: > [{quoted}](name=Fork xD,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=keGElOmW,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2017-10-11T06:21:10.959+0000) > > The entire system is a joke, riot is hypocritical beyond reason, riot pushes their views on all of their players, oversensitive coddled children that lack the ability to process any sort of criticism are rewarded while level headed players are disciplined, bad sportsmanship and competitive gameplay is overlooked, and the organization feels justified in implementing systems to stop arguments to begin with.... But keep on sucking up to the company that gives literally zero ***** about you. Meh, fun game. Don't care about the politics... It's a fucking video game, not a country. So yeah I guess I suck that Rito dick cuz idgaf about what happens to you and I understand they can terminate me anytime they want. Big deal. I know what I pay for. Unlike you, I don't need a company to coddle me and care for me. They don't have to give a shit about me, why would they? Why would I demand that sort of love from a company under capitalism? They want money... so would i? Are you not the coddled child here? Bitching about a company caring about you personally?
Probably not the best idea to use my words as your argument to begin with. Either than that I'm not sure you understand the definition of coddling ( I know riot doesn't care about me, you, or anybody else obviously/ already stated in my text as well.) As for bitching, you would fall under that category more by definition which you overlook once again. Sorry you find it sensible to converse in this manner, but it is a dialect I don't support or respond to ( due to lack of comprehension and misuse of predefined words ).
Sqkerg (NA)
: So let me get this straight, you're saying that because of your perception of the syntax of his sentence, you factually state that he is angry, and because you somehow know that he is angry, you also know that he was born in the 90s? You see where this logic falls flat?
Or I'm taking a generation mindset, considering him part of that mindset (based on his the syntax of his comment which reflects personal insight and reflection) and making my argument against that point of view. Not only this but you missed the point of my statement which was humor by shedding light on his hypocritical manner ( as with yours).
: This is truly sad, this is who you were complaining about and i 100% agree, the people on forums are just as bad as the cry baby bullies in the game, give power to socially awkward man children and this is what you get, LoL is the 4th wave feminist movement.
Fegone (NA)
: Upvotes and Downvotes just represent what other readers agree and or disagree with. That's all. Looks like not many people agree with your point of view. Maybe you should start start thinking about that.
I have considered it which was the point of my last post.
: And then you waste time leveling up again just to get banned because you didn't change your behavior. **Insanity** - _Attempting the same thing over and over again expecting different results._
Except we already mentioned the change you reference. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorance
Fegone (NA)
: No, I meant reaction. The response was just the logical next step you undertook because of the aforementioned reaction. Nice 22 downvotes you have there by the way on that one response <3
I guess if you are using the word reaction in the most broad sense imaginable then yes, any type of action in response to stimuli is a reaction. With that logic I figure it is hard to have a real constructive argument with anybody.
Fegone (NA)
: Haha hadn't even noticed, but you're right XD
Once again I find it funny that you take the side of avoiding being inflammatory in game while doing the opposite within the boards. While you may feel justified in your opinions, realize that that feeling transfers to others and therefore it is all important or not important at all. Either way you should stop overlooking it. Also you both are so interested in speaking of upvotes while I have stated multiple times in simple manners that I do not care about a voting system that rewards players with... what was it?
Shahamut (NA)
: There is no opposite assumption, just giving benefit of the doubt when there is a lack of evidence to the contrary. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. That kind of thing.
Therefore guilty until innocent or neutral verdicts could be used as a contrary assumption which you seem to conveniently and easily overlook (while it is the obvious inverse of your scenario that you claim doesn't exist). Logically, based on what you actually "know", it is safe to assume that a neutral stance would be optimal seeing as you know next to nothing when it comes to the actual internal workings of the corporation you speak of. There is no room for advancement in this conversation and therefore I am done having it with you.
Shahamut (NA)
: Reporting someone may be done as an emotional response, the system itself, however, is not emotional. It is based on a set of values that you seem to disagree with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(ethics) Values at their core contain emotional reflection to create. So if the system is "based on values" it is based on emotion. Also, obviously the system has no emotion which is why the phrase "based on" is used. The system is based on a core group of values ( therefore containing emotions ) that I have intentionally voiced objection against. As with others I am done having this conversation due to a lack of what I consider to be reasonable logic.
Modi (NA)
: Since you refuse to provide any specifics about your punishment (e.g. the reform card), I cannot provide any specifics on how your chat meets any standard of of harassment. I also cannot even speculate how your chat may have been interpreted by others, to assist you in understanding why it was deemed as unacceptable.
As I have stated with others, due to the fact that you have repeatedly misunderstood my dialect I'm not going to take any further time explaining myself. If you would like to re read what I sent you earlier to understand what I meant you may do so. Either way I am adamant that I understand your point of view yet it will not hold any sway in my demeanor or viewpoints. I'm sorry I was not able to explain myself to an extent you are comfortable with.
Modi (NA)
: My questions which are unanswered, with context (I did read the entire thread, nothing addresses these specific questions): > You are coddling a community of players that take advantage of your failed system to push a population with different morals and standards out of your game. 1) That aside, please show me any democratic society where the minority is not disadvantaged by the majority? > I find this not only disgusting but completely unprofessional when considering the scale of your game. 2) What is unprofessional? > If your staff is unable to take the perspective of more than one social group then I feel that they do not have the mental capacity to handle such matters as banning an account worth such money ( Nor do I think anybody in your company as a whole has any idea what should be done to promote healthy social growth within a community of such scale). 3) How is an individual being able to circumvent the rules because "s/he said this" or "s/he did that" promoting "healthy social growth within the community of this scale"? In addition, I find it interesting that you frequently have posted about "education" and "logic" but refuse to even entertain the idea that the community doesn't accept the behavior you exhibited. As I have stated before (and this will be my last post here) your refusal to post the reform card shows that you either are unwilling to have outside analysis of the data, or you know that your behavior was unacceptable on some level, even if you disagree with that level. If it is the former, then your only avenue would be to contact support (who would likely be able to look at the full chat log and determine if there is any context that is missing) and have them sort it out for you. If it is the latter, congratulations! You have just learned that while you are free to speak your mind, and say as you please, there may be consequences. (By virtue of your borderline obsession with others' education & logic, you learned something, and that is worth celebrating). {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-popcorn}}
Your first question is irrelevant, the second concept is not applicable, and I find it interesting you find yourself privileged enough to speak for a community. What a community accepts has no hold on intelligence and the logic used is subjective so once again I don't see the point in entertaining the idea to begin with. As I have stated before, I posted my opinion and you disagree with it, but constantly posting irrelevant subjective insights will get you nowhere with me so I'm not sure you should continue trying. Lastly, once again I find it funny that you feel confident in labeling me with disorders such as obsession in your hypocritical manner. If I have "learned" anything from this experience it is limited to other being's insights and nothing further. The idea that you have taught an ancient idea that actions have consequences is even more ludicrous and inflammatory text. You can continue to post as many of these comments as you wish but unless they contain what I consider to be logical arguments I will not continue to respond for there will be no room for constructive conversation.
Modi (NA)
: You have not provided your unedited reform card, so I cannot. Please do post and I will gladly offer specific examples.
I meant literally give me your take on the definition of the phrase verbal abuse so that I may understand what you perceive it as. So far you were the one to make assumptions about me ( assuming I harassed another player) while I'm not sure you even understand the terms you are using. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment You only somewhat meet the criteria for possible psycholigcal harassment and even then you don't have the time frame or lack of instigation to concretely make this decision for me or others. I posted my opinion and you disagree with it which is fine. With that being said, I realize that verbal abuse/harassment thresholds are subjective and you may consider me abusive; but I don't care.
Modi (NA)
: Had to do this piecemeal, since there were no provided breaks in the flow of that massive(ly hard to read) paragraph. > Your entire report/code of conduct system is a failure if not an utter joke of a system. You have the audacity to ban me based on language while presenting evidence consisting of a game where somebody not only admitted to intentional feeding but also containing much intended as well as uncalled for instigation and counter toxicity. Your opinions of the system notwithstanding, its goal is not to resolve he-said/she-said situations. Regardless what other people say, you, and you alone are fully accountable of your own behavior (which includes what you type). > You ignorantly use a system that pulls text from a match on a personal level singling out an individual involved in an argument. Not only is this biased ( I figure it is automated as well) but it is illogical beyond comprehension. It is *your* chat. It singles you out because, as said above, you are accountable for your behavior. > Not only have I dedicated hundreds of hours and dollars in your game but I have also brought many friends to the playing field. Yet still you continue to ban such players due to a faulty "modern" idea that my individual rights to express my opinion end where somebody else's feelings begin. The money or time you spend on this game do not entitle you to break the rules without punishment. > Not only is this absolutely illogical and unconstitutional at base, but it is also a cancerous way of thinking that should not be spread by your administration. Let's get legal! Contract law is held in extremely high esteem in the western world, especially in the United States (to which you are likely referring by the "unconstitutional" comment). By playing the game you agreed to the [Terms of Use](http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/legal/termsofuse). You broke one or more of the provisions of said terms. You were punished in accordance with said terms. > You have taken the time to implement a mute button as well as chat filter. Just because there are preventative measures does not grant you a license to harass. > While you explain that these are last resorts, this explanation is both mundane and ignorant. Please elaborate on this opinion. > Which is the simpler option; continuing to chat mute and ban a player, or let the community use the tools at their disposal (which you implemented under the logic that they would be used; a logic that is undermined when you render them useless). The simplest option is to not engage in behavior that is unacceptable in the first place. As stated above, avoidance measures are not a grant to say as you please. > You are coddling a community of players that take advantage of your failed system to push a population with different morals and standards out of your game. Your moral standards do not supersede the contract entered upon your acceptance of the Terms of Use. That aside, please show me any democratic society where the minority is not disadvantaged by the majority? If you take at face value the statistics published by Riot regarding punishments, you are not just in the minority, you are in an exceptionally small minority. > I find this not only disgusting but completely unprofessional when considering the scale of your game. What is unprofessional? Please explain your opinion. > I would also like to point out that your community moderators are neither emotionally intelligent enough nor able an any way to speak for a community of people as they have tried to do in previous tickets I have submitted. Another statement of opinion with no evidence provided. Care to expand? > If your staff is unable to take the perspective of more than one social group then I feel that they do not have the mental capacity to handle such matters as banning an account worth such money ( Nor do I think anybody in your company as a whole has any idea what should be done to promote healthy social growth within a community of such scale). How is an individual being able to circumvent the rules because "s/he said this" or "s/he did that" promoting "healthy social growth within the community of this scale"? ****
If you take the time to read my responses to your duplicate questions you will find the rebuttals and answers to your statements and questions. If you would like to take the time to educate yourself further on this threads context, please feel free to use your own time to do so :).
: >my individual rights to express my opinion end where somebody else's feelings begin. No, they end when you're dealing with a private entity and not the government. Have you ever read the constitution? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So unless Riot became part of the government without me knowing, this has nothing to do with the Constitution.
You are taking what I said out of context.. I never stated they were not allowed to make and enforce their own rules. With that being said, it is completely justifiable to to call something unconstitutional without implying that the constitution holds dominion over such an idea. Just something to consider.
ChuShoe (NA)
: Actually it does bug me, I see no reason as to why you shouldn't post your ban logs here. So when I ask for them to see if or if not your ban was justified, I can support you and say "yeah I agree" rather than just me asking for your logs and you downvoting it because I was asking for them. I don't understand why anyone else would downvote it.
: i was replying to KLOQDQ not to your original post
Modi (NA)
: Expressing one's opinions does not need to include harassment, hate speech, or other verbal abuse. Such verbal sparring is not required when expressing an opinion.
Please describe verbal abuse or quote an example if your are going to suggest such things.
Keyru (NA)
: Discord Moderation
Fork xD#9666 I'm hoping that link I was told to use in order to contact you actually works. If not this would be another waste of time.
: there is a lot of push back in society towards this sort of thought and speech policing (and political correctness taken to extremes). as with most highly flawed systems, there are almost always very negative unintended consequences which roll out of them and take a life of their own players creating numerous accounts and trolling games to bait people and then reporting them is one of them. the other one is that this will hit rito's pocketbook. it's fairly safe to assume trolls aren't going to buy accessories for accounts they use to troll games with so instead of creating a positive gaming environment, all this has done is to create an ultra toxic game environment where people on aggregate are likely to spend less posters on here like to use examples like "if you were to be rude in a theater to other patrons, you would be kicked out". what they don't cite is that if a patron repeatedly waves a cloth in front of you so you can't watch the movie and intentionally makes loud noises so you can't hear the dialogue, that person would not only be kicked out, he would probably be arrested. but hey look at that 0.00006% and how we successfully shut down "rudeness"
This is a very good alternative way of wording things ( admittedly more socially acceptable as well =/). Thanks for the insight.
: assault is a crime, insulting people except where you can prove "hate speech" is not. totally flawed example, at least get your logic right please
Verbal assault is not a crime. Hate speech is much more limited in real life when compared to the teen rated game that already implements a chat filter and mute button. It is also impossible to assault somebody within the virtual reality. So edit: I agree with you.
: You know what? While I still do not agree very much with what my limited understanding leads me to believe was your premise in your original post, I would like to apologize for making so many antagonistic posts in your thread. It is difficult for me to come to an understanding without the aid of body language and vocal tone, but I am sorry that I (correctly or incorrectly) assumed ill intent of you. {{sticker:sg-soraka}}
Like I have stated, I completely agree that league may make rules that fall outside of legal jurisdiction which is their right. I think the point being overlooked that upsets me the most is that this type of system is the exact thing they are trying to avoid.. I realize I may come off as a dick to many, but this is from many years of not speaking my mind and realizing that sometimes it is not worth catering to the majority in order to maintain popularity. Thank you for posting this while it honestly does help me to adjust accordingly.
ChuShoe (NA)
: LOL, downvotes because he knows he said something bad in his logs.
I don't downvote for no reason. Sorry your comment isn't more popular and that bugs you?
: Sometimes it's just best to not say anything to keep your remainder of dignity intact..Move on.
Dignity depends on self esteem which depends on how you view yourself. I'm sorry you aren't confident enough to express your own opinions openly.
: the amount of money and time invested into the game has NO RELEVANCE to your ability to meet the expectations you were asked to follow when you choose to play. you don't get to buy the rulebook; that level of loyalty will ALWAYS come at a detriment to the integrity of the principles laid out. unfair as it may seem, the manner in which riot chooses to handle other individual's actions is based on the same principles, and if those individuals are in the offense, then their actions must be met with the same scrutiny. whether or not that has happened does not concern you after you have brought the matter to their attention. "singling out" *you* is another way to say "focusing on what *you* said in particular", rather than searching for subjective means to justify your statements. the phrase "emotional intelligence" is a personal favorite of mine. emotions have no direct connection to the intellect, due to the fact that such emotions do not exist beyond particular chemical imbalances in our brain. the basis of our understanding of emotions is grounded in EXPERIENCE and PERSPECTIVE, not reasoning. thus, why it's not a bannable offense to hurt someone's feelings. they may feel however they want on a matter and it doesn't make a difference if you didn't cross the line that was drawn in the sand. the boundaries of your morals and others can expand to whatever lengths you deem reasonable, no one at riot directly impedes this. however, your actions within the context of this game, grounded in your morality may they be, still must exist within the pre-determined boundaries. if it is the boundaries in question, that should be the basis of your argument, not the corporations choice of staff to interpret and enforce those boundaries.
Emotional intelligence is a different spectrum than IQ obviously, so I'm not sure what your point is there. The idea of being singled out is in fact subjective also due to the fact that only your text is used and therefore by nature skewed data. You have to take words at their base definition before using them to cater to your personal beliefs: is what I assume you mean.. and nowhere in my statements did I try to justify my actions but rather express my distaste for the lack of precision within this system. I even stated that in the body of my text. While you say the boundaries should be my basis, this is also already true.. I'm not sure what it is about you not believing emotion has anything to do with intelligence based on chemical science when your logic and reasoning also stem from the same base chemical reactions therefore making your argument counterproductive. When it comes to reasoning (which is also grounded in experience and perspective) as well as emotions, they are in fact a bannable offenses seeing as the basis of this entire article is about hurting somebodies feelings and being banned on that basis (which in essence is the boundaries you speak of as well as addresses your claim that emotional intelligence doesn't exist because it isn't grounded in reasoning (also read your sentence about lines in the sand and tell me it isn't "subjective" concept as you point out as a flaw in reasoning yourself.)
: Wow you sure got me. How's that ban working out for ya? {{sticker:sg-ahri-2}} Like I said, stop being a dick or get banned. That's just reality now. You can accept it or fight it. You know the outcome if you fight it.
Or I make another account taking away your thought/consequence idea.. Which brings up yet another problem..
: It's not Riot or the community that is oversensitive. Society as a whole is much more PC than before. Get with the times dude. Either stop being a dick, or get banned. ( •_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■) Deal with it.
You are assuming the PC aspect is healthy or just. Also by using phrases such as get with the times, you are cattle herding people into your belief system which is he opposite aspect of actual PC which is understanding and compromise.
Shahamut (NA)
: The system isn't "based on emotion". The emotion comes strictly from your reaction to the system. This is born of your general disagreement with RIOT's desires behavior code of conduct which you wrongfully assert that they are "forcing onto people". The terms are there BEFORE you start playing and no one forces you to play the game. You choose to enter their arena, so to speak, and in doing so agree to play by their rules. Your argument is functionally an emotional outcry of a spoiled child, "STOP TELLING ME WHAT TO DO!", a rejection to authority. For people wrongfully banned, RIOT has a system for appeals, and I have witnessed it work on more than one occasion. If you are simply arguing "the system is flawed", congratulations, what system isn't? I have yet to see a perfect system for anything, much less for something judicial. Your posts carry very little logic, and mostly angry sounding emotional and here say anecdotal evidence.
Reporting somebody is absolutely based on player emotion and if you don't factor that in you are misguided. If you don have a problem with what's happening ( your emotion ) you don't report and there is no ban. Seemed obvious... you are taking my dialogue subjectively considering it "angry" ( example of your emotion involved as if you were reporting ) and determining to act on it; in essence applying the logic you are belittling.
Shahamut (NA)
: In general, it's foolish to assume that just because a corporation desires to make money (it is what sustains it's existence) that the company in question automatically doesn't care about it's community or customers. Might be true, but also might not be. It's not worth arguing about and it holds no weight in a debate because it lacks any way of being proven outside of a direct statement from the company in question. Also, any GOOD business professional knows that caring about their customer base is how you make the most money.
Just as the opposite assumption as foolish so your point is? Also it wasnt based on the premise of profit ( that you conveniently snuck in their ) but rather on experience which is how you judge consumer products. If you are going to talk PR do take time to factor in quality of product or you might as well drop the business aspect.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Fork xD,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=hg6mTfm0,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-10-11T20:43:27.145+0000) > > Thank you for agreeing with me. You're only digging it deeper kek. You like it down there I guess.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Fork xD,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=hg6mTfm0,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-10-11T20:34:23.253+0000) > > You are wrong about the majority of the system and are blind to that idea so it is pointless to argue with you. This is not how argument works.
Shahamut (NA)
: For all of his talk about logic, he does argue very emotuonally.
While talking about a system based on emotion which was a flaw I pointed out. Thank you for the attempt though. -side note- emotionally*
: League of Legends is not a nation and is not bound by whatever constitutions you think it is stepping on. Also there is no need to punish them with words for attacking you since the system is already in place to punish them more impactfully with in-game restrictions.
Except the system relies on biased player input, faulty automated triggering, and then review lacking context. Besides those things I see your point.
: Anecdotally, you have down votes and they have upvotes. My takeaway is that the majority of people reading this thread agree with them and not you.
Nice observation ( obvious and unnecessary as it may be ), though I thought it would be obvious due to the nature of my language as well as the fact that I have already stated myself as the minority.
: > [{quoted}](name=Fork xD,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=hg6mTfm0,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2017-10-11T14:32:02.161+0000) > > While you missed my point and repeated what I already said, I&#x27;ll just point out that the idea is that they send you a list of your messages ( while deleting the rest of the text from the game) which therefore changes feeling and meaning of the text and therefore renders it useless when trying to be legitimately fair. > > If you want to converse further please take the time to understand the comments fully before responding in order to avoid misinterpretation. Yeah sure. And Romney didn't want to release his taxes because there was nothing there.
: > [{quoted}](name=Fork xD,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=hg6mTfm0,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2017-10-11T05:38:01.874+0000) > > Said the well to the rain. (AKA (I&#x27;m assuming due to your uninformative and unhelpful comment that you don&#x27;t understand the quote) I don&#x27;t care what you think about me and I thought that would be clear from the heading of the post.) You cared enough to try and convince him you don't care. Too bad for you we all know you're lying and you do care.
Kloqdq (NA)
: I use examples to help explain my points, I then back up my example. It starts as a "what if" to give you an idea of what I am trying to say. Want a TLDR from above? People don't like dicks. People irl will actually punch you if you are being a dick. Don't be a dick in game because if you do it IRL someone will knock your lights out. Riot also has all the rights to do whatever they like with their game. Things that make the community happy are something they are more likely to go for because happy customers = better business.
Except it also ends with a what if which defeats the purpose of "helping us understand" ( not that I believe your ideas went above anybodies head ). Also, if you don't like what I am saying in real life, it should be your right to tell me im wrong, back up your point with facts, and go from there. In no way would you have the right to hit me ( probably worst what if logic you could have used to make my point (" dick or not")) and you should probably be ready to get hit back 😊. With that being said it was fun reading your childish attempt at a tough guy ego over the internet babe.
Eedat (NA)
: Uh, no. I specifically mentioned that. You didnt read the whole thing apparently. > Unless you go off and say something to get automatically flagged (***I.E. kys***, homophobic/racial slurs, etc), , there is a real person that reviews the case.
> [{quoted}](name=Eedat,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=etrYRm7i,comment-id=00090000,timestamp=2017-10-09T23:09:52.358+0000) > > Uh, no. I specifically mentioned that. You didnt read the whole thing apparently. I'm not sure how you are confused. The argument is that there is in fact nobody present even in report cases where there should be. You believe the system works as specified and that it is just while we do not. We ( or at least I ) respect your opinion but it is not backed by proof and is still only your opinion. My specific point toward you was that you are wrong about how the system works. You know how it should work but know nothing concrete about if and why it does or doesn't. The other poster also has a point with context which is something you lack in argument to begin with.
Fegone (NA)
: Got a reaction out of you, so bazinga!
You mean response and congratulations. I'm glad it made you happy to act immature.
Kloqdq (NA)
: > You're blinded by the fact Riot wrongfully punishes players for what is common speech among competitive video games. Some guy says fuck off, than you (just an example) proceed to hound him, tell him his a trash, he should uninstall, that he should get reported x9 and that he should go kill himself. Yeah, clearly he has been wrongly punished. I mean that guy told me to fuck off and all you did was defend yourself. You do get players that feed, are equally toxic, but fuck them? Why sink to their level because all your doing is wasting your time with them. They are basically getting exactly what they want from you and you are "defending" yourself, but your no better than that guy now. It really don't matter what the context is, don't sink to their level. I've actually had a guy sit in fountain and look up everything regarding me and just being a general creep. Did I tell him to kill himself? No, I just told him to fuck off and reported him hard along with everyone else. Don't sink to their level because THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT. > Your smoker example is a case of you changing your behavior because you did not like what other patrons were doing, which I stressed is not what I am asking for. If it were possible for you to be completely immune to the effects of smoking after seeing that there is someone with a cigarette, then you could do that instead of leaving. However, it is quite possible for you to mute a player after just one message from them, instead of leaving the game. He can see this restaurant is smoker friendly before he walks in, he can avoid in going in before he is subject to that. X player is not that bad at first but then he becomes a dick very quickly. You were already subject to the trash and you cannot react to it. It still did damage. Sometimes you just need to not mute because people may change their tune during the game as well and actually offer advice in chat. There is a variety of reasons why you may not mute. Also important to note that if you are being a general dick, you are ruining the game for 9 other players. Yes, even the enemy. No one likes a toxic guy that ruins a game, so he should get punished. Typically if they are being toxic in chat, that carries into their gameplay because the two go hand in hand. > I'd also like to see some evidence that toxic players actually drive away other players. You just started playing league, you are brand new. You are solo, no friends to play with. You aren't sure how to play yet and just getting used to things. Then all of a sudden in your first handful of games you have children belittle you and take trash. Tell you to end your life, that you are trash and the worst player on the planet. You are brand new so you aren't a pro or anything but you are forced to sit through this kind of shit multiple games in a row. Typically these ragers make new accounts and take their toxicity to new players as well. As a new player would you like to sit through an endless possible amount of games where you have horrible, horrible people trashing you and shit? Fuck no, you would leave and play something less. You don't have to sit through that trash! You are right we need a real study on this, but I think the reality of it is pretty easy to understand. > > since I know for a fact people leave games because of cheating and the like. People leave for a variety of reasons. Toxicity is one of those reasons.
Why are all of your arguments "what ifs"? They are irrelevant. What if I ran riot and all of you snowflakes were banned instead ( Oh wait i don't so what was the point in bringing it up)?
Ulanopo (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Declovone,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=etrYRm7i,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2017-10-09T22:17:33.817+0000) > > The solution is not to punish people for something that isn&#x27;t a problem. > > There is a mute function. If you can&#x27;t handle what people say online, you shouldn&#x27;t be online at all. Let alone the most toxic video game available. > > Riot needs to recognize that the players will say what they will in the heat of a game, and that they should not be punished for it. It's okay to have this opinion. Just know that it isn't compatible with Riot's policies or with what the community wants.
Because you/riot can contemplate the entire communities viewpoints and morals efficiently and accurately enough to speak for them..... Mmk
Volgaria (NA)
: You are the one butt hurt because big bad old rito won't let you tell little kids to kill themselves. Cause "kill yourself" is an expression, yeah
As you respond in anger... *cough* snowflake millennial *cough*
Eedat (NA)
: Uh, no. I specifically mentioned that. You didnt read the whole thing apparently. > Unless you go off and say something to get automatically flagged (***I.E. kys***, homophobic/racial slurs, etc), , there is a real person that reviews the case.
Except you are just plain wrong in both of your posts when it comes to the report system mechanics and you should therefore stop giving advice about it. He did in fact read it correctly as did I; the actual problem is rather in your understanding and illogical misinformed advice.
: I don't agree with a lot of what you posted here. Seems all holier than thou with that "just mute them and move on or you deserve to be punished" garbage. I'm not saying go and get into an insult / cursing match with people, but Riot should definitely take into account who began the toxic behavior. If you're going to be punished for being "toxic" for defending yourself, then the individual who began the whole ordeal should receive a much more harsh punishment. Sometimes I feel like the people who defend themselves get it worse from their team mates and Riot as opposed to the actual toxic individual who just now sits back and plays victim. It's stupid. Like I said, I'm not advocating fire with fire, but there should be a triple punishment for those who cause others to feel extremely negative, especially to the point to where it makes them toxic them self.
This type of thinking is logical and that is why you don't see it implemented in this game.
: This game has successfully made me attend Therapy against depression
I completely agree with you. The system punishes any sort of retaliation while ignoring initial confrontation (as in your case and many others where you are flamed to a breaking point and then end up with ban for acting in a way you considered justified (as it should be)). Try not to let it get to you in a personal way as much/ good luck.
: why bother arguing about speech rights bro? you're not getting anywhere with the people here. best alternative is to not speak, engage in passive aggressive play, bait out other players and then report them
You have given the first real advice so far ( negative as it is :p ). It is sad though to think that it is better to abuse a gameplay system in one way in order to make up for another flaw.
Barkhoof (NA)
: If you're going to make inflammatory statements contrary to the statements that Riot has put out (if you give advice without criticizing, you won't be punished [paraphrased]), without proof, you're spouting off opinions and passing them as facts. I'd counter that DG5's request is reasonable. But, you're entitled to keep your incorrect opinion if you'd like - it's a free country.
I won't argue with a hypocrite ( you ), but I would like to point out that your logic is that I should show proof of the fact that people are injustly banned while the previous poster should be believed at face value. This logic is absurd, childish, and biased ( hence the hypocrisy ). Furthermore opinions are not correct or incorrect. They are opinions and therefore have no solution. Also I have never claimed my opinions are facts, rather I have claimed that opinions are vastly overused within the utilized system. You may also want to consider before you call me "inflammatory" whether I am actually taking the time to type his in order to instigate a single person hat I care nothing about, or rather to explain why I feel the system is unjust in terms that are relevant to me. Remember that just because something hurts your feelings doesn't mean that it hurts others ( inverse logic of what you are using to justify not being able to express yourself without he constant fear of triggering some emotional lurker ).
Fegone (NA)
: ***
Or they believe logic should be valued more. ( Not that you would agree based on your mundane attempt to set me off. )
: > [{quoted}](name=Fork xD,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=keGElOmW,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2017-10-11T06:21:10.959+0000) > > The entire system is a joke, riot is hypocritical beyond reason, riot pushes their views on all of their players, oversensitive coddled children that lack the ability to process any sort of criticism are rewarded while level headed players are disciplined, bad sportsmanship and competitive gameplay is overlooked, and the organization feels justified in implementing systems to stop arguments to begin with.... But keep on sucking up to the company that gives literally zero ***** about you. Name a corp that ever gave a shit about _anyone_. And _not_ as PR. https://i.imgur.com/nsqyYVk.jpg
Isn't that the problem I'm bringing up? So you agree? ( Your comment is uninformative as well as unconstructive. )
deathgod5 (EUW)
: Can you show one example of this level headed players getting punished , because I keep seeing people say this but I really never saw any recent (aka last 2 years if you ignore the horrible 3rd party ban fails, which they fixed)situation in which this was true.
So your logic is you didn't see it so it didn't happen? Nice to hear, but this isn't really an argument and therefore why should I prove my text any more than you should have to prove yours.
Drugoth (NA)
: Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the **character, motive, or other attribute** of the person making the argument. ^ Pulled straight from the wiki.
Except you just made my point. This is not an attack on your individual character nor is it an argument against you but rather against your faulty reasoning and argumentative technique. You are taking the conversation, considering it a personal attack on you ( even though it is a public forum), and therefore you are applying a term that has no basis here. (AKA I don't even think you as a being matter ( yes I know how that sounds ) so I'm not attacking you because there is no point.).
Show more

Fork xD

Level 30 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion