: If you don't want to participate in chat, now there are even MORE options to assist you in your conquest. You can mute individuals, you can mute all opponents, now you can mute all allies. You also have this ace up your sleeve - self-control. > regurgitate the same talking points ad nauseum And you and many others like you keep regurgitating the same talking point in your OPs, expecting different results. "Why don't they do permanent chat bans." Because they tried that, and it backfired. And (surprise surprise) they want to **foster** communication, not hinder it, because it's a team game. Look, I know it's frustrating when you put out ideas and they don't get traction, but these aren't new ideas. They're all variations of "i got punished because people were flaming me, and why not just shut off my chat instead." You're going to get a few people that agree with you, but not many.
The feature to mute your team is new. Signaling a new found acceptance that some people not only find chat to be unnecessary but also detrimental to their experience. In no way does this foster communication; it gives people the option to not communicate at all, ever. They are also attempting to convince players to come back to the game. I am saying this could get some people to come back to the game which is apparently something they want. It would also be at no detriment to the current players as they would not even be able to tell the difference between an unbanned account and a normal one that just perma mutes chat. Because of these new circumstances the argument is stronger than ever and has newfound ground based on what Riot themselves is doing and publicly stating. I am not saying they are new ideas, they are ideas that should be reconsidered in light of new circumstances. This is the title of the post fyi. If you and everybody else in this board want to keep agreeing with each other and retyping the same arguments over and over again at least update them to be congruent with what is apparently currently happening in the game. This new feature is not fostering communication in any way and every argument around that mantra is now null.
: The "mute ally chat" feature is a toggle. I can be turned on and off at will, and those who reach permaban level are unfortunately the type of people who will toggle it on and off and on and off just to flame their team. Mute features, no matter what form they take, are not a bandaid to the problem. As people here have tried to explain to OPs on several different threads today, this is a team game. If you can't use the features to communicate properly with your team, then perhaps playing a game of this nature is not in your best interest.
"I would not mind at all if chat "privileges" were completely stripped from my account as they were always a detriment to the game for me personally" - One of the 9 sentences in the post. They are admitting that some people would rather not have chat at all. What if some people don't want to participate in chat and some people cant participate in chat. There would be no way to tell the difference. Good to see that people in these boards still don't fully read posts before commenting/downvoting and still regurgitate the same talking points ad nauseum in an attempt to shut down any and all discussion.
Rioter Comments
: I expanded upon Sleepy's view with specific examples. And you have no idea what strawmanning is so I suggest you check the link I posted in my last reply. He said they were parroting same comments over and over again. That is merely dismissing their views, not presenting a fictitious version of another person's argument then proving that weaker version wrong, which is what you have tried to do in every single comment where you have replied to me while the real argument is out there for all (including yourself) to see. For the fifth time, if I was dismissing your stupid arguments I would have just left it there at the very real possibility you are a shill. I am literally proving them wrong over and over again with articles and quotes while you over and over again purposely misinterpret my replies. And no I don't forgive you for accusing me of dismissing all opposing opinions because your real intent is in every one of your responses. You have tried to make it seem like I am here to rage at the board and Riot. You know it, I know it. That's why all your responses have some sort of veiled accusation that I am mad. Just like this one. Maybe for ignorant people like you "U mad bro?" is a good retort, but to me it just makes it obvious that you are stumped and have to resort to that type of comeback. One of the reasons you are so terrible at arguing is because you constantly use the wrong words and try to pass them off as the correct word. Insisting is not even close to implying. Google is right there, you can verify this yourself. Every time I prove you wrong you just drop that argument thread and go to another one where you can try to turn the tides in your favor. So far the only thing you have been right about is that last paragraph, there really is no need to assert superiority when it is beyond obvious. One person uses factual definitions and articles and quotes. The other uses veiled insults, purposeful misinterpretation of the other person's arguments, and misuse of vocabulary. I wonder who came here with actual intentions of starting a conversation and who came here to promote some hidden agenda.
I read the first sentence of what you typed and thought of exactly the sentence where you said so: "You defended someone (Sleepy) who was strawmanning everyone who opposed your point of view." That was you. You said that less than 6 hours ago. Every single response, you contradict yourself. Every single response, you purposely misinterpret my arguments. I'm not gonna read anything else you type beyond that because you have proven over and over and over again that you are just bullshitting and stream of consciousness style making it up as you go along with no regard to facts and what has actually been said or not said. With even less regard to what is factual and what is fantasy. You are not worthy of being taken seriously or even attempting to understand because you probably don't even understand yourself. I have no recourse but to conclude that you are a bad person. A bad person who attacks others while he shames them for attacking back. You are also an ignorant person. A person who contradicts himself at the drop of a hat in a desperate attempt at being "right". A person who does not think about what he says. A person who does not attempt to understand other people in the slightest before responding to them. Most importantly you are a person worthy of pity. A person who has a lot of free time and who chooses to use that time to vilify others and spew vitriol at them for merely attempting to be honest about the state of this board. Feel free to misinterpret all of this regardless of the specific wording I have consistently used to attempt to help you understand me and to respond with another circular argument that I have already disproved.
: They don't speak for the majority of the boards, nor even the majority of people who would disagree with your post. You'd be wrong to think we all hold those specific beliefs. It's possible to disagree with you without saying stupid things like those.
I attacked that specific type of behavior and stated exactly why it is "stupid". Also, they are not a minority, they are in almost every thread. 5 months ago I made another thread asking for more transparency in Riot's punishment system and different people flooded that post with the same arguments about how the "only reason I am unhappy with the system is because I am toxic" and how the solution to all problems with the system is to "just not be toxic". The reason I chose to simply discredit them this time is because all those people did was to turn the conversation into how I'm toxic and they are not. I wanted to talk about the actual topic of the post. In hindsight I should have just realized that this is no place to come for a real conversation. Which is what I said when I agreed with Sleepy before you started attacking him and me for simply acknowledging a very real pattern in these boards. Here is the reply: "You are all too correct. Its sad to me that there is actually no place to attempt to discuss these things. If you post in this board then you have seen what happens. If you post anything like this in r/LeagueofLegends then it just gets buried. I wish Riot would take an approach to their game more similar to how Epic treats Fortnite. They actually have good mediums to express your opinions about the game and they even take them into consideration if they are well formulated and have good ideas." I was slightly wrong though, some people will make the conversation about how the OP is toxic. Others like yourself will try to vilify the OP in other manners. I still think that it has something to do with how most people in this board see themselves as the League non-toxic elite. They think that everybody who has gotten punished and has some gripe about it is just a toxic fuck that deserves to be expelled from the game so that it turns into a haven of non toxicity. I thought presenting an example of an exemplary League player and how he got punished and the excessive lengths he had to go through to get back to "honorable status" might make you guys see things differently. I was dead wrong in this aspect. Same thing that happens in every thread in this board happened again and will continue happening. There is simply no place where one can discuss these topics without it devolving into a poop throwing fight. I like League better than Fortnite, but I hope Fortnite keeps rising because as a company they clearly deserve it more than Riot.
: You said "toodles" what are you still doing? Was it just a desperate grab to get the last word in? Getting the last word isn't the same as "winning." And the point of a discussion shouldn't be to win in the first place. I'm still confused as to why you picked a fight with me in the first place. lol You defended someone (Sleepy) who was strawmanning everyone who opposed your point of view. Then you used their own ad hominem rhetoric. You'll have to forgive me for thinking that you were accusing all opposing points of view of being invalid. As for calling me a shill, insisted, implied - whatever dude, the intent was there. You know it, I know it. You'd rather make accusations and ad hominems than put effort into a discussion. I get it, some days we're just on edge. That's okay. Just breathe, and ignore me. Are you ready to say toodle's for real? Or are you going to keep trying to assert superiority when it's unnecessary to do so?
I expanded upon Sleepy's view with specific examples. And you have no idea what strawmanning is so I suggest you check the link I posted in my last reply. He said they were parroting same comments over and over again. That is merely dismissing their views, not presenting a fictitious version of another person's argument then proving that weaker version wrong, which is what you have tried to do in every single comment where you have replied to me while the real argument is out there for all (including yourself) to see. For the fifth time, if I was dismissing your stupid arguments I would have just left it there at the very real possibility you are a shill. I am literally proving them wrong over and over again with articles and quotes while you over and over again purposely misinterpret my replies. And no I don't forgive you for accusing me of dismissing all opposing opinions because your real intent is in every one of your responses. You have tried to make it seem like I am here to rage at the board and Riot. You know it, I know it. That's why all your responses have some sort of veiled accusation that I am mad. Just like this one. Maybe for ignorant people like you "U mad bro?" is a good retort, but to me it just makes it obvious that you are stumped and have to resort to that type of comeback. One of the reasons you are so terrible at arguing is because you constantly use the wrong words and try to pass them off as the correct word. Insisting is not even close to implying. Google is right there, you can verify this yourself. Every time I prove you wrong you just drop that argument thread and go to another one where you can try to turn the tides in your favor. So far the only thing you have been right about is that last paragraph, there really is no need to assert superiority when it is beyond obvious. One person uses factual definitions and articles and quotes. The other uses veiled insults, purposeful misinterpretation of the other person's arguments, and misuse of vocabulary. I wonder who came here with actual intentions of starting a conversation and who came here to promote some hidden agenda.
: > [{quoted}](name=Hoenheim777,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Eo1o2Wd4,comment-id=000700000000,timestamp=2018-08-13T18:18:43.297+0000) > > If their conclusion is: "Well I have never gotten punished, if you did, it must mean you are a terrible person." or "just don't be toxic bro" then yes, they are parroting the same talking points over and over again. I also find it hard to believe that people like you and Kei143 are actual players and not people paid to roam these boards and turn the tides of the discussion towards the same talking points over and over again. Oh I see what went wrong here, I didn't simply dismiss it when you used strawman (when you present a caricature of others' opinions that was convenient to knock down) and ad hominem (implying people were shills instead of expressing their own opinions). If you want to be persuasive about an issue, don't associate with or defend fallacious arguments like Sleepy's here. Doing so only drags your own claims through the mud. There was no need for you to step into the discussion between Sleepy and I. You and I even had a rational discussion in a separate comment chain, so why did you pick this fight with me? The only reason I can think of is that you wanted to defend the person who supported your point of view, but that doesn't track because you said later on in our argument that you aren't with/for them! So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Except that's almost exactly what they said: "Hot tip: Don't get chat restricted." same thing as "just don't be toxic". "I'm easily a douchebag and I've never gone under lvl 2." almost same thing as: "Well I have never gotten punished, if you did, it must mean you are a terrible person."
: You insisted I was a shill just for calling someone (Sleepy) out for trying to stifle valid conversation when he preemptively bashed all opposing viewpoints. I didn't say you were a team, just that your comment to them was very buddy-buddy. Remember, we're not talking about the same thing when we say in-group favoritism. They supported your claim and derided opposing viewpoints, and when someone called them on it you rushed to their defense. Again, you're not a team, but you're certainly going out of your way to defend them.... Actually you accused all opposition of being invalid. And you defended someone who was preemptively bashing all opposing viewpoints.
What's funny about you strawmanning all my arguments is that the real version is right there for all to see. For the following argument, I will counter everything you just said with something I already said. I will present my actual argument instead of your fictitious straw-man argument. (Here is the link since you probably don't know what that means) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man As for discrediting all opposition regardless of what they say here is me saying exactly what opposition deserves to be discredited: "If their conclusion is: "Well I have never gotten punished, if you did, it must mean you are a terrible person." or "just don't be toxic bro" then yes, they are parroting the same talking points over and over again" Like i stated before, and will again for the fourth time I was agreeing that certain types of arguments (the ones that I specifically point out and not all opposing arguments) are not valid points in a thread like this. Here is why: "Reducing an attempted discussion of the honor system to "lol dont get chat restricted" is not productive to the thread or the board. If you don't want to hear people talk about the behavioral system then don't come to a board titled "Player Behavior". If your contribution boils down to: "dont be toxic" then you are trying to shut down conversation in a board that exists to have a conversation about these topics." Dodging is what you are doing strawmanning all of my arguments and trying to make it seem like I just ignore all opposing views when I answered to almost all of them with exactly the reason I think their view has no merit. The proof is in the entire thread and even in this response. Never insisted you were a shill and always just pointed to the possibility of it being true because of certain observed patterns. Again. "Well you both spend a lot of time in this board specifically, you both barely play, and you both have the same icon, and you both constantly post exactly what Riot would like their community to believe." And again, like I said before, I am using the correct and factual definition of a term (in-group favoritism) and you are using a made up version of that term that better suits your argument. Its really easy to prove you wrong when you do that so you should avoid doing that the next time you attempt to challenge somebody's clearly superior argument. Here is the definition since apparently me writing it out for you is not enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism
: > [{quoted}](name=Hoenheim777,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Eo1o2Wd4,comment-id=0007000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-13T19:33:20.284+0000) > > <Removed by Moderation> Classy. Also uncalled for. > Also, I&#x27;m not using a &quot;different&quot; definition of in group favoritism, I&#x27;m using the definition Wikipedia gives which is a neutral and factual definition (the one I literally quoted in the response). You are using a definition you made up and believe to be &quot;morally equivalent&quot; to the real one. My point was it's just as bad as in-group favoritism. You're in no position to be acting superior to everybody else. "Everyone who disagrees with me is a shill," AKA "opposing viewpoints aren't even legitimate because the only people who disagree with me are shills or lowly creatures beneath me." - basically the point of view that you and Sleepy seem to be using here. It squashes any legitimate discussion by treating the opposing points of view with absolute disrespect.
I sad you and Kei143 might be shills because of similar patterns you are displaying and I stated those patterns. I didn't just say this guy is a shill because he disagrees with me. Also, didn't dismiss your views because here I am still arguing with you and specifically responding to the things that you are writing. I am discrediting them, for reasons I am stating and not for just disagreeing with me. This is what one does when one argues with another; attempt to bolster your view point and discredit the other's. Sleepy doesn't give a shit about this thread and is not saying anything at all, so your attempt to portray us as a team or as a group is ill advised. I am a single person disagreeing with some views and agreeing with others. I did discredit some opinions which again, I specifically addressed. I did not just say: "everybody who disagrees is a parrot or a shill". I even said why those specific types of comments are useless: "Reducing an attempted discussion of the honor system to "lol dont get chat restricted" is not productive to the thread or the board. If you don't want to hear people talk about the behavioral system then don't come to a board titled "Player Behavior". If your contribution boils down to: "dont be toxic" then you are trying to shut down conversation in a board that exists to have a conversation about these topics." Finally just because you are sarcastically insulting me doesn't mean you aren't insulting me so insulting you back was indeed "called for". Keep it "classy" bud, toodles.
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Hoenheim777,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Eo1o2Wd4,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-13T17:19:04.677+0000) > > You are directly contradicting what Riot has already said regarding the honor system. They say that the more you get honored the faster you will climb honor levels. They don&#x27;t say that regardless of what you do you will take a long time to climb back up. > > &quot;You level up just by playing to win in your games. Show up, don’t intentionally work against team, and you’ll progress in the coming weeks and months. If your teammates honor you a lot, you’ll get a slight bonus in progression and rewards like loading screen flairs.&quot; > > Somebody is lying here if apparently part of getting punished means that you are condemned to a long time of being honor level 0 or 1. What&#x27;s the point of being honorable then? If you are playing a lot, and you have a positive attitude most if not every game then you should climb faster than a dude that plays 1-2 games a day. Evidently people like you are starting to believe that its supposed to be like that; that you are supposed to be fucked for 4 months if you get a 10 game chat restriction. They stated that this is not the case at the beginning of the season yet here we are seeing quite the opposite happen. I am not contradicting anything Riot has said. It's right there in what you quoted: "...You'll progress in the in the coming **_WEEKS and MONTHS_**." "If your teammates honor you a lot, you'll get a **_SLIGHT_** bonus in progression..." Imaqtpie has risen 2 honor levels within the timeframe of **_WEEKS and MONTHS_** as defined by the text you quoted. As for the point of being honorable, well, the point is that being honorable makes the experience better for yourselves and your teammates. More than likely though, you're asking, what's in it for you. 1. You're less likely to receive penalties like chat restrictions and bans if you're actively trying to be honorable. 2. You receive rewards for being honorable, which is pretty much why you're bent out of shape about it taking so long to get out of the dog house. A lot of people here have already posted, the solution to your issue is to be honorable in the first place, to not get penalized in the first place, and you've continuously responded back that those people are just repeating what Riot has stated, that they're "parrots", and other dismissive comments. So let me ask you this: What do you think the purpose of the punishment is? Why do you feel the punishment would be more effective in achieving this purpose if the punishment period were shorter?
You are contradicting it because Riot said its an indefinite amount of time that will be determined from your behavior following the punishment. You said: "As was already mentioned in this thread, it's not about number of hours played, it's about showing a consistently acceptable attitude. That means whether he's playing 1-2 games a day or 10 hours a day for 4 months, he'll regain honor at about the same rate." QT is consistently showing good attitude 10 hours a day and you think that he deserves to be in a reduced honor for the same amount of time as a person who just plays 2 games a day. Which is again, a contradiction to Riots statement. As for the other stupid shit you said while implying that I only care about myself. I'm saying that the honor system should give incentive for good behavior (which is what I think it was created for). If you think that altruistic inclinations are the only thing you need to be nice then why is it even there to begin with? As for the punishment; I'm arguing that if you are literally doing what Riot says you should do, which is showing good attitude in many games, then yes your punishment should be shorter. Your argument that you keep insisting on that the difficulty of regaining honor is part of the punishment does contradict Riot's statement. They are saying that if its difficult its because you aren't being positive in your games. They are not saying that difficulty in regaining honor is part of the punishment like you keep insisting. Finally, instead of implying you are a bad person which is what "non toxic" players like you deem to be acceptable behavior. I will explicitly say that I think you are a terrible person and that I won't be replying to your accusatory and vaguely insulting responses.
: ~~This person did it in under a week:~~ [_Edit: This person unlocked their honor and began climbing in less than a week:_] https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/2dLK3IWP-i-got-out-of-honor-0-in-5-days You exaggerated how long it takes with the Imaqtpie example. I will reiterate: **The amount of time it takes depends on how you behave while climbing it again.** if you behave well and do not do anything that gets validly reported then you will climb much more quickly. Imaqtpie is no saint, he says crap in-game often enough. Same deal for you or me, we can say whatever after honor gets bumped down - but just because it doesn't get an escalated punishment doesn't mean it wasn't noticed or counted on our record.
Thanks for replying with proof. At least now I know that its even possible to do so in a month and not 5 days. 5 days was what it took him to get to like the first checkpoint out of 6 to being level 2 again. At least that's what I understand from that poorly worded post.
: Pot. Kettle. Black. You can't just go around claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is a parrot. We're all players here. We all have experiences with the game. To claim that others' experience is invalid simply because their conclusions they've drawn from that experience are different from your own is a very shitty thing to do.
If their conclusion is: "Well I have never gotten punished, if you did, it must mean you are a terrible person." or "just don't be toxic bro" then yes, they are parroting the same talking points over and over again. I also find it hard to believe that people like you and Kei143 are actual players and not people paid to roam these boards and turn the tides of the discussion towards the same talking points over and over again.
: The amount of time it takes depends on how you behave while climbing it again. If you get validly reported in the middle of the process then it resets your progress to zero again. It should be more transparent about it, but the fact of the matter is that some people have climbed back to honor two in far less time and without playing as much per day as Imaqtpie does.
"Facts" are not claims you throw out there with no proof whatsoever. If that is truly the "fact of the matter" then why do so many people post about how getting honor back is too difficult? Show me some posts of people saying the opposite or how they climbed back in "far less time" and I might be more inclined to believe you.
: Not once in my sentence did I say I didn't like posts that complain, I'm just replying to the comment saying that you aren't complaining and then in this reply you say are are lol wut
The use of quotation marks is there to indicate that it is you who thinks I am "basically complaining". Also, as long as we are here I will throw an actual complaint out there. You are annoying and your "contributions" are annoying.
: OP its not really worth talking to these people IMO. They've exported their ability to think and just parrot talking points
You are all too correct. Its sad to me that there is actually no place to attempt to discuss these things. If you post in this board then you have seen what happens. If you post anything like this in r/LeagueofLegends then it just gets buried. I wish Riot would take an approach to their game more similar to how Epic treats Fortnite. They actually have good mediums to express your opinions about the game and they even take them into consideration if they are well formulated and have good ideas.
: The part I don't like is the "mystery". There is no progress indicator. I assume I'm doing fine until I get punished. It's shitty because Riot will collect games as evidence against you without telling you. Then when they want to punish you, they throw all these secretly collected games as "proof". Like, telling me I fucked up 2 years ago and issuing a punishment is bull shit. (Exaggeration on the 2 year part)
I have already complained about Riot's lack of transparency regarding punishments in this board. Essentially they will all tell you that "don't be a dick" is enough for you to know if you are doing well or not behavior wise. The pattern I'm seeing is that they see that they all think the system is there to cleanse "toxic" players from the player base not to help them reform or to help them understand what it is about their behavior that should be amended.
: How did he end to Level 1 if he is such a great person to begin with? I'm easily a douchebag and I've never gone under lvl 2.
This mentality that people who get punished are clearly bad people that deserve everything that comes to them is at the heart of why this board is so bad. You guys want to split the community into toxic and not toxic when it is clearly, just like everything else in life, not black and white. The fact that you specifically have not had a problem with the system does not mean that everybody who does is a piece of shit. Watch qt stream once and you will see that his attitude is better than 80 percent of the player-base yet he got punished once. Does that mean hes a terrible toxic person? When we clearly see that its not true in a stream open to all for like 10 hours a day? Newsflash, people make mistakes in life and making a single or even a couple of mistakes does not mean you should be labeled "toxic" and that everything you say is null. In-group favoritism leads to dehumanization of those you consider to be not part of your group. Which is why you are all so ready to say that whoever complains about anything in this board is "toxic" and that the system is working properly if they got punished. You see the system as something there to protect you and cleanse the community of the toxic villains trying to ruin League. How about you consider that some people who post here actually like the game and want to see it get better for everybody and not just the "non-toxic" elite like you. This shit should be stickied to the board, it could prevent like 60 percent of the useless comments people post in every thread.
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Hoenheim777,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Eo1o2Wd4,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2018-08-13T16:41:30.449+0000) > > Like i said in the post, he plays a lot and has a great attitude and that&#x27;s how long it took him. Nobody is talking about how it should have taken him less because he is a famous streamer. As was already mentioned in this thread, it's not about number of hours played, it's about showing a consistently acceptable attitude. That means whether he's playing 1-2 games a day or 10 hours a day for 4 months, he'll regain honor at about the same rate. To facilitate discussion, I've got a simple question: One could argue that the reward for having 5 honor at the end of the season should be spectacular, and regaining honor should take at least half a season to more heavily incentive good behavior. Why do you believe regaining honor should be easier, not harder?
You are directly contradicting what Riot has already said regarding the honor system. They say that the more you get honored the faster you will climb honor levels. They don't say that regardless of what you do you will take a long time to climb back up. "You level up just by playing to win in your games. Show up, don’t intentionally work against team, and you’ll progress in the coming weeks and months. If your teammates honor you a lot, you’ll get a slight bonus in progression and rewards like loading screen flairs." Somebody is lying here if apparently part of getting punished means that you are condemned to a long time of being honor level 0 or 1. What's the point of being honorable then? If you are playing a lot, and you have a positive attitude most if not every game then you should climb faster than a dude that plays 1-2 games a day. Evidently people like you are starting to believe that its supposed to be like that; that you are supposed to be fucked for 4 months if you get a 10 game chat restriction. They stated that this is not the case at the beginning of the season yet here we are seeing quite the opposite happen.
: I can understand why you think playing 10 hrs a day should make him climb faster, but like I said before what if someone can't play as much as him. Is the person grinding all day theoretically reforming faster than another player over the same course of time? Sure it serves as a purpose to show "well I played x amount of games without flaming so I deserve to go up honor," but I think it makes more sense to be more like "x time has passed since my last punishment and I have shown signs of being reformed so I deserve to go up honor," works a lot better for all types of players better.
At least you tried to discuss the topic at hand, and for that I thank you. I'm done with this thread though.
: Climbing honor isn't exclusive to 0 and 1, same difficulty for everyone after it is unlocked. And doubles as proof that famous players get the same punishments as regular players.
Like i said in the post, he plays a lot and has a great attitude and that's how long it took him. Nobody is talking about how it should have taken him less because he is a famous streamer.
: You are basically complaining about getting punished when your honor being reduced and being forced to climb back up IS A PUNISHEMENT
People like you are the reason this community can be so irksome. Anything that anybody says that isn't: "Gosh Riot is so awesome!" is: "basically complaining". Once more, I'm talking about the honor system in a board meant to be used for that. If you don't like posts that are "basically complaining" about the punishment system then go to another board.
: And I just reached honor level 5 last week after started out from level 3 at the beginning of the season. Riot stated themselves that consistency over a long period of time works better than just playing nonstop and expecting to be honor reformed after x amount of hours. Just because he plays the game 10 hrs a day doesn't mean he should receive a penalty any worse than a player who can only play a couple matches a week.
Like i said in the post, qt has a great attitude and this is evident to anybody who watches him. Its the fact that he has a good attitude AND plays like 10 hours a day that makes this (in my opinion) proof that climbing honor is too hard.
: I did read your post. You're upset that that consequence of your punishment is inconveniencing you, because it's going to take you or whoever is chat restricted, an excessively long time to recover their honor. To prevent the consequence, you must eliminate the cause. You will never have to spend months at a time recovering your honor if you're never punished to begin with.
Same thing I said to another person: Reducing an attempted discussion of the honor system to "lol dont get chat restricted" is not productive to the thread or the board. If you don't want to hear people talk about the behavioral system then don't come to a board titled "Player Behavior". If your contribution boils down to: "dont be toxic" then you are trying to shut down conversation in a board that exists to have a conversation about these topics. "hot tip" if you don't want to read about people talking about the behavioral system then go to another board.
Jo0o (NA)
: He’s not wrong. Chat restrictions don’t just “happen”. Honor levels are meant to be difficult to gain. The solution is to make sure not to lose them.
Reducing an attempted discussion of the honor system to "lol dont get chat restricted" is not productive to the thread or the board. If you don't want to hear people talk about the behavioral system then don't come to a board titled "Player Behavior". If your contribution boils down to: "dont be toxic" then you are trying to shut down conversation in a board that exists to have a conversation about these topics.
: Well, it's the easiest thing in the world. Just don't type inflammatory things that can be reportable. It's the simplest of concepts and will prevent you from having to recover your honor in a several-month-long ordeal. Complaining that you've been punished for bad behavior in a way you don't like is pointless, because that just indicates that the punishment is working as intended. If you truly do not want to be punished, don't do things that get you punished.
Nobody is complaining about getting punished, and its not the easiest thing in the world to have a positive attitude 100% percent of the time. It is definitely harder than reading the full post before commenting and you cant manage to do that.
: ***
Great meme guy. If every player in my games had the same attitude towards the game as Imaqtpie I would definitely enjoy the game way more. He definitely has a better attitude than like 70-80 percent of the playerbase.
: Hot tip: Don't get chat restricted. This will make sure you never lose honor.
I wonder if people like you truly believe that they are making meaningful contributions to a discussion when you post comments like these.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: > [{quoted}](name=Lux OP,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=5hGQr51J,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-04-09T20:49:21.512+0000) > > If people aren&#x27;t allowed to respond to flamers without themselves getting banned, then the question has to be asked &quot;What is the purpose of the chat function in the first place?&quot;. Does it contribute to the game at all? Not usually. > > It should be removed, or at least disabled by default and unmoderated The point is to respond to flamers in a way that deescalates the situation so you talk about ways to fix the problem instead of making it a problem.
That never happens, the only way flamers ever calm down is if your team somehow gains some momentum and they are reminded that they can still win if they try instead of give up and flame.
: Why play JG if you are not going to pressure and gank lanes?
If you are playing Shyvanna for example, you gain your lead mainly through out pathing and out farming the enemy jungler. There are many different jungle play-styles and people like you are the reason jungle is so annoying to play in low elo.
: According the the automated system the only non-valid reports is when you quite literally don't type anything at all. Few games ago I had GP as my ADC and I stated that I think its a bad pick considering the meta where ADC is by far the most important position. We won the game, GP did well, I had 200 ping all game long and had like a 2 10 9 score and he said I was "toxic af" and reported me... I got chat ban 5 days ago and it just expired so I guess I should permamute everyone so the games like the GP one don't slow down my progress, just idk how I will get honors that way. Its so fucking contradicted its not even real... I miss earlier seasons where bans didn't affect anything but your chat or ability to go ranked. Now I am paranoid of false reports and have to pretend to be nice to even the biggest of morons and assholes just so I can get 1 fucking key fragment, its so frustrating and unfun...
> [{quoted}](name=DoktorKaiser,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=LetYEGF0,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-03-22T09:20:49.623+0000) > > According the the automated system the only non-valid reports is when you quite literally don&#x27;t type anything at all. Few games ago I had GP as my ADC and I stated that I think its a bad pick considering the meta where ADC is by far the most important position. We won the game, GP did well, I had 200 ping all game long and had like a 2 10 9 score and he said I was &quot;toxic af&quot; and reported me... I got chat ban 5 days ago and it just expired so I guess I should permamute everyone so the games like the GP one don&#x27;t slow down my progress, just idk how I will get honors that way. Its so fucking contradicted its not even real... I miss earlier seasons where bans didn&#x27;t affect anything but your chat or ability to go ranked. Now I am paranoid of false reports and have to pretend to be nice to even the biggest of morons and assholes just so I can get 1 fucking key fragment, its so frustrating and unfun... Yeah what Riot is saying is that you shouldn't use chat for anything that isn't explicitly positive. You cant disagree with anybody or justify your reasoning in chat if you don't want to be validly reported. Basically just be a robot that only outputs positivity in your games. You literally can't even be rude to people regardless of how they are treating you without facing possible punishment from the system.
KagenoOu (NA)
: no i mean, if he was trying to go around the system and get people to be angry about getting the guy in particular banned, he would have put his name out (so people would demand the guy get banned) instead hes clearly trying to get people angry on his own behalf to get himself unbanned (the focus on the guy is only for the purpose of justifying his own actions) also giving his summoner name would let people look at his match history and help justify his position (i still wouldnt agree with him of course) which is something i would do if i was him edit: im not saying its a good idea to go around the system, im saying that IF you DID decide to go around the system (which he seems to be trying to do) then that WOULD be what you would do/should do
It's honestly irrelevant. He can't start a witch hunt in these boards not only because its against the rules, but because the mods would close the thread if it got any sort of traction.
KagenoOu (NA)
: if you really cared about getting the other guy banned you woulda told us his NAME lol not just that he played blitz xD
You can't do that in these boards. All he can do is report him with a support ticket.
: And so what should happen to that guy? I never said that I didn't deserve the punishment, but the person in question here purposely lowered our chances of winning as well, so... what? I'm supposed to just deal with that while he sees no repercussions? Do you think that's how this should work? I did what I did because I could see how he was taking advantage of the banning system. I wouldn't be so confident in my response until I found myself in the same situation.
Lol dude your only reason for making this post is because you are mad you got banned. The system is there to make the game better for everybody not just you. Its not a weapon to use against your enemies so you get your own sense of retribution. You admit you intentionally fed, you know that is wrong, and you got punished; thats how it is supposed to work. Also I have been playing for 5 years, more than 4000 normal matches played. I have encountered everything you could possibly have encountered in this game not once, but many times. It sucks when somebody ruins your game for sure and having to stay in games that are clearly over is literally one of my pet peeves. The solution is better detection of such behaviors maybe, who knows? It is definitely not, hey punish this guy who fucked me over!
: So you decided to fuck over your other 3 team mates because of the Blitz crank? And you inted? Congrats, you are a troll wishing ass cancer on yourself.
Rofl, I tried to be kinder to him and just tell him to delete his posts before he gets reported but I like your approach better. Yeah, inting is literally griefing, not tolerable in any gaming community. What truly seems childish is doing this and then bragging about it in the boards.
: Cmon
Dunno if you are trolling, but I recommend you make a single post or you might be flagged for spamming. Also, while people like to circlejerk about how they want all toxic people out of the game. Most will not join you in wishing cancer upon others as it is clearly against Riots rules and its generally a pretty bad thing to do. All in all, I suggest you delete both your posts.
: > [{quoted}](name=BUISSERETH,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pY3fn6z9,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-03-21T04:14:15.563+0000) > > But there allowed to type more hateful insults towards me and report me for it and get me punished? they're allowed to type whatever they please and get whatever punishment they deserve, just as you got the punishment you deserve
I swear I see the same argument on every thread in this board regarding this topic. Here is my answer to that. The system is basically a zero tolerance policy system with regards to everything except player history. It does not take into account individual culpability or the circumstances. "Zero-tolerance policies forbid persons in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history." Zero tolerance policies always lead to the same thing. Anybody who is actually affected by the policy and sees any type of consequence because of it will find it unfair. All those that are not affected by it will claim that it is indeed fair. It is this discrepancy that creates all the friction between the supposed toxic players and non toxic players in this board. This type of policy is not even proven to be effective, for example here is a study of its effect in schools with regards to bullying. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19086747 In short, just because his immediate response to people flaming him was to respond to them does not mean he is equally guilty from a moral standpoint. It just means he is equally guilty in the eyes of the zero-tolerance policy Riot has in place. Your moral high-ground is an illusion. I think that if you find toxicity offensive, as many others do, you can sympathize with a person who also found it offensive even if his immediate response to flame was to respond to the flamers.
Awf Meta (NA)
: You called some one an "idiot". No matter how much your team mates troll you. You are not allowed to insult them.
The IFS doesn't even look at specific words and phrases like calling somebody an idiot. He got banned because his entire chat log was deemed toxic, not for calling somebody an idiot. Coming into these boards to find the one example of explicit toxicity in somebody's chat log to justify the ban is not helping anybody.
Awf Meta (NA)
: In the case of "mild toxicity" Riot does not actually make the rules. IFS takes the feedback from PLAYER reports. If the players report "cup cake", then IFS will start punishing the use of "cup cake". Also note, there is no "false accusation" for mild toxicity. Players are allowed to report anything. Players do not have to justify their reports either. EDIT: players do not even have to identify the offensive chat. IFS will scan the entire chat. Thus, we have a highly abused system.
This is exactly the problem. Currently people can and will report you just because they didn't like you. If you attempt to have your punishment reviewed you will be met with the fact that the rules are so vague that almost anything you say can be interpreted as toxic. I just wrote to Riot support very recently regarding a punishment to my account and they said that if my chat was not positive and making the team atmosphere better then it can and will be reported (and punished apparently). Apparently they want us to be robots with no emotion that just spit out positivity in chat; no disagreements allowed. It is definitely a major problem but it all comes down to one fact. In Riot's terms of use there is a section stating that they can terminate your account at any moment and for any reason if they chose to do so. Riot intentionally keeps the rules vague so that they can punish anybody with impunity. Of course, it is their game and they can choose to do so, but that does not change the fact that it will always feel unfair when the people in charge choose to behave that way.
: The main issue with laying down a strict set of rules is that people *will* find ways to skirt the edges and claim "I'm following the rules." I've moderated probably a dozen various online communities now, and whenever one has strict rules it's a NIGHTMARE to deal with. Take "Nidalee is useless." If we have a strict set of guidelines on what qualifies as harassment, and this is acceptable, then suddenly every time my teammate playing Nidalee dies or fails to secure a kill I can type "Nidalee is useless" with impunity, which is definitely a form of trolling, insulting, and harassing. If, conversely, we say it's NEVER allowed then I can't say things like "Bruiser Nidalee is useless in sieges. We need to teamfight more, 'cause we don't have the big value spears we need to siege them properly." Same with, say, "Good play, dude." If I say it every time someone dies, that's pretty unnecessary, and a pretty dickish thing to do. Basically, people will always find ways around the rules if you lay out strict lines of where the rules are. This is why rules like "don't be a jerk" and "don't harass other players" are actually *helpful* for communities. >They aren't censored, so Riot should be fine with them for the most part, right? Nah. That filter exists so that players who dislike casual cursing don't have to see it, and for no other reason. It's supposed to be a filter to help with the 13+ age range and some player's disinclination to see curse words thrown about, NOT a filter to say "if it's off, abusive chat and insults are fine."
Many people cite this as the main problem with making the rules more specific. I have recently become active in these boards and have encountered a small amount people who have knowledge of the IFS and how it works . According to my interpretation of what they have written the IFS takes into account what people are reporting when making a judgement of whether a chat log is toxic or not. Thus, the system evolves to identify whatever methods players are using to skirt the system. If this is the case, then players skirting the rules is not a valid reason to keep them vague because if players are going around the rules to be toxic, the system would modify the rules to the point where they cannot do that.
: Chat restricted by toxic players?
Same thing just happened to me, people hard flaming me and reporting me after the game. I think the only explicitly negative thing I said was "you are bad", similar to your calling somebody an idiot. What i did do was use chat a lot, much like yourself. Apparently their justification is that if you are not using chat to be positive, you deserve your ban. Yes, I am going to be overtly kind to the people literally calling me human trash, makes a lot of sense. As of right now many people are getting banned simply for using chat a lot in games and not being some sort of machine that spits out positive chat. You don't even have to be actually negative in your chat to get banned at this point, apparently just not being positive is enough even if the other people on your team are actually flaming you.
Kei143 (NA)
: hmm.. I might be misunderstanding you, so here is a foreword warning that I may be trying to make a point that is totally irrelevant. The zero tolerance system in the current behavioral system reference to the simple chat filter check on whether you used hate speech / encouraged self harm. Those that used such words will get punished with a 14-day ban. Then again, Rioters have reduced or reverted punishments on those that have had a good behavioral history, esp for those that were ban baiting. I get the feeling that you are using zero-tolerance in a different context, as in "once the system says it is toxic, it will be toxic regardless of how you try to twist the arguement", which is kind of true, seeing that 99.8% of the punishments applied from the system are considered as "correct punishments". People can still msg player support and get them to manually review the punishment. Keep in mind that the community makes the rules and Riot's IFS is a learning machine that learns from community reports and we are the ones determining what is punishable. While I'm here firing blind shots as I'm slightly confused by your posts, we also need to take in account OP's behavioral history. The IFS would pardon a couple of games of a player blowing up, but if the player has shown the inability to control themselves consistently, then I'd certainly agree that they should be deemed as a repeat offender and thus should be punished.
I am referring to the main gripe that this thread brings up where the other players were so toxic and tilting that he himself engaged in toxic behavior when he responded to them. The end result being that he got banned for engaging in the not tolerated action which in this case was being toxic in chat. He got his punishment regardless of what the other players did to provoke him. The circumstances were that he was getting hard flamed. That fact was ignored when he was given the punishment for being toxic. It is like when a student is getting bullied and he fights back against the bully. They will both get detention because they both engaged in the non tolerated action which in that case was fighting. The student who fought back and his family will feel it was unfair, that he was just defending himself. The school will justify this by saying that the zero tolerance policy reduces fighting in general and that his specific case is an acceptable loss in the war against bullying or fighting in school. I am arguing that zero tolerance policies are not even proven to work. There are studies like the one i cited in my previous comment that indicate that they are not lowering the occurrence of the non tolerated action. Therefore, the people who are unfairly punished because of this policy aren't tolerable casualties in the mission to eliminate a certain behavior. They are merely people who were unfairly punished.
Kei143 (NA)
: your post is kind of a long paragraph and makes it hard to read. But to answer your title: > Does Behavior History and Context Need to Be Considered when Giving Players Punishments It already does. The system punishes people based on consistency x severity. If one is consistently not toxic, but fully blows up in 1 game, they will get punished. On the flip side, if they are consistently not toxic, and moderately blows up in 1 game, they are much less likely to get punished for that game compared to someone that has been consistently toxic, even if it is mild toxicity. In regards to context, the only context that matters is whether a chat was used to insult / harass someone. If there were two people that were arguing with each other, it won't matter if one person was more toxic than the other, bottom line is that they were both toxic and their will be individually reviewed (behavioral history matters here).
The system is basically a zero tolerance policy system with regards to everything except player history. It does not take into account individual culpability or the circumstances. "Zero-tolerance policies forbid persons in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history." Zero tolerance policies always lead to the same thing. Anybody who is actually affected by the policy and sees any type of consequence because of it will find it unfair. All those that are not affected by it will claim that it is indeed fair. It is this discrepancy that creates all the friction between the supposed toxic players and non toxic players in this board. This type of policy is not even proven to be effective, for example here is a study of its effect in schools with regards to bullying. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19086747 My experience is that any type of post in this board that criticizes this policy always ends in your points getting discredited via ad hominem. They will say the only reason you want the system to change is because you are toxic and that (according to them) makes your argument invalid. (lol didn't see you were the same person I said this to like an hour ago, regardless, it is still relevant to this thread so I will leave it up)
Kei143 (NA)
: Just because I can walk away from further harm doesn't mean I didn't take any harm in the first place. I certainly do agree with you there, but there really is no need for a player to stand their ground and put more fuel to the flame war. Walk away and the fire will blow itself out without any fuel. In regards to whether OP is less guilty than the other players, it really doesn't matter. You are treating this as if it's a court system where A's toxicity is compared against B's toxicity and they are judged and punished for 1 game. The system does not work that way, but instead it punishes players based on consistency x severity. To put it in simplier english this is how the system works: 1. Recieve a report 2. Review the game for toxicity 3. Assign a grade to the reported game, 0 = no toxicity and 100 = used hate speech. 4. Accumulate the grades with the grades from the player's behavioral history. If the reached a grade of 100, the player will be punished. Grades from the same game are not stacked together. OP's chat is mild, if this was all there is (meaning, the chat is not edited and there wasn't more toxicity in pre/post game chat), it means that his toxicity grade must be in the 90s, and this game was the one that pushed him over the punishment threshhold. Other people will be judged and punished based on where their toxicity grade is and their behavioral history.
I am aware of how the system works, I just think that i should be updated or changed. Zero tolerance policies always seem fair to those that are never involved in whatever is not tolerated. Anybody who actually has to see the consequence of such policies feels they are unfair. Also there is a lot of controversy as to whether it is even effective. Here is a study that says why it may not be effective: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19086747 Definition in case you don't know what it means. "Zero-tolerance policies forbid persons in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history." Yes, the system takes history into account. However, the circumstances and individual culpability is not taken into account.
Chermorg (NA)
: There is not a specific rule set that any human would be able to read. Your brain, for example, holds up to 40 **tera**bytes of data. Artificial Neural Networks don't tend to use 40 terabytes, but they do tend to have rulesets and programs that extend over multiple gigabytes of data. Per [this link](https://www.promokeychain.com/how-many-text-pages-can-1gb-memory-stick-hold-a-9.html), not including the fact you would have to know the programming langauge that the IFS stores its data in, you could be looking at a lot of data: >There are roughly 900,000 ACSII text pages per 1GB of memory. *(from that site)* It is simply not possible to publish the ruleset because nobody would actually read it. And even if they did, people would use the IFS' detection ruleset to avoid detection methods.
I think the Summoners Code is so vague that following it is definitely not plain and simple. It's like saying: "Be a good person". What being a good person entails is not the same to everybody. Riot's player base is definitely big enough to have people in it with different enough cultural backgrounds where they have different perceptions of what being a good person means.
Chermorg (NA)
: There is not a specific rule set that any human would be able to read. Your brain, for example, holds up to 40 **tera**bytes of data. Artificial Neural Networks don't tend to use 40 terabytes, but they do tend to have rulesets and programs that extend over multiple gigabytes of data. Per [this link](https://www.promokeychain.com/how-many-text-pages-can-1gb-memory-stick-hold-a-9.html), not including the fact you would have to know the programming langauge that the IFS stores its data in, you could be looking at a lot of data: >There are roughly 900,000 ACSII text pages per 1GB of memory. *(from that site)* It is simply not possible to publish the ruleset because nobody would actually read it. And even if they did, people would use the IFS' detection ruleset to avoid detection methods.
As per your description of the system, if people are somehow avoiding the system's detection methods it would update itself and start detecting them because people would report those behaviors. Besides, people already do that with the current system. Some people are just sarcastic every time somebody misplays and others ask if certain player is afk even though he is clearly in the game trying to win. Those are a few among may other behaviors I have seen first hand. As for the rule set being incredibly long, I would argue that if it is so long its unreadable then it is too strict and too sensitive in its detection methods. If my account is in danger of being permabanned I would take the time to read a list of what to avoid saying even if it was pretty damn long.
Chermorg (NA)
: No, the robots haven't been turned onto any "higher" mode or "more stringent" mode recently. The *only* change that has happened in the past few years is the addition of a few things that are absolutely zero tolerance - such as homophobic/racist slurs as well as telling others to kill or harm themselves or others. The IFS (Instant Feedback System) operates on a machine learning principle - most likely an artificial neural network or similar algorithm. Basically, to train the system, it was fed millions of chat logs that Tribunal voters deemed punishworthy - as well as many logs that were deemed *not* punishworthy - along with what each log was deemed. Basically the dataset for training had sets of two elements - the log itself, and the (expected) result - punish/not punish. The IFS then began to learn what was considered toxic and negative behavior. Computers are **very** powerful nowadays - they can recognize patterns in words, they can recognize sentence structure, they can recognize the difference between "fuck you" and "fuck me" and "wow fucking great play" and "wow fuck that play". The IFS is continually audited to ensure that only valid punishments are being issued, and it has a much less than 1% failure rate (i.e. failing to punish someone who deserved it, or punishing someone who did not deserve it). I really do not understand where people get this whole "I can't trust this to a computer" notion from. We already trust our credit, our livelihoods, our money to computer software ran by banks and merchants. We trust our safety to computer software ran by phone companies, internet companies, and the government. We trust our power grid to computer software. We trust our healthcare records to computer software. Yet we can't trust software to do a relatively simple and mundane task that it does for many other businesses without fail? ---- On the topic of if you have a bad game, yes. Your next punishment may be issued upon any further instance of negativity until your account is back in good standing. To return to good standing usually takes over 3 months of active playing without valid reports - and is not tied to honor. You will not be notified when you are in "good standing" again. It's really honestly counterproductive to even think like this - your focus should not be "can I have a bad game", it should be "I am never going to be toxic again - ever".
It is hard to trust the system because the system is not transparent. If they released a specific rule set that updates itself just like the system does then it would be much easier to trust it and to accept guilt when one breaches the rules of the system.
Kei143 (NA)
: Why would I need to stand for myself if I can just walk away and they'll just be talking to themselves? It really is not necessary to stand for yourself as you aren't in any harm. You can walk away from them freely without consequence by muting them, and once you do so, you won't hear them any more. So why do you need to stand your ground? Infact, what kind of ground are you trying to stand for and protect? I mean, you can choose to continue the argument by standing your ground, by being passive-aggressively toxic, just be prepared to pay the consequences. Afterall, it takes 2 hands to clap.
I they are not harming you by being insanely toxic then why is Riot even taking a stand against toxicity at all? Words can harm and they can cause a negative reaction in another person. They are not just characters on a screen, they have a meaning behind them that meaning may or may not offend you. It is only human to get annoyed or offended once in a while; to have emotions. The fact that his immediate response in an emotionally charged situation was to respond to his flamer does not make him just as guilty as the person who was hard flaming him all game.
: I got a 14 day ban in a game where I was flamed harder than I have ever been flamed before
Something similar just happened to me, got hard flamed for several games in a row by multiple people and I got punished for simply replying to them with less than a fraction of their toxicity. I see no point in posting on these boards though. The only replies you will get are people saying you deserved your ban and that you are toxic. Also they will suggest you just mute toxic people and report them. They get triggered by toxicity but are not willing to sympathize with others who find it annoying just because they chose to respond to the flamer. The punishment system has gotten multiple times more strict this season and this seems to be happening more and more often. Every suggestion on how to make it better gets down voted immediately and you get called toxic for simply not being satisfied by and wanting to improve the current system. The only hope is that the system gets so draconian that Riot inadvertently alienates a significant enough portion of their player base. Then the player base would start to dwindle and they will finally see it as a problem and do something about it.
Show more

Hoenheim777

Level 142 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion