: player base is too toxic and lacks sportsman ship
Not talking and not saying "GG" isn't toxic behavior. It may not be wholly sportsmanlike to not say "GG" at the end of a match, but it's not compulsory, either.
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=p4ppB2qz,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2019-01-22T22:13:38.777+0000) > > Targeting specific players like that would be bad science. Doing a test to see if players can reform after a permanent ban, and spreading the information in such a way as to only or largely reach actually reformed players would be fudging the numbers for the sake of drawing the "right" conclusion. > > So, what good is an experiment to see if players can reform, if the only players tested are those who have already reformed? > > Letting the information spread naturally - through the Boards, through Reddit, etc., allows Riot to get a sample that isn't impacted by bias. They can't know for sure if the players they screened into the test were honest about reforming, or only liable to fall back on old bad behaviors - and that's the point of the test. Seeing whether or not, in general, permabanned players can reform if given one extra shot. You're saying that.. Reaching reformed players to unban their accounts would of skewed the data to show that reformed players can have their accounts unbanned without issue? What. What? I thought the point was to get people who demonstrated that they reformed a chance to unban, not randoms saying UNBAN ME PLZ MY BAN WAS UNFAIR UNBAN ME. It would of made more sense to show that the path to unbanning is to show in another account that you can be honorable and sustain it for a period of time. If its shown that players can reform why would you attempt to incentivize the players who haven't reformed rather than demonstrate a path to reformity and account allowance by already being reformed prior to unbanning?
> You're saying that.. Reaching reformed players to unban their accounts would of skewed the data to show that reformed players can have their accounts unbanned without issue? No, what I'm saying is, if you're doing an experiment to see if _permabanned players_ can reform, _specifically seeking out **reformed** players **will** skew the data towards a specific conclusion._ Setting up a test with parameters that create a foregone conclusion is bad science. > I thought the point was to get people who demonstrated that they reformed a chance to unban, not randoms saying UNBAN ME PLZ MY BAN WAS UNFAIR UNBAN ME. The point was to see if permanently banned players could demonstrate reform, particularly to see if the data from the Level 20 Challenge holds up today. > It would of made more sense to show that the path to unbanning is to show in another account that you can be honorable and sustain it for a period of time. Two things: 1. that's not the point of the experiment, as mentioned above, and 2. Riot does not unban permanently banned accounts unless the ban was issued in error. No amount of reform on another account will change that. > If its shown that players can reform why would you attempt to incentivize the players who haven't reformed rather than demonstrate a path to reformity and account allowance by already being reformed prior to unbanning? I have to reiterate: **_The point of the test is to see whether or not permanently banned players can reform if given one extra chance. It is not about showing that you can get unbanned by reforming on a new account. This isn't an attempt to incentivize reform with the promise of one's old account back - it's an experiment. It's taking a sample of players and taking note of how many reform and how many don't._**
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=p4ppB2qz,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2019-01-22T21:48:15.802+0000) > > There's no "right" or "wrong" sample. If they didn't reform, that doesn't mean they were the wrong players - it just meant that their particular instance of data went towards one conclusion over the other. That doesn't sound accurate at all. In fact I had never even heard of the experiment until someone mention it on the forum well after it was posted on reddit. That sort of audience draw from that specific demographic has a likely amount to get a certain kind of volunteer than, say, if they had mentioned it through the league client to players playing. Imagine if actual reformed players playing on all their accounts with honor 5 had been aware of this program, and they had volunteered instead, instead of reddit trollers.
Targeting specific players like that would be bad science. Doing a test to see if players can reform after a permanent ban, and spreading the information in such a way as to only or largely reach actually reformed players would be fudging the numbers for the sake of drawing the "right" conclusion. So, what good is an experiment to see if players can reform, if the only players tested are those who have already reformed? Letting the information spread naturally - through the Boards, through Reddit, etc., allows Riot to get a sample that isn't impacted by bias. They can't know for sure if the players they screened into the test were honest about reforming, or only liable to fall back on old bad behaviors - and that's the point of the test. Seeing whether or not, in general, permabanned players can reform if given one extra shot.
: > [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=p4ppB2qz,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-01-22T19:06:41.806+0000) > > Very likely not anytime soon - if the experiment was a success, we would’ve seen them expand or redo it already. > > The fact they have not announced any expansion or program based on it tells me that this experiment was likely not any more effective than a long time ago, and there’s really no reason that anyone should believe it would be more successful. Probably unbanned the wrong players if it failed. XD
There's no "right" or "wrong" sample. If they didn't reform, that doesn't mean they were the wrong players - it just meant that their particular instance of data went towards one conclusion over the other.
: I have a question.....
I don't think it's an option that's really on the table. There's no real way to discern between a flamer who reports a player out of malice (instigating/baiting flame to validate reports) and a flamer who honestly reports another player for breaking the rules. Additionally, if the IFS _did_ throw out reports on account of the reporting player having flamed/misbehaved, look at it like this: _What happens when someone flames an actual troll and then tries to report them?_ Granted, flaming trolls accomplishes nothing, and I wholly advise against it, but a fair number of people believe that the troll trolling justifies their flame, and some handful of those players just make the honest mistake of letting their temper go in such bad situations. So, should their reports be ignored on account of them having misbehaved, too? Letting the troll get off scott free wouldn't do anyone any favors, so, you can probably see how such a system would be counterproductive.
ShySoda (OCE)
: First off, It really shouldn't be taken into account whether i build Shyrelya's Reverie or Spellbinder to decide my suspension. Secondly, I mentioned that my team reported me who importantly were a 4 man that afked so its debatable how much credit they have. I can prove that using a statement from the enemy who I am currently working on contacting. The dark seal, while a little troll was still at the end of the game in the last 2 deaths clearly caused out of frustration. And again I don't item choices especially in a norms game are taken into account when deciding a suspension or ban. Any further questions?
> First off, It really shouldn't be taken into account whether i build Shyrelya's Reverie or Spellbinder to decide my suspension. In a case where high mobility can lend itself into the territory of trolling or actually attempting to salvage a lost game? I disagree. Especially when you're claiming that you went for hit-and-run tactics with a build that seems to miss the mark on the "run". Moreover; I'd have an easier time believing you were using hit-and-run tactics if you purchased an item that better lent itself to the playstyle; _Shurelya's_ CDR, active movespeed, and general stats (light AP, decent health), alongside its lower price point make more sense to use for hit-and-run than _Spellbinder_, which only gives AP and generic movespeed. > Secondly, I mentioned that my team reported me who importantly were a 4 man that afked so its debatable how much credit they have. Point. But, credibility on the part of the 4-man premade isn't hinged on their behavior/misbehavior; its hinged on the validity of the report. > I can prove that using a statement from the enemy who I am currently working on contacting. The most veritable evidence of your enemy's decision to report you or not would be for all of them to speak here openly, though, I will cede the likelihood that they didn't report you. > And again I don't item choices especially in a norms game are taken into account when deciding a suspension or ban. One would be surprised. Intentional feeding/trolling cases require a lot of consideration; what was the player's CS? How frequently did they die, where did they die? What did they build? Did their build lend to their deaths, or could it be chalked up to coincidence? And there are a fair number of other factors taken into account. Intentional feeding is, both sadly and interestingly, not specifically tied to any one thing. Additionally; it being Normals doesn't change anything. It doesn't matter if it's Normals, Ranked, Co-op Vs. AI, ARAM, or RGMQ - outside of Customs, the rules apply all the same. > Any further questions? None that could readily be answered, I suppose. While my phrasing leaned towards the assumption being fairly conclusive in my comment string with NaTionzOG, I at least should reiterate that, even with all present information, I'm still skeptical, and I can't say for one way or the other if I believe the punishment was rightly applied or not. I know in your OP you mentioned having already gone through with Riot Support - and having been told that they would not look at the situation as a whole (which, might I add, is standard procedure) - but, as it stands, the only real way to make any ground in this case would be to contact Riot Support and ask for a manual review. Your behavior alone is taken into account when determining whether or not a punishment is applied, so the circumstances that led to your odd & unfortunate deaths are considered irrelevant - more to the point, _what you did_ and _why you did it_ are the two most important things in a case like this. So, as an example, someone could be punished for opening a lane due to having an AFK player, and the punishment would be merited - they trolled by opening a lane, and the "why" is obvious; to make the game end faster without resistance. The same principle applies in review and punishment for other same-such infractions. All told, I'll leave with this; punishments for gameplay-related infractions (intentional feeding, trolling, etc.) are only ever handed out when Riot is confident that a player intentionally made the game worse without a shadow of a doubt - but, as I Sona I can attest, there are rare cases where a false-positive punishment is handed out. Regardless of what evidence I could find or suppose from your Match History, if you truly played to your best ability, it is wholly possible that the punishment could have been applied in error, and if Riot agrees, they would be happy to overturn it. So, best of luck with your appeal, and I hope you can pardon my skepticism. Better to be wary than be had, as it were.
ShySoda (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pjAhpqfF,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2019-01-22T09:15:16.804+0000) > > Here's the thing, the only gold-making one would do playing solo with Ancient Coin would almost certainly be the ambient +2 Gold Generation per 10 seconds. 'Cause, in case you didn't know: > > On top of that, he _sold_ the _Cloth Armor_ _**and**_ the _Ancient Coin_ both two minutes later in exchange for an _Amplifying Tome_. > > "Stretching it" is an understatement. Nobody playing honestly (especially at account level 200) would flip-flop between purchases that abandon one playstyle in favor of another altogether. He started Jungle, then he took one light defense item and ambient gold gen, and then he started going glass cannon. > > You don't have to build 6 Tears to troll. There are other factors, and it's clear that at 6 minutes in, he was pretty dead-set on mobility more than anything else. Why else would he buy into _Aether Wisp_ and _Boots of Mobility_ in such short order? > > In other words: **_He built movespeed and ran it down mid._** > > Which, from history, I can tell you, is a classic indicator for intentionally feeding. > > And clearly, the enemy team didn't have fun dealing with a match that had 4 AFK's and an intentional feeder, so the ban is pretty well-merited. Originally the plan was to sell my jungle items for gold making and armour in order to live under my own tower because that is where I died the most as you know however, I sold the items because clearly the armour wasn't making much of a difference and the Ancient Coin as you say was not giving me the full use of the item. The reason I had settled on glass cannon and movement speed was because the summoner and runes I had taken would compliment a 'hit and run' play style in which I had planned to stop pushes by running through the lanes and hitting the waves with the BIGGEST SNOWBALL EVER which is an AOE stun that would allow me to theoretically kill the wave, run away easily and present an opportunity for some fun in the 18 mins of game play which both me AND the enemy team had evident in the fact they added me after the game, not typically something you do when you hate
I see two major issues with your explanation. First and foremost; if you're going to go with hit-and-run tactics, there are better options than going glass cannon. _Aether Wisp_ builds into _Shurelya's Reverie_, which far better suits hit-and-run tactics over _Spellbinder_. And that's only really accounting for the use of _Aether Wisp_ items. Second; _someone_ had to report you for you to have been punished. I'm not sure if it was a wayward report by one of your own teammates (who were AFK the whole game, save apparently near the end), or someone on the enemy side. Either way, someone clearly took issue, elsewise you wouldn't be here. I can only take your statement that they added you to their friends' list at face value - they could've added you for a litany of reasons, so whether or not it's a fact doesn't really prove that they didn't report you. Another issue; you bought _The Dark Seal_ at 14~ minutes in, after you had already suffered 12 deaths. Even an AP-stacking Singed wouldn't make the mistake of buying one if they were already clearly too far behind in kills to get anywhere.
NaTionzOG (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pjAhpqfF,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-01-21T07:41:05.446+0000) > > I'm skeptical you're being completely honest here. You started off with Jungle items, sold them for _Ancient Coin_ and _Cloth Armor_ four minutes in, then two minutes later sold _those two_ for an _Amplifying Tome_, which you built into _Aether Wisp_, before buying _Boots of Mobility_ (both of which grant movement speed), and your first ability maximization was _Biggest Snowball Ever!_. Starting jungle items OK we can both agree this is the right build path so far. Later selling them for a gold making item and armor, maybe thats because he doesnt want to die so he took the safe choice and increased survivability as you'd put it and built resistance and gold making, that could be stretching it but we cannot be certain he built these items to troll, but from history i can tell you most trolling players build tears. Then he saw theres no way in winning after being dove a few times so he bought full ap, maxed his high damaging ability, built movespeed to give less time to react to the opponent and have some fun during the 17 minutes and 53 seconds he spent playing the match. No, i can agree with you, he most definitely didnt play the game to win. He gave up as most player would've at this time and had fun while it lasted.
> Later selling them for a gold making item and armor, maybe thats because he doesnt want to die so he took the safe choice and increased survivability as you'd put it and built resistance and gold making... Here's the thing, the only gold-making one would do playing solo with Ancient Coin would almost certainly be the ambient +2 Gold Generation per 10 seconds. 'Cause, in case you didn't know: > UNIQUE Passive - Favor: Enemy minions _killed by your allies_ sometimes drop coins that give either 25 gold or 6% of your missing mana (minimum 10 mana). Cannon minions always drop coins. On top of that, he _sold_ the _Cloth Armor_ _**and**_ the _Ancient Coin_ both two minutes later in exchange for an _Amplifying Tome_. > ...that could be stretching it but we cannot be certain he built these items to troll, but from history i can tell you most trolling players build tears. "Stretching it" is an understatement. Nobody playing honestly (especially at account level 200) would flip-flop between purchases that abandon one playstyle in favor of another altogether. He started Jungle, then he took one light defense item and ambient gold gen, and then he started going glass cannon. You don't have to build 6 Tears to troll. There are other factors, and it's clear that at 6 minutes in, he was pretty dead-set on mobility more than anything else. Why else would he buy into _Aether Wisp_ and _Boots of Mobility_ in such short order? > Then he saw theres no way in winning after being dove a few times so he bought full ap, maxed his high damaging ability, built movespeed to give less time to react to the opponent... > > No, i can agree with you, he most definitely didnt play the game to win. He gave up as most player would've at this time and had fun while it lasted. In other words: **_He built movespeed and ran it down mid._** Which, from history, I can tell you, is a classic indicator for intentionally feeding. And clearly, the enemy team didn't have fun dealing with a match that had 4 AFK's and an intentional feeder, so the ban is pretty well-merited.
Necrozard (EUW)
: There is nothing anymore to theorize about
Well, there's still some things to theorize about. What'll happen with Xerath and Azir, for example? What are the things below that corrupted Pyke? What's the deal with Ahri's strange gemstones? What does Swain mean about Aurelion Sol's "siblings"? What's to come of the last two Darkin? What can we expect from Kayle and Morgana when they get rewritten? What about Malphite? What about other Celestials beyond Soraka and Bard - will we see more of them in the future? There's still plenty to speculate about, it just seems like there's less because the stuff that _has_ been unknown for so long (demons, Darkin, etc.) have been given more concrete grounding. Darkin were formerly Ascended, demons are magic-made-manifest and given life, and so on.
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=bAEEN8Ud,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-01-21T21:43:53.201+0000) > > IIRC, the extended deadline for Chat Restricted players was February 12-13th. Though, it may also take upwards of a week after that for the rewards to be fully distributed, so, just remember; patience is a virtue. They expanded the day ? You got a link of that :D
Nah, just a case of bad memory. I looked it up, and you were right; February 11th. Full post by Riot Keyru [here](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/developer-corner/TGYs0hwO-2018-end-of-season-rewards-and-honor).
: Ranked Rewards
IIRC, the extended deadline for Chat Restricted players was February 11th. Though, it may also take upwards of a week after that for the rewards to be fully distributed, so, just remember; patience is a virtue. EDIT: Went and looked up the [post explaining the extended deadline](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/developer-corner/TGYs0hwO-2018-end-of-season-rewards-and-honor), turns out I was a day or two off on my estimate. Amended my comment to match.
PavLoo (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pjAhpqfF,comment-id=000000000001,timestamp=2019-01-21T09:06:18.708+0000) > > Define "the right ability". Under situations where I expect stuff to be unfair, I'd imagine the "right" ability to max would be the one to increase survivability (_Consume_), not mobility (_Biggest Snowball Ever!_) > > Although, I will give that I'm not personally familiar with Nunu & Willump's kit, and only recently (after looking it up) found that maxing _Biggest Snowball Ever!_ doesn't provide any notable increase to mobility (correct me if I'm wrong, but no increase in movespeed, and its cooldown is the same across all ranks.) > > I don't think movement speed increases damage. ~~I mean, unless the OP was playing Hecarim, which he wasn't.~~ > > Middle lane is as much the primary lane to be pushed to win out the game as it is a stigmatized lane associated with intentionally feeding, I.E., "running it down mid". > > And, considering that it was a 1v5, I don't think the gamestate was anywhere near favorable for the OP to "push mid and end the game". Hey, just saying that riot does not punish for maxing a certain skill 1st.
And I didn't say that I was skeptical specifically because of the decision to max _Biggest Snowball Ever!_, either. So, what's your point?
NaTionzOG (OCE)
: Wait, so youre telling us he maxed the right ability, built movement speed to up the damage and died in the lane primarily used to push and end the game. Rediculous
> ...so youre telling us he maxed the right ability... Define "the right ability". Under situations where I expect stuff to be unfair, I'd imagine the "right" ability to max would be the one to increase survivability (_Consume_), not mobility (_Biggest Snowball Ever!_) Although, I will give that I'm not personally familiar with Nunu & Willump's kit, and only recently (after looking it up) found that maxing _Biggest Snowball Ever!_ doesn't provide any notable increase to mobility (correct me if I'm wrong, but no increase in movespeed, and its cooldown is the same across all ranks.) > ...built _movement speed to up the damage_... I don't think movement speed increases damage. ~~I mean, unless the OP was playing Hecarim, which he wasn't.~~ > ...and died in the lane primarily used to push and end the game. Middle lane is as much the primary lane to be pushed to win out the game as it is a stigmatized lane associated with intentionally feeding, I.E., "running it down mid". And, considering that it was a 1v5, I don't think the gamestate was anywhere near favorable for the OP to "push mid and end the game".
ShySoda (OCE)
: Banned for 2 words
I'm skeptical you're being completely honest here. You started off with Jungle items, sold them for _Ancient Coin_ and _Cloth Armor_ four minutes in, then two minutes later sold _those two_ for an _Amplifying Tome_, which you built into _Aether Wisp_, before buying _Boots of Mobility_ (both of which grant movement speed), and your first ability maximization was _Biggest Snowball Ever!_. So, alongside that all and your death positions (primarily skewed towards midlane), I'm hesitant to accept that you played the game straight. The only thing that's holding me back from concluding that you actually intentionally fed is that your deaths are primarily under your own side's midlane turrets.
Hanandano (EUW)
: Sorry to interfere with the discussion. But your answer shocked me on several points (because you are a "specialist"), and I hope I misunderstood so I will ask for clarification (and explain what is shocking from my point of view). > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=cBkXaxcM,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-01-20T01:00:40.322+0000) > > Statistically speaking, one could make a pretty good guess as to how many people will continue misbehaving after being unbanned. If 60% of players from a 100-player sample reformed, then it would be realistically probable to expand that sample and get roughly the same results, give or take a few percents. > > That said, I don't see any reason why Riot should try to perform a reform experiment on 200k players - that's way, _way_ too many to reliably monitor, and it runs the risk of a great number of them just going back to their old ways and ruining more games, which, again, makes large sample sizes less than ideal for testing purposes. You talk about statistics and I'm a little scared when I read. Statistics are not a random science. It is a solid theoretical construction with rules and laws established on the basis of experimentation and falsification. A sample of about a hundred people is likely to represent nothing at all. The social sciences have methods for establishing representative samples for surveys, for example. It's complex, it's very controversial in the field, and if a sociologist reads this, he could explain why. Consequently, it can be said that if 60 out of 100 randomly selected players changed their behaviour in the right direction, nothing could be deduced at all. With 300, we're still far from enough, I think. Below 1000 we are delirious more than anything else. In statistics, small is opposed to representative most certainly. And it takes time, all good reasons to do it again and on a regular basis. Try and experiment to improve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination > Well, unfortunately, life is chock-full of unfairness, and being permabanned is an unfairness that has to be brought upon oneself. You don't just get arbitrarily permabanned, and Riot already has reason to avoid doing unbanning-related reform experiments (given the aforementioned Level 20 Challenge was a catastrophic failure). Life is full of injustice and therefore to be permabanned would be an injustice whose origin would be to attribute only to the wrongdoer? Wouldn't we ever be permabanned arbitrarily? Be happy people, RIOT's sanction system is perfect, and mistakes don't exist. You see the problem? In the paper you linked : > So as long as reform is a core value for us (spoiler: it will always be a core value for us) Finally, it's quite strange to see that what you say is completely opposed to the support repeating itself over and over again when you report inconsistencies in the punishment system to them. "At Riot, we believe that people can change." Renouncing to conduct this type of experience is based solely on the opposite observation: people do not change. There is not a hundred possibilities, at the end of the day, either people can change and they are given the opportunity to do so, or they cannot and they are punished once and for all. Both are not possible at the same time. When you are threatened with death in games or when you see a friend or other player you don't know being threatened with death (and his family, because these people are generous), when you report the behaviour and 3 weeks later the account is still active, you lose all confidence in the punishment system. And you experience the punishment that has been applied to you as an injustice. With good reason. I am very worried since I read this forum and started reporting negative behaviors to the support. You (generally, not you personally) seem to completely ignore the work on the theory of justice, etc. relying only on your "common sense" and your appreciation of the situation. Sometimes the simple task of subsuming a particular case to a rule seems impossible to obtain. Most of the time, it is a matter of rationalizing what is. There are people whose profession and speciality are these questions of justice (sociologists, philosophers, etc.), where are they?
> You talk about statistics and I'm a little scared when I read. Statistics are not a random science. It is a solid theoretical construction with rules and laws established on the basis of experimentation and falsification. A sample of about a hundred people is likely to represent nothing at all. The social sciences have methods for establishing representative samples for surveys, for example. It's complex, it's very controversial in the field, and if a sociologist reads this, he could explain why. Consequently, it can be said that if 60 out of 100 randomly selected players changed their behaviour in the right direction, nothing could be deduced at all. With 300, we're still far from enough, I think. Below 1000 we are delirious more than anything else. > In statistics, small is opposed to representative most certainly. And it takes time, all good reasons to do it again and on a regular basis. Try and experiment to improve. Well, I'm neither a sociologist or a statistician, but my logic is roughly as follows; If you take a small sample of the permabanned playerbase (100 players), the results of the test can somewhat reliably be used to guess the results of the same test performed on a larger sample of the same playerbase. For example, if you take those 100 players, and 60 of them reform, then it's possible to assume that the reform rate of 200~ players could similarly be around 60%, with a small margin of difference; perhaps 62%~ of 200 players reform (indicative of a more positive trend in permaban reform), or maybe 58% of 200 players could reform (indicating a negative trend.) The difference margin can of course vary wildly with larger samples, with it being wholly plausible to have a 60% reform rate with 100 players, but having a reform rate of less than 50% with a sample size in the thousands. My main point being, the smaller sample size, while not perfectly ideal for understanding the trend in behavioral reform, can at least be used as a theoretical starting point for assuming the reform rate/success chance of any further experiments. > Life is full of injustice and therefore to be permabanned would be an injustice whose origin would be to attribute only to the wrongdoer? Wouldn't we ever be permabanned arbitrarily? Be happy people, RIOT's sanction system is perfect, and mistakes don't exist. You see the problem? Their system isn't perfect, by any means, but by and large, if a player gets permabanned, they've had to run through their chances to reform. When they reach that point, Riot's stance changes from "we want you to reform, please stop misbehaving", to "we no longer want your continued service, please find another game." There's only so many times Riot can give opportunities to reform, and the point between the 14-day ban and the permanent ban is the line they drew. So, my stance remains; 98% of the time, a permaban is a misfortune one has to bring upon oneself. (The other 2% are the rare false-positive punishments and shield bans.) > Finally, it's quite strange to see that what you say is completely opposed to the support repeating itself over and over again when you report inconsistencies in the punishment system to them. I'm unsure what's meant by this. The Reform Experiments (NA 2018, Level 20 Challenge) aren't inconsistencies in the punishment system, and that's really the only thing I've discounted the future possibility of. I'm probably missing something, so, if I am, do clarify. > "At Riot, we believe that people can change." Renouncing to conduct this type of experience is based solely on the opposite observation: people do not change. There is not a hundred possibilities, at the end of the day, either people can change and they are given the opportunity to do so, or they cannot and they are punished once and for all. Both are not possible at the same time. This is probably gonna be where my stance gets confusing. So, as any who know me would know, I'm pretty ardently against toxicity, and have stated my disagreements with some of Riot's decisions before - the NA 2018 Reform experiment and the End-of-Season deadline extension for Chat Restricted players in particular. But, at the same time, I still believe personally that _everyone_ has the capacity to change. I'm pretty much a living testament to that capacity, even if only to myself. Everyone _can_ change, but the issue is that they have to _choose_ to change. So, while a three-strikes-you're-out system can seem like it runs against that concept, I understand that there are some people who refuse to change, willing or not. Those are the players who wind up permabanned, and that marked unwillingness to change does give some solid reason to avoid those reform experiments - especially with the proof from the previous one, the Level 20 Challenge. > When you are threatened with death in games or when you see a friend or other player you don't know being threatened with death (and his family, because these people are generous), when you report the behaviour and 3 weeks later the account is still active, you lose all confidence in the punishment system. And you experience the punishment that has been applied to you as an injustice. With good reason. I'm unsure _exactly_ how far up on the ZT list death threats are (moreover, I'm not sure if they're 14-day ban worthy or permaban worthy), but, taken a few different ways, there's facets of the system that need to be properly understood to get a better picture here. First and foremost; unless someone is actively monitoring a player's playtime over those three weeks (Which would be an unhealthy, vindictive obsession, mind), you can't really be sure if they've been punished if you only see that, three weeks later, they're still playing. Granted, one could easily look for a two-week gap in playtime, but still. Second; as far as I know, report categories matter. I'm unsure how the ZT system works exactly (I'm gonna have to bug Riot Support about that one), but I'd imagine that there is a difference between reporting for **Verbal Abuse** and reporting for **Hate Speech**. So, a punishment could hypothetically still have been applied (and no match history would show if it _was_ a chat restriction), but then it becomes harder to ascertain where the problem is, because there is also the odd chance that the IFS can bug out and either misapply a lighter punishment, misapply a harsher punishment, or fail to punish at all - however rare a chance all of these things are. It's naturally easy to lose faith in a system that isn't easily understood, I won't contest that. IMO (and this is an opinion shared by a fair few boards regulars), clarity is one of the IFS' weakest points. Hopefully sometime in the future we can see some QOL improvements in that regard rolled out. > I am very worried since I read this forum and started reporting negative behaviors to the support. You (generally, not you personally) seem to completely ignore the work on the theory of justice, etc. relying only on your "common sense" and your appreciation of the situation. Sometimes the simple task of subsuming a particular case to a rule seems impossible to obtain. Most of the time, it is a matter of rationalizing what is. There are people whose profession and speciality are these questions of justice (sociologists, philosophers, etc.), where are they? I suppose this is to do with the disregard for context in cases like counterflamers and the like, although everything past the first sentence admittedly has me confused. ~~Then again, I'm not big on sociology and justice systems.~~ There's generally just a lot less to a case of misbehavior in videogames than there is in a case of real-world law infractions. Where outside there'd have to be a number of things considered - damages caused on either side, self-defense, actions taken on either side, evidences, etc., dealing with misbehavior in League of Legends is a lot more straightforward. For chat misbehavior, all we need to know is "what did the punished player say", and "did it violate the rules". Of course, this leads to some arguably petty behavioral infractions being punished (oppressive negativity, for example; calling early GG, demanding surrender votes, spending 90% of the game complaining about how bad a hand you were dealt), but at the end of the day, for us players to judge a case, all we really need to know are those two things.
: Riot shoud "Mark" the banned players. and let them queue with other banned players(trollers) (not included rankeds) so no one really gets banned and all will be happy ? this woud be good for riot and the players i hope so ! i hope i coud help u all (incl. Riot Games)) because a game shoud be fun and banning players isnt really fun expecially for those who spend money in this game. Riot woundt make players as much angry as they do now and coud still earn a lot money. Maybe remove Nexus blitz and add a Troll Nexus(or Testing Ground) , that woud be a game where no one gets banned. and even normal players who arent banned can join the troll server to make a lot fun of it :) and you can do whatever you like but keep in mind that your friends also all are banned and will troll as you do XD you coud save a lot work if you understand what i mean. if you think this is a good idea then plz thumbs up !
[Riot has already stated that they're against the idea of a Prisoner's Island.](https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/2017/01/ask-riot-banished-to-prisoners-island/)
bogi2050 (EUW)
: Yeah but it would be fair for everybody to get a 2nd chance. We all know that the system for permabans didn't exist until season 6 so a lot of players have just lost all their hard work. We all talk how we shouldn't be toxic and be all good and polite but we never give these people a 2nd chance. We should do something about it and give all these people a chance to show if they've reformed or not, making it clear it would be a final chance. You can't tell if all others let's say 200 000 accounts being unbanned would have the same result as these 100. It's just unfair to others.
There's already at least three chances for people who don't commit especially egregious offenses. If someone runs through a 10-game chat restriction, 25-game chat restriction, and 14-day ban, and _still_ misbehaves, even after being warned that the next punishment will be permanent, then what's another chance going to do? The 14-day ban _is_ the final chance. To ignore it is nobody's fault but one's own. > You can't tell if all others let's say 200 000 accounts being unbanned would have the same result as these 100. Statistically speaking, one could make a pretty good guess as to how many people will continue misbehaving after being unbanned. If 60% of players from a 100-player sample reformed, then it would be realistically probable to expand that sample and get roughly the same results, give or take a few percents. That said, I don't see any reason why Riot should try to perform a reform experiment on 200k players - that's way, _way_ too many to reliably monitor, and it runs the risk of a great number of them just going back to their old ways and ruining more games, which, again, makes large sample sizes less than ideal for testing purposes. Beyond that, on top of taking a small (but meaningful) sample of the permabanned playerbase, Riot also added another requirement; the players had to request to join the experiment with an honest intent to reform. So, even if they did a larger sample size (300?), they'd still likely screen out a decent amount of them. > It's just unfair to others. Well, unfortunately, life is chock-full of unfairness, and being permabanned is an unfairness that has to be brought upon oneself. You don't just get arbitrarily permabanned, and Riot already has reason to avoid doing unbanning-related reform experiments (given the aforementioned Level 20 Challenge was a catastrophic failure). So, y'know. Don't count on them continuing such experiments. It was an unimaginable decision for them to do it last year, and I can't reasonably expect them to readily start again.
: > There are two major issues with this idea; first and foremost, self-muting relies on the player's ability to be aware of their own toxicity. And since a fairer portion of toxic players I've seen always try to rationalize and justify their behavior instead of actually view it as a problem, I'm doubtful that the amount of players who would use such a feature would be significant enough justify it being implemented. Second; Riot does not want players to cut off their communication with others - communication is a pretty sizeable part of the game, and giving players the option to just not communicate at all (exempting pings) would go against their intent of maintaining communication as a part of the game. If it would go against maintaining communication, than the fact that we can already mute all other 9 players in a game whenever we want, just by typing /muteall, seems a little hypocritical, don't you think? Also, just because a few try to rationalize their toxicity, doesn't mean they have to. What I'm suggesting is purely an option, meaning not everybody has to take it, otherwise, it would be a rule. There's all kind of things that don't see much, if any use, from items, champions, gamemodes, and summoner spells, just because not a lot of people take it, doesn't mean nobody takes it. It would be the equivalent of removing Ivern or Cleanse, just because "hey, looks like only a handful of players use this option." > Enough self-control would be the ability to refrain from flaming people, not requiring some external factor to inhibit their ability to chat altogether. But it's already an external factor that keeps us from being toxic all the time. The biggest reason players aren't constantly flaming each other in game, any more than they do now that is, is because we're threatened with bans and losing our chance for ranked rewards. External factors are what keep people acting better, some people just need a little more than others.
> If it would go against maintaining communication, than the fact that we can already mute all other 9 players in a game whenever we want, just by typing /muteall, seems a little hypocritical, don't you think? Partially, but the mute feature only inhibits other players' chat from reaching _you_, it doesn't stop you from using the chat, which still allows for strategizing and coordination. Beyond that, the mute feature is primarily designed to block out irritating/damaging chat, I.E., toxicity, insults, etc., so if someone gets irritated or tilted by the chat in general, then all the power to them to keep themselves in peak performance. > Also, just because a few try to rationalize their toxicity, doesn't mean they have to. What I'm suggesting is purely an option, meaning not everybody has to take it, otherwise, it would be a rule. There's all kind of things that don't see much, if any use, from items, champions, gamemodes, and summoner spells, just because not a lot of people take it, doesn't mean nobody takes it. It would be the equivalent of removing Ivern or Cleanse, just because "hey, looks like only a handful of players use this option." There's a difference between items/summoner spells/Champions being niche, and a player behavior system seeing disproportionately low use. In-game stuff can be niche because, with a meta as malleable as League's, all sorts of strategies can crop up. Maybe someone wants to build a split-push sieging build? If _Zz'Rot Portal_ and _Banner of Command_ didn't exist, the options for that tactic would be holistically smaller, and less played. But Player Behavior systems are different. They're not designed to give options to work in differing metas. They're designed to punish/encourage reform for bad behavior, and reward good behavior. So, as I mentioned; > ...I'm doubtful that the amount of players who would use such a feature would be significant enough justify it being implemented. It needs to work, be used consistently, and _succeed_ in its purpose consistently to justify it being around. There's no "PB meta" to open up options for here; bad behavior needs to be punished, toxic players need to shape up or ship out, and good behavior needs to be recognized and encouraged (wherever/however applicable.) > But it's already an external factor that keeps us from being toxic all the time. The biggest reason players aren't constantly flaming each other in game, any more than they do now that is, is because we're threatened with bans and losing our chance for ranked rewards. External factors are what keep people acting better, some people just need a little more than others. Except, the threat of punishment does not prevent you from using the chat. It _discourages you_ from _abusing_ the chat, but you can still use the chat. Self-muting _would disable you from using the chat_. As for people needing more encouragement to act better - how does what we have already not suffice? - Keeping one's account - End-of-Season Ranked Reward eligibility - Clash eligibility - Ambient Key Fragment drops - Periodic rewards (champion shards, skin shards, Honor-exclusive skins) - Bonus End-of-Season Honor Rewards How is this not enough incentive to behave better? And, better yet; how would _literally inhibiting your ability to use the chat_ incentivize people to behave better? As far as I can tell, that would only incentivize people to not bother with behaving better, since, why should they, when they can just mute themselves?
: As Somebody Who's Been Perma'd 8 Times, Here's How To Stop Toxicity
> Just give players the option to mute themselves before a game starts, without the option to reverse it after the game starts. We already can mute our entire team, the entire enemy team, or both, whenever we feel like it, don't know why this isn't option. There are two major issues with this idea; first and foremost, self-muting relies on the player's ability to be aware of their own toxicity. And since a fairer portion of toxic players I've seen always try to rationalize and justify their behavior instead of actually view it as a problem, I'm doubtful that the amount of players who would use such a feature would be significant enough justify it being implemented. Second; Riot does not want players to cut off their communication with others - communication is a pretty sizeable part of the game, and giving players the option to just _not_ communicate at all (exempting pings) would go against their intent of maintaining communication as a part of the game. > Chat restrictions are a joke of a punishment, and rarely, if ever, work. I'd like to see evidence of this. Riot has previously mentioned that the majority of players who get chat restricted don't receive another punishment, and the portion of punished players who keep getting punished continually diminishes to the point of the permanent ban, which has been stated to be roughly 0.06% of the playerbase. > Not only that, but chat restricted players, again myself included, will most times just save their chat for when they really, REALLY want to flame somebody. Similarly, I doubt this. If you have evidence, I'd like to see it, but otherwise, I'm inclined to doubt anecdotal claims. > Sure, you can argue that this gives a free pass for players who lack self control, but if player is truly aware of just how toxic they can be in chat, and chooses to mute themselves, not just for themselves but for their teammates, has more than enough self control. Enough self-control would be the ability to refrain from flaming people, _not_ requiring some external factor to inhibit their ability to chat altogether. If you voluntarily cuff your hands together behind your back to avoid punching people, that's the _opposite_ of a sign of self-control. That's evidence that you don't have enough self-control or confidence in said self-control, and choose to simply inhibit your ability to punch people over actually personally restraining yourself. The same applies to self-muting as a concept. --- But, how's about I add to the idea, to make it partially more viable? Have the option to self-mute, but doing so costs Honor progress (1 checkpoint's worth?) and Honor Locks you until you remove the self-mute. That way, players who aren't confident in their ability to control themselves can use the self-mute at the cost of Honor progress (since taking the easy way out isn't really honorable), and the Honor Cost gives people an incentive to _not_ rely on the self-mute and actually develop the self-control needed to not flame.
: we wrote it down--- This post is to challenge others to do the same. I really dont gaf if you don't agree with me lol and I don't feel like typing alllllll that up. I've already typed enough
Well, encouraging other players to break the rules is in and of itself against the rules, so, advising people to test out rulebreaking to see whether or not it gets punished is...Y'know. Not the best of ideas? From the [ToU, Section 5](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/legal/termsofuse#code-conduct): > The following are examples of behavior that warrant disciplinary measures: > > xiv. Inducing or encouraging others to violate this Code of Conduct or the terms of this Agreement. Don't encourage people to break the rules, even for scientific purposes. _You've already done the "tests", if you want any of us to believe/accept your claims, provide the results. Do **not** tell people "test it yourself"._
: Dude You may disagree You may re quote rules all day long You can make excuses for them But I did the test---- if you disagree go do the test instead of trying to disprove my results with your opinions All I gave you is facts, maybe you're too trusting and don't understand what you're standing up for. Maybe because you're a volunteer?
> Dude > > You may disagree > > You may re quote rules all day long > > You can make excuses for them > > But I did the test---- if you disagree go do the test instead of trying to disprove my results with your opinions You did the test, but all that you present are claims without evidence to found them. No chat logs, no punishments, etc. I am arguing against your claims with knowledge I've built up over reading dozens upon dozens of chat logs, and discussing same-such amounts of cases with punished players. > All I gave you is facts, maybe you're too trusting and don't understand what you're standing up for. Maybe because you're a volunteer? Again; you presented claims, but no substance. If you have evidence to back up those claims, provide them, and then we can discuss whether or not they're factual. Beyond that, don't rely on ad-hominem attacks. It gets you nowhere.
bogi2050 (EUW)
: EUW Unban experiment
As far as we know, the NA experiment could have had the same conclusion as the original Level 20 Challenge. We won't really know until they (hypothetically speaking, anyway) choose to repeat the experiment in other regions, since they stated pretty openly that they're not going to reveal the results of the experiment, favorable or not.
: Test results
I'm gonna pick out a few of the points from your list here that either need correcting or further comments, and I'll get to your TL;DR afterwards. > Any form of swearing _even if not aimed at an individual_ is capable of getting you a chat restriction This is _not true_. You can swear all you want within reason, and as long as you're not leveling those swears to insult others, you won't get chat restricted for it. I've exclaimed "fuck" or "shit" after missing cross-map ults (_Trueshot Barrage_, _Enchanted Crystal Arrow_, _Super Mega Death Rocket!_, etc.), and have said "damn" or "ah, shit" after bad teamfights/scrums/etc. - and I have yet to receive a chat restriction. Swearing is _fine_. Swearing _at people_ is _not_. > Typing too many sentences (if it irritates another player) even if aimed at no one can get you a chat restriction I'm gonna call this conjecture. As far as I've seen, there's only very little correlation between chat log length and the likelihood of being chat restricted. Of course, it _is_ against the rules to spam chat and disrupt the game flow, I would still take your statement about "typing too many sentences" with a grain of salt. I have yet to see chat log length alone lead to a punishment, so unless you're spamming "?" or other stuff like that, I would posit that it's the content of your logs that matter more than the length of them. > Anything near the topic of racism including "racist" and mention of specific colors is likely to strike you immediately with full chat restriction or instant permanent ban. This includes names. "some black guy" I'm skeptical, but at the same time, there's no real reason to be discussing race/skin color in a match of League, so I'd say the point is moot. > Typing too many sentences + swearing even w/o directing it at anyone is more likely to get you punished. This is just points 1 & 2 put together. > Lastly, we questioned support in multiple tickets ------- the resounding "standard" that seems to be held is this quote from support when asked about banter > "I wouldn't type anything outside of telling your teammates gj or calling an objective because anything you say may be misconstrued :/" > So if someone reports you for chat and you were using chat there is a percentage chance you will get punished. IE save your typing for just the game. To start off, let's get this out of the way, since it's probably one of the biggest misconceptions I've seen on the PB boards: > **Banter** > _noun_ > the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks. > > _verb_ > talk or exchange remarks in a good-humored teasing way. **_Banter is NOT synonymous with toxicity._** Banter is saying things like "nice flash" or "not even close" or jabbing about how you've become a raid boss after being 3+man ganked. If you're getting punished for "banter", _then it's 100% not banter._ So, with that out of the way, let's look at that quote from Riot Support: > I wouldn't type anything outside of telling your teammates gj or calling an objective because anything you say may be misconstrued :/ This is, on its own merits, and in response to the question of "banter" (which, as I've mentioned, is often misconstrued for toxicity), _solid advice_. The two most bare-bones uses for chat are complimenting/having friendly chatter with your teammates, and strategizing/working through the gamestates. There is, naturally, a realm of other things you can use the chat for, but those two are the safest uses that the chat has. Judging from that, I'm fairly certain that the Support Agent gave that response so as to avoid dealing with the "banter" confusion. Since a fair few people seem to not be aware that banter is _light-hearted_ and _well-meaning_, it's altogether safer to just encourage people to use the most basic, safest forms of chat so as to avoid punishment. > So if someone reports you for chat and you were using chat there is a percentage chance you will get punished. Using an RNG-based punishment system seems a little...Bad, don't you think? Why would Riot implement a system that punishes people based on RNG, when that could wholly lead to the possibility of someone with a 99% chance to get punished (hardcore flamer) getting to go off scott-free, and have someone with a 1% chance (early gg) getting punished immediately for an inanely modest offense? There is no reason to assume that there's a percentage chance of getting punished for anything. Such a system would be flawed beyond compare, so it's safer altogether to assume that there is a rigid and logical system behind punishments that does not deal in RNG. > TL:DR --- Riot should tell people openly "only use your chat for the game or compliments--- straying outside those guidelines risks punishment" There's a few pretty big issues with this proposal, first and foremost, people would assume from it that Riot intends to police chat and keep people from saying anything outside of what they specifically want to be said. And that's just not true. Second, even if they did make a public statement - what good would it do? I mean, they have [the rules up for everyone to read](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/legal/termsofuse#code-conduct), and people either ignore it or don't understand, or deliberately misconstrue and twist the words to suit their view of things... So, if Riot warned people to only use chat for complimenting teammates and strategizing around the gamestate, how many people do you wager would listen? And, of course, there's the fact that "straying outside those two domains risks punishment" is generally not true. You can stray pretty far away from complimenting teammates and strategy without getting punished. Discussing skin lines, rune choices (although that's kinda counted as strategizing), Champions, lore, etc. So telling players "only compliment or do strategy - otherwise you may get punished" would only serve to foster ill-founded paranoia.
: Mute everyone
> The only communication you need to play the game is pings I disagree. The most basic, baseline communication can be handled through pings, but any complex communication/strategizing can only really be done through chat. I can't ping that I'm going to solo-split push bottom lane to create pressure for Baron, I can't ping for my teammates to ward an area and clear wards as I'm preparing to gank, etc.
Kei143 (NA)
: Your main position?
I voted Support, since my main Champion is Leona, but I'm more-or-less a jack of trades with a higher proficiency in the Support role than anything else.
: Got banned for no reason?
You'll have to follow the instructions on the reform card there for more information, sadly. > We can't display chat logs for this punishment right now. Contact [Player Support](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/requests/new) for more detailed info. It's worth noting that I've seen something similar happen at least twice, and the first instance garnered a response from Tantram, clarifying that the punished player had said something so egregious that even he (and Player Support) wouldn't provide the chat logs. While I'm doubtful this might be the case, it's still on the table. Whatever the case, the only good information you're gonna get is from Riot Support. Send in a ticket, be patient, and see what they say.
: Why is perma-muting people punished for chat-related offenses worse than perma-banning them?
> Why would someone, who's never done anything aside from being a bit too aggressive with their communication, turn to something that they've never done before? Is it a logical assumption that someone who argues a lot will turn to physical abuse if they suddenly can't speak? Anger is a gnawing type of emotion. It's not something you can sit idly with and let creep out like sadness or relish like joy - anger _bites_, and holding it back in any fashion tends to compound it more than restrain it. And surely, we've all heard the line somewhere before; "they were such a nice person, I didn't expect they'd do that". Sure, "I've never fed/trolled and would never feed/troll" are easy enough arguments to fall back on when it's asserted that permanently-chat-restricted players just resorted to trolling/feeding, but the fact of the matter is, we can't account for whether or not someone would be able to keep their cool under extreme duress. Which is why we have to point out; closing off one method of toxicity (chat) doesn't magically prevent the player from being toxic. They just have less options (trolling, feeding) with which to express their misguided anger. > What actually makes that claim a solid counter-point? There are rules in place for whatever form of toxicity they present, so why is it really an issue? "I can't chat so I'll just feed" Then you'll be permabanned for feeding...okay? And then? Look at it this way: Why would you want someone to have the extra opportunity to ruin games - in a way that's much more tangible and less arguable than chat-related toxicity? Why give them the option to break the rules again, when - after 3-4 punishments, they've gone out of their way to prove they don't care about the rules? Cutting out the middle-man gives them, ultimately, less opportunities to break the rules, and less potential incentive to turn to harder-to-detect and unequivocally worse methods of doing so. > This isn't 2011, so let's not look at the situation as if it's 2011 players on a 2011 game using 2011's faulted system. Times change. The player base has changed. The game has changed. The punishment system has changed. Shouldn't the way punishments are addressed change too? That depends. The goal of a punishment is to deter further misbehavior, and issuing a permanent ban is meant to _prevent_ further misbehavior. How do you think punishments should be addressed, then, if not to meet those two goals? > "They'll find ways to soft-grief so they're not punished" but, people already do this. Is it really an argument? Point, but the prior argument (cutting out the middle-man) remains. Why should we give them the extra opportunity to break the rules? > From what I've experienced, if ever a player is intentionally griefing it's because they're on a smurf account or were permabanned. If ever a player is on chat restriction, I've never seen them act or speak in a toxic manner. That means, experience considered, 100% of increased toxicity as a result of punishment has not come from muted players but from permabanned players. Definitely a counter-claim to the "Muted players would do other things to grief so perma-ban is the best option" argument, since perma-ban is what's caused people in my games to do other things to grief, not chat restriction. There's a slight issue with this counterargument, though; Chat Restrictions are not chat mutes. You still have (albeit limited) ability to use the chat feature, so players who are chat restricted aren't completely stifled from using what they previously abused. So, since chat mutes aren't a thing at present, of _course_ the increase of toxicity will be 100% attributed to permabanned players maliciously lashing out against the game that kicked them out, so your counterargument is kind of flawed. I could also make a point about anecdotal evidence, but, frankly, the distinction between chat restrictions and chat muting is enough. > "Players that don't learn from warnings should be banned" but, learn...what? This isn't a school, and this isn't some new form of knowledge; it's personality-control. Personality-control is still a thing that can be learned. I swear like a sailor, personally, but when I'm with decent company, I restrain myself against swearing, either out of respect, or - in one case - because I _learned_ that someone didn't like when I swore. All the same, players can _learn_ to _not_ chew out and flame their teammates. Players who _don't_ learn, whether by ignorance or a deliberate decision to break the rules, get their just desserts. > "We don't want certain personality traits in our game, therefor we punish it" is the general idea behind this. Another way of saying it, "Even if your intentions are well-meaning and your words are justified, we don't allow it". Those two lines are pretty different. Not mutually exclusive, but pointedly different. "We don't want certain personality traits in our game, therefor we punish it" is accurate. Riot doesn't want people being toxic jerks to everyone - hence, they punish people who flame and act out against other players. But the line "even if your intentions are well-meaning and your words are justified..." - that's adding a whole new layer of subjectivity, and also ignores the fact that toxicity is never well-meaning. Show me someone saying "go fuck yourself, you're trash, uninstall" who meant well. And more than that - "justified" can be wholly different for some people. Some people justify their behavior solely on the basis of "they did poorly, therefor they deserved to be flamed". Should we consider the "I was just stating facts" argument a valid defense for a chatlog that's 90% flaming and 10% calling for reports or claiming that a player was muted? All told, the first line is the one that should be stuck with for point of argument. It's the most holistically accurate, and doesn't present more topics to argue on. > If Riot refuses to create a "Prison Island", believes that every player can be occasionally toxic and every player is capable of reform and deserves the opportunity, and that punished players shouldn't be so generally grouped, why is every situation of being punished treated the same specifically within the group of "Toxicity"? Not every player punished for harrassment are negative, nor mean, nor overall toxic. Why are they all treated as such? The thing is, the Prisoner's Island concept is fundamentally different from applying punishments equally. Prisoner's Island lumps punished players together in their own queue so as to block them away from well-behaved players, solely for the benefit of said well-behaved players - and it generally only serves to further make toxic players toxic, since they get numerous issues that arise from their own misbehavior. Longer queue times, more frequent toxicity, trolling, feeding, etc. - it's unfun, and it disincentivizes reform. Applying punishments equally is not an issue of branding all players who get punished as "toxic". You can misbehave and not be toxic - but that doesn't exempt you from punishment _for_ misbehaving. The only real way to distinguish toxic players from non-toxic players is to see how they come out after the punishment. (Ignoring, of course, whether or not they receive a punishment in the first place.) Those who actually reform are non-toxic, while those who continue to break the rules, either out of ignorance that they're in the wrong, or out of a decided malice, _are_ toxic. > Guidelines regarding chat are just too broad and generalized. Therefor, shouldn't the system surrounding punishment be assessed? There is enough specificity in the rules that staying at/above the line of acceptable behavior should be easy. It should be enough to be able to describe the rules in those four simple words; "don't be a dick". Making narrowed down, super-specific rulesets would be both needlessly taxing, and also lead to a higher likelihood of abuse cases, as, if all the specific punishable behaviors are known, people will generally try to skirt the lines of punishable behavior, making it much more difficult to actually punish toxicity. > I feel as if the arguments within this discussion have been less about sensibility and more about "That's just the way it is because Riot said so" and that's just not the way we should address it. Riot's study on permanent chat mutes is largely just the groundwork. The supporting arguments (which I have a hard time as seeing as "not sensible") were raised in response to arguments against the system.
: Out of Curiosity...
I read them, but I personally tend to skim it - negative behaviors are usually fairly easy to pinpoint, so my brain's hard-wired to try and find them for the OP. Sometimes I give a more thorough read if I find any borderline behaviors, but, by and large, I skim. ~~Props for having that as a poll option, BTW.~~
: the "is it meta" video Riot released was basically the company giving people to int in preseason and pass it off as trying to be innovative
For starters, I can't seem to find the _Is it Meta?_ video, so if you have a link, that'd be much appreciated. Second, I don't recall any instance of intentional feeding in the video. There was an instance I recall of a Diana in the video purchasing 6 _Wit's End_s in response to Garen's magic resist, but even though that could be considered a troll build, I'm 90% sure Riot's intended message was pretty much "if it looks stupid, but still works, then it's not totally stupid." **EDIT:** It's also worth stating that this line of conversation is pretty off-topic, so if you wish to continue it, it'd probably be best to do so in a thread of your own.
: It is bad because intentionaly feeding is rarely banned and many other things...so it is selective justice.And every selective justice is bad
> It is bad because intentionaly feeding is rarely banned and many other things...so it is selective justice.And every selective justice is bad Intentional feeding is rarely banned because it's difficult to actually catch, not because Riot decides not to punish them. Don't call it selective justice unless you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Riot wilfully turns a blind eye to intentional feeding.
Saezio (EUNE)
: Shouldn't it go both ways?
> I mean if someone gets 200 honors they should not be punished for 5 reports, _be they valid or not._ If we're going to discuss the concept of Honors cancelling out Reports/mattering in regards to punishments, then we can't really be playing fast and loose with the system working. "Be they valid or not" implies that a punishment occurs not based on the actual behavior, but because of the amount of reports filed against someone. That's not the case. So, since we're discussing Honors cancelling out Reports, we have to assume that the reports are valid - 'cause invalid reports are thrown out regardless. > How many good reviews should cancel out a bad one? My answer is "none". Assigning an arbitrary amount of Honors to effectively cancel out behavior that would otherwise be punishment-worthy would be a bad idea, if not a generally pointless one. As it stands, one could be Honored for just about anything, regardless of whether or not they actually behaved well. And, to use part of your original post here; > So by the previous example, the opinions of 200 players carry less weight than that of 5 players. In the context of 5 matches, all with valid reports, should the opinions of 15 players outweigh the fact that someone broke the rules? Should it outweigh the opinion of 5 players that their match was made significantly worse for the behavior of the reported player? And this is just a general issue with the idea of Honors cancelling out Reports. One other problem I can think of right off-hand is taking into account premade Honors.
Łμst (NA)
: So how exactly is this defined in bad games and what parts of the game are looked at? (ex: player chats on both sides? single player chats without context? kda? Number of typed lines?) Just stuff like that would be helpful in search for my answer.
Single player chats without context. Speaking plainly, everyone is held to a bar of expected minimal behavior, and there are no factors that influence where that bar is. We are given some slight leniency about when we dip below it - we can have the occasional off-game - but at the end of the day, there are really only two things that matter when it comes to a given player's behavior: 1) whether or not they were above the bar, and 2), how far on either side of the bar did they go.
Łμst (NA)
: Can someone define riot's version of honorable?
The general answer is, both. Riot's definition of Honor is both being sportsmanlike in general, and keeping your composure even in bad games - though, that's part and parcel with sportsmanlike behavior. [The Summoner's Code](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/featured/summoners-code) is a pretty decent example of what Riot expects out of their players. I'd personally like to highlight 4/6 of the Summoner's Code as most noteworthy; > **Play as a team, win as a team!** > A coordinated team is extremely difficult to take down. No matter how hard you feel like you’re carrying individually, blaming others and refusing to co-operate with teammates gives your opponent an advantage. > > **Don't rage, blame, or tear people down.** > We’ve all had tough games where we fell behind, got camped super hard or missed an easy smite, only to get flamed in chat. Avoid making others feel that same way and report the ones who do. > > **Never feed intentionally and don't give up the fight!** > Seeking revenge on your own team by intentionally feeding and helping the opposing team does not promote fair play. Keep a cool head if you fall behind, don't give up and always do your best. > > **Lead the way for newbies, be helpful.** > Never forget the excitement you felt when you first set foot on the Rift. Don't mock newbies who are still learning the ropes or urge them to give up on League. Instead offer a hand when they stumble.
: Reason why i believe the "enjoy the read" thread pasting the chatlogs are good
That is a fair take on those threads, and, I personally agree that they do have intrinsic value as study pieces at the very least, but, at the same time, I can't help but also see it from the Moderators' perspectives, of which I can see two issues; 1) "Enjoy the read"-type threads tend to push the idea that behavioral infractions are something to derive entertainment from, essentially making light of people's accounts being punished. Sure, there are some people out there who find it entertaining/interesting to read those logs, but, posting for entertainment and posting for discussion are two different realms, and I'm certain we don't want to move from discussing punishments and policies to getting our daily dose of schadenfreude. 2) "Enjoy the read"-type threads also typically lack any discussion value from the gate. When someone opens with "I already know why I was punished, just posting this so you guys can see it", that pretty much kills most of the ability to actually discuss the logs. Sure, there's the aforementioned intrinsic value of discussing the punishable behaviors, but when the OP explicitly states that they know what got them punished already, then there's no longer really a reason to discuss it. Between the flippancy that those threads treat punishment with and the way they typically start off as non-discussions, it's really hard to justify allowing them even despite the value they have of showing how the IFS works.
: Petition to unban accounts, and just use long term chat bans.
> I would like to see how many people in the community believe there is a good reason to unban high elo accounts who now have remade their accounts, and are just ruining games for low elo players. This is a pretty big red flag. You're opening with a statement that **implies** that you want permanent ban reversions to be exclusive to high elo/high-skill players. It may not be precisely what you want to say, but it is a message that comes across clearly. Additionally, I'd like to see some actual data on permabanned players returning to the game and "ruining games for low-elo players". > I dont understand riots take on the whole hard ban on players who are toxic. They have chat ban, they have mute buttons. I use them, I dont care what people say, its just a game. Riot on the other hand, has a hard time telling fantasy from reality as people are being plagued with silly chat bans and permanent account bans. Riot doesn't have a hard time telling fantasy from reality. They ban players who are toxic _because toxicity is bad for the game._ Toxicity generally leads to more losses, and that's both in-game losses and the loss of potential customers, and with toxicity serving no real good purpose, they have every reason in the world to do away with toxic players. And, again; I'd like to see some of these "silly chat (restrictions) and account bans". Surely, you've evidence. > While I understand their are kids that play league, and want to play competitively, their is no amount of chat restrictions or account bans that will keep them from being exposed to toxic players... No amount of jailtime or other punishments will stop criminals in the real world. So should we just drop catching and punishing them? That argument doesn't work. Sure, it's pretty much impossible to get rid of _all_ toxicity, but that doesn't mean we should just let it run wild. The punishments are as much a method of removing toxic players as they are a method of deterring other would-be-toxics. > I dont expect any reaction from riot on the matter, I just want to see how many people think that as of today, riot has accomplished there long sought after goal of reducing the competitive solo/duo community to a shell of what it once was... First off, that's a non-sequitur, second, that's also a strawman argument, and third, care to explain how the punishment system (which has been around for 4-5~ years now, BTW) has any correlation to "reducing the solo/duo community"? Beyond that, can you even _prove_ that the solo/duo community is dwindling? > Having thrown their weight around, its clear that riot can and will ban anyone for whatever reason, and thats something that I strongly disagree with, but will have to accept if I want to continue to play the game. They _can_ ban someone for whatever reason they choose. How_ever_, they only ban someone if that someone breaks the rules badly enough to warrant a ban. > I have had games where players will taunt you by feeding and afking long enough for you to respond in chat, and then reporting you so your account will get banned/restricted. Its hilarious, because this wouldnt be an option, if accounts didnt get banned/restricted so frequently. It's also hilarious, because it wouldn't be an option if people _didn't feed the trolls_. This isn't new stuff, trolls troll to get a reaction. Why give them one? > If you agree, or disagree, please speak up. Maybe its true and my account is of the .00001% or whatever number they are saying is actually getting banned, or maybe its not, and there are a far greater number of people experiencing the same problem. 0.06%, IIRC. And, yeah, it's true - both that your account may well be validly banned, and that, focusing on the percentage, it's still wholly probable that the amount of permanently banned players still numbers around 0.06%, given the playerbase more-or-less fucktupling in size over the past few years. The number of players who are permabanned may be larger than you imagine, but the percentage is very likely the same.
: Got Banned for reporting intentionally feeding trollers and asking others to report them.
For starters, the IFS doesn't care how many reports are filed against a person. One report alone has the same impact as nine, and vice-versa. You don't need more reports to get someone punished - you just need one. So calling for other people to report someone, regardless of whether or not the person actually deserves to be reported, can be counted as harassment - since it's ineffectual, and can really just be summed up as targeting a person to be harassed in the worst cases. Second; > EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY IS SCARED TO TYPE ANYTHING IN GAME EXCEPT ME. How is that fun for anyone? AND ITS BECAUSE IF WE TYPE, WE GET JUDGED, AND WE GET CUT. And we just get shoved off into the punished section with the rest of the toxic typers. There are two things to be said about this. First; maybe everyone else didn't say anything, not out of fear of being punished, _but out of knowing that addressing or talking about a troll only serves to **feed** the troll_, and they didn't want to give the troll incentive to do more? Second; you're judged not for the fact that you typed, but for _what_ you type. If what you type is inflammatory, harassing, and exceedingly negative, then, yeah, you're probably going to get punished. > This time I got punished about 1:35 seconds after the game ended, and frankly that itself seems suspicious, and feels automated. Yeah. It's automated. If you got punished for a chat-related offense, it's 99.9% certain that the punishment was issued by the _Instant Feedback System_. > Maybe I'm wrong, and this community really doesn't want people to type, or voice their opinions. You're allowed to voice your opinions and type, you just have to not break the rules in so doing. So, if your opinions are inflammatory, harassing, and detrimental? People probably don't want to hear it. If you want some real input on your behavior, I'd suggest presenting your chat log(s) for peer review. > So i have no idea how i can be punished for this 1 incident after so long of no problems, and i even got my Honor unlocked and i think i had 1 stage on it as well. I am just so confused The IFS punishes on a basis of _consistency_ and _severity_. More severe, egregious offenses (flaming, insults, etc.) will net faster punishment, while lighter, less severe punishments (defeatism, detrimental arguing, etc.) require consistency for it to warrant punishment. So, if you got punished from just one game (which is unlikely, even in the more severe cases), then your chat would have been particularly aggressive. Additionally, your Honor has no bearing on whether or not you get punished. It doesn't matter if you're Honor Level 0 or Honor Level 5, if you break the rules, you can be punished.
: idk about increasing honor rate but I know having a successful report automatically unlocks your honor. I had been honor locked and after one of my reports made contact and getting a confirmation that the player was punished my honor was unlocked.
I wouldn't really assume that managing a valid report would unlock Honor. For one, unlocking/progressing in Honor is more about your own behavior than anything else, and on top of that, if valid reports _did_ unlock Honor, then that would probably wind up rewarding instigators, which isn't really something Riot would do. I'd reckon that your Honor unlocking at the same time as getting an Instant Feedback Report is just coincidence - correlation, not causation.
Vegito101 (EUNE)
: first .People who blindly fallow rules without questioning logic behind them are slaves .If some rule is illogical u go and try to make people realize it so that it can be changed... Second I said this couple of times here I did not know that post game chat is monitored,I would not use it if i knew...but that is not a point... Third I am not going to beg anyone for justice Fourth I wroth a ticket and they give me blitz bot 5 times regardless what i say...So I came to conclusion that they have no time or don't care about players... Which would make me angry ,but for some reason it was what i expected
> first .People who blindly fallow rules without questioning logic behind them are slaves .If some rule is illogical u go and try to make people realize it so that it can be changed... The issue is, the rule and the logic behind it are sound and don't need changed. There's no good reason to say "kys" in League. Edge cases like yours are _exceptionally rare_, and 98% of the time (even that might be generous), "kys" will only ever be used as an encouragement of self-harm. > Second I said this couple of times here I did not know that post game chat is monitored,I would not use it if i knew...but that is not a point... "A" point, or "the" point? Either way, it's something you should take note of going forward. The IFS scans pre-game, in-game, and post-game chat logs during a review, so, you should take your own advice and not say "kys" ever. > Fourth I wroth a ticket and they give me blitz bot 5 times regardless what i say...So I came to conclusion that they have no time or don't care about players... Which would make me angry ,but for some reason it was what i expected I don't know much about Riot Support protocols, but I've personally never received Blitzcrank Bot in the few Support Tickets I've made (claiming Riot Girl Tristana/Unchained Alistar notwithstanding). I'm not sure if it's an error in your tickets (how you're approaching it, attitude, etc.) or if there aren't many active Support Agents right now, but, as it stands, Riot Support is still your only avenue for getting the punishment overturned.
Vegito101 (EUNE)
: ***
> Is it fair to get ban for helping others...How can be fair to ban somoene for using some word in any context that is question here... You can help them without repeating zero-tolerance chat. There's no good reason to use it, even if you're trying to tell someone not to use it. How is it _unfair_ that you got punished for something _you explicitly knew not to do?_ > And no it is not my ignorance it is yours about what justice is ... To start with, you should probably consider toning down a bit. You've insulted others in this thread, and this line (although mine, with or without context, is not much better) is toeing the line of an insult. Beyond that, I'm not ignorant to what justice is. Your case is an edge one, and like R107 Games said, you should contact Support. _That said_, your combative nature in this thread is giving me less reason to want to help you. You may have been punished wrongfully, but _insulting others won't help you get that punishment reverted._ And, yes, this is a case of your ignorance. You specifically stated that you were unaware that the IFS monitors post-game chat (albeit it's been a function for a while now, I think it started around May 2018?). However, being unaware of where the rules extend to, as I've stated, is not an excuse for breaking the rules. > And how riot love trolls??? Simple if I want to get someone banned I just bait him to use some word and he get ban even he is not toxic but I want to troll ....It is simple as that....Get it now specialist???? Here's the thing; baiting zero-tolerance chat is harder than you make it out to be. Very few people are actually gullible enough to fall for that. And even still, if someone got baited into saying something zero-tolerance, and they reach out to Riot about it, _Riot will generally revert the ban._ Add to that the fact that Riot also punishes people who try to bait ZT chat or instigate conflict, and I have a hard time seeing the foundation for your claims that "Riot loves trolls" as valid.
Vegito101 (EUNE)
: i did not know they monitor post game chat lobby... It is so hard to understand why Rito love trollers so much and hate normal players...That is the question from above .._<Removed by Moderation>_
> i did not know they monitor post game chat lobby... Ignorance is not an excuse. You knew that you shouldn't be saying "kys", and you still said it. > It is so hard to understand why Rito love trollers so much and hate normal players... Riot doesn't love trolls, and I'm not sure where you're drawing that conclusion from.
Madjack01 (EUW)
: Playing passively tilts people.
I have (unfortunately) had to deal with getting frustrated over a teammate's passive playstyle, and, while I thankfully haven't exploded on anyone for it, I still wind up getting irritated from time to time over this. [GatekeeperTDS](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/TJfcRAuA-playing-passively-tilts-people?comment=0003) put it pretty perfectly; > Certain people get tilted by **any** action that they don't agree with or think is "right" at the time. I can't speak for others, but I can say with absolute certainty that this is the case for me. I have confidence in my micro play and generally have a good feel for when is the time to strike and when is the time to hold back, _but_, what goes through my mind isn't simultaneously going through my teammates' mind - or, if it is, it's not going through the same way it is for me. That desync causes one of us (me) to act on what we perceive as a golden opportunity, while the other (teammate) tries to play things safer and wait for a better opening, or better timing (such as a gank). Sure, they'd probably follow up as a reflex, but every split-second of delay feels like whole minutes, and feeling like my teammate isn't ready to act when it's necessary really, really bites. Even if it's a deluded, self-centered thinking. It's also an issue that compounds itself when you add more to the scenario - in my case, I like to reach high Mastery Ranks, and getting S's is hard with a low KDA, so my glory-seeking tendencies mixed with my personal perception of how scenarios and fights should play out will inevitably result in bitterness.
: Things punishable that somehow no one seems to believe
I'm somewhat doubtful of the validity of No. 1 - specifically, the "Not even close" line. The other three are unsportsmanlike, punishable as spam (if you spam "?", not if you use it once - AFAIK, the IFS can differentiate an unspoken inquiry from BM.), and asking why someone plays "a noob champ" isn't just tiltbaiting - it's a straight-up insult. To my knowledge, "not even close" would probably be regarded the same as telling people your health value after a close trade. Snarky, but not ill-meant. As for the other three - yes, no arguments here, those are all punishable offenses, though I take some issue with you calling No. 3 "Criticism" - even with quotation marks, I feel that only reinforces the misguided notion that insulting and harassing people constitutes criticism.
Nidus12 (NA)
: Question about the ban system
If by "dont do anything for a month" you mean not break the rules for a month, then, yes and no, kind of. Playing games without breaking the rules will ultimately de-escalate your punishment tier/progress over a long enough duration, but a month isn't really long enough to go down from the 14-day ban tier down to 25-game chat restriction. I've heard rough estimates claim somewhere from 3-6 months to drop a tier, but, rough estimates are rough, so take them with a grain of salt. That said, if you recently had a 14-day ban, you should be on your best behavior, because until your account de-escalates a tier (which you should still continue on your best behavior even after), your account is one step away from permanent suspension.
: If petricit nullifies magic, how can Sylas use magic?
Piggybacking off of MagicFlyingLlama's comment, they do actually explain the deal with petricite in [Sylas' bio](https://universe.leagueoflegends.com/en_US/story/champion/sylas); > Eventually, through careful manipulation, he convinced the girl to smuggle a forbidden tome into his cell—the original writings of the great sculptor Durand, detailing his work with petricite. > > The work revealed the secrets of the stone to Sylas. It was the foundation of Demacia’s defenses against harmful sorcery, but he came to see that it did not suppress magic, but absorb it. > > And if the power was held within the petricite, Sylas wondered, could he release it…? > > All he needed was a source of magic. A source like Lux. Between petricite's magic-absorbing properties, Sylas' knowledge of petricite, and his natural aptitude for magic, it isn't far-fetched for him to be stealing people's magic with his shackles.
: >It doesn't matter if you can get an unleveled account to Diamond faster than you can reform. Rank =/= behavior. why the fuck would you ever bother trying to prove on your main account that you're """""reformed""""" when you can just try and do it on a new account where it takes effect instantly instead of having to wait for 3 months? >I assume you've got evidence to provide...? i mean sure i've got 6 accounts in dia elo right now that have been purchased and haven't been banned, also had many in the past that i no longer play on. >Are they actually boosting, or are they duoing together? boosting as in playing on their accounts not duoing. >Because account-sharing is against the rules so is inting and many other things you don't get banned for, the only rule riot really enforces is "don't be toxic". >How many smurfs are they going to make before they realize that they're getting inconsequential Ranked goodies on accounts they aren't even going to play for long/seriously? can take the new account just as seriously and play on it just as long as i could on my main.
> why the fuck would you ever bother trying to prove on your main account that you're """""reformed""""" when you can just try and do it on a new account where it takes effect instantly instead of having to wait for 3 months? Well, let's see; - Proving your reform gives you access to Honor Benefits again (primarily ambient key fragment generation, but other benefits such as periodic cosmetic rewards) - Maintain the longevity of your main account (allowing you to keep all the stuff you have on it) - Regaining eligibility for End-of-Season rewards and Clash participation So, what about the other side of things? Why would you bother making a smurf to get Ranked rewards if it's not gonna reflect anything on your main account? > boosting as in playing on their accounts not duoing. If they're boosting, you can file a Support Ticket to tip Riot off about it. Inaction on your part helps nothing, and it doesn't help your argument. > so is inting and many other things you don't get banned for... _Sure, [intentionally feeding](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/YhNEeTdN-no-season-8-rewards) doesn't [incur bans](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/HEP6AqXd-riots-banning-system), people [only claim](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/lJm4AZO4-false-accusation-of-intentional-feeding) they [get banned](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/hvE0qgH9-wrongly-banned-for-intentional-feeding-for-bad-game) for [feeding](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/y84EpFTr-got-permanently-suspended-for-intentional-feeding), it [never](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/xszqjvsi-banned-for-intentional-feeding-can-you-decide) actually [happens](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/RAfb0McT-got-banned-for-intentional-feeding-for-a-game-with-02-death)._ /s With that example of deliberate ignorance, I think it's clear that there's no more productive discussion to be had here. Whether you think they are or not, the rules do get enforced, and whether you think it's the case or not, purchased accounts are against the rules. Reform is meant to be a slow, careful, and deliberate process, not a weekend of "wowee look at how nice I can be!" - if you choose not to reform, that's your call, but other people can and will choose differently. End of discussion.
: >It's only hard if you make it hard. If you actually work towards reforming, it can be surprisingly easy, and it only takes a few months. and i can take an unranked account to diamond in less than half of that, you could be the nicest player in the world it will still take you longer to get to honor 2. >buying an account in a Free-to-Play game will always be a waste of money i can get about 20 champions for the amount of money i'd have to spend on rp for 2 champions plus i don't have to give any money to riot themselves, i guess it comes down to how much you value your money on whether its worth it to pay for something you can get for free or not but for me its worth it. >bought accounts can very quickly become banned accounts no one gets banned for buying an account, the amount of accounts i and many others have purchased without ever getting banned for buying accounts or sharing them is ridiculous, people boosting players to challenger on a stream of 10k people don't get banned so why do you think buying accounts gets you banned. >Give me a reason that it should take less to go from Honor Level 0 to 2. if you don't want people to smurf don't make it harder to unlock your account than it is to take a new one to the same point?
> and i can take an unranked account to diamond in less than half of that, you could be the nicest player in the world it will still take you longer to get to honor 2. Again; _Proving your reform isn't supposed to be some quick and easy deal. You have to **prove** that you can behave better, and that takes time._ It doesn't matter if you can get an unleveled account to Diamond faster than you can reform. Rank =/= behavior. > ...the amount of accounts i and many others have purchased without ever getting banned for buying accounts or sharing them is ridiculous... I assume you've got evidence to provide...? > ...people boosting players to challenger on a stream of 10k people don't get banned... Are they _actually_ boosting, or are they duoing together? 'Cause boosting and carrying are two different things. > ...so why do you think buying accounts gets you banned. Because account-sharing is against the rules, and I'm doubtful you're going out of your way to buy unplayed, Level 0 accounts, so purchased accounts are, by way of consequence, against the rules. > if you don't want people to smurf don't make it harder to unlock your account than it is to take a new one to the same point? You're arguing that people would rather make a new account entirely to get one season's rewards over improving their own account's standings to get that same reward on their main. How many smurfs are they going to make before they realize that they're getting inconsequential Ranked goodies on accounts they aren't even going to play for long/seriously?
: honor 0-2
> its actually hilarious how hard it is to go from level 0 to level 2... It's only hard if you make it hard. If you actually work towards reforming, it can be surprisingly easy, and it only takes a few months. > ...lets say you want your season rewards, its actually easier to buy an account for 5 dollars... I'm going to stop you right there. First of all, buying an account in a Free-to-Play game will **always** be a waste of money, no matter how cheap it is. The entry price to the game is 0.00$, so even spending 1¢ to buy an account is a waste. Second; bought accounts can very quickly become banned accounts, _because account sharing is against the rules._ So, easier, with a higher likelihood of just getting banned probably isn't the best tradeoff. Additionally, making a new account foregoes all of the skins and other content you may have on the prior account, which isn't going to be a good tradeoff for most people. > (show me one player that has gone from level 0 to 2 in less than 100 games) Give me a reason that it should take less to go from Honor Level 0 to 2. It's not supposed to be some super easy "play 3 games, back to Honorable status" deal. You have to _prove_ you're reformed. > meanwhile "smurfs are toxic to the gaem", how about you stop giving players so many reasons to smurf then. Riot doesn't give people reasons to smurf, people make their own reasons. > inb4 i have gone from level 0 to 5 in 10 games :) Everyone knows that's impossible, and your use of hyperbole doesn't really help you in any way, shape, or form.
: Dude they can say whatever they want my experience as someone who play league 7 years in a row says different ... An d after all the fact that program deliveres bans is just sad...and give 0 trust in banning system
> Dude they can say whatever they want... And? So can you. Does that magically make them untrustworthy? Anyone can say whatever they want, so, who's to say you're more trustworthy than Riot? > ...my experience as someone who play league 7 years in a row says different ... Your experience is just your experience, and anecdotal evidence is not enough to claim as fact on its own. I'm more inclined to trust Riot, since they are the only ones with any concrete knowledge of the system, and would not have any reason to lie about whether or not the IFS considers multiple reports. You can distrust them all you like, but you can't go around trying to claim your own viewpoints as facts when there's evidence to the contrary.
: But it is true that program deliveres bans... And regardless how many times you said it people only get ban after 2 or more players reported them...that is a fact
> And regardless how many times you said it people only get ban after 2 or more players reported them...that is a fact Except, Riot Tantram has stated several times before, [and even shared the line of code](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/rIOgTf8s-riot-do-something-with-the-premades-already?comment=000100000000) that proves as much, that the IFS doesn't care how many people report you. > I've done this before. Let me post the ACTUAL line of code: > > if (reportCount > 0) { > ... > } > > It's line 57 of this particular class. I wrote it. You don't even need to know coding super well to understand that (reportCount > 0) means that "IF you are reported any amount of times above zero (I.E, 1-9), THEN your behavior will be reviewed." So, clearly, "you only get banned if two people report you" is **_not_** a fact.
: Banning system - Automated bans - Lack of support
> ...get reported x3... It doesn't matter if you get x3 reported or x9 reported. If the amount of reports against you is greater than a value of zero, your behavior is reviewed and then punished accordingly. > You kids should be less raging and miss Q with morgana. And did flaming them like that help any? Did they magically stop raging and missing skillshots because you told them to? > Where's the valeu of the people who really play the game. The people that make the game alive not the kids that get up at 7pm to rage a bit before going to pre-school. The fact that you're so ready to assume that they're kids and _continue to insult them after getting banned_ is a sign that you're not one of the people Riot wants to keep in the game. The people who _really_ keep the game alive don't go around flaming people and calling them kids. > ...now you say something yo u get reported by a group of premade people and you get bans all the way. Again; your punishment was not influenced by how many reports were filed against you. You were banned because you showed consistent negative behavior - the match in question just being the straw that broke the camel's back. How long ago was your 14-day ban?
Show more

Umbral Regent

Level 130 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion