: Telling someone to go ONCE and they don't = harassment. Telling someone to go TWICE and they don't = harassment. Being told in response to telling them they may go, "that's adorable" - how is telling someone to leave you alone "adorable"? You CAN and SHOULD fully blame them for responding again. When you tell someone to go away and they don't, it is 100% on them that they haven't left. Not 99%, not 94%, not 99.99% - 100% So his "adorable" remark wasn't SA (in your opinion), then it's condescending and 100% HARASSMENT. " if you wanted Hotarµ to stop responding to you, you should've just stopped responding to him yourself" - oh... okay... I'm the one at fault for being harassed on these forums then? Thanks for clarifying that for me. Topic paragraph said "called me adorable", but I clarified it later in the original post. So... Riot's response to this is as follows (correct me if I'm wrong) 1) Telling someone they may go is "snide". 2) When you inform a riot associate they may leave your thread, they're allowed to say "that's adorable" and continue their unwanted condescending lectures. 3) I'm at fault for being harassed by responding to my harasser and punctuating it with telling him to go a second time. 4) I have no authority over whether I want a riot associate to talk to me. That's the takeaway? Picture this setting in a bar. Man and a woman talking. Woman dismisses the man. Man says "that's adorable" and keeps talking to her. Woman addresses his words and dismisses him a second time. Man keeps talking. Yeah, I see your point, the woman is totally at fault as much as the man. It's not LEGITIMATE harassment, just one person telling someone else to go away, twice, and him not doing it. I mean, SHE'S BASICALLY ASKING FOR IT, RIGHT?
> Telling someone to go ONCE and they don't = harassment. > Telling someone to go TWICE and they don't = harassment. You didn't just tell them to go; you told them to go _after_ responding to all their arguments and points. That is the definition of mixed signals. Beyond that, telling someone "they may go" as though that categorically closes the discussion for them is disrespectful. You can bow out of a discussion without being rude. > Being told in response to telling them they may go, "that's adorable" - how is telling someone to leave you alone "adorable"? Like I said; your assertion made it sound like you thought you had some authority to dictate the discussion and how it's supposed to go. That simply saying "you may go now" is just supposed to completely close off one person from a discussion is rude and, frankly, arrogant. If you're done discussing something with someone, _you_ leave that line of discussion; you don't make other people leave. And when you leave a line of discussion, you're expected to do so with at least some grace and respect for the other party. You did none of those things. And, like I said; I'm not excusing Hotarµ for mocking your assertion of authority. You were both wrong. > You CAN and SHOULD fully blame them for responding again. When you tell someone to go away and they don't, it is 100% on them that they haven't left. Not 99%, not 94%, not 99.99% - 100% Again; refer above. You sent mixed signals by responding to Hotarµ in full. As Specialists, we're more or less hard-wired to embrace all opportunities for discussion, so when you respond to every last one of his points before bluntly telling him to leave, _you're sending mixed signals._ You're basically saying "stay and talk with me, but go away." Like I said before; if you want to close off a line of discussion, _you bow out._ And if you're going to tell someone you're bowing out, _you say it, **and you mean it.**_ Don't respond to any other points, don't come back and say "but actually", just tell them "I'm bowing out" and be done with it. So, no. It's not 100% on them that they responded again. > So his "adorable" remark wasn't SA (in your opinion), then it's condescending and 100% HARASSMENT. I wouldn't say harassment, since it was a one-off comment, but it was mocking, rude, and uncalled for. > So... Riot's response to this is as follows (correct me if I'm wrong) I can already say you're wrong from the gate. I'm not a Riot employee, and neither is Hotarµ. Riot's response to this affair is presently indeterminate. Specialists are simply players who frequent a given subboard and are knowledgeable about the topics of that subboard; in mine and Hotarµ's case, we're Player Behavior Specialists because we have a solid understanding of the punishment system/honor system and readily share that knowledge to people who look for it, as well as try to lend it to people so that they can better understand the systems themselves. > 1) Telling someone they may go is "snide". Yes. As I've said already, trying to close out a discussion by saying "you may go" is presumptuous of you having some authority to dictate how the discussion goes, and whether or not someone can participate. You don't get to decide who comments or not, and you definitely can't expect people to take disrespect like that lightly. Imagine if I just told you right now that "you may leave the Player Behavior board". I have no authority to tell you whether or not you can post or comment here, and it's beyond disrespectful for me to try to play like I have any. > 2) When you inform a riot associate they may leave your thread, they're allowed to say "that's adorable" and continue their unwanted condescending lectures. No. I don't know where you're assuming this from, because I straight up said; **Hotarµ meeting your curt attempt to close out discussion with them with sarcasm wasn't cool.** > Was it a rude response? Yes. > > ... > > ...meeting your curt attempt at closing off discussion with light-hearted sarcasm was wrong. It wasn't sexual harassment by any means, but it was still wrong. > > ... > > Hotarµ could've left off well enough alone without the sarcasm... I said it three separate times; plus _two_ counting this response. If you still assume that I'm condoning them saying "that's adorable" after five separate instances of the contrary, then you're deliberately ignoring what I'm saying. As for continuing the discussion, I've stated my opinion a fair few times on that as well; it's arguable as to whether or not he should've backed off, because you responded to his points as though you wanted to continue the discussion despite also wanting him to leave. You gave mixed signals, and made no attempt to just back out of the discussion yourself. Hell, [you even have the last comment in the string.](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/q4lsxm5c-thoughts-from-the-community?comment=00010000000100000000000000000000) If Hotarµ wrapping up the discussion with one last - if potentially unwarranted - comment is harassment, then you're the pot calling the kettle black. > 3) I'm at fault for being harassed by responding to my harasser and punctuating it with telling him to go a second time. You're at fault for being disrespectful and continuing a discussion that you should've just backed out of. Hotarµ was at fault for making a mocking comment and continuing a discussion that generally shouldn't have persisted. And if you're getting harassed, _you're supposed to report the harasser, not respond to them._ There's a saying on the internet that applies; _Don't feed the troll._ If you think someone's agitating you, responding to them to tell them to leave you be is just going to fuel them to do it more. I've said it umpteen times now: **If you want a specific line of discussion to stop, _you bow out of it yourself._** > 4) I have no authority over whether I want a riot associate to talk to me. When you make a post on the _community_ forums, you invite the _community_, **including Riot employees** (although, as mentioned earlier, Hotarµ isn't affiliated with Riot, he's just another player.), to discuss whatever you're posting about with you. Yes, you may say that you no longer want to discuss a thing, and people are obligated to respect that decision, but you don't get to just tell someone "go away". If you don't like that general fact, then you're absolutely free to refrain from posting on the boards. You don't get to say who does or doesn't comment, who does or doesn't get to participate in a discussion, and, at the end of the day, the only person whose behavior and actions you can control is _you_. So if you're done discussing with someone, _you leave them be._ The rest of your response is an argument incomparable to the situation, so I'm not going to address it.
: Riot associate Hotarm sexually harassing me.
I looked through Hotarµ's posting history, because frankly, I would be shocked if anything they said wound up being legitimate sexual harassment. As it turns out, you're greatly overblowing their response. Was it a rude response? Yes. Was Hotarµ in the wrong for continuing the discussion after you rudely told him that "he may leave"? Probably. Was it sexual harassment? Hell no, not even close. He didn't call _you_ adorable, he called your snide assertion that "he may go now" adorable, because, let's be real, you aren't really in any place to tell anyone that their part in a discussion is done. Should he have backed off? Probably, but the fact that you responded to all of his points indicated that you weren't through with the discussion. Frankly, both of you made a mistake here - if you wanted Hotarµ to stop responding to you, _you should've just stopped responding to him yourself._ You don't tell him whether or not his part is done, you don't tell him "you may go", as though you have some authority over the discussion; you just stop responding to him. And, if someone continues to press a discussion that you decide to bow out on, _you report them, and the moderators will deal with them._ But in this case, you didn't bow out, you kept stoking the fire by responding to Hotarµ's points. I can't fully blame them for responding again, since, again, you gave a pretty big indicator that you weren't through with the discussion, but I can say this much; meeting your curt attempt at closing off discussion with light-hearted sarcasm was wrong. It wasn't sexual harassment by any means, but it was still wrong. At the end of the day, both of you were at fault here; Hotarµ could've left off well enough alone without the sarcasm, but you could've done better to bow out gracefully instead of trying to dictate the discussion, and you shouldn't have continued responding after you bowed out.
: > [{quoted}](name=Wilk Rycerz,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=YVthsPEZ,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-06-24T06:17:13.960+0000) > > Because the Prestige Line started with K/DA, and the promise was that if Kai'Sa worked out well, they would do Prestige skins for the other 3 girls as well. > > As for why there's no Pentakill, that's because there hasn't been any Pentakill skins since the Prestige line started. > > Also, quite literally the entire point of Prestige skins is for them to be for high playrate, popular champions. That's the whole purpose of the skin line. Unlikely that unpopular champs are going to get one, sorry. what about the championship skinline though. most of them have prestige. besides that, to me prestige is like call of duty prestige in that you have mastered this champion and you have the prestige to prove it. it does not feel like they are distributing the prestige skins on good skins aswell as to the right champions
> what about the championship skinline though. most of them have prestige. Those aren't Prestige skins, they're Golden Chromas. > besides that, to me prestige is like call of duty prestige in that you have mastered this champion and you have the prestige to prove it. Well, there's an opportunity to broach an interesting subject, but either way, the Prestige Edition skins are just supposed to be rare/expensive collector's items, not mastery rewards. > it does not feel like they are distributing the prestige skins on good skins aswell as to the right champions Both of those statements are pretty subjective. IMO, while there are/were some issues with some of the Prestige skins early on, it never really felt like the Prestige skins were on any particularly bad skins. And, which Champions do _you_ think should get Prestige skins, if the ones they've done thus far don't sit well with you?
: so you cant say trash cant say scrub cant say noob or moron? sounds like a loser ass fucking game to me huh perma banned for insulting other players what the fuck is mute option for? so you dont have to hear things like that? if you dont curse and act completely fucked up why perm ban? why perm ban period for talking why not perm mute? crash grab fucking game is why fucking r%%%%%ed grow up
> so you cant say trash cant say scrub cant say noob or moron? Nope. You're not allowed to insult, harass, or verbally abuse other players. If you didn't read the rules (which you're prompted to when you create an account), that's on you. And, let's put it like this; would you like it if people called you "trash", "scrub", "noob", or "moron"? 'Cause, frankly, I doubt you'd enjoy it all that much yourself. > sounds like a loser ass fucking game to me huh perma banned for insulting other players... If you don't like the rules, you're free to find another game. > ...what the fuck is mute option for? To stop one player's chat/pings/emotes from reaching you, whether it be because they're disruptive, harmful, etc. The mute feature is _not_, however, an excuse to break the rules and flame like there's no tomorrow. > if you dont curse and act completely fucked up why perm ban? I'm guessing what you're asking here is "why permanently ban (players) if they're not cursing and not acting completely unreasonably?" Well, one, cursing isn't against the rules. You can say "fuck", "damn", and "shit" without penalty. It's when you start leveling swears at other players that it becomes a problem; as I like to say, it's the difference between saying "aw shit" and "you're a piece of shit". And; you can't really say you weren't acting completely unreasonable in your chat logs. It's full of insults and harassment. > why perm ban period for talking why not perm mute? As The Djinn said; all that would do is restrict toxic players to gameplay-altering means of toxicity. We want toxic players gone, not continuing to be toxic in less verifiable ways.
: People sending me "Free RP" or "Free skin links"
You can submit a [Support Ticket](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/requests/new) to alert Riot to misbehavior or - in this case, scams/malware/etc. Fill out the report with a good explanation of the player's behavior, and Riot will look into them and see them punished.
: Is this considered toxic? If it is, I will most likely uninstall
> NoLongerToxicOMG: olaf you need to gank to win NoLongerToxicOMG: you cant farm all fuckin game NoLongerToxicOMG: Im done NoLongerToxicOMG: mid open NoLongerToxicOMG: better jg wins NoLongerToxicOMG: olaf just afk farms all game and doesnt gank mid or top NoLongerToxicOMG: just botlane NoLongerToxicOMG: no shit? NoLongerToxicOMG: sucks doesnt it NoLongerToxicOMG: when no one helps you NoLongerToxicOMG: shes been mid more than you NoLongerToxicOMG: you have ganked mid 0 times NoLongerToxicOMG: she ganked mid 3 times NoLongerToxicOMG: theres a difference NoLongerToxicOMG: lets do a recap NoLongerToxicOMG: you have gotten a dragon NoLongerToxicOMG: you havent ganked mid once NoLongerToxicOMG: why should I help you when you dont help me? NoLongerToxicOMG: what lead? Not even six full lines in and you start harassing your Jungler, saying "open mid", and starting into a needless argument. And, just so you know; _calling "open x" is negative behavior, regardless of whether or not you gave up or whether or not you performed well._ > NoLongerToxicOMG: but no jg was presence in this game NoLongerToxicOMG: babysit? YOU NEVER CAME MID ONCE? NoLongerToxicOMG: shyvanna ganked mid 3 times to your 0 ganks mid NoLongerToxicOMG: hey jg maybe you can get one dragon? NoLongerToxicOMG: trying my best here NoLongerToxicOMG: nice cait NoLongerToxicOMG: yeah we get it, youre the better jg NoLongerToxicOMG: gg NoLongerToxicOMG: better jg wins And you continued that harassment well into the post-game lobby. Then in Game 2; > NoLongerToxicOMG: how are you so underleveled NoLongerToxicOMG: sure NoLongerToxicOMG: zac casused you to have less cs NoLongerToxicOMG: 27 cs to 88 NoLongerToxicOMG: then dont follow him This can be considered minor negativity. > NoLongerToxicOMG: get out of my lane NoLongerToxicOMG: or get reported and banned This is toxic. Threatening reports to get someone to do what you want is against the rules. > NoLongerToxicOMG: I didnt need you at all NoLongerToxicOMG: you fed them a kill and did no damage NoLongerToxicOMG: ???? NoLongerToxicOMG: report ezreal NoLongerToxicOMG: super toxic NoLongerToxicOMG: blames everyone expect him self NoLongerToxicOMG: just mute him zax NoLongerToxicOMG: hes crybaby NoLongerToxicOMG: he wont stop whinning Then more harassment, including report rallying (which is also against the rules, and ultimately pointless since more reports don't increase the likelihood of punishment.) > NoLongerToxicOMG: report this toxic ezreal NoLongerToxicOMG: What? NoLongerToxicOMG: WE? NoLongerToxicOMG: ^ NoLongerToxicOMG: Enjoy your ban And once again, continuing the harassment in the post-game lobby. And lastly, in Game 3; > NoLongerToxicOMG: Yeah I scale hard mid to late bud NoLongerToxicOMG: Like oneshots from range NoLongerToxicOMG: in this elo? theyre bad NoLongerToxicOMG: bad NoLongerToxicOMG: do it yourself NoLongerToxicOMG: better go top kasss > NoLongerToxicOMG: You gotta kill me once in a while kass NoLongerToxicOMG: aparrently it is meta since kass is 1/5 lul NoLongerToxicOMG: you need a strong early to have a okay lat kass NoLongerToxicOMG: Cleary I have since I am owning you Going overboard with shit-talking your lane opponent (I presume.) > NoLongerToxicOMG: was free yet no one was there NoLongerToxicOMG: only 3 people NoLongerToxicOMG: I was too and sivir NoLongerToxicOMG: But evey and Pyke were not NoLongerToxicOMG: you lose spliting NoLongerToxicOMG: its over NoLongerToxicOMG: fed morde is impossible to kill NoLongerToxicOMG: Urgot NoLongerToxicOMG: 14 deaths NoLongerToxicOMG: stfu 4/6 NoLongerToxicOMG: haha nice 3 inhibs buddy NoLongerToxicOMG: no towers and we have baron More general negativity. > NoLongerToxicOMG: Remember what I said kass NoLongerToxicOMG: Kass players in low elo are bad NoLongerToxicOMG: You only killed me twice this game NoLongerToxicOMG: ? NoLongerToxicOMG: Later crybaby And more still in the post-game lobby. While your Game 3 chat logs were generally minor (still pretty bad, though), your overall behavior is - yes - toxic. You spent an unnecessary amount of time harassing teammates and shittalking people overmuch, and with that being consistent behavior, I'd say it goes over the line from negative to toxic. > Is this worth a 14 day suspension since I really didn't say anything vulgar or hate speech... You don't have to use excessive vulgarity or hate speech to warrant a 14-day ban. If you recently came off of a 25-game Chat Restriction (which seems more than likely given the consistent negativity), then the next punishment on the ladder would be a 14-day ban. > Also if its important, I carried and won 2/3 of these games, so I don't know how was I suspended for griefing. It doesn't matter. Your performance does not exempt you from the rules. Additionally, the "griefing" subtitle of the **Negative Attitude** report category is a misnomer. It refers to general negative behavior, such as defeatism and passive-aggressive remarks, not to gameplay misbehavior like trolling/intentionally feeding.
: 14 Day Suspension?I think that is to much...
> Before I start I got reported for flame and GRIEFing. I did flame, I admit it but I did not grief?In fact if you see my games where I was reported I had a better score than the players that reported me. Well, firstly, the "Griefing" subtitle on the **Negative Attitude** report option is something of a misnomer; it doesn't refer to gameplay misbehavior/intentional feeding/trolling, but rather negativity and poor sportsmanship in chat. Think of the **Negative Attitude** report option as being for negativity and defeatism. Secondly; having a better score than anyone doesn't mean that you didn't troll or intentionally feed in a given match; it may not be the case for the matches you were punished for, but it still has to be said that positive KDA/higher KDA than other players doesn't mean you didn't somehow break the rules. And third; if you had a 25-game chat restriction prior, then a 14-day suspension here would certainly be warranted. You admit to flaming, and your logs are punishable, so if you recently had a 25-game CR, a 14-day suspension is just the next step on the punishment ladder.
Ludicol0 (NA)
: I get honored by two randoms every other game and honored by 1 random atleast most every game and it took me 4 months to get to honor level 1. Also back in the olden honor times people wouldn't honor much because it didn't matter, and it shouldn't matter. If a person is competitive enough to climb high into the upper rankings of league then you bet your ass they're going to cuss in chat, you bet your ass they're going to take this seriously, and you better believe they're going to quit this game if they don't get their reward that they worked for just because they weren't lovey dovey with random people they don't even know. If honor won't be revert then fine but don't let it affect whether or not we get ranked rewards and make honor rewards a separate thing from ranked rewards, Maybe you get a fat chunk of like 10k BE at the end of a season if you're honor level 4-5 or something. P.S. honor is a grind whether or not we're shown our progress in a bar. It's a grind to get better free stuff, it's a grind to make sure we get our ranked rewards. But since people can't see how far along they are they can't be as good or as nice as you want them to be because they are basically walking around in a maze with a very very slight idea as to where they're going and whether or not it's the right way to go.
> I get honored by two randoms every other game and honored by 1 random atleast most every game and it took me 4 months to get to honor level 1. Again; if you're progressing slowly in Honor, it's probable that you're still misbehaving and having reports validated against you. Valid reports slow/halt Honor progress, so if you're not progressing fast, you should consider the possibility that you're still behaving below the standard. > If a person is competitive enough to climb high into the upper rankings of league then you bet your ass they're going to cuss in chat, you bet your ass they're going to take this seriously, and you better believe they're going to quit this game if they don't get their reward that they worked for just because they weren't lovey dovey with random people they don't even know. 1) Cussing isn't against the rules. You can say "damn", "fuck", and "shit" all you damn-well fuckin' please; it's when you level those swears at other players that it becomes a problem. There's a difference between "aw shit" and "you piece of shit". 2) They can take the game seriously without being toxic and breaking the rules - in fact, if they _do_ take the game seriously, that should mean that they're more mindful of the rules and less inclined to break them. 3) You could still lose end-of-season rewards for breaking the rules and misbehaving before the Honor Rework; only, before, it was tied to an arbitrary cutoff date, and players could just spend all the season raising their rank only for it to mean nothing because they flipped their shit at the end of the season. With the current Honor System, end-of-season reward eligibility is less arbitrary and more fair in general. 4) If they break the rules and lose end-of-season rewards, that's on them. If they leave, that's their call. 5) You act like you have to be superficially nice and sweet to be eligible for end-of-season rewards. You don't. You just have to not be a jerk. > If honor won't be revert then fine but don't let it affect whether or not we get ranked rewards... Competitive play comes with the expectation of a higher standard of behavior, and Riot doesn't want to reward players who are poor sports. So, unless you can make a case for competition not requiring good sportsmanship and a standard of composure, I'm not gonna see any good reason why Honor Level shouldn't affect Ranked Reward eligibility. > P.S. honor is a grind whether or not we're shown our progress in a bar. It's a grind to get better free stuff, it's a grind to make sure we get our ranked rewards. But since people can't see how far along they are they can't be as good or as nice as you want them to be because they are basically walking around in a maze with a very very slight idea as to where they're going and whether or not it's the right way to go. "...they don't want players trying to turn Honor into a goal-post grind. They want players to show good sportsmanship and positive behavior passively, not feign sportsmanship until you reach the next milestone." They want you behaving better in general, not aggressively faking it so you can reach the next Honor Level.
: Chat ban for no reason
> R3ctum Rodeo: for sucking and being in iron for a reason? yeah go ahead R3ctum Rodeo: not intentional. so good luck R3ctum Rodeo: not inting lol R3ctum Rodeo: mid abt done R3ctum Rodeo: lets go boys R3ctum Rodeo: never did i ever int lol R3ctum Rodeo: replay the game trust me R3ctum Rodeo: not intentiomla R3ctum Rodeo: trust me R3ctum Rodeo: not a troll R3ctum Rodeo: first time yas tho R3ctum Rodeo: check it out R3ctum Rodeo: ok then report me R3ctum Rodeo: being bad isnt reportable R3ctum Rodeo: only intentional feeding R3ctum Rodeo: thasts fine R3ctum Rodeo: fl R3ctum Rodeo: fk R3ctum Rodeo: ,uting all R3ctum Rodeo: muting all R3ctum Rodeo: play dont type This section here is probably what validated the report; you spent all of that in a detrimental argument about whether or not you were intentionally feeding, when you should've just muted the people who were harassing you from the gate. > I would like to be enabled to get my rewards and my honor be restored to normal please? You've ample time still in the season to get back to Honor Level 2; especially since, as this is probably your first punishment, you'd have only been dropped to Honor Level 1. > At least give me a reason please...A chat ban seems a little overkill for this? I was mean to nobody as per the rules and regulations that that RIOT has. Detrimental arguing is against the rules, as it both fills the chat with unnecessary clutter and doesn't help your team cohesion; if anything, it really only serves to have your teammates fighting the wrong people. As it stands, this is generally minor misbehavior, so it's probable that this is a frequent/consistent occurrence for you. This Chat Restriction is pretty much the warning sign that it's time to dial it back; don't get into pointless, frivolous arguments about whether or not you're intentionally feeding - if you know you're not, then there's no need to try to get people - flamers, no less - to believe it. Arguing with them will do more harm than good, so, it's wisest to just mute people who flame you and report them post-game rather than give them the time of day. And also, this should go without saying, but; > R3ctum Rodeo: im drunk Don't play League while drunk. You can play miles better if you have your wits about you, and having your inhibitions killed by inebriation would probably just lead to more arguments like the one that resulted in the punishment here.
Davben (EUNE)
: I got permabanned after 6+ years of playing this game.
> I just got banned because my teammates inted so much. You didn't get banned because they intentionally fed - you got banned because you flamed. _You even admit to flaming._ > I agree I flamed. You don't get to say "I flamed" and then try to pin it on other people. > But they made me,the trollers,the feeders the inters. They didn't make you do anything. You flamed of your own volition. You were the one who typed up insults and harassment; not them. > Davben: stop fighting Seven lines into your first match's chat log, and you start flaming and calling for reports - and it all goes downhill from there. A good 90% of that log is just you flaming and harassing your team, and that's just _game **1**_. If that's how you behave following a 14-day suspension, then, yeah, the permanent suspension is deserved, and there's no reason it should be overturned.
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=KeoBP6vU,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-06-20T22:28:55.942+0000) > > Well, Riot has already stated that they're against ideas like this. Broadly speaking, this is a Prisoner's Island concept, and they did do an [Ask Riot](https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/2017/01/ask-riot-banished-to-prisoners-island/) post about it; > > Quoted the gist of the post; basically, Prisoner's Island would just lump toxic players in amongst other toxic players, both engendering them to toxicity (making it harder for them to reform) as well as generally making matches for them in particular _awful_, both for the toxicity and for the longer queue times. well in addition to the USUAL punishment. the "prison island" there is a chance to be free of it. being if you are NOT exhibiting the behaviors that got you there in the FIRST place(usual verification of course not just spam reporting) id say you are able to rejoin the regular pool once a set amount of games passed with good behavior. i am not saying its permanent then there would be no point. repeat offensives get more games needed without an offense, etc/ matches for THEM awful? what about those whom matches theyve ruined? they dont matter right? so those matches that got them the report in the first place wasnt awful? an eye for an eye usually works imo.
> well in addition to the USUAL punishment. Having Prisoner's Island added onto the mainline punishments doesn't change the issues with Prisoner's Island. > the "prison island" there is a chance to be free of it. being if you are NOT exhibiting the behaviors that got you there in the FIRST place(usual verification of course not just spam reporting) id say you are able to rejoin the regular pool once a set amount of games passed with good behavior. i am not saying its permanent then there would be no point. repeat offensives get more games needed without an offense, etc/ The issue with that is, as I mentioned above; having toxic players matched exclusively with other toxic players isn't conducive to reform. It engenders them to the very same toxicity (if not worse) that got them into the Prisoner's Island in the first place, making them more likely to accept and use said toxicity as a general response. Some appropriate snippets from the first point of the Ask Riot post; > We know that _most_ negativity in game comes from a misstep, not a commitment to ruining games for people...So as long as reform is a core value for us (spoiler: it will always be a core value for us), we can’t stick 10 (even occasionally) unsportsmanlike players into what would be even more unsportsmanlike games and expect them to learn and turn things around. > > Still, because the prisoner’s island system gives up on these players by default, we can’t subscribe to it as a solution for unsportsmanlike conduct. Negativity begets more negativity, and lumping players into a Prisoner's Island - temporarily or otherwise - will just result in a loop of a player being toxic, getting put into a Prisoner's Island queue, dealing with more toxicity, getting more toxic in response, and so on, ad infinitum. > matches for THEM awful? what about those whom matches theyve ruined? they dont matter right? so those matches that got them the report in the first place wasnt awful? an eye for an eye usually works imo. You can brush them off all you want, but at the end of the day, subjecting them to awful matchmaking and tons of toxic matches isn't going to help them. The matches of players they've ruined do matter, but it doesn't magically validate an overkill punishment that doesn't help players reform. Imagine if every time you wound up with a negative KDA in game, your next match would forcibly put you into the Tutorial, _every time_. You'd already have felt bad and wanted to do better because of the loss, but d'you think you'd be any more inclined to try to improve if you were forced to retake the tutorial _on top_ of the loss?
: funneling reported players into their own category in ranked
Well, Riot has already stated that they're against ideas like this. Broadly speaking, this is a Prisoner's Island concept, and they did do an [Ask Riot](https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/2017/01/ask-riot-banished-to-prisoners-island/) post about it; > Prisoner’s island design doesn’t work for League for two major reasons: > > Reason One: **We believe in a real shot at reform for unsportsmanlike players** > > ... > > Reason Two: **Prisoner’s island is a truly awful experience for the “prisoners” in more ways than one** Quoted the gist of the post; basically, Prisoner's Island would just lump toxic players in amongst other toxic players, both engendering them to toxicity (making it harder for them to reform) as well as generally making matches for them in particular _awful_, both for the toxicity and for the longer queue times.
Ludicol0 (NA)
: honor levels
> Revert it Revert it to what, the old Honor System where people would seldom Honor others, and accumulating those rare few Honors offered no benefit besides the vain hope of seeing a ribbon on your loading screen card? > give us an experience bar of sorts so we can see how long its going to take us. They've explicitly stated that they don't want players to see precisely how long it'll take before the next Honor Level/Checkpoint because they don't want players trying to turn Honor into a goal-post grind. They want players to show good sportsmanship and positive behavior passively, not feign sportsmanship until you reach the next milestone. > make it so recieving a chat restriction once or whatever wont immediately put us from whatever level we are at down to level1. There's a case to be made on both sides of this. On the one hand, yeah, it can definitely bite being dropped from Honor Level 3-4~ to Honor Level 1 for your first Chat Restriction, but on the other hand, it takes quite a number of matches with unsportsmanlike behavior to get a Chat Restriction, unless you're hardcore flaming, so it makes sense that getting punished would exact a heavy toll on your Honor Level. > That is rediculous and with how long it takes us to level up honor you need to be(sic) so harsh on punishing honor or make it easier to level up... If it's taking too long to level up in Honor, you might want to consider looking at your behavior. Valid reports will slow down Honor progress, so if you're still misbehaving, showing low-key poor sportsmanship, etc., you won't gain much, if any Honor progress. And, at the end of the day, if you don't want to tank however many levels of Honor with a penalty - don't misbehave and warrant the penalty in the first place.
: The Ultimate Negativity Solution (Simple Button)
> Why don't we just ask Riot to put (a simple button on the client Settings )That allow us to lock the chat from ourselves so when we join the game we can't type to anyone and control our nerve and play without just flaming others and harm them that will lead to a positive game play for both sides the mad guy and the team mates. There are a number of problems with the idea of a self-mute feature, one of the largest problems being that its effectiveness hinges on a player's ability to be aware of their own toxicity. Most toxic players feel their misbehavior is justified, that they're in the right, and that Riot is wrong to punish them; the few that aren't in that camp are a small fraction of an already small fraction of the playerbase. On top of that, self-muting pretty heavily impacts team communication (which is a pretty core aspect of League), and it doesn't prevent a player from trolling or intentionally feeding; and Riot has seen in the past that when prevented from flaming, toxic players tend to resort to trolling or intentionally feeding instead. > So when a guy wanna control himself and prevent himself from abusing others he is absolutely a great human being that deserves better than a ban otherwise who don't wanna control them selves they really tend to harm others which against any human rights we should try (TO SOLVE NOT PREVENT). And another big issue with self-muting is that it's _not_ actually exhibiting self-control or reforming. It's having Riot control things for you. Toxic players should be _reforming_, not expecting Riot to mitigate their misbehavior for them. They need to take responsibility for their behavior and actually change it, not expect special accommodations because they don't want to. Self-muting is not honorable behavior. It's a band-aid solution, and an easy way out of reforming. If players don't want to get banned, their only option is to simply play by the rules. > Riot should completely understand that a mad guy cant control himself and facing them with a ban will never be the perfect solution, adding a simple button is not that hard for such a huge company . Adding a self-mute feature wouldn't be a perfect solution either. And something you have to consider is; _why_ would Riot choose to ban players who express consistent toxicity instead of giving them a self-mute feature? And the answer is that _toxic players are not welcome in League._ They're not Riot's target audience, and consequently, Riot's not going to make concessions for players that they don't want to keep. Why should Riot work to accommodate players who don't respect the rules when those players make up only a small fraction of the playerbase as a whole? It's harsh, but it ain't wrong.
: got my friend permabannede - he blocked me on every media - did I do the right thing?
> my question is, Was i in the right here? I was very upset by what he said in game. Both from the standpoint of the rules and from a personal standpoint; yes. If he was being toxic and upsetting you through flame, underhanded remarks, etc., you were well within the right to report him. Him getting a permanent suspension just showed that he hadn't learned from his 14-day ban, and just got what was ultimately coming to him. > I kind of ruined this friendship that lasted so long. Frankly, I think your friendship with him ended when he decided to call you "e-girl trash" amongst other things; he ain't much of a friend if he's ready to insult you and flame you like he did, both in and out of game. > can anyone at least reassure me that i did the right thing? You did do the right thing, and I agree with your other good friend. If that guy was and still is toxic, then it's best to just cut him off; you're worth more than insults, and definitely don't need a "friend" like him to make you feel bad for no good reason.
: how can you disagree with him? of course this can't apply to everyone the same way, but it can really help people struggling with their in game toxicity i personnaly only refrain to use chat... i yell and curse aloud instead, and uf i wanna express myself more physically well i got a squsihy ball and good wooden plank close by, you know hit and trow stuff u dont care if u break i also think this is why streamers in most cases can endure more easily the stress of it all, they dont need to type it they say it! only problem comes for those who want the others irrritating them to know it and feel repercusions...this is when things get out of hand in chat or in game(trolling/rage quit, ect) of course overall we can only say managing your anger is the only real thing you can do, yes some people do get angry for no reason, others for small reasons understanding why those things get you angry and how to act if it happens so you dont over-react is what this guy is trying to do but as i said this doesnt apply to everyone the same way and each individual needs to look into what he can relate to
> how can you disagree with him? > of course this can't apply to everyone the same way, but it can really help people struggling with their in game toxicity Put simply, I disagree with him because, while he does have a point with life issues being a potentially big cause for stress and anger, I don't believe that failing to reform is inevitable or that people shouldn't strive to reform. If people were to wholeheartedly accept his advice, they'd _still_ struggle with their toxicity - not because his advice is bad, but because his advice rejects part of the solution and embraces failure as an inevitability. And, frankly, the moment you accept failure as an inevitability is the point where you've made it a certainty. > i personnaly only refrain to use chat... i yell and curse aloud instead, and uf i wanna express myself more physically well i got a squsihy ball and good wooden plank close by, you know hit and trow stuff u dont care if u break That's good, and that's part of the process of reform - finding ways to cope with anger that aren't as destructive as flaming. > of course overall we can only say managing your anger is the only real thing you can do, yes some people do get angry for no reason, others for small reasons > understanding why those things get you angry and how to act if it happens so you dont over-react is what this guy is trying to do > but as i said this doesnt apply to everyone the same way and each individual needs to look into what he can relate to Well, yes and no. He's not suggesting to find ways to act while under duress/means of venting anger in less destructive ways. He's suggesting that players should consider that one of their core needs isn't getting met, and that they should consider trying to remedy it to lessen the stress from the game, but then after that it's just a "give up and ride it out while you got it" scenario. And, that's why I largely disagree with him; he's got the right idea to an extent, but there's also some bad advice IMO thrown in alongside of it.
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=k7iEAmcb,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-06-19T06:56:22.392+0000) > > For the largest part, I disagree with what you're saying, although there are aspects that I _do_ agree with. > > I can see how the Hierarchy of Needs can play into exacerbating stressors in League and causing people to lash out, and - while I disagree that it's the only way to alleviate the issue - I do agree that it's worthwhile to try and fix those external factors that would cause one undue stress. > > What I strongly disagree with, though, is this; > > Reform and personal change are absolutely things people should be striving for, especially if where they are presently is unenjoyable to them or harmful to their ability to exist in social situations. Sure, sometimes the ultimate results will be difficult to notice, but that far from guarantees that it'll be anticlimactic or result in an infinite loop of trying and failing. > > The main issue with reform/personal change is that success hinges entirely on the individual's desire _to_ change. My grandma always told me this, and it rings true to this day; "nobody can change you but _you_." And if someone doesn't commit themselves to whatever change they're shooting for, then they're not going to change. _That's_ anticlimactic, and it's a result of poor dedication. > > At the end of the day, sure, it's better to prioritize maintaining mental and physical health and personal well-being over personal change, but that doesn't mean the latter should be excluded. > > This, to me, is a terrible mindset to have. You're setting this ultimatum for yourself and others that there can be no success, that no matter what, you'll inevitably snap and lose your account again, and so you should prepare for that eventuality by not spending so much that you'd pain yourself for the loss. > > It's unrealistic, overly cynical, and it helps nothing, especially when reform _is_ well within the realm of possibility. People _have_ changed from being toxic and have since kept stable accounts without getting banned again. All it takes is dedication. While these sound very nice and heart-warming, they're very far from the truth. The reality is different and it's cold: **recidivism** is a very big issue, partly because the system itself does nothing to reform, much like League's (not that it's its job). For my first point: > In short, to anyone that's seriously consider to "reform", as in, to better yourself or change yourself: don't. It'll be anticlimatic and you're bound to enter an infinite loop. This is simply the truth, when you try to suppress that feeling you get when you wanna type to your teammates isn't going to do you any good personally and it won't change anything long-term. Not for you. For Riot, sure. They have less toxic games. It is a win for the community, but not for you. If you end up acting this extreme, there must be an issue you're facing in your real life that's pushing you. You must treat the disease, not the symptoms. > Second: only spend as much money as you're willing to lose when you eventually get banned again. We see recidivism to be upwards of 80% in almost every system. In the US, the recidivism for 5 years is nearly 80% too, that is...**the guys who get caught. ** While it's not just to compare it fully, people are who they are. Anyone that knows what they're talking about understands that after all the nice, inclusive things are said, the reality is that people are their habits. I do understand that, we, as a community should support these people but the reality is that they have issues in their life that they need to solve. Them trying to suppress these behaviors are only going to make it worse for themselves. So, should they go and be toxic in games? Well, of course not, but it's what will happen. To anyone with these issues: see what's wrong in your life and try to fix it. Sometimes it's not fixable, you can't just turn your life around and then you'll end up being banned again but the reality is that not everyone gets a happy ending...but you should strive for one :)
> This is simply the truth, when you try to suppress that feeling you get when you wanna type to your teammates isn't going to do you any good personally and it won't change anything long-term. Not for you. For Riot, sure. They have less toxic games. It is a win for the community, but not for you. If you end up acting this extreme, there must be an issue you're facing in your real life that's pushing you. You must treat the disease, not the symptoms. If you're trying to suppress it, yeah, it's not going to do you any good. But when we encourage reform, we don't _want_ people suppressing their anger, we want them releasing it in ways that aren't harmful to the match or other players. Bottling it up and trying to suppress it leads to problems; but finding less destructive ways of releasing it is more-or-less our goal when we try to help other players reform. Beyond that; comparing life issues and anger to diseases isn't really helpful, either. It's less of problem/symptom and more of cause/effect. Life problems can certainly be a pretty big cause of anger and stress, but they're not the only causes. League, for all the various reasons there are, is full of several different stressors that could cause anger, and since you can't treat or remedy all the potential causes, you have to learn how to handle the effects.
Νami (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=MbbnFkwE,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-06-19T09:34:04.658+0000) > > The biggest reason that I can see that it isn't an option is that it's an easy way out of reforming; Riot wants players to reform and learn how not to misuse the chat feature, not opt out of chat and avoid making an effort to be a better player. > > The amount of players it would help is small; it'd be a subset of players who can't/won't reform but are aware of their own toxicity - and that main set is pretty small to begin with. Why is an "easy way out of reforming" even an argument? I know someone who full mutes all nearly every game to play without him flaming other people and not tilt. How is an _**opt-in**_ to turn off chat for someone who can't resist responding/flaming in chat a bad thing? If I played a game and someone had chat disabled, so they wouldn't flame and instead played the game, how is this bad? Saying it's "an easy way out of of reforming" is stupid to be honest. Everyone is different, just because I have never had a chat restriction or ban doesn't mean other people are capable of doing the same and getting honour 5. If Riot gave them a tool that they can use to help them not be toxic, I'm all for it.
> Why is an "easy way out of reforming" even an argument? Why wouldn't it be? Riot has a goal in mind (players reforming), and self-muting undermines that goal in favor of a cheap solution where players can shirk their problems off onto Riot instead of actually figure out how to deal with stressors and anger. > I know someone who full mutes all nearly every game to play without him flaming other people and not tilt. There's a difference between fullmuting all and self-muting. He can still type; he's just limiting his exposure to stressors that would cause him to tilt and flame. It's not a perfect solution, but he's still actually dealing with the stressors instead of expecting Riot to handle everything for him. > How is an **_opt-in_** to turn off chat for someone who can't resist responding/flaming in chat a bad thing? Because it doesn't actually help the person deal with the things that cause them to flame? Because it just limits their ability to express their toxicity to gameplay-altering means of misbehavior? Because it harms communication, which is a pretty core aspect of the game? Because it only helps a scant few who are actually aware of their own toxicity, while the rest of the toxic playerbase generally gains no benefit for lack of considering themselves toxic? Take your pick. > If I played a game and someone had chat disabled, so they wouldn't flame and instead played the game, how is this bad? They wouldn't be able to flame, but they wouldn't be able to strategize, either. And before you say it, explain to me how you tell your team that you're going to solo splitpush bottom lane to draw their attention away so that the rest of your team can claim Baron through pings alone. > Saying it's "an easy way out of of reforming" is stupid to be honest. You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. People need to take responsibility for their behavior, not expect others to hand them band-aid solutions to mitigate their problems. But, hey, if you're hell-bent on self-muting, here's an idea of mine to balance it out and make it more fair; Self-muting should cost Honor Levels to use, and Honor Lock players for as long as the self-mute is active. > Everyone is different, just because I have never had a chat restriction or ban doesn't mean other people are capable of doing the same and getting honour 5. Everyone is different, but that doesn't mean that people can't change. And it's not like Riot imposes an absurdly high standard of behavior, either. > If Riot gave them a tool that they can use to help them not be toxic, I'm all for it. Sadly, no such tool exists. The only way a player could not be toxic is through volition; there's no magic bullet, no panacea, no miracle button, they just have to choose to not be toxic and stick to that choice.
: Here's my advice, if you REALLY just can't help saying shit you know you shouldn't, say it out loud. It sounds dumb, I know, but I swear it feels the exact same lol.
This. A-thousand-thousand times this. I do it all the time, and I'd hazard to say it feels more relieving than typing insults in-game.
Νami (EUW)
: Honestly,I don't see why this couldn't be an option. It would help some people and hopefully wouldn't increase trolling rates from self-muted players since they opted into it, instead of a forced chat restriction.
The biggest reason that I can see that it isn't an option is that it's an easy way out of reforming; Riot wants players to reform and learn how not to misuse the chat feature, not opt out of chat and avoid making an effort to be a better player. The amount of players it would help is small; it'd be a subset of players who can't/won't reform but are aware of their own toxicity - and that main set is pretty small to begin with.
BadboyUG (EUW)
: Well, you seem like a perfectly balanced individual, and a writer at that. But, this is for us who have a flaming problem and arent as cool as cucumbers like you. If everyone was a chilled out as you are, then drugs etc wouldn't be a problem. So, maybe ignore my comment and move onto something that suits you.
While I appreciate the flattery (and should remind that looks can be deceiving; I ain't half as formal or collected as this in reality), you're ignoring my points. Self-muting isn't conducive to reform, and it comes with other problems, like decreased communication quality, increasing the likelihood that toxic players will resort to gameplay trolling/intentionally feeding (provided they use the self-mute), and self-awareness being a pretty big issue in general with a voluntary self-mute. Riot wants flamers to either shape up or ship out; and with that being pretty much their ethos (as seen by how they're ready and willing to permanently ban players who don't reform), I can't see any reason why they'd give players a self-mute feature, even ignoring the problems tied to it.
BadboyUG (EUW)
: Please add "Disable comment" feature for those of us prone to flaming
> Please allow us to be able to disable commenting ingame (can only be undone out of game) so that we wont be tempted to flame others if we know that we're going be flaming all game. If you know you're going to be flaming all game, then, I have to ask; _why play_, or, moreover, _why can't you fight that urge?_ Beyond that, I'm sincerely doubtful that you know which matches you're going to flame in before they begin, so either you're going to have yourself permanently chat muted, or you're going to slip up in one of the matches you were confident you could keep your cool in. And in the latter case, the whole "self-mute" thing is kinda pointless. And, even in the case that you have yourself permanently muted; _that's pretty frickin' detrimental to the game_, and unnecessary since you can develop the restraint to not flame; instead, you're choosing to handicap yourself and others over actually trying to reform, which isn't something that Riot would want. Hence, why they don't have a self-mute feature - they want you to reform and not flame, not slap a band-aid on the problem. Another way to look at it is this; if you're a compulsive flamer and can't help but to flame constantly, _you are not Riot's target audience._ They're not going to make concessions for a subset of players they don't want to keep. It's harsh, but it's true. Riot wants players to play by the rules, and they're not going to have features tailor-made for those that don't. > The system can alert our team mates that we have disabled comments, then they to can instead ping us rather than flame us. Isn't the problem _you_ flaming _them_? Even still, giving teammates an alert telling them that one of their teammates opted to mute themselves for lack of restraint may well lead to you getting griefed through pingspam or other such heckling. And then that'd tilt you further, and that brings us to another problem with permanent muting; _Riot previously tried indefinitely-scaling chat restrictions before, and players with longer-duration chat restrictions largely turned to trolling to "make a point" to their teammates._ You may not be one such player who'd do that, but trust me, disabling you from flaming doesn't disable you from breaking the rules and ruining the game in other ways. And personally, I'd rather not see an uptick in trolls or intentional-feeders for _any_ reason, especially not because they opted for a self-mute. > Then we can always enable comments when we are ready to behave ourselves. When? If you're prone to flaming, how can you say for certain when you're ready to behave yourself? If you're not ready to do so now, how could you really be expected to after however long of being self-muted? > This community is shit at the moment, something needs to be done. Allowing players to mute themselves isn't that something. Self-muting hinges its effectiveness on a player's ability to be aware of their own toxicity; a trait which few people seem to have. And the costs would generally outweigh the benefits, since it'd hamper communication and potentially increase trolling/feeding cases in exchange for a small minority of the community being able to prevent themselves from being toxic without reforming.
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=juqzQA6A,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-06-19T06:30:56.678+0000) > > You can file a Support Ticket, but if you did get chat restricted, then you very likely broke the rules; if you retaliated or counterflamed the other players who were rallying for reports against you, that would validate those reports. > > I'd recommend posting your chat logs, because, while false-positives do happen on rare occasions, I have to have my doubts that you were perfectly innocent. Can you tell me where to find the logs and I'll happily post them?
If you haven't cleared your Chat Restriction yet, you should be greeted with the reform card upon logging into the League Client.
: If you're trying to reform, you might be looking at it the wrong way.
For the largest part, I disagree with what you're saying, although there are aspects that I _do_ agree with. I can see how the Hierarchy of Needs can play into exacerbating stressors in League and causing people to lash out, and - while I disagree that it's the only way to alleviate the issue - I do agree that it's worthwhile to try and fix those external factors that would cause one undue stress. What I strongly disagree with, though, is this; > In short, to anyone that's seriously consider to "reform", as in, to better yourself or change yourself: **don't.** It'll be anticlimatic and you're bound to enter an infinite loop. Reform and personal change are absolutely things people should be striving for, especially if where they are presently is unenjoyable to them or harmful to their ability to exist in social situations. Sure, sometimes the ultimate results will be difficult to notice, but that far from guarantees that it'll be anticlimactic or result in an infinite loop of trying and failing. The main issue with reform/personal change is that success hinges entirely on the individual's desire _to_ change. My grandma always told me this, and it rings true to this day; "nobody can change you but _you_." And if someone doesn't commit themselves to whatever change they're shooting for, then they're not going to change. _That's_ anticlimactic, and it's a result of poor dedication. At the end of the day, sure, it's better to prioritize maintaining mental and physical health and personal well-being over personal change, but that doesn't mean the latter should be excluded. > Second: only spend as much money as you're willing to lose when you eventually get banned again. This, to me, is a terrible mindset to have. You're setting this ultimatum for yourself and others that there can be no success, that no matter what, you'll inevitably snap and lose your account again, and so you should prepare for that eventuality by not spending so much that you'd pain yourself for the loss. It's unrealistic, overly cynical, and it helps nothing, especially when reform _is_ well within the realm of possibility. People _have_ changed from being toxic and have since kept stable accounts without getting banned again. All it takes is dedication.
: How do I challenge a chat restriction when teammates lobby for reports that are false?
You can file a Support Ticket, but if you did get chat restricted, then you very likely broke the rules; if you retaliated or counterflamed the other players who were rallying for reports against you, that would validate those reports. I'd recommend posting your chat logs, because, while false-positives do happen on rare occasions, I have to have my doubts that you were perfectly innocent.
eye nut (NA)
: I gave an example of Tyler1 getting banned 17 times without becoming any less toxic, so it does have evidence to it.
One player is barely sufficient evidence - much less when it's one extreme example of someone who for the longest time belligerently refused to reform. That's an outlier case, and doesn't serve as an accurate piece of evidence to your point.
A123B (NA)
: Literally banned for no reason, did no use any 3rd party system other than discord
Like Pyrosan said, you'll want to file a Support Ticket, but before you do that, I want you to at least look at your [match history](https://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-history/NA/462193). You play often enough, but you had a short break, and afterwards had four matches, three of which look suspicious. And, when I say suspicious, I'm not implicating you of having used 3PS yourself- more, it's probable that someone broke into your account and did so. I'm no expert, but your general performance seems pretty modest-to-poor up until that Xayah game, and the only match you had that came close to that sort of slaughter was a Lucian match a while ago - but you didn't go so far unchecked as to have three deaths then. Add the Sylas matches to the mix (It doesn't look like you've played Sylas 'til that day), and I think it's likely that someone hacked your account and ran third-party software while playing it. So, when you file your [Support Ticket](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/requests/new), you may want to ask if Riot noticed any atypical behavior on your account, and whether or not it may have been compromised, and if so, whether or not you could get it back. Best of luck on your Support Ticket, and if you need any more information, I'd be glad to provide what I know.
: I don't have a button to mute myself.
> I need a button to mute myself or an option to stop pressing Enter to type. Alternatively, you could simply develop the restraint to avoid pressing Enter. Riot doesn't have to cater to players who can't be bothered to follow the rules. And they most certainly don't need to do it for players who continue to insult others _even in a post asking for a self-mute feature._ > If they can report me for not having a chance to stop myself from hurting their feelings i feel its unnecessary to suspend people for 14 days just because they cant click a mute button. Who's to say they didn't mute you _and_ report you? It's not like the two are mutually exclusive. And beyond that, it very rarely comes down to feelings being hurt. More often than not, all you're doing is annoying people by being toxic and flaming. And you may feel like it's unnecessary, but look at it this way; Riot's not going to give you umpteen chances to break the same rule over and over again. They have to put their foot down somewhere, and whether you think it does or not, chat toxicity does impact the game and make your team play worse, so it's not like Riot doesn't have any valid reason to ban players who won't follow the rules. > Ok well if they cant click the mute button give me a damn button to mute myself then please. Just don't hit enter. You don't need a self-mute feature, just a little self-control. > You only need to report for cheating or intent feeding in this game nothing more. Your opinion is noted, but it's not the opinion shared by Riot, or the majority of the community.
Ulanopo (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=ElIUAmBU,comment-id=000300000001,timestamp=2019-06-17T03:28:53.978+0000) > > First of all; _please try to condense your responses into one comment._ I only get a notification for the first comment in your string, and constantly commenting to your own replies to add on to it just floods the thread with unnecessary clutter, making it harder to read and follow the conversation. > > --- > > It's not just people going overboard. Here's the snippet that I mentioned earlier - one which Prandine sometimes links to to show people that, surprise surprise, unsportsmanlike conduct and harassment get punished in real-world sports, too. > > From [Ulanopo's Knowledge Base](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=4086541&page=5#post43595629); > (My personal favorite on that site is this indefinite suspension (http://nbafines.tumblr.com/post/1010368028/3-12-96-the-nba-suspended-mahmoud-abdul-rauf-den), simply for refusing to stand during the National Anthem.) > Brendan Shanahan is the ****ing Bad Santa of the NHL. Did you know that his Office of Player Safety watches every minute of every game, from multiple angles? He sees and hears EVERYTHING, including swearing. > > Beyond that, it doesn't matter if all you're telling them is "(they're) bad at the game" - you're not helping anything. You're making them play worse, and you're not helping them to improve, so ultimately, you flaming them is a detriment to the match. > > True statements can be insults and harassment. You may not like that fact, but hey, _it's the truth._ Calling someone "fat" when they're overweight is still insulting. Calling someone "garbage" or "bad" when they're underperforming is insulting. Don't like it? Them's the 8r8ks. > > Again; _you're assuming. **You don't know for a fact whether or not they care for the game.**_ Plus, _how can you seriously say that they don't care when they're getting tilted?_ Wasn't one of your prior arguments that you flaming is just a byproduct of getting stressed because you care so much about winning? > > I'm sensing a double-standard here. Why does that argument fly for you, but not for them? > > It doesn't matter if you're flaming them in-game or post-game. The rules say not to flame, period, not "don't flame unless the match is over". > > You may not like the rules, but you still have to abide by them. Those links are old enough that most of them are dead.
Frig. Well, at least there's still some worthwhile information, like taunting and unsportsmanlike swearing being punishable.
: u say in sports ppl got punished ya,ppl who got way overborn and litteraly harrassed them,im just saying they are bad a t the game and that talk has been in any team to anyone ,as i said,if they start using hate speech and diverting from the actual issue in the game,thats bannable
First of all; _please try to condense your responses into one comment._ I only get a notification for the first comment in your string, and constantly commenting to your own replies to add on to it just floods the thread with unnecessary clutter, making it harder to read and follow the conversation. --- > u say in sports ppl got punished ya,ppl who got way overborn and litteraly harrassed them,im just saying they are bad a t the game and that talk has been in any team to anyone ,as i said,if they start using hate speech and diverting from the actual issue in the game,thats bannable It's not just people going overboard. Here's the snippet that I mentioned earlier - one which Prandine sometimes links to to show people that, surprise surprise, unsportsmanlike conduct and harassment get punished in real-world sports, too. From [Ulanopo's Knowledge Base](http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=4086541&page=5#post43595629); > **Trash talk is part of all competitive sports. It happens all the time in the pros.** > > Yes and no. Yes, trash talk occurs, but it has definite limits. Most of the things that are punished in game (racial, ethnic and homophobic slurs, sexism, etc.) would also earn you a hefty fine in professional sports. > > A Tumblr List of NBA Fines (http://nbafines.tumblr.com/) (My personal favorite on that site is this indefinite suspension (http://nbafines.tumblr.com/post/1010368028/3-12-96-the-nba-suspended-mahmoud-abdul-rauf-den), simply for refusing to stand during the National Anthem.) > > A List of NFL Fines for Taunting (http://www.spotrac.com/fines-tracker/nfl/all-years/fines/taunting/) > > NBC Article on Fines Agreed to by the NFLPA (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/01/bizarrely-specific-nfl-fines-come-from-agreed-league-union-schedule/) > "Excessive profanity or other unsportsmanlike conduct triggers a minimum fine of $10,500." > > NHL Office of Player Safety (http://www.nhl.com/ice/eventhome.htm?location=/playersafety) Brendan Shanahan is the ****ing Bad Santa of the NHL. Did you know that his Office of Player Safety watches every minute of every game, from multiple angles? He sees and hears EVERYTHING, including swearing. > > ... and the grand finale! > Marge Schott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Schott), who was forced out of ownership of the Cincinnati Reds for racist comments and pro-Nazi sentiments. Beyond that, it doesn't matter if all you're telling them is "(they're) bad at the game" - you're not helping anything. You're making them play worse, and you're not helping them to improve, so ultimately, you flaming them is a detriment to the match. > by the way saying the truth is harrassing?explain yourself.that just sound like an excuse for mentaly weak players that cant handle the truth True statements can be insults and harassment. You may not like that fact, but hey, _it's the truth._ Calling someone "fat" when they're overweight is still insulting. Calling someone "garbage" or "bad" when they're underperforming is insulting. Don't like it? Them's the 8r8ks. > also,then u say i dont know certain things,if u go 0-6 in lane right,that means u make the same mistake over and over again and u refuse to learn from ur mistake either because of pure laziness,being tilted we,but that just shows u dont care enough to correct ur obvious shortcomings to better win the game Again; _you're assuming. **You don't know for a fact whether or not they care for the game.**_ Plus, _how can you seriously say that they don't care when they're getting tilted?_ Wasn't one of your prior arguments that you flaming is just a byproduct of getting stressed because you care so much about winning? I'm sensing a double-standard here. Why does that argument fly for you, but not for them? > im talking about flaming then after game,i shouldnt be banned for telling some one they are bad post game,even in game but we It doesn't matter if you're flaming them in-game or post-game. The rules say not to flame, period, not "don't flame unless the match is over". You may not like the rules, but you still have to abide by them.
: the punishement system after the honor rework is completely exagerated
> now i used to only get chat restricted for 10 games at most every few months,why?cuz i would say to bad players that they are bad.now after the rework even the smallest flame can be counted and enough of them and u get permabanned. It's more probable that you're simply lashing out and flaming other players more frequently than it is that the system has been overtuned. If you got permanently banned, then that's an indicator that you've been consistently negative enough to warrant such a harsh punishment; ignoring however many semi-monthly chat restrictions you've had prior, you'd still have to have climbed through all three punishment tiers prior to warrant a permanent ban. > there is not a single system ina game,sports where that exist,the other games only ban ppl who hate speech(which im totally for). IIRC, there are ample sports where players have been penalized, and even kicked off of teams, for misbehavior and aggression against other players. I know one of the Moderators - Prandine, if my memory serves - has a link to a number of cited punishments in various sports. Either way, it'd be unrealistic for any sport to only ever punish for hate speech. Unsportsmanlike conduct, as the name would imply, _has no place in sports_. > but riot and also ppl who say ppl like me deserve it dont understand that ranked league is a competitive environnement. It's not that we don't understand that Ranked is a competitive environment, it's that _you_ don't understand that it being a competitive environment doesn't give you the liberty to flame and harass players. You're expected to compose yourself better and strive for the win in a competitive environment, not tear down your teammates and lash out. > ppl like me care about ranking up and th trigger to us flaming is simply some one who clearly dosnt share the same drive who clearly underperforms out of pure lazyness. You don't know the reason they're underperforming. You don't know if they have the same drive as you do to win. And frankly, if you're apt to flame people who underperform, then you can't say that you have a drive to win - you don't win by fighting your own teammates. > because unlike sports, ppl can join in soloq anytime they want and they can treat it as they wish,so a lot of ppl who dont care and who just play rank for fun instead of normals cuz the games quality are better ruins other ppl experience. Again; _you don't know why people do what they do._ How do you know that they don't care to climb? Are they explicitly stating it, or do you just assume that they don't care because they're getting their asses handed to them? And, even if Ranked is supposed to be a competitive mode, the game is still meant to be played for fun. If you don't like that, then unfortunately, you just have to deal with it. It's a game, not a job. > because whena bot lane goes 0-12 in a 2v2 that means they refuse to learn from their mistakes and continue to do the same because as i said,they dont care... Do you think flaming them is going to make them play better? 'Cause it's not going to. It'll only make them play worse, and then you're becoming part of the very problem you're flaming them for. > ...these players should be ready to receive some kind of negative feed back,if that turns them off from ranked ,good. And if you decide that you should be the one to give them "negative feedback" through flaming, then you should be ready to receive some kind of punishment. You don't get to flame players, no matter how poorly they perform or how much you think your flame is justified. --- The last section of your wall of text is primarily just rambling, with the assertion that sports teams would straight up harass and insult players who don't perform well. I'm sincerely doubtful that that's true, since, again; _competitive sports requires a degree of composure and sportsmanlike conduct, and being an asshole to weak links isn't conducive to that composure._
: Does the no naming and shaming rule apply to people that literally streamed their own misbehavior for all of Twitch (the website, not the champion) to see? Because that would be kind of odd, IMO.
There's some leeway granted for Streamers/Content Creators (such as on Youtube or Twitch, etc.) in regards to the Naming & Shaming rule, but there's still an expectation to keep discussions civil and not go full ham over those players for their misbehavior. Pointing out what they did wrong and discussing it is fine, but insulting them for it and so forth isn't. Though, GatekeeperTDS is probably more talking about general players trying to call to attention other players' misbehavior; not really to do with the recent NightBlue3/Nubrac shenanigans.
: Player Behavior - Naming & Shaming Sticky
Sadly, I'm not sure if a pinned thread reminding players of the Naming & Shaming rule would really help. We've already got two pinned threads detailing rules and general guidelines for Player Behavior, as well as the Boards Universal Rules in boldface and with a scroll icon on the left, just a little ways under the "Create a Discussion" button, so if people aren't bothering to read all of that, I'm doubtful that a third reminder that players aren't allowed to name & shame would really do anything. If they're not willing to bother to read the rules in the first place, making more threads to explain the rules probably wouldn't get very far.
ce2727 (NA)
: First offense intentional feeding - Why 14 days?
To answer your questions directly before saying anything else; > 1) What do you think a justified ban for this scenario is? I'd say that the 14-day ban is justified here. The punishment ladder consists of two chat restriction tiers (10-game and 25-game) then two ban tiers (14-day and permanent), so it only makes sense that a gameplay-related offense receives a punishment that's actually appropriate. > 2) Should players who are 'new' to toxic behavior receive warnings before action is taken? In general, I'd say yes. But in this case; no. Players shouldn't need to be warned that deliberately sabotaging the match for their team and intentionally feeding isn't welcome behavior. If their offense was more modest and/or infrequent, like insulting players or low-key negativity, I'd consider a warning perfectly reasonable. But for egregious offenses like trolling or intentionally feeding, a warning should not be needed. --- Another issue that's brought up, albeit not presented as a question, is prior positive behavior being stacked against recent negative behavior. It's not a wholly uncommon argument, but, here's how I see it; Previous good behavior should not exempt players from punishment for breaking the rules. There's already a fair bit of leeway for players who aren't really bad (it takes quite a bit to reach the first chat restriction, outside of hardcore flaming), and egregious offenses (such as hate speech, int-feeding, trolling, etc.) should always take precedence over prior positive behavior. Because whatever previous positive behavior you've shown should only be factored in to your punishment as the expectation for how you should behave, not as a safety net for if your behavior falls under that line where it's no longer acceptable. If you're positive, sportsmanlike, and good-natured, then it's expected of you to keep being such, but that's about as far as it goes in the event that you deviate into negative, unsportsmanlike conduct. The 14-day ban is definitely meant to hurt; it's supposed to be a decisive punishment that warns players that ruining the game for other players through gameplay means (trolling, intentional feeding) won't be tolerated, no matter the reason, and it should give ample time to think about how you got there; what led you to misbehave, how you could've done better, and how you'll improve going forward.
KeKeNator (EUNE)
: why did i get 15 day ban for trash talking.
> **why did i get 15 day ban for trash talking.** > > why did i get ban if i could get just in game mute. Well, there are two highly probable ways you could've come to the 14-day Ban; 1) **Standard escalation.** If you've recently come off of a 25-game Chat Restriction, then the 14-day ban would be the next step. The punishment ladder is as follows; 10-game Chat Restriction > 25-game Chat Restriction > 14-day ban > permanent ban. Continued misbehavior results in harsher and harsher punishments. They aren't gonna give you infinite chances to keep misbehaving the same way, after all. 2) **Zero-Tolerance escalation.** Alternatively, if you jumped straight to the 14-day ban without a prior punishment history, it's very likely you used zero-tolerance chat, like hate speech or encouragements of self-harm. You only get _one_ chance to reform from such misbehavior, as Riot expects you to already know that such behavior is unacceptable. Whichever way you arrived at the 14-day ban, a chat mute/restriction would not suffice for a punishment. Your behavior was either egregious enough or frequent enough to warrant a temporary suspension - which, might I add, is stated on the reform card to be _your last chance. Any further misbehavior will result in a permanent suspension._ If you want to have your behavior peer reviewed, you'll have to provide your chat logs, elsewise, this is about as much information as I can feasibly provide.
Ponga45 (EUNE)
: Please help me get unsuspended
As players, we can't do anything to further your ticket or make Riot look at it any faster. Just don't try bumping your ticket (as that'll just send it to the back of the queue), and wait for Riot's response. For future reference, though; **Do not threaten players with reports.** It doesn't matter what they do, there is no benefit to telling them that you're going to report them. If you're going to report them, _**just do it.**_ Threatening them in the middle of the game is just going to agitate them and make any situation worse. **Do not rally for other players to report someone.** The IFS only needs one report to trigger a review; your report alone is enough. More reports don't add any greater weight or impetus to the review, so there's no legitimate reason to call for other players to report someone. Beyond that, players on the enemy team have no way of really knowing if your claims are true, so trying to get them involved is pretty pointless at best, and maliciously vain at worst. And, this should really go without saying: **Don't repeat things that you _know_ would result in a punishment. _Period._** You know full-well that hate speech and encouragements of self-harm are wholly against the rules, and saying them - under _any_ circumstances - will validate any hate speech report against you. This goes hand-in-hand with the first two points: **There is no benefit to threatening reports or rallying for reports. If someone uses hate speech, _just report them after the game yourself._** Additionally: > Ponga45: actually r%%%%%ed Don't use pejorative language like this, as - while the system may not consider it such yet - this _is_ hate speech. > Ponga45: dont ping me Ponga45: dumb fuck Ponga45: 0/2 Ponga45: sleep more Ponga45: 0/3 And don't insult players or harass them for their KDA.
: didn't it also take weeks (or months) most of the time for anything to be done and by that point any punishment that could be dealt would be pointless?
Yup, although that's part and parcel with the participation issues. Less people going through cases = more cases piling up = bigger backlog = longer span of time between offense and punishment. And since people generally have an easier time reforming if the reason for their punishment is within recent memory, having those issues (low participation + backlog and punishments happening way too long after the offense) generally wasn't conducive to player reform, and made for a pretty bad punishment system.
: Why we should bring back tribunal.
This...Doesn't really address the issue of too few players participating in the Tribunal. All you're doing is saying "if people really cared about toxicity, they'd participate in the Tribunal", which completely ignores players who _do_ care about toxicity but would not/could not otherwise participate, and really doesn't serve as a reliable argument for bringing back the Tribunal, either; if your assumption is that people don't care, then why would the Tribunal be brought back? Additionally, low participation rate wasn't the only issue with the Tribunal. I can't speak to how accurate it was, as insomniacjezz put forward, but I know that on top of the low participation rates, attempts to influence participation (I.E, incentivizing it) caused cases to be swayed towards unanimous punishment for the sake of getting easy rewards. Ultimately, the IFS is just all-around a better system than the Tribunal, and this thread doesn't really give any compelling reasons to bring the latter back.
valh0e (EUW)
: Let me start by saying I thank you all for your comments. I did not know I'd receive so much feedback in such a short amount of time. What I get from the discussion is that this topic is clearly regulated in the rules, however my case is very controversial. There might not be a right or wrong here but I haver submitted a ticket asking for reconsideration. @Umbral Regent I understand you know the rules well and I appreciate that. However I already wanted to point out that the decision might be "technically" correct, but morally worthy of reconsideration. Does that sound like it makes sense?
> @Umbral Regent I understand you know the rules well and I appreciate that. However I already wanted to point out that the decision might be "technically" correct, but morally worthy of reconsideration. Does that sound like it makes sense? It does, and I thank you for clarifying. Though it doesn't really bear repeating, my stance is pretty obvious when it comes to morals and the punishment system; largely, I feel that the system works best when the two are separate, and I keep my responses generally within the ballpark of that being the case; where the rules are broken, don't expect high probability of appeal, etc. etc.; That said, I have seen cases where one-off instances of poor behavior have been appealed with a stern warning, on account of the player understanding their punishment and making the earnest promise to not repeat it. Those cases are very few and very far between, so I'd still reckon the odds are pretty low, but, given your disposition to the feedback, I feel it's worth mentioning. Just know that those samesuch appeals are wholly within the jurisdiction of the Support Agents who handle your request, and it's almost certain that a vast majority would elect to maintain principle and not overturn correctly-applied punishments. Best of luck on your Support Ticket, and if you have any questions about the punishment system or your punishment, don't hesitate to ask.
: Yea you clearly misread the situation, further more it’s also forcing them to go on with an unpleasant game in the process, this man should not be punished and it is far from justified since agreed upon by the whole team, and the enemy team got a win son this is a case of context over legalism, such as understanding the law and the letter of the law.
> Yea you clearly misread the situation... What's there to misread? The OP plainly states that their team (including them) chose to open lanes... > 3) We decided as a team (except for the afk ofcourse) that we would like to forfeit this game and all acted accordingly, leaving our lanes open. Which is against the rules. And unless I'm missing something, they also admitted to intentionally feeding as a way to "have fun" in a match that they chose to give up in. > 4) I did try to make the most fun of the situation, considering that I would loose my LP anyway. Yes, I did get killed a lot while making fun. > > I got banned for two weeks for the reason of "intentional feeding" however whereas this might be technically correct, it was decided by the whole team that we would forfeit. And considering that they're trying to use the team opening lanes as an excuse, I'm doubtful that they meant something else when they said that they were "trying to make the most fun" and that the punishment being for intentional feeding was "technically correct". But, if I _did_ misread something, then the OP is free to clarify. > ...further more it’s also forcing them to go on with an unpleasant game in the process... You're going to have unpleasant games every now and again. Are we supposed to just exempt a player from the rules and let them throw up their hands and say "I quit" if they find the match unpleasant? I can only wonder how many matches would devolve into people quitting at the first sign of things going poorly. Bad matchup? Unpleasant, I quit. Enemy team scored first blood? Unpleasant, I quit. Enemy team consistently ganks? Unpleasant, I quit. First turret blood? I quit. When you queue up for a match of League, you are explicitly agreeing to play that match out until either Nexus explodes. You don't get to quit just because a match is unpleasant. If you can't handle unpleasant matches, don't queue up for a game where you can have them. It's as simple as that. > ...this man should not be punished... That's not for you to decide; it's for Riot. Opening lanes and intentionally feeding are both against the rules. > ...and it is far from justified since agreed upon by the whole team... But did the enemy team agree? If not, then it is justified. And clearly, someone must not have agreed, elsewise a report wouldn't have been filed. Just because 4-5 players agree to break the rules doesn't change the fact that the rules were broken. They don't get any special privileges or exemption from the rules just because they agreed to break them. The players don't decide the rules, Riot does, and the players can't just decide that they don't want to follow whatever specific rule that's inconvenient to them.
valh0e (EUW)
: Got banned for "Inting"
First of all, opening lanes isn't allowed, even if all five players on your team agrees to do so. The enemy team queued up for a legitimate match, and the only legitimate means of forfeiting is through the Surrender vote or /Remake. It sucks that you had to deal with a troll/AFK, but that doesn't mean that you're allowed to just give up the match in-progress and open lanes. Beyond that, straight-up intentionally feeding isn't excusable. If that's your means of having fun in a game that you've already decided you don't want to play, then you need to find better ways to enjoy the game, because no matter which way you cut it, intentionally feeding will always be punishable. > How do you see it? is it justified? Is there a chance I could get bailed out of jail? Between opening lanes and wilfully feeding the opponents, yeah, the punishment is justified, and it's more than unlikely that you could have the punishment appealed.
thomulf (NA)
: Change FF rules to curb spam FF
> ...and also leads to flame, inting or AFK when they don't get what they want. I fail to see how reducing each player's allowed Surrender Attempts to one would mitigate those kinds of behavior. If they were going to flame, intentionally feed, or AFK when their Surrender Vote doesn't go through for the third time, what makes you think they wouldn't do it on the first failed Surrender Vote if they were only allowed one attempt? --- Frankly, I prefer the way Surrender Votes are handled right now, with a 3-minute cooldown overall instead of a vote allotment per-player. Some people who initially voted "no" may find the situation growing gradually more and more unfavorable, but still (for whatever reason they have) not open a Surrender Vote themselves. If they wind up changing their vote to Yes, I don't see why the actual vote should be hampered by preventing the one player who's actually willing to open the vote from actually doing so.
4lking (NA)
: account ban
Hate to say it, but it doesn't matter if you're five years into the ban or ten years or more; it's a permanent suspension, and it's intended to stay in place no matter how long you wait. > i want my account back Unfortunately, it's too late for that. You had ample opportunities to reform five years ago. If you didn't take those opportunities, that's on you.
: Canis Noctis:watch out for invade Canis Noctis:why didnt you listen i told u they might invade dont be stupid Canis Noctis:im coming bot Canis Noctis:why dont u listen i said im coming bot are u stupid to react dude Canis Noctis:dude why didnt u listen to my ping to back off u just gave my laner a free kill i mia 6 times Canis Noctis:are u just stupid i pinged look in chat lmao Canis Noctis:wdym lmao its there in chat ur trolling Canis Noctis:u legit died when u didnt need to when i spam pinged u to back off Canis Noctis:k Canis Noctis:they might baron Canis Noctis:and there goes baron riparoo Canis Noctis:if u get caught its gg Canis Noctis:dude why do u not listen to pings stop being so stupid Canis Noctis:no u have not listend to a single ping all game lmao whats wrong with u stop playing stupid Canis Noctis:no u dont listen at all all game its the same thing u dont fudgeing listen whats wrong with you lmao like cmon Canis Noctis:u dont care about winning clearly so u just troll ur cool dude
I'm hesitant to assume that that's the entire chat log, if only for the absence of "Game 1" prefacing it, but if it is, and if these logs are unedited, then there's ample room for confusion. There are a small few edge cases that could've happened here, but, the best way to get details would be the aforementioned route of a Support Ticket.
: so i get a chat restriction
It's rare, but there have been cases similar to this where a player received one tier of punishment, but then Riot - through manual review of the case - finds that the IFS applied too light of a punishment, so they bump it up to something more fitting. I can't really say if this case perfectly applies to you, and I'm not about to assume either way (if the punishment tier increase was just or not) without seeing your chat logs first. If you want a peer-review of your behavior to try and get an understanding from other players as to why you may have been bumped up a punishment tier, you can post your chat logs. Otherwise, if you want to get Riot's verdict or try to appeal the ban, you'll want to send in a [Support Ticket](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/requests/new).
: Well I spend a lot of time dealing with this stuff...you can call it theory ,but it is based on my personal research and experience.I am open for you to show me 1 case when someone who "steals role in champ select " get banned because of that .And I can offer you tons of time when they do not. And if you do not know that program can not read what you say in after game report ,then you have big lack of knowledge.Do you know program deals with after game reports??? Do you rely believe it can detect 'role steal' based on what someone wrote in that report??If do so,show me one example.I will show you a lot of those who did not get punishment because of role steal!!!
> Well I spend a lot of time dealing with this stuff...you can call it theory ,but it is based on my personal research and experience. Throwing in personal experience and anecdotes is an easy way to muddy discussion. It is far too easy to take a personal perception and perceive it as fact when faced with information that supports that perception. For example, you claim that the Details section of the post-game report is functionally useless, yet I've had situations where it was near categorically certain that writing out an explanation of a player's behavior made it that much easier for the system or the reviewer to catch that misbehavior. Anecdotes are easy. Concrete evidence is harder. So much harder, even, that I can't really find any cases posted to the Boards of players having been punished for role theft; I could stipulate all damn day as to why, but the end result is the same, so it doesn't matter. > And if you do not know that program can not read what you say in after game report ,then you have big lack of knowledge. Nowhere did I mention that the IFS itself reads the Details, and I'd appreciate if you practised your phrasing. It's one thing to call into question my understanding of the system, but your phrasing makes it very hard not to see your comments as insults. > Do you know program deals with after game reports??? The IFS handling the majority of post-game reports doesn't mean that it can't forward a case to manual review. > Do you rely believe it can detect 'role steal' based on what someone wrote in that report?? Riot can discern a _lot_ of misbehaviors based on numerous factors found in the match. The Details just make it easier for them to find said misbehaviors.
: In theory it is how it should be .Unfortunately that is not case in practice. We all know people like those rarely get punished...Especially if you did not send ticket to riot support,after game report ,in most cases, will do nothing... My question to you is why do not tell people those kind of information? Why don't you separate theory from reality,and help them for real?
> My question to you is why do not tell people those kind of information? Why don't you separate theory from reality,and help them for real? My question to you is, how is what you're saying any _less_ theoretical? You argue that the in-Client Report feature does nothing in most cases, but frankly, that's a theory without substantial evidence to back it. I help people by telling them what I know of the system. Some of that may well lean on speculation, which I sometimes (as is the case above with the nature of the **Intentional Feeding** category) assert as fact, but at the end of the day, telling people to just file a Support Ticket would hardly be any better help than encouraging them to use the in-Client Report feature accurately.
Seannà (NA)
: Is Role-Stealing Punishable?
It is punishable. As for which category, I'd suggest **Intentionally Feeding**, as that category pertains to gameplay-related misbehavior, more than just intentionally feeding. It of course would also be worthwhile to add a note in the report detailing the player's behavior - what role they were placed, and which role they decided to steal, etc. > Will Riot actually do anything if the person still plays well? Even if they get a good score and carry, they still stole someone's role and made the game more difficult for them Even if they played the role well, they still stole someone else's role and trolled their teammates, and Riot will still punish them for it. Thankfully, good performance has never excused poor behavior.
Akeake (OCE)
: Only MASTERED champs eligible for ranked play
Well, let's look at some of the issues that directly pertain to restricting players based on Champion Mastery; - **Requiring Champion Mastery will increase the required bar for entry.** As it stands right now, you only need to be Level 30 and have at least twelve to twenty Champions unlocked in order to play Ranked (the lower prerequisite for Flex 3's, the higher for 5's and Solo/Duo.) If you only allow Champions of MR5 or higher into Ranked, you consequently need to bump up those prerequisites to require players have 12-20 Champions at Mastery Rank 5, consequently making it needlessly more taxing to get into Ranked. - **Restricting a player's Champion pool restricts their ability to adapt.** There are a fair number of Champions with similar playstyles, even if some of them inhabit completely separate roles from one another, and that actually makes this more of a problem when you take into account AutoFill, which will naturally exacerbate that issue. What if I play engage-heavy Support Champions (like Leona), and get autofilled Jungle? I know Diana has a strongly similar kit, but because I don't have her at MR5+, I'm relegated to play some other Champion - implying I even have any Junglers at MR5+. And that's not limited to just Champions of similar playstyle. If I get autofilled mid lane without any midlaners at MR5, I'm pretty much screwed - or worse, if I _do_ have Champions at MR5+ and the matchup becomes completely unfavorable to those Champions. Alternatively, I could have just two Champions (let's use Yasuo and Azir for example, as I have them at MR7), wherein one is banned (Yasuo) and the other is beyond my ability to play or otherwise not actually good to play. Which, that brings me to some other issues pertaining to Champion Mastery-based restriction; - **Champion Mastery is not accurately indicative of player skill with a given Champion.** Especially if the bar is anywhere below Mastery Rank 6 - Champion Mastery is only indicative of a player's dedication to playing a given Champion, and after that, their ability to get the rare S-/S. As an example, I have Azir at Mastery Rank 7; _but I guarantee you I would **not** do well if I played him today._ Partially because of his natural balance instability as a high-mastery curve Champion, but also because I've accumulated so much rust on him that it'd be weeks before I could actually lane halfway decently with him today. - **Champion Mastery also does not account for overall mechanical knowledge.** No matter how readily you would regard first-timing a Champion as a heinous blunder, that the implications of being completely new to a Champion could increase the odds of losing, you have to account for people with the mechanical knowledge and general ability to play _any_ Champion reliably well, first-time or otherwise. For some people (and I would hazard to put myself forward as one such player), acclimating to a new and unfamiliar kit is barely an issue, and one could easily do well without prior playtime with the Champion. Of course, some such cases could simply be blunders of unusual luck or attributed to the Champion being new to _everyone_, but regardless, the point is the same; some people _can_ adapt to a new kit within the first match, and it would be a disservice to restrict them to playing only Champions they've spent enough time on to bring to Mastery Rank 5 or higher. All told, I'm personally against imposing a Champion Mastery restriction on Ranked play. It'd be needlessly inhibiting, and it still wouldn't make the situation of some players not knowing their Champion any better. IMO, if you really want to play with players who know their Champion well and won't first-time something in Ranked, I think you'd be best off getting a premade together to queue for 5's. But that's just my perspective.
Baka Red (EUNE)
: Well, maybe it is easy to know which variant is in use if you are native speaker, but apparently there is also a racial hate speech R%%%% word and the R%%%% which is about lack of intelligence. I personally tend to think this R%%%%%% word to be the latter, and I have no idea what kind of racial hate speech it is - but I guess it is. There are most likely others out there who get confused because of similar mixups and those tend to derail discussions to "No, I mean R%%%%%% the racial thing." "Oh, that is a racial thing now?" etc. What is the reason we cannot use the words, if they are not directed at anyone? Whom is Riot protecting by doing that? If people are not allowed to talk about something like Tiananmen square in China, people will forget it ever happened. There are lots of people in China now, who are not aware what happened there in 1989. That doesn't change the fact that people are still oppressed there if they try to be vocal about their rights - since the people aren't aware that it happened, will China roll over them with tanks this time too? Same thing has happened with holocaust of WWII; many people in Germany don't know/believe that things like gas chambers and killing camps happened. And history books in Russia are from different planet than the rest of the world. How does the saying go: Those who do not learn history, are doomed to repeat it? Bad things don't go away if we don't talk about them (or cannot talk about them). They keep coming back. Similar thing to the above is happening in our Player Behavior boards (in less important scale of course). Censorship might have it's place in the world, but imo that place should be kept as small as possible, because censorship (I am not actually sure there is a well used censorship is possible) will usually do at least some harm as a side effect.
> What is the reason we cannot use the words, if they are not directed at anyone? Whom is Riot protecting by doing that? It's because those words are intrinsically hateful, having historically been used to dehumanize people because of unchangeable aspects of their character. To my knowledge, only one instance of hate speech is being actively reclaimed, which is the N-word; even still, it has no place in League because of the aforementioned history of hate and dehumanization attached to it. As for not directing it at anyone; it's horribly unlikely that one would simply blurt out hate speech with no direction. One wouldn't get caught spouting the F-word without having called someone it - and no, the antiquated definitions for both F-words (cigarette and bundle of sticks, respectively) have no bearing on the words; they're antiquated for a reason, after all. --- The third paragraph looks to be pertaining to socio-political issues, and since that's against the [_Boards Universal Rules_](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/ITFIpNUE), I'll elect to skip over it. > **Inappropriate Discussion Topics** > > Do not post or engage in discussions of religion, ethnicity/race, sexual orientation, gender, politics, or real-world social issues. Real-world emergency situations will be allowed as long as they do not relate to the issues above. If you are unsure if your content is permissible, ask us on the [Moderation Discord](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/7rtKBZLi-boards-moderation-discord-verification) prior to posting. > > Inappropriate discussion topics may be subject to escalated punishments, depending on the content in question. --- > Bad things don't go away if we don't talk about them (or cannot talk about them). They keep coming back. Similar thing to the above is happening in our Player Behavior boards (in less important scale of course). Censorship might have it's place in the world, but imo that place should be kept as small as possible, because censorship (I am not actually sure there is a well used censorship is possible) will usually do at least some harm as a side effect. Again, I fail to see how censoring hate speech and pejorative language harms discussion in _Player Behavior_. The core of most discussion on the PB boards is centered around the behavior of an individual player, not the outstanding history and social implications of their particular flavor of hate. There's very little reason I see to discuss hate speech on its own. The problems of hate speech are self-evident, and consequently don't need extensive discussion. And it's not like giving players a history lesson is going to make them any more inclined to reform. Even still, it's not impossible to have discussions about hate speech when it's censored. It doesn't take much to ascertain what the word is, and hell, I've even had one or two instances of discussing the R-word and its being hate speech even after the Moderation team put forward the motion to censor it. This minute level of censorship does not inhibit discussion; all it does is protect those with the sensibilities that would be offended by those hateful terms.
Show more

Umbral Regent

Level 148 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion