3xample (EUW)
: So basically I got myself banned
I hope, for your sake, that you at least kept your profanity in /team chat. That said, though, Riot/the IFS don't necessarily _need_ multiple games of evidence to support a punishment, more as they try to present multiple games of recent evidence that validated reports against you. This is mostly for the sake of showing that misbehavior can be cumulative and that consistent misbehavior can lead to a punishment, just as one-off bouts of egregious behavior can. In general, the IFS tries to provide 1-3 logs of recent evidence, though the amount can be less depending on the severity of the behavior. I'm unsure from what timeframe it tries to pull the logs from (3 most recent valid reports in a week?), but as far as I can tell, the chat logs you receive should indicate that, at least in the past week, you've had two games that validated reports; the one five days ago, and then the recent one which resulted in the two-week suspension. At any rate, I suppose it's good that you at least understand the reason for the punishment. Just, a few words of warning; 1) Definitely don't do any tests like that again in the future, as the IFS will certainly respond to valid reports, as was shown. 2) You'll definitely want to be on your best behavior for the next few months, as following the 14-day ban, your account is on _very_ thin ice. Your next punishment will be a permanent ban, and you've largely lost any leniency the system may have had for more minor offenses (like negativity and minor insults). Hopefully you enjoy your short leave of the game, and even further don't wind up having to suffer a permanent suspension.
: Game 1 Pre-Game Psychopathic Top: me top Psychopathic Top: im top Psychopathic Top: 1 more word and i will tell my friend mohammed to bomb you Psychopathic Top: and ask my brohter ahmed to get your adress In-Game Psychopathic Top: report my team flaming me in champ select because i dont have girlfriend Psychopathic Top: im trying my best to get gf but im victim Psychopathic Top: victim of this toxic players Psychopathic Top: he has f Psychopathic Top: noob Psychopathic Top: ahri youre girl? Psychopathic Top: please any girl here? Psychopathic Top: why you guys dont remake Psychopathic Top: are you psychopathic aswell? Psychopathic Top: go next Post-Game Psychopathic Top: why 0 honor team? Psychopathic Top: team Psychopathic Top: why i have 0 honors Psychopathic Top: for? Game 2 In-Game Psychopathic Top: i cant leave top -.- Psychopathic Top: and if he run aways? Psychopathic Top: and if i come and didnt get anything? Psychopathic Top: and waste 2 waves? Psychopathic Top: get that and gg Psychopathic Top: low elo hardstuck no one knows you exist Psychopathic Top: abck to your lane Psychopathic Top: i hope you die irl Psychopathic Top: with your family Psychopathic Top: go afk no one cares about you Psychopathic Top: gj Psychopathic Top: i understnad we have worhtless mid Psychopathic Top: and worhtless bot aswel? Psychopathic Top: me too Post-Game Psychopathic Top: xD Psychopathic Top: getting carried by our mid/bot Psychopathic Top: and typeing Psychopathic Top: if i had human being mid/bot Psychopathic Top: you would lose that Psychopathic Top: she literally. trying hard to lose us this game. trolling our jungle and take my cs it top Game 3 In-Game Psychopathic Top: no cc dont invade Psychopathic Top: tank 1 tower Psychopathic Top: wow yasuo is here aswell Psychopathic Top: instead pinging would be nice if followed it up Psychopathic Top: rather than get 5 minions Psychopathic Top: muted Psychopathic Top: i want solo gold pls Psychopathic Top: i want solo Psychopathic Top: gold Psychopathic Top: nvm Psychopathic Top: i miss it up Psychopathic Top: -.- Psychopathic Top: bot Psychopathic Top: keep push Psychopathic Top: GO Psychopathic Top: P[USH Psychopathic Top: you so bad Psychopathic Top: bot keep pushing please Psychopathic Top: come Psychopathic Top: top Psychopathic Top: ivern dont pay attention to kaisa Psychopathic Top: she not gonna win us this game Psychopathic Top: nice bruhs Psychopathic Top: bro Psychopathic Top: just do it faster Psychopathic Top: YASUO Psychopathic Top: BOT Psychopathic Top: YASUO BOT Psychopathic Top: COME Psychopathic Top: COME Psychopathic Top: HELP ME Psychopathic Top: this kaisa Psychopathic Top: something else Psychopathic Top: she so mad because i told her the truith about her Psychopathic Top: xD Psychopathic Top: its okay to be bad kid Psychopathic Top: COME Psychopathic Top: COMEDRAKE Psychopathic Top: PLAY THE GAMOE Psychopathic Top: FFS Psychopathic Top: ivern Psychopathic Top: wanna leave the game Psychopathic Top: or sell items for tears? Psychopathic Top: im down to sell items and stack tears Psychopathic Top: their adc/mid the god korean smurfs Psychopathic Top: and our just randoms Psychopathic Top: they have way much better micro Psychopathic Top: their adc/mid have better mechanics than ours Psychopathic Top: report ori Post-Game Psychopathic Top: oriana how about. to be removed from this world. Psychopathic Top: so this game and this world become better place. Psychopathic Top: this world doesnt need people like you. it the end i know i typed maybe stupid dumb shit. but this is not enough reason to get perma ban. in the first warning
> Psychopathic Top: 1 more word and i will tell my friend mohammed to bomb you Psychopathic Top: and ask my brohter ahmed to get your adress Right out of the gate, I can see why this would've been escalated to an immediate permanent ban. Death threats are _no joke_. You threatened to get someone's address, and send someone to kill them via bomb. That is not, and will not ever be okay. Then in Game 2, we have this; > Psychopathic Top: i hope you die irl Psychopathic Top: with your family Just like you don't send death threats to people, _you don't wish for others to die, period._ > Psychopathic Top: oriana how about. to be removed from this world. Psychopathic Top: so this game and this world become better place. Psychopathic Top: this world doesnt need people like you. And, of course, more of the same. Add to all this the general awful behavior throughout each game, and this definitely merits a permanent suspension. Death threats and wishing death on others is not okay, and Riot will not tolerate that kind of behavior in their game, full-stop. > it the end i know i typed maybe stupid dumb shit. but this is not enough reason to get perma ban. in the first warning That was a lot more than just "stupid dumb shit", that was malicious, awful, and completely and utterly unnecessary. You shouldn't need a warning to know better than to send death threats and tell people that you think the world would be better off without them. For this all, a permanent ban is the only just punishment.
: hello may some guy from player behavior Team Come Talk To Answer me
Firstly, the Balance Team does not handle punishments or anything else related to player behavior. That would be the Player Behavior team. Secondly, before it's assumed; I'm not a Riot employee, I'm just another boards user with a Specialist title, so I'm only able to speak from the perspective of another player. Third; What was the reason for your ban? What does it say on the card explaining the details of your punishment? It's exceedingly rare that someone gets outright permanently banned as their first offense, and usually that immediate punishment is reserved for people who share their account, who purchase an account, or who otherwise cheat or use third-party software to mess with the game. So, without any other information, we can only really guess why you got punished based on the fact that you claim your first punishment was a permanent ban.
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=kVpqmoNA,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-03-22T13:30:58.531+0000) > > Giving up, insulting your teammates (calling them "brainless" and "bronzies"), and being overall negative? Yeah, this'd merit a punishment, and based on your punishment history, can merit a ban _as_ that punishment. This does not under any circumstances warrant a punishment. If you honestly believe this was punishment worthy then I would leave the boards because you have no right to be a specialist.
> This does not under any circumstances warrant a punishment. That is incorrect. There are circumstances in which the OP's behavior warrants a punishment; playing and misbehaving as such in League of Legends is one such circumstance. Riot does not allow insults and flame in their game; they make that abundantly clear in their [ToU](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/legal/termsofuse#code-conduct) and in the [Summoner's Code](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/featured/summoners-code). You may disagree with Riot's rules, but the fact of the matter is, we agreed to those rules, and Riot is free to enforce them as they see fit. Ergo; there are, in fact, circumstances in which the OP's behavior is punishable. > If you honestly believe this was punishment worthy... I do. There's no two ways about it, the OP insulted their team and was needlessly negative. That behavior is against the rules, and consequently is punishment-worthy.
NerfTiamat (EUNE)
: I was unfairly banned by rito after playing for 5 years and spending 200 euros (not rich nor poor)
Giving up, insulting your teammates (calling them "brainless" and "bronzies"), and being overall negative? Yeah, this'd merit a punishment, and based on your punishment history, can merit a ban _as_ that punishment.
Steah (NA)
: On the banning system
> Being toxic in chat should only be punishable by chat restrictions. Counterargument; being toxic in chat consistently should be punishable by bans at a certain point, because at some point, Riot has to put their foot down, and the toxic player needs to either _play by the rules they agreed to_, or stop playing altogether. If you can't be bothered to play by the rules, Riot can't be bothered to have you playing at all. > There is a mute button for toxic people. The mute feature is a short-term, band-aid solution; not a say-all, end-all, be-all. And more than that; _**the mute button does not change the rules you agreed to upon creating your account.**_ The rules are "don't flame or be toxic in chat", not "don't flame or be toxic in chat unless the mute feature exists". > Running it down lane, inting, or afking should be punishable by account suspension. Firstly, this is already the case, and secondly, as Jamaree mentioned, infinitely escalating Chat Restrictions used to be a thing, and only resulted in players under longer-duration chat restrictions resorting to trolling and intentionally feeding. And, yeah, I already know the incoming counterargument; "so just ban them when they do feed". It's not that simple, as troll/feeder detection is still far from great, and on top of that, _you are essentially **welcoming** an uptick of intentional feeders and trolls in exchange for more lax punishments on chat toxicity._
: > [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=QAseTtrL,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-03-20T05:38:56.118+0000) > > You do not get to decide who is a troll or not, Riot does. Given that they do not make this determination in real time, your game does not have trolls in it at the time you are playing it. > > You cannot leave a game and inconvenience **any** other players. Period. Just turn the other cheek bro! But just make sure you dont leave, or afk, or talk back, or be slightly hostile; because then you are just as bad as them you monster. Just clench your fists in rage because you cant do anything as the trolls laugh and laugh and laugh. {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-thumbs}} System works!
> Just clench your fists in rage because you cant do anything as the trolls laugh and laugh and laugh. They'd still be laughing even if you did do something, because responding to them is what they want you to do. Flaming, ragequitting, etc., those all tell the troll that you were weak enough for them to get a reaction out of you. And y'know what they do when you react? They laugh. And laugh. And laugh. There's no real winning against trolls, so you just gotta take the lesser of two evils, show restraint, and report them post-game.
Fęro (NA)
: The bottom line is that I'm not crashing now, so why should I still have a 20 minute wait. I would take it like a man if it was the regular 5, but 20 minutes is a long time, especially across 5 games. an hour and 40 minutes of total waiting when I'm not a threat of leaving anymore. I just think that 20 is excessive given that I haven't gotten an afk penalty in months.
> The bottom line is that I'm not crashing now, so why should I still have a 20 minute wait. Having the problem fixed doesn't change what happened while the problem was still occurring. How long ago did you have the bluescreen issue? How many games did you leave because of the bluescreen? > I would take it like a man if it was the regular 5, but 20 minutes is a long time, especially across 5 games. an hour and 40 minutes of total waiting when I'm not a threat of leaving anymore. The only way Riot can even come close to verifying whether or not you're a threat of leaving is for you to clear the 5-games of LPQ. You may think 20 minutes is doing it overmuch, but _again; how much time did you cost 4~+ other players to earn the LeaverBuster penalty in the first place?_ > I just think that 20 is excessive given that I haven't gotten an afk penalty in months. As per above, there's a general amount of information that we're lacking here. All we know right now is that you had a bluescreen issue that led to you getting a LeaverBuster penalty that now is fixed. The only thing we can assume with the present information is that it was semi-recent (enough so that you'd still have the active penalty), and even then, that's not much to infer from. Either way, the only real option here is to just work through the penalty and prove that you've fixed the problem.
Fęro (NA)
: How am I supposed to know if the things I tried worked if I don't try to replicate the issue? It only crashed when I played league. The point of norms is to have a less competitive gamemode for those who want to play, so while it sucks when somebody leaves, it is most certainly not the end of the world for those players. What really sucks is when you have to wait the length of the game for a punishment that isn't really my fault. I get that I could have opted to not play, but that doesn't really seem like a sound argument for what I'm trying to say.
> How am I supposed to know if the things I tried worked if I don't try to replicate the issue? It only crashed when I played league. You couldn't have set up a custom lobby with only bots, to completely erase any potential harm to other people's play experience? > The point of norms is to have a less competitive gamemode for those who want to play, so while it sucks when somebody leaves, it is most certainly not the end of the world for those players. Less competitive, yes, but not more lenient on punishment. One player leaving puts the rest of the team at a severe disadvantage, and makes it that much more likely that they lose. Normals or no, losing isn't fun, especially when the reason you lose is because of something out of your control, like someone else on your team leaving the game. > What really sucks is when you have to wait the length of the game for a punishment that isn't really my fault. You're still looking at it from the perspective of how the technical issues affected _you_, not how your technical issues affected _your teammates_. Again; _it doesn't matter that it wasn't your fault, you still chose to go into matches with other players while the problem persisted._ The harm to _their_ play experience _is_ your fault. > I get that I could have opted to not play, but that doesn't really seem like a sound argument for what I'm trying to say. As stated before; if you need to play League to test your solution, _start with Custom matches with full teams of bots._ The LPQ is there to try and get you to be more considerate about the teammates you queue up with, and continuing to play Normal matches while you're uncertain as to whether or not you've fixed the bluescreening issue isn't considerate.
Fęro (NA)
: BS 20 minute low priority queue
Whether you could prove that it was due to technical issues beyond your control or not is irrelevant, as it were. What is relevant is the fact that you had persistent technical issues (bluescreening) and continued to try and play more League matches, forcing other players to suffer 4v5's due to your computer issues. If you're no longer having the bluescreening issues and aren't liable to leave games in-progress, then you should be able to play out the five matches in LPQ without issue. But don't call the punishment BS if you're not going to consider the teammates who had to deal with the results of your tech problems - the bluescreening itself may have been beyond your control, but the decision to keep queuing up while you _had_ said problems was all yours.
: > [{quoted}](name=Silly Neeko,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9bOwy4An,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-03-17T16:54:31.162+0000) > > Hey, got news for you. There is another thing you didnt consider.... one that Runescape had as well, and many other games. > > It is free to play. > > Not saying that needs to change, but when you are trying to be nice to the majority of people and then there is a few jerks that insist they must ruin things just because they can and because they think it is funny. It has nothing to do with the punishment system... that is an absolute joke of an excuse people use. > > The problem is is that they are toxic people and they do not want to change even after given every possible opportunity to do so, and then when they get punished they go into self pity "oh woooeeee is meee, WOOOOOEEEEE ISS MMEEEEEEE" onto the boards and claiming they did nothing wrong, "i spent this much and it is down the drain" it is down the drain same as a kids toy after they were careless about it and got it taken away. So people throw temper tantrums or insist that after they go and do whatever bad things... that "its the parents fault because they took the toy away and now i am upset. So now everyone must be punished". Your free to play argument falls flat when it comes to games like apex legends, fortnite, and even csgo now. All of which have less toxic players and trolls. It is as simple as riot doesn’t care enough to actually make a good punishment system. The actively let discourage callings people out for trolling and warning other people about said trolls ( name and shame is a dumb rule)
> Your free to play argument falls flat when it comes to games like apex legends... As someone who's played Apex Legends, I've encountered about as many toxic players in AL as I have in League. People will get buttfrustrated when they don't get their pick, they'll auto-leave the second they get downed, and don't get me started on practically every Bangalore I've ever seen (hint; they run off on their own and then blame the team when they lose.) Let's also add to the fact that it's easier in general to troll in AL (dropping off the map, hoarding/stealing items, etc.) - Apex Legends is just like any other game, it has community members who are toxic. If it has less toxicity than League, I'd be more inclined to attribute it to the game being new than to Respawn not focusing on punishing toxicity. > It is as simple as riot doesn’t care enough to actually make a good punishment system. And I assume you know exactly how to detect trolls and intentional feeders without any false-positives? If you do, then you should probably propose your idea, rather than simply say "Riot doesn't care". 'Cause guess what, [they](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/U1ZEosFn-banned-for-inting-with-a-score-of-443) do [care](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/1kaHr5hT-really-confused-as-to-why-i-got-an-instant-14-day-ban-for-inting-please-review-in-game-footage). Having difficulty in doing something does not mean that they simply don't care to do it; it means that they can't do it easily. > The actively let discourage callings people out for trolling and warning other people about said trolls ( name and shame is a dumb rule) On the forums, Naming & Shaming can be accurate but pointless at best - the community has zero ability to punish a player, so even if the player in question _is_ in fact a troll, there's legitimately nothing that other players can do. And at worst, it can be malicious lies and slander - it's comically easy to fabricate evidence of misbehavior and start a witch-hunt against a player, and some people will jump at the opportunity to vilify people who simply did poorly one or two matches. In-game, "calling out" an intentional feeder or troll does...Guess what? Nothing. If they're a troll/feeder, the odds are high that the rest of your team is fully aware, and don't need to be told. Reminding them of the fact will only lower their morale, and, of course, results in the troll being fed. Because the troll _wants_ you to express your anger, they _want_ you to show them that they're getting a rile out of you. You responding to them or acknowledging them in any way, shape, or form, is giving them exactly what they want, and encourages them to keep doing it, since they know how easy it is to piss you off. It's Internet 101 - **_Don't feed the troll_**. If you wind up dealing with a troll or intentional feeder in game, the only reliable method of getting them punished is to _report them_. "Calling them out" does nothing, naming & shaming them on the forums does nothing, the only thing that can work is to report them.
: Why is "ez" "gg ez" and "easy" not bannable?
First of all, I want to see literally any singular instance of someone getting banned solely for writing smilies/emoticons in chat. Secondly, poor sportsmanship (such as "ggez", "ez", "ezipezi", etc.) are not in and of themselves punishable, but can contribute to validating a report filed against a player. It's not hate speech, it's not flame, it's just a dick move.
: And did you see all the games before hand I played really good like Im really confused am I not allowed to have a few games where I dont do well
Have a few games where you don't do well? Sure, everyone has the occasional bad game. But, no amount of games played well will ever excuse running down lanes and intentionally feeding. At a glance, your performance in this match seems suspect. You're the only person on your team to have wound up with double-digit deaths. You have decent damage to turrets (as partially expected, as Support Ezreal), but your team didn't get any turrets downed until well into the late game. That beside, you did at least have the highest vision score on your team, and some of your death positions seem to coincide with overextending rather than running down lane. However, I should also add that you had an unusually high CS count for Support, especially considering that your team was behind. So between the high death count and CS scores, and the vision score and other general statistics, it's hard to say for sure from looking at the Match History page whether or not the punishment was warranted. There's just as much here to suggest foul play as there isn't.
: > No it doesn't. Riot might not admit it but through my 400+ games there is a trend to suggest otherwise. Solo queing results in your typical game where anyone with an honor banner is scarce, meanwhile playing with my buddies whos honor 4-5 results usully 1-2 other people on my team having an honor banner. Might be coincidence but I think not. For a bit of context I called gg after our jungle pinged omw so I stayed in lane with low hp hoping to get a successful gank. 3 mins passes as they went back and BOT LANE instead and during that time I got poked down and dove under turret. JG ganked bot lane pretty much exclusively and they were losing lane which is fine cuz everyone has a bad game but the moment I call out rammus for his misleading pings they jump on me as well (probably queued together) where it gets to the point I'm calling bot lane out aswell and it just degrades from there. Honestly I'm just thinking about deleting the chat box all together and muting pings in all my games from the get go if I ever plan on getting my honor back
> Riot might not admit it but through my 400+ games there is a trend to suggest otherwise. Solo queing results in your typical game where anyone with an honor banner is scarce, meanwhile playing with my buddies whos honor 4-5 results usully 1-2 other people on my team having an honor banner. Might be coincidence but I think not. This is a mixture of anecdotal evidence and confirmation bias. We should also take into account that your confrontational attitude (as displayed in your second paragraph) could, by way of incident, increase the likelihood of dealing with negativity. Perhaps, then, we should attribute the increased odds of negativity _not_ to your being in Dishonorable status (and consequently put in a hypothetical "Prisoner's Island" queue) and rather, to your own negative habits creating a positive feedback loop; you make a negative comment, prompting others to be negative in return, causing that negativity to spiral out. Case and point... > For a bit of context I called gg after our jungle pinged omw so I stayed in lane with low hp hoping to get a successful gank. 3 mins passes as they went back and BOT LANE instead and during that time I got poked down and dove under turret. JG ganked bot lane pretty much exclusively and they were losing lane which is fine cuz everyone has a bad game but the moment I call out rammus for his misleading pings they jump on me as well (probably queued together) where it gets to the point I'm calling bot lane out aswell and it just degrades from there. You decided, rather than to ask Rammus to help your lane or commit to a gank or anything, that your best course of action was to be confrontational and make everyone feel worse by calling an early GG. Notice how the negativity starts with _you_ "calling out" your teammates, and gets worse and worse from there? The only common denominator in your games is _yourself_. If you're running into more negativity and toxicity than normal, you should probably consider whether or not you might be a contributing factor to that negative atmosphere, rather than blame it on [something that has been openly stated to be against Riot's goals](https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/2017/01/ask-riot-banished-to-prisoners-island/). > Honestly I'm just thinking about deleting the chat box all together and muting pings in all my games from the get go if I ever plan on getting my honor back When you have to contemplate removing _your own ability to chat_ and see pings, that should be pretty indicative that the problem isn't some shifty Prisoner's Island matchmaking scheme.
: New Alternate Universe: Elemental Lords
Ashen Lord Aurelion Sol is already part of the Infernal/Scorched Earth skin universe, while Blood Lord Vladimir is (AFAIK) not tied to any universe, and Thunder Lord Ornn is probably in a similar spot, but does have a connection to Thunder Lord Volibear. Besides, that, _[Concepts & Creations](http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/skin-champion-concepts)_ is the place you'd want to pitch skin ideas in, and some of those proposals seem a little redundant (Ivern & Trundle, to be specific).
: Either get rid of Autofill or start punishing players who play adc "sup"
> This honestly is getting really out of hand and these one tricks need to stop. Riot needs to make a decision here; One-tricking is not a problem that can be solved by either of your proposed solutions. Removing autofill would simply reinforce one-tricking with a noticeable cost (queue times), and punishing off-meta decisions (such as playing Marksman Supports) without consideration will lead to unnecessary collateral damage. The issue with one-trick-ponies is that they - whether due to favoring the Champion or not wanting to learn anything else - singularly focus on playing one Champion and understanding that kit to the fullest, regardless of the downsides of only having one Champion they can play in any capacity. It's a problem that can only really be solved by incentivizing and reinforcing people to learn how to play multiple different Champions; and sadly, it is not a simple solution to tackle in the slightest. > 1) Riot can understand that players are no longer mentally capable of playing more than one, or even two roles. (this is specifically addressing the problem children here.) And get rid of autofill.... Asserting this argument as a fact is a pretty big fallacy. Players are wholly capable of playing more than one Champion/role, the issue is actually getting them to. And sometimes, there'll just be roles that people can't/won't play - some may find the difficulty and macro-intensive nature of Jungle unapproachable, and some people may not be able to acclimate to the Support role (despite its variety nowadays). Regardless, as mentioned before, removing autofill would only exacerbate the one-trick-pony problem, as well as create more in so doing. Especially considering that autofill is in fact one of the methods that's employed to combat one-trick-ponies - however successful it may be. > OR > > 2) Riot can actually start punishing players who intentionally feed by picking a champion HORRIFICALLY not qualified for their given position. Examples being; Draven, Miss fortune, Ashe as a support.... This kind of intentional behavior really needs to be punished hard. These players need to be made example that this kind of garbage behavior will stop. And, here, you're presenting an all-or-nothing situation that completely shuts out variety and unique playstyles. _You_ may think that picking a Marksman Support equates to trolling/intentional feeding, but there are a great many cases of players making those such picks work that completely kill your proposition. Miss Fortune Support was probably the thing that made Marksman Supports a considered (if not particularly effective) off-meta option, despite MF Support being picked primarily to counter Zyra those few years ago. And, nowadays, there are a fair few Marksmen who can make for solid Supports - Ezreal and Caitlyn make great siege Supports (due to Ezreal's W affecting towers, Caitlyn's range and traps), while Ashe and Kennen have solid CC. Simply writing them all off as trolls/intentional feeders, plain and simple, will not ever be considered, as it would cut down quite a bit of diversity in League of Legends, however rare the cases may be. And, yes, there are some Champions who simply cannot excel in certain roles - Vayne and Kai'Sa Support, as good examples - but by and large, dismissing all of them does nobody any good. > I've had this happen 4 times already in my 85 games. That's a pretty relevant number when you think about it. just short of 5% of my games have an inting "support" marksman. Scale that up to 100,000 games and you're looking at 4705 games being outright ruined by ONE kind of intentional feeding. Just another problem that needs to be dealt with. Before you even start extrapolating your data into a greater number, you should first consider whether or not you're actually working off of correct assumptions. Do you know for an _absolute fact_ that those players in question were _intentionally_ picking Marksman Supports with the _express intent_ to sabotage the game? Or, are you simply making those assumptions from a point of bias, and pointing fingers at the most glaring off-meta decision to blame for a loss? Because you have to be able to determine with absolute certainty that those players _were_ in fact trolling, or else your 4/85 data figure is effectively useless. > P.S. naming and shaming needs to be allowed on the forums. If riot won't punish players, then the community out to be allowed to. Not going to happen. Between the complete inability on the part of the community to do anything to punish a player, and the fact that "evidence" can be fabricated pretty damn easily, allowing Naming & Shaming would only really lead to misinformation and witch-hunts against players both innocent and otherwise. The community aught to first learn to reconsider their biases and standpoints, and actually think about whether or not a player is trolling or playing with good intention. 'Til then, it's safe to say that giving the community any degree of power to punish other players is wholly out of the question.
: > [{quoted}](name=lowrankhero,realm=NA,application-id=6kFXY1kR,discussion-id=BlAt1eps,comment-id=0000000100010000,timestamp=2019-03-14T21:46:05.475+0000) > > I don't know anyone that like old kayle lore. i'm pretty sure most people thought it was under written vague and out of no where considering that the only dimension jumper sin lore are bard, zoe and the pulse fires, who are some of the most powerful entities in the world. Ok, but how is this better? Why is a moral graying of the characters (by having them be different aspects of "justice") preferable to having them be archetypal good and fallen angels? Why do they need to be aspects of justice at all? How does that improve the characters? The old lore was functional, not bad, because Kayle and Morganna were not characters, per se, but archetypes, like Ryu as "Karate-man" or Mitsurugi as "Samurai-Ronin-Guy".
> Ok, but how is this better? It cements the sisters into League canon, gives them identifiable character traits and relatable failings, and also gives a decent explanation as to their divine appearance and powers beyond them being from a "world of angels"? > Why is a moral graying of the characters (by having them be different aspects of "justice") preferable to having them be archetypal good and fallen angels? Who's to say that fitting into an archetype and being morally grey are mutually exclusive? They still fit into the archetypes - an archangel unflinchingly serving a divine purpose and a design greater than the comprehension of man, and a fallen angel who rebelled from their station and chose the squalor of humankind and fallibility over cold, logical, and unyielding justice. That'd be like panning _Paradise Lost_ because it portrays Lucifer - in any respect - as a protagonist, despite him being evil. Archetypes are there to give us a baseline to work from, a simple understanding of the character. Not expanding on those archetypes and defining the character to be their own unique thing from them would lead to stagnation and same-old-same-old stories. > Why do they need to be aspects of justice at all? How does that improve the characters? By juxtaposing two different versions of justice to maintain the conflict between the sisters, as well as using the thematic (Targon, Aspect of Justice) to tie that conflict together neatly. Remember, Kayle and Morgana's old lore was pretty much "there was peace, but then there was dissent and betrayal, and now they hate each other!". There's no real substance to it. Whereas, again; having them be Aspects of Justice both cements their position in the League canon (tying them to Targon and the strange universal functions therein), while giving them something reasonable and understandable to create the conflict that's pretty much _necessary_ for their lore. > The old lore was functional, not bad, because Kayle and Morganna were not characters, per se, but archetypes, like Ryu as "Karate-man" or Mitsurugi as "Samurai-Ronin-Guy". Functional - as in "bare-bones". Functional doesn't really cut it, and since Riot intends to do more unique things with their IP, they're bound to develop things further than just functional. Look at Ionia, for example; at one point, it was just a generic Asia-land. You had ninjas (which were obligatory), master swordsmen, imperial rule, etc., and over the years it's been shaped into something uniquely different from any other Asia-inspired location I know. The land itself seethes with magic, the provinces seem to have a degree of self-government rather than leadership by an emperor or empress, the visual design has been made sleeker and more harmonious with the land, and while the character design still largely maintains Asian visual cues (Look at Akali and Ahri for the best examples), it's taken a pretty large step away from what pretty much amounted to "Pseudo-Asia, with goggles." So, sure, going with just a base-level archetype is functional...But it doesn't last, and stuff needs to evolve from those archetypes if it's going to last.
: ***
> Actually, continually bothering someone once they've disengaged with you is considered harassment. So then, if they're continuing to bother you, you report them and let the Moderators deal with it. You're not adding anything by reiterating that you're done with a discussion - if you're bowing out, _bow out_. Don't repeat what you've already said for the sake of getting the last word in.
: There is no wall of shame. There is not public backlash against individuals who dodge any queue(s) as I am imagining it. If you hit accept for a match but 1, or 2 or 4-out-of the 10 people [# is arbitrary] decline there is no foul done in other players getting to see your username(s)... If I want to avoid "Umbral Regent" because he left his last 2 queues in the middle of champion select I should be able to know that before I enter aforementioned champion select; in fact I should be able to avoid queuing with you in this hypothetical circumstance just based upon the fact that you demonstrated a tendency to leave queues... so many people are of like mind to you that frankly it is tiring for many of us to sift through the 'dodgers'. This is especially the case during certain times of night/day, depending on timezone.... Am I not making sense or do you have a guilty conscience? The freedom of information does not necessitate nor require that people be treated differently. That is what YOU might do if my idea were enacted but anything beyond that is speculation on your part. No harm done in that regard but gosh darn it, own it.
> If you hit accept for a match but 1, or 2 or 4-out-of the 10 people [# is arbitrary] decline there is no foul done in other players getting to see your username(s)... So then, by extension, if you dodge a queue because of seeing someone else having dodged a queue (again, as you've illustrated in your response to zPOOPz), then _you_ would also have that mark on you. No harm done, no? > ...so many people are of like mind to you that frankly it is tiring for many of us to sift through the 'dodgers'. This is especially the case during certain times of night/day, depending on timezone.... > > Am I not making sense or do you have a guilty conscience? These pointed statements are giving me the feeling that this isn't a figurative statement so much as it is an insinuation and ad-hominem. And all it's looking like at this point is that your suggestion only serves to give validation to your own arbitrary decision to avoid playing with people. If you don't want to wind up queued up with someone who might've recently dodged a game, for whatever reason they may've had, _just play with a premade._ If someone's going to dodge, they're going to dodge. You dodging first isn't going to change it, and it sure as hell isn't going to dramatically decrease your likelihood of running into another dodger. As I've stated before; > ...it exacerbates and _perpetuates_ the problem that you're trying to tackle. And in dodging a match due to even one player under LPQ, _you are becoming a part of the problem._ If you're just going to dodge when you see that someone else has recently dodged a match, you're just becoming a part of the problem; you make yourself no better than the person you bailed on. > The freedom of information does not necessitate nor require that people be treated differently. So, if there's no reason to treat them differently, then why _mark_ them differently from any other player? > That is what YOU might do if my idea were enacted... Aaaaaand now you're deflecting and putting words in my mouth. There's nothing more to be discussed here, as clearly, you're not going to accept input or opinions from anyone else. End of discussion.
: +bump Reworded OP, quoted pertinent message. If you feel like you need to defend your position/_opinion_ then you are probably done sharing. Keep the conflict in your PMs and express it through up/downvotes. Thanks
Just a heads-up, bumping your discussion like you're doing here is against the [_Boards Universal Rules_](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/community-moderation/ITFIpNUE). > **Spamming or Trolling** > No spamming or trolling. Some common examples of these behaviors are listed below. > > - Posting content not related to the discussion. > - Posting a discussion or comment repeatedly, or across multiple sub-boards. > - Posting designed to bait conversation or falsify content. > - Posting designed to spoil things (movies, shows, books, etc.) for other players > - Posting repetitive non-constructive or low-effort content. > - _Bumping of discussions while adding no meaningful content._ > - Excessive emoji / icon spam. > - Necromancy of old discussions. And, yes, before you argue; stating that you've edited your OP is not a meaningful addition, nor is dismissing people for defending their position opinion - especially when _you yourself_ have been defending your own position/opinion in your responses to people.
: Low priority queue is a related yet separate issue. Though I have no doubt that some LPQ players participate in this "dodging behaviour" they are the outliers and not the focus of the the population that is being referenced here. LPQ is by far and large composed of players who leave/AFK from games. The issue here is that LeaverBuster; as it currently stands is unable to discriminate between people who leave [draft pick] games because they are unhappy with how they think things will turn out and those that leave the aforementioned game type because of technical issues. Odds are mathematically in our favor as players that any 2 games in a draft pick will be starkly different in terms of outcome/team composition/team attitude /etc. The reason is as clear as day: **people know that they can get away with a certain amount of queue-dodging behavior. LeaverBuster is extremely lenient in that regard. How can we fix this?**
> **people know that they can get away with a certain amount of queue-dodging behavior. LeaverBuster is extremely lenient in that regard. How can we fix this?** Well, I can tell you right now that publicly shaming everyone with a LeaverBuster penalty and leaving judgement in the hands of the players isn't even close to a viable solution. If your problem is that LeaverBuster does not hold separate/distinct punishments for queue dodgers, AFK's, leavers, etc., then there's no real viable solution to that problem short of individualizing the punishment per behavioral case - but then that would consequently increase leniency, as each behavior would be treated differently and subject to its own punishment path. If your problem is that LeaverBuster handles punishments with an inclination towards leniency (which is necessary, since there are situations that can't be accounted for), then you'd have to make a compelling case (particularly involving actual data, which would doubtless be hard to find) that the vast majority of leaves, dodges, AFKs, and so on are done voluntarily and with malicious intent, that Riot would have reason to make the LeaverBuster system stricter. And if your problem is that players know (somehow) how many games they can "get away with" due to LeaverBuster's leniency, then you have to figure out _how_ they're getting said information (if at all) and _how_ to counteract that. And, again, I have to reiterate; of these problems, _none_ of them would be solved by making it known if a player has a LeaverBuster/LPQ penalty.
: LeaverBuster should NAME users...
> **LeaverBuster should NAME users...** > > The logistically appropriate approach would be to ask, "Why not?". Frankly, I'm with Voldymort. The better question would be to ask "why", not "why not". But regardless, here's why not; because naming users under Low Priority Queue confers no genuine benefit to anyone for knowing that they're in LPQ, while simultaneously _inhibiting_ those LPQ players from reforming. Because, as you said in response to zPOOPz asking what you would do if you saw an LPQ player in Champ Select; > Dodge the one time and come back later. You _do_ know what "dodging" is, right? This response to an LPQ player does not make the problem better; in fact, it exacerbates and _perpetuates_ the problem that you're trying to tackle. And in dodging a match due to even _one_ player under LPQ, _you are becoming a part of the problem._ It's pretty awful hypocritical that it's okay for you to dodge a match because of one player in LPQ while you absolutely abhor someone who's serving out their sentence for the same. Add to that the fact that a person in LPQ has to play 5 consecutive matches without leaving a game to get out of LPQ - how are they going to go about doing that if every time they queue up, they can't get into a match because everyone sees they have LPQ and dodges? At the end of the day, all having LPQ players named would do is tell you that x player is serving out their LPQ. It doesn't tell you why they have LPQ, it doesn't tell you anything about their likelihood of dodging the match or otherwise leaving - there's zero useful information given, and nothing good can come from having punished players publicly shamed like that.
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=uFqf0zLx,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-03-10T22:09:25.258+0000) > > The moderators have been doing a good job at cracking down on unhelpful and antagonizing responses, and, while there are a few that do slip through the cracks, they've become few and far between. I made a general mention of that lol > The second is usually done through thorough explanations with segments of the chat logs snipped to highlight the problematic behavior. The behavior is shown, it's explained why it's bad behavior, and we try to encourage people to deal with situations by muting and reporting problem players instead of flaming or report rallying. Explaining why it's against rules doesn't change the fact that you weren't told that they were against the rules beforehand. > The third is more-or-less unhelpful, but is still in the broadest sense a valid remark. Valid, but unhelpful to those that actually want to keep chat on. > And the last one, I want to see a link showing literally anyone defending an intentional feeder or flamer while simultaneously shaming the person whose behavior we're reviewing. Seriously. Find an example, and link it. > > Because guess what; _that's not something we do_. Quite the contrary, because "Just don't respond to it" is almost always said to everyone whether on Boards or by Player Support. As a matter of fact, I'd be better off looking for situations where someone _doesn't_ say that. If "It's ok that you told them to stop" has ever been said, that's a surprise to me.
> Quite the contrary, because "Just don't respond to it" is almost always said to everyone whether on Boards or by Player Support. As a matter of fact, I'd be better off looking for situations where someone doesn't say that. If "It's ok that you told them to stop" has ever been said, that's a surprise to me. There is a massive difference between "just don't respond to it" and "think of how you affected the feeder/racist/whatever" - we do not condone the actions of the feeder/flamer, but we don't condone misbehavior in response to it, either. It's Internet 101 that you're not supposed to feed a troll, so validating someone else's misbehavior by responding to it is, y'know, _a bad idea_. We tell people not to respond to flamers/feeders/trolls because of two reasons; 1) the above mentioned fact that misbehaving right back effectively validates the initial misbehavior, and just encourages more of it, intentionally or not, and 2) responding to misbehavior with more misbehavior just opens you up to punishment. So, when we tell people "don't respond to it", we're doing that for the sake of the person we're telling to, not out of concern for the feelings of the person who first misbehaves. > If "It's ok that you told them to stop" has ever been said, that's a surprise to me. There are probably a rare few instances of something vaguely similar, like reassuring that "if that's all you said, it wouldn't in and of itself merit a punishment", but by and large, we don't encourage people to respond to misbehavior.
: I'm assuming you haven't been here very long, huh? If it were that simple... ...this wouldn't be an issue.
Well, by and large, it _is_ that simple. Let's take a look at the bullets you use to categorically define the _Player Behavior_ boards; > - "That's what you get" > - "You were being toxic because you said this which you weren't told was against the rules" > - "That's why i just /mute all at the start of every match" > - "Imagine how they felt, intentionally feeding and calling you a racial slur, only for you to respond by telling them to stop or you'll report them. Shame on you." The first is a completely unhelpful response that, as far as I've seen, has been becoming rarer and rarer. The moderators have been doing a good job at cracking down on unhelpful and antagonizing responses, and, while there are a few that do slip through the cracks, they've become few and far between. The second is usually done through thorough explanations with segments of the chat logs snipped to highlight the problematic behavior. The behavior is shown, it's explained why it's bad behavior, and we try to encourage people to deal with situations by muting and reporting problem players instead of flaming or report rallying. If that's not what we're supposed to do, then I don't know what we should be doing. The third is more-or-less unhelpful, but is still in the broadest sense a valid remark. Taken as a plainspoken comment, it's unhelpful, but taken as advice, it's niche and meant to help a few people who would benefit from the same-such behavior. And, on top of that, it's fairly uncommon to see. And the last one, I want to see a link showing literally anyone defending an intentional feeder or flamer while simultaneously shaming the person whose behavior we're reviewing. Seriously. Find an example, and link it. Because guess what; _that's not something we do_.
: The dude I reported hasn't been banned yet. The rules are fucking stupid and need to be changed. The "just mute them and don't retaliate" is creating victim status and it needs to stop our society is farm to soft now.
> The dude I reported hasn't been banned yet. Keyword: _Yet_. > The rules are fucking stupid and need to be changed. Why, because you're not allowed to spout hate speech? Ironically enough, even some of the most ardent proponents for increased leniency towards chat misbehavior largely agree that hate speech doesn't have a place in League. The rules aren't going to change just because you don't like them. And even if they were to change, you'd have to have a bit more specificity than just "the rules are stupid". > The "just mute them and don't retaliate" is creating victim status and it needs to stop our society is farm to soft now. I disagree that the expectation to mute instead of retaliate is creating a victim status, but I do agree that some portion of society needs to change. They need to toughen up, and learn that not every insult against them need be risen to and responded to in kind. They need to develop restraint and focus and avoid letting every little thing rile them up to the point of flaming. You can call people soft for not wanting to deal with flame, but the same can be applied to those with the borderline obsessive need to "talk back" to anyone and everyone who irks them.
: Riot is responsible for the "toxicity"
> Riot you fucks won't ban for actually inting/trolling... Riot does in fact issue bans for trolling/intentional feeding. Here are three examples; [first](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/TAbLtLEr-banned-for-intentionally-feeding), [second](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/En6sfJ9g-14-day-suspension-for-intentionally-feeding), and [third](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/31QGeUd5-so-apparently-1-game-of-supposed-int-feeding-is-14-day-bannable). They could certainly do better about banning trolls/intentional feeders more quickly and reliably, but to claim that Riot doesn't punish those players is just patently false. > but I dare say the "n word" or the "f" word or the "r" words I get a fucking insta 2 week ban. Well, yeah. It's hate speech, and Riot does not allow hate speech in their game. It's pretty clearly stated to be against the rules in the [ToU](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/legal/termsofuse#code-conduct); > v. Transmitting or communicating any content which, in the sole and exclusive discretion of Riot Games, is deemed offensive, including language that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, or _racially, ethically, or otherwise objectionable_; As a pro-tip, if you reach the point where you have to refer to them as "n-word" or "r-word" or whatever else, _the odds are pretty high that you **shouldn't say it.**_ > You will not take away players chat when they want you to. What they want is not what's best for them or the community. Chat muting is ineffective, and by and large would only lead to a greater influx of trolling and intentionally feeding. Which, given your first complaint, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you wouldn't want that. > You ban people for defending themselves. Riot does not ban people for using the mute function. Fighting back and retaliating when there's no threat of physical harm != defending yourself - it's just flaming back. If someone's flaming you, _mute, report, and move on._ > I don't know what you want us to fucking do. Follow the rules you agreed to? Don't flame, don't harass, don't use hate speech, etc? > Learn how to fucking ban people. It's been proven four times already that they don't need to learn how to do it.
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=hx87AebK,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-03-10T02:36:05.418+0000) > > Being frank, chat (communication in general) is a pretty huge necessity to League, so no, there's not going to be an option of removing the chat or having your account effectively muted for 1,000 games. > > In each of these cases, you're blaming Riot for how the system works rather than understanding _why_ it works that way and seeing that the problem is in _your_ behavior, and not the system. > > Nobody is obligated to dodge just because you don't like the situation in the pre-game lobby. If you really think that the match should be dodged, _you dodge it_. Asking other people to dodge for you is lazy, and, yes, _negative behavior_. There are other ways to approach the situation than calling for people to dodge for you. > > Have you considered trying to coordinate with the team to see where the autofilled player normally plays, and seeing which other player in the team could switch roles with them? Have you considered biting the bullet and offering to switch roles yourself? Have you considered encouraging the autofilled player to play a noob-friendly/easy/low-skill-intensive Champion to counterbalance their lack of knowledge of the role? > > If all you do is either dodge or ask others to dodge for you, you're not really going to get anywhere. You need to learn how to better approach those such situations, because, yes, _asking other people to dodge for you is not good behavior._ > > If you're simply positing that you like your composition/setup whatever, and someone starts harassing you and being toxic, _mute them_. As soon as you see them say "shut up dweeb" or anything similar, _mute them._ And I would encourage to go the whole nine yards and _fullmute them_, because odds are high that they'd just as quickly abuse the ping system as they would the chat. > > If you type back to them and get yourself into a flame war, _yes, of course context isn't going to matter._ It doesn't matter if they started it, _you_ participated, and you made the rest of your team deal with _two_ flamers instead of just the one. Don't engage flamers, it's _never_ worth it. > > And remember; _**Mute, report, move on.**_ > > Much the same. If they start flaming you, chewing you out, etc. for not being right there, a pixel beside your lane opponent, _mute them_. Don't respond to them, don't give them the time of day, just mute them, report them post-game, and play to your best ability. > > If they were truly competitive, they wouldn't be using the chat to fight their teammates. The argument of "people get punished for being competitive" is such a tired one that makes no sense whatsoever. **If** they're so competitive, so _determined to win_, **_why would they take actions that directly decrease their chances of winning?_** > > Trolls do get punished, with or without the use of chat. The issue is that detecting trolls is difficult, since one would have to determine intent; and, yes, that means that it takes much longer to detect a troll who doesn't speak compared to one who does. It's a known flaw, but that doesn't mean that nothing happens to trolls who don't use the chat. None of this is easy to follow when you are trying your hardest to climb ELO, and doing well in every game, only to fall victim to Riot's Patented Win Streaks or Lose Streaks, to keep me at 50%. And don't tell me to "get better"... even the best players in the game at Challenger rank and above, have gone through 7 game losing streaks where NOTHING they do matters. Combine that epic frustration.... to then have to mentally deal with the Chat feature, etc... Let's say I play 50 games within 7 days. If within those 50 games, I said anything wrong in only 3 or 4 of those games... that's 3 or 4 reportable offenses in 1 week = punishment. Nevermind it was only 3 or 4 out of 50. Doesn't matter. It's a recipe for driving someone crazy. I think my mental health is suffering from trying to sincerely climb ELO. Removing the chat feature from my client would solve everything.
> None of this is easy to follow when you are trying your hardest to climb ELO, and doing well in every game, only to fall victim to Riot's Patented Win Streaks or Lose Streaks, to keep me at 50%. As a rule of thumb, if you perform better than average, you're more likely to climb. If you're having difficulty climbing, you may want to look to see if you can improve anywhere to increase your odds. That said, though; > Combine that epic frustration.... to then have to mentally deal with the Chat feature, etc... If you cannot handle difficulty climbing, then - all respect due - you may not be cut out for Ranked. It's a competitive gamemode, and it's _going_ to be stressful. If you cannot handle the presence of the chat and the possibility of misbehavior in it, you're free to use /muteall. And if with everything you're signing on for, you're having difficulty keeping your composure, you should consider evaluating your problems and trying to figure out what you can do to alleviate them. It's not Riot's job to make absolutely sure the game plays exactly how you want it to - so if you want things to get better, you have to make it better for yourself. > Let's say I play 50 games within 7 days. If within those 50 games, I said anything wrong in only 3 or 4 of those games... that's 3 or 4 reportable offenses in 1 week = punishment. If you're cramming 50-some games into 7 days, and misbehaving in enough games to merit a punishment, that should be a sign that you may need to tone down your play time and take some breaks. That's 7-8~ games a day, with roughly 4~ hours of the day spent playing League - even more problematic if it's four straight hours. You can try to make whatever ratio you want to make the system seem overbearing, but the core of the issue is that you're misbehaving consistently enough throughout a week to merit a punishment. And that consistent misbehavior is a problem on _your_ end, not Riot's. > It's a recipe for driving someone crazy. I think my mental health is suffering from trying to sincerely climb ELO. Then take breaks. You have practically the whole year to climb in Ranked, so there's no reason to try and cram umpteen games into a single day, _especially_ if it's proving taxing to your mental health and fortitude. You see the problem, but you're not working to remedy it. Now's probably the best time to start.
: I really wish the chat would be removed for soloQ and kept for Duo/flex
> Muting solve nothing as other people keep spamming shit but if there is no chat, they can't waste energy and time harassing other are there is no way to reach them. It solves the problem of people harassing each other through chat. It doesn't stop them from finding other ways to do so. If they can't use the chat, they're liable to turn to other methods of expressing their contempt for their teammates - ping spam, for example, or worse, trolling or intentionally feeding. > Legit the chat have no utility anymore... And your proof of this is...?
: Removing the chat feature from my client. Please.
Being frank, chat (communication in general) is a pretty huge necessity to League, so no, there's not going to be an option of removing the chat or having your account effectively muted for 1,000 games. In each of these cases, you're blaming Riot for how the system works rather than understanding _why_ it works that way and seeing that the problem is in _your_ behavior, and not the system. > I don't want to enter champ select and see my Jungler saying "oh no, i am autofilled, i dont know how to jungle" in a Ranked game. Then if I say, I have already dodged a few times today and my dodge timer is at 30+ mins..... if I beg anyone to dodge, and they refuse to dodge and wait 5 minutes.... now I am creating a negative environment according to Riot and I will be punished as soon as they report me. Nobody is obligated to dodge just because you don't like the situation in the pre-game lobby. If you really think that the match should be dodged, _you dodge it_. Asking other people to dodge for you is lazy, and, yes, _negative behavior_. There are other ways to approach the situation than calling for people to dodge for you. Have you considered trying to coordinate with the team to see where the autofilled player normally plays, and seeing which other player in the team could switch roles with them? Have you considered biting the bullet and offering to switch roles yourself? Have you considered encouraging the autofilled player to play a noob-friendly/easy/low-skill-intensive Champion to counterbalance their lack of knowledge of the role? If all you do is either dodge or ask others to dodge for you, you're not really going to get anywhere. You need to learn how to better approach those such situations, because, yes, _asking other people to dodge for you is not good behavior._ > I don't want to be in-game, and see a super toxic troll on my team, start badmouthing me for absolutely no reason. I load into the game, walk to my tower before minions spawn.... and I said that I liked our team comp, and then the troll tells me "shut up dweeb" and then calls me a fool and keeps being mean to me for no reason. If I type back to him, I get in trouble by Riot, because context never matters to Riot. If you're simply positing that you like your composition/setup whatever, and someone starts harassing you and being toxic, _mute them_. As soon as you see them say "shut up dweeb" or anything similar, _mute them._ And I would encourage to go the whole nine yards and _fullmute them_, because odds are high that they'd just as quickly abuse the ping system as they would the chat. If you type back to them and get yourself into a flame war, _yes, of course context isn't going to matter._ It doesn't matter if they started it, _you_ participated, and you made the rest of your team deal with _two_ flamers instead of just the one. Don't engage flamers, it's _never_ worth it. And remember; _**Mute, report, move on.**_ > I don't want to be playing Top lane, and I go B to fountain, and then I see my enemy top is MIA... so I ping MIA. I notice our Mid has no wards up, so I ping MIA and warning pings to Mid. He ignores the pings, dies to a Top-Mid duo gank, feeding my enemy laner that I've been beating up to now.. and then my Mid blames me anyway and says why didn't I follow enemy top to Mid. Much the same. If they start flaming you, chewing you out, etc. for not being right there, a pixel beside your lane opponent, _mute them_. Don't respond to them, don't give them the time of day, just mute them, report them post-game, and play to your best ability. > I feel like the people being punished the most, are competitive people who use the Chat feature. If they were truly competitive, they wouldn't be using the chat to fight their teammates. The argument of "people get punished for being competitive" is such a tired one that makes no sense whatsoever. **If** they're so competitive, so _determined to win_, **_why would they take actions that directly decrease their chances of winning?_** > If they only NEVER used chat, they could literally troll games and nothing would happen to them. Trolls do get punished, with or without the use of chat. The issue is that detecting trolls is difficult, since one would have to determine intent; and, yes, that means that it takes much longer to detect a troll who doesn't speak compared to one who does. It's a known flaw, but that doesn't mean that nothing happens to trolls who don't use the chat.
ABÆ (EUW)
: Lighter punishments?
The answer to your question is no; Honor Level has no bearing on the kind of punishment you receive. If you intentionally feed/troll, your first punishment will always be a 14-day ban, regardless of if you're Honor Level 5, Honor Level 2, etc. And the same goes for the chat punishment ladder; 10-game CR for first offense, going on 25-game CR, 14-day ban, and permanent ban, and Honor Level does not change what punishment you receive.
: In regards to your preface; 1) You call the punishment system obsolete, but I'm fairly certain that that's a misnomer. Obsolete would imply that there's vastly better options available to achieve the same goal; reforming or removing toxic players. The system and punishment progression have largely worked well enough to not demand changes, and if they truly are obsolete, then you'd have to make a hell of a case for whatever new system you propose. 2) That you have 30-35~ permanently banned accounts does not really confer any import to your statements over anyone else's. All it reads as is "I've been on the short end of the punishment stick for a really long time and haven't changed to fit Riot's expectations for player behavior, and want to propose changes to that expectation/the enforcement of it." And, sure, I will give that having so many punishments to your name would invariably give you _some_ understanding of the punishment system; you'd likely be more acutely aware of what's punishable even despite your decision not to change it. But, then, that raises an issue; you _know_ the problem, and you _should_ know that it's a problem on _your_ end. Riot can't fix your problems for you, and frankly, it's hard to put stock in propositions from someone with such an outstanding issue. --- > You might think, "**why don't you just stop being toxic? then you don't have to worry about being permanently banned!**" okay, but what if you can't? "**then you have no place in this game**" okay, sure. The biggest issue with this argument is the presence of the word "_if_". "If" you can't change, then yes, you generally will not be welcome in League. But, here's the kicker: _Everyone **can** change._ There's no "if"s. If you are a human being, you have the capacity to change yourself. There are a blue billion people out there in the world who stand as examples of such. The issue with change and reform, though, is that it relies on the person who _needs_ to change to actually _want_ to change. If you don't _want_ to change, you're not really going to put in the effort to do so, no matter how many incentives you're given to do so. To quote my late grandmother; "_Nobody can change you but you._" > Long story short, the ways Riot has tried to address player behavior is... poor. "you can't get ranked rewards!" I really don't care. "you can't get hextech chests!" I really don't care. That _you_ don't care doesn't mean other people won't care. And believe you me, especially in the case of Ranked Rewards, _people do care_. I saw the influx of complaints at the end of the 2018 season when people realized that their misbehavior held tangible consequences, and that competition was not an excuse to be toxic. Hell, [Riot even made a one-time reform offer](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/developer-corner/TGYs0hwO-2018-end-of-season-rewards-and-honor) _because_ those people realized too little and too late that being toxic doesn't pan out well. You are one of a scant few people - and I really do mean scant few, since Riot's data says that roughly only 0.006~% of the playerbase receive a permanent ban, and you, as an individual, have had _30~_ - who has made a consistent effort to return to the game without making the effort to reform. Being blunt, you are a perfect example of an outlier. You are not a common individual, and that some of the reform incentives don't work for _you specifically_ does not mean anything compared to the playerbase as a whole. > You know what I care about? That feeling of dread having to queue up for a 20 minute game because I AFK'd. The penalty is the key. The reason this penalty works is because YOU made someone else's 20 minutes a waste of time, now YOU have to waste 20 minutes of YOUR time. **That is how you properly penalize a player**. _When the penalty has nothing to do with the offense_, it accomplishes nothing. "When the penalty has nothing to do with the offense..." I want to italicize that and point it out here, because I'm fairly confident I know where this is going. Bans for chat-related misbehavior. It's the only logical end conclusion from relating punishment directly to the offense. 20-minute LPQ penalty for wasting other peoples' 20~ minutes, restricted chat for chat misbehavior, inability to play the game for trolling and feeding/gameplay misbehavior. For your statements on the punishment tiers; **Chat Restrictions -** There isn't really much to cover here, save to clarify that the chat restriction tiers are 10-game and 25-game. Generally speaking, _any_ punishment being lifted or cleared is going to provide some degree of catharsis, and I think in this case, the catharsis for clearing a chat restriction is primarily from the personal input to how quickly you clear it. You're still playing the games and making your own impact on the progress in the punishment, so naturally, you're going to feel relief when you do finally clear it. As for incrementally escalating chat restrictions, I don't think that would really be feasible. After a certain point, Riot has to put their foot down to try and get the player to stop misbehaving, and simply adding more chat restriction tiers wouldn't really solve that. That's largely why they settled on the two tiers before a temporary ban; as you said, they're effective as a minor punishment for a minor infraction, but consistent misbehavior has to be met with something increasingly harsh. **14-day Suspensions -** In regards to your views on the punishment itself here, I do somewhat agree. I can definitely see 14 days being a bit overlong following the two lighter punishment tiers, but I also have to add the caveat that _with_ the combined rough durations of the previous two tiers, a 14-day ban _is_ still a natural step up in the punishment tiers. Since, assuming a person averages 3~ games per day, it'd take roughly 3~ days to clear the 10-game CR, and 8~ days to clear the 25-game CR, making for a sum-total of 11~ days of punishment. While doubling down does seem a bit much, I reckon that it's merited, given the circumstances. With your viewpoints on the other stuff, not pertaining to the punishment tier, I disagree, both generally (in regards to toxic players not liking being toxic) and fundamentally (competition breeding anger/toxicity, + the idea of "fixing" players > removing bad apples.) I've already mentioned that people can only change if they decide to - Riot can't "fix" someone who doesn't want to be fixed, no matter how many incentives or specially-curated programs they work up. At the end of the day, the problem isn't Riot's decision not to "fix players" or an inability to do so, it's the _player's_ decision not to change. **Permanent Suspensions -** Again, I have to invoke your status as an outlier; while there are certainly some people who will simply create a new account, and, worse still, those out there who'd make the short-term focused gamble of buying an account, the amount of people who get to that point is still comparatively low, and you are, as mentioned before, an even more isolated percentage of the playerbase. That said, the permanent ban does, in fact, accomplish something. It sends the punished player the message "if you can't play by the rules you agreed to, we can't have you playing at all. Please don't come back.", and gives a massive, tangible punishment to people who invested anything into their account. All their hours of progress, their skins, their hard-earned Champions, etc. - gone. Of course, such a punishment will have no effect whatsoever on someone who simply ignores the penalties and just keeps coming back despite the permanent ban, but not every player will be like that. Before I start discussing your proposal, I do want to clear up some information regarding the punishment system. > For those of you who don't know, suspensions are handed out based on how toxic you are in a certain period of time. After a certain amount of time (I'm not too sure on how much time, but roughly 3 months) of no incidents, it resets. If you chalk up 3 incidents of toxic chat logs within this timeframe, you get the ban hammer. It can potentially be less than 3 if your chat logs are severely toxic (such as hate speech or homophobic slurs), but generally it's 3. Chat restrictions work almost the exact same way, but for less serious chat-related incidents. This is not entirely true, but not entirely false, either. Punishments are handed out based on _consistency_ and _severity_; there's some general, underlying math to the system where misbehavior will definitely turn up in valid reports, but the punishment will come based on those two factors mentioned above; how **severe** your offenses were, and how **consistent** your misbehavior is. Consistent, low-key toxicity (calling early GG's, passive-aggressive remarks, light insults) will ultimately earn the same degree of punishment as infrequent, inflammatory behavior (flaming, insults, harassment, etc.) - though not within the same timeframes, due to the nature of one being aggressive and the other one being less obtrusive. The IFS will generally try to bring up 3 games worth of recent behavior that validated reports for a punishment, but this is where that timeframe thing actually comes up true, since you could have been punished for consistent misbehavior, but only got one game's logs of acting out. This has led to the perception that Riot is needlessly strict with even minor offenses due to the misunderstanding of how the reform cards work. TL;DR, you're punished for the severity and frequency of your offenses, and the IFS will try (but not always succeed) to produce 3 game's worth of chat logs to back up the punishment. --- I'll have to continue this response in another comment in the string, as I've reached the character limit. ~~Bear with me for a little bit while I write the rest up.~~
Continuing from the initial response due to character limit; --- As for your proposal, there are two major issues that are readily apparent. Of course, I again see the merit in implementing smaller-scale bans, but technically speaking, what we have right now is the most practical. The first issue is one of perception; getting punished for the first game of misbehavior _every_ time, consistently, will change the perception of the system - and there are already people who view the _current_ system as too harsh, so you can imagine how quickly the perception would be skewed to the belief that the punishment system is overbearing, exceedingly harsh, and Big Brother-esque. Of course, there is merit to having consistent and reliable punishment, but frankly, having the punishments turn up as soon as a report comes back valid is doing it overmuch. That's not to say that the idea itself is bad, but it'd be better to try and find a middle-ground between your proposal and Riot's current ethos of leniency on the expectation of stress. Since, as it stands, yes, there is a bit of an issue with Riot's understanding that League is a stressful game, and some misbehavior forgiveness _is_ certainly warranted, but, again, there's definitely a point in between the two methodologies that I think could be an improvement to the system. The other issue with your proposal is that, in general, having a ton of punishments simply isn't reliable when it comes to reforming people. And, this will be a little hypocritical considering that I've pointed out your status as an outlier previously, but for the sake of argument, take _you_ for example. You've had 30-35~ permanent suspensions, which, assuming you've gone through the entire punishment ladder every single time, that's _140_ punishments - 70 chat restrictions, and 70 suspensions. This is largely what Riot understood when setting up the punishment system that has lasted for us to this day; they learned that simply layering on more and more punishments (as they found through the indefinitely-scaling Chat Restriction system) was not conducive to reform, and in fact worked largely _against_ the main point of the punishment. So because they found that simply layering on more and more punishments didn't work, they decided to make a short and simple punishment ladder, one with a definitive "end" punishment - the permanent ban. I could see _some_ possibility of expanding the ladder, perhaps making a 5th punishment tier (somewhere behind the permanent ban, obviously), but having a system that simply continues applying punishments without a definitive "x strikes, you're out" punishment would both be ultimately fruitless (continuously layering punishments doesn't work) and result in a punishment system with no bite (why reform when I have nothing to lose from being toxic? No permaban = no real reason to worry about the repercussions for misbehavior.) --- Beyond that, some other issues; 1) **125-games chat restriction is ironically overdoing it, considering the previous math.** Again, assuming 3~ games per day, it would take roughly 8~ days to clear a 25-game chat restriction (give or take since 3 times 8 = 24), and _**41~**_ days to clear a 125-game chat restriction (again, give-or-take, since 3 times 8 = 24 times 5 = 40, +1 to account for an extra 3 game day.) That's _way_ more time spent punished than a 14-day suspension, and you're proposing this as the _second punishment tier_. 2) **Chat-muting wouldn't work.** I brought up Riot's previous experiment with indefinitely-scaling Chat Restrictions earlier, and now's the point where I have to expound on it further. At one point, Riot had the system simply give longer-duration chat restrictions ad-infinitum for chat-related punishments. So, continuous chat misbehavior would just result in a longer amount of time where players couldn't fully utilize the chat. In theory, it's a sound design; restrict player's chat so they can't flame and have to use what little chat they could for strategic purposes. In practice, it failed miserably. Players under longer-duration CR's largely resorted to trolling and intentionally feeding to express their contempt for their teammates. And considering that the punishments in question were chat _restrictions_, that should say something about the viability of long duration chat _mutes_. 3) **Having a specified timeframe with which to "reform" removes the edge punishments can have.** Currently, the system has an indeterminate timeframe of reform for de-escalating in the punishment tiers; in general, we (the community) estimate it to be around 3-6~ months of consistent, positive play. Knowing how long that timeframe actually is would open the system up to be gamed, and invite toxic players to simply abuse the system. Not knowing how long it is, though, leaves people uncertain of whether or not they're still on thin ice, and gives them a reason to think twice about what they're going to say in chat. There is of course some room for argument about the moral implications of fostering paranoia with the punishment system, but by and large, it does what it's supposed to do. People don't want to be punished, and not knowing whether or not they're back at the "clean slate" status makes them less likely to misbehave. --- All told, I will admit this much; while I largely disagree with your proposal, there is still stuff worth considering here, and you are, to a degree, correct in your assertions that your (unfortunate) circumstances and run-ins with the punishment system do give you a depth of understanding to posit worthwhile information on the system. Hopefully others beyond myself will be able to take something away from your proposal, regardless of whether or not they agree with it. And, hopefully my response gives some food for thought (despite any instances of blunt or dismissive behavior I may've exhibited) or highlights some notable details about your proposal that you might take another look at. Either way, like you with your OP, I thank you for your time in reading and consideration.
: How to properly rework the player moderation system, by a guy with 30+ perma bans
In regards to your preface; 1) You call the punishment system obsolete, but I'm fairly certain that that's a misnomer. Obsolete would imply that there's vastly better options available to achieve the same goal; reforming or removing toxic players. The system and punishment progression have largely worked well enough to not demand changes, and if they truly are obsolete, then you'd have to make a hell of a case for whatever new system you propose. 2) That you have 30-35~ permanently banned accounts does not really confer any import to your statements over anyone else's. All it reads as is "I've been on the short end of the punishment stick for a really long time and haven't changed to fit Riot's expectations for player behavior, and want to propose changes to that expectation/the enforcement of it." And, sure, I will give that having so many punishments to your name would invariably give you _some_ understanding of the punishment system; you'd likely be more acutely aware of what's punishable even despite your decision not to change it. But, then, that raises an issue; you _know_ the problem, and you _should_ know that it's a problem on _your_ end. Riot can't fix your problems for you, and frankly, it's hard to put stock in propositions from someone with such an outstanding issue. --- > You might think, "**why don't you just stop being toxic? then you don't have to worry about being permanently banned!**" okay, but what if you can't? "**then you have no place in this game**" okay, sure. The biggest issue with this argument is the presence of the word "_if_". "If" you can't change, then yes, you generally will not be welcome in League. But, here's the kicker: _Everyone **can** change._ There's no "if"s. If you are a human being, you have the capacity to change yourself. There are a blue billion people out there in the world who stand as examples of such. The issue with change and reform, though, is that it relies on the person who _needs_ to change to actually _want_ to change. If you don't _want_ to change, you're not really going to put in the effort to do so, no matter how many incentives you're given to do so. To quote my late grandmother; "_Nobody can change you but you._" > Long story short, the ways Riot has tried to address player behavior is... poor. "you can't get ranked rewards!" I really don't care. "you can't get hextech chests!" I really don't care. That _you_ don't care doesn't mean other people won't care. And believe you me, especially in the case of Ranked Rewards, _people do care_. I saw the influx of complaints at the end of the 2018 season when people realized that their misbehavior held tangible consequences, and that competition was not an excuse to be toxic. Hell, [Riot even made a one-time reform offer](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/developer-corner/TGYs0hwO-2018-end-of-season-rewards-and-honor) _because_ those people realized too little and too late that being toxic doesn't pan out well. You are one of a scant few people - and I really do mean scant few, since Riot's data says that roughly only 0.006~% of the playerbase receive a permanent ban, and you, as an individual, have had _30~_ - who has made a consistent effort to return to the game without making the effort to reform. Being blunt, you are a perfect example of an outlier. You are not a common individual, and that some of the reform incentives don't work for _you specifically_ does not mean anything compared to the playerbase as a whole. > You know what I care about? That feeling of dread having to queue up for a 20 minute game because I AFK'd. The penalty is the key. The reason this penalty works is because YOU made someone else's 20 minutes a waste of time, now YOU have to waste 20 minutes of YOUR time. **That is how you properly penalize a player**. _When the penalty has nothing to do with the offense_, it accomplishes nothing. "When the penalty has nothing to do with the offense..." I want to italicize that and point it out here, because I'm fairly confident I know where this is going. Bans for chat-related misbehavior. It's the only logical end conclusion from relating punishment directly to the offense. 20-minute LPQ penalty for wasting other peoples' 20~ minutes, restricted chat for chat misbehavior, inability to play the game for trolling and feeding/gameplay misbehavior. For your statements on the punishment tiers; **Chat Restrictions -** There isn't really much to cover here, save to clarify that the chat restriction tiers are 10-game and 25-game. Generally speaking, _any_ punishment being lifted or cleared is going to provide some degree of catharsis, and I think in this case, the catharsis for clearing a chat restriction is primarily from the personal input to how quickly you clear it. You're still playing the games and making your own impact on the progress in the punishment, so naturally, you're going to feel relief when you do finally clear it. As for incrementally escalating chat restrictions, I don't think that would really be feasible. After a certain point, Riot has to put their foot down to try and get the player to stop misbehaving, and simply adding more chat restriction tiers wouldn't really solve that. That's largely why they settled on the two tiers before a temporary ban; as you said, they're effective as a minor punishment for a minor infraction, but consistent misbehavior has to be met with something increasingly harsh. **14-day Suspensions -** In regards to your views on the punishment itself here, I do somewhat agree. I can definitely see 14 days being a bit overlong following the two lighter punishment tiers, but I also have to add the caveat that _with_ the combined rough durations of the previous two tiers, a 14-day ban _is_ still a natural step up in the punishment tiers. Since, assuming a person averages 3~ games per day, it'd take roughly 3~ days to clear the 10-game CR, and 8~ days to clear the 25-game CR, making for a sum-total of 11~ days of punishment. While doubling down does seem a bit much, I reckon that it's merited, given the circumstances. With your viewpoints on the other stuff, not pertaining to the punishment tier, I disagree, both generally (in regards to toxic players not liking being toxic) and fundamentally (competition breeding anger/toxicity, + the idea of "fixing" players > removing bad apples.) I've already mentioned that people can only change if they decide to - Riot can't "fix" someone who doesn't want to be fixed, no matter how many incentives or specially-curated programs they work up. At the end of the day, the problem isn't Riot's decision not to "fix players" or an inability to do so, it's the _player's_ decision not to change. **Permanent Suspensions -** Again, I have to invoke your status as an outlier; while there are certainly some people who will simply create a new account, and, worse still, those out there who'd make the short-term focused gamble of buying an account, the amount of people who get to that point is still comparatively low, and you are, as mentioned before, an even more isolated percentage of the playerbase. That said, the permanent ban does, in fact, accomplish something. It sends the punished player the message "if you can't play by the rules you agreed to, we can't have you playing at all. Please don't come back.", and gives a massive, tangible punishment to people who invested anything into their account. All their hours of progress, their skins, their hard-earned Champions, etc. - gone. Of course, such a punishment will have no effect whatsoever on someone who simply ignores the penalties and just keeps coming back despite the permanent ban, but not every player will be like that. Before I start discussing your proposal, I do want to clear up some information regarding the punishment system. > For those of you who don't know, suspensions are handed out based on how toxic you are in a certain period of time. After a certain amount of time (I'm not too sure on how much time, but roughly 3 months) of no incidents, it resets. If you chalk up 3 incidents of toxic chat logs within this timeframe, you get the ban hammer. It can potentially be less than 3 if your chat logs are severely toxic (such as hate speech or homophobic slurs), but generally it's 3. Chat restrictions work almost the exact same way, but for less serious chat-related incidents. This is not entirely true, but not entirely false, either. Punishments are handed out based on _consistency_ and _severity_; there's some general, underlying math to the system where misbehavior will definitely turn up in valid reports, but the punishment will come based on those two factors mentioned above; how **severe** your offenses were, and how **consistent** your misbehavior is. Consistent, low-key toxicity (calling early GG's, passive-aggressive remarks, light insults) will ultimately earn the same degree of punishment as infrequent, inflammatory behavior (flaming, insults, harassment, etc.) - though not within the same timeframes, due to the nature of one being aggressive and the other one being less obtrusive. The IFS will generally try to bring up 3 games worth of recent behavior that validated reports for a punishment, but this is where that timeframe thing actually comes up true, since you could have been punished for consistent misbehavior, but only got one game's logs of acting out. This has led to the perception that Riot is needlessly strict with even minor offenses due to the misunderstanding of how the reform cards work. TL;DR, you're punished for the severity and frequency of your offenses, and the IFS will try (but not always succeed) to produce 3 game's worth of chat logs to back up the punishment. --- I'll have to continue this response in another comment in the string, as I've reached the character limit. ~~Bear with me for a little bit while I write the rest up.~~
: RIOT:System
> I have to ask how do chat restrictions work 1 game and i get a 23 chat ban when the worst thing i said is "dense". Chat restrictions are largely dealt on a basis of _consistency_ and _severity_. If, as you say, the worst thing you said was "dense", then you likely had more than just one game of low-key misbehavior that contributed to your 25-game Chat Restriction; especially likely given that you had to have had a 10-game Chat Restriction previously for the system to step you up to a 25-game one. We can't really say much regarding your behavior. You may think the worst you said was "dense", and that may be true, but calling someone dense is certainly only a part of the reason for your chat restriction, not the sole reason. Your behavior as a whole contributes to whether or not you get a punishment, so if you want to try to get a better understanding of the punishment, I'd personally recommend posting your chat logs for peer review. > wtf is that reasoning why cant i critique peoples gameplay? You can critique people's gameplay, but calling people "dense" doesn't accomplish anything. You can give non-constructive criticism, but you can't give _destructive_ criticism, and you're largely encouraged to give _constructive_ criticism over non-constructive. Tact is a major necessity when critiquing things, whether it be art or gameplay. If you can't be tactful, then your criticisms won't confer much, if any, benefit. > you wanna say tone and how you go about it but thats bull shit you ban chat on people with more direct natures to protect fucking snowflakes. I have a pretty direct nature, and have even spoken plainly about failures on my teammates' part that resulted in lost fights. I have yet to suffer so much as a 10-game chat restriction. Again; tact. It's a necessity. Despite the quote having somewhat inflammatory connotations, I may as well quote Winston Churchill here; (I think it's Churchill, anyway. If anyone knows the correct quote, please do tell me if I'm wrong.) "_Tact is the ability to tell someone to 'go to hell' in such a way that they'll look forward to the trip._" The best way to have your criticism have an impact is to make sure it's phrased well enough that people will accept it. I.E., calling someone "dense" is a no-go. Additionally; if you have to call the people who reported you "snowflake", then it should be readily apparent that the problem is _you_, and not the person who reported you. You're not going to get anywhere by trying to deflect blame for your punishment onto the perceived lighter sensibilities/frailties of other people. _Your_ behavior got you punished, not someone else getting offended by it.
: If Dawnbringer Riven is the aspect of Justice, then Morgana and Kayle are her daughters.
First of all, Dawnbringer Riven (and all Legendary Vs. skins) aren't part of the main Runeterra canon, so no connection between Dawnbringer Riven and the normal Kayle and Morgana can be made. Second, Dawnbringer Riven is, as mrmeddyman said, an avatar of Order, not Justice. The two are fundamentally different concepts; order is light, unity, etc., while Justice is the fairness of action and the upholding of the law. So, no. There's no relation to be drawn between Kayle & Morgana and Dawnbringer Riven.
FizCap (NA)
: These are forum rules or ingame rules? If I can't say ok in game that's just stupid
Forum rules. It's generally unproductive to simply reply to a thread with "{{champion:33}} ok" - it doesn't help the OP/person being responded to, and it doesn't really do anything for the discussion, so it's considered spam. You're still free to give a mild-mannered "ok" to players in-game, just remember to "ok" responsibly.
Ulanopo (NA)
: >As for this one, it's another situation involving a rare occurrence (discussions pertaining to regional behavioral standards), but it never hurts to know how to approach it. Would this rule prohibit those discussions (such as "this behavior is treated more severely in NA than it is in KR"), and, if so, how would I best go about disengaging/closing off such topic threads? There can't be a simple answer to this, as there are many shades of response. "This behavior is treated more severely in NA than it is in KR" would probably be okay (and it's not what the guideline is intended to address). "I should be allowed to say this on NA because I get away with it on KR" would probably not. >'Cause I'm imagining that the only really reliable approach to it would be to tell the other person "Yes, there are cultural/regional differences, but if you're playing in NA, you're playing by NA's rules. We're not discussing how your chat logs would be viewed in KR/EUW/wherever..." Can you give me an example of a productive conversation that does not fall along those lines? >And, to add on to that (hence the ellipses), would it be overmuch to add a reminder that such subjects are considered actionable? I have a feeling people are very familiar with how we wield the banhammer. :)
> There can't be a simple answer to this, as there are many shades of response. "This behavior is treated more severely in NA than it is in KR" would probably be okay (and it's not what the guideline is intended to address). "I should be allowed to say this on NA because I get away with it on KR" would probably not. Ah. I think I may have misunderstood, then. > In general, the only context that matters is what the League community in a specific region considers worthy of punishment. As such, discussions about the differences between the League community and other environments... These lines, for whatever reason, kicked a part of my brain and I got focused on the subject of discussions regarding behavioral standards between League Regions, even though the original quote only mentioned a separation between League and other, non-league environments. Although, I still have to wonder if it would fall under socio-political discussion to discuss "why" the League Regions treat certain behaviors differently. I mostly keep out of such discussions in the first place, since I find them unproductive, but, it's good to know how to handle them. > Can you give me an example of a productive conversation that does not fall along those lines? I'm unsure what's meant by this question; do you mean like an example of a conversation/discussion that isn't "this is treated differently in x than it is in y" and/or "it's treated differently in y so i expect to be treated the same in x"?
Ulanopo (NA)
: >By and large, I can see that this rule is meant to hold against players who try to encourage others to troll or break the rules or test the waters on potential rulebreaks, but, I'm a little curious (if only for Kei143's sake), does this extend to posts listing personally acquired data with the message "guys, just to remind you, don't do this, or you'll get banned"? You're absolutely correct that this doesn't come up very often, but there are some things we put in the guidelines because they give us a firm point of reference when we are reviewing or modding a post. Our experience is that the vast majority of the "experiment" threads are a problem. Including them in the guidelines provides boards users with a quote they can use when they come up, much as we do now with "name and shame." It also establishes an expectation. That said, it's important to remember this is not an absolute ban on such posts. "Subject to removal" simply means we'll review and respond, as appropriate.
Ah, that's fair. I imagine the expectation on "experiments" wouldn't leave as much room for exception as the "name and shame" rule - where the latter has some leeway to giving fake screennames/scenarios for a given player to obscure their identity and the stipulation of discussing streamer/content creator behavior (since they make themselves public in the first place), I can only guess that "experiments" would probably be a fairly binary situation; either it's detrimental and encouraging rule-breaks, or it's beneficial and reinforces understanding of the rules. Either way, I'll keep it in mind. I also saw that Kei143 had similar concerns, and his discussion string had already produced some result, so I can only really leave that between you and them.
Ulanopo (NA)
: Updated Player Behavior Guidelines
I largely agree with the suggested rules (as they look like they'd curb a lot of the uncooperative/unnecessary behaviors on either side of the fence), though I do have some questions. > **No Tests, No Experiments** > Posts that encourage people to behave in ways that are likely to trigger the Instant Feedback System (IFS), posts suggesting methods of trolling in ways perceived as unlikely to trigger the IFS are not allowed, and posts that attempt to report the results of a “study” will be removed as they do not serve a purpose on the Board and are not permitted, regardless of the reason. > > While we can understand the value of things such as ‘experiments’, the Boards are not the place to post that kind of content. By and large, I can see that this rule is meant to hold against players who try to encourage others to troll or break the rules or test the waters on potential rulebreaks, but, I'm a little curious (if only for Kei143's sake), does this extend to posts listing personally acquired data with the message "guys, just to remind you, don't do this, or you'll get banned"? And, if so, would such experiments only then serve as off-hand anecdotes in regular discussions? (I.E., Kei143 reaffirming a point by saying "well I've run a few tests on the ZT filter, it's working as intended") All told, those (positive) science-ey posts were scarce to begin with, so this rule isn't likely to have any noticeable effect in that regard, but I still feel it good to ask. > **Do Not Argue Context** > Discussions about why a particular word or phrase is likely to trigger a punishment are subject to strict review. In general, the only context that matters is what the League community in a specific region considers worthy of punishment. As such, discussions about the differences between the League community and other environments are likely going to be removed under the ban on political and social discussions. > > To be explicit, no, we don’t care if a word used to have a different meaning, if it has a different meaning in other countries, or if it’s acceptable in other communities or cultures. We do not care if certain people believe a word or phrase can be reclaimed. Similarly, we don’t care if you personally consider a word or phrase to be inoffensive. While it’s an opinion you can have, it’s not especially relevant or helpful. As for this one, it's another situation involving a rare occurrence (discussions pertaining to regional behavioral standards), but it never hurts to know how to approach it. Would this rule prohibit those discussions (such as "this behavior is treated more severely in NA than it is in KR"), and, if so, how would I best go about disengaging/closing off such topic threads? 'Cause I'm imagining that the only really reliable approach to it would be to tell the other person "Yes, there are cultural/regional differences, but if you're playing in NA, you're playing by NA's rules. We're not discussing how your chat logs would be viewed in KR/EUW/wherever..." And, to add on to that (hence the ellipses), would it be overmuch to add a reminder that such subjects are considered actionable? > **Give and Receive Honesty** > Coming into Player Behavior and creating a post means opening yourself up to criticism and discussion around behavior. If you plan to post on this sub-board, especially in terms of posting your chat logs, expect people to be honest with you about why your behavior could possibly be problematic. If you’re not open to feedback, the board isn’t going to be able to help. > > There is a difference between honesty and disrespect. Try to be honest and helpful, not rude. And, my last question, less concerned with the rule itself (it's pretty much the Golden Rule of PB), but, would I be able to see about getting my responses evaluated by a Moderator/Herald? I know you and yours in the Moderation team proper definitely have plenty on your plate (especially with the recent rules evaluations and relevant discussions), but, it's always good to check and see if I can't improve somewhere. ~~I always have the faintest suspicion that sometimes I can be a bit too blunt about my responses.~~
: > [{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=8jx5h7m8,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-03-04T22:49:10.302+0000) > > As Jamaree mentioned, Riot has previously tried what amounted to permanent chat bans (or rather, restrictions) in the past, and it didn't work. Players under the longer scale chat _restrictions_ simply resorted to trolling and intentionally feeding to express their contempt for their teammates. > > And of course, the argument is inevitably gonna come up; "well, then ban them when they int/troll". That doesn't work. For one, feeding/trolling detection still isn't great, so there's an unfortunate gap between "player gets muted" and "player gets banned for trolling" where they _do_ troll, and ruin more games, in ways more tangible than they would through simple chat misbehavior. > > Second, there needs to be punishments in place to _discourage chat misbehavior_, not simply give up and say "fuck it, if you can't use chat properly, then you just won't get to use it at all". It should be on the player to change their chat behavior and reform, not on Riot to try and inhibit the damage they can cause until they inevitably find some other way to misbehave. > > For that reason, Riot uses the 14-day ban and permanent ban, both extremely tangible punishments that send the message of "this needs to stop" far better than simple chat restrictions. Because, if a player goes through the 10-game and 25-game chat restrictions and still doesn't shape up, what are the odds that a third chat restriction is gonna have any greater impact? > > That depends on what you define "the problem" as. To me, it looks like the problem you're trying to address is just the fact that Riot bans players for continuous, belligerent chat misbehavior. If you defined the problem as "players continuously abusing the chat to flame", you likely would've come to a conclusion that didn't involve removing the ban tiers for chat-related punishments. I'm gonna weigh in on this as an Honor 5 player who is avidly against toxicity. So in essence, you're basically stating because Riot lacks methods for determining whether a player is griefing/trolling they should be permanently banned for poor chat behavior. The problem with this is the two types of behavior do not necessarily correlate. It is very easy for a nontoxic player to get baited into a flame war with someone and say things that may get him banned. However that doesn't mean they would then go on to troll/grief their opponents if chat was disabled for them. In fact a lot of toxic players are trying hard to win the game and a lot people who troll don't say a word in chat. Chat gets negative fairly quickly when games start to go bad. It's too big of a temptation for a lot of players not to respond when something negative happens or is being said about them. I'm against being toxic in games and I think people who abuse chat should be punished. But not by being banned. Honestly there needs to be an option to opt out of chat without the ability to turn it back on. If users start trolling then ban them for trolling. But don't excuse not having the ability to not detect trolling/griefing as a reason to ban people who get heated in a video game. That's not fair and it's lazy on Riot's part.
> So in essence, you're basically stating because Riot lacks methods for determining whether a player is griefing/trolling they should be permanently banned for poor chat behavior. Yes and no. First and foremost, it is primarily a counterargument to remind that, unfortunately, troll/feeder detection isn't good enough for the "mute player then ban if they int/troll" deal to simply work. It would be one thing if it could just work like that, but the general situation of increasing the amount of trolls/intentional feeders before the detection systems are actually reliably capable of handling them (let alone their current workload) would lead to more harm than good. However, it is also true that my argument also means that, due to the lack of reliable detection methods for trolls/intentional feeders, using bans for poor chat behavior is the preferred option, both as a preventative measure, and for reinforcing the rules. On the one hand, using bans for continuous chat misbehavior serves to cut out the middle-man, preventing flamers from having that point where they simply can't chat, and consequently resort to trolling/feeding. Granted, there are some who would probably do so sooner than the 14-day ban, and some who would resolve to do it after the 14-day ban, but, permanent chat mutes/restricts would narrow down their avenues of toxicity much quicker. So, getting rid of the middle-man decreases the likelihood that such an event happens, while still netting the same end-result. As for reinforcing the rules, I wholly agree with bans for chat abuse, even permanent bans, primarily because to reach a permanent ban, it'd take quite a bit of effort and deliberate ignorance of the rules. There are enough steps between "clean slate" and "permanent ban" (some would even argue too many) that a permanent ban can safely be issued on account of the punished player's decision to continuously ignore the rules. > The problem with this is the two types of behavior do not necessarily correlate. It is very easy for a nontoxic player to get baited into a flame war with someone and say things that may get him banned. However that doesn't mean they would then go on to troll/grief their opponents if chat was disabled for them. That is fair, and I will admit I've seen some people who simply couldn't rein themselves in on those situations which resulted in a ban. Though, in the same respect, I'd have to imagine that a majority of those players would still make the effort to reform. Riot has stated that the percentage of the playerbase throughout the punishment tiers diminishes consistently, so there has to be something said about nontoxic players not needing much in the way of punishment to straighten out. > In fact a lot of toxic players are trying hard to win the game and a lot people who troll don't say a word in chat. I can agree with the latter statement, but I have to take the former with some apprehension. I understand goal-oriented, difficulty/failure-produced vitriol ~~(I mean, I've beaten the Orphan of Kos in Bloodborne)~~, but somewhere the understanding has to kick in that getting toxic, especially with your teammates, isn't conducive to winning the game. Those toxic players who want to win will eventually have to learn that they have to fight _with_ their teammates, not against them. > Chat gets negative fairly quickly when games start to go bad. It's too big of a temptation for a lot of players not to respond when something negative happens or is being said about them. Understandable. Even I can admit that it takes effort to not respond. Though, inarguably, the payoff for keeping cool is a good one, even if it doesn't win the game in the end. > I'm against being toxic in games and I think people who abuse chat should be punished. But not by being banned. A fair sentiment, and not a wholly uncommon one. May I ask why you feel that way? I personally feel differently, for the reasons stated above (6th paragraph), but I can agree to disagree. My main interest is the ethos. > Honestly there needs to be an option to opt out of chat without the ability to turn it back on. With communication being a large part of the game and with pings being rudimentary, I'd personally disagree, but I can at least understand why you'd want it. > If users start trolling then ban them for trolling. But don't excuse not having the ability to not detect trolling/griefing as a reason to ban people who get heated in a video game. Sadly, as mentioned above, the situation isn't so simple, and there's no real satisfactory conclusion to be had about it at the moment. At the end of the day, all that can really be said about the trolling detection from where we stand is "they're working on it". > That's not fair and it's lazy on Riot's part. I'd argue that it's just as unfair for a player to expect no serious repercussions for breaking the rules over and over ad nauseum as it is for Riot to issue a permanent suspension for continued chat misbehavior. And I wouldn't call it lazy. Oversimplified? Ham-fisted? Maybe. But intentionally feeding and trolling cases can be seen as a situation much like Gold Funneling and Spellthief Poaching strategies; a big, game-warping, and un-fun situation to deal with that requires an immediate, short-term solution (suspensions for chat misbehavior, Jungle item nerfs, buddy-system passive) while Riot evaluates a more suitable, long-term solution. It solves the problem, even if in a crude and ham-fisted way, but it doesn't mean they're not actively working to figure out how best to approach the overarching problem.
GoDTroX 1v9 (EUNE)
: Permabans should not exist for those who received it through chat
As Jamaree mentioned, Riot has previously tried what amounted to permanent chat bans (or rather, restrictions) in the past, and it didn't work. Players under the longer scale chat _restrictions_ simply resorted to trolling and intentionally feeding to express their contempt for their teammates. And of course, the argument is inevitably gonna come up; "well, then ban them when they int/troll". That doesn't work. For one, feeding/trolling detection still isn't great, so there's an unfortunate gap between "player gets muted" and "player gets banned for trolling" where they _do_ troll, and ruin more games, in ways more tangible than they would through simple chat misbehavior. Second, there needs to be punishments in place to _discourage chat misbehavior_, not simply give up and say "fuck it, if you can't use chat properly, then you just won't get to use it at all". It should be on the player to change their chat behavior and reform, not on Riot to try and inhibit the damage they can cause until they inevitably find some other way to misbehave. For that reason, Riot uses the 14-day ban and permanent ban, both extremely tangible punishments that send the message of "this needs to stop" far better than simple chat restrictions. Because, if a player goes through the 10-game and 25-game chat restrictions and still doesn't shape up, what are the odds that a third chat restriction is gonna have any greater impact? > Chat blocked/disabled mean they can no longer type anything in chat, they can only use emotes and pings, since they never use chat for good stuff. > After 1 year they can use chat, but any punishment will result instant chat blocked/removed for another year, some of you may think it is small period of time but it actually solves the problem we have (my opinion). That depends on what you define "the problem" as. To me, it looks like the problem you're trying to address is just the fact that Riot bans players for continuous, belligerent chat misbehavior. If you defined the problem as "players continuously abusing the chat to flame", you likely would've come to a conclusion that didn't involve removing the ban tiers for chat-related punishments.
: Yes, short term it would very much be the opposite of freeing up data but long term, no, false reports would be a thing of the past and this functionality doesn't have to be there forever, the threat would be enough. No, honest players wouldn't shy away from reporting, if they were really honest they would have the citizenship and conviction to speak their mind equally as if there were no threat of being arbitrarily punished. And if not ? Well then we might be wrong, and data WOULD be freed because these not honest people won't be bloating the system! Win win! And nobody is saying to relocate player behavior staff. When that department has a smaller job we could let some people go and hire new and potentially better people and yes, more of the RIGHT people and more of the right initiatives certainly make things get done not only faster but better :)
> Yes, short term it would very much be the opposite of freeing up data but long term, no, false reports would be a thing of the past... Even in the long-term, they wouldn't be freeing up resources. The IFS is an automated system, so adding the function to punish invalid reports would simply waste resources without any gain of resources to compensate. Because, again; **_The system already handles invalid reports._** > ...and this functionality doesn't have to be there forever, the threat would be enough. Having a threat without having the actual punishment would be found out quickly. You either punish for it, or you don't, you can't have some in-between where the threat exists and people fear for a punishment that isn't there. Which, ironically, leads me into another subject of black & white... > No, honest players wouldn't shy away from reporting, if they were really honest they would have the citizenship and conviction to speak their mind equally as if there were no threat of being arbitrarily punished. If your only counterargument to the collateral damage is "well, if they're honestly reporting, then they should have nothing to worry about", then your biggest counterargument is fallacious. 'Cause guess what? _**Honest reports do not universally equate to valid reports.**_ Different people have different understandings of toxicity, and there are some people who take even the lighter offenses of poor sportsmanship ("gg ez" for example) seriously. So should they be punished just because their idea of toxic doesn't 100% line up with Riot's? The situation isn't this black and white "if they're reporting honestly then their reports are valid and if they aren't then they're liars and should be punished" - one can report honestly and have their report turn up invalid, just as someone can report maliciously and have their report turn up valid. Arbitrarily punishing for false reports would not change that fact, and it would definitely cause undue harm simply for the fact that it would be wholly possible to be punished even while innocent. And until you can resolve that issue in your idea, then that's going to be a massive hole in it that keeps it from being remotely viable. End of discussion.
: As mentioned earlier we can free up a lot of data and resources and introduce more respect and accountability to the community. It's a positive positive. And call it "magic" if you will be if we downsized player behavior we could expand on the team that works on or potentially, we could even replace them with better talent! Riot does and gets more with the same dollar.
> As mentioned earlier we can free up a lot of data and resources... Adding another function to the report system (punishing players whose reports were not valid) would largely be the opposite of freeing up data and resources - they'd have to _spend_ resources to actually plan out and implement the system, and even moreso to fine-tune it. And, again; The Player Behavior team is a separate group from the Client devs. Even if your proposal _did_ somehow free up the PB team's workload (it doesn't), it wouldn't change the amount of resources the other team has. > ...and introduce more respect and accountability to the community. While also incidentally discouraging honest players from reporting on account of the possibility of them being _arbitrarily punished_ for being wrong about someone who they thought was misbehaving. If you want to get players to respect one another and hold accountability for their actions, you don't want to simultaneously screw over the people who already respect each other and take responsibility for their actions. > And call it "magic" if you will be if we downsized player behavior we could expand on the team that works on or potentially, we could even replace them with better talent! If I'm reading this correctly, you're proposing to take people _away_ from the Player Behavior team and move them over to the Client dev team (as though simply adding more people to one team would make anything happen faster), and replacing the already experienced members of the Player Behavior team (who've been moved to the Client team) with people who are somehow better suited for the job that they've been doing for a fairly long while? Forgive me for not being able to wrap my head around this idea, because frankly, I don't see any rhyme or reason in the proposal.
: I think that flase reports should be punished
Here's the thing; what point is there to punishing someone who files a false report, when the IFS can easily just toss it aside and ignore it, without issuing a penalty to the reported player? 'Cause, the IFS can very easily toss out false reports, so the only reason one would have to implement punishments for false-reporting (which, by the way, a 1-day ban + 10-game CR are both overkill and arguably inappropriate punishments for simple false reports) would be to discourage people from filing false reports. And a big negative side-effect would be, people who honestly think that a player was misbehaving could get punished simply for having misconceptions about the behavior of the player they were reporting. Should innocent people really be punished just so that the few who spam report everyone and everything get some sort of reprimand in an effort to make them stop? Additionally, making changes to the _Player Behavior_ side of things wouldn't magically free up resources for the Client. The people who work on the Client and the people who work on the Player Behavior systems are different teams, so, if your goal is to try and free up resources for the Client team...Well, mission failed.
: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Any3aQ5Vgjs Before I go if you have connections with the balance/design team there's a message I want you to transfer them... (Trust me it's not negative it's positive change that could benefit all players)
Unfortunately, I don't have any connections to Riot, so I wouldn't be able to relay any messages. As it stands, the best method of getting an idea to reach the ears of the balance team would probably be to post in _Gameplay_, but other than that, there's no real surefire way to do so, I'm afraid.
: how do edge cases work? what exactly are those.
Basically, they're cases of a punishment that are a fair ways detached from the norm; the two examples I gave being probably (hopefully) the more common edge cases where a player is suspended, and two factors come up that have to be considered for appeal; 1) Was the player in a full premade team? Full premade teams have a degree of leniency from the system so long as they keep their misbehavior and off-color humor amongst themselves, as the principle is, if nobody reports it, then they must have been okay with it. Following that, there's another consideration; 2) Did their misbehavior appear in /all chat? While it is wholly possible for a player to be punished for misbehavior that another player didn't see (whether by muting or by teamchat restrictions), it is also wholly possible for a player to have the punishment appealed on account of the same factor; the enemy didn't see it, so if everyone on the team who could see it was okay with it, what say should the enemy team have on something they're not privy to? Exceptional cases like these are few and far between, though there is consideration put into addressing them, both by the community and by Riot themselves. For the largest part, an edge case can best be described as a punishment that could potentially be overturned despite, technically speaking, being properly placed, due to factors beside the behavior itself.
: Can riot send me my chat logs for ban
(Not a Riot employee here, BTW, just to preface) If you haven't cleared your suspension (or if your suspension was a permanent one, unlikely as it may be), then you should be prompted with your reform card and the chat logs associated with it when you log into the Client. Elsewise, you can file a [Support Ticket](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/requests/new) asking for the chat logs associated with your most recent punishment. Hope this information helps!
: wow im surprised you responded to me i thought i scared you off with my weird wording. anyways true no one wins at the end but it feels the bully doesnt get punished kinda like that "kid" who bothers others but the teacher ignores them thing. i do try to ignore the person i rarely mute i mean if they flame me in chat i think if i report them the proof would be blocked since i cant see their words that damns them after game (since its my report i figure its from my point of view only). does the report apply globally or just the reporters point of view in other words? anyways yes again thanks for responding excuse me if i offended you.
> wow im surprised you responded to me i thought i scared you off with my weird wording. It's legible enough, don't worry. > ...but it feels the bully doesnt get punished kinda like that "kid" who bothers others but the teacher ignores them thing. That is certainly an understandable viewpoint. It's difficult to ignore a player misbehaving when there's no immediately viable solution. Though, sadly, I'm unsure if there would be any reliable way to get some satisfaction back in the process of muting. > i do try to ignore the person i rarely mute i mean if they flame me in chat i think if i report them the proof would be blocked since i cant see their words that damns them after game (since its my report i figure its from my point of view only). does the report apply globally or just the reporters point of view in other words? If a player is reported, their behavior is looked at in whole by the IFS, and if they flame and misbehave even after you muted them, that misbehavior will still count against them. In much the same manner, a player on one team could report someone on the enemy team for chat misbehavior, and if the reported player misbehaved, that report would still be valid. (Although, I have seen some edge cases pertaining to premade groups and what enemy players could see in /all chat, but, by and large, those are the exception, not the rule.) In short, muting won't have any diminishing effect on what the IFS looks at when reviewing a reported player's behavior, so if someone starts causing trouble, you're free to mute them at the start of it and report them post-game in confidence. > anyways yes again thanks for responding excuse me if i offended you. No sweat. I'm not an easy man to offend, and you'd probably know one way or the other if you did.
: i think theres a self esteem issue he means. if your very well... ummm self esteem challanged in some ways there could be suicide attempts due to trash talk. so self defense is a coping mechanism sometimes a poor one (depends how its used) the bully should know how someone feels that person whos bullied dont deserve any punishment. unless of course they go far and beyond ( go kys or ill burn your house down speeches or something) thats exactly what should be punishable im saying is that there should be allow some form of self defense but not go beyond that since humans are social animals and muting is contradicting thing to that nature in itself. when your flamed in chat of course your gonna "FEEL" threatened so your obviously gonna fire back at something because of that "unjust" feeling. there should be times the bully should be beat by the victim but that doesnt happen often enough which is actually pretty gross. (i hate bullies that much due to the fact they cause a person to attempt suicide and dont have ANY accountablity even though they had a hand in it. i had a friend that happened.)
Here's the thing, though; even people with low-self esteem, or people who would suffer emotional/psychological harm from flame, etc., should not resort to "self defense" (IE, flaming back), because it doesn't help the situation, at all. KFCeytron's main post even provides a solid explanation of it; > ...because "hitting back" like we occasionally do to defend ourselves in the real world _doesn't even work in LoL chat_. Nothing a player says carries any kind of authority over other players. Flaming back just tells the toxic player that they got under someone's skin, which is more likely to spur them on than quell their efforts. In the real world, passive measures (like covering our head with our arms) might not be enough to save us from harm, while "hitting back" can occasionally be effective, which is why the latter is considered acceptable. LoL chat is the opposite. The purely defensive measure of muting is 100% effective, and flaming back is 100% ineffective. If someone's flaming you, and that's causing you emotional or psychological harm, then flaming back is only going to _exacerbate_ those problems, not stop the flamer. > ...since humans are social animals and muting is contradicting thing to that nature in itself. But, muting falls perfectly in line with another aspect of human nature, which is _an aversion to harm/harmful situations_. Just because humans are social creatures doesn't mean that it completely contradicts our nature to silence someone who clearly doesn't want to be our friend. > when your flamed in chat of course your gonna "FEEL" threatened so your obviously gonna fire back at something because of that "unjust" feeling. Then it's a matter of learning to subdue that feeling of threat enough that you turn to muting instead of flaming. > there should be times the bully should be beat by the victim but that doesnt happen often enough which is actually pretty gross. Well, muting and reporting beats the bully 100% of the time. Muting prevents any of their chat following the mute from reaching you, consequently preventing them from causing any further harm, and reporting them pings their behavior to Riot and the IFS so that they can be punished, and get their just desserts. Wanna know who wins in a flame war? Nobody. In League, you don't beat a bully by flaming them back. They're still going to bully you, because flaming back is a sign that they're negatively affecting you and it gives them all the more reason to _keep doing it_. And at the end of the day, both participants in the flame war lose; reports get filed, both players get punished.
Madjack01 (EUW)
: > > It is a no-threat situation. There's no threat of physical harm, and players who try to flame or harass you can be muted and reported, without any ill effect to oneself. Being stuck up on physical harm has been proven to be terribly outdated...
Hotarµ (NA)
: Discussing permanently banned accounts and the stigma surrounding their appeals
I have to say, even from a standpoint that's opposed to permanent suspension appeals, I do rather like your idea. It's thought out really well, solid, and the two layers (pre-appeal build-up, then the appeal itself) makes for something of a filter to prevent random Indefinitely Suspended players from just jumping straight to Riot Support to get their punishment appealed. There are some details I'd be personally curious about - mostly pertaining to how the pre-appeal stuff would be handled (would it be like an automatic application system, would you have to file a Support ticket and get in contact with Riot to start the process, would your progress be visible, at the very least accessible, etc.), but those are extraneous and don't really affect the core of the proposal itself. I also like the touch of attaching a phone number to the primary(suspended?) account (if I'm reading that right, anyway), as that has a similar effect to the Smurf Solution from Clash - forcing players to attach a phone number to the account to ensure that the one account they're playing with is their primary account. All told, I'm still primarily against the idea of properly-placed permanent suspensions being appealed (I'm amongst the group who believes the three chances are enough), but, this is definitely an idea I can get behind if Riot ever did reconsider their standpoint on permanent suspensions. It provides an opportunity to show that "day-late, dollar-short" reform while imposing a tangible cost on failure, and it's solid enough that I can't readily think of any major holes or issues.
Show more

Umbral Regent

Level 140 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion