Sorry, when I said next OS update, I meant the one after mojave. At least we have some time and riot has some time to update the client. Is there anyway to send in a suggestion to them or contact them by email? I'm not sure how often they read board posts, so contacting them might be a good idea. Saldy, can't upvote till lvl 30, but that's 1.2 lvls away so it'll be soon.
> [{quoted}](name=Kikiyu,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xNJz2Yxe,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-18T01:32:54.532+0000) > > Sorry, when I said next OS update, I meant the one after mojave. At least we have some time and riot has some time to update the client. Is there anyway to send in a suggestion to them or contact them by email? I'm not sure how often they read board posts, so contacting them might be a good idea. > > Saldy, can't upvote till lvl 30, but that's 1.2 lvls away so it'll be soon. I've contacted Riot before about other issues like this and they've said the only way to voice our concerns or suggestions is to post to boards, and assured me that the devs actually look at them. If you want though, I'd recommend sending in a player support ticket asking if there is any information on this matter and if not that you'd like to see a public address. No problem on the upvote, good luck on the level ups!
Kikiyu (NA)
: Sorry if I'm bumping an older thread, but this is important since it concerns allowing users to continue to play the game. I know that I could fogo the next mac os update, but sacrificing a computer update to play a single game seems very silly to me. Even though OS updates tend to add lots of pretty features, there are still security patches in there as well, and bug fixes. I need to know if I will be able to continue to enjoy playing league or if I'll just be locked out. Right now I understand there's no timetable on when the next mac OS update will be that'll only support 64 bit, but I feel that updating the client to 64 bit sooner is better than waiting and leaving us mac owners in limbo. (Also, why does the mac client still say "beta"? It's been years). It'd be nice to hear if there's anyone working on this now or if it's planned to happen in the future. I know that macs don't get a lot of love for gaming, but please don't lock out your mac users. Some of us can't afford to buy another computer just for gaming. And before anyone says "but you can afford a mac", mine was gift when I was accepted to college and it's not one of the newer models. {{sticker:sg-soraka}}
> [{quoted}](name=Kikiyu,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xNJz2Yxe,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-01-16T20:41:19.340+0000) > > Sorry if I'm bumping an older thread, but this is important since it concerns allowing users to continue to play the game. > > I know that I could fogo the next mac os update, but sacrificing a computer update to play a single game seems very silly to me. Even though OS updates tend to add lots of pretty features, there are still security patches in there as well, and bug fixes. I need to know if I will be able to continue to enjoy playing league or if I'll just be locked out. > > Right now I understand there's no timetable on when the next mac OS update will be that'll only support 64 bit, but I feel that updating the client to 64 bit sooner is better than waiting and leaving us mac owners in limbo. (Also, why does the mac client still say "beta"? It's been years). It'd be nice to hear if there's anyone working on this now or if it's planned to happen in the future. > > > > I know that macs don't get a lot of love for gaming, but please don't lock out your mac users. Some of us can't afford to buy another computer just for gaming. And before anyone says "but you can afford a mac", mine was gift when I was accepted to college and it's not one of the newer models. > > {{sticker:sg-soraka}} Actually, macOS Mojave is the final version of macOS to support 32-bit applications (see Apple link in original post). So, we have until around September/November or, at the latest, January 2020. Be sure to upvote post. I doubt we'll get a get response until it's too late... D: {{sticker:zombie-nunu-tears}}
Rioter Comments
: Matpat goes into detail about how this whole thing is going to work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db-tuTCsoWU
> [{quoted}](name=RavenHusky,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=lRxam7Q6,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-01-02T03:47:24.932+0000) > > Matpat goes into detail about how this whole thing is going to work. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db-tuTCsoWU Matpat isn't a lawyer.
zPOOPz (NA)
: > according to precedent as they refrain from informing players about the result of their report so as to maintain the privacy of all players Where did it explicitly stated that Rito doesn't inform players about the result of their report to maintain the privacy of all players??? The fact that you do randomly get notification that your report got someone punished already invalidate that statement.
> [{quoted}](name=zPOOPz,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=cVErgETn,comment-id=0000000100000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-01-01T03:36:34.262+0000) > > Where did it explicitly stated that Rito doesn't inform players about the result of their report to maintain the privacy of all players??? The fact that you do randomly get notification that your report got someone punished already invalidate that statement. This is by way of the implied policy from my experience with player support. I apply this broadly because I've received the same (implied but not explicitly outlined) policy in multiple tickets by multiple player support staff. I'll attach the contents of a ticket generated recently to this post: https://imgur.com/a/cO1XjmU
Rioter Comments
zPOOPz (NA)
: > private material protected by the LoL Terms of Service I haven't looked at the ToS in a while, but I'm not entirely sure chatlogs are protected material. Rito respects people's personal chatlogs and won't post without permission, sure. But I don't remember it being a hard rule in the ToS. Can you quote this in the ToS?
> [{quoted}](name=zPOOPz,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=cVErgETn,comment-id=00000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-12-31T12:31:06.388+0000) > > I haven't looked at the ToS in a while, but I'm not entirely sure chatlogs are protected material. Rito respects people's personal chatlogs and won't post without permission, sure. But I don't remember it being a hard rule in the ToS. Can you quote this in the ToS? You're right it would be the privacy policy and it is, at least, according to precedent as they refrain from informing players about the result of their report so as to maintain the privacy of all players (which is bullish*t if you ask me).
: For starters, I'm not a Specialist on Riot's behalf. I have no affiliation with Riot, outside of being a person who plays their game. Specialist is just a community title given to players who are reputable and knowledgeable in a particular sub-board - hence, my being a Specialist in _Player Behavior_. I'm not affiliated with Riot, I'm not part of the Moderation Team, I'm just a PB regular with solid knowledge and well-developed insight into the Player Behavior side of things. You can read more about it [here](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/FJr1kR84-board-update-volunteer-team-community-roles). With that said, I made a point to say, and I quote; > I will say this much, from a personal standpoint... As in, "this is just my opinion". I ain't speaking for Riot at _all_, and Riot doesn't need to hold that opinion, because they already have access to DEGAtv's logs. What's there to hide when they already have the evidence for the player's punishment? I've seen plenty of people's chat logs, and I've seen plenty of people try to hide or obscure information to make themselves seem innocent. Call it dangerous, but to me, it's just a healthy dose of skepticism. And this is also ignoring the fact that I also accepted DEGAtv's statement that they didn't want to show their logs out of concern for privacy. So, please, try not to misattribute what I say as being representative of Riot's opinion.
> [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=cVErgETn,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2018-12-31T07:51:16.062+0000) > > For starters, I'm not a Specialist on Riot's behalf. I have no affiliation with Riot, outside of being a person who plays their game. Specialist is just a community title given to players who are reputable and knowledgeable in a particular sub-board - hence, my being a Specialist in _Player Behavior_. > > I'm not affiliated with Riot, I'm not part of the Moderation Team, I'm just a PB regular with solid knowledge and well-developed insight into the Player Behavior side of things. You can read more about it [here](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/FJr1kR84-board-update-volunteer-team-community-roles). > > With that said, I made a point to say, and I quote; > > As in, "this is just my opinion". I ain't speaking for Riot at _all_, and Riot doesn't need to hold that opinion, because they already have access to DEGAtv's logs. What's there to hide when they already have the evidence for the player's punishment? > > I've seen plenty of people's chat logs, and I've seen plenty of people try to hide or obscure information to make themselves seem innocent. Call it dangerous, but to me, it's just a healthy dose of skepticism. > > And this is also ignoring the fact that I also accepted DEGAtv's statement that they didn't want to show their logs out of concern for privacy. > > So, please, try not to misattribute what I say as being representative of Riot's opinion. My apologies for not understanding that that the Specialist tag doesn't denote employment by Riot and therefore someone who represents them. Thanks for the link. Lastly and finally I'll restate: Even if it is just _your opinion_ that line of reasoning still does not and never will stand to reason. It's not skepticism, it's definitionally McCarthyism. Moreover, it's an unfair means of--whether you meant to or not--manipulating someone into posting their private material protected by the LoL Terms of Service into a public forum. Let me be clear, this is regardless of the fact you followed it up by saying you respect his privacy concerns. Beginning with a skillfully placed charge and then backtracking a sentence later is manipulation. As someone who has Riot's stamp of approval and how many might view that, I'd tread carefully with phrasing.
: Well, if Riot sent you here, they're probably encouraging you to get community review and a better understanding of your punishment from the perspective of your peers. You're not obligated to share your logs, but your logs are the only evidence as to whether or not your ban was justified, and while you can definitely keep it between you and Riot, community review doesn't hurt. I will say this much, from a personal standpoint, is that if you're reluctant to provide your chat logs, that usually means you've got something to hide. But, that's only a rule of thumb, and I will take your statements of privacy as they are. I just know someone else will inevitably bring up that suspicion, so, might as well get it out cleanly. At any rate, if Riot sent you here, like I said, they probably figure that you'll get a better understanding of your punishment through the community, so the only thing I can suggest outside of accepting the peer review would be to submit just one more Support Ticket for an appeal.
> [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=cVErgETn,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-12-31T06:19:00.036+0000) > > Well, if Riot sent you here, they're probably encouraging you to get community review and a better understanding of your punishment from the perspective of your peers. > > You're not obligated to share your logs, but your logs are the only evidence as to whether or not your ban was justified, and while you can definitely keep it between you and Riot, community review doesn't hurt. > > I will say this much, from a personal standpoint, is that if you're reluctant to provide your chat logs, that usually means you've got something to hide. But, that's only a rule of thumb, and I will take your statements of privacy as they are. I just know someone else will inevitably bring up that suspicion, so, might as well get it out cleanly. > > At any rate, if Riot sent you here, like I said, they probably figure that you'll get a better understanding of your punishment through the community, so the only thing I can suggest outside of accepting the peer review would be to submit just one more Support Ticket for an appeal. This is a very dangerous line of thinking. "You're not showing us everything because you have something to hide." That is called Mccarthyism and does not withstand both legal scrutiny as well as the test of reason. Yikes that Riot believes this. Maybe I shouldn't let them have any of my information if you're a "specialist" on their behalf.....
rujitra (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=By Force of Will,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ubQEEd0R,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-12-31T04:46:30.321+0000) > > Your third point follows the same flawed principle as the "zero-tolerance fighting policy" that exists in many schools today. Even if you didn't hit first, and you hit back--what is called **defending** yourself--you're punished and expelled as if you were the instigating party. There inlays a great injustice with this line of reasoning that doesn't "reward," or in this case bring justice to, the victim. > > Secondly, "not getting punished" is what is called a negative incentive, which means in other words, you will comply or you will suffer punitive measures. These are not as effective as their counter part, positive-incentives, which is what I was arguing for in the post. > > Let me put it the way, there is a reason we offer accomplices to crimes "deals" (a positive incentive) to testify against the instigator of the crime--the real perpetrator, the one who planned and sought to harm. If this wasn't in place, what would the accomplices incentive be to testify against the mastermind? That it's the right thing to do? It's what he's _suppose_ to do? But here's the thing. There is no need for **testimony** in this game. Riot has **all** the data available. Sure, plea deals and reduced sentences for cooperation are great in real life - because **police don't have all the information**. Negative reinforcement is used for negative behavior, while positive incentives are used for positive behavior. This is basic psychology. For example, for doing an honest or good deed, you may get a certificate/reward (such as maybe $10 for returning the purse, or whatever). On the contrary, you do not get rewarded simply for "not doing negative" deeds. You get *punished* for negative behavior. Thus the only "reward" for not doing negative behavior is not getting punished. Again - basic concept of psychology. Further, there is no "zero tolerance" policy in any school - trust me, I both have experience with this plus have multiple friends who are school counselors and/or administrators. Any school that proclaims a "zero tolerance" policy always has a cut out for self defense where you had no option but to fight back. That being said, if you punch someone because they were calling you names, well yeah it's zero tolerance. And if someone hits or shoves you once and you use that as a reason to fight back, yeah, you're getting punished. In League, there is never any excuse to flame someone. In real life, you are potentially at risk for harm to your person or property. You are at no such risk in League. Your feelings do not give you the right to subject other players to toxicity or negativity.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ubQEEd0R,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2018-12-31T05:05:41.645+0000) > > But here's the thing. There is no need for **testimony** in this game. Riot has **all** the data available. Sure, plea deals and reduced sentences for cooperation are great in real life - because **police don't have all the information**. > > Negative reinforcement is used for negative behavior, while positive incentives are used for positive behavior. This is basic psychology. For example, for doing an honest or good deed, you may get a certificate/reward (such as maybe $10 for returning the purse, or whatever). On the contrary, you do not get rewarded simply for "not doing negative" deeds. You get *punished* for negative behavior. Thus the only "reward" for not doing negative behavior is not getting punished. Again - basic concept of psychology. > > Further, there is no "zero tolerance" policy in any school - trust me, I both have experience with this plus have multiple friends who are school counselors and/or administrators. Any school that proclaims a "zero tolerance" policy always has a cut out for self defense where you had no option but to fight back. That being said, if you punch someone because they were calling you names, well yeah it's zero tolerance. And if someone hits or shoves you once and you use that as a reason to fight back, yeah, you're getting punished. > > In League, there is never any excuse to flame someone. In real life, you are potentially at risk for harm to your person or property. You are at no such risk in League. Your feelings do not give you the right to subject other players to toxicity or negativity. Defending oneself of baseless claims, pejoratives, et cetera versus firing back with baseless claims, pejoratives, et cetera. I agree there is a distinction that must be made here and I believe is also what you're defining as "flame"; however, this is not what I mean when I say "defend myself." By defend myself I mean **literally** rebut the accusations made against me by a said toxic teammate. I **NEVER** (or try not to, we're all human) snap back with ad hominem attacks understanding they: 1) are a flawed means of argument, and; 2) it literally only makes everything worse. If I had a set of chat logs on hand that illustrate this, I'd provide them but trying to recreate an experienced scenario would only sway the example in my favor because of personal bias. Secondly, the current honor system is in fact rewarding players for not flaming. It offers a positive incentive with the lure of potential rewards for choosing not to flame in circumstances that one might be tempted too, and negative incentives for choosing to flame, realized as losing out on ranked rewards and the previously mentioned potential rewards. I'm not arguing we should reward poor behavior (not sure where you got that), I'm simply suggesting we create a new positive incentive, one that helps capture a subset of people that don't find justice with the current system and who seek to achieve justice via their own means of defense. It's awfully chicken sh*t of Riot to just say, "Trust us, the system is working." Lastly, I'm going to have to contest your final point: > _And if someone hits or shoves you once and you use that as a reason to fight back, yeah, you're getting punished._ This is called **assault**. If someone has hit you or shoved you once and that person **has not ** verbally stated they will not hit you again you **HAVE** the legal authority to retaliate. If the person hits or shoves you then retreats saying they will not do it again and **THEN** you retaliate, you can now be charged with assault yourself. The latter circumstance is a very specific and unlikely to ever happen. If someone shoves or hits you (even once) 9.9 times out of 10 they're looking enact bodily harm. Afterall, why else would anyone initiate physical contact of that sort?
rujitra (NA)
: 1. Agreed, but this is much easier said than done, given that mutes in game are handled server side, and client chat is a completely separate server. It would take either complete re-engineering of the mute feature (and lots of bugs) or a connection between the client-chat servers and the game servers. 2. What value would it assign? I'm confused what you mean here. 3. People who do not retaliate should not be "rewarded" for simply doing what is both expected and the normal course of actions by most players.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ubQEEd0R,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-12-31T04:38:58.642+0000) > > 1. Agreed, but this is much easier said than done, given that mutes in game are handled server side, and client chat is a completely separate server. It would take either complete re-engineering of the mute feature (and lots of bugs) or a connection between the client-chat servers and the game servers. > > 2. What value would it assign? I'm confused what you mean here. > > 3. People who do not retaliate should not be "rewarded" for simply doing what is both expected and the normal course of actions by most players. I'd encourage you to read my follow up-post to DuskDaUmbreon.
: 1. Agreed, unless you mute everyone. However, this would require Riot separating their "block" system from their "muted" one, which would be complicated. 2. How and why would this matter? 3. Your reward is not being punished. You should not be rewarded for merely doing what you're *supposed* to do, especially since what you're supposed to do isn't really a difficult thing at all.
> [{quoted}](name=DuskDaUmbreon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ubQEEd0R,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-12-31T04:26:24.984+0000) > > 1. Agreed, unless you mute everyone. However, this would require Riot separating their "block" system from their "muted" one, which would be complicated. > > 2. How and why would this matter? > > 3. Your reward is not being punished. You should not be rewarded for merely doing what you're *supposed* to do, especially since what you're supposed to do isn't really a difficult thing at all. Your third point follows the same flawed principle as the "zero-tolerance fighting policy" that exists in many schools today. Even if you didn't hit first, and you hit back--what is called **defending** yourself--you're punished and expelled as if you were the instigating party. There inlays a great injustice with this line of reasoning that doesn't "reward," or in this case bring justice to, the victim. Secondly, "not getting punished" is what is called a negative incentive, which means in other words, you will comply or you will suffer punitive measures. These are not as effective as their counter part, positive-incentives, which is what I was arguing for in the post. Let me put it the way, there is a reason we offer accomplices to crimes "deals" (a positive incentive) to testify against the instigator of the crime--the real perpetrator, the one who planned and sought to harm. If this wasn't in place, what would the accomplices incentive be to testify against the mastermind? That it's the right thing to do? It's what he's _suppose_ to do?
: Opinions on some of League's changes
IMO this is an incredibly hard hitting observation.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
AIQ (NA)
: Give it a toggle like Kai'sa visor CTLR+5.
> [{quoted}](name=AIQ,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Ai27e9X0,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-11-30T19:23:36.559+0000) > > Give it a toggle like Kai'sa visor CTLR+5. YES! I love this! Unfortunately Riot won't do that because her new skin was built around the new passive and they rarely ever go back and make changes like this unless it has significant financial prospects (i.e. Prestigious KD/A Akali). UGHHHH!
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: Bring Back The Old Rune System + Make Runes Free
I agree. There are some nice things about the new runes but the old system was just far superior in terms of customization. It really is a shame Riot wanted to take control of another entire portion of the game.
Rioter Comments
Zyranium (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Whyte Lyon,realm=OCE,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=tb0f8Ec6,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-11-15T23:58:08.292+0000) > > Does the visual language of a flaunting runway model really personify LeBlanc's character? > > I guess with her current and dated design she has a Victoria's Secretes vibe. That's just not how a sorceress of her caliber would look/act based off my impression from the lore anyway. Preach. I was absolutely going to say the exact same thing, she needs a big scale VGU so bad...
Idk, they'd have to keep the cape component to LeBlanc for sure, and her headdress is badass. I also like the asymmetrical leg covering, personally. The top could stand to use some work, but I don't see a problem with it personally nor with it lore wise. She is dressed young and sexy because she is actually a couple centuries years old--the ultimate deception, her **appearance.** But none of that withstanding, she is who she is now, she has an identity associated with this look. Changing that _dramatically_ would be a big mistake. BTW, am I the only one who thinks she looks like The Evil Queen in the original Snow White? http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/The_Evil_Queen
Rioter Comments
LBmyBB (NA)
: Syndra ult timer is bugged
: Xayah's "leap" into the air is not mobility, because if you're not inputting movement command, she doesn't actually move from the place she's in. A leap is like Rengar's assault from the bushes. Since pressing "R" on Xayah doesn't actually move her at all, it doesn't qualify as a leap, it's merely an animation showing a change in state, like how Vlad becomes the puddle when he presses W.
> [{quoted}](name=Oleandervine,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=V2kzM6N6,comment-id=00000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-07-29T13:57:20.338+0000) > > Xayah's "leap" into the air is not mobility, because if you're not inputting movement command, she doesn't actually move from the place she's in. A leap is like Rengar's assault from the bushes. Since pressing "R" on Xayah doesn't actually move her at all, it doesn't qualify as a leap, it's merely an animation showing a change in state, like how Vlad becomes the puddle when he presses W. You reconciled that very well by deliberately ignoring a key piece of evidence, specifically, her ultimate's ability description, which uses the term "leap" decisively and matches the language and conditions for the Sudden Impact rune. You keep mentioning "mobility." Where is mobility mentioned under the Sudden Impact rune's conditions/description? If you could provide counter evidence to this repudiation of your point, I would happy to reconsider this; however, I continue in the meantime with the following, once more: In addition, your point about {{champion:8}}'s W--Nami's Q was altered to meet the conditions of Yasuo R (which requires a knock-up) based **strictly** on the look of the abilities animation, which is otherwise considered a stun.
: > [{quoted}](name=By Force of Will,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=V2kzM6N6,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2018-07-24T19:58:39.726+0000) > > I mean it's _kind of_ is a mobility spell because it's a way to avoid cc and you are able to keep moving unpunished. It's not kind of a mobility spell at all. Mobility is moving a short or long distance very quickly, using abilities that aren't movement speed modifications. If you think invincibility while moving is mobility, you're wrong. That means you think Vladimir has a mobility spell, or that walking while wearing Banshee's Veil qualifies as mobility.
> [{quoted}](name=Oleandervine,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=V2kzM6N6,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2018-07-24T20:09:41.697+0000) > > It's not kind of a mobility spell at all. Mobility is moving a short or long distance very quickly, using abilities that aren't movement speed modifications. If you think invincibility while moving is mobility, you're wrong. That means you think Vladimir has a mobility spell, or that walking while wearing Banshee's Veil qualifies as mobility. ___________________________________________________________________ Let me help break this down for you (since you got snarky I'll just return attitude I was met with), here is the description of Sudden Impact: > After exiting stealth or using a dash, _**leap**_, blink, or teleport, dealing any damage to a champion grants you 10 Lethality and 8 Magic Penetration for 5 seconds Does Xayah not leap into the air? Riot has mentioned before that Nami bubble counts as a "knock up" for the purposes of Yasuo's R simply because of the animation. Xayah's R animation depicts her "leaping" into the air, and more than that, in fact, let's review the description of her ultimate: > Xayah _**leaps**_ into the air becoming untargetable and throwing out a fan of daggers, dropping Feathers she can recall. This clear distinction regarding her "leaping" into the air and the description of necessary conditions that must to be met in order to trigger Sudden Impact, Xayah's R should therefore trigger it. Now, I see how you could have been confused given that I was not clear about what I meant by "mobility." I should have been more clear in that regard. I was wrongly lumping all of the conditions for triggering Sudden impact into the mobility category.
Rioter Comments
Psyrix (NA)
: It's not a dash, nor a blink, nor a teleport. It's not a mobility spell.
> [{quoted}](name=Psyrix,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=V2kzM6N6,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-07-24T09:25:30.941+0000) > > It's not a dash, nor a blink, nor a teleport. It's not a mobility spell. I mean it's _kind of_ is a mobility spell because it's a way to avoid cc and you are able to keep moving unpunished.
: Okay Riot, Good meme. But can we get actual Karma Buffs now?
I agree, bring back the Mantra Shield Damage. I miss mid karma!
: Nobody thinks old LB is perfect, just better than LeClunk. If Riot gave her a proper rework that respected her old playstyle instead of a bunch of glued on gimmicks then there probably would have been a nice reception. But they didn't. To their credit though they eventually took ownership of the disaster and reverted it so all's well that end's well I guess.
> [{quoted}](name=i cant move wtf,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=0AR2qxkM,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-07-22T22:41:09.922+0000) > > Nobody thinks old LB is perfect, just better than LeClunk. If Riot gave her a proper rework that respected her old playstyle instead of a bunch of glued on gimmicks then there probably would have been a nice reception. But they didn't. To their credit though they eventually took ownership of the disaster and reverted it so all's well that end's well I guess. It was also SUPER safe, which I really liked about it (who wouldn't). I loved W, RW and then waiting for the passive to charge, then use Q and guneblade-- bam, easy kill-- W back to safety!
Rioter Comments
Show more

By Force of Will

Level 284 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion