late (EUNE)
: hi
> im just flexing my ban, here's my logs > > any idea what to do now If you're just going to show off your misbehavior and flaunt your ban as a point of pride, I don't really think there's any suggestions we can reasonably make. The logs themselves clearly don't need discussing, since you're - again - priding yourself in your misbehavior, and frankly, the logs start off with outright toxicity and, while I did only skim over them due to the apparent lack of interest in discussion, they didn't seem to at any point get any better. If your ban was a permanent one, then my only real suggestion would be to bite the bullet and find another game to play. It doesn't appear that you're interested in reform, but, if I'm wrong, do tell and we may work from there, but, if all this post is really here for is to flaunt the misbehavior that resulted in the ban, then, no disrespect, but I really don't see much of a point in it.
: Do we need to see their chat logs? Does anyone believe that they got chat restricted without being toxic?
> Do we need to see their chat logs? Yes and no; no, because we can't really do anything beyond pointing things out in the logs to explain the punishment or otherwise suggesting a course of action, but yes because it is possible that the OP may have actually misbehaved, and either doesn't recognize it (due to such behaviors being normalized for them to some degree) or they may have missed over something in reading their own logs. It's easy to let personal bias pull the wool over one's eyes, which is why it helps for players to have their chat logs peer-reviewed. Fellow players can look through their logs and try to explain what - if anything - might have resulted in the punishment, and whether or not they might have a case for appeal, albeit that latter part is particularly rare. > Does anyone believe that they got chat restricted without being toxic? It is possible; not all forms of misbehavior are inherently toxic. Detrimental arguing, defeatism, and excessive complaining are those sorts of misbehavior, and there are very frequently cases where players overstep in self defense and - accidentally or otherwise - wind up as retaliators. I'm personally willing to bet that the OP may have committed one of those more low-key infractions - probably detrimental arguing or overstepping in self defense - but I really can't say for certain without seeing the chat logs.
: considering the KYS clan tag exists on euw since day 1 of clans, i dont think that will help much.
I mean, misbehavior being prevalent despite explicit rules shouldn't mean that you shouldn't report. One could say basically the same thing about any other form of toxicity/misbehavior; flamers and quitters still exist in an unfortunate number, so technically speaking, reporting wouldn't really help much on that front... But I don't see why you shouldn't report it regardless.
: Chat Restricted for playing Maokai Support
You did not get punished for playing Maokai Support. As you said, Maokai Support is a legit thing, and it _isn't_ punishable - but if it was, you would not have gotten a Chat Restriction, you would've been given a 14-day ban on the first offense. You got a Chat Restriction because of your chat behavior - I would personally suggest you post your chat logs for peer review, because there is clearly something in them you might be overlooking.
: Just got a 10 game chat restriction for wanting to ff
> ...I didn't...harass... > --- > YTmustangcody: how yall losing to double supp? > > YTmustangcody: botlane just watches me gank > > YTmustangcody: how did you lose to double suppport? > YTmustangcody: they have no adc > > YTmustangcody: like stop ganking mid > YTmustangcody: you keep feeding > YTmustangcody: all game Whether you believe it or not, these lines do constitute harassment. You're badgering bottom lane about them losing to a double-Support lane (which, by the way, you'd be pretty surprised just how hard it can be to lane against double-supports), harassing them for not following through on your gank, and also harassing your Jungler for the outcome of their ganks. Add to that the belligerent arguing and the consistent, obsessive complaints and cries to forfeit, and yeah - this punishment is well-merited.
: this...doesnt make sense why would a second offense (after a MAJOR infraction) warrant a lesser punishment? bass akwards if you ask me
Well, look at their reasoning; > However, the way these two penalties are combined does not make sense. Using a zero tolerance word or phrase also bumps the penalty tier all the way to the 3rd step, skipping the first two, which means that a single use of a zero tolerance word or phrase followed by even a slight bout of toxicity results in a permanent ban. While, toxicity should always be avoided, this does not afford the player the opportunity to reform. He or she may understand that zero tolerance words and phrases are just that, but has not been warned that other parts of his or her chatter are also unacceptable. I personally agree with the sentiment that ZT+minor infraction leading straight into a permaban is a bit overmuch, but I also agree that maybe having ZT be a separate punishment track altogether from the main misbehavior track may also be a bit too lenient. If I recall, Imperial Pandaa (who also shares the sentiment regarding ZT and minor offenses, IIRC - Pandaa, if I'm misattributing your perspective, feel free to call me out on it) had a decent idea of having the Zero-Tolerance offense still push you up to a 14-day ban, but for intents and purposes count players as having just come off a 25-game CR; so that minor misbehavior won't immediately push the player into the permanent ban, allowing the players a chance at reform, but continued ZT misbehavior will still result in the hammer dropping.
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XFhoK60I,comment-id=000400000000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-09-19T05:33:38.047+0000) > > I'd say negative, bordering on toxic. Altogether punishable, but, not quite toxic. On the subject of punishment, do you know how long it normally takes for a punishment to be dealt out to a toxic player?
Not really. Depending on the severity and frequency of the offense, it could be anywhere between immediately after the offending match (for something like hardcore flaming or hate speech or similar-such) to taking several matches, sometimes even a couple days for low-key offenses like defeatism or passive-aggressive behavior. That's more or less the biggest thing to take into account about how long it takes for a punishment; it all depends on how severe the offense(s) is/are, and how frequently they occur. Higher severity/frequency means faster/more immediate punishment, etc.
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XFhoK60I,comment-id=0004000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-19T04:12:13.050+0000) > > Now, tell me, do any of those flaming bits actually achieve the goal of encouraging the Jungler to gank? 'Cause, if not, then flaming falls dramatically short of achieving _its own goal_, let alone not achieving a higher one. > > Not only that, but the flaming doesn't exclusively affect the subject of the flame - all 1-3 other players have to deal with it, and their morale and team cohesion will suffer _due to_ the flaming. So, as stated above; _it's counterintuitive._ Not only does it not create the desired effect (getting the Jungler to gank), but it also makes the team as a whole play that much worse on account of loss of team cohesion/morale - so it causes more harm than good to flame. If you don't mind me asking, the second question I asked above. If someone says that they won't gank them because they've been talking shit would that count as being toxic?
I'd say negative, bordering on toxic. Altogether punishable, but, not quite toxic.
: So what you're saying is i can shame as many streamers as id like on the boards and the boards would be okay with it as long as theres no arguments going around?
No. You can discuss a streamer being toxic - be it on-stream or in-game - and whether or not Riot should punish those players as an example due to them being high-profile community figures, but you're still not allowed to shame and insult and disrespect those players, as per the rules. Don't go trying to split hairs, dude. It ain't gonna work.
: Please refrain from using names since it goes agains the name and shame rule. You specified that yourself.
Streamers and high-profile behavioral cases are open for discussion and treated more leniently regarding the Name & Shame rule, provided discussion around those players/cases remain civil. Streamers open themselves up to public scrutiny by the very virtue of being streamers, and high-profile cases are...Well, just that. The knowledge of such cases are wide-spread (whether due to player reputation or the case itself setting precedent), and consequently, discussing or referring to such cases isn't against the rules provided - again - that the discussion remains civil.
: Mid: Gonna need help this is a rough matchup and they outscale. (not flaming yet) JG: ... Mid: I need a gank. (still trying not to flame) JG: ... Mid: YO JG WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU I NEED HELP OR THIS LANE WILL LOSE THE GAME ARE YOU ON DRUGS? (soft flame) JG: lol Mid: worst jg ive ever seen, i tell you exactly what needs to happen and you ignore it, gg (medium flame) JG: you lost that lane yourself Mid: I KNEW FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE FUCKING MATCH I WOULD LOSE THIS LANE WITHOUT YOUR HELP YOU BRAINDEAD APE AND I TOLD YOU AS MUCH WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU? (hard flame) I don't actually do this because I don't want to get banned, but boy do I think it loudly.
Now, tell me, do any of those flaming bits actually achieve the goal of encouraging the Jungler to gank? 'Cause, if not, then flaming falls dramatically short of achieving _its own goal_, let alone not achieving a higher one. Not only that, but the flaming doesn't exclusively affect the subject of the flame - all 1-3 other players have to deal with it, and their morale and team cohesion will suffer _due to_ the flaming. So, as stated above; _it's counterintuitive._ Not only does it not create the desired effect (getting the Jungler to gank), but it also makes the team as a whole play that much worse on account of loss of team cohesion/morale - so it causes more harm than good to flame.
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XFhoK60I,comment-id=000400000000,timestamp=2019-09-19T03:31:08.137+0000) > > Hard flaming them - even with the intention of helping them understand what they did wrong - is toxic. > > It doesn't matter what condition or scenario you put forward, flaming is toxic. and... >Basically, any kind of behaviour or style of communication that not only risks emotional harm to other participants, but also achieves no significantly higher objective. These statements contradict one another, because the second one requires two conditions be met for behavior or style of communication to be toxic, one of which is "achieves no significantly higher objective". I'll let you two sort it out.
No? > ...any kind of behaviour or style of communication that not only risks emotional harm to other participants, but also achieves no significantly higher objective. This perfectly describes flaming. Flaming doesn't achieve anything, especially in regards to helping someone understand something - if you want to help someone understand something, be it a mechanic or what they did wrong, flaming them is completely and utterly counterintuitive. If you're gonna say that those statements contradict, you're gonna have to explain how.
: Yea but you're bringing the negativity from that post onto this one. When this post is a separate thread from the last one.
I think Hotarµ being blunt and direct here is warranted. If the OP just broke the rules, got their post taken down, and came back to argue against a rule calling it unfair or claim that it's meant to enable misbehavior like intentional feeding or game-throwing, I don't see much reason for Hotarµ to not be direct about it. Especially considering that all they did was explain the reasoning to the rule very cleanly and emphasize that the Boards isn't the proper place to be reporting people.
: ... so... if someone hard flames a teammate with the intention of "helping them to understand what they did wrong" is that toxic or nah?
Hard flaming them - even with the intention of helping them understand what they did wrong - is toxic. It doesn't matter what condition or scenario you put forward, flaming is toxic.
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lasEg1ea,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-15T04:27:42.715+0000) > > You were warned after the 14-day suspension that _any further misbehavior would result in a permanent ban._ If you failed to heed that warning, that is entirely on you. Riot does not unban accounts that were not banned in error, so, I'm sorry to say this, but your account is gone. Can i at least have the money back? I know this sounds bitchy, but I spent too much on that account. Because I'm banned forever, I'm going to make a new account, start again and just mute all disable chat. That's hundreds of hours on my previous account forgone already. can i at least have the money back that i spent on the game? Please, I know you don't care who I am and you're just doing what you've always done. But that money is a lot. This is my final request –– just the money that i spent on my account –– and if you agree, a heartfelt thanks. If you refuse, then I have nothing to say.
No. You gave Riot your money in non-refundable transactions, and all the content on the account - including the Riot Points - was made forfeit when your behavior warranted a permanent ban. As per the [Terms of Use](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/legal/termsofuse#account-termination). > ##2. ACCOUNT TERMINATION > **2.2. What happens if my account is terminated? (No LoL for you.)** > > If your account is terminated, you’ll no longer have access to it, including any of the associated data or content (e.g., champions, skins, Riot Points, etc.). You’ll not be entitled to any refunds and we’ll have no liability to you. We also reserve the right to terminate any other accounts you may have created, as well as your access to any other Riot Services (also without any refunds or liability to you). > > You understand and agree that using the Riot Services comes with the risk that your account may be terminated or suspended and that, whenever you use the Riot Services, you’ll bear this risk in mind and always conduct yourself appropriately. It wouldn't be much of a punishment if you could just get a total refund after the fact.
Layoneil (NA)
: I get banned for someone refusing to play the game in a ranked match
> **I get banned for someone refusing to play the game in a ranked match** > > And I get banned because I had a little temper. In other words; you got banned for flaming, and are trying to pin the blame on someone else. You will _never_ be punished for someone else's actions, and other people's poor behavior does not excuse your own. > Its okay for him to ruin my game and I can't be mad at it? No one is saying that it's okay for them to ruin your game, and nobody's saying you can't be angry about it. You're just not allowed to spill that vitriol into the chat. There are a blue billion different venting methods, the vast majority of which are doubtless ten times more effective than typing ineffectually to someone who probably, for all intents and purposes, does not care what awful things you have to say to them. Hell, chances are, _they **want** you to flame them, and you doing so is letting them win._ It's common internet wisdom that you _should not feed the troll._
: please
You were warned after the 14-day suspension that _any further misbehavior would result in a permanent ban._ If you failed to heed that warning, that is entirely on you. Riot does not unban accounts that were not banned in error, so, I'm sorry to say this, but your account is gone.
: There's an inherent problem with this community and how Riot handles it (read; they don't, or whatever they ARE doing isn't working). Case in point? I've periodically checked the Red Tracker over the past few weeks. Not a single Rioter has posted in anything under Player Behavior. I could be reading it wrong, but to me, that says that they don't care. And if I think that, then I guarantee I'm not the only one that does. Riot needs to start buckling down on the festering rot in this community. And if they are, then they need to open a much more direct line of communication to assure players that they genuinely DO care about this community, and are trying to do something about it.
> There's an inherent problem with this community and how Riot handles it (read; they don't, or whatever they ARE doing isn't working). You're _assuming_ that Riot doesn't handle toxicity as best they can, and assuming that it isn't working. The fact is that what they are doing isn't meeting _your_ personal threshold, which you place higher than what is reasonable. 'Cause, unfortunately, it is nigh-on impossible to completely annihilate toxicity in games, especially a PVP-centric Free-to-Play game. What _is_ possible is mitigating that toxicity to the best of one's ability, something that Riot is actively doing. And just because that isn't enough for you doesn't mean that it isn't working, or that they're not doing it. > Case in point? I've periodically checked the Red Tracker over the past few weeks. Not a single Rioter has posted in anything under Player Behavior. I could be reading it wrong, but to me, that says that they don't care. And to me, it says that they likely have more pressing concerns than interacting with a board meant to discuss punishments, behavior, and related systems. Fact is; both of us could be comically wrong. > And if I think that, then I guarantee I'm not the only one that does. And...? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Riot _does_ in fact care. People come to this subboard _daily_ bringing forward their chatlogs showcasing their toxicity that got them punished. If that's not evidence enough that Riot cares about the issue of toxicity, then I don't think you'd believe they cared even if a Rioter came into this thread just to say "we do care". > Riot needs to start buckling down on the festering rot in this community. And again, we come back around to the problem of saying "Fix this". Saying "fix this" does _nothing_. It gives them no information of how to move forward. It's not a suggestion on how to improve the system, it's not a suggestion of what you think should merit punishment more or less or what, you're just saying "there is a problem, Riot needs to fix it". And if that's all you're going to say, then, I hate to break it to you, but what you're doing is pointless. > And if they are, then they need to open a much more direct line of communication to assure players that they genuinely DO care about this community, and are trying to do something about it. Again, you're ignoring the _daily_ posts showing players punished for toxicity, and assuming that because Riot doesn't actively talk about what they have planned for the IFS, how they're addressing behavior, etc. etc., that somehow, that means that they just don't care. If a tree falls in the forest with no-one around to hear it, it does make a sound. Riot does care, whether you want to believe it or not. They don't need to make /Dev workshop posts or talk to the community about how they tweak and handle the IFS to prove it. > As for you last point... that's a problem. ...So...It's a problem if more reports = punishment, but it's also a problem if more reports don't increase the likelihood of a punishment, instead only triggering a review...? I do not understand. > It means that a super toxic player can report someone they've been effectively bullying the whole match, and if the victim ever ONCE lashed out in frustration or did anything that sets off the IFS... poof. A victim was just punished for being a victim. A victim ceases being a victim when they lash out. If they break the rules in response to someone being toxic to them first, _they are not a victim._ Thankfully, the majority of people know better than to be goaded into meeting toxicity in kind.
: Disrespectful and Toxic Community Members, Part 4
> People keep downvoting my posts. I don't know why. Well, let's start with the most basic reason; because, in essence, your threads provide very little discussion value, if any. All you're doing is making periodic posts saying "I just had a match with bad players", with a vague call for Riot to "step up their anti-toxicity measures", and little else. While there is potential value in discussing how negative behavior affects you and how you can mitigate those effects, the discussion value diminishes when it becomes a case of simply ranting about other people's negative behavior - which is what this has become, at this point. And we do have a [subboard for that](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/rant). Then, of course, there's the issue of spamming; when you initially started doing these posts, you made one post, then another the very next day, and then a third in just under a week from the second one. Making posts with minimal discussion value is one thing, but doing the same thing over and over - especially within a short timeframe - that's spamming, which is against the [Boards Universal Rules](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/ITFIpNUE). People, consequently, probably downvote because they don't come to _Player Behavior_ for the daily/weekly update of "matches I had that sucked because of toxicity" - this is a subboard meant for discussing player behavior and the player behavior-related systems, and, while yes, there is at least a modicum of value in discussing other people's behavior, it's ultimately pointless because those people are neither here nor there. And, you might say; "but wait, I am discussing player behavior related issues", to which I have to say, with all due respect; you're not. You're saying "I dealt with toxic people, Riot, _fix this_." You're not offering suggestions for how Riot could fix the community, you're not offering suggestions for how the system could be better tuned to handle toxicity, you're just saying "Riot needs to fix this." That's not a discussion. And another reason you might be getting downvoted is because of strawman arguments against people over downvotes. > Maybe they just don't want to see how bad this community has gotten. Maybe they don't want to know. Maybe the community doesn't WANT to be fixed. We _already_ see how bad the community is; we see people posting their chat logs littered with negativity and toxicity _daily_. We know full-well how bad people can be, and we _do_ want to see the community improve - but we know we can't accomplish anything by just pointing to bad matches and saying "fix it". You also have some misconceptions about the system, as well as some problems that could very easily be solved; > Easily abusable reports... The reports are not "easily abusable". Reports only trigger a review, and have no bearing on the outcome of the review. If you get punished, it's not because the reports were abused, but because _you broke the rules_. > ...but they keep getting away with it anyway, because of the pattern of ganging up on one person on the team, usually the one not being toxic, and any time they call for their clearly abusive teammates to be reported... If a teammate is breaking the rules, **there is zero benefit to calling for them to be reported.** Report-rallying does **nothing**. The IFS doesn't care how many reports are filed, it simply checks if any amount of reports higher than zero are filed, at which point it reviews the player's behavior, and punishes accordingly. If people are ganging up on you, **mute them, report them, and move on.** Report rallying serves no benefit at the cost of opening you up to be reported, due to report-rallying being a form of harassment. > the victim gets reported instead. For something like 'inting'. Or 'giving up'. If you get reported for intentionally feeding, but don't feed, you won't get punished. If you get reported for negative attitude, but aren't negative/defeatist/etc., you won't get punished. If you don't break the rules, you won't ever be punished, no matter what reports people file against you. > And the toxic players get off scott free because they just don't report eachother. Ever. And this can easily be solved by **_reporting the toxic players yourself._** Don't call for reports, don't threaten reports, just **do it**. 'Cause like I said earlier, the IFS doesn't care how many reports are filed as long as the number is higher than zero. Which is why on the PB boards we always say 1 report = 9 reports. So if you report them, then guess what - they won't be getting off scott-free.
: I find it pretty strange that any post which validly criticizes the punish system or trolls & ragequitters (which have all become a HUGE problem) gets blindly disliked, but the comments replying to it are all agreeing with it, and all have a lot of likes. Even if you can't discern a good one from a bad one, the replies agreeing with lots of likes already make it clear that something's twisted.
> I find it pretty strange that any post which validly criticizes the punish system or trolls & ragequitters (which have all become a HUGE problem) gets blindly disliked... I haven't seen any recent threads posing much in the way of valid criticism of the punishment system, personally. Granted, I err on glancing over the posts and reading a bit of the body through mouseover, sometimes giving one or two threads a thorough read-through, but the majority of criticisms I see regarding the punishment system is that people dislike the fact that you can get permanently banned for continuous chat-related offenses. There are also an abundance of uninformed criticisms stemming from lack of-/mis-information regarding the system, such as arguments that the IFS works solely off of a keyword-searcher (which isn't _entirely_ wrong, but that only relates to zero-tolerance chat detection to my knowledge.), and - and this segues into the next subject pretty cleanly - that trolls and intentional feeders either don't get punished or get more lenient punishment from Riot and their system. Which, considering the punishment ladder for regular chat misbehavior (10-game CR, 25-game CR, 14-day ban, permaban) compared to the ladder for trolling/intentionally feeding (14-day ban, permaban), I personally cannot understand how people come to that conclusion. Many of those threads get downvoted for a variety of reasons; they could just be plain wrong (assuming how the system works based on virtually no evidence, or, worse, the supposition that because they've been punished/banned that they have deeper insight to the system and how it works), they could be presenting faulty arguments, they could be trying to argue against how the system works simply because it inconveniences them and hampers their ability to be toxic, or they could just be making their whole thread into a non-discussion by trying to shout down anyone who speaks against them. And, on top of that, people could just disagree with them. I, personally, tend to downvote to express disagreement if I don't want to or otherwise can't participate in discussion, and at the end of the day, I really only view upvotes/downvotes as agreement/disagreement points. I can't speak to the problem of ragequitters, as I can't really know whether or not that's actually a prevalent issue, but the same idea applies; if the OP is just ranting and raving and being disagreeable, people are going to disagree with them. That doesn't mean the disagreement is blind. > ...but the comments replying to it are all agreeing with it, and all have a lot of likes. Outside of vote manipulation, I very rarely see comments agreeing with a disagreeable post with many upvotes. Usually it's a small handful, such as those from the OP themselves and/or a small handful of like-minded players, but if they're expressing weak, unfounded, or generally wrong opinions/assertions, it's likely that people will disagree with them just as much as they disagree with the OP. > Even if you can't discern a good one from a bad one, the replies agreeing with lots of likes already make it clear that something's twisted. Contentious topics tend to result in a lot of contrary opinions running together - and consequently, a lot of likes on one end and dislikes on another. That's more-or-less how it's always been.
: I think it's all up to reports. I mean Riot seems to react to the most milktoast things. I've had games where the worst thing I said was something like "this jungle is trash"...that's all it takes. Like you can't have a negative opinion on a teammate...not even a little bit. Really stupid.
> I've had games where the worst thing I said was something like "this jungle is trash"...that's all it takes. Like you can't have a negative opinion on a teammate...not even a little bit. Really stupid. I mean, does calling them trash somehow help you win the game? Does it magically make them become _not_ trash? If no, then why voice that opinion and hurt your team cohesion? > I think it's all up to reports. It's up to your individual player behavior. The reports just cause the IFS to review your behavior. If you behave poorly (I.E, insulting your teammates, I.E, calling them "trash"), then yeah, you're gonna get punished. You're free to have a negative opinion, but unless voicing that opinion somehow magically changes that individual player's performance for the better (spoiler alert; it won't.), there's legitimately zero benefit to voicing that opinion, alongside two notable costs; 1) Team cohesion suffers, because now at the very least the player you called "trash" has a reason to ignore you and avoid helping you, because you'd rather insult them than actually help them improve, and odds are the rest of your teammates will be hesitant to help you because of the aforementioned insult. 2) Your account - and consequently, _you_ suffer, because you agreed to rules which tell you not to insult other players, amongst a litany of other things. Breaking those rules means you open yourself up to punishment, and if getting punished for breaking the rules is "really stupid", then oh boy, there is quite a lot of stupidity in the world - 'cause rulebreaks get punished _everywhere_.
: i got perma banned from league
> i got perma banned becouse i was toxic... > > ...then i got perma banned for a redeculase reason It's not a ridiculous reason. The rules tell you not to be toxic, you were toxic, you get punished. If you got permabanned for it, then you deliberately ignored the rules several times over. > ...but they started being toxic to me... It doesn't matter if someone else started it - if you contributed to the toxicity, you are just as culpable as they are. > ...and i carried them and still got perma banned... It doesn't matter if you carried, if you won the match, or any other factor; if you're toxic, you get punished. > ...i spend 200$ on my account... The amount of money you spend doesn't affect your punishment either. If you break the rules, Riot doesn't care if you spent 200$ or 2,000$ - you get punished all the same.
: Thanks for the detailed info! Just in case you have the time, here are the logs I saved that gave me a restriction. Judging from the fact that I didn't use any specific curse words that can get me in trouble, I'm guessing this means the logs were reviewed by a human? Or was this still just the automatic system? I did use the word "kid" pretty often though. > Game 1 > In-Game > FOWSHOWBROW: who here looks at the map? > FOWSHOWBROW: oO > FOWSHOWBROW: talk more kid > FOWSHOWBROW: i'll be sure to focus on that farm > FOWSHOWBROW: instead of helping you > FOWSHOWBROW: flame more kid > FOWSHOWBROW: i'll go ahead and mute > FOWSHOWBROW: gg > FOWSHOWBROW: nice insult lmao > FOWSHOWBROW: gg > FOWSHOWBROW: path? > FOWSHOWBROW: lmfao > FOWSHOWBROW: are you premade with the other id? > FOWSHOWBROW: oh right you're the one who said can cer at the start > FOWSHOWBROW: damn this community is just toxic teens > FOWSHOWBROW: i know tilting their own team is what these kids do best but i already muted [(<- responding to non-toxic guy who told me to ignore them)] > FOWSHOWBROW: great strategy i might add xD > FOWSHOWBROW: kata i keep seeing u stop to type > FOWSHOWBROW: are u actually trying to talk to me after i said i muted u? xDDDDD [(Hadn't actually muted her, she was spamming insults)] > FOWSHOWBROW: gg wp kata reported for flame and bad teamplay > > Game 2 > In-Game > FOWSHOWBROW: ty > FOWSHOWBROW: nice > FOWSHOWBROW: xD > FOWSHOWBROW: gp want blue? > FOWSHOWBROW: this guy doesnt respond to anything > FOWSHOWBROW: what's that? > FOWSHOWBROW: say more pls > FOWSHOWBROW: you're all having some really productive conversation > FOWSHOWBROW: wow > FOWSHOWBROW: meh just report at the end > FOWSHOWBROW: aaaand muted > FOWSHOWBROW: oh nice hypocrisy too xD > FOWSHOWBROW: gp waited for me to die > FOWSHOWBROW: pinged for me to go > FOWSHOWBROW: just to troll xD > FOWSHOWBROW: who do you think it was [(people asked who was voting no, gp the troll was doing it just to piss everyone off ofc]] > FOWSHOWBROW: it's always the most toxic player > FOWSHOWBROW: oO > FOWSHOWBROW: your bickering is so childish > FOWSHOWBROW: i'm just gonna mute now before you further make a fool of yourself > [(starts spamming pings on top of enemies and fights to distract his team)] > FOWSHOWBROW: damn had to stop and mute his pings I do understand that what I said in the game kinda qualifies, but I don't see how an automatic system could detect this? To give you some context, the people I was replying to were the limit of toxic, throwing n words and cancer all over the place, though ofc I know that doesn't change anything.
> Judging from the fact that I didn't use any specific curse words that can get me in trouble, I'm guessing this means the logs were reviewed by a human? Or was this still just the automatic system? While Riot does occasionally perform manual review audits of cases the IFS has already handled (to check for false-positives and the like), I'd say a good 98% (being a little generous) of chat behavior cases are handled by the IFS. > I do understand that what I said in the game kinda qualifies, but I don't see how an automatic system could detect this? The IFS is a machine-learning system, and its understanding of language conventions and context clues was built over thousands upon thousands of cases. It's pretty good at figuring out chat misbehavior, however slight (I've even seen cases of sarcasm and passive-aggressive behavior get punished), and while I myself lack any deep understanding of how the system works, I can at least point out lines that I know would've been picked out by the system. > FOWSHOWBROW: talk more kid FOWSHOWBROW: i'll be sure to focus on that farm FOWSHOWBROW: instead of helping you FOWSHOWBROW: flame more kid For example, this would have been flagged for insults (calling someone "kid"), negativity (declaring that you'll avoid helping a teammate), and detrimental arguing/goading (talk more/flame more). > FOWSHOWBROW: gg FOWSHOWBROW: nice insult lmao FOWSHOWBROW: gg A little more detrimental arguing, as well as some minor negativity (calling what I assume are early "GG"s), > FOWSHOWBROW: path? FOWSHOWBROW: lmfao FOWSHOWBROW: are you premade with the other id? FOWSHOWBROW: oh right you're the one who said can cer at the start FOWSHOWBROW: damn this community is just toxic teens FOWSHOWBROW: i know tilting their own team is what these kids do best but i already muted A little more of the same; prods, arguments, and a few insults. > FOWSHOWBROW: kata i keep seeing u stop to type FOWSHOWBROW: are u actually trying to talk to me after i said i muted u? xDDDDD Some unnecessary goading; > FOWSHOWBROW: gg wp kata reported for flame and bad teamplay And an unnecessary declaration of a report. As it stands, there's really no benefit to telling someone that you're going to report them, and it can be seen as a threat made with the intent to coerce - granted, that wouldn't be the case here at the end of the match, but the point remains. Game 2, as is typically the case, was a fair bit more mild, though I'll still c/p the snippets that I'm sure contributed to the match being flagged for punishment. > FOWSHOWBROW: what's that? FOWSHOWBROW: say more pls FOWSHOWBROW: you're all having some really productive conversation FOWSHOWBROW: wow > > FOWSHOWBROW: oh nice hypocrisy too xD FOWSHOWBROW: gp waited for me to die FOWSHOWBROW: pinged for me to go FOWSHOWBROW: just to troll xD > > FOWSHOWBROW: it's always the most toxic player FOWSHOWBROW: oO FOWSHOWBROW: your bickering is so childish FOWSHOWBROW: i'm just gonna mute now before you further make a fool of yourself A few jabs and goading remarks here and there - and I'm tentatively counting the last line in the log, as it does seem like it was intended to agitate or stir a reaction. > I did use the word "kid" pretty often though. Yeah. That's definitely something to work on, and if I might suggest a few other things; - If people start to flame, make a point to fullmute them and avoid addressing them. Claiming to mute without actually doing it does sometimes lead to cases like in Game 1 where you might be given to respond or point out their misbehavior despite having claimed to mute them, which can lead to provoking arguments or exacerbating negativity. - Don't stoke the fire; while it can be entertaining to watch flamers just wasting their breath in uproar, it really helps nothing to make comments that provoke them further. - Avoid declaring that you're going to report someone; as mentioned above, it can come back to bite you at the cost of no real benefit. If you're gonna report someone, the best way to go about it is to just do it. > PS: As you can see, I'm not ready to take the next step and simply not participate in the chat >_< Well, knowing is half the battle. You at least came forward evenly with the want to understand the punishment, and you know already a few of the issues you had - and some more now. If and when you feel confident you can go with chat unblocked, hopefully you keep the advice in mind. But, if you don't come to that point, you can at least rest assured that you can't be punished for saying nothing. If you've any further questions, do feel free to ask.
: Chances of being punished without flaming or being toxic?
> Is it possible to get punished simply from being reported even if you do nothing wrong? No. If you break no rules, you don't get punished; I have seen maybe one or two edge cases where such happens, but they're inconceivably rare, and consequently negligible for anyone who follows the rules. > I've been chat restricted before without even using curse words, just talking back to 3 toxic premades saying stuff like "stop flaming and play" "quit spamming pings" "you're being immature"... Calling people immature does constitute insults, and you could've very well been punished for continuing a detrimental argument besides. I can't say for certain without seeing the aforementioned logs, but it's not uncommon for continuous, slight misbehavior such as that to eventually warrant a punishment. > Ever since then, I've decided to turn team & /all chat off, most of the time people chat in game is to be toxic anyways, but is that enough to be safe from premade children who tell each other to report their team when they're losing? If you don't say anything in chat (which is what I'm assuming, just taking the next logical jump from turning team/all chat off), you won't get punished; because, if you're not chatting, that by extension also means that there's no chance you're participating in chat misbehavior, so their reports will mean nothing. And, win or lose, reports do the same thing; they trigger the IFS to review the reported player. If that review comes back with no misbehavior, the IFS will simply discard the report(s).
: Actually the system works to punish those who are reported more than others, this is shown very often when people that int or are flammatory in full premades dont receive punishments. and vice versa, how a full premade of reports can get 1 person punished.
> Actually the system works to punish those who are reported more than others, this is shown very often when people that int or are flammatory in full premades dont receive punishments. and vice versa, how a full premade of reports can get 1 person punished. This is not the case. The IFS does not care how many reports are filed against you; it takes only one to trigger a review. Full premades do not have any greater influence over whether or not you get punished, because 9 reports = 1 report just the same as 1 report = 1 report. [Riot Tantram has shown the section of code from the IFS that handles reports.](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/9VrUtrJo-being-solo-and-having-a-team-report?comment=0000000000020000000000000000) > Reports haven't lost weight since the instant feedback system was put in place. > > It's actually really simple. > > if (reports > 0) { > review(); > } And that code pretty much says; "if a player was reported _at all_, it doesn't matter if it was one report or nine reports, call the function to review the player's behavior." You'll also notice that the function call is "review();", not "review(reports);" - which means that once the review process starts, the number of reports no longer matters. The reports variable is only checked to see if the value is greater than 0, indicating that at least one person has reported the player; that's a boolean flag, a value that resolves to either True (1-9) or False (0).
: You lack the context to understand the comments. I was justifying to my team why i had to leave bot-lane, and why it wasn't the end of the world if Sivir didn't get fed. It's almost comical how you derive "negativity & blaming" from simple statements of fact. Asides from the single comment about a player being "bronze", none of the chat you just quoted can be found a single specific attack against a player. That's a fact. You're going to have to explain how this single comment makes me worse than 99% of players, and warrants a 10 game ban. Not to mention that you completely skipped over the second match, where not even the pretense of offense can be found, at all. The only thing that stands out about the match is that i died 16 times. I've yet to see any justification for this ban, at all. I've only heard your sorry excuses and absurd mental gymnastics to interpret comments in the worst possible light. Something that you've done by assuming the incorrect context, direction, or subject of each comment. It seems to me that there's no situation in which you would interpret fault with the system. I'm not sure what i expected to be honest. The fact is, that someone's going to have to pay for this whole shit-show. I certainly don't feel like it's warranted, and i see absolutely nothing that shouldn't have been said, let alone violates the ToS. I'm going to be furious going into 10 games where i can't communicate, which is going to make the rest of the teams furious. In the end, what exactly does this accomplish except to reinforce the bad behavior of players who mass report their teams after a bad loss? and severely piss off the player who got banned for telling a teammate that they might want to switch out their build for better performance?
I'm going to ask this just once; do you actually, legitimately want to understand _why_ you got punished and know how to avoid getting punished again in the future? Because I'm fully willing to help, and I'd even go out of my way to explain every little nitty-gritty detail of the system as I understand it, but I'm not going to waste my breath if you're just going to push back and argue that "I'm not seeing context" or "I see no fault in the system". I've looked over dozens upon dozens of cases of people being punished, and understand to a fairly reliable degree what the IFS punishes for. Your case is run-of-the-mill, some fairly consistent misbehavior that isn't hard to correct. But if you keep insisting that you did nothing wrong, and that I'm not in my right mind in reading your chat logs, then guess what? You're just gonna keep making the same mistakes, and you're gonna get more punishments down the road because you refused to change how you behave. You'll wind up getting a 25-game Chat Restriction, then a 14-day ban, and then a permanent ban after that. And you won't be able to say that nobody tried to help you. So, I ask you; do you _really_ want to understand your punishment and safeguard yourself against future punishments, or do you just want to insist that you were unjustly punished?
: >"You were roleplaying being tilted. In other words, you were roleplaying misbehavior, and you're now trying to pass off said misbehavior as the roleplay." You're clearly just here to justify the system. The joke began and ended with the chat-text i first posted. It has a clear beginning and a punch-line. No where in that have i violated the ToS. You're just looking for any interpretation that justifies the outcome, and you've had to stretch pretty far to do it. > Because 1. At the end of the day, if people were okay with your behavior, you wouldn't have been reported. If you didn't break the rules, the IFS wouldn't have punished you, but the IFS wouldn't even look if nobody chose to report you; so, it's a combination of "you got reported" and "you also misbehaved". So you've admitted that the IFS only picked this up because of the reports from a high-death match. People don't report for rule violations, they report for losing.
> You're clearly just here to justify the system. The joke began and ended with the chat-text i first posted. It has a clear beginning and a punch-line. No where in that have i violated the ToS. And like I said, you were punished for more than just the snippet you cherry-picked. Let's look at some other snippets of your chat, shall we? > BieberBoner: srsly sivir BieberBoner: that was 2 vs 1 BieberBoner: and not only did you leave me to chase alone BieberBoner: you died too BieberBoner: are you serious? BieberBoner: that you would give up a kill for 8 cs? BieberBoner: i can't stay in lane with you BieberBoner: you're too bronze Detrimental arguing and insults, > BieberBoner: bot is hopeless BieberBoner: sivir won't carry BieberBoner: but at least she can ult BieberBoner: she'll never be completely useless BieberBoner: sivir is troll farming BieberBoner: she killed me and herself for 8 cs Negativity, harassment, and blaming, > BieberBoner: she's still impossible to lane with BieberBoner: muted or not BieberBoner: farm won't help civir BieberBoner: you can't carry with cs alone More detrimental arguing and continued harassment of Sivir, > BieberBoner: she was always alone BieberBoner: even when i was with her BieberBoner: that's why i left More of the same... > BieberBoner: just group up and stop the solo shit You can call for grouping without simultaneously attacking your teammates. > BieberBoner: you would rather fight alone BieberBoner: in the jungle BieberBoner: than organize a proper team fight BieberBoner: panth BieberBoner: you just fought in the jungle BieberBoner: where we have the least advantage possible BieberBoner: so don't talk to me about how we can't win anything BieberBoner: i mean BieberBoner: if you guys insist on the jungle BieberBoner: i can int too BieberBoner: god knows i've been forced too all game BieberBoner: i'm not worred about myself BieberBoner: haven't ulted once all game And even more continued, detrimental arguing, including the suggestion/threat that you're going to intentionally feed. > BieberBoner: lik you should have been BieberBoner: you got caught out BieberBoner: hooked BieberBoner: that's not my fault BieberBoner: but please BieberBoner: tell me about how i'm doing nothing while you didn't respond to the jugnle invade BieberBoner: even mid came for htat BieberBoner: no BieberBoner: you're toxic and muted BieberBoner: we'll see about reporting you after the game And in game two, even more arguments get started, alongside threatening reports. Picking fights with your teammates isn't welcome behavior. > BieberBoner: idk why you built AD teemo BieberBoner: that's like, not a thihng BieberBoner: and we needed the AP from you BieberBoner: had you gone morellos +torment BieberBoner: we would be in great shape BieberBoner: yeah, everyone is inting So, you're allowed to ditch your ADC, but people ain't allowed to play AD Teemo? That's a double-standard, on top of more arguing and insults. > BieberBoner: 16 deaths is absurd BieberBoner: for sure BieberBoner: but at least i built correctly BieberBoner: teemo with the fucking ADC build BieberBoner: that's rediculous And the negativity continues well into post-game. All told, your behavior in both games was negative enough to warrant a punishment. Continually arguing and harassing your teammates, insulting people, and generally being needlessly negative, I can see why you'd get a chat restriction. You trying to pass it off as though you got chat restricted because of an inadvisable roleplay misbehavior or simply "getting killed a lot" only shows that you don't actually understand _why_ you got punished, and are simply grasping at straws to try and rationalize it as though the system is stacked against you. > So you've admitted that the IFS only picked this up because of the reports from a high-death match. People don't report for rule violations, they report for losing. Again; your death count is completely irrelevant. You were punished for chat misbehavior; the combination of you having been reported _**and**_ the IFS having _found_ chat misbehavior resulted in your punishment. > No one is attacking you. I asked if you're being serious or not... If you were asking if I was being serious or not, you would have simply asked; "are you serious?". > It says "specialist" next to your name, so are you like paid by Riot to defend the status-quo? Or does that mean something else? A Specialist is a community member who has a solid understanding of the subject matter of a given sub-board (in my case, Player Behavior and its related systems) and has been shown to be a reliably helpful community member with that knowledge. The Boards Moderation Team selected me to become a Player Behavior board Specialist for the aforementioned reasons. I don't get paid, and I'm pretty much just another player with a blue name and tag. I have no special privileges, and pretty much do the same as I ever do; explain how the player behavior systems work and do my best to give honest peer reviews of individual player behavior. If you feel that I'm not serving my role as a Specialist properly, you're free to take that up with the Moderation team on the [Boards Moderation Discord](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/7rtKBZLi-boards-moderation-discord-verification). I can't guarantee they'll agree with you, but your issue will be noted regardless.
: ***
Responding to the rest of this comment in a separate chain since you edited in some more after I had responded; > You seem to be misunderstanding something. The joke was that i was role-playing a paladin, not being tilted. You were roleplaying the Paladin Tilt-Type, post-tilt. The video clearly shows, the paladin was a shot-caller, got extremely tilted due to argumentative teammates disagreeing with his strategies, _and then branded his teammates "trolls" and called for reports". You were roleplaying being tilted. In other words, you were roleplaying misbehavior, and you're now trying to pass off said misbehavior as the roleplay. > It seems to me that you're trying to justify this by saying "well you got reported and that's that". Because 1. At the end of the day, if people were okay with your behavior, you wouldn't have been reported. If you didn't break the rules, the IFS wouldn't have punished you, but the IFS wouldn't even look if nobody chose to report you; so, it's a combination of "you got reported" and "you also misbehaved". And 2. I couldn't give any real peer review of your behavior without the whole logs, which 'til now you hadn't provided. > Do you have any idea how infuriating that is? As infuriating as being expected to judge your behavior without your full chat logs. > Should i just report anyone who dies a lot or pisses me off? Dying a lot isn't against the rules, and you're free to report anyone and everyone - if they didn't break the rules, though, they're not going to get punished. So, you'd probably wind up with a lot of reports that amount to nothing, unless you find a lot of misbehavior in your matches. --- It'll be a while before I can get to reading your chat logs - about an hour and a half, maybe, but do rest assured I'll take a look and give a peer review. That said; > The only reason it was pulled is that i had a high death score. If you got punished for dying a lot, you would've A. Gotten a link to a match history page instead of chat logs, and B. Been banned for 14-days instead of being given a 10-game Chat Restriction. You got punished for chat misbehavior, not dying a lot.
: ***
> "My honor demands" & "Come at me fiend" isn't clear and obvious sarcasm, or at least a blatant joke? I did not point out either of those lines; I pointed out "trolling now", which was followed by "you cant stop me", which those two lines don't come across at _all_ like jokes or sarcasm. I also pointed out the "report sivir" line, which as I stated, report-rallying is against the rules. And, if you're trying to prove that you were unjustly punished, making ad-hominem attacks like that is a really poor way of going about it.
: That's my point. The chat detection can't understand context or sarcasm. It also, for some strange reason, only captures one side of the conversation & doesn't distinguish between all-chat and regular. This situation would make a lot more sense with someone sincerely apologetic on the other-side, making skepticism emotes. I don't want to flood people with a wall of text for the whole chat. Is there a way to use spoiler-tags to hide part of it? I feel like you didn't read my whole post, since i asked for this.
> That's my point. The chat detection can't understand context or sarcasm. Well, if even a human can't understand the sarcasm (like I did), then there's a problem. Your sarcasm isn't clear. It doesn't help that you didn't use punctuation, so "trolling now" reads plainly as an exclamation that you're now going to troll, not asking someone if they're "trolling now?". It also does not excuse the aforementioned roleplaying of misbehavior. The "It's what my character would do" excuse doesn't fly in roleplaying most of the time, and it doesn't fly here, either. > It also, for some strange reason, only captures one side of the conversation. That's because in relation to your punishment, only your chat matters. You don't get punished for what other people say, and other people saying something - be it negative or positive - does not excuse misbehavior. If they were okay with it (and the rest of your behavior), you would not have been reported. The IFS wouldn't have even needed to check your behavior - but someone did, so the IFS was prompted to look, and it found your behavior below the bar. > This situation would make a lot more sense with something sincerely apologetic on the other-side, making skepticism emotes. Another party playing along with it wouldn't change much. Someone reported you, so clearly, it was a problem. > I don't want to flood people with a wall of text for the whole chat. Is there a way to use spoiler-tags to hide part of it? I feel like you didn't read my whole post, since i asked for this. From the [Boards Usage Guide](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/mouP6um4-boards-usage-guide-part-1-boards-markup), Preface your text with a Greater-than sign, one space, three pound symbols, and another space, then add the text to be placed in the spoiler dropdown. > ### Like this. From what I can see, though, it only works for single lines of text, and wouldn't work for the formatting of chat logs. Beyond that, though, long chat logs are scarcely anything to fret about. If you can't fit it in the post body or a comment's character limit, you can always do comment strings to contain the rest of the chat logs.
: TIL Riot's Chat Detection Can't Understand Sarcasm
> BieberBoner: trolling now > BieberBoner: you can't stop me This reads more like you were threatening to troll than anything else. > BieberBoner: report sivir Rallying for reports is also against the rules. > BieberBoner: i did the tilt test > BieberBoner: and it says i'm a paladin > BieberBoner: so now i have to role play it Why would you think that roleplaying someone _tilting off the face of the earth and being openly negative to your team_ is even remotely a good idea? You do realize that the point of the whole Tilt-Types video was to point out how tilting leads to common misbehaviors, like lashing out, branding your teammates as trolls, and straight-up giving up? It shouldn't have to be said that you _don't want to emulate those misbehaviors._ > The other game and the rest of the chat for this one is germane... If you were punished for two whole games, then you're not proving anything about your punishment being unjust by cherry-picking only a part out of one match. If you want to talk about your punishment, present _both_ chat logs, unedited. But don't call "injustice" if you're only going to show a portion of what you got punished for.
Stìnger (EUNE)
: Tilt-avoiding meassures
Having a little warning blip pop-up to remind players that taking a break from the game so they can de-stress and come back with a fresher mindset could be helpful. But adding penalties on top of that is just going to tilt the player more. Especially if it's arbitrary "x amount of defeats in a row" - at that point, if they're losing several matches in a row, layering on penalties is just going to send the message "hey, stop playing the game right now, you suck." And there's no way in hell anybody would tolerate being forced to tank heavier LP losses and worse MMR for losing, and even less-so **_gaining less for actually winning._** People should not be penalized for striking out long play sessions, regardless of whether or not they're winning or losing - and they **definitely** shouldn't be getting penalties that fuck them over even if they break their losing streak.
word dog (NA)
: What honor actually means.
In my experience, I've seen the Honors used for a fair (if small) variety of things. GG - a pretty broad-spectrum, generalist Honor, and it's used as such. I imagine most people tend to use this when they just feel like someone positively contributed to the game - whether with positive chat, skilled play, or whatever else. Great Shotcalling - I've seen this one used largely for two reasons; 1. actual shotcalling, such as rallying the group for Baron, setting up split-pushers, or getting everyone to group for that final push on middle lane, and 2. Spearheading teamfights. I've gotten my fair share of Shotcaller honors simply for initiating a lot of solid teamfights and skirmishes as Leona. Stayed Cool - I've seen this used for players who kept a level head and played out a bad matchup/bad lane, had to deal with people flaming them, or otherwise stuck out a long match that nobody liked, but everyone wanted to play out. I've also seen it used to substitute for a GG honor here and there. And, if you don't get Honored, there could be a blue-billion reasons why. Maybe they felt someone else was more worth Honoring? Maybe they just felt soured from the match in question, and decided not to Honor anyone due to their mood? Perhaps you just didn't do anything they found particularly worth Honoring? Who knows?
Wham III (NA)
: I'd actually expect them to do nothing at all because It's not hacking or intentional game throwing so people need to wipe their tears away and get over it. Not to include the people who are starting things are probably on rogue accounts looking to get reactions. If you hold one accountable for not muting, why not all involved? Better yet; How about none?
> I'd actually expect them to do nothing at all because It's not hacking or intentional game throwing so people need to wipe their tears away and get over it. When you waste your time flaming and demoralizing your team, you're throwing. Flaming disrupts the game and makes it harder, by however small or great a margin, for your team to win. But, hey, if the ethos is "wipe their tears and get over it", the same should doubtless apply to your permanent suspension. If people shouldn't be affected by your misbehavior, then you, by the same token, should not be raising such a fuss over your permanent ban. > If you hold one accountable for not muting, why not all involved? Better yet; How about none? It's not that you're being held accountable for not muting, it's that your being held accountable for your behavior. If you flame - it doesn't matter if you start it or retaliate - you're breaking the rules. You break the rules, you get punished. Simple as that. If you want a place where there's no rules and you can flame to your heart's content, League of Legends is not the game for you.
Wham III (NA)
: 3rd flame: 14 day ban 4th flame: perma ban You really think that's fair? LMFAO!
> 3rd flame: 14 day ban > 4th flame: perma ban > > You really think that's fair? LMFAO! For starters; it's a bit of an oversimplification. It's not strictly "flame four times ever and you're gone", because it actually takes a bit of continued misbehavior to warrant a single punishment. That margin does narrow down for each consecutive offense, but the point remains, it's more than just four instances of misbehavior that result in a permanent ban. And yes, the punishment tiers as-listed _are_ fair. What do you expect Riot to do, continuously give you Chat Restrictions every time you break the rules, despite those Chat Restrictions _clearly_ not working to get you to reform? How many times should Riot give you the same, weak punishment that _doesn't work_ before finally putting their foot down and deciding that it's not worth keeping you around if you're going to continuously flout the rules no matter how many times you're warned? When you metaphorically spit in Riot's face over and over again, they're going to stop giving you extra chances.
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=1EzRm13m,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-09-04T23:59:51.968+0000) > > Now, before I try to explain the rule to the best of my understanding, allow me to point out something; > > Being excessively sarcastic and literal aren't the best ways to go about getting an explanation. People are going to take it as you trying to go on the offensive when you make sure to tack on passive-aggressive comments like this. If you want a rule explained, simply ask. > > Since it's placed under "Spamming or Trolling" in the [Boards Universal Rules](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/ITFIpNUE), it very likely refers to posts which disingenuously attempt to engage people - for example, "change my mind"-style posts - as well as posts specifically made to stir up reactions and controversy. > > As for falsifying content, while I'm not 100% sure what that would mean, I figure it means creating a story, spinning a yarn, or otherwise just bullshitting people to get people - whether curious or otherwise - to look at your post. The Moderation team would probably be able to clarify it better, but that's my take on it, so do take that with a grain of salt. > > Posts prompting actual, legitimate discussion are not affected by this rule. "Very likely" This doesn't sound too ensuring. Also "posts specifically made to stir up". Now what stirs someone up is extremely subjective. What if i'm stirred up from stuff, that says, that Pyke is OP, or should be nerfed, because i like it. Should i report every thread about those? We will see, if the mods. can give an answer, that change the can't apply on everything part. Right now your explanation still makes it applicable on everything. "Your disagreement with me stirs me up!"
> "Very likely" This doesn't sound too ensuring. It is the interpretation of the rules as I understand it. I could certainly be wrong (as can sometimes be the case with broad-strokes rules), but I'm fairly confident in my reading of it. > Also "posts specifically made to stir up". Now what stirs someone up is extremely subjective. What if i'm stirred up from stuff, that says, that Pyke is OP, or should be nerfed, because i like it. Should i report every thread about those? What I mean is posts obviously designed to cause strife. Like saying "People who like [insert subject here] are wrong and should feel bad", etc. - posts written specifically to get any group of people agitated and jumping to defend whatever it is you're agitating them about. If someone's calling for Pyke nerfs, you can report them, but if they're not otherwise breaking the rules, it's not going to matter. Calling for nerfs or pointing out that a Champion is overpowered isn't against the rules, as long as there's a reasonable degree of effort put into the post. > We will see, if the mods. can give an answer, that change the can't apply on everything part. Right now your explanation still makes it applicable on everything. When you try to be as extremely literal as you can about it, sure. But you're just not looking through the right lens.
: > [{quoted}](name=Silent Gravity,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=1EzRm13m,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-09-04T23:47:21.937+0000) > > There is a difference between baiting a conversation and creating a conversation. Explain it. You just baited me into a conversation.
Now, before I try to explain the rule to the best of my understanding, allow me to point out something; > Now don't take this offensively. I'm sure that there is a sensible reason behind it, that this is not exactly the designers were thought when it was written. But i believe, that it requires a bit clarification. > ... > Based on this rule i should report every single post, and thread, because they are "baiting" me into a conversation. > > Because right now you could delete the entire forum based on this rule. > > You just baited me into a conversation. Being excessively sarcastic and literal aren't the best ways to go about getting an explanation. People are going to take it as you trying to go on the offensive when you make sure to tack on passive-aggressive comments like this. If you want a rule explained, simply ask. > Explain it. Since it's placed under "Spamming or Trolling" in the [Boards Universal Rules](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/ITFIpNUE), it very likely refers to posts which disingenuously attempt to engage people - for example, "change my mind"-style posts - as well as posts specifically made to stir up reactions and controversy. As for falsifying content, while I'm not 100% sure what that would mean, I figure it means creating a story, spinning a yarn, or otherwise just bullshitting people to get people - whether curious or otherwise - to look at your post. The Moderation team would probably be able to clarify it better, but that's my take on it, so do take that with a grain of salt. Posts prompting actual, legitimate discussion are not affected by this rule.
: bring back the tribunal!!
First of all, the Tribunal system was iceboxed because it went largely unused even as League's playerbase exploded, leading to a large backlog of reports and people getting punished long after they even committed the offense. On top of that, encouraging players to use the Tribunal (through incentives like Influence Points/Blue Essence) skewed the results of cases because players would simply blindly vote "punish" so they could get their IP rewards. > ...take the players that have reached the highest honor level and send them a jury duty notice, Considering how the Honor System works, this would take an idea that's already pretty bad and make it dramatically worse. The Tribunal, as mentioned above, already had low participation rates before it got iceboxed, and you're suggesting that it only be in use during the latter-half of the year? Most people tend to only reach Honor Level 5 around August to September, meaning that until even a sizeable handful of players reaches that point, the proposed Tribunal would be effectively unused - and, consequently, pointless to have. > ...first off the honor system will count for something other than a pretty color on your screen... Ignoring end-of-season Bonus Honor rewards, Clash/end-of-season reward eligibility, and the Honor 5 rewards themselves. > ...it would mean that riot see's the way that people respect your play style and will use that as a way to handle the constant reports that seem to go unresolved. Having a high Honor Level does not automatically mean that a player isn't toxic, or that the community by and large respects the player, or even that the player in question would be a remotely good judge for Tribunal cases. There's no relation between high Honor and aptitude for having good/fair judgement. And, again; the Tribunal was iceboxed because of a mixture of low participation rate and the fact that trying to assuage that low participation rate led to the system being abused. The IFS handles many more reports, and much faster, than the Tribunal ever could. > ...if players see a honor level 7 player in the lobby thay might not be so fast to flame as thay might be the one to judge the behavior thay are witness to. This is implying that Honor Level 5 players would be able to issue punishments of their own accord - that people would check themselves for _fear_ of that punishment. That invalidates the point of the Tribunal, which is the due process of peer review and the joint decision of the reviewers to punish or pardon the person whose case they're tackling. So, what is it - are you asking for the Tribunal, or for Honor Level 5 players to be able to punish other players at their own discretion?
Spearki (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=fc6MAumf,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-09-01T11:25:17.094+0000) > > Having a Prisoner's Island-style queue isn't conducive to reform, because, surprise surprise, if you lump toxic players in with other toxic players, it's just going to deepen their belief that toxicity is acceptable - because they're now dealing with it pretty much all the time whenever they play. What toxic players actually think its accepted lol? pretty sure most of us know it isn't but that isn't relevant at all couldn't care less if it was accepted or not
> What toxic players actually think its accepted lol? pretty sure most of us know it isn't but that isn't relevant at all couldn't care less if it was accepted or not Considering that the majority of players I've seen on these boards broached excuses for their toxicity, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they think toxicity is acceptable. Elsewise, why would they bother rationalizing that behavior? "I was standing up for myself", "They deserved it", "They started it", "I was just stating facts", etc. If toxic players actually understood that toxicity was unacceptable, they wouldn't be trying to rationalize it. They'd understand the reason for their punishment, acknowledge that that's behavior that they shouldn't be resorting to, and move on.
: RIOT should create a server for toxic/trash talking players only
There are really only two ways that such a thing could be implemented, and both have problems. The first is to make it an involuntary queue; I.E, [Prisoner's Island, a subject which as been done to death by this point.](https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/2017/01/ask-riot-banished-to-prisoners-island/) Having a Prisoner's Island-style queue isn't conducive to reform, because, surprise surprise, if you lump toxic players in with other toxic players, it's just going to deepen their belief that toxicity is acceptable - because they're now dealing with it pretty much all the time whenever they play. The other way is to make it a voluntary queue, one which players could opt into or out of at their leisure. To me, this option's biggest problem is the idea that toxic players will want to queue up with toxic players, or that they'll prefer toxic players over non-toxic ones - pretty much, it comes with the expectation that the target audience will naturally shift over to the "toxic queue" and the problem of toxic players in the "normal queue" will resolve itself. I don't see that working. Like. Ever. Most toxic players don't even recognize that they're toxic, and they'd probably quickly find that a queue chock full of toxic players (assuming even a decent handful actually went over to the toxic queue) would actually be comically worse than any match they'd have in the normal queue. And, at the end of the day, both of these avenues suffer from one major problem; **_Riot does not want toxic players playing their game._** They're not going to spend time and effort and resources to try and find a way to keep toxic players playing, because they don't _want_ them playing. They want toxic players gone.
: > [{quoted}](name=Arcade Lulu,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=oqspFJgQ,comment-id=00020000000000010000,timestamp=2019-08-30T21:20:10.165+0000) > > i mean, a big majority of the participants in the experiments got perma banned again > So it's not like it really matters > It was just an experiment Thats guaranteed money for Riot though. They are not smart.
> They are not smart. Not _greedy_. They were definitely smart in not forcing a buy-in on an experiment with a potentially high failure rate. 'Cause, as Arcade Lulu posited, if the majority of people in the experiment wound up getting re-banned, that money would have effectively been wasted, and y'know what'd happen? The banned players would rant and rave and rage that "Riot stole my money just so they could ban me again!" Plus, the point of the experiment was to see if players who had been permanently banned were capable of reform. That purpose would be muddied - nullified, even - if the gate for entry to the experiment was a banned account and an open wallet.
: As nice as it would be to have my permabanned account back, there needs to be _real_ consequences to discourage people from being toxic. Are you saying that paying money isn't a real consequence? If you paid to release your account, that would be a consequence, remember, money requires time and work, so essentially you'd be paying the consequence, and, Riot makes money.
If Riot allowed players to "buy back" their account, that would make the entire punishment system completely unjust. And, of course, it would only serve to further the nonsensical idea that "Riot only permabans players for money". And, of course, being able to buy something back means that there's no real, tangible consequence to breaking the rules. Yes, having to pay more *is* technically a consequence, but you can always make more money. But losing **everything** and having to start from scratch is a very real and very painful consequence.
ježdovec (EUNE)
: LET'S STOP PERMABANS AND REVERT BANNED ACCOUNTS!
> Look RIOT toxicity exists for a reason so people can get there anger out. There are a blue billion other ways to get your anger out. Breathing exercises, yelling, punching a pillow, stress balls, fidget spinners, etc. - people make stress relief tools/toys for a reason. Toxicity - while a stress relief method - is also completely detrimental, both to the game and to the community. It ruins communication, team cohesion, and of course there are also some variable harmful effects depending on a person's sensibilities. There's no excuse to rely on toxicity when so many other stress relief methods exist - the majority of which are several times _more_ beneficial than toxicity. > Millions of games do this and they run JUST FINE. Just because other games permit toxicity doesn't mean that Riot should. If they don't want toxicity in their game, that's their prerogative. If you want to play a game where toxicity is allowed, then do so. > ...I know that accounts are your property but our money isn't. Your money ceases being your property when you offer it to Riot in exchange for Riot points. > ...some people just feel like banning you... People can't ban other players. They can _report_ other players, which triggers the IFS to review their behavior, but if the IFS doesn't find any instances of rules being broken, no punishment is issued. So if you got banned, doubtless you broke the rules. > LISTEN NOW RIOT, HERE'S A SOLUTION, instead of permabans, punish players by suspending them on a 6 month suspension, repeat that 6 month suspension if the players get toxic enough again after those 6 months have passed, I think that this should work really well... First of all; going from a 14-day ban to a 6-month ban is quite an excessive jump. Beyond that, 6 months is also a _long_ time to be forced away from League. At that point, they'd likely just create an alt/smurf account and play on that 'til their suspension ends, and there's no guarantee they'd reform during that time. And, on top of that, there **has** to be a stopping point. A point where Riot puts their foot down and says "alright, it's obvious you refuse to play by the rules, so you're no longer allowed to play the game period." Repeating a 6-month ban - which already has enough problems even as a one-off thing - would not effectively teach players a lesson. Riot is not going to give players the same punishment over and over and over ad nauseum; if someone isn't willing to reform and play by the rules, they shouldn't be playing League period. Hence, Riot employing permanent bans for players who refuse to learn. > ...that's such a big punishment for players and they would question their mistakes... Or, they'd question why Riot wouldn't just permanently ban them if they're going to stick the player with such an overlong suspension. > You can't force fix a broken community and I feel its (omitted) that you PERMA BAN and keep our money. If you don't like the fact that your transactions with Riot are non-refundable, then _just don't buy stuff from them._ You're told when you accept the ToU, when you purchase a pre-paid Riot Point card, and when you purchase Riot Points in-client, that the transaction is **non-refundable.** And if you want to keep your skins and other such content? **Play by the rules you agreed to.** > You should either return are money/ and or SKINS. Again: **You agreed that your transactions with Riot Games would be non-refundable. Once you give Riot your money and they give you your Riot Points, that's it, your money becomes their money.** And as for your skins; if you break the rules enough to warrant a permanent ban, your limited license to use those skins becomes void. If you wanted to keep the skins, you'd have followed the rules instead of getting your account permanently banned. > Everyone who agrees post " STOP THE BAN" Post one everyday till we flood hell out of the forums and notice players DO NOT LIKE the system. Spamming is against the [Boards Universal Rules](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/ITFIpNUE). If you spam the boards with pointless, repetitive posts, you _can_ wind up permanently banned here as well. > Because THEY STEAL OUR MONEY from the skins we bought. It's not stealing if you give them money in a voluntary transaction. McDonalds doesn't steal your money when you buy a burger. Wal*Mart doesn't steal your money when you buy groceries. Riot games doesn't steal your money when you pay for Riot points. > For example R6 (Rainbow Six)... This is not Rainbow Six. It's League of Legends. Different game, different standards, different rules. > I think to fix this PUT PLAYER CHAT RESTRICTIONS ITS LOADS BETTER AND DOES STOP SALTYNESS INSTEAD OF BANNING. I have actually noticed myself THAT I DO NOT get salty because of chat restrictions I find that I cant really be salty so it works. Clearly, it does **not** work if you've failed to reform after the chat restrictions. The fact that you've been permanently banned is an indicator enough that the chat restrictions didn't work to get you reforming. > Anyways Ill be posting my "STOP THE BAN" post in a few hours! Again; spam the boards, and you'll be banned here too.
: hey being punished for being human is nice. nice to know we are punished for not being robots. dont worry about games like this its better to afk or mute them if they are being rude and stuff or just mute all and absolutely all pings and afk farm jungle. they deserve to lose if they are rude honestly.
Don't advocate for breaking the rules. It's against the rules in and of itself, and you're gonna cause more problems for the people you're trying to "help" than you're actually going to help them.
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EsB8exIe,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-08-29T20:13:39.782+0000) > > Counterargument; people shouldn't be let to be flat-out jerks indefinitely. Riot has to draw a line somewhere, and they shouldn't keep giving the same punishment over and over ad infinitum to someone who clearly doesn't want to do anything _but_ be a jerk. > > Yes, they should be chat restricted. They should be chat restricted again if they continue to be jerks after the first punishment. But after that? They need a harsher punishment to reinforce that they need to quit acting out. And failing that, they need to be kicked out. That's where perma mute happens not just chat restricted. Now if they effect teammates then they get a ip ban at that point (Tyler 1 ban).
> That's where perma mute happens not just chat restricted. Now if they effect teammates then they get a ip ban at that point (Tyler 1 ban). First of all, Tyler1 didn't get an IP ban, he got an ID ban. Second, his ID ban was placed to cull his ability to stream League of Legends; it worked because he was high profile and it'd take no time at all to figure out he was playing on a new account and then ban it. It wouldn't work on random Joe Schmoes the same way. Third, why give them umpteen opportunities to misbehave and break the rules? Why restrict their options to the point where they actually _do_ start trolling and intentionally feeding, when you can just cut out the middle man and ban them when they prove to be a problem? And also, you're ignoring the fact that it is painfully difficult to accurately detect trolling/intentional feeding behaviors. Do you really, really want an uptick in trolls and feeders that are hard to detect, just to protect people from being permabanned _justly_ for continuous chat misbehavior? If they don't learn after the 10-game CR, or the 25-game CR, or the 14-day ban, they're not going to learn after a permanent chat mute. And if they can't be bothered to learn and play by the rules, Riot can't be bothered to have them playing at all.
: Words shouldn't perma ban someone (with some exceptions ofc)
> Just being a flat out jerk in game should only be and yes ONLY be chat restricted. Counterargument; people shouldn't be let to be flat-out jerks indefinitely. Riot has to draw a line somewhere, and they shouldn't keep giving the same punishment over and over ad infinitum to someone who clearly doesn't want to do anything _but_ be a jerk. Yes, they should be chat restricted. They should be chat restricted again if they continue to be jerks after the first punishment. But after that? They need a harsher punishment to reinforce that they need to quit acting out. And failing that, they need to be kicked out.
: sorry was having trouble figuring out how to get them on, ended up just uploading them to prntscreen
Responding to an earlier comment in the string for the sake of space: --- > Then explain to me when people are sitting there calling me dog shit and horrible, and then i report them, and never, ever get a little pop up that says they were punished? The IFS is generally inconsistent with the Instant Feedback Report; the only thing we really know is that you only get the Instant Feedback Report if your report triggered the review that _resulted in the player's punishment_. It's probable that while your reports are pushing those players closer towards a punishment, their behavior has not been consistent/excessive enough for your report to result in the punishment, hence you not getting the Instant Feedback Report. > ...your making up storys that are so bull shit its laughable... Explain to me, exactly, what I'm making up here? > It goes off keywords. No, it doesn't. It may go off of keywords for zero-tolerance chat (since that is practically limited to singular words by nature), but by and large, the IFS actually reads your logs and uses context clues to understand what you're saying and determine whether or not you're being negative and inflammatory. > So if you quote what someone said, you have a chance of being punished... There is little reason to quote someone to begin with, and, yes, it shouldn't come as a surprise that quoting rule-breaking content does not diminish the rule-breaking nature of said content. > I know people who have been permanently banned, for saying "fuck this" I could go ask them for the logs, but are you seriously going to argue on it? If you are, you obviously do not have more than 1 or 2 accounts banned... You can bring up those people who've been "banned for saying 'fuck this'", and I'm halfway certain I'd find more in their logs that validate their punishment beyond it. Beyond that; I don't have any accounts banned. I haven't even suffered a mainline punishment. However, I fail to see how my account's punishment history factors in anywhere here. > ...i have 10 accounts banned, i know the system... Being punished a lot does not confer greater knowledge of how the system works. > ...and what i said in this game, does not warrent a punishment. That is not for you to decide; the IFS, which operates off of Riot's rules and their code of conduct, very clearly says otherwise. I even gave you a peer review; > And, yes, you were fairly toxic; berating and harassing your teammates, getting into detrimental arguments, and openly declaring that you're wanting to give up because of your team - even going so far as to threaten AFK'ing/intentionally feeding. > > Frankly, after a 25-game CR, I'd say that such misbehavior would merit a punishment on its own, so I could probably believe this being a punishment off one game. You're supposed to be reforming, and those logs showed the opposite from you. I read your chat logs, and whether you like it or not, your behavior _did_ warrant a punishment.
: Im not sure you understand how the punishment system works, Usually, it takes 3 games just to get a chat restriction, to get a 2 week ban in just 1 game, you need to be very, very toxic, from the chat logs does it seem like i was really all that toxic? Like sure i was toxic im not gonna argue that, im just like that when people are sitting there calling me a noob and calling me bad and saying im greifing, but i was honestly just trying to have fun in the game and these people were ruining it for me, so i was like alright, like im just going to report you so stop typing and they didnt. I didnt get any other explanation on a 2 week ban, other than this one game, do you really think i was toxic enough to skip the other 2 games that should have been needed to get this kind of punishment?
> Usually, it takes 3 games just to get a chat restriction... The IFS will try to find three matches in your recent history that showcase negative behaviors, but that doesn't mean it will always find three. Having two-match chat logs and even one-match chat logs isn't unusual. > ...to get a 2 week ban in just 1 game, you need to be very, very toxic... Just because only one match was shown in your reform card doesn't mean that you were punished for that match alone. You could still very well have consistently poor behavior, just that your last instance of poor behavior could have been outside the "recent" threshold that the IFS checks for matches to put in the reform card. > ...from the chat logs does it seem like i was really all that toxic? Like sure i was toxic im not gonna argue that... You just answered your own question. And, yes, you were fairly toxic; berating and harassing your teammates, getting into detrimental arguments, and openly declaring that you're wanting to give up because of your team - even going so far as to threaten AFK'ing/intentionally feeding. Frankly, after a 25-game CR, I'd say that such misbehavior would merit a punishment on its own, so I could probably believe this being a punishment off one game. You're supposed to be reforming, and those logs showed the opposite from you. > ...but i was honestly just trying to have fun in the game and these people were ruining it for me, so i was like alright, like im just going to report you so stop typing and they didnt. If people are being toxic to you, _mute them, do not say anything to them. Do not give them the time of day, and **definitely** don't threaten to report them._ If you're going to report them, _just do it_. There's no reason to try and leverage it over their heads as an explicit threat. > ...do you really think i was toxic enough to skip the other 2 games that should have been needed to get this kind of punishment? As mentioned above, it is not an explicit rule that the IFS _has_ to bring up 3 games worth of chat logs for your reform card. It looks for 1-3 matches in your recent history showcasing misbehavior, and it doesn't wait until there's 3 to punish you. If it can only find one, it will bring up one. If it can find three or more, it will bring up three. And also as explained above; yes, this behavior would very likely be worth a punishment on its own, considering that it followed a 25-game CR. You're going to want to learn to mute and avoid responding to flamers and start reforming in earnest, because after this 14-day suspension ends, _**any further misbehavior will result in a permanent suspension.**_
: I am allowed to defend myself with just above equal force used against me. This isn’t a conversation about whether or not I was wrong. I did not harass. And calling for reports against a player who is breaking the rules is allowed. The worst that could be considered of me is that I don’t take disrespect. Muting is not a defense mechanism it’s a way to run away.
> I am allowed to defend myself with just above equal force used against me. No, you cannot. This isn't the real world and you are not under threat of physical harm. You agreed to the rules, which do not allow you to flame in response to flame. The [Code of Conduct](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/legal/termsofuse#code-conduct) states exactly _**nowhere**_ that you're allowed to break the rules in response to someone else breaking them; it doesn't matter if you're counterflaming, counterflame is still flame, and it's _not allowed._ So, if you respond to a flamer in kind, you're going to get punished. That's not up for discussion. > This isn’t a conversation about whether or not I was wrong. I did not harass. You can repeat that as much as you want, it doesn't change that your punishment was justified and that you _did_ in fact harass your teammates. > And calling for reports against a player who is breaking the rules is allowed. No, it is not. Report-rallying is considered harassment, as explained [twice here](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/k0tL1els-in-the-context-of-asking-for-reports?comment=000000000000) in [this post](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/k0tL1els-in-the-context-of-asking-for-reports?comment=00000000000000010000), as well as here in the [Riot Support article "Reporting a Player"](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/201752884). > They later clarified. Asking for reports is considered harassment. It just doesn't rise to the level of things like racial slurs and death threats. > > --- > > It was an attempt at providing some clarity to the nuance. > > Saying, 'Remember to report the graves for constantly telling our top laner to kill themself', is not punishable. > Saying, 'Report our top laner for feeding', which they were just having a bad game, is punishable. > > There was a post on reddit complaining that 'asking for reports causes bans', and there was a lot of conversation about it. This is what prompted the post. It ended up causing more confusion, which is when I tried to explain it a little better. > > --- > > **Things to avoid** > > ... > > - Do not ask other players in the match to report the offending player. It only takes one report for our systems to review a game. Additional reports will not do anything for the offending player; however as mentioned above, it could open yourself up to a report of your own; especially if you are derailing the match by constantly demanding reports of other players. Additionally worth pointing out in that Support article, is this tidbit; > - Negative behavior is **unacceptable** regardless of the circumstances or who started it. It can be tempting to respond to negative players with negativity of your own. Our systems do not care who started the behavior and will treat each reported player based off the merits of their own case. The only way to handle these types of players is to mute them and continue playing the game followed by giving them a report at the end of the match. So, you remember how you said you're "allowed to respond (to flamers) with equal force"? Yeah. That's not how it works. If you respond with equal force, you will be given equal punishment. > The worst that could be considered of me is that I don’t take disrespect. Well, what can I tell you? You may not take disrespect, but Riot doesn't take people not following the rules. You break the rules, you get punished, and if you flame back when you get disrespected, Riot's going to punish you. Them's the 8r8ks. > Muting is not a defense mechanism it’s a way to run away. It is a defense mechanism, whether you like it or not. It blocks out all of the flame and disrespect from that player 'til the match is over. If you don't use it, that's on you. Just don't complain when you continue to break the rules and continue to get punished because you refuse to use the tools at your disposal.
: League of legends banning system is ridiculous
> ...and when you are barely mean to them... > > --- > > HarleyeMvSc: STOP FUCKING TYPING > HarleyeMvSc: Bot biggest throw 2019 > HarleyeMvSc: stop typing > HarleyeMvSc: everyone mute him > HarleyeMvSc: gg > HarleyeMvSc: bot fucking fed the shit out of the karthus > HarleyeMvSc: lmao > HarleyeMvSc: i came bot 3x in a row and you tossed that lead > HarleyeMvSc: then fed the karthus jungle even though i pinged him everytime he ganked > HarleyeMvSc: please shut the fuck up > HarleyeMvSc: report swain after game ggwp > HarleyeMvSc: no you just threw the game and tilted everyone out > HarleyeMvSc: youre reported for typing and soft throw > HarleyeMvSc: 2/0 -> 2/4 > HarleyeMvSc: 2/0 -> 2/4 > HarleyeMvSc: just back the fuck up "Barely mean" is not what I'd describe this as, and this is just one section from your logs. You spent an unnecessary amount of time harassing and berating your bottom laners for "throwing a lead", and were more than just "barely mean", you were straight-up flaming. > HarleyeMvSc: stupid > HarleyeMvSc: so stupid > > HarleyeMvSc: trolling > HarleyeMvSc: 2/0 -> 2/5 > > HarleyeMvSc: BETTER THAN ME? > HarleyeMvSc: IM CARRYING YOUR DUMBASS > HarleyeMvSc: AFK > HarleyeMvSc: LMAO > HarleyeMvSc: carrying you stop talking to me lmao > HarleyeMvSc: yeah i am lmao > > HarleyeMvSc: small brain thinks i didnt carry you Again; "barely mean". This is flaming, and there's no two ways about it. > HarleyeMvSc: perma pushing >> > HarleyeMvSc: perma pushing how i come bot > HarleyeMvSc: perma pushing want me to gank ok o- > HarleyeMvSc: you all are literally pushing your dicks off idk what you want me to do > HarleyeMvSc: and i really cant gank anivia lmao > HarleyeMvSc: big brain It's one thing to comment to your teammates that you can't gank if they're pushing too hard; adding "big brain" turns it all into a big insult. So. Don't do that. > HarleyeMvSc: why are you pinging me? > HarleyeMvSc: you were standing in pit easily collapsible4 An inkling of a detrimental argument... > HarleyeMvSc: small brain > > HarleyeMvSc: nah none of you are listening > HarleyeMvSc: small brain bad mental > > HarleyeMvSc: cant win with you .-. More insults... > HarleyeMvSc: morg olaf soft int report pls HarleyeMvSc: clear waves dont die HarleyeMvSc: olaf b pls HarleyeMvSc: olaf b pls. HarleyeMvSc: olaf b pls. HarleyeMvSc: olaf b HarleyeMvSc: report olaf HarleyeMvSc: soft int like i said. Post-Game HarleyeMvSc: report morg - toxic, soft int, olaf refusing to communicate soft int, karma alt tab in middle of game - soft int And harassment to cap it all off. > I'm creating this post to see what others people's thoughts are an whether or not it is deserved. Yes, this 25-game Chat Restriction is deserved. You insult your teammates both openly and passive-aggressively, and you very clearly flamed in Game 1; that behavior isn't acceptable, and I'd personally advise you straighten yourself out, since the next punishment is a 14-day suspension, and then after that, a permanent ban. The banning system isn't the issue here, it's your behavior.
Show more

Umbral Regent

Level 162 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion