: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050000000000000000000100000000000000010000,timestamp=2018-03-30T09:09:21.731+0000) > > 1 ) Your substance argument is a dishonest examination of the situation. You're equating a substance we *know* to have detrimental effects on human beings that ballpark certain feelings for people to a hypothetical potion that ONLY simulates love for another human being and nothing more. The fact that they have negative effects is irrelevant. I didn't even mention it. We're arguing that they, just like the love potion, alter the state of mind of a person so they believe they are happy. I didn't say that "Doing X drug or drinking alcohol will make you more likely to feel in love with somebody else". I said that this argument pointed out that said person was not in the right state of mind to say "I am happy. This is how I feel", but in a state of mind that was so inhibited that it is the only thing they can be. Same as the love potion : They can't decide how they are. Their sense are inhibited so the only thing they can feel towards that person is love. It doesn't matter if that person is the most hateful human you've ever met. It doesn't matter if up until now you wanted to tear them apart, ruin their live, etc. . They made you take the potion. You love them now. That is not your decision but that is the result. > 2 ) I don't see where the OP had suggested what you said he's suggested nor where I have suggested it. Quote me or him/her if I'm wrong, please. But the only thing suggested was that a love potion would make someone love another person. Nobody ever settled on what that entails, which is probably something we should talk about if we're getting into the nitty gritty of it. When you love another human being you are not enthralled to their agency. You're still a person. You still have choices. You might love someone but that doesn't mean you agree with everything they say or do and it doesn't mean you're forced into sex with them whenever they want. Can do. > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:32:39.645+0000) > > I slip some of this potion into your drink and you spend the **rest of your life **completely blissful and carefree. Regarding the happiness potion. You later subdued it for a love potion. > this discussion is also kinda hard to quantify since we dont exactly know what the properties of a love potion would be (permanent or temporary, if the potion could be traced in blood/urine, etc) As in the OP. I'll give it to you : They hadn't made it clear which one it was, only suggested both. Every user that has participated in this thread was suggesting that it was either permanent or that the other person would renew the effects, though.
> [{quoted}](name=BlueVestGuy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500000000000000000001000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T09:38:52.856+0000) > > The fact that they have negative effects is irrelevant. I didn't even mention it. We're arguing that they, just like the love potion, alter the state of mind of a person so they believe they are happy. I didn't say that "Doing X drug or drinking alcohol will make you more likely to feel in love with somebody else". I said that this argument pointed out that said person was not in the right state of mind to say "I am happy. This is how I feel", but in a state of mind that was so inhibited that it is the only thing they can be. Same as the love potion : They can't decide how they are. Their sense are inhibited so the only thing they can feel towards that person is love. It doesn't matter if that person is the most hateful human you've ever met. It doesn't matter if up until now you wanted to tear them apart, ruin their live, etc. . They made you take the potion. You love them now. That is not your decision but that is the result. If you're going to ignore that these things have negative effects then you're not allowed to use them as crutches in your argument. You do not get to say *'this substance which does this one thing similar to the potion but *also* does all this other nasty stuff to you, is the same thing,'* in a nutshell. They're not the same and you're going to have to acknowledge their differences if you're going to continue using them as comparisons. This is no different than me saying : Person A plays with children because it makes him happy. Person B rapes children because it makes him happy. It's the same thing because they share similarities. > Can do. > > Regarding the happiness potion. You later subdued it for a love potion. Again, not the same thing. Different potion. Different rules. Different argument with a different person with different angle to try and provoke a different conversation than people were having. These things matter. > > As in the OP. I'll give it to you : They hadn't made it clear which one it was, only suggested both. Every user that has participated in this thread was suggesting that it was either permanent or that the other person would renew the effects, though. I honestly am not too concerned with the longevity of the potion's effects, moreso what those effects entail. It was important for me to emphasize that *loving* someone does not make you a robot incapable of making decisions. You love a lot of people in your life. You do not have sex with all of them. You do not date all of them. So I wanted to eradicate this popular thought that it inherently means that "people are only going to use this potion to force women to have sex with them" or something like that so that the conversation could be about something more controversial instead of something we all just instantly agree upon. Human trafficking bad, yes, of course. I also wanna' go ahead and say that I don't have some preconceptions about most of what's being talked about and every few minutes I keep thinking of new things that are re-defining where *exactly* I am standing in all this so have a little mercy if you see that something's kind of out-of-place here and there through the progression of the conversation. It's getting really difficult to keep up with all the points from everyone in the thread simultaneously as well when they're getting layered on top of each other and everyone's getting into essay-form now, lol.
: > [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500000000000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T09:02:34.112+0000) > > It is not much of a discussion on the viability or impact of something being made and used in the real world, if you can only talk about an oversimplified and nearly romanticised outlook of the said something. > > Ofc, it is fundamental and required to weigh that potential something against its potential real world implications once they're made and available to use by the masses. > > If that something can not even pass pseudy-practical challenges thrown at its premise, how the hell is it gonna fare well against the real world which is significantly crueler with far more uncertainties? > > ...... > > Hell, even on a pure theoretical level, it is already questionable. Under which normal and harmless circumstances, is a drug that "makes person X fall in love with person Z" even needed? Because if you want to fall in love with someone, you already have fallen for them, as such this drug is only ever actually useful when forcing someone who is not in love to be in love, so why the hell do we need this thing? Unless ofc, it is potentially used as a treatment option for those who are somehow incapable of falling in love, but otherwise, this drug is questionable at best. We're trying to get to the philosophical and ethical bedrock of what such a potion's effect would have on how we interact with one another. We're not trying to figure out if the love potion gives you brain cancer if you use it too much. I'll try to provide a seemingly innocent example of how it may or may not be used as a *good* thing. Let's presume what I just said to BlueVestGuy has some merit and that the love potion doesn't make you braindead, which everyone seems to have instantly attributed to it. It makes you love a person. That's not the same as lusting for someone. That's not the same as physically having sex with them. Etc... What if it were a pseudo sort of lens you could give to people so that virtually everyone loved everyone else. You'd be far less inclined to hurt said people. You'd be far less inclined to offend said people. Even the ugliest of people could still, theoretically, have a chance at dating supermodels because you've abolished these barriers between them so that they're able to interact with one another on a more intimate level and see past certain flaws in one another, etc... What're your thoughts on that?
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050000000000000000000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T09:23:58.839+0000) > > No, I was talking about the ethics of the drug in my last and separated out paragraph, too. > > I specifically point out that if you're in love, then you are in love, and if not, then you're not (does matter if it involves touching the other's body); as such this drug is only ever needed when you're forcing someone to love another that they otherwise wouldn't. This is not true. If I ran into a girl, randomly, at a bar for instance and slipped this into her drink. There is nothing to suggest she would or wouldn't be able to love me by other means. I've simply bypassed the trials and errors between now and then. > What you're doing is a worse form of arrange marriage in a way (or at least some kind of forced relationship), because at least things like arrange marriage does not physically alter your perception and way of thinking or your conclusion on a matter, but this drug does. I would argue that the fact that it'd alter your perception is precisely why it wouldn't be worse than arranged marriage. In an arranged marriage, you might not want to be with the other person and you're aware that you don't want to be with that other person but you're compelled against your will to be with that other person. If you're in love with that person, you're not in a constant state of regret or upset or depressed, etc... because you're forced to live with said person for the rest of your life. > In regards to having people being less inclined to hurt others and be kinder/accepting to each other, there is a thing called "education". We do not need to drug the entire population with some love drugs or whatever to teach people the concept of equality or to abolish discrimination, what you're suggesting is a very dystopian outlook on things. > > Better education goes farther than drugging everybody, trust me. Sorry but drugging an entire species with a love potion would objectively be faster and have more reach in terms of achieving widespread love for each other than educating people. But as for the premise of this argument, mankind's had quite a while now to educate themselves and it doesn't seem to have achieved what you're implying it achieves. In fact, we've only really just found out better ways to kill more of us, quicker and more efficiently. > It in fact reminds me of this game "We Happy Few", where its premise is about a society where everybody takes a 'happy drug' called "Joy" and everybody is all supposedly high and loving and whatever, but instead of being a perfect society it is in fact, the society is completely dysfunctional, because it is not a society if no one is in their right mind; this is similar. Just so we're on the same page. The fact that someone made a game where things didn't work out doesn't actually mean things wouldn't work out and this doesn't actually prove anything. You're aware of that, right?
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050002000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T08:53:18.559+0000) > > 1 ) People actually do get treated against their will if they're found to be unsound of mind to make the decision themselves or if they're deemed a threat to the people around them. We're not talking about the extreme cases that are mentally unstable. Not loving somebody doesn't mean you are unsound of mind and unable to make rational decisions. Not loving somebody doesn't mean you are a threat to society. You keep avoiding the fact that you're taking a decision for somebody that can take decisions and took one that was very clearly the opposing one (Otherwise why would you have to resort to a love potion if the person already loves you? To make sure they do not stop loving you? They are still able to take rational decisions. You're still forcing them to adhere to your point of view.) > 2 ) If you're against the *natural order* of things then you wouldn't be on a computer right now because it goes against the natural order of things. You wouldn't eat processed food. You wouldn't buy packaged food from a store. You wouldn't wear clothes. Etc... You and I both know the "natural order" I was refering to was not "let's all start living like animals". Also that is a very faulty analogy. Additionally you didn't reply to the fact that "Knowing better" was not a valid reason (legally and ethically) to force people to do act as you see fit. > 3 ) "because they believe it is the right one" What's the difference in me just saying I believe the potion is the right one, then? You've just decided that these people who have no qualifications for X situation get a pass because "they believe it's right." Apply that anywhere else. Stop avoiding to counter my point. You're trying to argue about semantics here. We're not talking about weither the adults have the right ideologies. We're talking that kids do not know how to take decisions. They do not have the rational skills to do so. You even said something similar in your 1), albeit with different actors. In this context, by giving a love potion to someone else, you are taking a decision for someone that is in a clear state of mind and able to make sound decisions on their own (YOU decide for THEM that they will love you) and then rely on the decision "made" by somebody that isn't in full control (_YOU decide for THEM that they will love you_, and so they SAY they love you because that is the truth that was imposed on them ; they are not able to fully analyze the situation. They can only see one outcome and it is the one you want.) > 4 ) We're talking about abstracts. We're not talking about physically forcing someone to have sex with you. We're not talking about holding a gun to someone's head and coercing them to have sex with you *or else.* We're talking about people who have the same state of mind and mental acuity as a person you have dated for X amount of years and you lay in bed and both decide you wanna' have sex and then you have sex. This is the philosophical bedrock that you need to address. What is the difference between these two situations. Why's one rape and the other isn't? ..what? What does that has to do with anything I said? >I was giving an example where somebody would "consent" to [do something] because they )were influenced( to believe ~~that any other action would have worse repercussions~~ it is what they want. To apply this to the current situation, somebody is [in love with someone else] because of )the love potion( You said it yourself : After taking the potion, they have the state of mind of somebody that you have dated for an unspecified amount of time. You alter their state of mind. They did not think that way. You FORCED THEM to take a potion that would make them believe they love you. They do not want to love you ; they are contrained to love you. It doesn't matter if you do not have to physically restrain them. You mentally restrain them.
> [{quoted}](name=BlueVestGuy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500020000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T09:23:15.005+0000) > > "You can not legally (and ethically) force somebody to take a treatment." These are your words. I've argued that people do, in fact, get forced treatments. It doesn't matter when, how, or by whom or under what circumstances other than the fact that A ) it happens, B ) it was ethical, and C ) it was legal. > You and I both know the "natural order" I was refering to was not "let's all start living like animals". Also that is a very faulty analogy. Explain to me your own personalized version of what natural order is so that I have a better understanding of what I'm supposed to be arguing against. > Additionally you didn't reply to the fact that "Knowing better" was not a valid reason (legally and ethically) to force people to do act as you see fit. I don't see what it is that you're talking about. > We're not talking about weither the adults have the right ideologies. We're talking that kids do not know how to take decisions. Again this isn't true. You're not talking about whether kids can make decisions, you're arguing about whether or not kids can make the RIGHT *( or at least decisions that correlate to societal standards )* decisions. That's not the same thing. I'm saying that, even as adults, people still wrestle with the same problem. They don't know what is right or wrong. They're more informed than the children but that doesn't mean anything other than they're more informed than the children. There is no absolute summation of ethics/morality to abide by, we're all just winging it and all of what we've learned and agreed upon are contingent on the idea that we all share similar interests. > ..what? What does that has to do with anything I said? Because you're trying to equate consent to forced consent. > You alter their state of mind. They did not think that way. You FORCED THEM to take a potion that would make them believe they love you. They do not want to love you 1 ) You alter peoples' state of mind regarding their perception of you every time you interact with them. This is nothing new and they have no choice in the matter. 2 ) You don't know whether or not someone wants to love the other person or not outside of the potion's influence. You're just implying that, for whatever reason, this person hates the other person and wants nothing to do with him/her.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050000000000000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T09:00:29.239+0000) > > We're talking about a love potion, a THEORETICAL love potion. Everyone's only agreed on one thing : That it makes person X fall in love with person Z. > > You've decided, all on your own, that this potion is going to have this effect, that effect, etc... and you're purporting it as the truth. > > That's not how it works. > > With the drugs in question we have data and evidence to point at that suggests why they're harmful for you. It is not much of a discussion on the viability or impact of something being made and used in the real world, if we can only talk about an oversimplified and nearly romanticised outlook of the said something; anything is good under that pretense, you know. Ofc, it is fundamental and required to weigh that potential something against its potential real world implications once they're made and available to use by the masses. If that something can not even pass pseudy-practical challenges thrown at its premise, how the hell is it gonna fare well against the real world which is significantly crueler (or at least with far more cruel people than the typical simulations) with far more uncertainties? ...... Hell, even on a pure theoretical level, it is already questionable. I mean, under which normal and harmless circumstances, is a drug that "makes person X fall in love with person Z" even needed? Because if you want to fall in love with someone, you already have fallen for them, as such this drug is only ever actually useful when forcing someone who is not in love to be in love, so why the hell do we need this thing? Unless ofc, it is potentially used as a treatment option for those who are somehow incapable of falling in love but want to, but otherwise, this drug is questionable at best.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500000000000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T09:02:34.112+0000) > > It is not much of a discussion on the viability or impact of something being made and used in the real world, if you can only talk about an oversimplified and nearly romanticised outlook of the said something. > > Ofc, it is fundamental and required to weigh that potential something against its potential real world implications once they're made and available to use by the masses. > > If that something can not even pass pseudy-practical challenges thrown at its premise, how the hell is it gonna fare well against the real world which is significantly crueler with far more uncertainties? > > ...... > > Hell, even on a pure theoretical level, it is already questionable. Under which normal and harmless circumstances, is a drug that "makes person X fall in love with person Z" even needed? Because if you want to fall in love with someone, you already have fallen for them, as such this drug is only ever actually useful when forcing someone who is not in love to be in love, so why the hell do we need this thing? Unless ofc, it is potentially used as a treatment option for those who are somehow incapable of falling in love, but otherwise, this drug is questionable at best. We're trying to get to the philosophical and ethical bedrock of what such a potion's effect would have on how we interact with one another. We're not trying to figure out if the love potion gives you brain cancer if you use it too much. I'll try to provide a seemingly innocent example of how it may or may not be used as a *good* thing. Let's presume what I just said to BlueVestGuy has some merit and that the love potion doesn't make you braindead, which everyone seems to have instantly attributed to it. It makes you love a person. That's not the same as lusting for someone. That's not the same as physically having sex with them. Etc... What if it were a pseudo sort of lens you could give to people so that virtually everyone loved everyone else. You'd be far less inclined to hurt said people. You'd be far less inclined to offend said people. Even the ugliest of people could still, theoretically, have a chance at dating supermodels because you've abolished these barriers between them so that they're able to interact with one another on a more intimate level and see past certain flaws in one another, etc... What're your thoughts on that?
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500000000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T07:52:06.508+0000) > > You would have to make an argument, again, to support the idea that the potion is *faking* love instead of simulating real love. > > Substance abuse/alcohol abuse has debilitating effects on your life and health. There are no established negative side effects to the love potion being pointed out. You're just suggesting that there are and equating the two. The substance abuse argument was to point out that not because something relieves a person by altering their state of mind that it is a good and legal/ethical solution. Somebody that gets wasted every day might feel happiness through their altered,weakened state of mind : They are not, in fact, happy, simply unable to think rationally enough. Somebody who is forced to love somebody else because a substance altered their state of mind is also not able to think rationally, to their full extent. > "There is also a difference between love instigated through normal biological means and artificial means." > > If the potion serves only to stimulate the typical biological responses to how you feel towards someone, then wherein lies the difference? You can stop loving somebody in the first case. The original happiness/love potion suggested by you/the OP had permanent, non-negociable effects, where the recipient would not have the capacity to decide to stop loving somebody. They would indeed be forced to be infatuated by somebody else. They would be forced to only have "I consent to this Relationship" as an option. Not unlike how in robocop (the remake), the machine took the decisions but alex Murphy thought he did. He had no way of making any decision : his senses were just inhibited to the point where he thought those decisions came from him, he was restrained to believe he had made the choices.
> [{quoted}](name=BlueVestGuy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005000000000000000000010000000000000001,timestamp=2018-03-30T08:22:52.298+0000) > > The substance abuse argument was to point out that not because something relieves a person by altering their state of mind that it is a good and legal/ethical solution. Somebody that gets wasted every day might feel happiness through their altered,weakened state of mind : They are not, in fact, happy, simply unable to think rationally enough. Somebody who is forced to love somebody else because a substance altered their state of mind is also not able to think rationally, to their full extent. > The original happiness/love potion suggested by you/the OP had permanent, non-negociable effects, where the recipient would not have the capacity to decide to stop loving somebody. They would indeed be forced to be infatuated by somebody else. They would be forced to only have "I consent to this Relationship" as an option. 1 ) Your substance argument is a dishonest examination of the situation. You're equating a substance we *know* to have detrimental effects on human beings that ballpark certain feelings for people to a hypothetical potion that ONLY simulates love for another human being and nothing more. 2 ) I don't see where the OP had suggested what you said he's suggested nor where I have suggested it. Quote me or him/her if I'm wrong, please. But the only thing suggested was that a love potion would make someone love another person. Nobody ever settled on what that entails, which is probably something we should talk about if we're getting into the nitty gritty of it. When you love another human being you are not enthralled to their agency. You're still a person. You still have choices. You might love someone but that doesn't mean you agree with everything they say or do and it doesn't mean you're forced into sex with them whenever they want.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500000000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T07:52:06.508+0000) > > You would have to make an argument, again, to support the idea that the potion is *faking* love instead of simulating real love. > > Substance abuse/alcohol abuse has debilitating effects on your life and health. There are no established negative side effects to the love potion being pointed out. You're just suggesting that there are and equating the two. > > "There is also a difference between love instigated through normal biological means and artificial means." > > If the potion serves only to stimulate the typical biological responses to how you feel towards someone, then wherein lies the difference? Even without the person being literally steps away from death from substance abuse, it is still highly discouraged, why do you think that is? Because it negatively impacts one's life, both their own body, mind, and their own social life, and often without the person's own knowing because they're stuck in an altered state of mind and a lot of times being unable to perceive and think over things properly as they would when without the influence of external drug intakes that directly affects their decision making. So how are you going to tell me that it is QoL improvement? ..... Speaking of negative impacts on one's body, are you going to assume that drugs that invade your brain and its function is not going to have any side effect or even permanent damage if used for prolonged periods of time? Even Ritalin which is illegally taken by some people to boost their mental focus (as it's made for people suffering from attention deficiency related issues; it's illegal taken by your typical joes primarily as a form of cheating in fields that require strong mental focus, such as in exams) and viewed on that basis as being a 'superhuman drug', still has a bunch of both short term and long term negative side effects because it directly interferes with the chemistry in the brain. So on what basis do you think this love potion is going to be absolutely safe even though it touches the brain the exact same way as any other chemicals that does the same stuff, just in different areas? I'll also have you know, brain is not like the rest of the body, it is both incredibly delicate as well as being not very robust and neither is it particularly good at regenerating itself. The brain does not have anywhere as high of a substance tolerance as the rest of the body would, nor is it anywhere comparable to being tolerant to injuries; unlike the body that can get poisoned and live to see the next day because it has a somewhat high toxicity resistance and mechanisms evolved to get rid off the said toxicity, the brain is not so tough and as little as a few neurons being damaged in the brain could potentially lead to drastic consequences such as memory loss or even function impairment, and they generate at an incredibly slow rate too which is why many of the brain injuries are compared to being permanent because the injuries will not be healed in the person's lifetime. WHICH IS WHY, unless absolutely necessary, drugs are designed to NOT go into the brain, as anything that goes in there risks unwanted and potentially permanent negative results; even for drugs that do go into the brain, various assessing points of **WHAT IT IS** and **HOW MUCH USED** and **WHAT DOES IT DO** and others are also strictly looked at. And this is also why, unless the love drug is used as a form of treatment, which in that case it will be heavily regulated and will only be used on the minimum amount required to solve any related situation, this drug is generally unwanted. The "If the potion serves only to stimulate the typical biological responses to how you feel towards someone, then wherein lies the difference" is not rationally sound, because we can all say that heroin is just stimulating the typical biological response to make you feel happy, and ofc it doesn't work like that. IMPLICATION is incredibly important, as shown above. It's easy to conclude that this drug may only truly exist in medical field (and like most drugs that have to do with brain, it will also be locked behind tight supervision, like the mentioned Ritalin is), or at least if commercially available it will only exists as a pointless and very ineffective over the counter drug that either as a negligible dose or induces similar results indirectly via things like making your heart beat slightly faster or something, and then go out of market quickly because of the negligible effect in spite of its advertised name and implied effects; and heavy dosing is no different to any other substance abuse, and thus discouraged and not allowed. ..... And all of this I have not even touched the social implication of using such a drug, if present for sale in a noticeable potency. As mentioned, it opens doors to all kind of crimes related to abduction and rape and other similar stuff, as well as a bunch of issue in trying to trace the responsibilities relating to the topic. As such, might as well never okay the damn drug for mass commercial use, no need to create your own troubles. ..... EDIT: Also, the main focal point is not whether or not the love is real, at least not a major point (sure, "lying to yourself" and "living a lie" or "forcibly and noticeable altered state of mind" is enough to question the nature of the product, but even that takes a backseat on an overall scale). It's that a drug that is capable and potent enough to noticeably or even significantly influence one's decision making, should simply not be openly accessible, due to all of the other biological and social implications I've discussed.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T08:20:13.337+0000) > > Even without the person being literally steps away from death from substance abuse, it is still highly discouraged, why do you think that is? > > Because it negatively impacts one's life, both their own body, mind, and their own social life, and often without the person's own knowing because they're stuck in an altered state of mind and a lot of times being unable to perceive and think over things properly as they would when without the influence of external drug intakes that directly affects their decision making. > > So how are you going to tell me that it is QoL improvement? > > ..... > > Speaking of negative impacts on one's body, are you going to assume that drugs that invade your brain and its function is not going to have any side effect or even permanent damage if used for prolonged periods of time? > > Even Ritalin which is illegally taken by some people to boost their mental focus (as it's made for people suffering from attention deficiency related issues; it's illegal taken by your typical joes primarily as a form of cheating in fields that require strong mental focus, such as in exams) and viewed on that basis as being a 'superhuman drug', still has a bunch of both short term and long term negative side effects because it directly interferes with the chemistry in the brain. So on what basis do you think this love potion is going to be absolutely safe even though it touches the brain the exact same way as any other chemicals that does the same stuff, just in different areas? > > I'll also have you know, brain is not like the rest of the body, it is both incredibly delicate as well as being not very robust and neither is it particularly good at regenerating itself. The brain does not have anywhere as high of a substance tolerance as the rest of the body would, nor is it anywhere comparable to being tolerant to injuries; unlike the body that can get poisoned and live to see the next day because it has a somewhat high toxicity resistance and mechanisms evolved to get rid off the said toxicity, the brain is not so tough and as little as a few neurons being damaged in the brain could potentially lead to drastic consequences such as memory loss or even function impairment, and they generate at an incredibly slow rate too which is why many of the brain injuries are compared to being permanent because the injuries will not be healed in the person's lifetime. WHICH IS WHY, unless absolutely necessary, drugs are designed to NOT go into the brain, as anything that goes in there risks unwanted and potentially permanent negative results; even for drugs that do go into the brain, various assessing points of **WHAT IT IS** and **HOW MUCH USED** and **WHAT DOES IT DO** and others are also strictly looked at. And this is also why, unless the love drug is used as a form of treatment, which in that case it will be heavily regulated and will only be used on the minimum amount required to solve any related situation, this drug is generally unwanted. > > The "If the potion serves only to stimulate the typical biological responses to how you feel towards someone, then wherein lies the difference" is not rationally sound, because we can all say that heroin is just stimulating the typical biological response to make you feel happy, and ofc it doesn't work like that. IMPLICATION is incredibly important, as shown above. It's easy to conclude that this drug may only truly exist in medical field (and like most drugs that have to do with brain, it will also be locked behind tight supervision, like the mentioned Ritalin is), or at least if commercially available it will only exists as a pointless and very ineffective over the counter drug that either as a negligible dose or induces similar results indirectly via things like making your heart beat slightly faster or something, and then go out of market quickly because of the negligible effect in spite of its advertised name and implied effects; and heavy dosing is no different to any other substance abuse, and thus discouraged and not allowed. > > ..... > > And all of this I have not even touched the social implication of using such a drug, if present for sale in a noticeable potency. As mentioned, it opens doors to all kind of crimes related to abduction and rape and other similar stuff, as well as a bunch of issue in trying to trace the responsibilities relating to the topic. > > As such, might as well never okay the damn drug for mass commercial use, no need to create your own troubles. > > ..... > > EDIT: Also, the main focal point is not whether or not the love is real, at least not a major point (sure, "lying to yourself" and "living a lie" or "forcibly and noticeable altered state of mind" is enough to question the nature of the product, but even that takes a backseat on an overall scale). It's that a drug that is capable and potent enough to noticeably or even significantly influence one's decision making, should simply not be openly accessible, due to all of the other biological and social implications I've discussed. We're talking about a love potion, a THEORETICAL love potion. Everyone's only agreed on one thing : That it makes person X fall in love with person Z. You've decided, all on your own, that this potion is going to have this effect, that effect, etc... and you're purporting it as the truth. That's not how it works. With the drugs in question we have data and evidence to point at that suggests why they're harmful for you.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500020000,timestamp=2018-03-30T07:40:26.662+0000) > > I would attribute this to the same situation wherein someone's suffering from a mental disease. > > A physician of some sort would diagnose that person and determine whether or not that person has a mental disease, what disease it is, and what you would need to either cure it or suppress it to the point that that person can function in society henceforth like a seemingly normal human being. > > You would not ask the patient in question whether or not he/she was suffering from a mental disease, what it is, and how to cure it. Right? Yes, you do, actually. You can not legally (and ethically) force somebody to take a treatment. That is why people suffering depression, suicidal tendencies, etc. must go to the appropriate clinic themselves. A relative or "someone that knows better" can't register them and force them to go there, even if, in a hypothetical scenario, that clinic had a 100% cure rate. > So when you default to "people wouldn't want this," I'd decide to adopt this same sort of reasoning. If you have a collection of people who are suffering from something, let's call it "not happiness" in this instance and you have a cure to that disposition. Who knows better? The physician or the patient? It's not about knowing better. It's about not going against the natural order of things. > If this doesn't apply *here,* why would it apply elsewhere in life? > > If you are not allowed to influence, without consent, the perspective of another human being, why is it legal for children to be trained to believe certain ideologies? You're imprinting your beliefs onto that organism without their consent. Should that not also be unethical and/or illegal? Children do not have the mental capacities to understand every aspect of a situation. That is why adults must take the right decisions (based on their knowledge and experience) for them, at least regarding certain things. Hence why some people teach certain ideologies to their child : because they believe it is the right one. As such : If a child had to choose between a box full of toys and a million dollars, the child would choose the box, because the child does not give any value to a piece of paper. But any rational human being would choose the cheque, because that much money can buy the same box full of toys and so much more things. >That is why even if a 13 year old consents to an intimate Relationship with a 50 year old it is still illegal. The 13 year old does not have the capacity to fully analyze the situation. Neither would somebody that has no choice but to be happy forever or to be in love forever. . > Also, whether or not *some* people do rape in relationships has no value in this discussion. We're talking about the differences between a simulated love relationship through a potion and your typical loving relationship where two people **are** consenting to the sex in question and whether or not one of those two situations qualifies as rape and why. We're not talking about instances in which two people are NOT consenting in these situations because, as previously dictated by others, when under the influence of the love potion, you consent. The rape part was just to show that "love" wasn't a very good reason to justify a behavior that is either ethically or legally questionable. We were talking about consent: I was giving an example where somebody would "consent" to [do something] because they )were influenced( to believe that any other action would have worse repercussions. To apply this to the current situation, somebody is [in love with someone else] because of )the love potion(
> [{quoted}](name=BlueVestGuy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005000200000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T08:08:16.430+0000) > > Yes, you do, actually. You can not legally (and ethically) force somebody to take a treatment. That is why people suffering depression, suicidal tendencies, etc. must go to the appropriate clinic themselves. A relative or "someone that knows better" can't register them and force them to go there, even if, in a hypothetical scenario, that clinic had a 100% cure rate. > > It's not about knowing better. It's about not going against the natural order of things. > > Children do not have the mental capacities to understand every aspect of a situation. That is why adults must take the right decisions (based on their knowledge and experience) for them, at least regarding certain things. Hence why some people teach certain ideologies to their child : because they believe it is the right one. As such : If a child had to choose between a box full of toys and a million dollars, the child would choose the box, because the child does not give any value to a piece of paper. But any rational human being would choose the cheque, because that much money can buy the same box full of toys and so much more things. > > . > > The rape part was just to show that "love" wasn't a very good reason to justify a behavior that is either ethically or legally questionable. We were talking about consent: I was giving an example where somebody would "consent" to [do something] because they )were influenced( to believe that any other action would have worse repercussions. To apply this to the current situation, somebody is [in love with someone else] because of )the love potion( 1 ) People actually do get treated against their will if they're found to be unsound of mind to make the decision themselves or if they're deemed a threat to the people around them. 2 ) If you're against the *natural order* of things then you wouldn't be on a computer right now because it goes against the natural order of things. You wouldn't eat processed food. You wouldn't buy packaged food from a store. You wouldn't wear clothes. Etc... 3 ) "because they believe it is the right one" What's the difference in me just saying I believe the potion is the right one, then? You've just decided that these people who have no qualifications for X situation get a pass because "they believe it's right." Apply that anywhere else. 4 ) We're talking about abstracts. We're not talking about physically forcing someone to have sex with you. We're not talking about holding a gun to someone's head and coercing them to have sex with you *or else.* We're talking about people who have the same state of mind and mental acuity as a person you have dated for X amount of years and you lay in bed and both decide you wanna' have sex and then you have sex. This is the philosophical bedrock that you need to address. What is the difference between these two situations. Why's one rape and the other isn't?
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2018-03-30T07:21:36.025+0000) > > The happiness is obtained by proxy. > The recipient could not know about the origin of the happiness. > > I'm not comparing the 100 million dollars to "fake love," however. *( You'd also be responsible for supporting the claim that the love simulated by the potion is fake compared to other loves simulated by people interacting with each other by other means )* > > The 100 million dollars was a counter-argument to your argument that because something unethical or because someone was being deluded, no *real* happiness or betterment can be achieved because of it. I am not deluded and see 100 million dollars that's not there (given we're talking about real money cash money), however I am deluded to see love when it's not there when I'm on love drugs. That alone marks the 2 things completely different, and your attempt at linking them a poor demonstration of logic, and the rest of your argument irrelevant. You also still have yet to demonstrate how love potion abuse (to the point as you said "living in a state of bliss") is different than any other typical substance abuse, as well as how engaging in such a substance abuse and prolonged altered state of mind is actually objectively beneficial and improving someone's quality of life. ..... There is also a difference between love instigated through normal biological means and artificial means. Because the love potion is not a part of one's normal body function, and also by the nature of product producing 101 it is not going to be of the "safe" concentration and potency if used for commercial means instead of medical (perhaps for the function impaired); as there is no point to make and advertise a product that's literally something you already have and only have incredibly subtle effects that most people will not notice, as that's both pointless and borderline violating false advertising. For the love potion to ever work as a commercial product, it can only exist in a form similar to ecstasies, and ofc, that also means this product should never exists as a commercial product. There is a reason why there is a difference between taking drugs and consuming chocolates and exercising, even tho they all make you happy chemically. You're the one intentionally ignoring that just to push your poorly founded idea. EDIT: Added a "not".
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T07:27:55.019+0000) > > I am not deluded and see 100 million dollars that's not there (given we're talking about real money cash money), however I am deluded to see love when it's not there when I'm on love drugs. > > That alone marks the 2 things completely different, and your attempt at linking them a poor demonstration of logic, and the rest of your argument irrelevant. > > You also still have yet to demonstrate how love potion abuse (to the point as you said "living in a state of bliss") is different than any other typical substance abuse, as well as how engaging in such a substance abuse and altered state of mind is actually objectively beneficial and improving someone's quality of life. > > ..... > > There is also a difference between love instigated through normal biological means and artificial means. Because the love potion is not a part of one's normal body function, and also by the nature of product producing 101 going to be of the "safe" concentration and potency if used for commercial means instead of medical; as there is no point to make and advertise a product that's literally something you already have and only have incredibly subtle effects that most people will not notice, as that's both pointless and borderline violating false advertising. > > That's why there is a difference between taking drugs and consuming chocolates and exercising, even tho they all make you happy chemically. You're the one intentionally ignoring that just to push your poorly founded idea. > > For the love potion to ever work as a commercial product, it can only exist in a form similar to ecstasies, and ofc, that also means this product should never exists as a commercial product. You would have to make an argument, again, to support the idea that the potion is *faking* love instead of simulating real love. Substance abuse/alcohol abuse has debilitating effects on your life and health. There are no established negative side effects to the love potion being pointed out. You're just suggesting that there are and equating the two. "There is also a difference between love instigated through normal biological means and artificial means." If the potion serves only to stimulate the typical biological responses to how you feel towards someone, then wherein lies the difference?
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:32:39.645+0000) > > Let me re-phrase the situation so as to get at a deeper philosophical undertone here that I think most people are missing. > > Let's pretend for a second we're not talking about a love potion and we're, instead, talking about a happiness potion. > > I slip some of this potion into your drink and you spend the rest of your life completely blissful and carefree. > > Is this a crime? Is this unethical? Have I maliciously impacted your way of life? Have I *hurt* you in some way? this has already been discussed/experimented and the results were that if people had a choice between their life as is or their life with a pill that essentially make them happy and most people said they wouldn't want the pill or something like that I forgot the exact thing but the results stay the same Depending of your philosophical beliefs if you agree with nietzsche you could support this conclusion by saying that permanent happiness would in fact take away all meanings of life because you wouldn't really have to overcome any obstacle You're also forgetting a few things 1) People that, in a way, do not want to be happy (sounds silly on paper but it's a more complicated matter) 2) Your decision to make somebody "permanently happy" was made without their consent. And even if they would be happy with that decision once in effect, at the time it was made, they wouldn't necessarly be. Even though they might, in a way, consent to whatever you make them do using the potion, you ultimately decided for them. They are not in a state of mind where they could take a sound decision. That is why even if a 13 year old consents to an intimate Relationship with a 50 year old it is still illegal. The 13 year old does not have the capacity to fully analyze the situation. Neither would somebody that has no choice but to be happy forever or to be in love forever. I'm overlooking some aspects of the situation that I forgot while writting this. Whatever. Also : regarding your last example, the Relationship one. Some people do rape their SO. Sex isn't always consensual in a Relationship. Don't see it as "you consent to have sex with him/her" but as "you want to have sex with him/her and so does (s)he". The victim might still love the other one once it's over. Doesn't change a thing if they didn't want it. Same thing as the slave thing : Some people manipulate their boyfriend/girlfriend, some put them through physical/psychological abuse to influence them to do something. Now, technically, have they made the decision to do X? Perhaps. They probably wouldn't were they not convinced that not doing X would bring much more negative repercussions.
> [{quoted}](name=BlueVestGuy,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050002,timestamp=2018-03-30T07:05:36.505+0000) > > this has already been discussed/experimented and the results were that if people had a choice between their life as is or their life with a pill that essentially make them happy and most people said they wouldn't want the pill > or something like that > I forgot the exact thing but the results stay the same > Depending of your philosophical beliefs if you agree with nietzsche you could support this conclusion by saying that permanent happiness would in fact take away all meanings of life because you wouldn't really have to overcome any obstacle > > You're also forgetting a few things > 1) People that, in a way, do not want to be happy (sounds silly on paper but it's a more complicated matter) > 2) Your decision to make somebody "permanently happy" was made without their consent. And even if they would be happy with that decision once in effect, at the time it was made, they wouldn't necessarly be. > Even though they might, in a way, consent to whatever you make them do using the potion, you ultimately decided for them. They are not in a state of mind where they could take a sound decision. > That is why even if a 13 year old consents to an intimate Relationship with a 50 year old it is still illegal. The 13 year old does not have the capacity to fully analyze the situation. Neither would somebody that has no choice but to be happy forever or to be in love forever. > > I'm overlooking some aspects of the situation that I forgot while writting this. Whatever. > > Also : regarding your last example, the Relationship one. Some people do rape their SO. Sex isn't always consensual in a Relationship. Don't see it as "you consent to have sex with him/her" but as "you want to have sex with him/her and so does (s)he". The victim might still love the other one once it's over. Doesn't change a thing if they didn't want it. Same thing as the slave thing : Some people manipulate their boyfriend/girlfriend, some put them through physical/psychological abuse to influence them to do something. Now, technically, have they made the decision to do X? Perhaps. They probably wouldn't were they not convinced that not doing X would bring much more negative repercussions. I would attribute this to the same situation wherein someone's suffering from a mental disease. A physician of some sort would diagnose that person and determine whether or not that person has a mental disease, what disease it is, and what you would need to either cure it or suppress it to the point that that person can function in society henceforth like a seemingly normal human being. You would not ask the patient in question whether or not he/she was suffering from a mental disease, what it is, and how to cure it. Right? So when you default to "people wouldn't want this," I'd decide to adopt this same sort of reasoning. If you have a collection of people who are suffering from something, let's call it "not happiness" in this instance and you have a cure to that disposition. Who knows better? The physician or the patient? If this doesn't apply *here,* why would it apply elsewhere in life? If you are not allowed to influence, without consent, the perspective of another human being, why is it legal for children to be trained to believe certain ideologies? You're imprinting your beliefs onto that organism without their consent. Should that not also be unethical and/or illegal? Also, whether or not *some* people do rape in relationships has no value in this discussion. We're talking about the differences between a simulated love relationship through a potion and your typical loving relationship where two people **are** consenting to the sex in question and whether or not one of those two situations qualifies as rape and why. We're not talking about instances in which two people are NOT consenting in these situations because, as previously dictated by others, when under the influence of the love potion, you consent.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:56:59.578+0000) > > Alright. Unknown to you, I got that $100 million dollars by slaughtering women and children in other countries for X company. > > Through completely unethical practices, by proxy, I have bettered the lives of others. > > Do those lives cease to be bettered because the means in which that money was obtained was unethical? That 100 million dollar is only bad BY PROXY, also the next recipient of the cash was in no way involved nor do they know the origin of the said money in this scenario, therefore the act of receiving the money can not be labelled as unethical because the recipient did not know about the origin of the money; It's as "bad" as collecting a pretty stone while knowing (and having no ways to know) that has fallen onto someone's head in the past. Not to mention, I'm sure most people would not just receive a large sum of money without some good reasons on where the money is from and what it is for, and would certainly reject it if they are given the information that it comes directly from slaughtering other people, so I'm not even sure what you're even trying to get at. You're also directly comparing real 100 million dollar to fake love induced via chemicals, they are completely different matters, and certainly receiving one is on a vastly different scale of "bettered lives" than the other; money can buy you goods and services at the very least, delusion only makes you deluded.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-03-30T07:07:43.221+0000) > > That 100 million dollar is only bad BY PROXY, also the next recipient of the cash was in no way involved nor do they know the origin of the said money in this scenario, therefore the act of receiving the money can not be labelled as unethical because the recipient did not know about the origin of the money; It's as "bad" as collecting a pretty stone without knowing that has fallen onto someone's head in the past. Not to mention, I'm sure most people would not just receive a large sum of money without some good reasons on where the money is from and what it is for, and would certainly reject it if they are given the information that it comes from slaughtering other people, so I'm not even sure what you're even trying to get at. > > You're also directly comparing real 100 million dollar to fake love induced via chemicals, they are completely different matters, and certainly receiving one is on a vastly different scale of "bettered lives" than the other; money can buy you goods and services at the very least, delusion only makes you deluded. The happiness is obtained by proxy. The recipient could not know about the origin of the happiness. I'm not comparing the 100 million dollars to "fake love," however. *( You'd also be responsible for supporting the claim that the love simulated by the potion is fake compared to other loves simulated by people interacting with each other by other means )* The 100 million dollars was a counter-argument to your argument that because something unethical or because someone was being deluded, no *real* happiness or betterment can be achieved because of it.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:45:51.911+0000) > > But that's 100% of all human relationships. > > If I gave you $100 million dollars, would you be happy? This is false equivalence. 1. The 100 million dollar is material and tangible and measurable. It is obviously different to the notion of love, ESPECIALLY an artificially induced love through the chemical alteration of one's brain. 2. The part of me that is happy about the 100 million dollar is my own ego, I am not under any substance's influence to make that decision to love money. The same can not be said about the subject under the influence of a "love potion" because their decision making is clearly influenced or even dominated by an external drug that's not part of their own ego nor part of their normal day-to-day function without the substance. Therefore the 2 are not comparable because one has full control of themselves and the other does not. 3. Even if the person dosing themselves with "love potion" willingly allows their mind to be altered by drugs to live in a state of delusion out of their own accord, it is still not a valid reasoning to claim that they're happy, or objectively having a better life. The same reason why drug addicts who spend each and every day sniffing drugs is clearly not a good thing. What you're saying is basically that you believe drug addicts or whatever (such as alcoholics) are leading "better" lives thanks to their substance, and that being in a state of delusion due to the abuse of their substance is a genuine QoL improvement. No, it's not, it's that simple.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005000000000001,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:53:36.384+0000) > > This is false equivalence. > > 1. The 100 million dollar is material and tangible and measurable. It is obviously different to the notion of love, ESPECIALLY an artificially induced love through the chemical alteration of one's brain. > 2. The part of me that is happy about the 100 million dollar is my own ego, I am not under any substance's influence to make that decision to love money. The same can not be said about the subject under the influence of a "love potion" because their decision making is clearly influenced or even dominated by an external drug that's not part of their own ego nor part of their normal day-to-day function. Therefore the 2 are not comparable because one has full control of themselves and the other does not. > 3. Even if the person dosing themselves with "love potion" willingly allows their mind to be altered by drugs to live in a state of delusion out of their own accord, it is still not a valid reasoning to claim that they're happy. The same reason why drug addicts who spend each and every day sniffing drugs is clearly not a good thing. > > What you're saying is basically that you believe drug addicts or whatever (such as alcoholics) are leading "better" lives thanks to their substance, and that being in a state of delusion due to the abuse of their substance is a genuine QoL improvement. No, it's not, it's that simple. You're comparing substance/alcohol abuse to a theoretical love potion that only simulates love for another person while calling me out on false equivalencies because I'm trying to illustrate a point about the premise of your aforementioned argument about whether or not someone's life can be made better or not through deception/delusion. -Wags finger.-
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:45:51.911+0000) > > But that's 100% of all human relationships. > > If I gave you $100 million dollars, would you be happy? The act of gaining currency in and of itself would not make me happy but the though of what I could do with it would.
> [{quoted}](name=Irelia Bot,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:47:47.967+0000) > > The act of gaining currency in and of itself would not make me happy but the though of what I could do with it would. Alright. Unknown to you, I got that $100 million dollars by slaughtering women and children in other countries for X company. Through completely unethical practices, by proxy, I have bettered the lives of others. Do those lives cease to be bettered because the means in which that money was obtained was unethical?
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:32:39.645+0000) > > Let me re-phrase the situation so as to get at a deeper philosophical undertone here that I think most people are missing. > > Let's pretend for a second we're not talking about a love potion and we're, instead, talking about a happiness potion. > > I slip some of this potion into your drink and you spend the rest of your life completely blissful and carefree. > > Is this a crime? Is this unethical? Have I maliciously impacted your way of life? Have I *hurt* you in some way? > > What's the difference between negatively influencing the life of someone and positively influencing the life of someone? If it's illegal to positively influence others' lives, where does the line get drawn? Should it be illegal to make someone else smile because you've essentially altered the way that they feel, temporary or otherwise? > > This takes us back around to the love potion and most of the arguments being presented are outside of the scope of the perspective of the people in the scenario in question. > > If you were under the effects of the love potion. You are not being raped when said person is having sex with you. You are consenting to that sex because you're in love with that person. You are not a slave to that person because you are, again, consenting to what it is that they're asking. > > Spin this around and apply it to traditional relationships today. Forget there's a love potion for a moment. Are you being raped when you're in love with someone and you consent to having sex with them? Are you a slave to someone if they ask you to do something and you consent to do that something? > > If not, wherein lies the difference? > > Is it a crime to *make better* the state of another human being? I would have used the 6 shots and 7 beers later argument when said person knew that drinking all of those would get them wasted and horny... Then again in this wasted situation said person started consuming a mind altering substance by their own efforts and I have heard differing views on should they be held accountable for their actions when knowingly taking a mind altering substance or not.
> [{quoted}](name=Irelia Bot,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050001,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:42:12.551+0000) > > I would have used the 6 shots and 7 beers later argument when said person knew that drinking all of those would get them wasted and horny... Then again in this wasted situation said person started consuming a mind altering substance by their own efforts and I have heard differing views on should they be held accountable for their actions when knowingly taking a mind altering substance or not. I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at. You're saying that someone intentionally gets drunk, then while drunk takes this mind-altering substance, and then while they're under the influence of said substance they may or may not do something that they regret or might be illegal or harmful to others or something of that nature... and they should be held accountable for it? It depends if someone used their intoxicated state to persuade them into trying said substance or slipped it to them while they're drunk unbeknownst to them and whether or not that person is sober or intoxicated as well, etc... There are a lot of variables at play once you get into it.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:32:39.645+0000) > > Let me re-phrase the situation so as to get at a deeper philosophical undertone here that I think most people are missing. > > Let's pretend for a second we're not talking about a love potion and we're, instead, talking about a happiness potion. > > I slip some of this potion into your drink and you spend the rest of your life completely blissful and carefree. > > Is this a crime? Is this unethical? Have I maliciously impacted your way of life? Have I *hurt* you in some way? > > What's the difference between negatively influencing the life of someone and positively influencing the life of someone? If it's illegal to positively influence others' lives, where does the line get drawn? Should it be illegal to make someone else smile because you've essentially altered the way that they feel, temporary or otherwise? > > This takes us back around to the love potion and most of the arguments being presented are outside of the scope of the perspective of the people in the scenario in question. > > If you were under the effects of the love potion. You are not being raped when said person is having sex with you. You are consenting to that sex because you're in love with that person. You are not a slave to that person because you are, again, consenting to what it is that they're asking. > > Spin this around and apply it to traditional relationships today. Forget there's a love potion for a moment. Are you being raped when you're in love with someone and you consent to having sex with them? Are you a slave to someone if they ask you to do something and you consent to do that something? > > If not, wherein lies the difference? > > Is it a crime to *make better* the state of another human being? It is not "made better" if it is deception and delusion. EDIT: Similar reason why sniffing drug everyday or something is clearly a bad thing.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=2OEE9Qca,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:42:10.566+0000) > > It is not "made better" if it is deception and delusion. But that's 100% of all human relationships. If I gave you $100 million dollars, would you be happy?
: what would be the legal/social ramifications of a love potion
Let me re-phrase the situation so as to get at a deeper philosophical undertone here that I think most people are missing. Let's pretend for a second we're not talking about a love potion and we're, instead, talking about a happiness potion. I slip some of this potion into your drink and you spend the rest of your life completely blissful and carefree. Is this a crime? Is this unethical? Have I maliciously impacted your way of life? Have I *hurt* you in some way? What's the difference between negatively influencing the life of someone and positively influencing the life of someone? If it's illegal to positively influence others' lives, where does the line get drawn? Should it be illegal to make someone else smile because you've essentially altered the way that they feel, temporary or otherwise? This takes us back around to the love potion and most of the arguments being presented are outside of the scope of the perspective of the people in the scenario in question. If you were under the effects of the love potion. You are not being raped when said person is having sex with you. You are consenting to that sex because you're in love with that person. You are not a slave to that person because you are, again, consenting to what it is that they're asking. Spin this around and apply it to traditional relationships today. Forget there's a love potion for a moment. Are you being raped when you're in love with someone and you consent to having sex with them? Are you a slave to someone if they ask you to do something and you consent to do that something? If not, wherein lies the difference? Is it a crime to *make better* the state of another human being?
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=ErlwrFsR,comment-id=000700010000,timestamp=2018-03-30T05:24:56.095+0000) > > You're statistically wrong about and *greatly* exaggerating the number of mass shootings in the U.S. > > If data and evidence doesn't change your mind, I don't think the opinion of some random person on a video game forum is going to, either. > > You're also calling people babies because they can tolerate other people saying bad things without trying to get authority figures to strongarm the opinions of others or shooting them. I'm not sure I can follow that logic. I'm not saying I would, personally I just mute or ignore people that bring my life down rather then add to it. I'm just saying there are more people willing to solve their problems with violence around here, whether it be by fist or weapon.
> [{quoted}](name=Albino Rhino,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=ErlwrFsR,comment-id=0007000100000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T06:04:17.588+0000) > > I'm not saying I would, personally I just mute or ignore people that bring my life down rather then add to it. I'm just saying there are more people willing to solve their problems with violence around here, whether it be by fist or weapon. I think any rational human being would simply mute/ignore people. The problem is that irrational people are generally the loudest voices and the ones that seem to be dictating the ebb and flow of social norms now, at least in western civilization.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=ErlwrFsR,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2018-03-29T09:40:07.847+0000) > > You're right. > > One of the worst League competitive regions needs to tell the best competitive region how to behave. > > Whatever they're doing seems to work. > > I guess hugging it out doesn't have quite the impact that everyone in the west seems to think it does. I blame school shootings. NA is least toxic, EU and KR are toxic af. US has mass shootings every other day it seems, the other side of the pond does not. NA are less toxic because in their day to day life you might just get shot for being a disrespectful prick. EU and KR are babies that don't have to worry about repercussions so they get it in their head they can say and do what they want. The internet then amplifies this because you're behind a screen. A lot of people need there to be negative repercussions to being disrespectful, otherwise you get this. Because people are shit and don't care about anyone but themselves. Change my mind.
> [{quoted}](name=Albino Rhino,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=ErlwrFsR,comment-id=00070001,timestamp=2018-03-30T04:50:41.613+0000) > > I blame school shootings. NA is least toxic, EU and KR are toxic af. US has mass shootings every other day it seems, the other side of the pond does not. > > NA are less toxic because in their day to day life you might just get shot for being a disrespectful prick. EU and KR are babies that don't have to worry about repercussions so they get it in their head they can say and do what they want. The internet then amplifies this because you're behind a screen. A lot of people need there to be negative repercussions to being disrespectful, otherwise you get this. Because people are shit and don't care about anyone but themselves. > > Change my mind. You're statistically wrong about and *greatly* exaggerating the number of mass shootings in the U.S. If data and evidence doesn't change your mind, I don't think the opinion of some random person on a video game forum is going to, either. You're also calling people babies because they can tolerate other people saying bad things without trying to get authority figures to strongarm the opinions of others or shooting them. I'm not sure I can follow that logic.
LiranMLG (EUNE)
: So I just got beat up.
"Call the police." "Learn karate." "Buy a taser." You're 15 years old. Kids fight. It happens. It's not the end of the world. This is also a problem with listening to a story in a vacuum. Nobody here knows whether or not you're giving a genuine recollection of what happened or if you're painting yourself in a certain light so as to seek out empathy from others. But if it *is* true, just go on about your life unless it becomes cyclic. Don't exacerbate problems by pretending that you're a victim and the world is out to get you or something stupid like everyone here is going to want you to believe. If the kid goes to your school, confront him about it at school. It's just as likely that the alcohol is the entire reason any of it happened. A lot of genuinely nice sober people will turn into complete assholes if they're hammered. You don't need to completely overhaul your entire life because you got roughed up by some other kids.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hfVEEYRa,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T04:26:43.082+0000) > > Most people who are irrational are usually upset with the truth, so I can understand that line of thinking. No, I mean the thought of being you must be what makes you so angry. Definitely not that r/iamverysmart stuff you just tried to justify
> [{quoted}](name=Quiet Dude,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hfVEEYRa,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-30T04:32:08.975+0000) > > No, I mean the thought of being you must be what makes you so angry. Definitely not that r/iamverysmart stuff you just tried to justify I'm not angry. You're not going to believe that because again, irrational, and you need it to feed into your perspective.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hfVEEYRa,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-03-30T04:18:29.850+0000) > > Create an environment in which you're tethered to other players in every game. > Rig the environment so that they have virtually no positive impact on the game and the worst player has the most impact on the game. > Create mottos telling them to suck it up and fight through it and that determination matters. > Punish them when it doesn't and they lose the vast majority of their games because of other people on their team and it pisses them off. > > League of Legends 2018. Dude, after reading this, if I woke up and found out I turned into you, Iā€™d be pissed all the time too
> [{quoted}](name=Quiet Dude,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hfVEEYRa,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-03-30T04:20:35.684+0000) > > Dude, after reading this, if I woke up and found out I turned into you, Iā€™d be pissed all the time too Most people who are irrational are usually upset with the truth, so I can understand that line of thinking.
: Real S**t
Create an environment in which you're tethered to other players in every game. Rig the environment so that they have virtually no positive impact on the game and the worst player has the most impact on the game. Create mottos telling them to suck it up and fight through it and that determination matters. Punish them when it doesn't and they lose the vast majority of their games because of other people on their team and it pisses them off. League of Legends 2018.
Cowsep (NA)
: Cowsep's Response AND a great chance to talk about KOREAN SERVER toxicity!!
You're right. One of the worst League competitive regions needs to tell the best competitive region how to behave. Whatever they're doing seems to work. I guess hugging it out doesn't have quite the impact that everyone in the west seems to think it does.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=000300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T11:10:38.012+0000) > > You seem to be playing word games where you're allowed to say everything that implies you want nothing to do with other people but without literally saying "I don't like playing with other people" as a means to bait people into this assumption about your position so that you can use it to undermine their arguments. Dude, who DOES like playing with other people? Unless they're in your premade, no one likes playing with randos. This is such a long-held belief of dozens of games that I'm wondering what your point her even IS. Do YOU enjoy playing with four randoms that are all running around doing stupid shit? Isn't the entire point OF the voice chat idea that random people are uncoordinated as hell and need better means of communication? > > *( Most of these are not verbatim )* > "I don't want to talk to them." > "I don't want to listen to them." > "I'd play bot games but the bots aren't hard enough." > "They're the anchors that weigh me down." > "By forcing more and more of this teamplay bullshit into the game, they are ruining the game for people not interested in playing with a fuckin' group" > Etc... Yes. If they could make a single player experience that was even half as challenging and diverse as multiplayer I would play that shit in an instant. I enjoy the gameplay, not the people. If you could make a bot capable of playing like a person would, I would play that shit all the time. HOWEVER, we do not have that. Bots are predictable and easy to beat. They are not fun to play against because they are not challenging. I enjoy playing against a diverse and challenging bunch of opponents, so I play against real people. But that does NOT mean I want to hear them gibbering away at me through my headset for 30 minutes. Perhaps YOU do not understand the idea of wanting to play a chill game and not socializing with random fuckin' people I've never met and will never meet again, but I assure you there are PLENTY of people who do not want to have to talk to people on the fucking internet during a game they play to relax. Call me anti-social all you want, but do not pull that "well why play at all if you dislike teams?". That's just a long-winded way of saying "like what I like or get the fuck out". > > The game is and has always been a team-based game. It also used to be a game where HotshotGG could go 8/0 as Nidalee in top lane without even SEEING a jungler or roaming once, then carry the game off of that massive lead he'd built. Good fucking luck doing that now. Or are you pretending the game has always been as team-focused as it is now too? > > If I enjoyed fighting games, I'd play the fighting games that're not centered around the one thing I hate instead of playing that specific one and complaining about it being centered around the one thing I hate. If you enjoy how say, Tekken plays... you play Tekken. If you dislike a few of the characters in Tekken, you play other characters because you still enjoy tekken. If they KEEP adding characters you dislike to the game... and taking away the ones that you DO like... THEN you are in my position. Again, you are saying "enjoy how the game is now or fuck off". Which is dickish. The game has changed a lot since it's inception. Are you implying that people who used to like it are no longer allowed to like it or want to play it because it's changed so much? Are you saying that I never really liked it because I don't care so much about the teamplay aspects? That's REALLY god-damned arrogant to tell someone what they do and don't like or what they should or shouldn't do. > > You also seem to be throwing a lot of adjectives out that you aren't aware of applying to your own posts. > > "Condescending" You have been. > "Ok... I get that logic isn't your strong point" It's clearly not. Also you seem to misunderstand a lot of words that you are throwing about to make vital points, but I'll get to that below. > "Selfish" You've told me multiple times that I shouldn't even be playing the game. Your point of view IS extremely self-centered and fails to acknowledge that people might want to do something despite not liking one or two aspects of it. Yes... because everyone who enjoys swimming enjoys working on perfecting their form and running relays! Everybody that plays basketball wants to play a full game with five man teams, a ref and all the professional rules. NO ONE plays horse or one on one or any of that casual shit. > Wants Riot to tailor to your playstyle even though it's completely counter-intuitive to the game's design. Ok, here is that word you keep misusing. Counter-intuitive means "contrary to expectations"... which means that by calling the way I choose to play this, you are saying that the obvious, logical way to play that everyone agrees upon by default is to jump into a game full of people you don't know and to attempt to coordinate with them. Now here i thought the obvious way to play was to pick a lane and try to beat the enemy playing that lane too... but apparently I am mistaken. I'm sure people queue mid thinking "wonderful, now to spend all game trying to support my team!" not "Time to stomp mid". The boards are FULL of complaints from people who are upset that they cannot influence the game from their lanes, even if they get fed... usually people complaining that only bot lane matters. But by your logic, shouldn't the OBVIOUS and intuitive way to play be to be grouping and coordinating the team ALL THE TIME? Why be upset that you don't matter in top lane if individual performance doesn't matter so much and teamplay does? I guess all these people that want to play their lanes and stomp just don't understand the game, eh? I guess they should all stop playing TOO, as you keep suggesting I do if I dislike the game becoming more and more focused around holding hands with your teammates and less and less about personal actions and skill. > "Dickish" > Constantly making passive aggressive snide remarks towards opposing viewpoints. I will admit to this... I am extremely snide. And as we ALL know... intuitively... people who are mean to you are always wrong. Always. No one who has EVER been a bit rude to you has EVER had a point or been right about ANYTHING. I mean, that would be counter-intuitive. > > And technically speaking, not having in-game voice chat and not using out-of-game voice chats *does* have a negative impact on your team. > > If everyone on your team is random and can't verbally communicate and you're against a team that has even two people in a VOIP together, you're objectively at a disadvantage. Yeah... and we've been at this disadvantage for years, because that is how the game works. That premade is ALWAYS going to have an advantage, because they are a premade. They likely know each other and will cooperate better than a bunch of randos. If you were arguing against premades existing, this would be a fair point... but you are not so I fail to see what you're saying here. We NEED voice chat because premades have an edge? I'm certain five random people all struggling to tell each other what to do over a voice line will fix that! > > Now before you go into some rant about how "Pfft, I've 1 v 3'd guys who were in VOIP together." That's great but it has nothing to do with the argument because we're talking about advantages, not whether or not someone can overcome said advantages based purely on differences in skill level. Now you're just making a strawman and gluing my face to it. WE were NOT talking about advantages and I never said any of that.... nor was I planning to. > > Verbal communication is an advantage because you can seamlessly shotcall and express deeper strategies almost instantaneously instead of having to stop and type for 10 seconds or make shallow playcalls through pings. OR, we can have two people having a conversation because they're irl friends... one person trying to shotcall and being ignored... one person endlessly bugging another player to help his lane while the last player ignores everyone on the line because he's listening to music. I feel like this is more likely to happen than people all sitting down and becoming complete fuckin professionals the second voice chat is on. And the thing you keep ignoring is... what if I WANT to play the game and listen to music and just chill? Now I'm putting my team at a disadvantage because I don't want to turn on the voice chat and listen to four people I don't know tell each other what to do? Whee... what fun. I've always said the only thing more fun than playing a game is playing a game with four people backseat gaming and telling you what you're doing wrong every step of the way. Oh, but I forgot... we're pretending that people won't be rude or toxic over this thing, right? > > There's a reason ALL e-sports teams use VOIP. There isn't a team in e-sports that's like "Nah, I don't need to hear what they're talking about or say anything, I'm too good at the game by myself." In fact, one of the biggest gripes on professional teams is someone not communicating with the rest of the team. If you do not understand that PROFESSIONAL TEAMS and casual players might play the game a bit differently, I think we're done talking here. Some asshole sitting at home playing league for fun is NOT a member of TSM. He is not playing the game at a professional level and only to win. Some of us are playing the game to, counter-intuitive as it might be, HAVE FUN. And some of us don't find having a bunch of people we do not know rambling at us to be very fun. I do not want to feel obligated to talk to people in game. We're not playing this shit professionally! I am playing to enjoy it.
> [{quoted}](name=The Whamboozler,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0003000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T19:08:22.744+0000) > > snip Yeah, I'm not addressing all of this. After reading through it, it's just more verbal diarrhea about how all the accusations I've made about your position prior to this post were entirely accurate but you want to attach completely irrelevant variables to each situation to try and make the argument about something else so as to avoid acknowledging faults in your logic. This thread has become a lagoon for 2 or 3 people on your side of the argument to sit here and pat each other on the back to qualify your lack of reasoning and/or logic while pretending that popularity equates to intellect. Every post you've made has been consecutive concessions to your positions, dishonest comparisons to represent empty slogans to get your way, name-calling, being hypocrites, being disingenuous for the sake of being disingenuous because you can't afford to have an honest discussion with different opinions in play, constant backpacking on each other to to spam downvotes on every comment, etc... To summarize, you've all been pretty shitty human beings in a short amount of time while claiming to be against shitty human behavior and I'm done talking to you about it. Data doesn't support your claims. _"Feel"_ your way around that objective truth and sort yourselves out. Nothing you've said thus far has held up to the least bit of scrutiny and this isn't enjoyable for me anymore. Enjoy your days.
Vacus (NA)
: It's amazing how somehow, it turned out that the OP who badly wanted voice chat is a toxic raging piece of shit. Who could have possibly predicted this????
> [{quoted}](name=Vacus,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2018-03-28T18:37:24.158+0000) > > It's amazing how somehow, it turned out that the OP who badly wanted voice chat is a toxic raging piece of shit. > > Who could have possibly predicted this???? Except that he's not. It's amazing how somehow, the side that has all along, pretended to have the moral highground, has in fact resorted to the very thing they claim to stand against. Who could have possibly predicted this????
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=000000010000000000010000000100000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T14:47:59.091+0000) > > Being an asshole or disruptive has nothing to do with being smart and you're the one making the mistake of trying to draw lines that I haven't drawn. You're right. But a smart person knows that you don't just go in being the asshole out the gate. And this is why your entire argument is not only flawed, but entitled drivel that doesn't deserve the discussion it has gotten because you'd rather spout nonsense (which I clipped from your post). You are not even the slightest bit reasonable or logical in your argument. You continue to spam nonsensical logic that says "the individual matters more than the community!" That is not how things work and you are flat out wrong.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0000000100000000000100000001000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T14:55:54.360+0000) > > You're right. Good talk. ( clipped all the entitled unreasonable illogical nonsensical flawed drivel from your post )
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0000000100000000000100000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T13:55:40.086+0000) > > Everyone has emotional outbursts. You're conflating what's happening on League to benefit your agenda. > > Here's an example of controlling your emotions in real life : > > Person A goes to work, something happens that ruins his/her day, and then Person A proceeds to murder everyone at place of employment. > Person A goes to work, something happens that ruins his/her day, and then Person A proceeds to mutter the words "Fuck this job, I don't need this shit" and then goes on about their day. > > You're somehow equating people in League saying "Stop fucking feeding, shithead" to the first example. > > These people are not jumping out of their chair, smashing their keyboards into the window, killing their families in droves, etc... They're just telling you to fuck off in a video game. > > This is a perfectly healthy outlet for frustration and you're trying to strip it away because you don't have the intellectual maturity to press a button to silence them but you have the pompous attitude to believe your 5 seconds of being irked is worth their account and all the time/money invested into it. > > Rationalize it. No. We're equating chat flaming to "going over to the next table at the restaurant and screaming profanities no matter who is there after a bad day". And then he repeats the process every couple days. Your argument is that these should never be punished no matter how often they happen. You don't get punished for one game, which you fail to realize. And in order to punish for consistent toxicity in voice chat, ALL of it needs recorded for every single player and then manually reviewed by a human being. Grow up. It is not the responsibility of those around you to put duct tape over their ears just so they don't hear you raging like a yeti that just stabbed his own foot. It is not their responsibility to put duct tape on your mouth either just so they don't have to deal with you being a belligerent asshole. If YOU cannot restrain yourself beyond rare outbursts, then you do not deserve to interact with people. We are talking about CONSISTENT toxic behavior and you amount a week of constant flaming to a single game where someone said "fuck you".
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00000001000000000001000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T14:36:11.375+0000) > > No. We're equating chat flaming to "going over to the next table at the restaurant and screaming profanities no matter who is there after a bad day". And then he repeats the process every couple days. Your argument is that these should never be punished no matter how often they happen. > > You don't get punished for one game, which you fail to realize. And in order to punish for consistent toxicity in voice chat, ALL of it needs recorded for every single player and then manually reviewed by a human being. > > Grow up. It is not the responsibility of those around you to put duct tape over their ears just so they don't hear you raging like a yeti that just stabbed his own foot. It is not their responsibility to put duct tape on your mouth either just so they don't have to deal with you being a belligerent asshole. If YOU cannot restrain yourself beyond rare outbursts, then you do not deserve to interact with people. We are talking about CONSISTENT toxic behavior and you amount a week of constant flaming to a single game where someone said "fuck you". That's a dishonest representation of what's happening and you shouldn't inject yourself into someone else's position as if you know what their thoughts are on the matter. But if you're equating chat flaming to screaming at random people in a restaurant then I think we found another hole in your logic. League of Legends forces you onto a team with 4 other people who will make or break whether or not you win that match. Everything that every single person on that team does plays a role in the outcome. Everything. That's not "only what gets said in a chat box." When you play like shit, it affects their chances of winning. When you don't listen to pings from roams, it affects their chances of winning. When you refuse to play the objective with the rest of your team, it affects their chances of winning. When you play an offensive mage as a support with Ignite, buy no support items, KS your carries, push side lanes so carries can't farm, etc... it affects their chances of winning. Someone sitting next to you at a restaurant has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you're going to win a match in a highly competitive environment. And AGAIN, you're talking about a demographic that's primarily teenagers and very young adults and treating them like they just spent the past 40 years of their life meditating in a sensory-deprivation chamber.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0000000100000000000100000001000000010000,timestamp=2018-03-28T13:45:50.212+0000) > > Why's it smart peoples' responsibility to tolerate stupid people? > > Answer that and MAYBE you'll have a valid argument. Except I just asked that question to you. Tell me, how is it smart to be a constant disturbance to everyone around you? How is it smart to be a raging asshole over something you can't control? How is it smart to constantly let your anger get the better of you and lead you into flaming everything that goes into chat? If anything, this shows that YOU have no common sense. That YOU would rather not hold people accountable for being unable to restrain themselves. That YOU have no idea what you're talking about. And that YOU cannot put responsibility where it needs to be.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00000001000000000001000000010000000100000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T14:30:23.173+0000) > > Except I just asked that question to you. > > Tell me, how is it smart to be a constant disturbance to everyone around you? How is it smart to be a raging asshole over something you can't control? How is it smart to constantly let your anger get the better of you and lead you into flaming everything that goes into chat? > > If anything, this shows that YOU have no common sense. That YOU would rather not hold people accountable for being unable to restrain themselves. That YOU have no idea what you're talking about. And that YOU cannot put responsibility where it needs to be. Being an asshole or disruptive has nothing to do with being smart and you're the one making the mistake of trying to draw lines that I haven't drawn. I retorted with a similar question to show you the hole in reasoning for the premise of your question. You did not earn your disposition. You were born in a completely random time to completely random parents to a completely random household and raised by completely random groups of people in a completely random region under completely random ideologies and were taught completely random courtesies and manners, etc... Some people are burdened with less ethical and moral fiber than others due to these factors. Some people are privileged with more ethical and moral fiber than others due to these factors. A genius did not earn his I.Q. He was born in a completely random time to completely random parents to a completely random household and raised by completely random groups of people and inherited completely random genes. Your question is why should this privileged group tolerate this burdened group, in a nutshell. So if your logic is good and true then it should apply universally, right? If I am smarter than you, why should I not ostracize you from my group and society? Is it ethical to exclude everyone you don't agree with? Are you doing the world or society a favor in doing this? Bad people still have something to offer to good people. Stupid people still have something to offer to smart people. You cannot reduce everyone to one facet of their being and use it to treat them like lepers or as if they have no value. If it were up to me, every single toxic player in this community would be in all my teams in ranked queues and all the good-natured, nice people can be on the opposing teams. It's been my personal experience that toxic assholes are, on average, vastly superior players to genuinely nice, wholesome people. Now if I want to have a nice, civilized conversation or just hang out with someone for a good time, I'll call on the nice, wholesome people.
: let me put it simply being able to control said outburst is what makes some one "grown up" raging/complaining/bitching however you want to put it when you have a outburst is childish the mass amount of players do not wish to deal with childish behavior even if only for a short time before you mute them as a way to keep their own outbursts in check as you are more likely to get upset when you hear some one complain more then you would if you hear it. and if you happen to get upset you are less likely to mute and more likely to defend yourself, making the issue worse its a preventative measure its been stated by the mass majority of the player base that they do not want a traditional VC as they do not want to listen to randoms rage. not only that but Riot would HAVE to police it, they simply cant ignore it, as they have to uphold their own rules and regulations against harassment meaning they would have to divert MASS QUANTITIES of money into things like storage, reducing money for all other content there are FAR to many negatives to make up for the minimum positive possibilities
> [{quoted}](name=ImTheSideKick,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=000000010000000000010000000100000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T13:09:43.640+0000) > > let me put it simply > > being able to control said outburst is what makes some one "grown up" > > raging/complaining/bitching however you want to put it when you have a outburst is childish > > the mass amount of players do not wish to deal with childish behavior even if only for a short time before you mute them as a way to keep their own outbursts in check > > as you are more likely to get upset when you hear some one complain more then you would if you hear it. and if you happen to get upset you are less likely to mute and more likely to defend yourself, making the issue worse > > its a preventative measure > > its been stated by the mass majority of the player base that they do not want a traditional VC as they do not want to listen to randoms rage. > not only that but Riot would HAVE to police it, they simply cant ignore it, as they have to uphold their own rules and regulations against harassment > > meaning they would have to divert MASS QUANTITIES of money into things like storage, reducing money for all other content > > there are FAR to many negatives to make up for the minimum positive possibilities Everyone has emotional outbursts. You're conflating what's happening on League to benefit your agenda. Here's an example of controlling your emotions in real life : Person A goes to work, something happens that ruins his/her day, and then Person A proceeds to murder everyone at place of employment. Person A goes to work, something happens that ruins his/her day, and then Person A proceeds to mutter the words "Fuck this job, I don't need this shit" and then goes on about their day. You're somehow equating people in League saying "Stop fucking feeding, shithead" to the first example. These people are not jumping out of their chair, smashing their keyboards into the window, killing their families in droves, etc... They're just telling you to fuck off in a video game. This is a perfectly healthy outlet for frustration and you're trying to strip it away because you don't have the intellectual maturity to press a button to silence them but you have the pompous attitude to believe your 5 seconds of being irked is worth their account and all the time/money invested into it. Rationalize it.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00000001000000000001000000010000,timestamp=2018-03-28T12:53:50.860+0000) > > You live in a vacuum, clearly. Everyone has emotional outbursts. > > You *all* need to grow up, stop pushing responsibilities off on everyone but yourself. At what point is it OUR responsibility to tolerate immature ragers? Answer that, and MAYBE you'll have a valid argument. Because I already explained why it isn't.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=000000010000000000010000000100000001,timestamp=2018-03-28T13:10:06.786+0000) > > At what point is it OUR responsibility to tolerate immature ragers? > > Answer that, and MAYBE you'll have a valid argument. Because I already explained why it isn't. Why's it smart peoples' responsibility to tolerate stupid people? Answer that and MAYBE you'll have a valid argument.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0000000100000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T12:51:33.688+0000) > > If there's a disruptive person on your team, does reporting him stop him from being disruptive on your team? > > When you realize the answer is no, your entire argument goes out the window. Instantly? Probably not. If he doesn't learn after a 25 game chat restriction, he lands himself in the 14 day ban. If he still hasn't gotten the message, then he loses his account. And if he wants to blame everyone else for his lack of control, he clearly has not learned the lesson that his behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The reports say players don't want to tolerate him. If enough are accrued for consistent toxic behavior, they're acted upon. If the player does not heed the punishment given to him afterwards, then he has not shown any maturity. He has chosen to ignore the "slap on the wrist" punishment and will continue to accrue greater punishments up until his account is banned. You aren't punished for a single game. That is where Riot is lenient for those who have unnatural outbursts. For those who are consistently problematic, they issue the chat restrictions and bans. Those who understand the "slap on the wrist" warnings will know that they need to curb their behavior before they become much more serious. If you think you, or anyone else, is ENTITLED to being a disruptive asshole, then go find a single player game where nobody can moderate your actions. Because in a team setting, it's not simply you. It's your teammates in each game where you're disruptive and for most solo players, that's a LOT of different people.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00000001000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T13:07:02.384+0000) > > Instantly? Probably not. If he doesn't learn after a 25 game chat restriction, he lands himself in the 14 day ban. If he still hasn't gotten the message, then he loses his account. And if he wants to blame everyone else for his lack of control, he clearly has not learned the lesson that his behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. > > The reports say players don't want to tolerate him. If enough are accrued for consistent toxic behavior, they're acted upon. If the player does not heed the punishment given to him afterwards, then he has not shown any maturity. He has chosen to ignore the "slap on the wrist" punishment and will continue to accrue greater punishments up until his account is banned. > > You aren't punished for a single game. That is where Riot is lenient for those who have unnatural outbursts. For those who are consistently problematic, they issue the chat restrictions and bans. Those who understand the "slap on the wrist" warnings will know that they need to curb their behavior before they become much more serious. > > If you think you, or anyone else, is ENTITLED to being a disruptive asshole, then go find a single player game where nobody can moderate your actions. Because in a team setting, it's not simply you. It's your teammates in each game where you're disruptive and for most solo players, that's a LOT of different people. I yearn for the day this planet gets incinerated by a dying star or something. It's every single person I meet online that's completely void of any sort of common sense. It's to the point that I can't even believe we're all part of the same species because you guys have clearly not earned your place in civilized society. The entire system that Riot Games has put forth is purported to reduce player toxicity. It hasn't. Let me re-iterate that for you since you're going to just glance right over it. **It. Doesn't. Do. What. It. Is. Supposed. To. Do.** That means every single person who's ever been punished by this system was at the expense of a claim that's completely false. Get it? The response? Purely SJW rhetoric from everyone in this community about how bad people get what they deserved. This is the summation of your entire position. They have irked me and no punishment is too bad for these heinous, vile scum of the earth human beings who are... getting mad at video games. Because there couldn't possibly be a more ethical and moral dilemma to really nail down than those stupid sons of bitches in video game communities who want to have an opinion about things. Alright so, your report doesn't stop the player from disrupting your game. The collective reports of every single person that's identical to you in ideology form doesn't stop the player from disrupting more games. The system, itself, doesn't stop toxic players from being toxic and making more accounts to be more toxic, etc... All you have done is given a free pass for one side to act like completely shitty human beings with no consequence. And constantly punished the other side for behaving the same way *first.* Now, instead of people playing the video game to play the video game. Every single game is filled with "GG REPORT THIS PERSON FOR SHIT PLAYER" "GG REPORT THIS ASSHOLE ZED PLAYER WOULDN'T SHUT UP ALL GAME" "GG REPORT FIZZ TOXIC" etc... You're doing exactly to video game communities as you're doing to actual societies. You're ruining them.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2018-03-27T14:41:27.361+0000) > > Growing up means you're mature enough to understand that people have outbursts when they're emotionally charged and being able to compromise and work through those issues. > > Not to treat an entire populace like they're victims and orchestrate an entire socio-political movement to safeguard everyone on the planet against the potential risk of being exposed to bad manners. > > League's community has been toxic since its inception. > > It's remained toxic regardless of what you and people like you, including Riot, has pretended to achieve over the past 4 or 5 years of imposing on players for legitimately rational and human responses to bad situations. > > So spare me with quotes from ANYONE working at Riot in regards to ethics or player behavior because they don't know what they're talking about and they're pretending that their left-leaning pseudo science has merit. It doesn't, not philosophically, not psychologically, not objectively, not scientifically, and certainly not practically as demonstrated by this little experiment they've had running that has produced absolutely no positive results whatsoever. no as stated above "Growing up" means to handle emotions ragers need to grow up, not the people being raged at
> [{quoted}](name=ImTheSideKick,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0000000100000000000100000001,timestamp=2018-03-28T12:34:37.115+0000) > > no as stated above "Growing up" means to handle emotions > > ragers need to grow up, not the people being raged at You live in a vacuum, clearly. Everyone has emotional outbursts. You *all* need to grow up, stop pushing responsibilities off on everyone but yourself.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00000001000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T03:40:44.393+0000) > > This tired ol' argument. > > Riot's gotten it wrong and instead of admitting that they're wrong, they're just going to keep doing the same wrong thing until the end of time. Punishing people for *being toxic* hasn't done anything to combat toxicity. > > "You might have freedom of speech" > > 1 ) We don't have freedom of speech on here because this is a privately owned establishment where the rules are dictated to by its left-leaning overlord, Riot Games. > > 2 ) *IF* we had freedom of speech and someone exercised their freedom of speech and the immediate response to something that people don't like is to take away that person's freedom to speak, then no, they didn't have a freedom of speech to begin with. The entire point of having the freedom of speech is to safeguard opinions that might offend others, not to protect overtly popular opinions that everyone already agrees with. > > Comparing someone saying "Stop feeding you fucking asshole" in League chat to someone using a gun to murder people. This proves how **insane** the people on your side of the argument are. > > Your inability to distinguish between an inconvenience and a life-altering affair means you're the last person anyone should be listening to in a talk about ethics and morality and how to handle them. > > If someone says something you don't agree with in a video game chat, you have the option to talk back to them or mute them. > > Reporting them so that the establishment can literally ban out their accounts and cost them hundreds/thousands of dollars invested because you were irked for a few minutes of your day is not a *fair* punishment. This is the equivalent of someone flicking a booger at you and spending the rest of their life in prison. The punishment needs to fit the crime if you're going to punish them, at all. We have chat restrictions and it's, by definition, the appropriate response to people saying bad things in chat. It doesn't make sense why you'd exacerbate the problem and permanently ban those accounts instead of just chat restricting them. > > The offense is harmless, it's a slap on the wrist and you have tools in-place to stop them from constantly harassing you. YOU just think you're entitled to more than that. YOU think that these people need to be punished. YOU are vengeful. That's the point. You're no **better** a person than they are and you think you're justified because *they cast the first stone.* That's not how it works. > > If you're going to preach to others about how to behave like a human being and that they need to mature *( even though this is a VIDEO GAME and most of the people playing it are kids and teenagers, who coincidentally haven't physically and biologically matured )*, you have to lead by example. You don't get to undermine your own position where you try and preach about being compassionate towards others by literally dictating to people how they will behave *or else.* > > I would rather have people cussing in my games than to have more people like you in my communities. This empty slogan and ideology that you and people like you keep passing around has done nothing but ruin society and social interactions between people in and out of the game and it needs to stop. Nobody's allowed to talk if it's not to agree with the hive mind. "It's more fair to have 4/9 people having their game disrupted by 1 player than to have 1 player punished for being disruptive." -You Do you think someone is allowed to keep participating in something if they continually show poor sportsmanship or are consistently disruptive? If you think someone have more right to be disruptive than anyone else does to have an enjoyable experience in the activity, which from your statements appears to be the case, then there is no discussion or reasoning with you. No more needs to be said. You're unreasonable and using poor logic to justify actions that are undeniably unpleasant to multiple people to protect a single player being disruptive.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=000000010000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T12:17:55.802+0000) > > "It's more fair to have 4/9 people having their game disrupted by 1 player than to have 1 player punished for being disruptive." -You > > Do you think someone is allowed to keep participating in something if they continually show poor sportsmanship or are consistently disruptive? If you think someone have more right to be disruptive than anyone else does to have an enjoyable experience in the activity, which from your statements appears to be the case, then there is no discussion or reasoning with you. > > No more needs to be said. You're unreasonable and using poor logic to justify actions that are undeniably unpleasant to multiple people to protect a single player being disruptive. If there's a disruptive person on your team, does reporting him stop him from being disruptive on your team? When you realize the answer is no, your entire argument goes out the window.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0003000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T08:46:09.259+0000) > > You are playing a game that is team-based. > Your entire position has been 'I do not want anything to do with my team. I don't want to talk to them and I do not want to listen to them.' Did I say I wanted nothing to do with them? No. You're putting words in my mouth. I said I don't want to hear their voices while I play. That is all I said. Way to make assumptions tho! > > It is not close-minded to inquire why you would intentionally choose to play a game centered around the very things that you seem to be against. Perhaps these days the game is "centered" around having your team hold your hand every step of the way but for a good while there you used to be able to win your lane and carry the game without your teammates being the anchor that drags you down. > > If I hated pirates I would not, in turn, play nothing but pirate games and complain that there are pirates in the game. If you enjoyed fighting games but hated pirates you might still play a fighting game that involved pirates. This metaphor made no god damned sense, and wasn't even correct at the end of the day! > > You're taking a public stance against the implementation of a feature and asserting that it will do this, this, and this and you will somehow be victimized and bullied because of it as a means to sway the argument in favor of not implementing said feature. Yep. Me on my soapbox here on the boards... preaching my ways to all three people who will see this post. > > You've also resorted to calling everything I have to say to you as close-minded, selfish, dickish, etc... I call 'em like I see 'em. You're getting a good start on earning "condescending" now too. > > But I would not be opposed to taking the stance that if you're refusing to communicate and cooperate with your team in a team-based environment, maybe what you want isn't conducive to the betterment of the game. > > You're behaving in the most counter-intuitive way that one would expect to behave if they're playing on a team. Ok... I get that logic isn't your strong point, but let me explain this. If the game does not contain full-party voice chat, then my desire to not use full-party voice chat doesn't hurt my team at ALL, does it? Maybe I just don't want to hear our duo bot having some long conversation for the entire game. But for not wanting to listen to people I don't know rambling... I'm in the wrong? Do you also find people that mute their teammates to be wrong too? After all, they're cutting off that communication. Is the only "proper" way to play to leave everything on? And what about listening to what is said? If someone in chat says "let's baron now" and I think that's a stupid call... am I the problem for not listening to them? What if I'm right and baron is warded and they all die trying to sneak it? Am I in the right now? By forcing more and more of this teamplay bullshit into the game, they are ruining the game for people not interested in playing with a fuckin' group... and as much as you may not believe it, that group is larger than just me! Solo players aren't freakin' lepers, even if we are second-class citizens around her as far as riot is concerned. But enjoy your voice chat man. Enjoy two people trying to shotcall at the same time while two others talk about dumb shit and harass the jungler for not ganking for them. If you think giving five people an open mic will make the game LESS chaotic and disorganized, you're NUTS.
> [{quoted}](name=The Whamboozler,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T10:05:35.842+0000) > > Did I say I wanted nothing to do with them? No. You're putting words in my mouth. I said I don't want to hear their voices while I play. That is all I said. Way to make assumptions tho! > > Perhaps these days the game is "centered" around having your team hold your hand every step of the way but for a good while there you used to be able to win your lane and carry the game without your teammates being the anchor that drags you down. > > If you enjoyed fighting games but hated pirates you might still play a fighting game that involved pirates. This metaphor made no god damned sense, and wasn't even correct at the end of the day! > > Yep. Me on my soapbox here on the boards... preaching my ways to all three people who will see this post. > > I call 'em like I see 'em. You're getting a good start on earning "condescending" now too. > > Ok... I get that logic isn't your strong point, but let me explain this. If the game does not contain full-party voice chat, then my desire to not use full-party voice chat doesn't hurt my team at ALL, does it? Maybe I just don't want to hear our duo bot having some long conversation for the entire game. But for not wanting to listen to people I don't know rambling... I'm in the wrong? Do you also find people that mute their teammates to be wrong too? After all, they're cutting off that communication. Is the only "proper" way to play to leave everything on? And what about listening to what is said? If someone in chat says "let's baron now" and I think that's a stupid call... am I the problem for not listening to them? What if I'm right and baron is warded and they all die trying to sneak it? Am I in the right now? > > By forcing more and more of this teamplay bullshit into the game, they are ruining the game for people not interested in playing with a fuckin' group... and as much as you may not believe it, that group is larger than just me! Solo players aren't freakin' lepers, even if we are second-class citizens around her as far as riot is concerned. But enjoy your voice chat man. Enjoy two people trying to shotcall at the same time while two others talk about dumb shit and harass the jungler for not ganking for them. If you think giving five people an open mic will make the game LESS chaotic and disorganized, you're NUTS. You seem to be playing word games where you're allowed to say everything that implies you want nothing to do with other people but without literally saying "I don't like playing with other people" as a means to bait people into this assumption about your position so that you can use it to undermine their arguments. *( Most of these are not verbatim )* "I don't want to talk to them." "I don't want to listen to them." "I'd play bot games but the bots aren't hard enough." "They're the anchors that weigh me down." "By forcing more and more of this teamplay bullshit into the game, they are ruining the game for people not interested in playing with a fuckin' group" Etc... The game is and has always been a team-based game. If I enjoyed fighting games, I'd play the fighting games that're not centered around the one thing I hate instead of playing that specific one and complaining about it being centered around the one thing I hate. You also seem to be throwing a lot of adjectives out that you aren't aware of applying to your own posts. "Condescending" "Ok... I get that logic isn't your strong point" "Selfish" Wants Riot to tailor to your playstyle even though it's completely counter-intuitive to the game's design. "Dickish" Constantly making passive aggressive snide remarks towards opposing viewpoints. And technically speaking, not having in-game voice chat and not using out-of-game voice chats *does* have a negative impact on your team. If everyone on your team is random and can't verbally communicate and you're against a team that has even two people in a VOIP together, you're objectively at a disadvantage. Now before you go into some rant about how "Pfft, I've 1 v 3'd guys who were in VOIP together." That's great but it has nothing to do with the argument because we're talking about advantages, not whether or not someone can overcome said advantages based purely on differences in skill level. Verbal communication is an advantage because you can seamlessly shotcall and express deeper strategies almost instantaneously instead of having to stop and type for 10 seconds or make shallow playcalls through pings. There's a reason ALL e-sports teams use VOIP. There isn't a team in e-sports that's like "Nah, I don't need to hear what they're talking about or say anything, I'm too good at the game by myself." In fact, one of the biggest gripes on professional teams is someone not communicating with the rest of the team.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T08:11:48.436+0000) > > You're sitting here saying a feature shouldn't be enabled on a game that you *don't play much anymore* because of your *certain way of playing* and everyone else who would use the feature shouldn't have the feature implemented because of your choice. > > How's that not close-minded? > > League isn't WoW and there is no "solo playstyle" in League. It's all team-based and teams need to communicate and work together. Actually sir... I said "I do not care about this feature", and then explained why. I never said "league shouldn't implement voice chat"... I said "I would prefer that money and work be put into other parts of the game". As in... my fuckin' opinion. It's a moot point though, since Riot DIDN'T implement full-party voice chat. If they do, I will not care. If they don't... I will not care. I never plan to USE the stupid voice chat. Riot will do what Riot wants to do and neither of us is going to change that. All I was doing was expressing my opinion before you got upset by it. And for the RECORD... the close-minded part was not acknowledging that someone could play the game in a different way than you, not that you want voice chat and I don't. Close-minded referred to you saying "why are you even playing this game?" as if the ONLY reasons to play a game are the ones you personally believe in. "Close-minded" was NOT in regards to you wanting voice chat or me thinking it's an unneeded waste of resources. It was put out there because you pretty much implied that only people playing the game to talk to their team SHOULD be playing the game. And that's close-minded. Well, actually... that's selfish and dickish, but close-minded seemed more polite a way to put it.
> [{quoted}](name=The Whamboozler,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=000300000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T08:25:12.815+0000) > > Actually sir... I said "I do not care about this feature", and then explained why. I never said "league shouldn't implement voice chat"... I said "I would prefer that money and work be put into other parts of the game". As in... my fuckin' opinion. > > It's a moot point though, since Riot DIDN'T implement full-party voice chat. If they do, I will not care. If they don't... I will not care. I never plan to USE the stupid voice chat. Riot will do what Riot wants to do and neither of us is going to change that. All I was doing was expressing my opinion before you got upset by it. > > And for the RECORD... the close-minded part was not acknowledging that someone could play the game in a different way than you, not that you want voice chat and I don't. Close-minded referred to you saying "why are you even playing this game?" as if the ONLY reasons to play a game are the ones you personally believe in. "Close-minded" was NOT in regards to you wanting voice chat or me thinking it's an unneeded waste of resources. It was put out there because you pretty much implied that only people playing the game to talk to their team SHOULD be playing the game. And that's close-minded. Well, actually... that's selfish and dickish, but close-minded seemed more polite a way to put it. You are playing a game that is team-based. Your entire position has been 'I do not want anything to do with my team. I don't want to talk to them and I do not want to listen to them.' It is not close-minded to inquire why you would intentionally choose to play a game centered around the very things that you seem to be against. If I hated pirates I would not, in turn, play nothing but pirate games and complain that there are pirates in the game. You're taking a public stance against the implementation of a feature and asserting that it will do this, this, and this and you will somehow be victimized and bullied because of it as a means to sway the argument in favor of not implementing said feature. You've also resorted to calling everything I have to say to you as close-minded, selfish, dickish, etc... But I would not be opposed to taking the stance that if you're refusing to communicate and cooperate with your team in a team-based environment, maybe what you want isn't conducive to the betterment of the game. You're behaving in the most counter-intuitive way that one would expect to behave if they're playing on a team.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T07:45:27.066+0000) > > Why are you playing online video games if you want absolutely zero interactions with other people? Well to be fair, I don't play much league anymore. But the answer when I DID was "because I enjoy the gameplay". Don't act like it's so foreign an idea. People play MMO's all the time and don't care to interact with other players. They have entire classes designed to enable that kind of playstyle... like hunters in WoW. Bots are too easy to stomp for the game to be much fun unless you play against other players... and that means I need other players on my team too. It doesn't mean I want to talk to them or hear them rambling about shit the entire game. I want to hear Sion scream "COWARDS" when I press R, not some guy rambling on about whatever the shit he's on about. And that's if we assume no one is going to be rude, offensive or just plain stupid in the chat... which they inevitably WILL. So why bother with it? I don't want what it's selling and there's no reason I can find to EVER turn the thing on. It's a bit close-minded to assume that just because you want something or enjoy playing a certain way that everyone else does and yours is the only playstyle that should be catered to.
> [{quoted}](name=The Whamboozler,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0003000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T08:06:01.789+0000) > > Well to be fair, I don't play much league anymore. But the answer when I DID was "because I enjoy the gameplay". Don't act like it's so foreign an idea. People play MMO's all the time and don't care to interact with other players. They have entire classes designed to enable that kind of playstyle... like hunters in WoW. Bots are too easy to stomp for the game to be much fun unless you play against other players... and that means I need other players on my team too. It doesn't mean I want to talk to them or hear them rambling about shit the entire game. I want to hear Sion scream "COWARDS" when I press R, not some guy rambling on about whatever the shit he's on about. And that's if we assume no one is going to be rude, offensive or just plain stupid in the chat... which they inevitably WILL. So why bother with it? I don't want what it's selling and there's no reason I can find to EVER turn the thing on. > > It's a bit close-minded to assume that just because you want something or enjoy playing a certain way that everyone else does and yours is the only playstyle that should be catered to. You're sitting here saying a feature shouldn't be enabled on a game that you *don't play much anymore* because of your *certain way of playing* and everyone else who would use the feature shouldn't have the feature implemented because of your choice. How's that not close-minded? League isn't WoW and there is no "solo playstyle" in League. It's all team-based and teams need to communicate and work together.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T07:30:27.186+0000) > > I can see why you have talked yourself into this box where you believe it's inherently a bad thing. > > You're making a lot of leaps and assumptions about what will happen if it gets implemented and how people will treat you, etc... > > I'm not saying that you're entirely wrong on any of those assumptions but you should probably question whether or not you're equating a select few extreme cases of asshole-like behavior as the norm. > > Even if you choose not to talk to your team-mates through voice in-game, you might get as much entertainment from listening to others ramble on about inane shit as you're under the impression that it'd just be negativity. > > You never know. There are a lot of looney tunes out there. I'm not "talking myself into a box". I'm stating that I don't plan to use the thing so I don't really care if Riot implements it at all... and I wish they'd have put that money and effort elsewhere. No matter how many looney tunes there are, I will never know because if voice-chat DID become a thing for everyone, I would turn it right the hell off and leave it that way. I do not WANT to hear people rambling while I play the game. Even if once in a while someone says something genuinely funny. I want to listen to my music. Or to the game's VO's. Or to a podcast. I do not care in the LEAST about whatever the people playing the game have to say.
> [{quoted}](name=The Whamboozler,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T07:36:13.702+0000) > > I'm not "talking myself into a box". I'm stating that I don't plan to use the thing so I don't really care if Riot implements it at all... and I wish they'd have put that money and effort elsewhere. > > No matter how many looney tunes there are, I will never know because if voice-chat DID become a thing for everyone, I would turn it right the hell off and leave it that way. I do not WANT to hear people rambling while I play the game. Even if once in a while someone says something genuinely funny. I want to listen to my music. Or to the game's VO's. Or to a podcast. I do not care in the LEAST about whatever the people playing the game have to say. Why are you playing online video games if you want absolutely zero interactions with other people?
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2018-03-28T04:26:52.662+0000) > > This has been a long-standing dilemma when coming to mechanics and other things in video games. > > Do we ultimately restrict anything and everything that might have the side-effect of having people mis-use it, so that nobody can use anything? > > Or do we allow everyone to use that something and instead, put in-place, tools in which those occurrences can be, for the most part, mitigated by the players themselves? > > Personally, I'm for the latter. > > The worst parts of a community should not be given the power to dictate what can or can't be put into the game for others to enjoy. > > I think everyone needs to recognize that simply by queue'ing up into a game, you've already allotted a great deal of trust towards others to do what they're supposed to do. > > Sure, you get people who are assholes from time to time but for the MOST PART, everyone tries to play to win even if they're bad at the game. > > If everyone in every game wanted to do nothing but be toxic, you wouldn't win any of your games, because everyone would just be running around playing with their buttholes in random bushes or INT'ing or simply refusing to participate, etc... > > Since this is not the case, I don't agree that in-game VOIP would be used primarily for toxicity and I think having a mute button would allow players to circumvent the small amount of cases in which this happens. Yeah, see... I'm gonna say "too little, too late". If league had STARTED with voice chat, that'd be one thing but it's lacked it for years and the game has kinda become a thing based around not having it. Personally, I PREFER not having it, because I would not want to talk to anyone while I'm trying to play the game. I also strongly suspect that if they DID add voice chat for all, people like me who do not want to use it will not only be at a large disadvantage due to our lack of coordination with our team, but that we will be the target of more hate than normal by surly teammates who feel us not listening to them is hurting their chances to win. I don't dislike it because I feel it's bad for the game or even the player base. I dislike it because I do not want to have a new "tool" added to the game that I do not want and will not use, but will likely be hated for opting out of. I would not have gotten into league in the first place if had voice chat from the get-go. Simple as that. And honestly... I'd rather they put resources towards developing things more useful than "look, you can voice chat with your premade now!". Big whoop... premades already did that. The only change now is that they can do it in-client. So as it stands currently, it's another little advantage given to premades... and if they give it to EVERYONE, it's going to be an advantage given to everyone BUT me... and one more thing I can catch shit over from my teammates. Can you see why I'm not really enthralled with the idea no matter HOW they do it?
> [{quoted}](name=The Whamboozler,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T06:39:04.174+0000) > > Yeah, see... I'm gonna say "too little, too late". If league had STARTED with voice chat, that'd be one thing but it's lacked it for years and the game has kinda become a thing based around not having it. Personally, I PREFER not having it, because I would not want to talk to anyone while I'm trying to play the game. I also strongly suspect that if they DID add voice chat for all, people like me who do not want to use it will not only be at a large disadvantage due to our lack of coordination with our team, but that we will be the target of more hate than normal by surly teammates who feel us not listening to them is hurting their chances to win. I don't dislike it because I feel it's bad for the game or even the player base. I dislike it because I do not want to have a new "tool" added to the game that I do not want and will not use, but will likely be hated for opting out of. > > I would not have gotten into league in the first place if had voice chat from the get-go. Simple as that. And honestly... I'd rather they put resources towards developing things more useful than "look, you can voice chat with your premade now!". Big whoop... premades already did that. The only change now is that they can do it in-client. So as it stands currently, it's another little advantage given to premades... and if they give it to EVERYONE, it's going to be an advantage given to everyone BUT me... and one more thing I can catch shit over from my teammates. > > Can you see why I'm not really enthralled with the idea no matter HOW they do it? I can see why you have talked yourself into this box where you believe it's inherently a bad thing. You're making a lot of leaps and assumptions about what will happen if it gets implemented and how people will treat you, etc... I'm not saying that you're entirely wrong on any of those assumptions but you should probably question whether or not you're equating a select few extreme cases of asshole-like behavior as the norm. Even if you choose not to talk to your team-mates through voice in-game, you might get as much entertainment from listening to others ramble on about inane shit as you're under the impression that it'd just be negativity. You never know. There are a lot of looney tunes out there.
Vacus (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T04:54:34.445+0000) > > So you don't think that pinging is going to be adequate if voice gets put into the game? > > I've played a little bit of DoTA, for instance, and I didn't run into a lot of people saying "You're shit because you don't have a mic" or something along those lines. > > A bit anecdotal but that's the only type of evidence we have to rely on in these particular situations, it seems. > > I also didn't run into a great deal of toxicity being spammed over VOIP on there, either. That's not to say it doesn't happen, I'm sure, but I didn't find much of it. > > Most of the DoTA players on there didn't have mic's or didn't want to use their mic's to talk and the few of us that did, didn't seem bothered by it. > > People tend to only really be upset in League when they get blindsided by your lane roams *( as an example )* with no warning. I don't think it really matters to them whether you type it out, ping it, or say it into a microphone as long as they're aware of what's about to happen. Were they bothered by not being listened to, though? Imagine if I told my team 'hey pings bother me I'm muting them all, please communicate your mias through chat'. What do you think would happen?
> [{quoted}](name=Vacus,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00040000000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T05:18:35.359+0000) > > Were they bothered by not being listened to, though? > > Imagine if I told my team 'hey pings bother me I'm muting them all, please communicate your mias through chat'. What do you think would happen? From my own personal experience it's usually something like : Everyone loads into the game. Random player : "Hey anyone got a mic?" -Crickets chirp.- -Everyone plays the game like everyone's played League the past 7 years.- Everyone loads into the game. Random player : "Hey anyone got a mic?" Other random player : "Yeah, man, what's up?" Random player : "Smokin' a bowl, watchin' some Katy Perry deepfakes, you?" Other random player : "'Bout to put whip cream in my butthole. Let's get this free win." And people just bullshit the rest of the game and occasionally they'll communicate strats to each other when they're gonna' gank a lane for one another or team fighting rolls around. I am **certain** that there are people out there like you described but I don't think the small amount of those people existing should sway you from the benefits and enjoyment you can get from talking to other people in-game. It's a completely subjective argument at the end of the day and I just happen to be in favor of allowing people the access of easily communicating with others in the game. Assholes are going to be assholes, regardless of what medium they're offered. They'll rage over a microphone or they'll rage in the chat or they'll show their rage through in-game actions by INT'ing and trolling, etc... You can't get away from the notion that these people will inevitably pop up. But I don't think it warrants not allowing everyone else access to this medium because of a select few bad apples. Negative experiences are always going to linger in the back of your mind, moreso than positive ones, so people tend to exaggerate just how bad the community is *all the time,* because they mainly focus on the instances that pissed them off the most. Which, coincidentally, is why most people rage in the game in the first place. Human beings are just weird like that.
Vacus (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2018-03-28T04:35:17.239+0000) > > Do people sit in chat all day talking about how you aren't chatting with them in-game all day? No, because I use chat and pings. However, when I have teammates who don't use pings? Yes, they get flamed for it, regularly.
> [{quoted}](name=Vacus,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=000400000000,timestamp=2018-03-28T04:36:40.680+0000) > > No, because I use chat and pings. > > However, when I have teammates who don't use pings? Yes, they get flamed for it, regularly. So you don't think that pinging is going to be adequate if voice gets put into the game? I've played a little bit of DoTA, for instance, and I didn't run into a lot of people saying "You're shit because you don't have a mic" or something along those lines. A bit anecdotal but that's the only type of evidence we have to rely on in these particular situations, it seems. I also didn't run into a great deal of toxicity being spammed over VOIP on there, either. That's not to say it doesn't happen, I'm sure, but I didn't find much of it. Most of the DoTA players on there didn't have mic's or didn't want to use their mic's to talk and the few of us that did, didn't seem bothered by it. People tend to only really be upset in League when they get blindsided by your lane roams *( as an example )* with no warning. I don't think it really matters to them whether you type it out, ping it, or say it into a microphone as long as they're aware of what's about to happen.
Vacus (NA)
: There are zero circumstances under which I want to listen to random shits talking. I don't even care if they're not being toxic, I don't want to listen to it. But this being the League community, if it existed and I disabled it, my teammates would spend more time whining about how I disabled it than they would actually playing the game, and that would be bad.
> [{quoted}](name=Vacus,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2018-03-28T04:31:47.970+0000) > > There are zero circumstances under which I want to listen to random shits talking. > > I don't even care if they're not being toxic, I don't want to listen to it. > > But this being the League community, if it existed and I disabled it, my teammates would spend more time whining about how I disabled it than they would actually playing the game, and that would be bad. Do people sit in chat all day talking about how you aren't chatting with them in-game?
Chermorg (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0000000100000000,timestamp=2018-03-27T13:59:56.494+0000) > > So people can grow up. It doesn't need to be policed. > > That's what mutes are for. It really is that simple. I play League to enjoy League. I don't enjoy League when people are flaming me - be it in text, or voice. Virtually all of the playerbase (minus the very small percentage of toxic players) agrees with me there. Riot is not going to add a feature that they won't police that would cause most of the playerbase to experience more toxicity. As others say, your right to free speech does not have some magical overarching power over others rights to their liberties and the pursuit of happiness. Or in League, your desire to flame does not somehow trump the desire of everyone else to enjoy League without flame.
> [{quoted}](name=Chermorg,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-03-27T14:26:33.820+0000) > > I play League to enjoy League. I don't enjoy League when people are flaming me - be it in text, or voice. > > Virtually all of the playerbase (minus the very small percentage of toxic players) agrees with me there. Riot is not going to add a feature that they won't police that would cause most of the playerbase to experience more toxicity. > > As others say, your right to free speech does not have some magical overarching power over others rights to their liberties and the pursuit of happiness. Or in League, your desire to flame does not somehow trump the desire of everyone else to enjoy League without flame. You do not have a right to not be offended.
: Dawg, if they put in voice it's gonna be toxic as hell. If they let people disable it, then a shit load of solo players WILL, making it more or less the same as if they'd only put it in for groups in the first place. Now personally I feel the voice chat is pointless too... but I think they just shouldn't have bothered with it, not that they need to make it more inclusive. At least the slim chance of discord making them lag is one of the few advantages solo players MIGHT have over premades.
> [{quoted}](name=The Whamboozler,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-03-28T04:10:50.238+0000) > > Dawg, if they put in voice it's gonna be toxic as hell. If they let people disable it, then a shit load of solo players WILL, making it more or less the same as if they'd only put it in for groups in the first place. > > Now personally I feel the voice chat is pointless too... but I think they just shouldn't have bothered with it, not that they need to make it more inclusive. At least the slim chance of discord making them lag is one of the few advantages solo players MIGHT have over premades. This has been a long-standing dilemma when coming to mechanics and other things in video games. Do we ultimately restrict anything and everything that might have the side-effect of having people mis-use it, so that nobody can use anything? Or do we allow everyone to use that something and instead, put in-place, tools in which those occurrences can be, for the most part, mitigated by the players themselves? Personally, I'm for the latter. The worst parts of a community should not be given the power to dictate what can or can't be put into the game for others to enjoy. I think everyone needs to recognize that simply by queue'ing up into a game, you've already allotted a great deal of trust towards others to do what they're supposed to do. Sure, you get people who are assholes from time to time but for the MOST PART, everyone tries to play to win even if they're bad at the game. If everyone in every game wanted to do nothing but be toxic, you wouldn't win any of your games, because everyone would just be running around playing with their buttholes in random bushes or INT'ing or simply refusing to participate, etc... Since this is not the case, I don't agree that in-game VOIP would be used primarily for toxicity and I think having a mute button would allow players to circumvent the small amount of cases in which this happens.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2018-03-27T14:41:27.361+0000) > > Growing up means you're mature enough to understand that people have outbursts when they're emotionally charged and being able to compromise and work through those issues. > > Not to treat an entire populace like they're victims and orchestrate an entire socio-political movement to safeguard everyone on the planet against the potential risk of being exposed to bad manners. > > League's community has been toxic since its inception. > > It's remained toxic regardless of what you and people like you, including Riot, has pretended to achieve over the past 4 or 5 years of imposing on players for legitimately rational and human responses to bad situations. > > So spare me with quotes from ANYONE working at Riot in regards to ethics or player behavior because they don't know what they're talking about and they're pretending that their left-leaning pseudo science has merit. It doesn't, not philosophical, not psychologically, not objectively, not scientifically, and certainly not practically as demonstrated by this little experiment they've had running that has produced absolutely no positive results whatsoever. "It is your responsibility to mute anyone else who is being toxic, and not hold them accountable for being disruptive." - Your TLDR You might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean you're free from consequences especially when it comes to misusing it. Riot has deemed that players who abuse their chat privileges will have them revoked, and permanently banned if they do not straighten up. Is a gun at fault when it is used as a tool for cold-blooded murder? Because your logic suggests that it is the fault of the safety not being on when the gun is used for it. Chat, just like a gun, is a tool and just like any tool in existence it can be misused. If you think you have an undeniable right to use chat however you want, go ahead and test how long you can spam hate speech and "kys" in each game (without punishment) and tell us which games take the longest to punish you. Afterwards, go ahead and repeat the process with various local restaurants/retailers and see how long it is before you're arrested for disturbing the peace. I'm not denying that regular outbursts are normal. And for those who have the rare outbursts that go over the line take their punishment and reform. Those who are consistently toxic, though, will not reform under "muh free speech". They will never learn until they're given a smite of permaban. And even then, many of them still don't learn the lesson by repeating the process on a smurf account. Do you think constant outbursts of toxicity are normal? Because I sure as hell don't and I don't want those people in my games. Stop giving toxicity the blanket cover of "muh free speech".
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0000000100000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-03-27T15:31:47.109+0000) > > "It is your responsibility to mute anyone else who is being toxic, and not hold them accountable for being disruptive." - Your TLDR > > You might have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean you're free from consequences especially when it comes to misusing it. Riot has deemed that players who abuse their chat privileges will have them revoked, and permanently banned if they do not straighten up. > > Is a gun at fault when it is used as a tool for cold-blooded murder? Because your logic suggests that it is the fault of the safety not being on when the gun is used for it. Chat, just like a gun, is a tool and just like any tool in existence it can be misused. If you think you have an undeniable right to use chat however you want, go ahead and test how long you can spam hate speech and "kys" in each game (without punishment) and tell us which games take the longest to punish you. Afterwards, go ahead and repeat the process with various local restaurants/retailers and see how long it is before you're arrested for disturbing the peace. > > I'm not denying that regular outbursts are normal. And for those who have the rare outbursts that go over the line take their punishment and reform. Those who are consistently toxic, though, will not reform under "muh free speech". They will never learn until they're given a smite of permaban. And even then, many of them still don't learn the lesson by repeating the process on a smurf account. > > Do you think constant outbursts of toxicity are normal? Because I sure as hell don't and I don't want those people in my games. Stop giving toxicity the blanket cover of "muh free speech". This tired ol' argument. Riot's gotten it wrong and instead of admitting that they're wrong, they're just going to keep doing the same wrong thing until the end of time. Punishing people for *being toxic* hasn't done anything to combat toxicity. "You might have freedom of speech" 1 ) We don't have freedom of speech on here because this is a privately owned establishment where the rules are dictated to by its left-leaning overlord, Riot Games. 2 ) *IF* we had freedom of speech and someone exercised their freedom of speech and the immediate response to something that people don't like is to take away that person's freedom to speak, then no, they didn't have a freedom of speech to begin with. The entire point of having the freedom of speech is to safeguard opinions that might offend others, not to protect overtly popular opinions that everyone already agrees with. Comparing someone saying "Stop feeding you fucking asshole" in League chat to someone using a gun to murder people. This proves how **insane** the people on your side of the argument are. Your inability to distinguish between an inconvenience and a life-altering affair means you're the last person anyone should be listening to in a talk about ethics and morality and how to handle them. If someone says something you don't agree with in a video game chat, you have the option to talk back to them or mute them. Reporting them so that the establishment can literally ban out their accounts and cost them hundreds/thousands of dollars invested because you were irked for a few minutes of your day is not a *fair* punishment. This is the equivalent of someone flicking a booger at you and spending the rest of their life in prison. The punishment needs to fit the crime if you're going to punish them, at all. We have chat restrictions and it's, by definition, the appropriate response to people saying bad things in chat. It doesn't make sense why you'd exacerbate the problem and permanently ban those accounts instead of just chat restricting them. The offense is harmless, it's a slap on the wrist and you have tools in-place to stop them from constantly harassing you. YOU just think you're entitled to more than that. YOU think that these people need to be punished. YOU are vengeful. That's the point. You're no **better** a person than they are and you think you're justified because *they cast the first stone.* That's not how it works. If you're going to preach to others about how to behave like a human being and that they need to mature *( even though this is a VIDEO GAME and most of the people playing it are kids and teenagers, who coincidentally haven't physically and biologically matured )*, you have to lead by example. You don't get to undermine your own position where you try and preach about being compassionate towards others by literally dictating to people how they will behave *or else.* I would rather have people cussing in my games than to have more people like you in my communities. This empty slogan and ideology that you and people like you keep passing around has done nothing but ruin society and social interactions between people in and out of the game and it needs to stop. Nobody's allowed to talk if it's not to agree with the hive mind.
paisy (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-03-27T13:56:48.580+0000) > > If you're in a party and you're not already using a VOIP, this doesn't seem to be much use because you've intentionally avoided VOIP's. > > If your party or the people you generally play with are already using Discord and you refuse to use Discord and instead only use the in-game VOIP, you're just being an inconvenience to everyone else in Discord that's in the party because now they have to alternate the functions of both programs simultaneously just to serve your choices. > > It's faster start than Discord. Does your PC boot up into League of Legends? No? So who cares if it's a faster start or not? You're talking about a couple seconds of boot-up time on a VOIP program when you start your PC each day. Someone people's PC can't handle League and discord at the same time, or just makes it slower, so it makes sense that there's people who would want to use it but can't. That also isn't what I mean. Say I get invited to a group, they wanna talk so they send me a discord link. This is longer and I have to join a server that I didn't really want to join. If I get a lobby going, we could just hop in voice chat.
> [{quoted}](name=Vaermina,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2018-03-27T14:47:48.307+0000) > > Someone people's PC can't handle League and discord at the same time, or just makes it slower, so it makes sense that there's people who would want to use it but can't. > > That also isn't what I mean. Say I get invited to a group, they wanna talk so they send me a discord link. This is longer and I have to join a server that I didn't really want to join. If I get a lobby going, we could just hop in voice chat. What I'm saying is that if a group of people invite you to their party and send you a Discord link, they're PROBABLY not all gonna' ditch Discord just to accommodate you. So everyone else in the party becomes inconvenienced by the fact that you can't or won't use Discord and now they all have to tweak their in-game voice settings, possibly set up new push-to-talks for each VOIP program independently, etc... It seems like an enormous waste of time. We've had and still have, I presume, VOIP programs that are meant to impact as little as possible, the performance of your PC when running, already. I already said this but I think you missed it. That role's already been filled by countless other programs. What we **needed** was a way to quickly communicate with randoms who aren't already in our VOIP so they're not disassociated with strategies in voice or at a disadvantage against people who are in VOIP.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0000000100000000,timestamp=2018-03-27T13:59:56.494+0000) > > So people can grow up. It doesn't need to be policed. > > That's what mutes are for. It really is that simple. "A mute button is not an excuse for you to be toxic." - Riot Growing up means you're mature enough to not be a raging asshole over something you can't control (teammates playing badly, for example). Voice cannot be policed (as has been explained) and I sure as hell get enough of the raging children (of all ages) when I play CoD. The only reason COD is more tolerable is because I'm not stuck with those kids for more than 10 minutes and I can leave with minimal penalty. I don't get either of those with League.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00000001000000000001,timestamp=2018-03-27T14:27:29.354+0000) > > "A mute button is not an excuse for you to be toxic." - Riot > > Growing up means you're mature enough to not be a raging asshole over something you can't control (teammates playing badly, for example). Voice cannot be policed (as has been explained) and I sure as hell get enough of the raging children (of all ages) when I play CoD. The only reason COD is more tolerable is because I'm not stuck with those kids for more than 10 minutes and I can leave with minimal penalty. I don't get either of those with League. Growing up means you're mature enough to understand that people have outbursts when they're emotionally charged and being able to compromise and work through those issues. Not to treat an entire populace like they're victims and orchestrate an entire socio-political movement to safeguard everyone on the planet against the potential risk of being exposed to bad manners. League's community has been toxic since its inception. It's remained toxic regardless of what you and people like you, including Riot, has pretended to achieve over the past 4 or 5 years of imposing on players for legitimately rational and human responses to bad situations. So spare me with quotes from ANYONE working at Riot in regards to ethics or player behavior because they don't know what they're talking about and they're pretending that their left-leaning pseudo science has merit. It doesn't, not philosophically, not psychologically, not objectively, not scientifically, and certainly not practically as demonstrated by this little experiment they've had running that has produced absolutely no positive results whatsoever.
Kythers (NA)
: The Rise and Fall of a gaming company
You forgot to mention that all the rotten fruit merchants are companies like EA who have such deep pockets that they latch onto any and all potentially good fruit and immediately begin to rot them out and profit in doing so. The only victims are the gamers in this regard. The people who developed and babied the game into fruition probably got a handsome fee as well for their troubles. But there's no way you can be a game developer in 2018 and not know what EA does to titles then be surprised when your ship gets sunk by their ridiculously asinine monetization ideas. STILL, I already hear tons of people drooling over Anthem, eager to give them more money.
Kakwane (NA)
: The League Community isn't anymore toxic than any other game's community
I'd like to point out that League and other games' communities that are toxic, stayed that way throughout the course of the game's life. The fact that League's community is *so* toxic that it's been revered as one of the most toxic communities in any game, ever, should prove to you that this entire notion that you can police player behavior in a video game is absurd. It's probably the most asinine venture you could probably throw money at in 2018. You are not going to stop assholes from being assholes no matter what you do. Great job, though, Riot and the community. I appreciate you pretending that you've made a difference in this regard.
: > [{quoted}](name=Gotei 13 Aizen,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2018-03-27T13:42:33.528+0000) > > If they're not going to open it up for public games, they shouldn't have bothered to waste man-hours on it in the first place because it's the *only* reason to have implemented it. > > If you don't run Discord and League at the same time there are other VOIP programs that focus primarily on low performance and bandwidth impact. > > If you can't be mature enough to click a button to "battle toxicity," your opinion should not matter in the first place. Riot isn't going to hire the manpower required to police thousands of hours of audio for in-game VOIP. I'm not letting that backdoor window for toxic behavior to be opened up.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2018-03-27T13:57:00.768+0000) > > Riot isn't going to hire the manpower required to police thousands of hours of audio for in-game VOIP. > > I'm not letting that backdoor window for toxic behavior to be opened up. So people can grow up. It doesn't need to be policed. That's what mutes are for. It really is that simple.
paisy (NA)
: 1. Not everyone uses discord 2. It's faster start than discord
> [{quoted}](name=Vaermina,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-03-27T13:49:35.679+0000) > > 1. Not everyone uses discord > > 2. It's faster start than discord If you're in a party and you're not already using a VOIP, this doesn't seem to be much use because you've intentionally avoided VOIP's. If your party or the people you generally play with are already using Discord and you refuse to use Discord and instead only use the in-game VOIP, you're just being an inconvenience to everyone else in Discord that's in the party because now they have to alternate the functions of both programs simultaneously just to serve your choices. It's faster start than Discord. Does your PC boot up into League of Legends? No? So who cares if it's a faster start or not? You're talking about a couple seconds of boot-up time on a VOIP program when you start your PC each day.
Chermorg (NA)
: So... Riot should implement a feature like Overwatch that would increase toxicity, be virtually impossible to police, and in a game like League would be basically expected to participate in lest you be blamed for a loss due to "he wasn't in voice chat so I couldn't scream at him"? No thanks. ---- Many people can't run Discord at the same time as League - be it due to computer limitations or internet connection problems. In game voice chat limits the number of active connections that the computer is managing and thus may open it up to more people. Further, it's easier to just say "yo lemme talk to my friend" instead of having to switch to discord and set that up - unless you're playing a long time.
> [{quoted}](name=Chermorg,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Pu73EMd,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-03-27T13:24:27.575+0000) > > So... Riot should implement a feature like Overwatch that would increase toxicity, be virtually impossible to police, and in a game like League would be basically expected to participate in lest you be blamed for a loss due to "he wasn't in voice chat so I couldn't scream at him"? > > No thanks. > > ---- > Many people can't run Discord at the same time as League - be it due to computer limitations or internet connection problems. In game voice chat limits the number of active connections that the computer is managing and thus may open it up to more people. Further, it's easier to just say "yo lemme talk to my friend" instead of having to switch to discord and set that up - unless you're playing a long time. If they're not going to open it up for public games, they shouldn't have bothered to waste man-hours on it in the first place because it's the *only* reason to have implemented it. If you don't run Discord and League at the same time there are other VOIP programs that focus primarily on low performance and bandwidth impact. If you can't be mature enough to click a button to "battle toxicity," your opinion should not matter in the first place.
Show more

Gotei 13 Aizen

Level 8 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion