: > [{quoted}](name=kaitlynfeartech,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=zsATxO5F,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2020-01-25T03:01:22.569+0000) > > Despite being a team game, there’s a really weird and individualistic attitude a lot of people seem to have toward playing; basically, the same mindset as “when we lose it’s my team’s fault because I’m not a shit player” is present in “when I stop having fun, everyone else has to too”. I don’t think it’s just “human nature” or whatever, because environmental traits are a huge factor. If the game really discouraged behavior like that properly, it wouldn’t happen as frequently. I hate that I see it so often in the player base but I’m not sure what can be done about it Because this game is completely selfish. It makes you resent your teammates as you compete for resources with them and their failures have disproportionate impact on you as this game unlike Heroes of The Storm for example has the concept of a fed lane. In Heroes of The Storm, no matter how many tiems a bad Jaina (mage) dies to a Valeera in her lane (assassin), that Valeera will never become a raid boss for the rest of your team to face. And what's more, as unskilled as the Jaina is, it won't be a snowball disadvantage as Heroes of The Storm passively gives you power spikes much more frequently so you are caught up to the opponent for much of the match or at worst at a slight disadvantage. It all comes down to how well you rotate, and how well you teamfight, not about amassing unsurpassable advantages against a lesser skilled foes and making the rest of your enemies pay for their deficient team mate. This game: 1) Splits XP the more people in a lane. 2) Splits gold 3) Makes you resent kill stealers as a person KS'ing you is the difference between whether a roam is worth or not compared to AFK farming your waves since gold income is an active endeavor far more than a passive caught up mechanism. 4) It doesn't matter if a jungler finally ganked the top lane you were farming under turret 50 CS behind the opponent if you didn't get the kill, you're still in the same crap state, that's how much a difference an assist makes vs. a kill. Assists need to be more rewarding, or kills need to be brought down to the levels of assists in xp and gold payout. If this game was much more diligent about passive catch up gold and XP to keep matches more even instead of total stomps, the game would be less wretched for most people. Yes, in league with some champs you can 1v9, but the flip side to that is that bad players and trolls can drag you down far worse as well.
This is accurate, the game mechanics do promote individualism, but to what end is this point? It remains a team game, where the sum of the team is multiplied by how well they cooperate- that is, to build an effective strategy against the enemy and execute it. I notice that players with a strong lead tend to try to push their lead, often times exposing themselves. The good ones just take advantage of mistakes (which happens all the time) while preparing for the next step to winning. I believe that the problem in that case is not that there is a raidboss, but that the team isn't doing what they need to win. That skilled player was doing a favor for the losing team in capitalizing on mistakes. Inversely, having the unskilled player on your team is at worst a roadbump. Look at it this way; if you're skilled (of course!) then there is a 4/9 chance you'll have an unskilled player on your team, and a 5/9 chance the enemy will. So the presence of unskilled players at your rank is actually a slight statistical advantage. Rejoice!
: I just played with what I am 100% sure is the worst team ever in the history of League of Legends
Thank you for reminding us that there's always someone out there who is suffering more. If you draw your line I will show you a circle around everything.
: You used homophobic hate speech. Did you really expect nothing would come of it? > I said it as a joke... Homophobia isn't a joke. > ...and I have seen people say worse things... That doesn't excuse you from breaking the rules. > ...and though I'm not proud of it I have had my moments when raging at someone for their bad play where I have said things that I shouldn't have. I never get banned for those but I get banned for this. It is possible that in those instances you may not have gotten reported, or else didn't warrant an immediate punishment. You still broke the rules, but your misbehavior may not have been severe enough to result in a punishment. > I have no memory of being chat banned or a 7 day ban at least not in my memory so this is surprising to me. Well, to start off with, there's no such thing as a 7-day ban. The punishment ladder goes as follows; - 10-Game Chat Restriction - 25-Game Chat Restriction - 14-Day Suspension - Permanent Suspension And hate speech, as it were, is a severe infraction, something that you should know better than to use. And because you're expected to know better, a chat restriction is an insufficient punishment; hence why Hate Speech will always escalate to a 14-day suspension on the first verified offense. It really shouldn't come as a surprise that such a serious offense warrants an equally strict punishment. > Is it just me or is Riot over reacting... They're not overreacting. If anything, you're treating your offense too lightly. > ...or is this their way of finally cracking down on toxicity? This manner of temp-banning players for hate speech isn't new. They're not "finally cracking down", they've been doing this for a good couple years now. **EDIT:** Also, for clarity's sake, I wanted to point something out just so that misinformation doesn't spread by way of incident; > I said it as a joke and their player asks me to repeat what i said because their chat glitch. Then they say "enjoy your 2 week vacation" and i assumed they were joking but to my disbelief it actually happened. There's this mistaken belief that zero-tolerance chat needs to be said twice in a given chat log in order for the IFS to register it and consequently issue a punishment, which is likely why the player in question asked you to repeat it. It's unfortunate that you were gullible enough to fall for their bait, but even if you hadn't, you still would have been punished. Even _one solitary instance_ of hate speech is enough to warrant an escalated punishment. Don't fall for nonsense bait, but don't use hate speech in general, either. And as an aside, do bear in mind that after a 14-day suspension, your account is on very, very thin ice. Any further misbehavior of yours that's reported will result in a permanent suspension of your account, so you aught to be on your best behavior from hereon out.
In the past I have ... lets say, scolded Umbral, but here he (?) has gone beyond just answering your questions and gave personal advice. And it's good advice. I advise heeding every bit of it, especially the last bit.
Wolity (EUW)
: Hey man, Yes i do actually. When we losing i always say "dont worry team we can comeback" , "its ok we will comeback" . "Well done team" im not toxic at all , but some people just randomly ragequitting. You can check even my youtube channel and see how im texting to my teams i always give words of encouragment. The other thing is. I made this post not to blame the system , system is good. I wanted to reach to people and tell them to not leave their team 4v5 :[
Good to hear! Honestly, we need a ton more of that attitude. Still- I don't think it is criticism - "don't ragequit", but it _sounds like it_. I think a much more constructive suggestion is in order, and one that doesn't come off as selfish at all. "I know it's lame to have been rocked and things aren't going well now, but maybe we can make it up for you. Won't it feel good to wipe the floor with that smug mastery-spamming laner? Even if we don't win, let's at least deny him a good K/D/A." That's just off the top of my head. Of course that's not something to drawl out in game, but since we're on the forums, we can afford a lot more encouraging things to say than "please don't be mad and make us sad". {{champion:99}}
Mudkiip (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Nightsky Pirate,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Y3yMJEul,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2020-01-24T21:27:02.000+0000) > > When AFKs are this rampant... > > Now understand that I don't think Riot is doing the best they can, and I only say it because this is gonna sound very defensive of Riot. I want change. So... > > I think Riot needs to blame the players. The system tolerates afk, and for good reason. We, the community of League, is attributed by some as the worst among the online games. The community needs to change its attitude. Standards have to improve. > > They aren't quitting playing League, the AFKers are quitting _with the players in that match_. > > Now I'm not saying you're the problem, but are you doing all you can to encourage your allies to play it through the bad lane phase? > > Until you can honestly say you're doing your part... > > SIT DOWN. The problem is rage quitters. I don't understand why you want to protect them. Is it because you do it also? Blame the entire team and then rage quit? :)
If I AFK, not counting disconnects or crashes, it is because _every_ ally on my team is working against my efforts in game, not just being verbally toxic. I'm talking disengaging when I go to engage, refusing to engage when I'm present, going out of their way to steal CS/jungle from me, outright intentionally feeding, etc. Best example was a Ryze teleporting _just me_ under their tower. Somehow everyone else knew not to take it. It almost always happens with premades treating everyone else like shit. I quit quietly and stop playing for a day or three. Out of the thousands of games I've played, I think I've done that less than ten times. Rage quitters are a symptom, not the cause. You want to treat the symptom, and worse, you want to do so with a harmful method. Should I go declaring that premades should no longer be allowed because they are the worst of the worst?
Wolity (EUW)
: So many AFK players
When AFKs are this rampant... Now understand that I don't think Riot is doing the best they can, and I only say it because this is gonna sound very defensive of Riot. I want change. So... I think Riot needs to blame the players. The system tolerates afk, and for good reason. We, the community of League, is attributed by some as the worst among the online games. The community needs to change its attitude. Standards have to improve. They aren't quitting playing League, the AFKers are quitting with the players in that match. Now I'm not saying you're the problem, but are you doing all you can to encourage your allies to play it through the bad lane phase? Until you can honestly say you're doing your part... asking players to not AFK is actually borderline going to make it worse.
MojoBubu (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Nightsky Pirate,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=oVqATyFs,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2020-01-24T21:30:22.768+0000) > > When AFKs are this rampant... > > Now understand that I don't think Riot is doing the best they can, and I only say it because this is gonna sound very defensive of Riot. I want change. So... > > I think Riot needs to blame the players. The system tolerates afk, and for good reason. We, the community of League, is attributed by some as the worst among the online games. The community needs to change its attitude. Standards have to improve. > > They aren't quitting playing League, the AFKers are quitting _with the players in that match_. > > Now I'm not saying you're the problem, but are you doing all you can to encourage your allies to play it through the bad lane phase? > > Until you can honestly say you're doing your part... > > SIT DOWN. You don't get to set the standards and its wrong to say we have to eject AFKers like that. They could create an opt-in for people who don't want to surrender. People who want to afk / surrender rather skip and go to the next that is fine. People who want to fight to the bitter end should be able to do without boycotting is that asking for too much? Opting-in to no surrendering is just a different mind set. Neither one is wrong. What is wrong is sabotaging other people trying to actually play.
I understand where you're coming from, and from that point of view it is a good idea. However, one of the guiding principles of League is that you don't get to choose who you play with, outside of premades. All their reasoning revolves around their fear of the Prisoner's Island dilemma, which you can google. Basically, 'bad' players are more 'bad' when you group them together. I applaud that you've come up with an idea, once again I say it is a good idea from a player perspective such as yours, and that is not a bad thing. In the big picture, however, it is a bad idea. (edit: Your perspective is not bad or wrong either.) So, given that, it falls upon the players to create a positive experience for their team. This is a tall order, but it is well worth doing. Try it. Try criticizing your team within the rules, and you'll see more players AFK. Try emotionally supporting them, being positive yourself, and you will see fewer players AFK. People seem to forget that playing a multiplayer game is about winning/having fun _together_. That includes BOTH having fun AND playing to win. Edit: Do not blame them for AFK. You control how/why YOU play. How YOU play can be encouraging, positive. Think about a sports team. A team that builds each other up and supports each other through rough spots is a strong team. One filled with hot-shots is a bad team. A good movie to watch that demonstrates it: Remember the Titans. I know, it's bad to AFK, but they can have fair reason(s) to do so. (I don't AFK... pretty much)
MojoBubu (NA)
: "I'm done" (AFK)
When AFKs are this rampant... Now understand that I don't think Riot is doing the best they can, and I only say it because this is gonna sound very defensive of Riot. I want change. So... I think Riot needs to blame the players. The system tolerates afk, and for good reason. We, the community of League, is attributed by some as the worst among the online games. The community needs to change its attitude. Standards have to improve. They aren't quitting playing League, the AFKers are quitting _with the players in that match_. Now I'm not saying you're the problem, but are you doing all you can to encourage your allies to play it through the bad lane phase? Until you can honestly say you're doing your part... SIT DOWN. You don't get to set the standards and its wrong to say we have to eject AFKers like that.
Mudkiip (NA)
: So far my issue has been players going afk.
When AFKs are this rampant... Now understand that I don't think Riot is doing the best they can, and I only say it because this is gonna sound very defensive of Riot. I want change. So... I think Riot needs to blame the players. The system tolerates afk, and for good reason. We, the community of League, is attributed by some as the worst among the online games. The community needs to change its attitude. Standards have to improve. They aren't quitting playing League, the AFKers are quitting _with the players in that match_. Now I'm not saying you're the problem, but are you doing all you can to encourage your allies to play it through the bad lane phase? Until you can honestly say you're doing your part... SIT DOWN.
Cann (NA)
: Inting
What almost literally everyone else said is a good response to the thread, almost +1s all around. Also. The report system is NOT for your gratification. That in itself is toxic. It is the mindset of the violent mob. Do not let the misbehavior of others let you feel justified in doling out punishment. That is not what the report system is for. See Father Darius' comment.
: that post deserves all the upvotes
I like the science part. That made me a little giddy. Because it's true, even if just a little bit.
: not quite true invalid reports count for nothing, if you are not breaking any rules at all, you could be reported 1,000,000 times and nothing would happen
Also, there are manual reviews. They're not all automatic.
: When I start to internalize, I drink. Now, I'm not advocating alcoholism. I'm just suggesting that a little bit of vice before a match can 'take the edge off' of the day and makes league even more relaxing and fun. What's your vice? Do you subscribe to the great god nick-o-teen? A cigarette, cigar, pipe, or some tasty e-juice? Smoke some herbs? Imbibe a bit of ethanol? Rail some cocaine like Mitch? Gey frisky with your partner (or yourself)? Watch some videos filled with lust, bloodlust, or even some George Carlin? My point is, don't JUST do league. Too much of anything isn't necessarily a good thing - league included. Use it as part of an entire relaxation _system_. Your psyche, your body, and your karma will be better for it. Now, go in peace and feed no more. {{sticker:fiora-cool}}
I'm an ex-pirate and I endorse that message. Otherwise there are some significant issues with this OP I'm gonna go ahead and point out, because you essentialy said "I know I shouldn't say this but I feel entitled to." It might be harsh but western society generally does not accept blaming the environment (I can't speak for others) and is part of the reason suicide is not endorsed. You don't get to blame the system for _your_ problems, because you know what you're playing. If you hate ARURF, don't use your emotional response to it as a reason for it being bad. Venting belongs in the Venting. If you're not having fun and you're using that as justification for self harm, by God or by your Country, start taking care of your self. You are your responsibly. Don't fail us in this.
Duuuyyy (EUW)
: I will try, thx for the idea.
I didn't look at the links but am choosing to believe what you're saying. Keep making noise and submitting tickets, that was a poor response by the support agent. A real Riot employee will fix this if what you say is true. The response putting the blame on you for getting hacked is just bad service, please give that responder a bad rating if you can. Every one else, Upvote OP so it gets attention if you believe it.
: > [{quoted}](name=Nightsky Pirate,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=tYToGuJq,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2020-01-23T04:29:23.467+0000) > > Question for your request. Do they monetize PBE? > > A PBE account requires linking to an existing account with Honor 3 on a live server. That's about as much as you get. No with the new honor system, they allow players to make PBE account from honor level 2. It is completely unfair when the whole reason of PBE was to give access to the players who deserve it. I didn't have to deal with horrible behaviors back then in PBE.
: > [{quoted}](name=Naymliss,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=tYToGuJq,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2020-01-23T01:55:57.128+0000) > > PBE is a cesspool because it's not their main account. I'm sure if we gave them real consequences on their main they'd shape up. At least they should give punishments on PBE too. 1 day ban would be enough to stop them from playing more ranks a day. Seriously it's a complete mess, it is a Public Beta environment for players to test things, help each others and have fun when they can, not a house of disgusting behaviors in rank games.
Question for your request. Do they monetize PBE? A PBE account requires linking to an existing account with Honor 3 on a live server. That's about as much as you get.
: Ah. Thanks plenty for that link, I had been thinking of another thread by a proclaimed Chinese player and I doubtless slipped past that one a couple times looking for it. That said, I'm curious if "mb" really did have any influence in that player's ban, as they also had other instances of hate speech in their logs. And considering the homophobic connotations aren't really well known (at least regionally, so far as I'm aware) alongside innocuous uses of the initialism being known and extremely common ("my bad", "Megabyte"), that's one of those cases where its use as a homophobic slur is, at least to me, suspect. Though, I digress, and this really isn't the place to spur such discussion. Again, though, thank you very much for giving me that link to check out proper. > Thanks again for your responses! Very helpful. Always glad to be of service how I can. If ever you wind up with any further questions on your mind about the system, do feel free to ask them.
Ah, I'm really off my game today ... that was a preceding thread, not the one with the Chinese player. It appears the thread in question was removed.
: > [{quoted}](name=Nightsky Pirate,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=LAH6Tnzy,comment-id=0006000000000000,timestamp=2020-01-23T03:10:12.436+0000) > > You must be reported for the violation first. [Speculation] You probably didn't get reported for bad language in those games. > > In any case, this person (supposedly) hadn't been punished before and went straight to 14 day ban. That's only for zero-tolerance. I don't think there is a three-letter zero-tolerance F word (is there?). If this is true, then this person was erroneously punished for "MB". I was thinking about using the Dutch Kiss example, but went with "MB" because it is _another_ culture's rules carrying over here. It surely is complicated, but worth hashing out, because... > > If they retconned the Dutch Kiss, Quinnova was not warranted a 14 day ban, but a 1st level punishment if at all. The three letter word that starts with "F" that would be considered zero tolerance is the slur used to refer to a homosexual. The extremely uncommon meaning for the word is also a cigarette. But just as someone wouldn't be fool by another person claiming they meant "a bundle of sticks" when they said %%%%%%, no one is going to take %%% by the uncommon meaning.
Ah, that word. Wow, haven't heard that one in ... well, a while. So the MB was a red herring. Editing now.
: > [{quoted}](name=Nightsky Pirate,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=LAH6Tnzy,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2020-01-23T01:37:47.329+0000) > > [Sorry, but that's wrong.](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/s9oBVKg2-the-ban-system-is-ridiculous) Regardless of what else this person said to get punished, the Riot Support answer was that "MB" is zero-tolerance. [PURE SPECULATION FOLLOWING] I suspect the system picked up on the OP mis-spelling 'whore' and saying 'no homo', which would suggest it is trying to correlate terms to form some skewed kind of contextual understanding, but any sane person can say the OP did not use MB in a zero-tolerance way. You misread that thread. "MB" had nothing to do with the ban. It was the three-letter F-word which OP used repeatedly. If "MB" was actually a ZT phrase, I would've been banned from every one of my accounts a long time ago because I am atrocious at this game and end up saying "mb" a _lot_. If you want an actual example of culture/etc. not mattering to ZT phrases, there was a case where someone repeated "kiss" a couple times in Danish, which is "kys." They got escalated to a 14-day ban, support's initial response was basically a rejection of the Danish language (" 'kys' means the same thing in every language"), and support eventually retconned it by claiming that the player was toxic in other unspecified ways.
>I've been in contact with Riot and I was told that they have a zero tolerance policy for that word. I understand that. But in the context of the enemy messages, is it really fair that I should be given a full on 14 day suspension and not at least a warning or a chat restriction? I was honour level 4 and have never been considered toxic or anything. . > If "MB" was actually a ZT phrase, I would've been banned from every one of my accounts a long time ago because I am atrocious at this game and end up saying "mb" a lot. You must be reported for the violation first. [Speculation] You probably didn't get reported for bad language in those games. In any case, this person (supposedly) hadn't been punished before and went straight to 14 day ban. That's only for zero-tolerance. I don't think there is a three-letter zero-tolerance F word (is there?). If this is true, then this person was erroneously punished for "MB". I was thinking about using the Dutch Kiss example, but went with "MB" because it is _another_ culture's rules carrying over here. It surely is complicated, but worth hashing out, because... If they retconned the Dutch Kiss, Quinnova was not warranted a 14 day ban, but a 1st level punishment if at all.
Ellatiel (NA)
: How the punishment system (IFS) works explained.
It appears you're trying to tell us how the system works. Let's talk about that. >All chat logs are rated on a scale from 1-100 (or similar) with 0 being completely not toxic or rude or unsportsmanlike in any way, and 100 being the worst hate speech and toxicity you could imagine. That's a fair enough. Might not be accurate, but it works as a model. >Every game you are reported, the system checks your text and assigns it a score. A game in which you are not reported means no one had any issues so you automatically get 0 points for that game (so it's best to not be reported, but false reports don't do much). So Tantrum has said, who probably won't be responding to this thread... >You receive a punishment based on reaching a constantly adjusting threshold... We've seen players go for a year without punishment and then get banned for a single slip, as provided by the sole example Riot Support gives them. We know more goes into it, but the point is there can be really long gaps and there is evidence of players being honorable for months before having a bad slipup. So, once again, _probably_ not accurate, but makes for a good model. >ZT is separate from IFS and gives 14 day suspension/perma based on two uses of a ZT word. Intentionally feeding and throwing games are also a different system. Not quite. They're the same system, it's like how streaming video has video and audio, two different aspects to one system. >There are manual checks for people frequently reported but not punished. Sure. >I don't think pre-lobby chat or post-lobby chat is checked in any way, but obviously it could lead to you getting reported more which could lead to quicker punishments, or someone could submit a ticket and you could be manually punished if it was particularly egregious. They are logged, and can be reviewed. >Now for the actual chat rating system, I'm pretty sure the IFS scoring system is little more than a word/phrase filter, and more complex things are not really taken into account (although it seems to absolutely despise all caps). Possibly, there could be words or phrases that offset toxic words and may lower your score, but not sure. Also, I do believe that the system is based upon what is reported, with words that are frequently occurring in reported games getting increased scores. This is why passive aggression and unique insults either don't get punished or get punished much slower. Now obviously, there is probably some minimum threshold a word/phrase has to be used to be included and some are probably manually added/excluded. But it changes for each region and does change over time a bit based on player reports. It is certainly more than a filter. As a dictionary-based program (of that we are certain), at the very least it assigns values to terms and phrases. We know it considers a lot more than just that, but most of the details are left in the dark. As a machine learning program, it does adjust the values, adding terms and phrases and giving them values. There is potentially great complexity in this- there might be multiple values for every phrase, or every term might have it's own categorical values, based on what 'module' it is being tagged by, which in turn might interact with other values differently. All of which might yield a single overall toxicity value, or perhaps multiple. The point is, we don't know how complex or simple it is, but we do know that it is a dictionary-based machine learning program, which is far more than a filter. Also; based on player's testimonials, people are punished more quickly after they have received punishments in the first place. I conclude that this means repeated use of the same terms makes the system view those same terms as solid indicators of toxicity. Unfortunately, it could mean something else- using your model, they might be lowering the bar from 0-100 to, say, 0-70. Remember, it doesn't care about _how_ toxic a person is, just that the person _is_ toxic. The only reason gradient values exist is because it isn't a filter. It's a mathematical judge and jury. Then you're spot on about regional differences and reporting. There are cultural differences that strongly influence how often and for what people report for. Pure speculation, but I expect people in China report far less than Americans do, and I must leave you to imagine why (please don't say what you imagine). This is openly known about South Korea- the standards for behavior there are different from North America. This is because the machine learning is arbitrated by reports. Good job recognizing that. >For games shown on your reform card, I am not sure what the specifications are on this. It appears there is no minimum threshold for games to appear on your reform card (for example, one of my games literally only said "9x"), so it might just be highly reported games or something else. From what I've seen, Riot Support has a slew of games to pick from, but they need only pick one to show you. However, you can request to see your data. It takes some time, but if you specifically ask for all the information, they will give it to you a month or two or three down the road. >How the IFS rating system for chat works specifically. They probably won't ever tell us. It's probably for the best that they don't- it would be similar to showing off all the details of your national defenses to a questionable neighbor. >How the reform card games are chosen. Why is it sometimes only one mild game, why are some games chosen where there is clearly no verbal abuse. Some forum examples are falsifications of what actually happened. Some players believe that they can get un-banned based on popular opinion and edit their logs even with screenshots, suffice to say they are entirely wrong, which is a whole discussion in itself. The automated system is different from Riot Support's resources, it is built to be responsive to reports in a timely manner, and that system might only show one example due to a great unknown number of variables. >If player reports have higher or lower weights depending upon reporting accuracy, or if all are weighed the same. Reports do not get graded, at all. You can report every player in every game for nonsense and the system will indiscriminately evaluate them all. However, you would be doing the community a disservice in doing so, as you would be pushing the system toward harsher judgement. >How exactly punishment tiers reduce (I went down three whole punishment tiers in about two weeks regularly flaming though, so it's pretty fast). ...What?
: > 3- Any form of infraction, like being reported for "ggez" in repeated games, but not multiple times in one game. In that case, I'm not sure what the answer would really be. Boards Wisdom (as well as some Riot comments) suggest that there are some infractions (such as "GG EZ") that aren't in and of themselves punishable, but can contribute to a punishment. Whether this means that, in pure isolation, such a minor infraction can ultimately be punished (assuming that's the only misbehavior the account has), or that there are infractions that do actually follow that "valid but not punishable" idea, I have no idea. > 5- Not what I meant- the IFS assigns weights to phrases and terms, both positive and negative, outside of any given review. It uses those assigned weights (as a dictionary-based program), both positive and negative, and determines the 'overall negativity' of the player's log under review. Hm. I'm not sure if that would be the case, though really the only information I have to go off of is conjecture based off of what's known about the system. (Kei143's description of how the system likely works being pretty much as accurate as anything we've got.) If I had to guess, the values are determined as based on context clues in the chat. So stuff that IDs as general, undirected (or impersonal) negativity is lower value when read than a direct insult or comments surrounding a player being addressed. Though, that supposition in and of itself is a little biased, as that's more-or-less how I peer review chat logs, so there's zero guarantee that the IFS functions that way. With that being said, I'll have to say that between current understanding, lack of information, and the commentaries in question being 5-6~ years old, there might not be a reliable ability to answer questions 5-8. Interesting to think about, either way. > 10- Apparently, 'MB' is a Chinese term referring to a sort of boy-whore, or the behavior of such. Some recent thread, a guy claimed to get zero-tolerance slapped for it. A point that might matter, the OP is a self-claimed "china-man". Huh. I think I might've glossed over that thread. I'll look around for it again, though besides, I'm definitely curious if ZT is universal across regions or if there are regional differences. > 12/13- It appears the answer you're suggesting is that by itself, no pick is punishable by itself, but paired with other infractions, helps to determine troll behavior. Same with doing off-meta. In essence, yeah. Lots of variables, but the general rule is anything goes as long as you play to win. > 14- So Nunu could have been good if he did #15, good to know (I thought that might have been the case). I was going to use the example of Deathsiege Sion as well, in #15, but it became mainstream enough that it didn't really need to be explained anymore. Yup. Sadly, though, the lesson of point 15 is probably one that will have to be repeated a few times still, given that we've now three examples of players punished for failing to respect their teammates while pulling off-meta tactics. Counterjungle Support Singed, Counterjungle Support Nunu, and Teemo Mid-Support. Here's to hoping it doesn't need to be repeated this year, though. > 17- "Support actively CS'ing to steal from the bottom laner", is this really true? I thought the community consensus was that CS did not belong to the ADC, let alone anyone. Thought it was merely etiquette not to? Is there a case where someone got punished for CS-stealing? Yeah. Community consensus might be "CS belongs to nobody", but in reality there is a point where that isn't actually valid. Outside of coordinated, off-meta shenanigans (bottom+support being on comms), the meta function of bottom lane (Bottom Laner farms minions and works towards items to make an impact, Support assists Bottom Laner through pressure, assisted CS'ing, etc.) is something of a real rule. I've seen cases (though finding them after so long will definitely be taxing) where players were punished for trolling, and it ultimately turned out that they were in the Support role and had been actively depriving their bottom laner of CS and "stealing" the carry role. The biggest signs I'd seen in those few cases was a notable absence (or sometimes even a rare inclusion of) a Support item on anyone, ambiguous roles (often Mage Supports, for example), high CS counts, good KDAs (with the actual bottom laner having the opposite more often than not), and of course the kill map showing the players' activity on bottom lane. It could of course be argued to fall under role theft as a form of trolling, but all the same, the point of the Support role is to be able to thrive without a reliable line of CS - hence their having gold income items - and so actively stealing CS from the bottom laner can constitute trolling.
Thanks again for your responses! Very helpful. I'll edit in the part about the camps and CS. [Here's that thread if you haven't found it yet.](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/s9oBVKg2-the-ban-system-is-ridiculous) If this is to be used as precedence, then #10 would stand as is. Edit: I didn't realize it until someone practically spelled it out for me, but the real Zero Tolerance word was '%%%', not MB, though Riot Support identified MB as a Zero Tolerance word, just not applicable.
: > 1. It subsequently does not matter to what degree a violation is, if enough reports of the violation occurs, the belligerent will be punished. Any degree of "offensive, including language that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, or racially, ethically, or otherwise objectionable" (aka negativity) is punishable. The "enough reports" part should be "enough reported games," as it only takes one report for the system to review a match. > 3. The dictionary-based machine learning program assigns positive and negative values to terms and phrases based on the arbitration of reports and honors. Valid reports can slow down Honor, but getting Honored doesn't impact punishment status. > 5. The same program is incapable of understanding context. It has a reasonable understanding of context. Not perfect, of course, but it can tell the difference between a sarcastic "good play" when a teammate dies compared to an actual compliment. > 7. Zero tolerance words are strictly zero tolerance, regardless of language, region or even common use of the term: the program for zero tolerance words being a filter. "MB for not knowing" or "It's just a 320 MB video" is literally as bad as "You n%%%%r c%%t". I remind you that this is only fact seeking. Perhaps "MB" is part of the ZT filter in China, but it isn't in NA. That said, yes, I've never heard anything to suggest that there are various tiers of ZT phrases. They all have the same detection and punishment rules. > 8. When it comes to punishments, Riot Support is primarily there to assist players in understanding *why* they were punished. Riot Support will not help overturn the judgement of the program except in unusual circumstances outside the user's control, such as a hacked account. They also overturn the judgement of the program if it was in error. False positives are rare, but they do happen. Also, as I'm sure you noticed during the process of creating your post, Boards markdown handles numbered lists automatically. You can make each number a 0 if you want and it'll work just the same. And I'd recommend always creating numbered lists in a program that supports such automation.
> The "enough reports" part should be "enough reported games," as it only takes one report for the system to review a match. Good clarification! >Valid reports can slow down Honor, but getting Honored doesn't impact punishment status. I really should have worded it better; this is a process that happens outside of reviews (as I understand it from developer commentary), the dictionary-based part of the program defining the positive and negative values of different terms and phrases, which is subsequently used in reviewing. Still, absolutely correct, I didn't mean to suggest that getting honored has anything to do with punishments. I'll edit that in now. >It has a reasonable understanding of context. Not perfect, of course, but it can tell the difference between a sarcastic "good play" when a teammate dies compared to an actual compliment. I shall have to edit this in as well, it seems it can take deaths into context to detect negative sarcasm. Are there other situations in which it does have contextual understanding? It appears that player deaths and chat timestamps may be the only context it can include, which is notably only used to help identify behavior that would otherwise be labelled non-toxic. >Perhaps "MB" is part of the ZT filter in China, but it isn't in NA. That said, yes, I've never heard anything to suggest that there are various tiers of ZT phrases. They all have the same detection and punishment rules. [Sorry, but that's wrong.](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/s9oBVKg2-the-ban-system-is-ridiculous) Regardless of what else this person said to get punished, the Riot Support answer was that "MB" is zero-tolerance. [PURE SPECULATION FOLLOWING] I suspect the system picked up on the OP mis-spelling 'whore' and saying 'no homo', which would suggest it is trying to correlate terms to form some skewed kind of contextual understanding, but any sane person can say the OP did not use MB in a zero-tolerance way. edit: Thank you for helping!
Ph03n1xb1rd (EUNE)
: And where is the sauce for all this?
When I eventually retrace my steps for 4-9, I will put it on my favorites tab to share with anyone. However, as Umbral mentioned, they are 5-6 years old now, and the program may have changed since then. Riot has not been sharing what they've done with the system very much in the years since. Further, it is only commentary by the original developers of the program, and might not be representative of what the program actually does. Still, when I do find it... Most of the others are based on my interpretation of the EULA, adjusted by the history of punishments and debates on the forums, and further tempered by public statements by Riot developers- NOT representatives- over the years. I've incorporated wisdom shared from countless articles with commentary by developers, from videos and documentaries on online behavior conventions, and research documents about online behavior including data and cooperation from League of Legends. I've rejected comments by representatives because they know about as much as you or I could- with the unfortunate reality that they could be told to tell the public anything and believe it. Riot Tantrum (a developer) has said the most about the behavior system and is probably the most reliable source on the boards. There's no need to link anything- it's all within your reach. I do not believe this makes my opinion special, but rather, because I have spent so much time studying this topic, I wanted to fact-check to make sure these assumptions were accurate. I have nothing to gain but to aid me in trying to help improve online behavior in the future- and I think others might benefit from these understandings as well- I do have specific individuals in mind who I hoped would show up if they had facts that contradicted anything. ~~cough rujitra~~ Debates on the forums (aka Boards Wisdom) are generally a good source to understand the behavior rules. There are many cases to look at, and like the one TrulyBland shared, can shed light on what exactly is and isn't okay by the rules.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: Regarding these two things: >Context does not matter at all when it comes to behaviour. >Situation and context does not matter. Always play with respect to the rules. There is one common misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up, especially since sometimes even blue posts seem at least badly worded in this regard: The system that automatically detects and punishes infractions is **not** equivalent to the rules. The system is a **tool** that helps **enforce** the rules. Context does indeed not excuse breaking the rules… but context can show that no rule was actually broken in the first place, and that the punishment issued by the system was a false one. Very recent and terribly obvious example: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/H99Enaga-someone-got-banned-for-inting-because-of-the-sett-sylas-bug-support-said-they-reviewed-it-haha Outside of context, everything about this look like a pretty clear case of intentional feeding. Within context, it's obvious that it was not.
Aye. This would really apply to 11: "When it comes to punishments, Riot Support is primarily there to assist players in understanding why they were punished. Riot Support will not help overturn the judgement of the program except in unusual circumstances outside the user's control, such as a hacked account." This would directly pin to "unusual circumstances outside the user's control". The situation serves this point very well- the *primary* purpose being to tell the player why they're wrong. The support agent indeed went 'copy-pasta', this human. Further commenting encroaches on opinion, but suffice to say the agent was fulfilling the primary purpose as Riot Support pertaining to punishments and glossed over the fact it was outside the user's control.
: > [{quoted}](name=Nightsky Pirate,realm=NA,application-id=GgNYATV4,discussion-id=acpTEEiP,comment-id=00010001000000000000,timestamp=2020-01-22T00:55:39.454+0000) > > Confirmed, now it heals instead. 18 days ago, it was shielding. his e does not heal. thats w and 18 days ago no sheild o
: 8 Curated means maintained and controlled. If someone is curating a garden, they trim what is overgrown, fertilize what is languishing, plant new things, and remove what is dead or useless. They don't go around individually making the blades of grass grow. They do manually insert some terms, phrases, or ideas. They also remove some term, phrases, or ideas that the system has added to itself. They also modify the ML score of terms, phrases, or ideas if they are disproportionately low or high.
Ah, that makes sense. Since they haven't been sharing what they've been doing, wasn't sure they were actually overseeing it or letting it do it's thing. I've been looking a lot for public updates to the system, but they haven't really said much about the system itself in the past few years. Perhaps you have a link...? (mumble)...you used it in mixed present and past tense... >_>
Frizzê (NA)
: The fact that IFS has gotten people for things that it shouldn't have in the first place is just another reason to not chat at all.
To be fair, it would be really hard to design a dictionary-based machine learning program that wouldn't have false positives while still being at least reasonably effective. The chances of one person having enough false positives to constitute a punishment due to false positives alone - statistically speaking - not going to happen, not one in ten million. Everyone can afford to have one, factually speaking. {{champion:1}} How dare you say "should".
: (3 Chat is given a ML Score based on it's severity. Things that score higher move your account towards it's next punishment more quickly. > [{quoted}](name=Riot Tantram,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=A1yJmhb1,comment-id=00010001000000010000000000000001,timestamp=2018-05-31T18:28:22.413+0000) > > This is not possible. The reports just flag a game for review. There has to be negative or zero tolerance chat present for be penalized for a chat related offense. We use machine learning to score your chat logs. If there is no chat .. guess what that score is? It's 0. Number of reports has no bearing on the outcome, aside from needing one report to trigger the IFS to review. > [{quoted}](name=Riot Tantram,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=iE97lQZW,comment-id=0000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2017-09-06T22:07:24.834+0000) > > Ok, 1 report has the same power as 9. > > The machine learning system scores chat. It does not score reports. I believe there is still a lot of confusion about the new system vs the old system. The old system used to work off of report numbers. > > The censored word list is in no way linked to the chat log evaluation engine. We let people censor out swearing, but we don't penalize for swearing if you aren't attacking other people or using hate speech. (4 There any many modules that comprise the IFS. New modules can be created and added as situations arise. > [{quoted}](name=Riot Tantram,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=3zQ7hXi0,comment-id=00040007000000000000000100000000000000020000,timestamp=2017-11-17T07:50:43.899+0000) > > You know about all of them. > > The IFS (Instant Feedback System) system calls out to multiple services for evaluation. I should probably write a tech blog on this. There are different services that evaluate verbal harassment, zero tolerance, intentional feeding, afk'ing, etc. > > Let's say that tomorrow we needed a new service to evaluate ... morse code. We would write a new service module and register it with the IFS. We simplify the discussion and just usually say IFS. But the reality is there is a very complex group of systems that support player behavior. and > [{quoted}](name=Riot Tantram,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=ssrwyraZ,comment-id=0003000100000000,timestamp=2017-12-12T23:40:16.406+0000) > > > > There are numerous detection modules in the IFS, one of which is responsible for detecting a small number of zero-tolerance things such as hate speech. This is the most naive of the modules, since it only looks for things which should never have a place in game. Think of the hate speech module as a first pass detection to easily detect obvious things. (5 It sounds like you're being intentionally misleading. (6 There is no proof of this. (7 There is no proof of this. (8 The system does learn from reports, but it is manually curated. > [{quoted}](name=Riot Tantram,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=iE97lQZW,comment-id=00000000000000000001000000000000000000030001,timestamp=2017-09-07T02:19:09.735+0000) > > Remember that reports are just used to flag a game for review. So the presence of any reports, would then trigger a review of the game. > > The game then goes into our language evaluation service that would return a result for that game. So, I think you question is less about reports and more about how language models are trained. Imperial Pandaa was correct in that the Tribunal was used for the initial training sets. But the system is constantly leaning from numerous sources, reports of course being one of them. > > We are also constantly hand checking random samples for accuracy as well as very carefully watching for any cases of false positive. Although false positives are very rare, they do occasionally happen and we work to make sure they do not reoccur. I've overturned a handful of false positives on the boards (maybe 2 or 3?). > > If it was a brand new trend, the first time the system saw it, it would likely be discarded. But if that's the situation players exposed to it likely would have no idea what the new trend even was. Trust me, our systems have a much better meme game than you do. (9 Would an example of someone being punished for 'positive chat' being used sarcastically show that it can understand context? > [{quoted}](name=Riot Tantram,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=j8OzEwzn,comment-id=0006000000010002,timestamp=2018-08-01T17:52:25.991+0000) > > So you got banned for harassing your teammates? That's what the system should do. > > Complimenting teammates every time they die is is being negative. You knew what you were doing, they did, and so did the system. The system doesn't look for certain words. It's not looking for 'cuss words' in a list. It's a machine learning system.
4- So, more accurately, it's one program with many modules, though the zero tolerance module stands out as a filter, unlike the rest of the modules. The other modules are more like ... language expansions. 5- Perhaps I worded it poorly, but it's not my intent to mislead. See response to Umbral? 8- So the machine learning doesn't add terms at all, and is entirely manually populated, and updated to keep up with memes (okay boomer) and whatnot? 9- Partially. It would show that the system can identify particularly spiteful sarcastic remarks thanks to reports and the heaps of existing data. It can only identify sarcasm based on what it has been shown. It does not understand that the user had a different intent from what was actually said. It doesn't understand what was said at all. It just knows "you sure showed him" is included in reports often enough- it appears one of the modules includes recognizing when something is said right after death, which gives some context and correlates to being negative. Incidentally, it probably gives "It's okay" a positive value. So it appears it's not *absolutely devoid* of contextual understanding, but outside of that kind of situation, I'm skeptical it has any other ability to process context. Still... do you have other examples? It appears even Umbral was unaware of that one.
: > 1) Context does not matter at all when it comes to behavior. Correct. There's no situations in which breaking the rules is acceptable, and the context of a situation (whether it be other people misbehaving, a match being a downhill one, etc.) does not matter. > 2) Regardless of the degree that a belligerent violates the rules, the player _must be reported_ to be processed by the system. Also correct. With the exception of disconnects/AFK's, a report _has_ to be filed in order for the IFS to review and punish their behavior. No report = no review = no punishment. > 3) It subsequently does not matter to what degree a violation is, if enough reports of the violation occurs, the belligerent will be punished. Any degree of "offensive, including language that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, or racially, ethically, or otherwise objectionable" (aka negativity) is punishable. This needs a bit better clarification. Do you mean this being about number of reports in a given match, or that any form of infraction, including minor ones (like report rallying, "gg ez", etc.) can ultimately lead to a punishment when reported? > 4) The behavior program is actually two programs; a zero tolerance filter and a dictionary-based machine learning program. Correct. > 5) The dictionary-based machine learning program assigns positive and negative values to terms and phrases based on the arbitration of reports and honors. If by this, you mean "does the IFS weigh number of Honors/Reports into its review", then no. Otherwise, this question can't be reasonably answered, as it would require more insight into the system than is available to us. > 6) Repeated use of the same phrases and terms in subsequent reported games by an individual receive increasing negative values. As with 5, this question can't reasonably answered. If I had to guess, the negative values of a given phrase would remain the same regardless of how many times it's used or reported for. > 7) Positive values, compiled in the same way based on honors, can nullify negative values to some extent. No. Honors do not influence reviews in any way, shape, or form. A punishment can still be given for a match in which a player was honored. > 8) The same program also adds terms and phrases on the same arbitration, both positive and negative. Like with 5, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "arbitration" here. > 9) The same program is incapable of understanding context. Since context doesn't matter; yes. The IFS reviews a player's behavior in a vacuum, so it neither sees nor needs context. > 10) Zero tolerance words are strictly zero tolerance, regardless of language, region or even common use of the term, due to the program for zero tolerance words being a filter. "MB for not knowing" or "It's just a 320 MB video" is literally as bad as "You n%%%%r %%%%". I remind you that this is only fact seeking. From what I know, there _might_ be regional differences in what's considered zero-tolerance, but in general, yes, zero tolerance chat is strictly zero tolerance. If "MB" is considered zero-tolerance, though, I have to ask; what'd I miss? > 11) When it comes to punishments, Riot Support is primarily there to assist players in understanding why they were punished. Riot Support will not help overturn the judgement of the program except in unusual circumstances outside the user's control, such as a hacked account. Yes. Players _can_ appeal punishments, but protocol is that if a punishment wasn't issued in error, then it will not be overturned. > 12) A player may select any champion in any role in any game mode. With some exceptions. Unusual (but reasonable) picks (such as Taric or Leona toplane) don't really need to be cleared with teammates, but more wild off-meta stuff (or things that would directly impact another player's gameplay) need to be discussed with the team, and can be punishable if the team disagrees with the strategy. Additionally, some Champion Select behaviors can be indicative of trolling, including some Champion/role combinations. Really, this can't directly be answered as a solid "yes/no". Gameplay misbehavior tends to be like that. > 13) A player does not have conform to the meta with regard to build, strategy, spells, warding, etc. As above, this isn't something that can be directly answered "yes" or "no". In general, yes, players don't have to conform to the meta, but there will always be trolling behaviors and other quirks that tie into that samesuch behavior that it's not going to be a universally clear thing. > 14) A player may not make _any_ build and/or use _any_ strategy- it must bear some semblance to playing to win and not take away from the game from others. Example: six Tear of the Goddess is not approved, nor is Counter-Counter Jungle Support Smite Nunu. As with the two above, there's no definite answer to this. Counter-Jungle Support Smite Nunu was a case of the player not discussing their strategy with their teammates or allowing their teammates a say in whether or not they play it. They were punished because they forced their teammates to adapt to their strategy with zero consideration or discussion. And, to even further muddy the water, do remember that Deathsiege Sion is considered valid and acceptable as a strategy (if it's even still applicable in 2020), and it is _very_ arguable that that strategy bears some semblance to playing to win. Though, six Tears is a clear-cut example of something not approved, and similar-such behaviors that serve to handicap the team are punishable. > 15) A player does not have to communicate, except when using a strategy that will disrupt the team's strategy. Example: Singed going into enemy base during laning phase to take mid and top minion waves, resulting in many deaths but is ultimately an effective strategy in some situations. *Communicating intent does not override the previous fact. Correct. Unless you're doing something that will impact your other teammates (such as the Singed base-proxy described above), communication is not mandatory. > 16) A player may not _deliberately_ play against their team- intentionally feeding, avoiding team fights, not contributing to objectives, etc. A player technically does not have to cooperate with the team otherwise. Correct. > 17) No camps, minions, kills, towers, etc, belong to any role. > *Unclear: Does this include a laner intentionally and without approval taking the red/blue buff in a leash? Intentionally stealing a buff during a leash is punishable if it can be proven as intentional. As for the main point; **Yes** to all, and simultaneously **conditional no** to Jungle Camps and Minions. As with the gameplay related misbehavior mentioned from 12-14, there are cases in which actively stealing lane minions and jungle camps is punishable; I.E, following the Jungler around and contesting their camps, Support actively CS'ing to steal from the bottom laner, or one lane moving into another's (particularly early on) and actively contesting lane minions. > 18) Situation and context does not matter. Always play with respect to the rules. This is essentially a rehash of 1, but; yes. The situation doesn't matter and the context doesn't matter; if one breaks the rules, they are subject to punishment.
Thanks for taking the time. 3- Any form of infraction, like being reported for "ggez" in repeated games, but not multiple times in one game. 5- Not what I meant- the IFS assigns weights to phrases and terms, both positive and negative, outside of any given review. It uses those assigned weights (as a dictionary-based program), both positive and negative, and determines the 'overall negativity' of the player's log under review. I caught onto this by reading quoted commentary by the designers of the program, unfortunately, I haven't been able to retrace my steps to where I read that information. It was published as commentary about online behavior conventions sometime in 2014. There were 3 separate articles in which I saw all the information about the inner workings of the program that I could find. Of course, such commentary can't be used as being definitive, and honestly, its probably better that the general knowledge of the IFS' inner workings remains in the dark, even from Riot Support. 6, 7 and 8- are derivative from the same information. That information I saw did not suggest that honors counter or reduce the impact of reports directly, but affect the values given to positive terms and phrases. Which in turn would result a less severe negative score if the player in question were actually negative, leading to more required reported games for punishment of less severe infractions. 10- Apparently, 'MB' is a Chinese term referring to a sort of boy-whore, or the behavior of such. Some recent thread, a guy claimed to get zero-tolerance slapped for it. A point that might matter, the OP is a self-claimed "china-man". 12/13- It appears the answer you're suggesting is that by itself, no pick is punishable by itself, but paired with other infractions, helps to determine troll behavior. Same with doing off-meta. 14- So Nunu could have been good if he did #15, good to know (I thought that might have been the case). I was going to use the example of Deathsiege Sion as well, in #15, but it became mainstream enough that it didn't really need to be explained anymore. 17- "Support actively CS'ing to steal from the bottom laner", is this really true? I thought the community consensus was that CS did not belong to the ADC, let alone anyone. Thought it was merely etiquette not to? Is there a case where someone got punished for CS-stealing?
: > [{quoted}](name=Nightsky Pirate,realm=NA,application-id=GgNYATV4,discussion-id=acpTEEiP,comment-id=000100010000,timestamp=2020-01-04T06:54:29.409+0000) > > After seeing this OP I loaded up a training game to see it for myself. > > He shields. Just double checked to make sure I wasn't dreaming. on onld live servers yes. pbe and live now is no shield lol
Confirmed, now it heals instead. 18 days ago, it was shielding.
Rioter Comments
: > [{quoted}](name=Nightsky Pirate,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=RAA5dy9L,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2020-01-15T23:11:31.388+0000) > > Obviously words do not cause direct physical harm. You're practically admitting they do cause mental disruption. These mental pains register in the brain as literally as physical pain, such that they are the same neurons responding and causing the individual real pain, and has lead to enough suffering in many people to *let themselves die*, in addition to suicide. This is the real world. > > "Didn't you say you would get an abortion if you conceived?" > "I meant I would if it were *your* child, I would kill it. Not anyone else's." > > If you believe that words have not caused *psychological* damage, you're flat out wrong. its dependent on the person hearing the words so its not the words but a weak psyche
When you eventually tell that to the person you care about, whom you just hurt with your words in a careless moment, I hope you get all you deserve, so that maybe you'll understand the damage your lips can do. Please stop pretending you too are immune to words for whatever reason (outside of a mental disorder). I mean this with kindness. This also shows how words can hurt yourself. Cause and effect. Be accountable for what you say, or you'll be made so eventually.
Kei143 (NA)
: That should be the least of your worries right now. Should be worried about being permabanned instead.
In addition to that, promos don't mean anything. If you're placed low, you'll climb. If high, you'll drop. Otherwise your division rank in League of Legends is nothing more than a colored helmet that pretty much only you look at.
: > [{quoted}](name=Prandine,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=HLj6jv0s,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2020-01-19T18:12:42.678+0000) > > People forget or ignore the fact that when Riot tried permamutes in the form of infinitely scaling chat restrictions it didn't help reform people and led to an uptick in poor gameplay behavior from people who wanted to harass others but couldn't via chat. If you're gonna propose a potential solution to toxic behavior then it needs to actually be more than just "remove chat", as history has shown that that's not a fool-proof solution. Nothing is fool proof. And we cannot expect to fix people in general. If someone trolls you via in-game actions, there's really nothing you can do, I agree. If people once had the privilege to use the chat, and now they don't whilst everyone else does, they will find a way to communicate their disgust by other means. But, if everyone is on an even playground, and no one can chat. While you wouldn't stop all trolls, you may stop someone from ruining 4 other players' game simply because they offended them with some words. It's a terrible domino effect where 1 person is having a bad time, and suddenly said person wants everyone to feel the way they do. I didn't think I needed to explain this, but I suppose I overestimated my potential audience.
Riot has the stance that they spent a lot of money on science to eliminate toxicity which mostly ended about six years ago. I say this because they haven't displayed an interest in developing changes or improvements or a replacement to the automated system ever since Tencent came to own Riot. They demanded results, something useful for all the research, and the team gave the automated system. Which was really, at it's inception, just a program to show off how well they understood the community at the time. The original program was created overnight and was 80-ish% 'accurate'. They needed results to try to counter League's reputation as most toxic game, so they trumpeted it's 100% accuracy (which is a forced statistic) and let it go. To this day, due to their efforts at research in the past and support for official gatherings to discuss online toxicity, Riot is viewed by the limelight as a champion against toxicity. In reality, League remains one of, if not the most, toxic game out there, as you seem quite aware. Riot has gone after the bots, seeing how they were going to destroy the system, but that seems to be the extent that they're willing to go beyond maintaining the status quo. So Riot has shown that they don't really care to improve the player experience anymore when it comes to behavior. Frankly, it seems they want to babysit the sensitive folk, who seem to me to be merely those who are abusing the system. Does this help?
Prandine (NA)
: People forget or ignore the fact that when Riot tried permamutes in the form of infinitely scaling chat restrictions it didn't help reform people and led to an uptick in poor gameplay behavior from people who wanted to harass others but couldn't via chat. If you're gonna propose a potential solution to toxic behavior then it needs to actually be more than just "remove chat", as history has shown that that's not a fool-proof solution.
And it appears that Riot's limited experiments provide an answer for everything, like approximating a wide array of behavior-based adjustments to que into some sort of Prisoner's Island Hell. Other games perform without chat and it seems to be a good thing for them. The real reason Riot can't do it is because people would literally cry their heads off about losing something.
: How? you sound toxic.
You're absolutely not among the "worst 1%". I think this is a borderline example of the system's judgement being wrong. The program didn't glitch, it is simply becoming skewed in what should constitute punishment by report saturation. There were enough trigger words that you said to trigger the system. Over time, the program identifies phrases and words that you use in games that you are reported in. The repeated use of those words will be considered more toxic by the system, which, without understanding of context (which the rules specifically say context does not matter, rule established after the ban program was implemented), will eventually punish you for. The only way to avoid this is to try to not get reported or don't say anything remotely negative. At all. Especially since you're at 25 chat restriction.
: > [{quoted}](name=Nightsky Pirate,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=RAA5dy9L,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2020-01-13T20:02:21.807+0000) > > You botched it with "words are not toxic", because that's 100% untrue. I'm trying to understand where you're coming up with that, or what your point is in saying that, but coming up with nothing. I believe you're simply completely wrong. "Sticks and stones" is a merely a bravado defense against words, words that can hurt. Statements can cut just as deep as a knife. They cannot. Words are nothing more than vibrations. You speaking figuratively in order to try and prove your point is stupid. This is the real world. Facts matter. words can not cause physical harm.
Obviously words do not cause direct physical harm. You're practically admitting they do cause mental disruption. These mental pains register in the brain as literally as physical pain, such that they are the same neurons responding and causing the individual real pain, and has lead to enough suffering in many people to *let themselves die*, in addition to suicide. This is the real world. "Didn't you say you would get an abortion if you conceived?" "I meant I would if it were *your* child, I would kill it. Not anyone else's." If you believe that words have not caused *psychological* damage, you're flat out wrong.
Ellatiel (NA)
: Riot IFS bugs out and falsely punish me! I demand answers! Punished for saying two characters: "9x"!
First to say it, show us first chat log. Do it. Frankly you sound like a bad actor.
Gintyl (NA)
: Match 8, auto filled to jun, (my worse role and the second time in 4 games) o yeah and the enemy jun has 900K mastery points.......................... Now 2/6 and i totally got a fair chance at placement matchesss......................NOT. I AM DONE. This is why i avoid ranked in the past and why there is no point in even trying when I dont even got to play the game. But riot cares about creating a good game...... what a joke of a company.
You're straight up actively looking for faults and fabricating reasons. Stop it. Stop blaming your environment so readily. I'm not saying you're bad, but stop blaming anything else you can.
Gintyl (NA)
: Match 7
DO NOT WORRY ABOUT YOUR PLACEMENT. This is not South Korea 2010 where you get discounts on menu items if you're Gold or higher. Play with honor, play your best, and soon enough you will be in the placement you should be. With extremely bad luck it might take a hundred games, but that's not likely. That only happens because there are *millions* of players. You just played 7 games. Chill out.
rujitra (NA)
: If those hundreds of games are happening in a week or so, then that’s not Riots fault. The players clogging up the system with false reports are the main source of the backlog.
If a public toilet is clogged for weeks, whose fault is it?
: > literally majority of my placement matches have been filled with people who intentionally feed and then afk This literally did not happen.
^ Gintyl is new to the ranked scene. Surprise, seems the only legit gripe would be a feeding Yasuo, but he doesn't even mention him. Gintyl: it doesn't happen that often. It appears you should ease up on others.
: Inters in the new season, and the people that defend them.
Yep, its a problem, but this doesn't really help anything. Wait, did you think these forums are a customer complaint box?
: To elaborate though, it takes a few months for you to work your back out of the danger zone. You will also be likely to be in danger from ANY kind of valid report against you, so I would advise you not to say ANYTHING for a few months in chat. Mute everyone - you won't see them talking and emoting, so you're not going to respond to them. This will be difficult if you're prone to exploding against opponents who are beating you, but just stick with it and keep calm.
As they said. I would advise not buying the skin until you have confidence you can play "with honor".
: Just don't type at all, Riot finds a way to make anything you say bannable. It's worse than Club Penguin, and that was a kid's game!
Incredibly wrong. Some people just aren't mentally equipped to correct themselves. Those people should just not type at all.
: Aside from what would be considered racism, homophobia, and other hate speech, what you say is not as important as **HOW YOU SAY IT**. You will not get punished for this - "Son of a bitch I fucked that up good, didn't I?" You will get punished for this - "Why the fuck did you do that, you fucking moron?" See the difference?
+1. Best source of how not to say it is your own chat logs. The system will more harshly punish you for repeating them.
: why is every1 so emtional now days?
It's hard to convince someone to play passive farm. It is very boring. I suppose it's just something you learn to do when you are Garen against a competent Talon...
Bijeesny (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Nightsky Pirate,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=nEj6lAho,comment-id=00020000000000000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2020-01-12T22:35:50.855+0000) > > Still, are trolls *really* as bad a problem as it seems you're projecting? Did you....pls tell me youre joking dude, sorry but I have a hangover so im not in the mood for jokes. But at this point I dont think thats the case so I'll just give you a short and a long answer. Short answer, yes. Long answer, yes they are a problem. > Is part of that just being loud to get attention? There we go again with washed-up methods of trying to shut down negative criticism, but instead of dismissing that as "crying", now its "getting attention". Do you rly think I'm wasting my time talking to a random nonamer on the internet like you just to get attention? lmao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDa5iGiPgGs 0:47-0:51 > Looked that system up. I heard their system works pretty well, but never experienced it myself. Unfortunately, of course, Riot is unaffiliated with Steam and wouldn't dream of hooking up with them. With only a few game modes, they wouldn't have enough information to set up a similar situation. Then how come we have an honor system? xD By your logic that wouldnt be a thing aswell. Like, all riot has to do is increase the number of honor lvls, increase the conditions of getting/losing honor and match players based on their honor lvl (X, -1, +1, excluding lvl 0 and 1 since the starting honor lvl is 2, so honor lvls below that would be equal to "lot Trust factor), and bam, you have your very own trust factor system. But sadly, this is a company whos game's client has memory leaks, so unfortunately we cant expect something like a decent system to increase the quality of the game. > They're deathly afraid of anything remotely sounding like Prisoner's island. As I said, no balls unlike Valve. > Do you have any ideas? Higher requirements for ranked. > This does not mean that everyone who plays ranked is required to care more about winning to the degree that they disregard all else- and in fact, they are not actually required to care about winning, period. Just that they *try* to win, in their own way. Hence, the Int report- for those that are doing the opposite. Who said they need to "care more about winning to the degree that they disregard all else"??? Idk about you but i highly doubt it's too much to ask to 1st time a champ/role/build in ranked. highly doubt it's too much to ask to pay attention to the map. highly doubt it's too much to ask to learn the basics of the game before entering ranked. etc. > Most of the time, though, I think people reporting for inting are just straight up wrong. They might not be making the best choices, but if they're winning half their games at the level you're playing at, they must be making up for bad choices in some other fashion. You mean getting carried and being handed free wins because of the common shenanigans (afk, autofill, fresh lvl 30 player, occassional griefer etc.). Oh and enemy players being such garbage that they cant win despite you trying to lose (bronze for example).
Don'tchu get it? You have no idea of what to do to fix this 'problem' that others don't play Ranked like you do. Trolls, inbreds, incels with hangovers... all get to play ranked with simple prerequisites, and that is not a problem. Trolls will probably end up with banned accounts, but it doesn't change the fact that they get to play ranked. "Higher requirements for ranked." Like...? Minimum performance standards? Behavior standards? Demonstrate a penchant for the meta? Paywall? Win X number of games? Demonstrate understanding of the game? Minimum mastery for any champion picks? None of those are good. Performance: All levels of players are allowed to play Ranked. Behavior: Prisoner's island, they're not gonna separate players based on behavior. Meta: Players are explicitly allowed to play off meta. Paywall: Free to play is one of League's things. Win # Games: Won't change anything. Show understanding: Who the hell is gonna take a test to play ranked? There isn't a class or a real tutorial on all the aspects of an intense game anyway. Minimum mastery: First, you could have all your normal picks banned. Then, just like # of games, it won't change anything. Some have played so much that they already have an understanding of a champion they haven't played before and could perform with some competence. Literally the first time I played Sylas, I carried the game. Ties into the Meta reason. Look, ranked is not actually any different from Draft Pick except that it uses divisional rating to match players. All else is subsequent from player action- reports and honors are treated a little differently *by players*. The etiquette is to play to win, but that isn't a rule, and it won't be. Everything else (carrying losers) is plain and simple 'complaining without a solution about an issue we are aware of and individually dealing with'.
: it is and always will be silver. gold is the gateway to rewards, most silver players think they're gold tier. huge egos everywhere. However, Words are not toxic, actions are.
You botched it with "words are not toxic", because that's 100% untrue. I'm trying to understand where you're coming up with that, or what your point is in saying that, but coming up with nothing. I believe you're simply completely wrong. "Sticks and stones" is a merely a bravado defense against words, words that can hurt. Statements can cut just as deep as a knife.
Ulanopo (NA)
: >creating an environment where players unlearn _normal social interaction_ I have a feeling you're making an Argument from Stoicism, which is the idea that people - especially men - should adopt an unfeeling and indifferent attitude to most provocations and aggressions. If you want to live your life that way, far be it from me to try and convince you otherwise, just know that as a philosophy Stoicism tends to be especially unhealthy because it teaches people their feelings are wrong and need to be suppressed, rather than understood and worked through. With respect to League, it is perfectly acceptable to be angry or frustrated at other players. What's not okay is lashing out at them. The correct response, as always, is _**MUTE, REPORT AND MOVE ON**_.
"just know that as a philosophy Stoicism tends to be especially unhealthy because it teaches people their feelings are wrong and need to be suppressed, rather than understood and worked through." Wow. Let's just go ahead and invalidate a whole way of thinking, hm? [En garde!](https://modernstoicism.com/perspectives-stoics-are-not-unemotional/) Just because many do not understand and some improperly adopt it does not make it so. [Self-control does not mean discarding emotions, it means managing them.](https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/health-fitness/mental-health/5-ways-to-manage-anger-using-stoicism) "Stoicism is about the domestication of emotions, not their elimination" "The correct response, as always, is MUTE, REPORT AND MOVE ON." How about bristle with positivity and attempting to reconcile? How about consenting to being at fault (even if not so) and letting them take charge, hoping that working together, even if with a raging lunatic, is better than 4v5? Or what about listening to them, acknowledging their opinion, and asking them to focus on the game, again acknowledging what they said? "What's not okay is lashing out at them." There are many other *normal social interactions* that can take place besides ignoring the problem or lashing out. In fact, I'd argue that these two responses are NOT *normal social interaction* - though **A** perfectly valid response (edit: not lashing out). Is the punishment system so skewed that magnanimously responding is punishable? I think not. I hope you think the same. What seems most ironic is that this response- mute, report, move on- seems to be the sort that the typical stoic would suggest. It is one of the principles of the philosophy- to reject the rage of others. It's certainly the easiest to carry out and helps the system identify bad behavior. Ignore the problem, let someone else deal with it. That's basically the suggestion. Again, I don't mean to say it's bad, I mean to say it's not *THE* correct response. The easiest, for sure. The most reliable to maintain honor, certainly. The best? Perhaps not, but ofttimes, surely. Case by case.
Show more

Nightsky Pirate

Level 162 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion