: I feel I was so toxic in a game
: That question's too limited to make a fitting point. It's not about being a *support* main, it's about *maining a support champion*. If you take 5 people who main support champions and put them on a team, most likely they are doing to dominate becuase they main those five champions. As well, I'm not sure you understand this but just because the champion is a "support" doesn't mean the only role they're good at is support. There are support top laners, and support mid laners, and even supports good at jungling, and supports that can adc, and of course supports that can support. If you're great at the champion and can play another role, guess what? You're gonna do it and do it well.
> [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EOoTqOZX,comment-id=000200010000000100000000,timestamp=2019-02-23T18:47:33.158+0000) > > That question's too limited to make a fitting point. It's not about being a *support* main, it's about *maining a support champion*. If you take 5 people who main support champions and put them on a team, most likely they are doing to dominate becuase they main those five champions. > > As well, I'm not sure you understand this but just because the champion is a "support" doesn't mean the only role they're good at is support. There are support top laners, and support mid laners, and even supports good at jungling, and supports that can adc, and of course supports that can support. If you're great at the champion and can play another role, guess what? You're gonna do it and do it well. Agreed. Lulu mid can be quite annoying.
NotSid (NA)
: So let me get this straight.. "TSM SUX" was ok, but banning support champions is not?
: @RiotAugust Those "useless" Boards are a part of the community that puts bread on your table.
TBT PAX. In a *normal* company, this guy would've been fired in a heartbeat. No good comes out of insulting your clients, unless this guy is intentionally trying to screw Riot over and hates the company or something. How the hell they've allowed two instances of such disgraceful behavior, I don't know, but I feel like at this point a high schooler could make better hiring choices than the guy in charge of that right now.
BigFBear (EUW)
: Can you please hit everyone who buyed a Dia Acc in the face as hard as you can? These people fucked my Dia Promos.
> [{quoted}](name=BigFBear,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=lkHbF67f,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-02-23T11:08:26.001+0000) > > Can you please hit everyone who buyed a Dia Acc in the face as hard as you can? > These people fucked my Dia Promos. Sure How many slaps do you want
: Whos a support, mid, or jungle champion who you think i should get?
I like playing Lux support in case my ADC is a dumbass and can't carry
: Yep! Skill caped Challenger has a ton of free guides that use in game examples of how to execute various concepts. Lot's of good info on wave control, macro, and ways to carry games. https://www.youtube.com/user/SkillCappedDotNet
> [{quoted}](name=TheUrbanKitsune,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=lkHbF67f,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-02-23T04:09:42.405+0000) > > Yep! > Skill caped Challenger has a ton of free guides that use in game examples of how to execute various concepts. > Lot's of good info on wave control, macro, and ways to carry games. > > https://www.youtube.com/user/SkillCappedDotNet I love you
x9 Kat (NA)
: It depends on the coach and their coaching method, honestly. I got coaching a while back and it was pointed out to me that the reason I'm losing so many games where I get fed is because I'm not pushing my advantage hard enough, and not using my strength to take objectives and push for a win before the enemy has a chance to recover. So I guess if you are looking at all the information available to you, and you can't put your finger on where it is you're going wrong, coaching might be an option if your desire to improve exceeds the cost. Like someone else said though, all the information you need is out there for free, but it can be a time-saver to have someone tell you exactly what you need to improve.
> [{quoted}](name=x9 Kat,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=lkHbF67f,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-02-23T03:45:22.816+0000) > > It depends on the coach and their coaching method, honestly. I got coaching a while back and it was pointed out to me that the reason I'm losing so many games where I get fed is because I'm not pushing my advantage hard enough, and not using my strength to take objectives and push for a win before the enemy has a chance to recover. > > So I guess if you are looking at all the information available to you, and you can't put your finger on where it is you're going wrong, coaching might be an option if your desire to improve exceeds the cost. Like someone else said though, all the information you need is out there for free, but it can be a time-saver to have someone tell you exactly what you need to improve. I've had diamond friends point out that the some of the biggest reasons as to why I lose are: 1. I tilt easily 2. I'm easily distracted by real life stuff (So if my rabbit brushes against my leg I'll probably pet him while I'm still running to lane, and end up dying to my laner because I was AFK) 3. I need to stop playing support just because I find CSing mundane, apparently I'm awful at the role :c (Done it, winrate at 67% now) 4. I can't dodge skillshots for shit 5. Both my macros and micros are bad enough that they think it's a miracle that I'm still in silver (Not sure if this is banter or if they're actually serious) I feel like at this point I shouldn't be ranking ;-; probably a hindrance to my team tbh
Koiyaki (NA)
: if you want some help, i'd be willing to help u, add me on league :3 also forgot to actually answer ur question: coaching is what u make it. if u listen to what ur being told and u actually practice, then it'll work out. if u only sparingly practice or only do the things ur told while ur coach is watching..then no its a big waste of money. u get wat u put in
> [{quoted}](name=Koiyaki,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=lkHbF67f,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-02-23T03:58:30.524+0000) > > if you want some help, i'd be willing to help u, add me on league :3 > > also forgot to actually answer ur question: > > coaching is what u make it. if u listen to what ur being told and u actually practice, then it'll work out. > > if u only sparingly practice or only do the things ur told while ur coach is watching..then no its a big waste of money. > > u get wat u put in Thank you kind sir ;-;
: Unless you plan on actually going pro I'd say it's def not worth your money. There are plenty of online resources like videos and written guides available for free. You just have to put the time into researching and understanding them.
> [{quoted}](name=TheUrbanKitsune,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=lkHbF67f,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-02-23T03:24:01.728+0000) > > Unless you plan on actually going pro I'd say it's def not worth your money. > There are plenty of online resources like videos and written guides available for free. > You just have to put the time into researching and understanding them. Do you have any links? I've tried to google stuff, but it's just rudimentary advice like "Don't stand too close to your enemy" "Drop wards" "Kite them" "Build ___ first because it's good against assassins" and etc.
: Paid coaching for league is as worth it as paid coaching for anything else you might do. Chess, golf, landscape painting, etc. It's worth to you what you think improving in that skill is worth. That said, unlike something in-person, you get a virtually identical experience just watching tip videos.
> [{quoted}](name=The Ecdysiast,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=lkHbF67f,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-23T03:17:54.071+0000) > > Paid coaching for league is as worth it as paid coaching for anything else you might do. Chess, golf, landscape painting, etc. It's worth to you what you think improving in that skill is worth. > > That said, unlike something in-person, you get a virtually identical experience just watching tip videos. Hm... I'm a pretty shitty league player either way, so please pray for my lesson to go well! Last resort AF D:
Rioter Comments
: I disagree. It's really obvious they banned 5 supports to meme the girls. Mocking opponents is not allowed so they got a warning. Unless you want to advocate rox were scared of a diamond 3 (on a bad server) player so much that they felt the need to target ban her.. Or that rox really expected a support to be picked in all 5 roles. The team is a living meme, and they memed them with the "full girl support -5 support bans. Girls only play support anyway". On another side i wholeheartedly agree on your opinion about the organization behind the team.. Really embarrassing and it promotes the stereotype many of us hate so much. This should have never happened on the first place, why are they playing in a league against challengers?
> [{quoted}](name=LightIsMyPath,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EWagf6e3,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-02-23T00:55:52.860+0000) > > I disagree. It's really obvious they banned 5 supports to meme the girls. Mocking opponents is not allowed so they got a warning. Unless you want to advocate rox were scared of a diamond 3 (on a bad server) player so much that they felt the need to target ban her.. Or that rox really expected a support to be picked in all 5 roles. > The team is a living meme, and they memed them with the "full girl support -5 support bans. Girls only play support anyway". > > On another side i wholeheartedly agree on your opinion about the organization behind the team.. Really embarrassing and it promotes the stereotype many of us hate so much. This should have never happened on the first place, why are they playing in a league against challengers? Hmm... I guess the only justification I can come up with for them banning the five supports is that Russia seems to have some interesting metas (Apparently 1/10 people don't take flash) and that since the support is actually a support main, she's probably the only one they're slightly afraid of. That being said, their team is definitely a meme, and literally just spitting in the face of competitive gaming, where people actually work their asses off to get into.
SatomiKun (EUW)
: >Now, how the fuck are Thresh and Braum "egirl champs"? They're not cutesy or particularly low skill cap, and are a serious threat if the player has the right mechanics. Pretty good argument that these bans likely were meant seriously. If their goal would have been to BM the team VS by banning "e-girl champions", then banning champions like {{champion:16}} {{champion:37}} instead of Thresh and Braum would have gotten the point way more obvious. Honestly, it feels bad. Seems these were actually legit bans and they get punished because Riot _assumes_ sexism behind it....
> [{quoted}](name=SatomiKun,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EWagf6e3,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-02-23T00:10:52.359+0000) > > They're not cutesy or particularly low skill cap, and are a serious threat if the player has the right mechanics. > > Pretty good argument that these bans likely were meant seriously. > If their goal would have been to BM the team VS by banning "e-girl champions", then banning champions like {{champion:16}} {{champion:37}} instead of Thresh and Braum would have gotten the point way more obvious. > > Honestly, it feels bad. Seems these were actually legit bans and they get punished because Riot _assumes_ sexism behind it.... Hell, if I wanted to bm, I'd probably just not ban at all, or throw in a Lux and Raka ban as you mentioned.
: If my katarina ever gets banned in a ranked game i can open a support ticket and report sexism? awesome xd im gonna abuse this so hard. enjoy the ban bois :^) {{sticker:katarina-love}}
> [{quoted}](name=KittyKàtKàtàrinà,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=tLix7OtV,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2019-02-22T23:09:19.534+0000) > > If my katarina ever gets banned in a ranked game i can open a support ticket and report sexism? awesome xd > > im gonna abuse this so hard. enjoy the ban bois :^) > > {{sticker:katarina-love}} If I lose a game it's cause MMR is sexist
: Wait, banning someone's main is discrimination? Well if that isn't just the stupidest thing I've never heard.........
> [{quoted}](name=L Psy Congroo,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=tLix7OtV,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-02-22T21:08:18.509+0000) > > Wait, banning someone's main is discrimination? > > Well if that isn't just the stupidest thing I've never heard......... **MA** i **N** I feel so fucking attacked rn why not wome i n
: Five Diamond 4 support mains are placed in a professional match
Riot going too far. First the women/trans people only event, now this. Not even sure how their team got clearance to compete. What's next, granting a 1000g advantage to female esports players?
Vacus (NA)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Vacus,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=EWagf6e3,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-22T22:49:52.674+0000) > > Pretty sure the only people who give a shit are actively trolling. I give a shit because according to some sources, there is a 1:10 ratio for female to male gamers in league. Seeing as this situation impacts approx. 10% of 67 million of League's monthly players, that means 6.7 million players are impacted. According to https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/8fpkcu/server_by_ranked_population/ I'd estimate that this is basically (in scale for a comparison) KR's total playerbase+the smurfs and unranked accounts. That's no small number, especially for such a harmful stereotype to take place.
Alzon (NA)
: {{champion:8}} {{item:3157}} The rivers will run gold!
> [{quoted}](name=Alzon,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=yl4w68Gy,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-22T22:45:03.062+0000) > > {{champion:8}} {{item:3157}} The rivers will run gold! https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/rarest-blood-type-world Vlad irl
Lasza (NA)
: Talking about people think their setence were "criticizing".
Human societies have always had people like that. Real life examples would be the "Karens" who ask for the manager for no fucking reason, those overly aggressive people who take everything as a slight, and criminals who do stuff for the thrill of it. What matters is that you don't become one of those people. By being as positive as you are, you are already greatly helping the situation. I wish you the best of luck, and that you continue to bring kindness to your community!
x9 Kat (NA)
: Let's play "Is that acceptable banter?"
Anything is alright in moderation and as long as the other party isn't offended (With the exception of zero tolerance words/phrases)
Rioter Comments
: I'm sure riot could come up with a way where you maybe couldn't choose or play the same champ every time. Riot does have a brain no? :thinking:
> [{quoted}](name=Vayne Bot,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=LuAHsOYE,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-02-21T23:02:32.847+0000) > > I'm sure riot could come up with a way where you maybe couldn't choose or play the same champ every time. Riot does have a brain no? :thinking: Would you like to make a suggestion
Wolfbook (NA)
: 3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Scien (NA)
: Thank you for the information. If I remember correctly normal LCS ticket fees are around $47, but I don't think NA LCS finals tickets maybe too much more expensive.
> [{quoted}](name=Scien,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=mPVEc7Hc,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-02-21T17:09:34.782+0000) > > Thank you for the information. If I remember correctly normal LCS ticket fees are around $47, but I don't think NA LCS finals tickets maybe too much more expensive. No worries, enjoy yourself!
: I'm happy honestly. Would be nice to see other adcs than Lucian and Vayne. Edit: OP you have a typo in there, i think you meant deserve nerfs not ganks.
> [{quoted}](name=General Matty,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=aqipeEAJ,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-02-21T13:28:23.386+0000) > > I'm happy honestly. Would be nice to see other adcs than Lucian and Vayne. > > Edit: OP you have a typo in there, i think you meant deserve nerfs not ganks. That ain't a typo, that's my brain shitting itself. But thanks, fixed!
: Sivir already got a W bugfix nerf (deserved) From OPGG: http://www.op.gg/champion/statistics {{champion:22}} 52.14% winrate 6.01% pickrate {{champion:222}} 51.61% winrate 7.65% pickrate {{champion:15}} 52.57% winrate 19.85% pickrate Now, why are you not complaining about Vayne and Lucian ? On the same OPGG they have {{champion:236}} 52.47% winrate 23.47% pickrate {{champion:67}} 52.07% winrate 22.47% pickrate So {{champion:67}} has almost the same winrate AND more than x3 pickrate than {{champion:22}}
> [{quoted}](name=Sir Saltarin,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=aqipeEAJ,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-02-21T09:14:53.044+0000) > > Sivir already got a W bugfix nerf (deserved) > > From OPGG: http://www.op.gg/champion/statistics > > {{champion:22}} 52.14% winrate 6.01% pickrate > > {{champion:222}} 51.61% winrate 7.65% pickrate > > {{champion:15}} 52.57% winrate 19.85% pickrate > > Now, why are you not complaining about Vayne and Lucian ? On the same OPGG they have > > {{champion:236}} 52.47% winrate 23.47% pickrate > > {{champion:67}} 52.07% winrate 22.47% pickrate > > > So {{champion:67}} has almost the same winrate AND more than x3 pickrate than {{champion:22}} Sorry >-< I was kinda tired and I guess I only saw those three. I'm not complaining about their winrates, just asking to see if you guys think they'll be hit with a hard nerf any time soon, or/and if they're worth learning.
Tele II (NA)
: Of course thats an unpopular opinion lol. You even say USUALLY not 100% the trolls fault, implying that the majority of the time, said troll is not 100% at fault. Ive been flamed before over dumb shit too and my reaction wasnt oh I should troll everyone, fucking over the flamer AND my teammates who havent said shit. Thats you dude. It happens to you once, and you come to the conclusion that the majority of trolls arent at fault? Im sorry but thats just projecting your own personality onto others. Not everyone is like that, and even though I rarely see trolls, I usually identify them before anyone has even said anything to them. Besides, if someone trolls as a reaction to flame, theyre still at fault for trolling. Revenge trolling is just as bad as normal trolling and shouldnt be justified by "someone called him a r%%%%% so its not his fault". I mean come on man. I will say, one of the reasons i hate seeing someone start flaming in game, is because i know that the person being flamed might be the type of person to fuck everyone else over as a reaction. So i guess i kind of understand your point, but I think the semantics are wrong. The troll is still 100% at fault for his own actions. P.S. Dont upvote me. Votes mean nothing.
> [{quoted}](name=Tele II,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9iH79YE8,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-02-21T06:26:38.311+0000) > > Of course thats an unpopular opinion lol. You even say USUALLY not 100% the trolls fault, implying that the majority of the time, said troll is not 100% at fault. Ive been flamed before over dumb shit too and my reaction wasnt oh I should troll everyone, fucking over the flamer AND my teammates who havent said shit. Thats you dude. It happens to you once, and you come to the conclusion that the majority of trolls arent at fault? Im sorry but thats just projecting your own personality onto others. Not everyone is like that, and even though I rarely see trolls, I usually identify them before anyone has even said anything to them. > > Besides, if someone trolls as a reaction to flame, theyre still at fault for trolling. Revenge trolling is just as bad as normal trolling and shouldnt be justified by "someone called him a r%%%%% so its not his fault". I mean come on man. > > I will say, one of the reasons i hate seeing someone start flaming in game, is because i know that the person being flamed might be the type of person to fuck everyone else over as a reaction. So i guess i kind of understand your point, but I think the semantics are wrong. The troll is still 100% at fault for his own actions. > > P.S. Dont upvote me. Votes mean nothing. To clear things up, I needed a controversial topic for my philosophy ISP (Individualized summative project or something like that) , and I've gotten enough points. Upvotes were to try and offer incentives to others. 100% agree with you that I have no way of estimating what percentage of trolls have x and x motives. Please don't get overly offended!
Dynikus (NA)
: The tails really do look like pee. {{sticker:sg-janna}}
> [{quoted}](name=Dynikus,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=yl4w68Gy,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-20T19:45:16.810+0000) > > The tails really do look like pee. > {{sticker:sg-janna}} Hey it's 100$ pee pee you better appreciate it
: No. I just pick fizz if I lane against him or malph if my team gets him. Crit changes were good for him, but his old counters still destroy him and playing as part of a yas comp can be some memey good fun times.
> [{quoted}](name=oOBestEveNAOo,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=GlbtLicW,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-21T04:27:55.071+0000) > > No. > > I just pick fizz if I lane against him or malph if my team gets him. > > Crit changes were good for him, but his old counters still destroy him and playing as part of a yas comp can be some memey good fun times. Fuck. Forgot to add that as an option.
Scien (NA)
: Prices for NA LCS finals tickets?
Don't remember where, but I remember reading that it's around 47 USD. If you're staying overnight, I'd definitely recommend bringing at least $500, not including plane/train+hotel. As a frequent traveller who often attends events, I find that although the event might only be 50-80 to attend, you spend at least another 100 on the event merch, and of course, food+transportation+emergencies+more souvenirs will take up at least an extra 200.
Rioter Comments
: I think {{champion:222}} {{champion:22}} {{champion:15}} being meta is generally healthier for the game than certain other common marksmen picks, {{champion:236}} {{champion:119}} {{champion:67}} {{champion:145}} {{champion:21}}, so I am hesitant to suggest nerfing them directly. You have to consider who would rise to top tier in their place if they were nerfed. Marksmen as a class might be over-buffed right now. I'd say nerf {{item:3031}} a little bit, but leave defensive marksmen items strong {{item:3046}} {{item:3026}} {{item:3080}} so that their survivability isn't hurt. Riot could nerf {{item:3031}} a lot and it would still remain viable if not core on many marksmen. It's a good place to take oppressive strength out of the class while encouraging marksman build diversity.
> [{quoted}](name=Hemulen Magi,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=aqipeEAJ,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-21T03:59:21.016+0000) > > I think {{champion:222}} {{champion:22}} {{champion:15}} being meta is generally healthier for the game than certain other common marksmen picks, {{champion:236}} {{champion:119}} {{champion:67}} {{champion:145}} {{champion:21}}, so I am hesitant to suggest nerfing them directly. You have to consider who would rise to top tier in their place if they were nerfed. Marksmen as a class might be over-buffed right now. > > I'd say nerf {{item:3031}} a little bit, but leave defensive marksmen items strong {{item:3046}} {{item:3026}} {{item:3080}} so that their survivability isn't hurt. Riot could nerf {{item:3031}} a lot and it would still remain viable if not core on many marksmen. It's a good place to take oppressive strength out of the class while encouraging marksman build diversity. Agreed, mostly because it nerfs Yasuo indirectly too :P
Necroash (NA)
: Nobody Talking About the New Refund Policy?
When boards are happy, they are silent. Silence is the best thing Riot can hope for, honestly. The beast has been sated...partially, and temporarily.
Rioter Comments
: I'm not gonna complain about Prestige Ahri but wtf is that price ?
Even more concerning than the price is the fact that some people actually spend ~120$ on what is basically a chroma with slight visual changes
GripaAviara (EUNE)
: EU is constantly shit on. We didn't get the new ranking system despite a lot of us begging for it.
> [{quoted}](name=GripaAviara,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=5rFnEfYf,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-02-20T15:28:21.129+0000) > > EU is constantly shit on. > We didn't get the new ranking system despite a lot of us begging for it. Wanna trade?
: > [{quoted}](name=Tuition Fee,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9iH79YE8,comment-id=00020000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-20T06:16:56.403+0000) > > Wait time out too many long words and my brain needs sleep+meme break > Will you be willing to continue this debate tomorrow kind sir/madam/fellow sleep deprived teenager? {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}}
> [{quoted}](name=ı Sona ı,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9iH79YE8,comment-id=000200000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-20T06:36:12.470+0000) > > {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}} Still not enough slep {{sticker:cass-cry}}
: Coming from having taken part in the discussion that I'm certain this is about (there was an edit added to the discussion regarding it, so it's beyond guessing), I'll say - feel free to at least use my responses as you please. I'm a little curious as to what you mean by "Philosophy ISP" (mostly just the initialism), but either way, whether we agree or disagree, I'm all for you taking something away from our discussion.
> [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=OQUOnAEv,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-02-20T11:26:18.126+0000) > > Coming from having taken part in the discussion that I'm certain this is about (there was an edit added to the discussion regarding it, so it's beyond guessing), I'll say - feel free to at least use my responses as you please. I'm a little curious as to what you mean by "Philosophy ISP" (mostly just the initialism), but either way, whether we agree or disagree, I'm all for you taking something away from our discussion. Thanks! ISP= Individualized summative project or something along those lines. Our topic this year is something controversial that you're supposed to debate/rant about.
Rozaks (NA)
: Do I need to be friendly to the opposing team?
Stuff like "Nice flash Ez" is okay, as long as you don't do it in excess. Don't use zero tolerance words/directly insult the person behind the screen though.
: why do female gamers play mainly support roles
I do it so I can have more fun playing with my duo, who usually selects ADC when playing with with me. It's the only lane where you can have two people without being called out for trolling. That being said, I do also play JG and ADC, as these are the three roles that I feel all the most "social" roles where you get to interact the most with your duo. I also like supp because I can sit back and BM-I mean not farm
: So, Riot.....about that Silver Kayle...
: As I've already gone over the boulder analogy, I'll be skipping over it, with or without the addition of the extra factor. > Second of all, with all due respect, I believe you have employed the straw man fallacy. I never said at any point that Riot should change their punishment policies whatsoever. My message was to try to convince people to offer kind words instead of rude ones to any teammate, by showing them another perspective. Understandable, and while I'll admit that the ending statement is fallacious, I wouldn't say it's a strawman fallacy. I'm not sure if there's a proper term for it, but moreover my fallacy was to superimpose the expectation of a tangible end-result from the division of blame - even despite the openly stated ultimatum of offering more understanding to circumstances. Going forward, though, I'll have to keep in mind that the discussion is meant for a more shorter-range, personal impact over a wide-ranging and systemic one. > First of all, I'd like to get on the same page here, regarding the previous argument that I made on causality. Forgive me if I did not understand your point. In the example you have given, player A caused player B to tilt. The tilt in turn caused player B to troll, in order to spite player A. In that case, player A is still responsible for tilting player B, meaning they still hold some of the "cause" responsibility, as they caused the tilt. Player B alone holds responsibility for the "effect", which is trolling, which I agree with you on. I believe this is simply an extended version of my previous argument. My issue is primarily tying the responsibility for Player B's misbehavior to Player A for having, by incident or otherwise, caused it. And, to that end, I must at least add a caveat; I do not believe that Player A should be held responsible for Player B's actions _unless_ Player A was specifically trying to goad Player B into doing something. Behavioral baiting (whether for gullibility or lack of control) will largely be divided between both players - Player A for intentionally getting a rise out of Player B, and Player B meeting it in kind. That said, if Player A is just being an asshole and Player B responds by trolling - without having been specifically goaded or tricked into it - I don't see a reason to shift or divide blame between players for the latter's misbehavior. And, I know it may seem hypocritical and asinine, but, using the arson analogy I brought up earlier; I do not see Player A at fault for the arson if he insulted Player B and the latter responded with burning the house (and village) down, but, with a different scenario, I would see Player A at fault for the arson if he convinced Player B to set his house on fire (and the rest of the village with it) for, just for the sake of example, home insurance fraud. One is a decided act of malicious trickery, and the other is bad behavior from one person, and a response taken too far by the other.
> [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9iH79YE8,comment-id=0002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-20T06:00:30.925+0000) > > As I've already gone over the boulder analogy, I'll be skipping over it, with or without the addition of the extra factor. > > Understandable, and while I'll admit that the ending statement is fallacious, I wouldn't say it's a strawman fallacy. I'm not sure if there's a proper term for it, but moreover my fallacy was to superimpose the expectation of a tangible end-result from the division of blame - even despite the openly stated ultimatum of offering more understanding to circumstances. > > Going forward, though, I'll have to keep in mind that the discussion is meant for a more shorter-range, personal impact over a wide-ranging and systemic one. > > My issue is primarily tying the responsibility for Player B's misbehavior to Player A for having, by incident or otherwise, caused it. And, to that end, I must at least add a caveat; > > I do not believe that Player A should be held responsible for Player B's actions _unless_ Player A was specifically trying to goad Player B into doing something. Behavioral baiting (whether for gullibility or lack of control) will largely be divided between both players - Player A for intentionally getting a rise out of Player B, and Player B meeting it in kind. > > That said, if Player A is just being an asshole and Player B responds by trolling - without having been specifically goaded or tricked into it - I don't see a reason to shift or divide blame between players for the latter's misbehavior. > > And, I know it may seem hypocritical and asinine, but, using the arson analogy I brought up earlier; > > I do not see Player A at fault for the arson if he insulted Player B and the latter responded with burning the house (and village) down, but, with a different scenario, I would see Player A at fault for the arson if he convinced Player B to set his house on fire (and the rest of the village with it) for, just for the sake of example, home insurance fraud. > > One is a decided act of malicious trickery, and the other is bad behavior from one person, and a response taken too far by the other. Wait time out too many long words and my brain needs sleep+meme break Will you be willing to continue this debate tomorrow kind sir/madam/fellow sleep deprived teenager?
: There are a fair number of flaws with the boulder analogy, the first of which I've already raised (binary "this happened so that happened" causality with no in-betweens and alternatives doesn't apply to human beings all that well), but here's some other issues: 1) The boulder is inanimate and has no ability to decide for itself, and, likewise, the wind is inanimate and mercurial. The boulder (assuming the wind is strong enough) doesn't have the ability to simply not move - unlike humans in the situation this is meant to analogize, where if one player is toxic, another player always has the option to not be toxic with them. 2) The whole analogy fails to relate to League well - The wind blows, the boulder rolls, and a man is killed. A more appropriate analogy would be something along the lines of; "Man A is slighted by Man B for various reasons, and takes it upon himself to avenge the apparent wrongdoing by setting fire to Man B's house - setting the entire town ablaze in the process." 'Cause there's more factors in the game than just one guy, one provoker, and one troll. The Troll's decision to troll completely forsakes everyone else's stake in the game for his own petty retribution. So who set the town on fire? Man A, who put the torch to the first house, or Man B, who wronged Man A in whatever way was enough to justify the arson? 3) The analogy also denatures the boulder (and the troll it represents) from any actual blame. No blame can actually be put on the boulder for simply adhering the universal laws of gravity, but the troll isn't following some rigid, psychological law that cannot be broken. They're making a decision of their own accord that can be averted or actioned differently. --- > ...which is that when people coming into games with good intentions but end up trolling due to other factors, it is never entirely their fault, with the entirety of fault defined as having complete control over both the factors of cause and effect. It is never the fault of a harassed person that they got harassed. That does not change that it is entirely their fault if they decide to respond to said harassment by trolling. You don't need to have a transcendental mastery over causality to be held responsible for your actions. As long as you have control over _what you do_, then you are held responsible for your own actions. It doesn't matter what cause you can point to for it, in the end, _you_ made the choice to do what you did. --- And, as with my previous response, I have to bring this up; > ...what are we supposed to do once we've established rules for appropriate blaming? Are we supposed to have the IFS go more lenient on account of someone to blame for provoking the troll, or have it go and autonomously review everyone's behavior regardless of reports? > > Because if there's no real expected end-point for having this division of blame between parties, then there's no reason to try and divide the blame in the first place.
> [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9iH79YE8,comment-id=00020000000000010000,timestamp=2019-02-20T05:44:03.834+0000) > > There are a fair number of flaws with the boulder analogy, the first of which I've already raised (binary "this happened so that happened" causality with no in-betweens and alternatives doesn't apply to human beings all that well), but here's some other issues: > > 1) The boulder is inanimate and has no ability to decide for itself, and, likewise, the wind is inanimate and mercurial. The boulder (assuming the wind is strong enough) doesn't have the ability to simply not move - unlike humans in the situation this is meant to analogize, where if one player is toxic, another player always has the option to not be toxic with them. > > 2) The whole analogy fails to relate to League well - The wind blows, the boulder rolls, and a man is killed. A more appropriate analogy would be something along the lines of; "Man A is slighted by Man B for various reasons, and takes it upon himself to avenge the apparent wrongdoing by setting fire to Man B's house - setting the entire town ablaze in the process." > > 'Cause there's more factors in the game than just one guy, one provoker, and one troll. The Troll's decision to troll completely forsakes everyone else's stake in the game for his own petty retribution. So who set the town on fire? Man A, who put the torch to the first house, or Man B, who wronged Man A in whatever way was enough to justify the arson? > > 3) The analogy also denatures the boulder (and the troll it represents) from any actual blame. No blame can actually be put on the boulder for simply adhering the universal laws of gravity, but the troll isn't following some rigid, psychological law that cannot be broken. They're making a decision of their own accord that can be averted or actioned differently. > > --- > > It is never the fault of a harassed person that they got harassed. That does not change that it is entirely their fault if they decide to respond to said harassment by trolling. > > You don't need to have a transcendental mastery over causality to be held responsible for your actions. As long as you have control over _what you do_, then you are held responsible for your own actions. It doesn't matter what cause you can point to for it, in the end, _you_ made the choice to do what you did. > > --- > > And, as with my previous response, I have to bring this up; In the end, a man is still slighted, and while the slight might've been small and the slighted man overreacted, thus probably burning a ton of people into a crispy human bits, some of the cause is still due to the slight. In regards to my analogy, I now realize it is flawed. Addressing the issue of the troll being completely at fault for responding to toxicity with trolling, and the cause not mattering, may I ask why the cause does not matter? They are both held accountable for their respective actions, but why should we not take into account the fact that the man was provoked? If a random animal abuser and a spectator are gored by a charging bull, it would be an unfair statement to say that the bull simply decided to charge them. In light of academic honesty, we would have to say that the bull was wounded, and thus decided to charge them, although we do not know if it was out of fear, pain or spite. Of course, then we'd kill the bull, as this is usually the fate dealt out to animals that kill people. I never once spoke of mitigating punishments, and if you'll recall, the point I was bringing up was not changing the IFS, but to encourage players to show more sympathy and to offer kind words instead of harsh ones, in the hopes that kindness will make players more reluctant to troll, with the reasoning behind it being that bulls have a far lower chance of charging you if you are not hurting them.
: If we're going to make a case for causality, we shouldn't just jump at the opportunity to claim that the end-result (trolling) is directly and exclusively related to a specific cause (provocation). There's effects and causes in-between that. **Cause:** Player A harasses Player B. **Effect:** Player B is put on tilt by Player A's actions. **Cause:** Player B is tilted by Player A and wants to spite them. **Effect:** Player B decides the best course of action is to troll. Is Player A to blame for Player B trolling? No. Player A is only to blame for being a jerk and harassing Player B. Player B alone holds the blame for their decision to troll. --- Beyond that, though, at what point do we draw the line for determining apparent "blame" for trolling? People troll for as little as a difference in strategy, so do we blame innocent players who simply have a different strategy in mind for a troll's behavior? And further still, what are we supposed to do once we've established rules for appropriate blaming? Are we supposed to have the IFS go more lenient on account of someone to blame for provoking the troll, or have it go and autonomously review everyone's behavior regardless of reports? Because if there's no real expected end-point for having this division of blame between parties, then there's no reason to try and divide the blame in the first place.
> [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9iH79YE8,comment-id=00020000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-20T05:18:58.757+0000) > > If we're going to make a case for causality, we shouldn't just jump at the opportunity to claim that the end-result (trolling) is directly and exclusively related to a specific cause (provocation). There's effects and causes in-between that. > > **Cause:** Player A harasses Player B. **Effect:** Player B is put on tilt by Player A's actions. > > **Cause:** Player B is tilted by Player A and wants to spite them. **Effect:** Player B decides the best course of action is to troll. > > Is Player A to blame for Player B trolling? No. Player A is only to blame for being a jerk and harassing Player B. Player B alone holds the blame for their decision to troll. > > --- > > Beyond that, though, at what point do we draw the line for determining apparent "blame" for trolling? People troll for as little as a difference in strategy, so do we blame innocent players who simply have a different strategy in mind for a troll's behavior? > > And further still, what are we supposed to do once we've established rules for appropriate blaming? Are we supposed to have the IFS go more lenient on account of someone to blame for provoking the troll, or have it go and autonomously review everyone's behavior regardless of reports? > > Because if there's no real expected end-point for having this division of blame between parties, then there's no reason to try and divide the blame in the first place. First of all, I'd like to get on the same page here, regarding the previous argument that I made on causality. Forgive me if I did not understand your point. In the example you have given, player A caused player B to tilt. The tilt in turn caused player B to troll, in order to spite player A. In that case, player A is still responsible for tilting player B, meaning they still hold some of the "cause" responsibility, as they caused the tilt. Player B alone holds responsibility for the "effect", which is trolling, which I agree with you on. I believe this is simply an extended version of my previous argument. If a wind blows over a stick that would not have fallen by itself onto the boulder that would not have fallen by itself which kills a man, the wind is still responsible for blowing over the stick. However, neither stick nor wind touched the man, and therefore, they are exempt from the "effect". We separate these two distinctions so one might know that had the wind been blowing on nothingness, the stick would not have fallen, and nor the boulder have crushed a man, leading to no "effect" factor, as nothing was triggered, and all three elements are in place. If the wind blew onto the stick, which triggered the fall of the boulder but there was no man to squish, then there would be no "cause" factor, as the first part happened, but the "cause" result, defined as the death of the man, would not have happened, as there was no man in the first place. Second of all, with all due respect, I believe you have employed the straw man fallacy. I never said at any point that Riot should change their punishment policies whatsoever. My message was to try to convince people to offer kind words instead of rude ones to any teammate, by showing them another perspective.
: > The provoker takes some responsibility, but I would deserve the punishment, had I actually gone through with my trolling. The provoker takes responsibility for _their_ actions. That doesn't change the degree of responsibility held by someone who decides to troll - provoked or not.
> [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9iH79YE8,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2019-02-20T04:28:10.818+0000) > > The provoker takes responsibility for _their_ actions. That doesn't change the degree of responsibility held by someone who decides to troll - provoked or not. Sorry, not sure why, but some of my argument was not uploaded. Please feel free to refute my now-completed argument!
: i feel like most trolls i had went into champselect with the intention to troll. but it happens often enough that people troll over the simplest of things. 2 days ago my adc went trolling cause relic shield thresh messed up the last hit on the canon minion and neither got it. "denying me most valuable farm? if you want to help enemys ok i join" then the adc just went inting.
> [{quoted}](name=Jennifer420,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9iH79YE8,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-02-20T04:47:34.076+0000) > > i feel like most trolls i had went into champselect with the intention to troll. > but it happens often enough that people troll over the simplest of things. 2 days ago my adc went trolling cause relic shield thresh messed up the last hit on the canon minion and neither got it. > "denying me most valuable farm? if you want to help enemys ok i join" then the adc just went inting. I'm not defending those who go into champ select with the intention to troll, but if Thresh missed farm, then a minuscule portion of the blame for "cause", even if it's just 0.00000001%, goes to Thresh for missing that minion. Of course, with blame that small, one could argue that: 1. Jhin was an asshole who simply decided to troll. 2. Jhin intended to troll in the first place, as very few people would ever get that mad. 3. Jhin was having a terrible day and just really sensitive.
Rioter Comments
: While it can be said that because Rengar picked Soraka it caused Soraka to pick Soraka instead of another jg and ultimately troll the game leading to the other 3 to afk, ultimately the Soraka should of just been mature and picked another jg to jg with.
> [{quoted}](name=ı Sona ı,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9iH79YE8,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-02-20T03:28:20.099+0000) > > While it can be said that because Rengar picked Soraka it caused Soraka to pick Soraka instead of another jg and ultimately troll the game leading to the other 3 to afk, ultimately the Soraka should of just been mature and picked another jg to jg with. Check LoL DMs btw
: > The provoker takes some responsibility, but I would deserve the punishment, had I actually gone through with my trolling. The provoker takes responsibility for _their_ actions. That doesn't change the degree of responsibility held by someone who decides to troll - provoked or not.
> [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9iH79YE8,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2019-02-20T04:28:10.818+0000) > > The provoker takes responsibility for _their_ actions. That doesn't change the degree of responsibility held by someone who decides to troll - provoked or not. My point is specifically meant to challenge people who believe the blame is "200%" accorded to the troll. Allow me to explain my point of view. I take it that by you acknowledging that there is a provoker in the case of a provoked trolling case, and that by stating they must take responsibility for their actions, you acknowledge that there is something they must take responsibility for, which is provoking the troll. I will represent cause and effect as percentages. In this case, it means that some of the responsibility for "cause" is shifted onto the provoker. With x representing the percentage of blame from "cause" shifted onto the provoker, it could be anywhere from 0>x>100. As such, the blame could not possibly reach 200% for the troll. For an analysis, let's compare this to the following situation; a boulder on top of a mountain that would not have moved on its own is blown down by a harsh gust of wind, and kills a man. The cause is the wind. The boulder would never have moved without it. The effect is the man getting squashed. The wind could never have squashed him, that was the boulder's fault. Of course, it would be difficult if not impossible to correctly presume people get into games with absolutely clear and pure minds, and are extremely difficult to tilt. However, my original point, which is that when people coming into games with good intentions but end up trolling due to other factors, it is never entirely their fault, with the entirety of fault defined as having complete control over both the factors of cause and effect.
Show more

Tuition Fee

Level 182 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion