: Can you stop giving afk penalties to clients that crash in the middle of a game?
>Can you stop giving afk penalties to clients that crash in the middle of a game? I don't actually think they can. The problem with crashing -- or any sort of disconnect -- is that your computer stops giving data to Riot's servers. They're not getting *any* data, and this includes data on how/why the disconnect occurred. It's something something that can't be sent when there isn't a connection up.
: Fingers crossed that Sylais deals consistant damage and not burst.
His low cooldowns and his passive seem to imply that his pattern is meant to be spread out over a period of time, yes.
: Does anyone else hate bandwagoning?
...are you asking me to hop on the "I hate bandwagons" bandwagon? :P
iiGazeii (NA)
: Why does Luden's give the most AP out of the Lost Chapter upgrades?
>Wouldn't it be better if the three Lost Chapter upgrades were each situationally equivalent? Not really, given that they're so distinct *and* have different price points. * Luden's is about immediate burst damage and waveclear. * Hextech GLP-800 is a utility item with a slow that features a harder-scaling AP nuke than Luden's Echo. While it has less uptime, it's a solid choice, as it offers 10 less AP for an extra 100 + 10% AP damage on the effect. It's also 400 less gold, which needs to be taken into account. * Archangel's is about mana sustain and late-game scaling. It doesn't grant as much AP as Lost Chapter, certainly, but it can easily add significantly *more* in the late-game, as well as offering defensive options Luden's can't match. So they're all solid choices, but which one you take depends on who you're playing and how you expect the game to go. Luden's being the most *situation-neutral* choice (i.e. the best pick into an unknown situation for most character, and a solid choice even in non-optimal ones) doesn't necessarily make the other items badly designed or weak.
: Why is verbal conduct punished so much more harshly than leaving/inting?
It's actually punished *less* harshly: those other behaviors usually skip chat restrictions entirely. The catch is that verbal toxicity is easier to confirm, so it is identified and punished *faster,* which often makes it seem like it is more harsher punished.
: > As I mentioned, that's my bad, and I apologize for it. I'm human, and I do make mistakes -- in this case there were several bulk deletions in that channel over the course of a few days, and I confused your situation for one of the other ones. Thank you for the apology. My concern though, is that your post is up voted and still contains the accusation. I like a mixture of you and Deep Terror Nami. You apologized. Deep Terror Nami struck out the misinformation. I also feel like because of your moderator status, people are more likely to believe the accusation. > I'm sorry about that, but it's not really inappropriate to challenge someone on a statement you feel is incorrect, as long as you do so within the rules. How do their comments relate to improving communication between the players and moderators? They are off topic in my opinion. Also, their accusations are flat out wrong. > I did specify that that specific channel is an exception due to how it is set up, and informed the entire team of a new internal process going forward to ensure that any comments/warnings in that channel are documented elsewhere so they can be preserved. Are players able to access this data? > I have no intention of deleting this thread and will happily have someone take a look at it. I cannot control downvotes, nor is it inappropriate for people to use downvotes as they like. Well thanks for not taking the easy way out. I understand you can't do anything about the votes. I guess I'm just frustrated that I have no way of defending my thread.
> [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=3BUMiaRr,comment-id=00060001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-19T23:38:46.060+0000)Deep Terror Nami struck out the misinformation. Updated. Easy change to make. > How do their comments relate to improving communication between the players and moderators? They are off topic in my opinion. Also, their accusations are flat out wrong. Again, it's permissible to be incorrect, and people on all parts of the boards like to weigh in on situations. Once a thread is posted it sort of becomes a community thread, and the OP does not get to dictate what is and isn't relevant to the situation, although I know that in some cases that can be frustrating. > Are players able to access this data? If the individual in question requests it and the information has been properly recorded, we could provide it, yes.
: Any chance you will post your findings in this thread? I don't like how you said I was ping spamming when I wasn't. I don't like the multiple people claiming I direct messaged instead of going through the proper channels. I don't like how you say evidence doesn't get deleted. Then say some of the evidence gets automatically deleted. I don't like how I have been honest and correct about every thing in this thread and I am still getting down vote spam and passive aggressive insults. I don't like how there is 30+ comments and NONE of them are on topic. Of course now I said that you delete the entire thread to "clean it up".
> [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=3BUMiaRr,comment-id=000600010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-19T22:35:40.374+0000)Any chance you will post your findings in this thread? Unlikely -- discussions with the moderators in question are done internally, and I am unfortunately not able to recover bulk-deleted messages from #board-violation-inquiries. I tried several workarounds, but it appears that they are simply not accessible. The good news is I've implemented some new standards for how we handle messages there that we deem require warnings or deletions as a result of this situation. > I don't like how you said I was ping spamming when I wasn't. As I mentioned, that's my bad, and I apologize for it. I'm human, and I do make mistakes -- in this case there were several bulk deletions in that channel over the course of a few days, and I confused your situation for one of the other ones. > I don't like the multiple people claiming I direct messaged instead of going through the proper channels. I'm sorry about that, but it's not really inappropriate to challenge someone on a statement you feel is incorrect, as long as you do so within the rules. > I don't like how you say evidence doesn't get deleted. Then say some of the evidence gets automatically deleted. I did specify that that specific channel is an exception due to how it is set up, and informed the entire team of a new internal process going forward to ensure that any comments/warnings in that channel are documented elsewhere so they can be preserved. > I don't like how I have been honest and correct about every thing in this thread and I am still getting down vote spam and passive aggressive insults. > > I don't like how there is 30+ comments and NONE of them are on topic. Of course now I said that you delete the entire thread to "clean it up". I have no intention of deleting this thread and will happily have someone take a look at it. I cannot control downvotes, nor is it inappropriate for people to use downvotes as they like.
: > [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=7IAGEfWp,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-01-19T20:00:08.955+0000) > > This is considered toxic behavior. It is insulting and condescending to imply your allies are children or call them trolls, even if you believe they are or they are acting like it. Mute, report, and move on. > > Same as the above. > > This word is not really the most appropriate way to complain about the coding. It's also worth noting that pretty much all blinks still cause targeted effects to hit (including in-progress auto-attack animations), and this is intended -- blinks are already strong enough without breaking targeting. So when someone is intentionally feeding, while calling me racist, homophobic, and other verbally insulting things, I should be banned for being condescending and claiming that behavior is childish? I mean, this seems pretty odd to me. Fair enough on the R word though, which if riot just pointed at that, maybe i would understand. But it liked games i was being positive, trying to get my team to win when they were obviously trolling and raging. It seems very backwards. Basically, it's telling me that if I int and troll, I can just report anyone that points it out and get them banned instead of me.
> [{quoted}](name=stanjer123,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=7IAGEfWp,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-01-19T21:18:07.600+0000)So when someone is intentionally feeding, while calling me racist, homophobic, and other verbally insulting things, I should be banned for being condescending and claiming that behavior is childish? I mean, this seems pretty odd to me. Given that you're both breaking the rules, I'd say probably. The behavior they're showing is *worse*, definitely, and as a result usually earns an escalated punishment. Both behaviors can ultimately earn a permanent ban though, depending on frequency. > Basically, it's telling me that if I int and troll, I can just report anyone that points it out and get them banned instead of me. When the system identifies those behaviors, it will hit you with a much more aggressive first ban.
: Are you sure? Last I checked a clean account history was a requirement to apply (I considered it myself, to be a different voice amongst the volunteers that constantly back status quo)
> [{quoted}](name=Sorin Alucard,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=jlojNhME,comment-id=000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-01-19T20:44:45.654+0000)Are you sure? I'm sure, yes. There are some behaviors that WOULD be severe issues and probably disqualifying (hate speech, 14-day bans for abusive behavior, etc), but a punishment here or there in your history isn't disqualifying.
: I said capable not guaranteed--- So if you're being you cussing up a storm but aren't making anyone feel like you deserve a report then you won't get punished. besides, you have to be pretty squeaky clean to get your position right?
> [{quoted}](name=Sorin Alucard,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=jlojNhME,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-19T20:30:19.257+0000)besides, you have to be pretty squeaky clean to get your position right? Not really, actually. I *personally* happen to have a clean account history, but that's not a thing that's applicable across the entire team's account history.
: Really honest question about what's considered toxic
> [{quoted}](name=stanjer123,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=7IAGEfWp,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-01-19T19:27:01.479+0000)stanjer123: bad focus mixed with feeding jg > stanjer123: im not 12 years old, i dont play this game to fuck around like a child > stanjer123: zed, you just intentinally watched me die just to troll, grow up or dont play online games > stanjer123: typical kid, trolls team, then wants to ff and report them all > stanjer123: its actually pretty funny how hard people troll in this elo > stanjer123: zed toxic af, malz jg who inted, then an afk adc > stanjer123: 1/7 jg malz This is considered toxic behavior. It is insulting and condescending to imply your allies are children or call them trolls, even if you believe they are or they are acting like it. Mute, report, and move on. > stanjer123: enjoy your game kid > stanjer123: literally feeding and raging in all caps all game > stanjer123: how old are you two? > stanjer123: youre 0/10, are you trolling? Same as the above. > stanjer123: riots coding is r%%%%%ed This word is not really the most appropriate way to complain about the coding. It's also worth noting that pretty much all blinks still cause targeted effects to hit (including in-progress auto-attack animations), and this is intended -- blinks are already strong enough without breaking targeting.
bogi2050 (EUW)
: Like anybody cares what you say in a videogame tf, let's play soccer at school and not be able to swear at each other. 0 sense! Basically this ban system is made for robbery as I've seen like about less than 5 people banned for doing elo boosting than people saying f word in chat lmfao. That's hillarious! I've reported an elo booster myself back in 2014 or 2015 and guess what he is playing by that day. And let's not talk about scripters which everyday get a new way to hide their script from auto system and we still focusing on banning people who say something in chat! Oh and yeah I could completely ruin a game and be nice at the same time if that wouldn't lead to a ban. There are better ways to ban people who intentionally ruin the fun and only make the game worse but the current system is the worst system in the entire gaming history!
> [{quoted}](name=bogi2050,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XunwEHzu,comment-id=00020001,timestamp=2019-01-19T19:37:24.575+0000)Like anybody cares what you say in a videogame People clearly do, given that the current automated system is based on the **player-driven** judging from the old Tribunal.
: You probably didn't piss anyone off enough to get reported tbh. You really don't play that much too. Last, we tested in and out of duos because you can't ask for reports but you can't guarantee people will report you for cursing but not flaming. Resoundingly, curse + frequency + report got a form of chat restriction. You're welcome to test it yourself with multiple accounts and multiple people--- you'll need duos or groups to make sure a report happens. So CAN you banter and curse? Yes, if you don't get reported.
> [{quoted}](name=Sorin Alucard,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=jlojNhME,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-01-19T19:31:37.412+0000)You probably didn't piss anyone off enough to get reported tbh. Then that suggests a difference in my behavior and the way I undertake those actions that makes them acceptable, I would think. >You really don't play that much too In the last season, no. But prior to that (with the same IFS) I played a *lot* more, with the same behavior.
: Test results
And someone who tends to type a lot and frequently uses curses to intensify emotion, I'd be curious to see exactly what you were writing, because I've never experienced any form of punishment despite a fairly consistent pattern.
: Critical hit chance should be removed entirely, and replaced with an auto attack multiplier
: Bounties are a good idea, but they need to fall off
: > I do not, however, have any indications that you were threatened, and I'd be curious to know the context of that interaction. I don't know the context. The threat came out of no where in my opinion. I got the feeling that the moderator was stressed. As far as the wording of the threat, something along the lines of "I'm tempted to permanently ban your account as is my right given by the boards rules." I suspect the threat was issued in the private room. Where it was deleted. Now only 2 people know it even happened. Just my theory. > When you say "they will just delete the evidence" it does sort of imply that you're accusing us of being people who will just delete evidence. Sorry. Maybe I should have said they "could" delete the evidence. Or maybe, the evidence is automatically deleted like it appears to be the case for the moderator threat against my account.
> [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=3BUMiaRr,comment-id=0006000100000000,timestamp=2019-01-18T21:00:43.283+0000)I don't know the context. The threat came out of no where in my opinion. I got the feeling that the moderator was stressed. > > As far as the wording of the threat, something along the lines of "I'm tempted to permanently ban your account as is my right given by the boards rules." If you could send me a Discord message with the name of the moderator in question so I can follow up internally, that would be appreciated. > I suspect the threat was issued in the private room. Where it was deleted. Now only 2 people know it even happened. Just my theory. There were no deletions in the private room, nor any removals with your name or a moderator name attached that I can see for that day. There was a rather large automatic bulk deletion in #violation-inquiries, but, as aforementioned, that's normal (and expected) functionality for there. I'm looking into whether or not I can get the details of that removal.
rujitra (NA)
: I can find no documentation of Clyde Bot acting in discord channels. On the other hand, it is very well documented by Discord that it operates in DMs. I cannot rule out that they edited their code without updating the documents. I think this is highly unlikely, however.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=3BUMiaRr,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-18T20:56:57.176+0000) > > I can find no documentation of Clyde Bot acting in discord channels. On the other hand, it is very well documented by Discord that it operates in DMs. > > I cannot rule out that they edited their code without updating the documents. I think this is highly unlikely, however. I do think in this case it was an attempt to send a message after the pullroom had been closed. That's consistent with the data I see on my end, although I obviously cannot see the last message sent by the OP.
Tom Keen (NA)
: Perma ban system
It's a bit of a misconception that the system is designed to reform players. Instead, it's designed to ***allow the opportunity for self-reform.*** At every stage up until the permanent ban sufficient good behavior can recover your account's standing. The reason it does not *reward* reform is that you'd have to make the punishment hit something that can be taken away, such as champion pools or experience or more. Otherwise you're basically giving a *benefit* to being punished, which is frustrating for players who are well behaved. Currently there is a soft incentive in the form of loot boxes and key drops, but that's about it. Actively helping players reform is difficult, as different people require different approaches and incentives. *League* can't really play therapist, but it *can* offer players second, third, and even fourth chances, which they currently do.
: > That said, you're slightly misrepresenting the situation here. I'm not finding any record of threats aside from a request to stop pinging the board-violation-inquiries channel repeatedly. I pinged a total of 2 times over a period of hours. I don't recall being told to stop pinging. Post that part of the chat log as evidence please. > That was definitely too blunt of a dismissal: if you're pulled into a pullroom, you should at least get a reason for why you are being removed. I'm going to inquire about that. Moderators already gave a reason in the forums notifications. Discord is where we are supposed to go to DISPUTE moderator actions. That means moderators should LISTEN to the dispute. There is no point to go onto discord if moderators are not going to listen. > You did apparently receive a heads up that the punishment would be reduced, but it was not. I'm going to try to find out why, 'cause that's a big miss and I don't want that to occur again. While you're at it, find out why Riot said my account was not in the escalation system even though it was. > We're happy to take critique and feedback, but I do think the accusations of deleting evidence and abusing power you lay out here are misplaced. I didn't make those accusations. Those are merely talking points to try to get a discussion. > Random half-thought-out suggestions to get the thread moving:
> [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=3BUMiaRr,comment-id=00060001,timestamp=2019-01-18T20:25:36.093+0000)I pinged a total of 2 times over a period of hours. I don't recall being told to stop pinging. Post that part of the chat log as evidence please. Unfortunately, that is the one room that chat logs are *not* easily preserved in, as it is automatically cleaned so that it doesn't broadcast the names of everyone talking to us, as many of them would prefer to have their cases NOT easily noticeable by the community. I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt here and say I may be confusing my incidents in that room, so apologies if that's the case. I do not, however, have any indications that you were threatened, and I'd be curious to know the context of that interaction. > Moderators already gave a reason in the forums notifications. Discord is where we are supposed to go to DISPUTE moderator actions. That means moderators should LISTEN to the dispute. There is no point to go onto discord if moderators are not going to listen. I did acknowledge I feel that was a bit too hastily dismissed. That said, there are some limits of what we will listen to and how long we will entertain certain discussions. I don't believe those were applicable in the conversation you linked here, certainly, but it's still worth mentioning. > While you're at it, find out why Riot said my account was not in the escalation system even though it was. > I didn't make those accusations. When you say "they will just delete the evidence" it does sort of imply that you're accusing us of being people who will just delete evidence. Possibly unintended, but still a bit of an accusation.
: I spend 90% of my time breaking the forum rules and don't get punished. Sounds like the moderators are being overly friendly.
> [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=3BUMiaRr,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2019-01-18T20:02:15.099+0000)I spend 90% of my time breaking the forum rules and don't get punished. Sounds like the moderators are being overly friendly. Are you suggesting you'd like to complain we're giving too much leeway to you? Legitimately curious, 'cause 90% seems high.
: Well ist a good Thought. But i really dont think, that it is more difficult for a System to find ONE Player in my MMR for a game then TEN of them? I am a Little confused how u really think this could possibly be Right? It does not try VERY HARD to be balanced. It does a normal Jon, the same Job the System did in s2 and since then there are no increases of the intelligence of this good old System.
> [{quoted}](name=IAMMAINAATROXX,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=WGeyItfo,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-01-18T18:33:26.349+0000) > > Well ist a good Thought. But i really dont think, that it is more difficult for a System to find ONE Player in my MMR for a game then TEN of them? I am a Little confused how u really think this could possibly be Right? It does not try VERY HARD to be balanced. It does a normal Jon, the same Job the System did in s2 and since then there are no increases of the intelligence of this good old System. It's important to note that it's not just finding 10 players of around your MMR range: what it's actually doing is ensuring that the teams are comparable in terms of overall estimated MMR so that it gets the closest approximation to a balanced game it can. If your average team MMR was about 1300, but your jungler was 1500 and your top laner was 1100, it wouldn't just pull any 1300 jungler: it would need to wait until it found a jungler with a sufficient MMR to balance your specific game. That's a lot longer to potentially wait then if it just throws you guys back into queue and rebuilds the best team it can.
emmopro (EUNE)
: Got banned on my 6 yeas account for actually nothing
>Game 1 Andyleetz0r: u blind? Andyleetz0r: at least u ahve some iq Andyleetz0r: stfu trash Andyleetz0r: usless Andyleetz0r: moron Andyleetz0r: im done im afk end game guys If you had a previous 14-day ban, this sort of insulting and abusive behavior -- while perhaps less severe than *some* behavior -- will definitely earn you a permanent ban. This is indeed flaming, and will reliably get you punished.
Jo0o (NA)
: I humbly submit that you guys could very reasonably be a lot more blunt.
> [{quoted}](name=Jo0o,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=3BUMiaRr,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2019-01-18T16:58:01.129+0000)I humbly submit that you guys could very reasonably be a lot more blunt. In some cases, yes, and in some cases it is definitely appropriate. I'm not certain if it was the best idea in *this* instance.
: Lets make Riot think about who the Customer is and who the Serrvice Provider
>But why u throw all Players outta there? Just throw him out and fill his playce with another for example "jungle" So noone is harmed. My guess is because the MMR system tries very hard to make balanced games. You'll actually end up with a *lot* longer of a wait time if you want the system to wait not only until it finds a Jungler, but *also* until it finds a Junger of the *right MMR to balance that game*. It's faster, as a result, to pop you out of lobby.
: reach out to the Boards Moderation Team via: The NA Boards Discord
So I looked into this for you. There are a few things here. I'll start with the our-fault stuff: * That was definitely too blunt of a dismissal: if you're pulled into a pullroom, you should at least get a reason for why you are being removed. I'm going to inquire about that. * You did receive a message from a moderator that included a punishment but said it wasn't one. That's a copy/paste error on our end, ultimately, but I think we should respect the message we send. * You did apparently receive a heads up that the punishment would be reduced, but it was not. I'm going to try to find out why, 'cause that's a big miss and I don't want that to occur again. That said, you're slightly misrepresenting the situation here. ~~I'm not finding any record of threats aside from a request to stop pinging the **board-violation-inquiries** channel repeatedly.~~ (Addendum: I was mistaken here). Doing so can indeed be grounds for removal from Discord, whereas waiting will let someone get around to you when they are able (we're a volunteer team, and this is why it can take a while to get through to someone -- we all have other jobs or responsibilities). You can also always specifically request escalation to a Herald -- this punishment was overturned with our input once we were aware of the *entire* situation, and almost certainly would have been sooner had we been made aware of it here or on Discord. My Discord messages, for example, are always open. Specifically requesting one of us lets us know there may be some complicating factors and we should handle it personally. But yeah -- ultimately, this was a miss on our end due to a few mistakes that all slipped through in one case. My apologies for that. That said: >Less moderator "power". Can't abuse powers you don't have. We couldn't do our job with less available powers, and the Herald team *and* Riot both serve as oversight to monitor potential issues. I have not yet see an "abuse of power" that we haven't handled though -- often things that someone considers an abuse of power is just an honest mistake, a miscommunication, or, frankly, them disagreeing with a rule. >More diverse moderator "culture". Get some "non-band wagon" opinions. We have a lot of that, actually. Internal debates on a number of topics are fairly lively and opinionated. Simply because we tend to try to enforce rules the same way doesn't mean there isn't a diverse culture, or disagreement about some of those rules. This is true at all levels of the team, from the moderators to the Herald team. >Some sort of public accountability for moderator actions. The problem here is that people normally want to see punishment (which we can't really do, as we're a volunteer team) or for people to be kicked off the team (which we don't do for minor mistakes). Public announcements of internal discussion/conversations/warnings aren't productive either, as they just create a naming & shaming situation and make every action that moderator takes suddenly be contested, even when perfectly acceptable. There is internal accountability and sometimes accountability on the boards (people can make threads here, for example). >Reporting misbehavior to the one misbehaving is not going to work. Again, feel free to tag in @Herald specifically. We *do* investigate everything brought to our attention, and we don't have a uniform opinion, so we discuss anything that looks controversial. It's our job to provide oversight for the rest of the moderation team, and we have frequently overturned punishments we have deemed incorrectly applied, and have had conversations with moderators about any problematic patterns we see in their actions. If the issue is with a Herald in particular, we defer to the rest of the Herald team and pull in our Riot contacts. >They will just delete the evidence while the public is left completely clueless. We don't actually delete evidence, save when cleaning up #board-violation-inquiries as is normal for that channel. All other Discord content is preserved, and all deleted threads remain visible to the entire moderation team and Riot, and we're not okay with legitimate concerns presented in appropriate manners being removed. --------------------------------------------- In short, we acknowledge that moderation is not (and never will be) perfect or 100% consistent. A team of humans never will be, and a team of volunteers makes it even harder to reach perfection. We're happy to take critique and feedback, but I do think the accusations of deleting evidence and abusing power you lay out here are misplaced.
: Hey, thanks man! Great feedback too. I really appreciate you taking the time. Maybe I shouldn't have taken the "tech" in Hextech so literally lol. I'll try for a more magical rework on this one.
> [{quoted}](name=ArgonVolt,realm=NA,application-id=A8FQeEA8,discussion-id=8h1OL7Hq,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-01-17T22:08:49.840+0000)Maybe I shouldn't have taken the "tech" in Hextech so literally lol. I'll try for a more magical rework on this one. My personal recommendation is to think of Hextech like magic inside of metal, rather than technology. It has some crisp, sharp, metallic sounds, but it's otherwise magical rather than technical.
: Fan Art: Sound Design. Hextech Chest Opening.
Awesome work! Feedback time: * Initial hum feels more like technology than magic, and is almost a bit uncomfortable. * The little ting as the magic flows through it is amazing. * The key appearance/zoom also feels more like tech than magic. * The pre/post explosion is very well done. * The assembly noise fits nicely, but could perhaps be better timed with the shards to feel chunkier. * The completed noise doesn't feel as sharp and crisp as I'd like. Overall phenomenal stuff though!
: > [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cry7wdrj,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-01-17T19:23:38.725+0000) > > Because this is consistent with every jump or knock-up in the game. Despite the visual appearances, *League*'s hitbox calculations take place in a 2D environment. It doesn't sound a little bit unreasonable to you? Do you see my point though? Why not make him untargetable during that 2 second air time.
> [{quoted}](name=Zona Shift,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cry7wdrj,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-01-17T19:26:33.951+0000) > > It doesn't sound a little bit unreasonable to you? Do you see my point though? Why not make him untargetable during that 2 second air time. Because that would be an *absurdly* powerful buff to a champion who probably doesn't need his ultimate buffed. Untargetability is one of the most powerful things you can add to a kit, and his ultimate is already a point-and-click blink + nuke with potentially multi-target CC, a shield refresh, and a multiple-second-long steroid.
: Yasuo ult needs work (read what I have to say)
>Can anyone explain why certain ground abilities, are able to be hit against Yasuo? Because this is consistent with every jump or knock-up in the game. Despite the visual appearances, *League*'s hitbox calculations take place in a 2D environment. It happens to Yasuo, mid-jump Tristana, and everyone else who doesn't specifically become untargetable.
: You now have the ability to add any 1 form of CC to 1 champions ability
Is the goal maximum broken-ness? **Airborne** to Karthus Q. **Suppression** to Amumu W.
: A friendly warning to the weebs.
I'd like to clarify a bit here: it's not like the word is on our zero-tolerance list or anything. It is, however, something that isn't especially encouraged, as we've seen a lot of uses where it's used to mock a transgender individual (regardless of the where the term originated or how it is "supposed" to be used), ends up sparking a social/political conversation, or is used to basically mock someone for their attraction to an individual (the "Ha! You like this, so you must be gay!" situations). As a result, it's not something that I'd personally recommend, and may be moderated at the moderator's discretion.
: > [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T20:50:40.617+0000) > > They are! This is the reason there are varying values applied to various behaviors behind the scenes, and multiple levels of escalation. Ah, I mean in regards to the experiment. Did the experiment take into account _why_ those people involved were punished? Or merely the fact that they were punished? > I know you may feel that way but, as Riot has told us, they've *done* this test. Gameplay-based toxicity increases. I suppose it is what it is, then. > I meant *known* as in *known by the system*, not necessarily *known by the player*. Yes, I know. I mentioned it in the following sentence. It's why I brought up that even though there are people _known by the system_ to be "team players", they are in fact not--only enough so that they're not detected by the system. > Sure. But there's still a lot to be gained from the ability to have more complex strategies or communications (which can still be simple to type), as well as a lot to be gained from just team communication. The tools are better for those who choose not to type though, yes. In that regard, it's funny because I've personally seen the most advanced and complex strategies performed with zero verbal communication at all--the players on my team just **do** it. Meanwhile, most of the times where strats had to be communicated were with players that generally didn't have the greatest of skill in the game. Communication would _make it easier_, but I don't think it's anything near necessary. I think that the deciding facor around strats is experience with and knowledge of the game. > I'm pretty sure it's something Riot constantly assesses, honestly. The fact that we still have this system (which would be easy to adjust) is an indication that -- at least from what I see -- they are confident it is the best option for their playerbase at this time. I can't argue that. It's not necessarily a _bad_ system, just a _troubling_ one. It seems like it causes trouble that could be prevented through other means, but Riot only keeps it as is because they don't want to backslide in their decision-making--at least until something permanent comes along.
> [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T21:03:43.301+0000)Ah, I mean in regards to the experiment. Did the experiment take into account _why_ those people involved were punished? Or merely the fact that they were punished? Good question! Can't honestly say, but from what I know about the Rioters I know, it was likely *fairly* thorough. I suspect they'd at least see the speed at which they progressed through the system and have their punishment logs available, so they'd know the severity and frequency of toxic behavior as well as (upon deeper investigation) the specific behavior in question. >...because I've personally seen the most advanced and complex strategies performed with zero verbal communication at all--the players on my team just **do** it. Totally fair. I've found the opposite, but anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, so who knows. :) >It seems like it causes trouble that could be prevented through other means... I'm personally all up for thinking about other possibilities. I have yet to see one suggested that doesn't end up leading to worse experiences for well-behaved players though, and unless there's a system that is *equal or better* for well-behaved players I feel like it's probably a non-starter.
: > [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-01-16T20:00:19.507+0000) > > A good question, and one that would be interesting to study! The fact of the matter, however, is that Riot *did* this experiment, and found out players *do* tend to turn to other behaviors in unacceptably high numbers. Though that's true, did the experiment consider each individual player's circumstances regarding their punishment? From what I've been told from Support, there are many reasons as to why a player would be punished for chat toxicity. Those reasons range from merely using racial slurs in a casual manner to outright racism, or from vocalizing their saltiness with a situation or aggressively directing their team. Those four situations are vastly different and should be addressed as such, even if they're all generally considered "toxicity". > * Gameplay-based toxicity is harder to detect. True as this is, it's not a problem that will only exist if a player is muted. I won't deny the possibility that it'd increase, but I can't ignore the possibility that nothing will change at all. It's something I already experience at an unknown factor, after all. > * Players deserve teammates who are known to be team players. I disagree. Players deserve teammates _who are team players, **period**_, even if they're not _known_ to be. TBH, this might just be a generational belief, because I grew up with a lot of "mean-spirited" people who were actually very cordial in action and intent, just abrasive in their personalities. That aside, over the years, I've seen many people on boards claim to be toxic in minor ways (or only so often as to not actually be punished for it) so even though they're _known_ to be team players by the system, they typically are not. > * Communication is a valuable tool, and having teammates who cannot communicate is a disadvantage. Now this is something I used to agree with before the act of communication evolved. For most general gameplay purposes, we have pings for significant situations and emotes--and though emotes aren't necessarily free, Riot could easily create some low-quality emotes for the sake of unnecessary but helpful communication (we already have GG, Surrender, GJ and My Bad emotes, after all) that could be given to players or merely made available through purchase for small amounts of BE. I accept that there are more advanced strats that someone would want to communicate, yet I can't ignore that Riot has said large amounts of chat are both unnecessary and actually a detriment to gameplay. Besides, I feel that if you're on teams of players that have experienced this game for a long time, you don't actually need to say anything because they understand the situation and move in response to the rest of your team. Overall, I just think the entire situation of chat punishment should be assessed because there are too many factors to consider now, not just whether or not someone said something that might tilt someone else.
> [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GMcVflfx,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-01-16T20:24:48.965+0000)Though that's true, did the experiment consider each individual player's circumstances regarding their punishment? From what I've been told from Support, there are many reasons as to why a player would be punished for chat toxicity. Those reasons range from merely using racial slurs in a casual manner to outright racism, or from vocalizing their saltiness with a situation or aggressively directing their team. Those four situations are vastly different and should be addressed as such, even if they're all generally considered "toxicity". They are! This is the reason there are varying values applied to various behaviors behind the scenes, and multiple levels of escalation. Zero tolerance behaviors earn immediate 14-day bans. Other behaviors may earn lesser punishments, or even simply progress part-way towards a punishment. This is why you can have multiple games of minor toxicity and face no punishment provided you had enough okay games in between. The fact that all are ultimately on the same punishment system with the same end punishment doesn't change the fact that they are handled differently with regards to how quickly they escalate you along that system or how much leeway you're given before a punishment occurs. >I won't deny the possibility that i'd increase, but I can't ignore the possibility that nothing will change at all. I know you may feel that way but, as Riot has told us, they've *done* this test. Gameplay-based toxicity increases. > I disagree. Players deserve teammates _who are team players, **period**_, even if they're not _known_ to be. I meant *known* as in *known by the system*, not necessarily *known by the player*. Someone who plays with their team and does so silently or even with a bit of an aggressive edge can still be a team player. Someone who detracts from their team's morale or cohesion through chat-based or gameplay-based actions is not. It's not a perfect statement on my side, but it is a useful generalization of one of the reasons toxic chat is punished. >I accept that there are more advanced strats that someone would want to communicate, yet I can't ignore that Riot has said large amounts of chat are both unnecessary and actually a detriment to gameplay. Sure. But there's still a lot to be gained from the ability to have more complex strategies or communications (which can still be simple to type), as well as a lot to be gained from just team communication. The tools are better for those who choose not to type though, yes. > Overall, I just think the entire situation of chat punishment should be assessed... I'm pretty sure it's something Riot constantly assesses, honestly. The fact that we still have this system (which would be easy to adjust) is an indication that -- at least from what I see -- they are confident it is the best option for their playerbase at this time.
: Why is perma-muting people punished for chat-related offenses worse than perma-banning them?
>Why would someone, who's never done anything aside from being a bit too aggressive with their communication, turn to something that they've never done before? A good question, and one that would be interesting to study! The fact of the matter, however, is that Riot *did* this experiment, and found out players *do* tend to turn to other behaviors in unacceptably high numbers. >There are rules in place for whatever form of toxicity they present, so why is it really an issue? A few reasons! * Gameplay-based toxicity is harder to detect. * Players deserve teammates who are known to be team players. * Communication is a valuable tool, and having teammates who cannot communicate is a disadvantage.
: Is there some sort of system right now where actual people look into the games to judge what happened or is everything just run by a bot system? Because the time it takes for someone to get punished for using racial/homophobic slurs is astonishingly fast (literally me and a few others reported a teammate for his toxicity and verbal harassment while he was using slurs and we received the instant feedback message within a minute), meanwhile people that get reported for intentionally griefing the game or going afk rarely ever seem to get punished at all. I've had a game recently where this Yasuo picked jungle, fed, then went afk because the team was mad at him for feeding and said we were bullying him, then came back and started intentionally feeding, and both teams reported him. Nothing has gotten back to me about him being punished.
> [{quoted}](name=Talon Gerrard,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=GjhTAph4,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-01-16T19:50:52.437+0000)Is there some sort of system right now where actual people look into the games to judge what happened or is everything just run by a bot system? All bots at this point in time, although I *believe* (but can not confirm) that there may be ways for cases to flag manual reviews. >Because the time it takes for someone to get punished for using racial/homophobic slurs is astonishingly fast (literally me and a few others reported a teammate for his toxicity and verbal harassment while he was using slurs and we received the instant feedback message within a minute), meanwhile people that get reported for intentionally griefing the game or going afk rarely ever seem to get punished at all. This is because it's far easier for a system (or a person, for that matter) to pick out harassing behavior, which tends to involve more keywords and common syntax. Meanwhile, a trolling/gameplay detection system has to be confident that it can tell mistakes or simply a lack of skill from intentionally ruining games. >Nothing has gotten back to me about him being punished. This message is no longer reliably sent out. I believe the reason is that some players were using it to learn how to game the system and to harass others they confirmed received punishments.
: Penalized For Losing....
Your win/lose rate has nothing to do with your punishment. The intentional feeding detection takes much more than a losing streak to be confident (or you have to be feeding fairly obviously), and a behavior-related ban is not directly related to your losing streak (although it's possible that losing games has made you more frustrated lately).
Saezio (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rga8fqNj,comment-id=0007000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T13:06:03.500+0000) > > It's not that I *don't* want to answer it -- it's that I don't have a good answer for it. I prefer to base such answers in data (as I'd want to make sure the system *is* actually removing players that are generally problematic), and I don't have access to the data on behavioral rates I'd want prior to making that determination. But you see, all I wanted in this post was to get a grasp of what people _think_ . What people _feel_ would be appropriate based on their personal experience. I am not looking for facts or anything. I am trying to make a conversation where people say for example : "I believe that the word noob would take 100 games of good behaviour for the account's standing to reset to what it was before said report" I understand the whole conversation wouldn't have much value except maybe we understand how each other feels about certain behaviours and hopefully see how something that we deem to be "nothing serious" could in fact be more offensive to others
> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rga8fqNj,comment-id=00070000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T13:18:01.677+0000)I am trying to make a conversation where people say for example : > "I believe that the word noob would take 100 games of good behaviour for the account's standing to reset to what it was before said report" Ah. In that case then yes, I would not want to comment. I feel assigning random numerical values to specific words without regard to context or frequency is an unproductive exercise, and I think a full analysis is beyond the scope of a forum post and probably a better topic for a research paper into player behavior.
: > [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=5EMqL6eX,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-01-16T03:59:40.150+0000) > > Frankly, the tech isn't there (it's everyone or no one for review-required posting) and the team isn't big enough even if it were. We're always happy to answer questions about any actions or removals though. Discussing my rule-breaking after the fact is too late; I want to avoid breaking the rules in the first place - not only per se, but also because my last removal sounded like a definite warning, and I don't want to "oops" my way to a permaban. https://cache.desktopnexus.com/thumbseg/483/483455-bigthumbnail.jpg pls no noozpapr
> [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=5EMqL6eX,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-01-16T04:54:48.030+0000)Discussing my rule-breaking after the fact is too late; I want to avoid breaking the rules in the first place - not only per se. Unfortunately we don't have a great system for this *or* the team size to handle it, unless you're willing to just wait in the Discord. >...but also because my last removal sounded like a definite warning, and I don't want to "oops" my way to a permaban. If you're referring to the comment *"I'd like to emphasize that this is not a warning; however, please take some time to familiarize yourself with the Boards Universal Rules, as well as the guidelines for any sub-board you intend to post in before you do so*", that's not a warning, as it clearly stated. It is, however, our standard non-warning response, as usually these removals are tied to borderline behavior or getting sucked into a heated debate with someone who *is* violating the rules, which we also recommend against in most cases. In short, it really is just a heads up that something was removed, and a reminder that the rules exist. That's all.
Saezio (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rga8fqNj,comment-id=00070000000100000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T01:34:10.563+0000) > > That IS how the system works then. > > Minor offenses with high numbers of well-behaved games in between them will not get you punished. As mentioned, your punishment score drops for good behavior, and unless you have some really toxic games or a pattern of mild toxicity in a row, you should be fine with a slip-up here and there. > > As I said, it depends entirely on the severity of the behavior. I don't really have a solid answer for this one. Well, I did provide an example of behaviour and am only asking for a personal opinion. But I can understand if you don't want to answer it.
> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rga8fqNj,comment-id=000700000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T11:19:33.229+0000)But I can understand if you don't want to answer it. It's not that I *don't* want to answer it -- it's that I don't have a good answer for it. I prefer to base such answers in data (as I'd want to make sure the system *is* actually removing players that are generally problematic), and I don't have access to the data on behavioral rates I'd want prior to making that determination.
: Suggestion: opt-in moderation review before a post goes public
Frankly, the tech isn't there (it's everyone or no one for review-required posting) and the team isn't big enough even if it were. We're always happy to answer questions about any actions or removals though.
Saezio (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rga8fqNj,comment-id=000700000001,timestamp=2019-01-16T00:34:27.864+0000) > > I actually prefer the current system, where it *does* raise flags every time, but sufficient good behavior can lower that flag again. > > In case you weren't aware, here's a simplified version of how (to my knowledge) the system works: > > * You play a game, and get reported. > * The system looks at the behavior in the log and assigns it a number between 0 and 100 based on the severity of the behavior. > * The selected number is added to your behavioral score. If the score reaches 100, a punishment is given. > * If you successfully play games without getting points added (i.e. no reports, or very low numbers upon review), your point total slowly decreases based on the number of games played. > > What this system does is ensure no bad behavior is *ignored*, but also ensures that only the worst or most consistent behaviors earn immediate punishments. Everyone else has a chance to decrease their score, and the amount of time it takes to clean the slate depends on the severity of your behavior and the number of times you've proven yourself well-behaved since then. This system is pretty close to what I mean. Maybe my english is bad so I will make an example to be more clear. Let's say an individual's bad behaviour is calling someone a "Noob" or "trash" to have a frame of reference as to how severe the harassment was. Now if this happens 2 or 3 games in a row the account should be punished. But if between each offence there are 1000 games with no valid report, should the punishment be the same? I think it should not. I am not saying the system is bad or good, I am trying to understand what the community _feels_ the gap of honorable games should be in order for a "minor" offence like that to be overlooked. Do you personally think that the 2 players of my example should be punished the same? If not what do you _think_ is an appropriate amount of games to wipe the slate clean?
> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rga8fqNj,comment-id=0007000000010000,timestamp=2019-01-16T01:09:09.193+0000)This system is pretty close to what I mean. That IS how the system works then. > Now if this happens 2 or 3 games in a row the account should be punished. But if between each offence there are 1000 games with no valid report, should the punishment be the same? Minor offenses with high numbers of well-behaved games in between them will not get you punished. As mentioned, your punishment score drops for good behavior, and unless you have some really toxic games or a pattern of mild toxicity in a row, you should be fine with a slip-up here and there. >If not what do you _think_ is an appropriate amount of games to wipe the slate clean? As I said, it depends entirely on the severity of the behavior. I don't really have a solid answer for this one.
Hotarµ (NA)
: Yeah, that'd be dope. I love helping people out (especially in the PB boards) and improving the Boards is always a plus. Sign me up :b
> [{quoted}](name=Hotarµ,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rga8fqNj,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-01-16T00:50:03.256+0000) > > Yeah, that'd be dope. I love helping people out (especially in the PB boards) and improving the Boards is always a plus. > > Sign me up :b Excellent. There's also a role/room on the Discord if you're a member. Feel free to ping me in any of the channels if you're interested in joining us there.
Hotarµ (NA)
: Honors don't (and shouldn't) shield you from receiving punishment. If you do something wrong, you deserve to face the consequences regardless of how well you behaved beforehand. Also, multiple reports don't get innocent accounts punished. It only takes 1 valid report to trigger a punishment, false ones and mass reports don't amount to anything.
> [{quoted}](name=Hotarµ,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rga8fqNj,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-01-15T23:56:41.693+0000) > > Honors don't (and shouldn't) shield you from receiving punishment. If you do something wrong, you deserve to face the consequences regardless of how well you behaved beforehand. > > Also, multiple reports don't get innocent accounts punished. It only takes 1 valid report to trigger a punishment, false ones and mass reports don't amount to anything. (Minor aside: Would you be interested in the Specialist title? We've been having your name pop up a lot, and your responses are largely informative, to-the-point, and nicely free of condescension. Good stuff all around!)
Saezio (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rga8fqNj,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2019-01-16T00:19:10.402+0000) > > Because the idea of being an honorable player is dynamically opposed to the idea of being a toxic player. If you are toxic enough that the system flags your behavior, you are not being honorable, no matter how many awards you get from other players. This is because there is no way to ensure that honor is given for truly honorable behavior: you can give it to anyone you want, for any reason. > > The other factor is that not everything is equal. *League* takes toxicity very seriously, and a few games of fine behavior do not justify the one where you ruin the game for your teammates with foul behavior. > > There *is* some leeway built into the system, but it is not related to honor because -- as mentioned earlier -- there is no system ensuring that honor is only given for truly honorable actions, but there *is* a system ensuring that punishments are only given for toxic actions. Ok sure honors by players are subjective, but what I am asking here is What do people think should be the number of good behaviour games between 2 bad behaviour games for it not to raise any flags. (provided it is not hate or racism or the other disgusting things people can say online)
> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rga8fqNj,comment-id=00070000,timestamp=2019-01-16T00:24:27.879+0000)What do people think should be the number of good behaviour games between 2 bad behaviour games for it not to raise any flags. [provided it is not hate or racism or the other disgusting things people can say online] I actually prefer the current system, where it *does* raise flags every time, but sufficient good behavior can lower that flag again. In case you weren't aware, here's a simplified version of how (to my knowledge) the system works: * You play a game, and get reported. * The system looks at the behavior in the log and assigns it a number between 0 and 100 based on the severity of the behavior. * The selected number is added to your behavioral score. If the score reaches 100, a punishment is given. * If you successfully play games without getting points added (i.e. no reports, or very low numbers upon review), your point total slowly decreases based on the number of games played. What this system does is ensure no bad behavior is *ignored*, but also ensures that only the worst or most consistent behaviors earn immediate punishments. Everyone else has a chance to decrease their score, and the amount of time it takes to clean the slate depends on the severity of your behavior and the number of times you've proven yourself well-behaved since then.
Saezio (EUNE)
: Shouldn't it go both ways?
>Why do reports that result in punishment drop someones honor but honors don't cancel out reports? Because the idea of being an honorable player is dynamically opposed to the idea of being a toxic player. If you are toxic enough that the system flags your behavior, you are not being honorable, no matter how many awards you get from other players. This is because there is no way to ensure that honor is given for truly honorable behavior: you can give it to anyone you want, for any reason. The other factor is that not everything is equal. *League* takes toxicity very seriously, and a few games of fine behavior do not justify the one where you ruin the game for your teammates with foul behavior. There *is* some leeway built into the system, but it is not related to honor because -- as mentioned earlier -- there is no system ensuring that honor is only given for truly honorable actions, but there *is* a system ensuring that punishments are only given for toxic actions.
Saezio (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=i1ZEV8E8,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-01-15T21:01:23.364+0000) > > I'd say this would be a solid working definition: > > * A player who always or *almost* always exhibits good sportsmanship. > * A player who supports, encourages, inspires, and assists his/her teammates, and one who knows when to stop engaging when that behavior is not appreciated. > * A player who is respectful of his/her opponents, even if they are not respectful of him/her. > * A player who plays to win *with* the team, and is willing to play through adversity until a surrender occurs or a nexus falls. Define _almost always_ If i am good in 2k games how many games can I flame in?
> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=i1ZEV8E8,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2019-01-15T22:55:56.839+0000)Define _almost always_ > If i am good in 2k games how many games can I flame in? I don't have access to that data, so I can't really say. My guess is it varies based on frequency (5 games in a *row* is worse than 5 games *total*, as it shows a change in net behavior) and severity.
Łμst (NA)
: So how exactly is this defined in bad games and what parts of the game are looked at? (ex: player chats on both sides? single player chats without context? kda? Number of typed lines?) Just stuff like that would be helpful in search for my answer. I'm a person who likes explicit yes's and no's instead of grey cloud behind things so that's why I'm here asking questions just to gain a more clear understanding of how it works!
> [{quoted}](name=Łμst,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=i1ZEV8E8,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-01-15T21:21:55.538+0000)So how exactly is this defined in bad games and what parts of the game are looked at? We don't actually know the specific details of precisely how the system works, save that it learns from player feedback and is fairly competent at parsing language. *All* of your chat is looked at if you're reported, from the moment you enter the pre-game lobby until the moment you leave the post-game lobby. The system looks for insulting comments, excessive negativity, rank/score-shaming, excessive complaining, condescending language, and probably a lot more. Unfortunately no one here will be able to give you a black and white list of acceptable and unacceptable behavior though.
Łμst (NA)
: Can someone define riot's version of honorable?
I'd say this would be a solid working definition: * A player who always or *almost* always exhibits good sportsmanship. * A player who supports, encourages, inspires, and assists his/her teammates, and one who knows when to stop engaging when that behavior is not appreciated. * A player who is respectful of his/her opponents, even if they are not respectful of him/her. * A player who plays to win *with* the team, and is willing to play through adversity until a surrender occurs or a nexus falls.
: I find players who are more vocal, care more about winning, they are just usually upset because someone fed away their chance to 1v1, or win an easy mid game. Players who feed intentionally are players who get upset when people try to help them when they are down, and refuse to change their gameplay. They are the real source of the problem.
> [{quoted}](name=catssayimacat,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XunwEHzu,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-01-15T15:41:14.517+0000) > > I find players who are more vocal, care more about winning, they are just usually upset because someone fed away their chance to 1v1, or win an easy mid game. Players who feed intentionally are players who get upset when people try to help them when they are down, and refuse to change their gameplay. They are the real source of the problem. Even if this is the case, Riot's data found that the first sort of player (the vocally upset player) *became the second sort of player at an unacceptably high rate* when subjected to extended chat restrictions.
Show more

The Djinn

Level 73 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion