: > [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=001000010000000000000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-09-20T13:16:38.181+0000) > > What percentage of your respondents, banned or not, still play league? Over 90% of the people who claim they have a banned account, also claim they continued to play League of Legends on a seperate account. This doesn't paint a picture of removing toxic players from the servers, this instead is removing toxic players content from them, and forcing them onto a second account if they wish to play. Check out some studies done on video game addiction, and you'd see it is very likely many of these banned players would be unable to quit the game if they were able to continue playing it. Our money is on Riot understands everything we are saying on this, but it is economically favorable to ban accounts, so they do nothing to fix the problem.
> [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00100001000000000000000000000000000000010000000000010000,timestamp=2018-09-20T20:29:11.102+0000) > > This doesn't answer my question. So far, 96.7% of players who claim to have a banned account, also said they continue to play. The reason I don't use this number is because our study is only half done, and although I can in good faith say that over 90% continue to play because I have no reason to think that another 500 participants will change this number much, but I cannot say precisely what we find until the study is finished.
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Heptagon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00100001000000000000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2018-09-20T12:05:13.525+0000) > > So I think Usul is a little confused in how we are gathering data for our research. > > We are not informing the people participating the data is being collected partly to understand how people react to banned accounts, but instead inform them we are studying toxicity in League of Legends, which we are. Most of our questions pertain to how the players were effected by the toxicity. > > We get our participants mainly by use of flyers or setting up booths at many different schools across California. We put right on our flyer that former players of League of Legends are welcome to participate, and we have plenty of people who have not had banned accounts, but claim they have not returned to the game for other reasons. > > We are only disregarding the people for this particular research who say they have not had an account banned, but the data collected from other people is being used to study the emotional and psychological impact toxicity has on players who demonstrate toxic behavior, and those who experience it. We feel it would be a waste to do nothing with the bulk of the data we've collected because most people who have participated in our research have not had banned accounts. > > Of the 25 questions we ask on our questionnaire only 3 pertain to our research on banned accounts. > > 1. Have you ever had an account banned for toxicity, if so explain what happened, and dont worry we've all had our moments. > > 2. Did you continue to play League of Legends on a separate account after your account was banned? > > 3. If yes, since your account has been banned, do you believe your behavior has improved? Please explain > > I explained to Usul that the only thing we feel gives our research a slight bias is the fact that a large majority of the people who have participated in our study are students. I explained it is difficult to find people outside of school systems, but we have interviewed at dozens of high schools and colleges over the past year, and plan to continue this research until we have found 1000 people with banned accounts, as we feel this is an adequate sample size. > > We do not believe the fact that our research being limited to students effects the overall outcome of our study as it pertains to banned accounts because our sample consists of many different age groups. There is no gender bias, but I'm sure you would guess the majority of our participants are male. We do not require a control because this is a data gathering research mission, not a side by side comparison. What percentage of your respondents, banned or not, still play league?
> [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=001000010000000000000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-09-20T13:16:38.181+0000) > > What percentage of your respondents, banned or not, still play league? Over 90% of the people who claim they have a banned account, also claim they continued to play League of Legends on a seperate account. This doesn't paint a picture of removing toxic players from the servers, this instead is removing toxic players content from them, and forcing them onto a second account if they wish to play. Check out some studies done on video game addiction, and you'd see it is very likely many of these banned players would be unable to quit the game if they were able to continue playing it. Our money is on Riot understands everything we are saying on this, but it is economically favorable to ban accounts, so they do nothing to fix the problem.
usul1202 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=001000010000000000000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-09-20T13:16:38.181+0000) > > What percentage of your respondents, banned or not, still play league? 18 of his 500+ left after their ban, and all were still angry about it. his sampling method does nothing to draw players no longer interested in league related things, other than the emotionally invested. It has nothing to do with sample age or gender, but rather people who are important to the study are not being reached by it at all, since they are unlikely to respond to something targeted at league players.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0010000100000000000000000000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-20T16:00:54.606+0000) > > 18 of his 500+ left after their ban, and all were still angry about it. his sampling method does nothing to draw players no longer interested in league related things, other than the emotionally invested. > > It has nothing to do with sample age or gender, but rather people who are important to the study are not being reached by it at all, since they are unlikely to respond to something targeted at league players. How would you know important people on the study aren't being reached? How has anything I've said proven this conclusion to you? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say nothing I said proves anything you said. I'd recommend reading what people write when you attempt to critisize them, and also doing a little research into how stats are gathered because you clearly don't understand the processes that go behind creating statistics.
Subdue (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Heptagon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=001000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-19T22:19:29.025+0000) > > I do believe I have answered all 3 of these questions, but I will answer them again in a more organized fashion. > > 1. We do not believe limiting our search for players to educational systems thus far hinders are research in understanding what we have set out to learn. We have gathered information from many different age groups, and we are not removing people from our study that do not return to playing the game on separate accounts, but we have found very few so far who do not. > > 2. I believe Riot should attempt to remove these players from the sources causing their tilt, before they begin to remove them from the game altogether, be that removing their chat, or even pushing their accounts to compete in unranked levels until they can prove they can withstand the heat. They could also make players read forms and take online tests to prove they read the forms that help them learn better ways to manage their anger in game before returning after a bad game which resulted in a report, or they could even do small extremely annoying 1 day bans that require more tests and in game anger management be taken, which would all be beneficial to Riot overall because they could never be accused of not doing enough. An automated 4 check system does not do enough to hinder this kind of behavior on the servers, and although you claim the environment has improved on the servers, myself being a player, I strongly disagree. I would roughly say 1 in every 5 games has a severely toxic player in the game, and every other game has at least one instance of toxic behavior be it small or large that can promote players to feed and rage. > > 3. I have never claimed that players do not stop playing once they are banned, but from our study thus far, we have found most continue to play under different names. I also think your 1% is a little low because if it was only 1% of players this would not be such a large issue for the community, which it clearly is if you just scroll through the player behavior section on the boards. As a business owner I would take responsibility for what I have created, and understand how it effects many of the people who utilize our services, and if it is negatively impacting a portion of my online community, I would attempt to take steps to help these people, so they will continue playing and buying without hindering other players, and would only remove them if it was absolutely necessary. > > To your next points I will just say if most player reform after the 10 chat restriction, than why are servers so hostile today? Why aren't we seeing toxicity go down? Certainly doesn't feel that way, and this isn't just my personal experience, this is an experience described by many who play the game today. > > It being harder to detect in game rage that doesn't involve chat is not an excuse to limit options, and I would disagree with your statement saying that in game violations are much worse than chat violations. Words are not harmless, and although it may be worse for the game itself, it is a much greater toll on players emotionally when they are ridiculed by fellow teammates. > > Also I did not ignore those links but I disagree entirely. If most instances are not chat based, than why is the first two strikes on a persons record chat related? Also almost all of the players who participated in our study described their reason for being banned pertained to the chat system. Some for using racial slurs and homophonic references, but most for getting out of hand. Even if you are correct and the chat system is not the cause of most bans, then why not remove the chat system from players who do souly have that as their main issue, rather than removing their accounts altogether? I know you claim this would make gameplay worse by punishing you for not being able to communicate with a member of your team, but wouldn't it be more punishing to you having this player who has been banned before to just make another account and end up in your game with no strikes on their record, so they can rage without worry. > > Despite all of Riots actions to make this game less toxic with their new system, many player still find this game extremely toxic, as I've mentioned above. Also if they developed a new more successful system, why not unban the people who were banned before the creation of this new system, and see if they reform to the new system? Is it because maybe Riot would like to leave accounts banned because they know there is a good chance they already have another account which they are buying things they have bought before? If these players can simply return how is this making the game less toxic. Even if some of them don't return, a good portion of them are, and they are continuing to be toxic, and they are continuing to drive customers away as you put it, and I am personally arguing that this is because Riot does not do nearly enough to try to fix a problem they are creating. How is banning them stopping them? I know usul1202 has been harping on this, but I still just can't not answer it. Sometimes the absurdity of an answer needs to be placed in perspective. Let's say that there were 1000 player accounts permanently banned. 990 of those players decided to leave the game after losing their accounts, while 10 decided to stay and create a new account. If your sample size consists ONLY of the 10 players that decided to create new accounts, your results would say that 100% of players with permanently banned accounts end up creating a new account, which in this scenario is absolutely untrue, because actually 99.9% of players expressly DON'T create new accounts. How can someone claiming to be doing university level research not understand this very very basic concept?
> [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0010000100000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-09-20T03:16:05.744+0000) > > I know usul1202 has been harping on this, but I still just can't not answer it. Sometimes the absurdity of an answer needs to be placed in perspective. > > Let's say that there were 1000 player accounts permanently banned. 990 of those players decided to leave the game after losing their accounts, while 10 decided to stay and create a new account. If your sample size consists ONLY of the 10 players that decided to create new accounts, your results would say that 100% of players with permanently banned accounts end up creating a new account, which in this scenario is absolutely untrue, because actually 99.9% of players expressly DON'T create new accounts. > > How can someone claiming to be doing university level research not understand this very very basic concept? So I think Usul is a little confused in how we are gathering data for our research. We are not informing the people participating the data is being collected partly to understand how people react to banned accounts, but instead inform them we are studying toxicity in League of Legends, which we are. Most of our questions pertain to how the players were effected by the toxicity. We get our participants mainly by use of flyers or setting up booths at many different schools across California. We put right on our flyer that former players of League of Legends are welcome to participate, and we have plenty of people who have not had banned accounts, but claim they have not returned to the game for other reasons. We are only disregarding the people for this particular research who say they have not had an account banned, but the data collected from other people is being used to study the emotional and psychological impact toxicity has on players who demonstrate toxic behavior, and those who experience it. We feel it would be a waste to do nothing with the bulk of the data we've collected because most people who have participated in our research have not had banned accounts. Of the 25 questions we ask on our questionnaire only 3 pertain to our research on banned accounts. 1. Have you ever had an account banned for toxicity, if so explain what happened, and dont worry we've all had our moments. 2. Did you continue to play League of Legends on a separate account after your account was banned? 3. If yes, since your account has been banned, do you believe your behavior has improved? Please explain I explained to Usul that the only thing we feel gives our research a slight bias is the fact that a large majority of the people who have participated in our study are students. I explained it is difficult to find people outside of school systems, but we have interviewed at dozens of high schools and colleges over the past year, and plan to continue this research until we have found 1000 people with banned accounts, as we feel this is an adequate sample size. We do not believe the fact that our research being limited to students effects the overall outcome of our study as it pertains to banned accounts because our sample consists of many different age groups. There is no gender bias, but I'm sure you would guess the majority of our participants are male. We do not require a control because this is a data gathering research mission, not a side by side comparison.
usul1202 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Heptagon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0010000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-19T21:15:05.660+0000) > > So the reason I do not respond to every question, is because I believe I have answered many of those questions to the best of my ability. What I will say is that if Riot is so sure players will never reform, and banning their in game chat service all together will only incite them to be toxic in other ways, than why not ban them once they are toxic for these other ways? A good bit of players will reform from a chat ban that stops them from seeing what other players say, and the ones that don't could be banned for inting and griefing which would be harder to say is Riots system causing their downfall. I personally believe Riot is taking a hostile approach to these players, when they are supposed to be customers. They claim these people are causing them to lose money, but in fact it is their own system that is allowing these things to take place. > > Now on the 95% of players don't reform when they are given a second chance, I'd agree with that stat. If you put these people in the exact same environment they were banned previously from, there is a very good chance they are banned again at some point for similar reasons. As I was explaining on another comment, I believe people who get banned have manic tendencies. They enter a game in a very good mood, but losing lane or toxic chat from other players causing them to tilt heavily, and we all know tilt is a natural thing in League of Legends. The issues we are having is the degree of tilt, and how to deal with tilt that goes over the line. > > I understand Riot has no obligation to attempt to buckle to the needs of toxic prone players, but at the same time, if toxicity is such a problem on the servers, which numerous posts in this feed confirm, and they are "losing so much money" to these toxic players, than why aren't they looking at other avenues that may bare riper fruit? This current system in my opinion is not helping. Also, many players don't "cross that line" but do demonstrate toxicity in their games, and are actually causes to other people tilting hard, but Riot "doesn't care who started it" because in the end they have no interest to remedy this situation. Simply saying, "this jungler sucks" one time without any additional comment can spiral a game into toxic death. That jungler may feed rage yell, and he is more likely to if another player agrees with this comment. Than as the Jungler begins to rage out of control, everyone on the team simply reports them, and the Jungler winds up getting a punishment, while all of the other players walk away because they didn't cross the line, the jungler did, as though they did nothing wrong. Riot does nothing to address this because this is the attitude of the people on these servers. Most of them are young, and are playing a heated competitive sport. Did they not think there would be a little spilt milk? I'm not saying Riot has to make everyone nuns, but at the same time if some players are demonstrating that they cannot handle the heat, then why not take some measures to help protect them from the flames, rather then just blaming them, shaming them, and economically screwing them. > > Make no mistake an account ban is an economic punishment, and to economically punish the players who have the worst reactions to the system they have created is obviously inefficient at stopping over tilt on the servers. Even if you haven't bought any skins with money, the time you put into gathering free content is in itself economic, and if you remove these things from a player who intends to continue to play the game, the only thing you've succeeded in is removing their content, but not their toxic behavior from the servers. In doing so you may end up creating players with vendetta against the game, that create numerous accounts, and go on and troll and feed, and try to keep the account from being banned, while doing everything they can to make everyone on the servers miserable. It's a lose, lose situation if you ask me, but I don't think Riot is blind to this, and the only reason I myself can see them continuing it, is because it is economically favorable to them. That is what we are trying to prove overall, and if it is economically favorable, they will never change these policies without being punished for them. But you dont answer them. you still have not answered all 3. I gave 3 very simple, explicitly worded yes or no questions. all 3 of which are very very pertinent to the core of your argument. you're ignoring them again. I even accented the text and kept the paragraph simple so you couldnt miss it. Since you said you're interested in discussion, i'm going to keep asking these 3 until you either respond or give me reasons why they are not valid comparisons to our conversation, since as far as I can see you're dodging them because the answers would undermine your argument. 1: Do you, as someone doing research on/prepping a lawsuit about riots ban policy and whether or not it encourages people to leave or stay and spend more money, think that lacking information from the group of people who actually leave and are no longer interested in league related things is significant to your research? 2: What policy should riot implement that punishes people for their toxicity, promote reform, and does not punish their teammates? 3: Do you, or do you not, terminate your contracts with 1% of the customers pissing off your other 99%, knowing that some percent will come back, but others factually will not? Now then, i'll respond to your new points as well. Why doesn't riot instantly ban people for offenses? Because most people reform! Contrary to your main point about riot banning for money, riot found that [a majority of players reform after the initial chat restrictions](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/player-behavior/player-behavior-design-values-reform). You can find out more from the [player behavior dev blog](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/player-behavior). Unfortunately this blog was only really common for a bit after IFS rolled out (the new person in charge much prefers to converse with us on here or through other media), but it does have a wealth of information about why they chose chat restrictions, then temp ban, then perma. Why not ban people after they're gameplay toxic after being perma chat banned? because those are much harder to detect, and because implementing a policy that is directly shown to increase the number of gameplay offenses just to accommodate players *who have other options* is silly. Your player behavior system should not increase toxicity, especially since gameplay toxicity is far worse than verbal. Players are given a number of ways to deal with tilt, and a vast vast majority of players deal with it healthily. Riot isn't losing money on these toxic player bans though, they're gaining money from it! As from their dev blog, players in toxic environments are 320% more likely to leave the game. By getting rid of toxic players (or banning them into being fearful of being toxic) riot increases the chance that positive, normal players are a part of the community and spend money. Riot has constantly looked at new avenues! the tribunal, level 20 challenge, they did perma chat restricts, they've had several levels of different punishments. This current one was found to statistically decrease the amount of verbal toxicity in the game. I feel like you ignored my 9 links showing that many, if not most, cases of toxicity are not chat caused. If you feel i am overstating from my sources, please feel free to provide others. How has riot not taken measures to help protect players from flame? there is literally no better protection than muting them, short of chat restricting the flamers (which riot does) or removing them from the game environment (which riot also does). The system has measurable, direct success. In the dev blogs i linked earlier there is factual decreases in the number of toxicity reports as per multiple policies that riot has implemented. The ban is in no way an economic ban against the player, riot is looking out for their other cash cows. The boards gets the vendetta people infrequently. Ive never seen one followup on it with any sign that they have trolled more people than the other trolls would have if riot didnt ban them. the righteous anger just doesnt seem to last long enough. Thus, it's not a lose lose. Its a win-lose. The player loses out on their content, riot wins out because now their game is more attractive to other players, making them more money than the banned player would ever spend.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00100001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-19T21:52:43.092+0000) > > But you dont answer them. you still have not answered all 3. I gave 3 very simple, explicitly worded yes or no questions. all 3 of which are very very pertinent to the core of your argument. you're ignoring them again. I even accented the text and kept the paragraph simple so you couldnt miss it. Since you said you're interested in discussion, i'm going to keep asking these 3 until you either respond or give me reasons why they are not valid comparisons to our conversation, since as far as I can see you're dodging them because the answers would undermine your argument. > > 1: Do you, as someone doing research on/prepping a lawsuit about riots ban policy and whether or not it encourages people to leave or stay and spend more money, think that lacking information from the group of people who actually leave and are no longer interested in league related things is significant to your research? > > 2: What policy should riot implement that punishes people for their toxicity, promote reform, and does not punish their teammates? > > 3: Do you, or do you not, terminate your contracts with 1% of the customers pissing off your other 99%, knowing that some percent will come back, but others factually will not? > > Now then, i'll respond to your new points as well. > > Why doesn't riot instantly ban people for offenses? Because most people reform! Contrary to your main point about riot banning for money, riot found that [a majority of players reform after the initial chat restrictions](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/player-behavior/player-behavior-design-values-reform). You can find out more from the [player behavior dev blog](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/player-behavior). Unfortunately this blog was only really common for a bit after IFS rolled out (the new person in charge much prefers to converse with us on here or through other media), but it does have a wealth of information about why they chose chat restrictions, then temp ban, then perma. > > Why not ban people after they're gameplay toxic after being perma chat banned? because those are much harder to detect, and because implementing a policy that is directly shown to increase the number of gameplay offenses just to accommodate players *who have other options* is silly. Your player behavior system should not increase toxicity, especially since gameplay toxicity is far worse than verbal. > > Players are given a number of ways to deal with tilt, and a vast vast majority of players deal with it healthily. Riot isn't losing money on these toxic player bans though, they're gaining money from it! As from their dev blog, players in toxic environments are 320% more likely to leave the game. By getting rid of toxic players (or banning them into being fearful of being toxic) riot increases the chance that positive, normal players are a part of the community and spend money. > > Riot has constantly looked at new avenues! the tribunal, level 20 challenge, they did perma chat restricts, they've had several levels of different punishments. This current one was found to statistically decrease the amount of verbal toxicity in the game. > > I feel like you ignored my 9 links showing that many, if not most, cases of toxicity are not chat caused. If you feel i am overstating from my sources, please feel free to provide others. > > How has riot not taken measures to help protect players from flame? there is literally no better protection than muting them, short of chat restricting the flamers (which riot does) or removing them from the game environment (which riot also does). > > The system has measurable, direct success. In the dev blogs i linked earlier there is factual decreases in the number of toxicity reports as per multiple policies that riot has implemented. The ban is in no way an economic ban against the player, riot is looking out for their other cash cows. > > The boards gets the vendetta people infrequently. Ive never seen one followup on it with any sign that they have trolled more people than the other trolls would have if riot didnt ban them. the righteous anger just doesnt seem to last long enough. Thus, it's not a lose lose. Its a win-lose. The player loses out on their content, riot wins out because now their game is more attractive to other players, making them more money than the banned player would ever spend. I do believe I have answered all 3 of these questions, but I will answer them again in a more organized fashion. > 1: Do you, as someone doing research on/prepping a lawsuit about riots ban policy and whether or not it encourages people to leave or stay and spend more money, think that lacking information from the group of people who actually leave and are no longer interested in league related things is significant to your research? 1. We do not believe limiting our search for players to educational systems thus far hinders are research in understanding what we have set out to learn. We have gathered information from many different age groups, and we are not removing people from our study that do not return to playing the game on separate accounts, but we have found very few so far who do not. > 2: What policy should riot implement that punishes people for their toxicity, promote reform, and does not punish their teammates? 2. I believe Riot should attempt to remove these players from the sources causing their tilt, before they begin to remove them from the game altogether, be that removing their chat, or even pushing their accounts to compete in unranked levels until they can prove they can withstand the heat. They could also make players read forms and take online tests to prove they read the forms that help them learn better ways to manage their anger in game before returning after a bad game which resulted in a report, or they could even do small extremely annoying 1 day bans that require more tests and in game anger management be taken, which would all be beneficial to Riot overall because they could never be accused of not doing enough. An automated 4 check system does not do enough to hinder this kind of behavior on the servers, and although you claim the environment has improved on the servers, myself being a player, I strongly disagree. I would roughly say 1 in every 5 games has a severely toxic player in the game, and every other game has at least one instance of toxic behavior be it small or large that can promote players to feed and rage. > 3: Do you, or do you not, terminate your contracts with 1% of the customers pissing off your other 99%, knowing that some percent will come back, but others factually will not? 3. I have never claimed that players do not stop playing once they are banned, but from our study thus far, we have found most continue to play under different names. I also think your 1% is a little low because if it was only 1% of players this would not be such a large issue for the community, which it clearly is if you just scroll through the player behavior section on the boards. As a business owner I would take responsibility for what I have created, and understand how it effects many of the people who utilize our services, and if it is negatively impacting a portion of my online community, I would attempt to take steps to help these people, so they will continue playing and buying without hindering other players, and would only remove them if it was absolutely necessary. To your next points I will just say if most player reform after the 10 chat restriction, than why are servers so hostile today? Why aren't we seeing toxicity go down? Certainly doesn't feel that way, and this isn't just my personal experience, this is an experience described by many who play the game today. It being harder to detect in game rage that doesn't involve chat is not an excuse to limit options, and I would disagree with your statement saying that in game violations are much worse than chat violations. Words are not harmless, and although it may be worse for the game itself, it is a much greater toll on players emotionally when they are ridiculed by fellow teammates. Also I did not ignore those links but I disagree entirely. If most instances are not chat based, than why is the first two strikes on a persons record chat related? Also almost all of the players who participated in our study described their reason for being banned pertained to the chat system. Some for using racial slurs and homophonic references, but most for getting out of hand. Even if you are correct and the chat system is not the cause of most bans, then why not remove the chat system from players who do souly have that as their main issue, rather than removing their accounts altogether? I know you claim this would make gameplay worse by punishing you for not being able to communicate with a member of your team, but wouldn't it be more punishing to you having this player who has been banned before to just make another account and end up in your game with no strikes on their record, so they can rage without worry. Despite all of Riots actions to make this game less toxic with their new system, many player still find this game extremely toxic, as I've mentioned above. Also if they developed a new more successful system, why not unban the people who were banned before the creation of this new system, and see if they reform to the new system? Is it because maybe Riot would like to leave accounts banned because they know there is a good chance they already have another account which they are buying things they have bought before? If these players can simply return how is this making the game less toxic. Even if some of them don't return, a good portion of them are, and they are continuing to be toxic, and they are continuing to drive customers away as you put it, and I am personally arguing that this is because Riot does not do nearly enough to try to fix a problem they are creating. How is banning them stopping them?
: There have been many threads about this issue since the time I've been on the forums and I would invite you to look up all the lawsuits that have already happened in the past and also post their dispositions. IE if the Plaintiff voluntarily discontinues the lawsuit with each to bear its own costs, it is dismissed and post that the Plaintiff has voluntarily discontinued. Although no formal judgment has come down in federal court, I also invite you to look into what it means when a lawsuit is dismissed by a Judge and when a Judge does require Plaintiffs to play the legal costs, how screwed the Plaintiffs get, kind of like how the Aurora movie theater Plaintiffs lost their lawsuit and how when the Judge dismissed the case, each Plaintiff that did NOT voluntarily discontinue their case, owed the Aurora movie theater almost a quarter of a million dollars each to pay for the theater's legal fees while the Plaintiffs who DID voluntarily discontinue their cases owed 0 even though they technically lost their case. Please do your research first before making claims about the law. Additionally, to the general public who reads the forums, I HIGHLY suggest you speak to a lawyer and not listen to people on the forums as very few people on the forums seem to demonstrate knowledge to suggest they have a JD and even fewer people have demonstrated that they've spoken to a lawyer themselves. EDIT: To actually make a real comparison to what is happening in the real world rather than the OP's example, You are playing on a sports team and you pay a flat fee and RENT a uniform from the sports league. You get banned from the sports league for behavior problems. They take back the rented uniform. You are purchasing a limited licence and you agreed to it. You don't own anything, unlike in the example the OP gave where you actually purchase and own goods. You are renting skins in LOL.
> [{quoted}](name=YerroFever,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0014,timestamp=2018-09-19T19:39:45.049+0000) > > There have been many threads about this issue since the time I've been on the forums and I would invite you to look up all the lawsuits that have already happened in the past and also post their dispositions. IE if the Plaintiff voluntarily discontinues the lawsuit with each to bear its own costs, it is dismissed and post that the Plaintiff has voluntarily discontinued. > > Although no formal judgment has come down in federal court, I also invite you to look into what it means when a lawsuit is dismissed by a Judge and when a Judge does require Plaintiffs to play the legal costs, how screwed the Plaintiffs get, kind of like how the Aurora movie theater Plaintiffs lost their lawsuit and how when the Judge dismissed the case, each Plaintiff that did NOT voluntarily discontinue their case, owed the Aurora movie theater almost a quarter of a million dollars each to pay for the theater's legal fees while the Plaintiffs who DID voluntarily discontinue their cases owed 0 even though they technically lost their case. > > Please do your research first before making claims about the law. > > Additionally, to the general public who reads the forums, I HIGHLY suggest you speak to a lawyer and not listen to people on the forums as very few people on the forums seem to demonstrate knowledge to suggest they have a JD and even fewer people have demonstrated that they've spoken to a lawyer themselves. > > EDIT: To actually make a real comparison to what is happening in the real world rather than the OP's example, > > You are playing on a sports team and you pay a flat fee and RENT a uniform from the sports league. You get banned from the sports league for behavior problems. They take back the rented uniform. > > You are purchasing a limited licence and you agreed to it. You don't own anything, unlike in the example the OP gave where you actually purchase and own goods. You are renting skins in LOL. I can't go into the details of what we are trying to offer people because we aren't allowed to offer anyone anything on this platform. I can say that there are ways to legally pursue things that will not be a cost to the plaintiff if it is in the agreement beforehand. We also would not move forward on any of this if we believed we would certainly lose. No formal judgement has come down on a situation like this from any judge in the country. As a law student myself I can assure you we have done the necessary research to know it is possible for us to have a case, and we are in the motions of proving we do. If we can prove statistically that it is economically favorable for Riot to ban accounts, than there is legal grounds to stand on. Especially if we can prove that banning accounts is ineffective in stopping the issue they set out to solve. The servers don't feel any less toxic even though Riot is banning dozens of accounts a day in North America. There is never any language on their platform that suggests you are renting anything. They always use wordings that imply ownership, and you would actually have to read the terms of service agreement to find out that you do not own anything, which numerous judges have ruled that these terms of service agreements do not allow a business to violate a customer in the manners we are accusing Riot of doing. If you went to purchase a skin on the platform, and the button you clicked said Rent, and the wording they used said "you have now rented a skin to this account for an unlimited time," we wouldn't be pursuing this. The fact they call the area wear things are bought a "store" is wording enough to imply ownership under certain circumstances, that we feel the League of Legends in game store falls under.
usul1202 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Heptagon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00120000,timestamp=2018-09-19T19:16:22.941+0000) > > You are not alone. We have found many people who owned more than 2 accounts and continue to purchase from Riot, but have to be afraid of a permaban because they might lose their temper in a game, and say something they shouldn't in the chat system they can't get rid of. Sure they could /muteall, but most of the players dealing with this forget to do this every game, or feel like they won't rage this game. We think players experiencing this usually have manic tendencies. They go into the game in a very good mood, but as the game progresses, and either they or other people start losing, and suddenly the chat system explodes, and the toxic player in question cannot help but become a part of this pointless conversation. If they were unable to criticize or be criticized by their team, we believe it would solve the problem for most of these players like yourself. These players may still tilt a bit, or play less than they are capable of when they are losing, but this is a very common thing on the servers, and most people aren't being banned for it. People aren't banned for poor play, they are banned for talking smack, and we know Riot is capable of finding a better solution than the one they have. Isnt that the point of the punishment though? if they are afraid for their account enough to not be toxic, isn't that the goal? Oh sure, fear is the crappiest form of reform, but the players are no longer decreasing game quality for normal players. Also people are banned for intentional poor play, just being bad 'rewards' you with playing with other people of similar skill.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=001200000000,timestamp=2018-09-19T19:56:40.908+0000) > > Isnt that the point of the punishment though? if they are afraid for their account enough to not be toxic, isn't that the goal? Oh sure, fear is the crappiest form of reform, but the players are no longer decreasing game quality for normal players. > > Also people are banned for intentional poor play, just being bad 'rewards' you with playing with other people of similar skill. I believe the fear works a little bit. Players try really hard to be good in game, but these players don't mix well with the environment on League of Legends, and can very easily lose it in a game. Especially when other players are provoking them. It may slow down the time it takes them to be banned, but overall these players in this environment will more than likely end up being banned again at some point without some action on Riots behalf to attempt to make the environment for these players (not everyone) less provoking for them to succeed. Which is why personal changes to problem accounts like permanent in game chat removal, or even just having it to where they enter a game with everything muted, and they would have to go into their settings and unmute people just to demonstrate toxic behavior. They would have to take action in order to be toxic, and this would be something Riot could argue is a removable offense. Attempting to be toxic, and being provoked to be toxic are different things altogether, but Riot needs to do something other then shaming and economically punishing players who can't handle the heat in my opinion. You could argue these things would be ineffective, but what they are doing now is even more ineffective.
usul1202 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Heptagon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00100001000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-19T19:04:24.950+0000) > > Okay usul I'm not meaning to ignore your points, so let me see if I understand you correctly. You think Riot is banning accounts because there is no feasible way for them to reform, or make a toxic account safe for the servers without hindering gameplay. You also feel that people who spend money on these accounts deserve no accommodation from Riot. You believe their policies on products is in no way unfair or a violation to consumer ethics. You also believe the in game chat system provided by Riot games does nothing to incite toxic behavior from players, and these players would behave this way with or without the chat system. > > I personally disagree, and the group I am representing is working towards proving that not only does Riot games know their current policies on banning accounts is ineffective at removing toxic players from their servers, but Riot Games also understands that by permabanning accounts they are pushing players to create new accounts, and that many of these players more than likely will end up repurchasing products already purchased because of this disciplinary policy. If Riot knows their policy is profitable, and ineffective at solving the issues it aims to solve, then it can legally be viewed as an online racket. Riot refuses to release data to show this isn't the case, and that only pushes the suspicion further. The independent study our group is in the process of finishing, so far gives evidence to our claim. > > We also do not feel small inefficiencies in our study effect the overall outcome very much. We are not targeting just one age group, or one gender. The only area our study is lacking in is gathering information from players who are not enrolled in a school system, but we are seeking other outlets to find more players, and we will take note of the possible difference there could be. > > Overall we feel our purpose to be justified, and we do not aim to put down, or ridicule people who do not agree with us, as it is well within your rights as a human to disagree. I believe that Riot games bans accounts after player have shown that they are unwilling to reform through several stages of punishments, and that riot has not found a way to punish them long term without significantly hurting their teams. I 100% believe that spending money should grant you absolutely 0 protection from the rules (hello US judicial system). I believe their policies are backed by data, are laid out for players to see, and that riot has been communicative and taken community feedback into account. The system is based on tribunal decisions, and when new things arose (such as KYS) community voice drove riot to add that to the system. I believe that the in game chat system is a core part of the teamplay, and that being unable to control oneself is a persons problem, not riots. I believe that much of the flame and toxicity comes from gameplay elements, not from chat. [In fact,](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/Zcdo2ZON-i-got-a-14-day-suspension-for-getting-mad-at-people-trolling) [here are](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/nNmgXoA7-why-has-riot-done-nothing-about-trolls) [9 recent posts](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/E3ZZI2B7-whats-wrong-with-people-in-leagueand-whats-wrong-with-riot-and-their-banning-system) [of people banned](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/UAVddZhU-explaining-spells-toxic) [solely because](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/AvKxAyBE-banned-for-writing-twice) [gameplay and other players](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/EH98Odvg-so-if-i-say-my-adc-is-inting-cause-hes-0-and-11-and-still-diving-im-the-one-doing-the-diservice) [decisions, NOT CHAT, ](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/kg3RT4Gy-this-games-community-sucks) [tilted them enough](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/qEgYRnMf-so-i-got-banned) [to break the rules](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/rZydEcJK-getting-a-honor-reset-and-10-day-chat-from-a-blackmailing-top-laner-and-tker-mid-1-game-log). Thats just the past 5 days. Flame for builds, perceived slights, having laners lose lane, whatever. not chat related actions inciting people to be toxic. To your second paragraph, i return to the second point of mine that was ignored/dropped. What policy should riot implement that punishes people for their toxicity, promote reform, and *does not punish their teammates*? You agreed before that I had valid points about how your initial idea punished the team. You dropped it after i brought up that mute all, removing the chatbox from their screen, and disabling the enter key are all opt outs that the rule breaker could use, rather than forcing a version of it on the un-punished. I'm going to rephrase my question from earlier, since this is by far the most important part of this to me, as someone that likes data and analysis. *Do you, as someone doing research on/prepping a lawsuit about riots ban policy and whether or not it encourages people to leave or stay and spend more money, think that lacking information from the group of people who actually leave and are no longer interested in league related things is significant to your research?* Because theres literally been a thread posted since yours of someone who was banned, didnt remake, and is asking to be unbanned months later. The group definitely exists, and the statistic you're trying to disprove says that there are a significant number, but your sampling method does not have any method of encouraging them to be involved. In fact, riot is currently conducting an experiment of unbanning permabanned accounts! Similar to the level 20 challenge (95% failure rate of accounts to reform), rioters are personally taking responsibility and testing out if reform is more likely now. How does that fit into your argument? Also you still haven't answered the question. Do you, or do you not, terminate your contracts with 1% of the customers pissing off your other 99%, knowing that some percent will come back, but others factually will not?
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=001000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-19T19:53:10.765+0000) > > I believe that Riot games bans accounts after player have shown that they are unwilling to reform through several stages of punishments, and that riot has not found a way to punish them long term without significantly hurting their teams. I 100% believe that spending money should grant you absolutely 0 protection from the rules (hello US judicial system). I believe their policies are backed by data, are laid out for players to see, and that riot has been communicative and taken community feedback into account. The system is based on tribunal decisions, and when new things arose (such as KYS) community voice drove riot to add that to the system. I believe that the in game chat system is a core part of the teamplay, and that being unable to control oneself is a persons problem, not riots. I believe that much of the flame and toxicity comes from gameplay elements, not from chat. [In fact,](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/Zcdo2ZON-i-got-a-14-day-suspension-for-getting-mad-at-people-trolling) [here are](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/nNmgXoA7-why-has-riot-done-nothing-about-trolls) [9 recent posts](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/E3ZZI2B7-whats-wrong-with-people-in-leagueand-whats-wrong-with-riot-and-their-banning-system) [of people banned](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/UAVddZhU-explaining-spells-toxic) [solely because](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/AvKxAyBE-banned-for-writing-twice) [gameplay and other players](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/EH98Odvg-so-if-i-say-my-adc-is-inting-cause-hes-0-and-11-and-still-diving-im-the-one-doing-the-diservice) [decisions, NOT CHAT, ](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/kg3RT4Gy-this-games-community-sucks) [tilted them enough](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/qEgYRnMf-so-i-got-banned) [to break the rules](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/rZydEcJK-getting-a-honor-reset-and-10-day-chat-from-a-blackmailing-top-laner-and-tker-mid-1-game-log). Thats just the past 5 days. Flame for builds, perceived slights, having laners lose lane, whatever. not chat related actions inciting people to be toxic. > > To your second paragraph, i return to the second point of mine that was ignored/dropped. What policy should riot implement that punishes people for their toxicity, promote reform, and *does not punish their teammates*? You agreed before that I had valid points about how your initial idea punished the team. You dropped it after i brought up that mute all, removing the chatbox from their screen, and disabling the enter key are all opt outs that the rule breaker could use, rather than forcing a version of it on the un-punished. > > > I'm going to rephrase my question from earlier, since this is by far the most important part of this to me, as someone that likes data and analysis. *Do you, as someone doing research on/prepping a lawsuit about riots ban policy and whether or not it encourages people to leave or stay and spend more money, think that lacking information from the group of people who actually leave and are no longer interested in league related things is significant to your research?* Because theres literally been a thread posted since yours of someone who was banned, didnt remake, and is asking to be unbanned months later. The group definitely exists, and the statistic you're trying to disprove says that there are a significant number, but your sampling method does not have any method of encouraging them to be involved. > > In fact, riot is currently conducting an experiment of unbanning permabanned accounts! Similar to the level 20 challenge (95% failure rate of accounts to reform), rioters are personally taking responsibility and testing out if reform is more likely now. How does that fit into your argument? > > Also you still haven't answered the question. Do you, or do you not, terminate your contracts with 1% of the customers pissing off your other 99%, knowing that some percent will come back, but others factually will not? So the reason I do not respond to every question, is because I believe I have answered many of those questions to the best of my ability. What I will say is that if Riot is so sure players will never reform, and banning their in game chat service all together will only incite them to be toxic in other ways, than why not ban them once they are toxic for these other ways? A good bit of players will reform from a chat ban that stops them from seeing what other players say, and the ones that don't could be banned for inting and griefing which would be harder to say is Riots system causing their downfall. I personally believe Riot is taking a hostile approach to these players, when they are supposed to be customers. They claim these people are causing them to lose money, but in fact it is their own system that is allowing these things to take place. Now on the 95% of players don't reform when they are given a second chance, I'd agree with that stat. If you put these people in the exact same environment they were banned previously from, there is a very good chance they are banned again at some point for similar reasons. As I was explaining on another comment, I believe people who get banned have manic tendencies. They enter a game in a very good mood, but losing lane or toxic chat from other players causes them to tilt heavily, and we all know tilt is a natural thing in League of Legends. The issues we are having is the degree of tilt, and how to deal with tilt that goes over the line. I understand Riot has no obligation to attempt to buckle to the needs of toxic prone players, but at the same time, if toxicity is such a problem on the servers, which numerous posts in this feed confirm, and they are "losing so much money" to these toxic players, than why aren't they looking at other avenues that may bare riper fruit? This current system in my opinion is not helping. Also, many players don't "cross that line" but do demonstrate toxicity in their games, and are actually causes to other people tilting hard, but Riot "doesn't care who started it" because in the end they have no interest to remedy this situation. Simply saying, "this jungler sucks" one time without any additional comment can spiral a game into toxic death. That jungler may feed rage yell, and he is more likely to if another player agrees with this comment. Than as the Jungler begins to rage out of control, everyone on the team simply reports them, and the Jungler winds up getting a punishment, while all of the other players walk away because they didn't cross the line, the jungler did, as though they did nothing wrong. Riot does nothing to address this because this is the attitude of the people on these servers. Most of them are young, and are playing a heated competitive sport. Did they not think there would be a little spilt milk? I'm not saying Riot has to make everyone nuns, but at the same time if some players are demonstrating that they cannot handle the heat, then why not take some measures to help protect them from the flames, rather then just blaming them, shaming them, and economically screwing them. Make no mistake an account ban is an economic punishment, and to economically punish the players who have the worst reactions to the system they have created is obviously inefficient at stopping over tilt on the servers. Even if you haven't bought any skins with money, the time you put into gathering free content is in itself economic, and if you remove these things from a player who intends to continue to play the game, the only thing you've succeeded in is removing their content, but not their toxic behavior from the servers. In doing so you may end up creating players with vendetta against the game, that create numerous accounts, and go on and troll and feed, and try to keep the account from being banned, while doing everything they can to make sure everyone on the servers are miserable. It's a lose, lose situation if you ask me, but I don't think Riot is blind to this, and the only reason I myself can see them continuing it, is because it is economically favorable to them. That is what we are trying to prove overall, and if it is economically favorable, they will never change these policies without being punished for them.
: Riot used to have continually-escalating chat bans, but they found that toxic players, in the absence of a way to rage at their teammates in chat, turned to more game-destructive means of attacking their teammatees (inting and other gameplay forms of trolling) when they were angry. This is why they switched over to bans, because a ban removes the account entirely. Of course people will bandodge, there's literally no way to completely stop people from doing so, but it's not some "racketeering scheme" to get more money: riot just can't put enough safeguards in place to actually prevent toxic players from coming back, and every one they try to put runs the risk of preventing entirely innocent players from playing the game. If players keep coming back and being toxic while buying things with RP, that is entirely their fault, not Riot's, and you can't sue Riot for the choices of the players. Their standards of behavior are spelled out in the terms of service, so players know what to expect and under what situations they'll get banned (whether or not they agree that being raging and toxic is a bad thing is irrelevant) and then chose to behave in such a way to get themselves banned.
> [{quoted}](name=CutestVoidlingNA,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00000000000100000002,timestamp=2018-09-19T19:33:38.154+0000) > > Riot used to have continually-escalating chat bans, but they found that toxic players, in the absence of a way to rage at their teammates in chat, turned to more game-destructive means of attacking their teammatees (inting and other gameplay forms of trolling) when they were angry. This is why they switched over to bans, because a ban removes the account entirely. Of course people will bandodge, there's literally no way to completely stop people from doing so, but it's not some "racketeering scheme" to get more money: riot just can't put enough safeguards in place to actually prevent toxic players from coming back, and every one they try to put runs the risk of preventing entirely innocent players from playing the game. If players keep coming back and being toxic while buying things with RP, that is entirely their fault, not Riot's, and you can't sue Riot for the choices of the players. Their standards of behavior are spelled out in the terms of service, so players know what to expect and under what situations they'll get banned (whether or not they agree that being raging and toxic is a bad thing is irrelevant) and then chose to behave in such a way to get themselves banned. Almost no one on these servers is innocent of having a toxic moment in game. We believe tilt is a natural part of this game, and even the most stone cold players have had a tilted moment from time to time. We also believe banning a players ability to chat is ineffective at stopping full blown rage because that player can still see the "innocent" criticism of their teammates. Some people are much better at being toxic than others, and do not get banned for comments like "Another feeding botlane" "Man this team is just way to heavy" "I wish this mid would learn their champ" "refund that skin" Ect ect. These comments don't get banned, but they do incite rage in other players. Riot has never attempted to shield sensitive players from the League of Legends community. Now you can argue that players will just tilt in more destructive ways, but we all know tilt happens to every player time to time, and it is rarely banned if it is under control. If it is true that Riot does know their permabans are ineffective, and it can be proven that Riot also knows these bans are more profitable than not banning, there is a case to sue. Especially if Riots current system is a root cause of the tilt. For instance, why did they add emotes? For a community so sensitive to player on player cyber bullying, why allow players a way to taunt eachother more? Why not remove profanity from the chat system all together by removing the ability to take off the filter? Why is there almost no effort to reform the system all together, when the most common complaint about this game is rage. Ill let you think about it, but I wouldn't be so sure that Riot is just this innocent company that can't stop these evil toxic ragers.
: Every time I come back to league it's more toxic.
There are a few reasons for this. The first one being that toxic players are not punished properly. 1st offense - 10 game "Chat Restriction" (you can still chat, just in a limited fashion) 2nd offense - 25 game "Chat Restriction" 3rd offense - 14 day ban 4th offense - permaban An independent study being conducted by students from UC Hastings, UC Berkeley, and San Francisco State are finding that the majority of these players who are being permabanned simply remake accounts, and continue playing. The main issue causing most of the toxicity on the servers is the chat system provided by Riot Games, and they have never fully removed it from a toxic player. They have removed a single players ability to speak to other players, and they described this as ineffective, but they have never removed a players ability to see what other players are saying, and that is just as important at limiting a toxic players ability to disrupt games because if they cannot harass others, and cannot be harassed by others, than they are much less likely to behave in an out of control way in game. Many argue these players will just demonstrate their toxic behavior in other ways, but many people tilt while playing the game. Even if it's only for a couple mins after dying a couple times in a row. Rarely do players complain about this kind of tilt, because it is honestly natural to the sport, but people do complain about what people have to say about eachother over the chat system. I believe Riot understands their chat system is a huge cause to the problems on the servers, and I believe they understand permabanning accounts is ineffective at removing toxic players from the servers. I also believe there is money to be made because this independent study is showing that most of the players who have spent more than 100 dollars on their accounts that are banned, remake those accounts and rebuy skins that they have already purchased.
: i've spent over 5k on this game accross 4 accounts all which have been 14 day banned and 1 which has been perma'd
> [{quoted}](name=L9 Yuri,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0012,timestamp=2018-09-19T05:58:46.250+0000) > > i've spent over 5k on this game accross 4 accounts > all which have been 14 day banned and 1 which has been perma'd You are not alone. We have found many people who owned more than 2 accounts and continue to purchase from Riot, but have to be afraid of a permaban because they might lose their temper in a game, and say something they shouldn't in the chat system they can't get rid of. Sure they could /muteall, but most of the players dealing with this forget to do this every game, or feel like they won't rage this game. We think players experiencing this usually have manic tendencies. They go into the game in a very good mood, but as the game progresses, and either they or other people start losing, and suddenly the chat system explodes, and the toxic player in question cannot help but become a part of this pointless conversation. If they were unable to criticize or be criticized by their team, we believe it would solve the problem for most of these players like yourself. These players may still tilt a bit, or play less than they are capable of when they are losing, but this is a very common thing on the servers, and most people aren't being banned for it. People aren't banned for poor play, they are banned for talking smack, and we know Riot is capable of finding a better solution than the one they have.
: Looks like a bunch of riot fan boys are down voting this important topic
> [{quoted}](name=Fue1edbythc,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0013,timestamp=2018-09-19T14:51:57.030+0000) > > Looks like a bunch of riot fan boys are down voting this important topic We expected a lot of criticism because most players do not have this issue, but just because the players in question are a minority on the servers, does not give Riot the right to trample them ethically, or economically.
usul1202 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Heptagon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=001000010000,timestamp=2018-09-19T04:54:59.696+0000) > > I think you have your mind made up, and aren't interested in changing your opinion. I do appreciate your input though. I wouldnt still be responding if i werent interested in discussion (and avoiding test prep...../sigh). However, it is mildly infuriating to attempt to have a discussion with someone who will press a point till you've made it clearly, then drop it and go to a different argument instead of continuing to follow it and incorporate it into the discussion.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0010000100000000,timestamp=2018-09-19T05:55:44.337+0000) > > I wouldnt still be responding if i werent interested in discussion (and avoiding test prep...../sigh). However, it is mildly infuriating to attempt to have a discussion with someone who will press a point till you've made it clearly, then drop it and go to a different argument instead of continuing to follow it and incorporate it into the discussion. Okay usul I'm not meaning to ignore your points, so let me see if I understand you correctly. You think Riot is banning accounts because there is no feasible way for them to reform, or make a toxic account safe for the servers without hindering gameplay. You also feel that people who spend money on these accounts deserve no accommodation from Riot. You believe their policies on products is in no way unfair or a violation to consumer ethics. You also believe the in game chat system provided by Riot games does nothing to incite toxic behavior from players, and these players would behave this way with or without the chat system. I personally disagree, and the group I am representing is working towards proving that not only does Riot games know their current policies on banning accounts is ineffective at removing toxic players from their servers, but Riot Games also understands that by permabanning accounts they are pushing players to create new accounts, and that many of these players more than likely will end up repurchasing products already purchased because of this disciplinary policy. If Riot knows their policy is profitable, and ineffective at solving the issues it aims to solve, then it can legally be viewed as an online racket. Riot refuses to release data to show this isn't the case, and that only pushes the suspicion further. The independent study our group is in the process of finishing, so far gives evidence to our claim. We also do not feel small inefficiencies in our study effect the overall outcome very much. We are not targeting just one age group, or one gender. The only area our study is lacking in is gathering information from players who are not enrolled in a school system, but we are seeking other outlets to find more players, and we will take note of the possible difference there could be. Overall we feel our purpose to be justified, and we do not aim to put down, or ridicule people who do not agree with us, as it is well within your rights as a human to disagree.
usul1202 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Knickolas,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0010,timestamp=2018-09-19T00:47:50.064+0000) > > It kinda sucks that people are downvoting the thread without actually reading it or understanding it, assuming it's just a "I spent money so I should get my account back" thread when it's not. > > Hell, if you're like me then you're simply informing or advocating for fairness when you yourself haven't even been a victim of Riot's systems (I often talk about unfair chat bans despite never having been punished for such on any account). Many of us have replied and comprehended his argument, it's just a really bad one. It doesn't help that he has 0 clue how the IFS works and made a plethora of factually false claims as supporting evidence. Shit like that leads to quick down votes.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00100001,timestamp=2018-09-19T03:16:34.946+0000) > > Many of us have replied and comprehended his argument, it's just a really bad one. It doesn't help that he has 0 clue how the IFS works and made a plethora of factually false claims as supporting evidence. Shit like that leads to quick down votes. I think you have your mind made up, and aren't interested in changing your opinion. I do appreciate your input though.
: It kinda sucks that people are downvoting the thread without actually reading it or understanding it, assuming it's just a "I spent money so I should get my account back" thread when it's not. Hell, if you're like me then you're simply informing or advocating for fairness when you yourself haven't even been a victim of Riot's systems (I often talk about unfair chat bans despite never having been punished for such on any account).
> [{quoted}](name=Knickolas,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0010,timestamp=2018-09-19T00:47:50.064+0000) > > It kinda sucks that people are downvoting the thread without actually reading it or understanding it, assuming it's just a "I spent money so I should get my account back" thread when it's not. > > Hell, if you're like me then you're simply informing or advocating for fairness when you yourself haven't even been a victim of Riot's systems (I often talk about unfair chat bans despite never having been punished for such on any account). Thank you Knickolas.
: > [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000700000000000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T19:23:09.945+0000) > > they removed players ability to contribute to chat effectively permanently, the only reasonable punishment i can see on your train of thought and it failed. it gave no incentive to reform and it led to an increase in gameplay toxicity such as trolling and griefing. What on earth would they gain by taking away someones ability to see chat (which punishes the team) or, if you'd like to try again, what other chat based punishment should they try? > > Most players use chat responsibly, it would be absolutely ridiculous to set a punishment that hits other players. > > *THEY HAVE TRIED JUST CHAT BANS*. it did not work. It made the game worse, and players did not reform. There are, in fact, there are *multiple* ways that players can self chat ban themselves though and either remove their ability to type in game or even put their chatbox off screen so it isnt possible to see flame. players have a way to deal with their problems, its on them to fix. Riot should not have to cater to rule breakers who make the game less enjoyable for the average player. > > Since we seem to talk in circles, and I do not want any confusion, i'll condense this into one, unobfuscatable sentence: "What reform policy would you put in place that Riot has not already tried, that promotes reform, AND DOES NOT PUNISH OTHER PLAYERS?" That isn't good enough. They can't just limit or remove a players ability to contribute to chat. They have to remove them seeing it as well because this isn't the most friendly community, and people get triggered off of things other people say. How we manage that is different from player to player. Some ignore it and report. Some mute and dont report. Some get really pissed off and go on a keyboard warrior rant. Those people end up getting their accounts banned eventually. Some it takes a few months, others a few years, but they'll be banned at some point with never been given a chance to play the game without chat.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0007000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000000e,timestamp=2018-09-18T23:24:58.833+0000) > > Well, if you remember, riot tried infinite chat bans. it led to trolling and griefing. Which is worse. now your customers are stealing from your good customers. (I've typed this like, 5 times to you now, c'mon.....) > > You can dig through tantrums posts, it's linked here every now and then. Due to a few factors that i have repeatedly stated and that you've begun ignoring (i'm assuming, since you stopped responding back to them), i believe riot's over yours. > > We don't know it. I personally don't see toxicity that much in games. Even in ranked, and my elo is rather notorious for it. I quite enjoy that I had a game this season where i went 0/15, worst game in years, and didnt get flamed. I know two people with banned accounts. one didnt come back, the other did, and is far less toxic now out of fear of getting rebanned. > > I think a massive amount of anecdotal evidence has biased your opinions, and has lead you to completely ignore a lot of factors in this. You've slowly stopped responding to my factual points about how your research lacks significance and have instead jumped to 'well, 50% of assholes returning is still pretty high'. You also never answered the question. > > Would you, or would you not, ban the 1% of customers in the above scenario? They never tried perma chat bans to where the player cannot see other peoples chat, and people who are raging in chat are also trolling, or inting as they yell obscenities at you. Most of the time it's because you commented on their bad play and they saw it. All of this is irrelevant though. Banning players doesn't remove them from the game, banning their chat doesn't remove them from the game, but it does limit their ability to be toxic. To your question, they aren't banning the 1% of customers, they are removing their accounts (awards and achievements) so they can go make another account, and continue to be a problem on the servers, and continue to purchase (awards and achievements) that don't even belong to them. It's a racket my friend. That much I am almost certain of.
: > [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000700000000000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T19:23:09.945+0000) > > they removed players ability to contribute to chat effectively permanently, the only reasonable punishment i can see on your train of thought and it failed. it gave no incentive to reform and it led to an increase in gameplay toxicity such as trolling and griefing. What on earth would they gain by taking away someones ability to see chat (which punishes the team) or, if you'd like to try again, what other chat based punishment should they try? > > Most players use chat responsibly, it would be absolutely ridiculous to set a punishment that hits other players. > > *THEY HAVE TRIED JUST CHAT BANS*. it did not work. It made the game worse, and players did not reform. There are, in fact, there are *multiple* ways that players can self chat ban themselves though and either remove their ability to type in game or even put their chatbox off screen so it isnt possible to see flame. players have a way to deal with their problems, its on them to fix. Riot should not have to cater to rule breakers who make the game less enjoyable for the average player. > > Since we seem to talk in circles, and I do not want any confusion, i'll condense this into one, unobfuscatable sentence: "What reform policy would you put in place that Riot has not already tried, that promotes reform, AND DOES NOT PUNISH OTHER PLAYERS?" That isn't good enough. They can't just limit or remove a players ability to contribute to chat. They have to remove them seeing it as well because this isn't the most friendly community, and people get triggered off of things other people say. How we manage that is different from player to player. Some ignore it and report. Some mute and dont report. Some get really pissed off and go on a keyboard warrior rant. Those people end up getting their accounts banned eventually. Some it takes a few months, others a few years, but they'll be banned at some point with never been given a chance to play the game without chat.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0007000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000000b,timestamp=2018-09-18T22:32:53.803+0000) > > Okay, identify the disconnect between what I am saying and what your idea is. Mute all is an opt out. Just like disabling your enter key, or moving your chat box off screen/setting its size to 0, or just ignoring it. The difference is that one is a player not playing with the team, and the other is riot taking away my ability to work with a player. > > Banning does stop accounts that never come back from being toxic, but it's also not designed to stop the returners. After you reach permaban status riot says they don't want you playing the game anymore, they show you the door. It's not feasible for them to prevent you from coming back, since they can't ip/mac/SSN ban, so they don't have a huge choice. So they can: ban you, where their numbers show a majority leave, or they can let you stay with restrictions and lower game quality for the unpunished by removing teamwork/increasing trolling/griefing. > > You're correct, they are a business. You're a law student, let's say you get your own law firm. All your customers work in the same building, and 1% are assholes who piss off all your other customers. If you cease their contract, 50% of them will never return, the others would open up a new one. You do not have the option of stopping the new contract, and keeping them from interacting with other customers hurts the other companies work productivities. What do you do? That does not change the fact that Riot could do a chat ban, and not take accounts away, which would ensure 99% of the players who have this happen to them, never go and abuse chat in game, where as your numbers that you claim Riot released have a 50% return rate, which is still pretty damn high when you think about how many players that is still terrorizing the rift. Also where do you get these numbers. As far as our research is concerned, Riot has never ever released actual numbers that show how many banned accounts have returning players. It is in their interest to make you believe that most do not come back, but if you study addiction enough, you'd know they come back. It is why we are so sure of this study, and it is why we are so sure Riots battle plan here is to abuse a situation that can be abused. They don't make people rage, but they do incite it with their chat system, emotes, and other ways they give players to taunt and ridicule eachother. They then ban those who cross the line knowing more then likely they will just come back in a different shirt, and spend more money. You see people buy a lot of skins, and they will occasionally buy new skins on champions they rarely if never play, but players who do buy skins usually always buy skins for the champions they play most. If a player returns and decides they will continue to spend money with Riot, they will rebuy the skins they have lost on their favorite champions. It's an economic punishment, that can be solved in a more practical way, but even if there isn't a better way to solve it, if Riot is removing these accounts for monetary gain, that is a legal violation. As I said before you may not agree banning comms from toxic players is the best solution, but it is the least conflicting decision. To do what they are doing is a way to try and eliminate toxicity, but it is an ineffective way to remove toxicity. They know it, we know it. In case you haven't logged into a game in awhile, toxicity is on the rage. Account banning is on the rage. Do we just have all these new players that are all raging? Or are these people that have been banned before. I think it is very likely they are people who have been banned before, and they may be banned again, and they will be back again.
: > [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000700000000000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T19:23:09.945+0000) > > they removed players ability to contribute to chat effectively permanently, the only reasonable punishment i can see on your train of thought and it failed. it gave no incentive to reform and it led to an increase in gameplay toxicity such as trolling and griefing. What on earth would they gain by taking away someones ability to see chat (which punishes the team) or, if you'd like to try again, what other chat based punishment should they try? > > Most players use chat responsibly, it would be absolutely ridiculous to set a punishment that hits other players. > > *THEY HAVE TRIED JUST CHAT BANS*. it did not work. It made the game worse, and players did not reform. There are, in fact, there are *multiple* ways that players can self chat ban themselves though and either remove their ability to type in game or even put their chatbox off screen so it isnt possible to see flame. players have a way to deal with their problems, its on them to fix. Riot should not have to cater to rule breakers who make the game less enjoyable for the average player. > > Since we seem to talk in circles, and I do not want any confusion, i'll condense this into one, unobfuscatable sentence: "What reform policy would you put in place that Riot has not already tried, that promotes reform, AND DOES NOT PUNISH OTHER PLAYERS?" That isn't good enough. They can't just limit or remove a players ability to contribute to chat. They have to remove them seeing it as well because this isn't the most friendly community, and people get triggered off of things other people say. How we manage that is different from player to player. Some ignore it and report. Some mute and dont report. Some get really pissed off and go on a keyboard warrior rant. Those people end up getting their accounts banned eventually. Some it takes a few months, others a few years, but they'll be banned at some point with never been given a chance to play the game without chat.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00070000000000000000000000000001000000000000000000000008,timestamp=2018-09-18T21:04:19.507+0000) > > So, you admit that I have valid points there, and that gameplay would be worsened by your fix. So, we can at least partially sum your idea into "these people broke the rules, we are going to punish other players to accommodate them". That is absurd and I as a player am glad riot didn't even experiment in that area. It is the wrong approach, and not only does it punish others, but it does nothing to incite reform. Your points are valid, but that does not mean they are correct because if it was so important, /muteall would not be a thing right? Nothing this game does incites reform, and most of the players that have been banned are returning to the game. Banning accounts doesn't stop toxic people from playing League of Legends, or incite any reform. Yet they continue to do it, even claiming "toxic players hurt their revenue, but they just can't find a way to keep these people off of the game. Did I mention the new odyssey skins are out?" Love League of Legends? Got banned? Better remake, and rebuy. It's a racket my friend. They now what they're doing. You gotta remember Riot is supposed to be in service of its customers. They are a business, and yes they want to promote healthy gameplay, but customers should matter. IF they are taking your money, they owe you a service, and they shouldn't be taking property away from people because of the waiver they have them sign, especially when a good chunk of these people couldn't apply for a credit card. There are are other options to keep those people with their product, while also limiting or removing their ability to make the product less enjoyable for others. Further to your point, I highly doubt anyone would stop playing this game, if they banned chat services for people refusing to reform toxic chat behaviors.
Prandine (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Heptagon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000e000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T20:43:07.930+0000) > > I wasn't saying you banned my account, I thought you understood the rules on the boards, but I guess I can see as I overlook what I said that you wouldn't know my situation. It was supposed to say I expected more from an advisor. Advisors, Moderators, Heralds and the like are volunteers and as such we can't see and/or know everything all the time.
> [{quoted}](name=Prandine,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000e0000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T20:55:27.525+0000) > > Advisors, Moderators, Heralds and the like are volunteers and as such we can't see or know everything all the time. Agreed, and I apologize for assuming as such.
Prandine (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Heptagon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000e0000000000000001,timestamp=2018-09-18T20:29:30.774+0000) > > I wasn't trying to imply you did, but I thought as an advisor you would understand that I am unable to reveal more information through the boards. I did discuss this with them, and they agreed to unban the account, but we had to stick to the guidelines they gave me. If that's the case then mind telling me the meaning of the "Sad I would expect for from an advisor." comment?
> [{quoted}](name=Prandine,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000e00000000000000010000,timestamp=2018-09-18T20:33:04.976+0000) > > If that's the case then mind telling me the meaning of the "Sad I would expect for from an advisor." comment? I wasn't saying you banned my account, I thought you understood the rules on the boards, but I guess I can see as I overlook what I said that you wouldn't know my situation. It was supposed to say I expected more from an advisor.
: > [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000700000000000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T19:23:09.945+0000) > > they removed players ability to contribute to chat effectively permanently, the only reasonable punishment i can see on your train of thought and it failed. it gave no incentive to reform and it led to an increase in gameplay toxicity such as trolling and griefing. What on earth would they gain by taking away someones ability to see chat (which punishes the team) or, if you'd like to try again, what other chat based punishment should they try? > > Most players use chat responsibly, it would be absolutely ridiculous to set a punishment that hits other players. > > *THEY HAVE TRIED JUST CHAT BANS*. it did not work. It made the game worse, and players did not reform. There are, in fact, there are *multiple* ways that players can self chat ban themselves though and either remove their ability to type in game or even put their chatbox off screen so it isnt possible to see flame. players have a way to deal with their problems, its on them to fix. Riot should not have to cater to rule breakers who make the game less enjoyable for the average player. > > Since we seem to talk in circles, and I do not want any confusion, i'll condense this into one, unobfuscatable sentence: "What reform policy would you put in place that Riot has not already tried, that promotes reform, AND DOES NOT PUNISH OTHER PLAYERS?" That isn't good enough. They can't just limit or remove a players ability to contribute to chat. They have to remove them seeing it as well because this isn't the most friendly community, and people get triggered off of things other people say. How we manage that is different from player to player. Some ignore it and report. Some mute and dont report. Some get really pissed off and go on a keyboard warrior rant. Those people end up getting their accounts banned eventually. Some it takes a few months, others a few years, but they'll be banned at some point with never been given a chance to play the game without chat.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00070000000000000000000000000001000000000000000000000006,timestamp=2018-09-18T20:06:34.782+0000) > > People absolutely get banned for things said in lobby, have been for quite a while now. And in post game. Seriously, are yall doing your 'research' without reading these boards at all? We coulda saved you a lot of time. It's automated, which means that every single report is thoroughly and completely looked through. No underpaid intern skipping over stuff, no one rushing to fill a quota. Thus, you say something wrong, it gets caught. > > I'm separating this, since you've missed it the other times it's posted in this thread: multiple reports act the same as 1. The person who coded the system has come on here, shown the code, and said without a shadow of a doubt, that there is no benefit of 9 reports over 1 for the IFS. It is not possible to get a chat ban based on group reporting. > > The number of misplaced chat bans is very low, and riot tries their best to be quick fixing them. It happens infrequently on the boards. I recommend going back through the pages and compiling a list of unfair, unlifted bans. It will be quite small. > > How is that a copout? It's a small percentage that would make the game way worse. I don't give a shit if they flame me, I'll mute them. They should mute people that trigger them. But if because of their actions I can't make a 2v2 lane work together, especially as an aggressive supp whose strengths are in lane dominance and team play, I'm fucked in those games. 2 of my 3 biggest non-micro strengths are very communication reliant. Just because someone's toxic doesn't mean they can't work with a team. Your idea would prevent that though, which isn't an acceptable solution in a team game. Well I didn't do research onto any of that, so it was an assumption of mine, but I do know the system is automated. It's your opinion that it would make the game "way worse," but not for the people in question. I understand you do have some valid points here, but what we are saying is that what Riot is doing is not acceptable behavior for running a business. I have my biases as a player which are effecting the things I personally am saying on here, but the message I am trying to convey for my groups research and action into this, is that we are on track of creating a study that will give us legal grounds to give validity to the argument that Riot is running a Racket. I believe they know, or have a very good idea how many people recreate accounts, and how many of them rebuy skins. They have all the numbers, but they won't share this information with us, or you. But if we can prove it is profitable to ban accounts, there is legal justification to accuse them of a type of racketeering.
Prandine (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Heptagon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000e00000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T20:08:41.179+0000) > > Hey Heptagon, > Your removed content: > Have you had an account banned with more than 100 dollars in RP purchased on the account? > What you are offering amounts to legal services, even if they are free. It is against the rules to advertise products and services on the Boards. > As a result of your actions, we have decided to suspend your Boards account for 24 hours. At this time, we ask that you take the time to review the Boards Universal Rules and applicable sub-board guidelines. Future violations may result in further restrictions to your Boards privileges. > If you have any questions about this moderation action, don't hesitate to reach out to the Boards Moderation Team via: > The NA Boards Discord > The Discuss the Boards sub-board > -- Ulanopo > > After talking with the moderator this post needed to be changed since we are offering legal services to people with these issues, and therefor cannot reveal ourselves, or our sources, but I have done the best I can to explain the information gathered to those who are interested without violating the rules given to me by the moderator. I am also in the process of speaking with a moderator about how much I can reveal. > > Sad I would expect for from an advisor. I had nothing to do with the suspension of your account, and was unaware of such an action before you brought it up. That's something you can talk to the other mods about in the [Moderation Discord](https://discordapp.com/channels/230113905668653056/315677006358380544) server.
> [{quoted}](name=Prandine,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000e000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T20:20:37.473+0000) > > I had nothing to do with the suspension of your account, and was unaware of such an action before you brought it up. That's something you can talk to the other mods about in the [Moderation Discord](https://discordapp.com/channels/230113905668653056/315677006358380544) server. I wasn't trying to imply you did, but I thought as an advisor you would understand that I am unable to reveal more information through the boards. I did discuss this with them, and they agreed to unban the account, but we had to stick to the guidelines they gave me.
Prandine (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Nirvanâ,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000e,timestamp=2018-09-18T18:56:23.845+0000) > > why is everyone downvoting this ? if we want a change in this game where is the support ? to many board moderators If you read through the thread it's pretty obvious why. The OP has made a ton of [false] claims but refuses to provide sources to back up said claims when asked to do so, instead making a ton of excuses as to why they won't do so. Not only that but their overall argument is one that has been done to death and debunked many times. Combine all these together and it's easy to see why so many are against the OP. Having a discussion is fine, even when that involves criticizing Riot, but it's a two-way street.
> [{quoted}](name=Prandine,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000e0000,timestamp=2018-09-18T19:33:11.374+0000) > > If you read through the thread it's pretty obvious why. The OP has made a ton of [false] claims but refuses to provide sources to back up said claims when asked to do so, instead making a ton of excuses as to why they won't do so. Not only that but their overall argument is one that has been done to death and debunked many times. Combine all these together and it's easy to see why so many are against the OP. > > Having a discussion is fine, even when that involves criticizing Riot, but it's a two-way street. Hey Heptagon, Your removed content: Have you had an account banned with more than 100 dollars in RP purchased on the account? What you are offering amounts to legal services, even if they are free. It is against the rules to advertise products and services on the Boards. As a result of your actions, we have decided to suspend your Boards account for 24 hours. At this time, we ask that you take the time to review the Boards Universal Rules and applicable sub-board guidelines. Future violations may result in further restrictions to your Boards privileges. If you have any questions about this moderation action, don't hesitate to reach out to the Boards Moderation Team via: The NA Boards Discord The Discuss the Boards sub-board -- Ulanopo After talking with the moderator this post needed to be changed since we are offering legal services to people with these issues, and therefor cannot reveal ourselves, or our sources because our sources are revealing, but I have done the best I can to explain the information gathered to those who are interested without violating the rules given to me by the moderator. I am also in the process of speaking with a moderator about how much I can reveal. Sad I would expect more from an advisor.
: > [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000700000000000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T19:23:09.945+0000) > > they removed players ability to contribute to chat effectively permanently, the only reasonable punishment i can see on your train of thought and it failed. it gave no incentive to reform and it led to an increase in gameplay toxicity such as trolling and griefing. What on earth would they gain by taking away someones ability to see chat (which punishes the team) or, if you'd like to try again, what other chat based punishment should they try? > > Most players use chat responsibly, it would be absolutely ridiculous to set a punishment that hits other players. > > *THEY HAVE TRIED JUST CHAT BANS*. it did not work. It made the game worse, and players did not reform. There are, in fact, there are *multiple* ways that players can self chat ban themselves though and either remove their ability to type in game or even put their chatbox off screen so it isnt possible to see flame. players have a way to deal with their problems, its on them to fix. Riot should not have to cater to rule breakers who make the game less enjoyable for the average player. > > Since we seem to talk in circles, and I do not want any confusion, i'll condense this into one, unobfuscatable sentence: "What reform policy would you put in place that Riot has not already tried, that promotes reform, AND DOES NOT PUNISH OTHER PLAYERS?" That isn't good enough. They can't just limit or remove a players ability to contribute to chat. They have to remove them seeing it as well because this isn't the most friendly community, and people get triggered off of things other people say. How we manage that is different from player to player. Some ignore it and report. Some mute and dont report. Some get really pissed off and go on a keyboard warrior rant. Those people end up getting their accounts banned eventually. Some it takes a few months, others a few years, but they'll be banned at some point with never been given a chance to play the game without chat.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00070000000000000000000000000001000000000000000000000003,timestamp=2018-09-18T19:39:58.391+0000) > > It punishes other players............ i cannot coordinate with my team on a team game. that 100% punishes me for others actions. > > Also, the concept of 'mid or feed' entirely shits on your argument that its chat based. people come into lobbies with 0 previous interactions who are more interested in their gameplay experience than anyone else's enjoyment. > > you also have 0 data to support 'it would be effective for most toxic players'. if it were, they would use the options that are available to remove their own chat and only use pings. You have 0 data to prove this argument wrong. Also almost no one gets banned for things they say in lobby, unless someone is mad enough to screen shot it and open up a ticket. Remember it's not like some guy looks at every report made on the servers. It's all automated, and multiple reports are usually the only ones that are punished. If one person reports one guy it does nothing unless that one guy has been getting reports in most of his games. Some people get chat bans even though they've made no chat violations because other people just report them, and their problem is bad play, but they get reported for everything. Saying you can't communicate with your teammates is a copout though. These people would be a small percentage of the League of Legends community, and more importantly, you wouldn't want to communicate with these people. They don't need to see other people flame them, and you don't need to be flamed by them.
Keyru (NA)
: Boards Moderation Discord Verification
: > [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000700000000000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T19:23:09.945+0000) > > they removed players ability to contribute to chat effectively permanently, the only reasonable punishment i can see on your train of thought and it failed. it gave no incentive to reform and it led to an increase in gameplay toxicity such as trolling and griefing. What on earth would they gain by taking away someones ability to see chat (which punishes the team) or, if you'd like to try again, what other chat based punishment should they try? > > Most players use chat responsibly, it would be absolutely ridiculous to set a punishment that hits other players. > > *THEY HAVE TRIED JUST CHAT BANS*. it did not work. It made the game worse, and players did not reform. There are, in fact, there are *multiple* ways that players can self chat ban themselves though and either remove their ability to type in game or even put their chatbox off screen so it isnt possible to see flame. players have a way to deal with their problems, its on them to fix. Riot should not have to cater to rule breakers who make the game less enjoyable for the average player. > > Since we seem to talk in circles, and I do not want any confusion, i'll condense this into one, unobfuscatable sentence: "What reform policy would you put in place that Riot has not already tried, that promotes reform, AND DOES NOT PUNISH OTHER PLAYERS?" That isn't good enough. They can't just limit or remove a players ability to contribute to chat. They have to remove them seeing it as well because this isn't the most friendly community, and people get triggered off of things other people say. How we manage that is different from player to player. Some ignore it and report. Some mute and dont report. Some get really pissed off and go on a keyboard warrior rant. Those people end up getting their accounts banned eventually. Some it takes a few months, others a few years, but they'll be banned at some point with never been given a chance to play the game without chat.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00070000000000000000000000000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T19:31:25.745+0000) > > you ignored me, so i'll try again: > > Since we seem to talk in circles, and I do not want any confusion, i'll condense this into one, unobfuscatable sentence: "What reform policy would you put in place that Riot has not already tried, that promotes reform, AND DOES NOT PUNISH OTHER PLAYERS?" Completely removing the chat feature of a toxic player in game. they can only ping but they won't see anyones comments, and they can't make any comments. This will not punish other players. It will also not remove digital property from players. It would be effective for most toxic players. Much more effective than what they do now. People are still toxic, the game is still heated, people still are rude to eachother. It's all because of that chat system.
usul1202 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Heptagon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00070000000000000000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T19:10:12.015+0000) > > We're not saying we can legally make Riot doing anything of that sort. I wasn't saying we should punish an entire botlane or anything like that. What we are saying is the fact that Riot has never attempted to remove chat services from a player who has shown frequent chat problems in the game. This in our opinion is because they have no interest in actually solving these problems because there is monetary gain to be had by banning accounts with chat problems. I do see the relevance to what you're saying about how chat can be useful in strategizing, but most players wouldn't have this problem right? > > > If Riot actually wanted to reduce toxicity removing chat features from extremely toxic players would be a relevant solution to the problem. The fact that they are more likely to just ban an account rather than look for other solutions tells us they have a motive for banning accounts. Because as I mentioned people will remake accounts. Those same "toxic" people will have a chance to be in your games again once they level up. But if you ban their chat, they aren't going to remake so they can chat. Not if their half way to Plat and they got all their skins on here. No these people play to play, they are toxic in chat because they suck at chatting while playing. They tilt and they turn to the keyboard sometimes. I know I'm not denying it. I've done it. I'd bet you have to, although I can't be sure. I've gotten so frustrated at people yelling at me for losing lane, and I just tell em to go F%^$ themselves, but since I lost, I'm getting the toxic report, not my team harassing me for losing lane of course. They didn't use profanity, so they are fine. > > Those are my personal experiences with this game, but I am representing a movement for justice on this because the more we look into it, the more we are seeing the Racket. they removed players ability to contribute to chat effectively permanently, the only reasonable punishment i can see on your train of thought and it failed. it gave no incentive to reform and it led to an increase in gameplay toxicity such as trolling and griefing. What on earth would they gain by taking away someones ability to see chat (which punishes the team) or, if you'd like to try again, what other chat based punishment should they try? Most players use chat responsibly, it would be absolutely ridiculous to set a punishment that hits other players. *THEY HAVE TRIED JUST CHAT BANS*. it did not work. It made the game worse, and players did not reform. There are, in fact, there are *multiple* ways that players can self chat ban themselves though and either remove their ability to type in game or even put their chatbox off screen so it isnt possible to see flame. players have a way to deal with their problems, its on them to fix. Riot should not have to cater to rule breakers who make the game less enjoyable for the average player. Since we seem to talk in circles, and I do not want any confusion, i'll condense this into one, unobfuscatable sentence: "What reform policy would you put in place that Riot has not already tried, that promotes reform, AND DOES NOT PUNISH OTHER PLAYERS?"
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000700000000000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T19:23:09.945+0000) > > they removed players ability to contribute to chat effectively permanently, the only reasonable punishment i can see on your train of thought and it failed. it gave no incentive to reform and it led to an increase in gameplay toxicity such as trolling and griefing. What on earth would they gain by taking away someones ability to see chat (which punishes the team) or, if you'd like to try again, what other chat based punishment should they try? > > Most players use chat responsibly, it would be absolutely ridiculous to set a punishment that hits other players. > > *THEY HAVE TRIED JUST CHAT BANS*. it did not work. It made the game worse, and players did not reform. There are, in fact, there are *multiple* ways that players can self chat ban themselves though and either remove their ability to type in game or even put their chatbox off screen so it isnt possible to see flame. players have a way to deal with their problems, its on them to fix. Riot should not have to cater to rule breakers who make the game less enjoyable for the average player. > > Since we seem to talk in circles, and I do not want any confusion, i'll condense this into one, unobfuscatable sentence: "What reform policy would you put in place that Riot has not already tried, that promotes reform, AND DOES NOT PUNISH OTHER PLAYERS?" That isn't good enough. They can't just limit or remove a players ability to contribute to chat. They have to remove them seeing it as well because this isn't the most friendly community, and people get triggered off of things other people say. How we manage that is different from player to player. Some ignore it and report. Some mute and dont report. Some get really pissed off and go on a keyboard warrior rant. Those people end up getting their accounts banned eventually. Some it takes a few months, others a few years, but they'll be banned at some point with never been given a chance to play the game without chat.
usul1202 (NA)
: Oh, I thought you were making a case for a lawsuit, which would require much more rigor in your data collection. Once again, you've ignored my question about your sampling method and how you avoid a biased sample group. Care to enlighten me?
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003,timestamp=2018-09-18T19:05:12.128+0000) > > how is it not bad data? it directly ignores a *very important* part of the data set. People that leave league are going to stop consuming league media. it will fall out of their search history and their ad preferences. they will stop noticing signs put up about it. They will have no incentive to talk about it since it was a month/6 months/a year ago, and who fills out a survey for a game they don't play anymore? people who are emotionally invested. So your small portion of respondents would be those, massively biasing their portion towards negative responses. > > Meanwhile, riots statistic is that a large majority do not return. They have the capability to track this, multiple times tantrum has come onto these boards and accurately stated 'you've had X accounts banned', they clearly know when you come back. > > "but what if they're lying?" they have no incentive to lie. they're effectively immune to lawsuits like what you may or may not be filing, and their ban policy *was decided by the community*. they release a reasonable amount of info about their punishment system, and infrequently post about its updates. everything they have said that we can verify has been, and on the infrequent times that there has been an issue riot has been quick to correct it. > > Ultimately, the only people with the correct data have given us no reason to expect them to lie, nor any precedence that they would. regardless, your data completely ignores what is supposed to be a very large, important group which your sampling method will never reach. Thus, if your data were about 'the toxicity in league in s8 vs s3 before IFS' i would say you are collecting usable data. This topic though, your data is worthless. The data is not bad because it is being gathered in an ethical fashion from real life league of legends players. There is no coercion, and our bias although relevant is not conflicting the data, it is simply limiting it. Also of the 18 that told us they stopped playing, they were very angry about the ban. Most of them had spent money on the game, and they felt robbed. I personally believe people who have been permabanned and stopped playing would love an outlet to discuss their anger on these topics.
Nirvanâ (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Heptagon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000c0000,timestamp=2018-09-18T18:44:30.814+0000) > > Your account got banned for one single game? And this is the chat feed. I would like a screen shot of this. If your on pc just press control and the print screen button and it will take a screen shot. It'll be saved in your documents. i have a screen shot but how do i post it to the forms sorry im not on here much i see where i can attach a link but its a screenshot saved on my desktop
> [{quoted}](name=Nirvanâ,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000c00000001,timestamp=2018-09-18T18:58:45.268+0000) > > i have a screen shot but how do i post it to the forms sorry im not on here much i see where i can attach a link but its a screenshot saved on my desktop I'm not sure how to post pictures in here honestly. I'm not a frequent board user myself, and the reason I'm on here is because most people involved in this don't use the boards at all. A couple of us don't even play League, but if what you're saying is true, it really speaks to what we are trying to prove. That Riot is banning accounts in hopes those people remake which most eventually do, and then rebuy.
usul1202 (NA)
: There is absolutely 0 evidence that "most players get triggered by chat", and my own anecdotal evidence is almost entirely otherwise. Still, I bring up the point: why am I punished for my adc being an asshole? Now I can't tell him "if I land e at 6 I can 1 shot, tag for assist" "I'm all inning when we ding 4, we'll hit 2 minions early" "let's inhib then immediately baron, no recall for speed". Now instead of punishing one player who broke the rules, you're punishing 4 people that did not. That's absurd and no legal justification will make a company do that.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0007000000000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T18:52:43.895+0000) > > There is absolutely 0 evidence that "most players get triggered by chat", and my own anecdotal evidence is almost entirely otherwise. Still, I bring up the point: why am I punished for my adc being an asshole? Now I can't tell him "if I land e at 6 I can 1 shot, tag for assist" "I'm all inning when we ding 4, we'll hit 2 minions early" "let's inhib then immediately baron, no recall for speed". Now instead of punishing one player who broke the rules, you're punishing 4 people that did not. That's absurd and no legal justification will make a company do that. We're not saying we can legally make Riot doing anything of that sort. I wasn't saying we should punish an entire botlane or anything like that. What we are saying is the fact that Riot has never attempted to remove chat services from a player who has shown frequent chat problems in the game. This in our opinion is because they have no interest in actually solving these problems because there is monetary gain to be had by banning accounts with chat problems. I do see the relevance to what you're saying about how chat can be useful in strategizing, but most players wouldn't have this problem right? If Riot actually wanted to reduce toxicity removing chat features from extremely toxic players would be a relevant solution to the problem. The fact that they are more likely to just ban an account rather than look for other solutions tells us they have a motive for banning accounts. Because as I mentioned people will remake accounts. Those same "toxic" people will have a chance to be in your games again once they level up. But if you ban their chat, they aren't going to remake so they can chat. Not if their half way to Plat and they got all their skins on here. No these people play to play, they are toxic in chat because they suck at chatting while playing. They tilt and they turn to the keyboard sometimes. I know I'm not denying it. I've done it. I'd bet you have to, although I can't be sure. I've gotten so frustrated at people yelling at me for losing lane, and I just tell em to go F%^$ themselves, but since I lost, I'm getting the toxic report, not my team harassing me for losing lane of course. They didn't use profanity, so they are fine. Those are my personal experiences with this game, but I am representing a movement for justice on this because the more we look into it, the more we are seeing the Racket.
Saezio (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Heptagon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000b0000,timestamp=2018-09-18T18:37:09.547+0000) > > Maybe they should try removing a players chat system all together, and see if that stops valid reports from popping up on their account. I wonder why they don't? i would be fine with this if they let the rest of us decide if we want to have people with no chat in our games. tick a box in q or something to allow those players in our game or not.
> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000b00000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T18:40:53.238+0000) > > i would be fine with this if they let the rest of us decide if we want to have people with no chat in our games. tick a box in q or something to allow those players in our game or not. a lot of smart players /muteall at the start of a game. Most of us dont even notice em.
usul1202 (NA)
: Having money is a cause for getting burgled. No amount of money justifies getting robbed though. The chat system provides direct gameplay enhancement to *most* of the community, those that it does not riot attempts to remove. Due to the nature of the internet and the fact that in America it is not reasonable (or in some places legal I believe) to link accounts to ssns like Korea, riot is unable to stop players from coming back. Ip bans and Mac bans both have a plethora of well stated reasons for not being used. So, how should root remove players it does not want in the community? They're a private entity, they have the right to refuse service.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00070000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-09-18T18:42:10.013+0000) > > Having money is a cause for getting burgled. No amount of money justifies getting robbed though. The chat system provides direct gameplay enhancement to *most* of the community, those that it does not riot attempts to remove. > > Due to the nature of the internet and the fact that in America it is not reasonable (or in some places legal I believe) to link accounts to ssns like Korea, riot is unable to stop players from coming back. Ip bans and Mac bans both have a plethora of well stated reasons for not being used. So, how should root remove players it does not want in the community? They're a private entity, they have the right to refuse service. Yes, but my point usul is that these chat bans wouldn't effect most players just like account bans doesn't effect most players, but the ones who do get their accounts banned could of just had their chat privileges removed, and they would still retain their digital property, and be able to continue to play league of legends. Only a very small percentage of players would still cause problems after that because most players get triggered by the chat. That is our findings so far, and as a player myself I biasedly agree with these findings so far haha
Nirvanâ (NA)
: Game 1 Pre-Game DeâdMâu5: top In-Game DeâdMâu5: omfg ok ill go on bot DeâdMâu5: why are you flaming me over going to a lane i called? DeâdMâu5: i am going bot Deâ5dMâu: no know what you take bot alone DeâdMâu5: ill "chill out on top" DeâdMâu5: no im "chilling on top" DeâdMâu5: you that lvl of troll huh ? DeâdMâu5: i got you man your a troll apparently DeâdMâu5: lol your a troll DeâdMâu5: your "report iralia for bla bla bla" DeâdMâu5: you are the problem wit this game DeâdMâu5: report yi for being toxic af DeâdMâu5: and calling me the N word DeâdMâu5: rofl dude DeâdMâu5: yi started flaming me for going to a lane i called ???? lol DeâdMâu5: omg he is still flaming me over top lane wtf rofl DeâdMâu5: ? DeâdMâu5: hahah he sounds so nice in all chat DeâdMâu5: why haha would people even flame other team mates for going to a lane they call lol ? DeâdMâu5: oh god here comes the ego he got 2kills rofl DeâdMâu5: that is the riven top lane fed DeâdMâu5: the lane you guys flamed me for going to DeâdMâu5: the lane i called DeâdMâu5: report yi plz DeâdMâu5: look at yi DeâdMâu5: and be mad at me rofl he afk 2min now DeâdMâu5: besides that is not why i want to report you DeâdMâu5: you started screaming to report me for going to a lane i called DeâdMâu5: wow and now ahri in on it along with zyra DeâdMâu5: talk trash all you want you know yi is trolling all of us dude DeâdMâu5: oh i see you guys friends lol relax its just a game Post-Game DeâdMâu5: yi 1 single game if someone tells me how to post a screen shot on here ill put up he screenshot just like this guy 1 single game not 2 not 3 not even toxic but 1 single game
> [{quoted}](name=Nirvanâ,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000c,timestamp=2018-09-18T18:41:32.083+0000) > > Game 1 > Pre-Game > DeâdMâu5: top > In-Game > DeâdMâu5: omfg ok ill go on bot > DeâdMâu5: why are you flaming me over going to a lane i called? > DeâdMâu5: i am going bot > Deâ5dMâu: no know what you take bot alone > DeâdMâu5: ill "chill out on top" > DeâdMâu5: no im "chilling on top" > DeâdMâu5: you that lvl of troll huh ? > DeâdMâu5: i got you man your a troll apparently > DeâdMâu5: lol your a troll > DeâdMâu5: your "report iralia for bla bla bla" > DeâdMâu5: you are the problem wit this game > DeâdMâu5: report yi for being toxic af > DeâdMâu5: and calling me the N word > DeâdMâu5: rofl dude > DeâdMâu5: yi started flaming me for going to a lane i called ???? lol > DeâdMâu5: omg he is still flaming me over top lane wtf rofl > DeâdMâu5: ? > DeâdMâu5: hahah he sounds so nice in all chat > DeâdMâu5: why haha would people even flame other team mates for going to a lane they call lol ? > DeâdMâu5: oh god here comes the ego he got 2kills rofl > DeâdMâu5: that is the riven top lane fed > DeâdMâu5: the lane you guys flamed me for going to > DeâdMâu5: the lane i called > DeâdMâu5: report yi plz > DeâdMâu5: look at yi > DeâdMâu5: and be mad at me rofl he afk 2min now > DeâdMâu5: besides that is not why i want to report you > DeâdMâu5: you started screaming to report me for going to a lane i called > DeâdMâu5: wow and now ahri in on it along with zyra > DeâdMâu5: talk trash all you want you know yi is trolling all of us dude > DeâdMâu5: oh i see you guys friends lol relax its just a game > Post-Game > DeâdMâu5: yi > > > 1 single game if someone tells me how to post a screen shot on here ill put up he screenshot just like this guy 1 single game not 2 not 3 not even toxic but 1 single game Your account got banned for one single game? And this is the chat feed. I would like a screen shot of this. If your on pc just press control and the print screen button and it will take a screen shot. It'll be saved in your documents.
usul1202 (NA)
: Oh, I thought you were making a case for a lawsuit, which would require much more rigor in your data collection. Once again, you've ignored my question about your sampling method and how you avoid a biased sample group. Care to enlighten me?
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-09-18T18:37:16.600+0000) > > So, yea you're super biasing on an important part of your research: a player who is banned and does not continue to play is very unlikely to respond to such a request/survey. Now, you are correct that these people are very difficult to reach. However, you came to this board claiming "75% of banned players return", a statistic that holds no meaning since your research method provides no meaningful conclusion on the topic. You completely invalidate parts of your point using bad data to make assumptions and connections. It's not bad data, it's just not optimal data and we can't know for sure if banned players who stopped playing would not want to participate in a study like this. It could be done with more precision, but if the numbers were more like 60-40 you'd have a lot more validity in your point, but when the numbers are over 90 that means we are seeing a pattern. You could argue that this only applies to players who are in school, but in our opinion this is probably not a huge factor in our data.
Saezio (EUNE)
: You say most, many, a lot etc.... Show us numbers percentages (with how you acquired them of course). Also have you considered what percentage of the player base hasn't been banned? How do we do it? Are we just supposed to behave better than you and have the same treatment as you? You make zero sense mate. Your whole thread holds the same weight as a post made with a vote Should people that spent money be permabanned? Yes/No Everything else is just plagiarism since you provide 0 credits for all you say.
> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000500000002,timestamp=2018-09-18T18:25:11.051+0000) > > You say most, many, a lot etc.... Show us numbers percentages (with how you acquired them of course). Also have you considered what percentage of the player base hasn't been banned? How do we do it? Are we just supposed to behave better than you and have the same treatment as you? You make zero sense mate. > Your whole thread holds the same weight as a post made with a vote > Should people that spent money be permabanned? Yes/No > Everything else is just plagiarism since you provide 0 credits for all you say. if you actually read what was written, and read the thread a lot of these questions you have would be answered.
Saezio (EUNE)
: Maybe riot should not permaban toxic players just remove their access to the play button :)
> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000b,timestamp=2018-09-18T18:35:20.023+0000) > > Maybe riot should not permaban toxic players just remove their access to the play button :) Maybe they should try removing a players chat system all together, and see if that stops valid reports from popping up on their account. I wonder why they don't?
Saezio (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Heptagon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0007000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T18:12:43.947+0000) > > I think you misunderstood what I meant. The chat system itself is the cause of the toxicity which Riot than uses to ban accounts, which we aim to prove is a monetary gain for Riot. I've been playing for years, and I've seen no improvements in the toxicity on the servers, but Riot continues to claim that banning people for money doesn't make sense because if they don't ban people they will lose money because people will leave because of the toxicity. We don't believe this is the case at all because so far we've found most people don't stop playing because of toxicity, and if you've played recently, you'll notice toxicity is a thing that hasn't gone away in League, and we believe this is making them money. If that was the cause then everyone would be toxic, which they are not. People having shit for brains is what makes them toxic. The chat system is a means that can be used correctly or incorrectly. If you use it incorrectly you are banned. Same as everything. It is like saying alcohol is not the cause for car accidents, ROADS are.
> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00070000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T18:28:01.592+0000) > > If that was the cause then everyone would be toxic, which they are not. People having shit for brains is what makes them toxic. > The chat system is a means that can be used correctly or incorrectly. If you use it incorrectly you are banned. Same as everything. > It is like saying alcohol is not the cause for car accidents, ROADS are. We believe most players have had toxic moments on this game. We believe most people have toxic moments in life. Also if someone missuses the chat system, but is banned from the game entirely how does that make sense? Why not just ban the chat system? I am a player of this game, and you can't tell me the chat system is important to the game. People rarely say anything constructive to the game in that chat box, and pings are a much more effective way to communicate while playing. Furthermore, accounts are banned in a systematic way. For instance if your account is ever flagged for toxic chat behavior it puts a strike on your record. You get 3 strikes total. First strike 10 game "chat restriction" not ban, second strike 25 game chat restriction, 3rd strike 2 week ban, 4th strike account permabanned. Time is not a factor. Some people go months without any problems and then get a strike. Then go another few months no problem then bam get a strike, while others get their accounts banned in a month. They don't take any of this into account because they don't care.
usul1202 (NA)
: Please tell me you're not serious with that as a basis for your lawsuit. That is far far worse for team interactions than restricting a players chat. Not only that but its completely invalidated by a few things. ESRB's "online interactions not rated" thing has precedence, and context for flame holds almost no relevance but it *is* looked at. This is shown by riot unbanning and setting the system to not ban when people say "say ****** or I'll feed". See, the system cares if you say bad things in a context that would justify them, it's just that the context I listed is one of the only ones where toxicity is actually justified and doesn't make things worse. Finally, why would riot punish me as a support for my adc being toxic? Not only are they not preventing the player from being toxic, but now I can't communicate any strategy at all to my lane partner. That would never hold up in casual conversation, much less court.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000700000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T17:56:27.866+0000) > > Please tell me you're not serious with that as a basis for your lawsuit. That is far far worse for team interactions than restricting a players chat. Not only that but its completely invalidated by a few things. ESRB's "online interactions not rated" thing has precedence, and context for flame holds almost no relevance but it *is* looked at. This is shown by riot unbanning and setting the system to not ban when people say "say ****** or I'll feed". See, the system cares if you say bad things in a context that would justify them, it's just that the context I listed is one of the only ones where toxicity is actually justified and doesn't make things worse. > > Finally, why would riot punish me as a support for my adc being toxic? Not only are they not preventing the player from being toxic, but now I can't communicate any strategy at all to my lane partner. That would never hold up in casual conversation, much less court. I think you misunderstood what I meant. The chat system itself is the cause of the toxicity which Riot than uses to ban accounts, which we aim to prove is a monetary gain for Riot. I've been playing for years, and I've seen no improvements in the toxicity on the servers, but Riot continues to claim that banning people for money doesn't make sense because if they don't ban people they will lose money because people will leave because of the toxicity. We don't believe this is the case at all because so far we've found most people don't stop playing because of toxicity, and if you've played recently, you'll notice toxicity is a thing that hasn't gone away in League, and we believe this is making them money.
usul1202 (NA)
: Oh, I thought you were making a case for a lawsuit, which would require much more rigor in your data collection. Once again, you've ignored my question about your sampling method and how you avoid a biased sample group. Care to enlighten me?
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T17:45:18.260+0000) > > Oh, I thought you were making a case for a lawsuit, which would require much more rigor in your data collection. > > Once again, you've ignored my question about your sampling method and how you avoid a biased sample group. Care to enlighten me? It is extremely difficult to gather information on this without some research bias because we are receiving no funding for this research, and everything is done on a volunteer basis. Furthermore, most people do not like to divulge that they have accounts banned for toxicity. it is also very hard to find people that fit our criteria. We use flyers at schools ranging from UC's to High Schools Community Colleges, but we haven't had much luck finding people outside of an education environment which we know is a bias on our research. We never offer anything more than cookies and soda for participating to be sure no one is lying to be apart of our study. We do not tell people that we are only interested in subjects who have had banned accounts. We tell them we are studying toxicity on the League of Legends servers. We ask a lot of questions like how do you feel when someone rages at you, how do you feel when you rage, how do you feel after the game in which you raged, but of course are first question is have you ever had an account banned for toxicity, if so explain what happened, and dont worry we've all had our moments. We do not have the subjects write their name only their age on the questionnaire. Because of this we have received questionnaires from far more people who we are not interested in, than those that we are. This study has been going on for about a year, and we've had 547 people who answer yes on the first question.
: I'd be interested to know what university in their right mind would give money and time to _study and compose a research dossier_ on people who violate a very straightforward Terms of Use agreement in an effort to raise a class action lawsuit against it.
> [{quoted}](name=Oleandervine,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-09-18T17:39:28.150+0000) > > I'd be interested to know what university in their right mind would give money and time to _study and compose a research dossier_ on people who violate a very straightforward Terms of Use agreement in an effort to raise a class action lawsuit against it. We are not paid to run this study, and the University doesn't always know every study going on. In some cases they allow students and faculty to publish their research once it has been evaluated. We will be honest. Our data is raw, and our sample size is only half way done. Maybe the other 500 people we find say the complete opposite.
usul1202 (NA)
: But they tried more chat bans, it made player experience worse through players with those types of bans having a much higher rate of trolling. Thus, your case is unfounded by them having tried your solution.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0007000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T17:31:15.146+0000) > > But they tried more chat bans, it made player experience worse through players with those types of bans having a much higher rate of trolling. Thus, your case is unfounded by them having tried your solution. They have never banned chat in a way that would limit what a player sees. Chat restricted players can still chat a little bit, but more importantly they can see what other players say. The start of tilt in almost every game where players behave extremely irrationally usually starts with a common comment made on the servers. "This botlane is S%&@" that can lead to an argument or tilt or feeding whatever you want to call it. They make no effort to protect players from this kind of chat, and most players are not punished for it.
usul1202 (NA)
: I feel as though you're leaving a few things out. Unbiased sample group being one, another being that you have no control group. (unless you've just not mentioned them at all). The punishment system is not just based on riots ideals though, it's a collaboration of all the data from a massive portion of the player base acting as part of the tribunal. So the punishment standards are the community not being interested in playing with that level of toxic, not riot removing those people for their own gain.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T17:11:06.722+0000) > > I feel as though you're leaving a few things out. Unbiased sample group being one, another being that you have no control group. (unless you've just not mentioned them at all). > > The punishment system is not just based on riots ideals though, it's a collaboration of all the data from a massive portion of the player base acting as part of the tribunal. So the punishment standards are the community not being interested in playing with that level of toxic, not riot removing those people for their own gain. This study is not a side by side comparison, and we are not trying to prove the effectiveness, or the reliability of anything. We are simply gathering data to understand what is going on. We have no hypothesis for this study, which is why we do not require a control group. We are simply gathering a sample to use to dissect data, and once the data is published we can use it.
: > Riot has stood on this contract they force players to agree to before allowing them to create an account, but what many players who have been put through this do not know, is that there is in fact no legal precedent protecting this kind of legal agreement. False. There is more than enough legal precedent. It's called "Every other online game in the history of online gaming". They're under 16 and therefore can't sign a legal contract? That's fine. Except then their entire account has zero legal standing, and Riot can then *ban it on the spot if they feel like it*. For everyone else, the contract is legally binding.
> [{quoted}](name=DuskDaUmbreon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2018-09-18T17:17:59.948+0000) > > False. There is more than enough legal precedent. It's called "Every other online game in the history of online gaming". > > They're under 16 and therefore can't sign a legal contract? That's fine. Except then their entire account has zero legal standing, and Riot can then *ban it on the spot if they feel like it*. For everyone else, the contract is legally binding. Just because something has been done before, does not create legal precedent. Legal precedent is created when a Judge presiding over a case makes a ruling on that situation. This ruling would be described as the current legal precedent in the matter. For example, if Riot goes to court over this, and the judge rules in their favor, then the current legal precedent on banning accounts with purchased property would be in favor of the company. Now if a similar case were to go to court again maybe for a different game, or the same, a second judge could stand on that ruling made by the first. The judge would claim the current legal precedent. The judge could rule differently which would make the legal precedent conflicted, and usually gets pushed to higher courts. Lawyers use legal precedent to create an argument against arguments all time. There has not been a case in the U.S. over something like this, so there is no legal precedent. We believe there have been cases on things like this, Racketeering is our biggest complaint, and there is a legal precedent for that.
: Then there really isn't anything backing your word that anyone can trust. *Claiming* that you're in the process of creating a class action law suite, or *claiming* that you have a bunch of data (which you wont even disclose how you got said data), are just that. Claims. Currently, unproven claims. People have explained to you why your argument doesn't hold water, and they did so by pointing out that you have a ToS that you have to sign to even access the game. All explaining what you are actually receiving when you spend money on the game and what you're entitled to on the account. You have yet to provide any solid argument against that fact.
> [{quoted}](name=AeroWaffle,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00070000,timestamp=2018-09-18T17:06:25.472+0000) > > Then there really isn't anything backing your word that anyone can trust. *Claiming* that you're in the process of creating a class action law suite, or *claiming* that you have a bunch of data (which you wont even disclose how you got said data), are just that. > > Claims. > > Currently, unproven claims. > > People have explained to you why your argument doesn't hold water, and they did so by pointing out that you have a ToS that you have to sign to even access the game. All explaining what you are actually receiving when you spend money on the game and what you're entitled to on the account. You have yet to provide any solid argument against that fact. Okay so you would like a legal argument, now we're talking, and I can provide you with a few. Minors are unable to enter into contracts in most states, and a good bit of League players are minors. This means that their contract to agree to follow the Summoners Code or lose their accounts is null and void in a courtroom. Our biggest petition is the Racketeering like scheme going on with the account ban system. I have been informed by Riot that this system is because people do not reform, and they cannot ban a single person without creating problems for others, while banning the chat system is inadequate because people will just be toxic in other ways. We completely disagree. Riot is creating a hostile environment, by allowing a chat system into the game, and failing to remove it from people who do not utilize it properly before moving to banning accounts. When we say remove we don't just mean making them unable to speak, we mean making them unable to see what is being said as well because that is the source of most of the toxicity in this game. Riot has demonstrated they know this system can be a problem because it is the first way they punish people, by limiting, but not removing this chat system. We would go further to argue that most of the players they have banned for chat purposes would never have been banned if their comms were removed. Now Racketeering is when a party offers a solution to a problem that they are in fact creating for monetary gain. Riot's chat system in League of Legends is the problem, their solution is to ban accounts, which we know will only push these players to make second accounts, and eventually they will spend money again with Riot, many times buying the exact same product they have already purchased. This is not protected by any legal precedent, and if you believe I am wrong, I would challenge to find a legal precedent set by a U.S. Judge that allows companies to do this.
Chermorg (NA)
: It would be really interesting to see you take this to your schools professionalism, credentialing, and/or Dean’s offices and see how they feel about your blatant disrespect for research process, absolute refusal to provide any methodology or evidence, and refusal to put your name/organization behind your work. Funny how you won’t mention what university it is since you know it’d likely make its way to them. I suspect you’re scared they’ll find out you’ve been lying out your teeth (and on top of that blatantly spreading misinformation) and consider kicking you out of the school.
> [{quoted}](name=Chermorg,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T16:44:47.727+0000) > > It would be really interesting to see you take this to your schools professionalism, credentialing, and/or Dean’s offices and see how they feel about your blatant disrespect for research process, absolute refusal to provide any methodology or evidence, and refusal to put your name/organization behind your work. > > Funny how you won’t mention what university it is since you know it’d likely make its way to them. I suspect you’re scared they’ll find out you’ve been lying out your teeth (and on top of that blatantly spreading misinformation) and consider kicking you out of the school. Well we appreciate your input Chermorg, I know I do, and you are right to be skeptical. I do also imagine you have not had an account banned with Riot before, so you are more acting in defense because you feel toxic players are a problem, and it annoys you to see people try and give them sympathy. Only an assumption of course. I am going to get in touch with the moderator and see if it would be okay to post our research onto this form if I cover up revealing properties of it, which I know would not satisfy you, but you are right. If we are going to make claims on studies being made, we should reveal where those studies are coming from. All I can say is we have had 547 participants in our study. All of which had accounts banned by Riot. We have these people fill out questionnaires explaining their situation, and the reasons for their ban. We are than gathering data from these questionnaires and plugging them into a histogram. Are target goal is 1000 participants in the study. We decided that sounds like an adequate sample size to use for this particular study.
: Have you had an account banned for comms that you spent more than 100 dollars on?
I cannot reveal who I am with because we are in the process of creating a class action law suite against Riot games for what we believe are unfair business practices being made by Riot Games. I was told by a moderator that I cannot reveal or direct anyone to our services. From the post in the boards yesterday I revealed who we were with, and asked people to come forward with their stories. I linked an email. I can only say that if you believe you have been violated by this system I think it is in your best interest to look into your legal options. The independent study is being conducted by students at several universities in the United States, and so far that is the data we have gathered. Since we are members of one of the universities participating in the study, we cannot reveal the names of the universities because that would be revealing ourselves to you.
Chermorg (NA)
: The problem likely would have been if you were recruiting people for your study. Revealing who you work for/with would not violate any rules. Simply saying “I’m conducting this study with X university and this is what we’ve found so far” would give you so much more credibility. You’ve tried to do everything possible to hide any evidence to support your claims. You’ve also made some very, very dubious claims, as well as using very nonstandard terminology. Put bluntly, I don’t think you are who you say you are, and that comes from your boards history as well from a couple years ago.
> [{quoted}](name=Chermorg,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T16:11:11.813+0000) > > The problem likely would have been if you were recruiting people for your study. > > Revealing who you work for/with would not violate any rules. Simply saying “I’m conducting this study with X university and this is what we’ve found so far” would give you so much more credibility. > > You’ve tried to do everything possible to hide any evidence to support your claims. You’ve also made some very, very dubious claims, as well as using very nonstandard terminology. > > Put bluntly, I don’t think you are who you say you are, and that comes from your boards history as well from a couple years ago. I am a player of this game. I have been for years. I am currently a Law student. I am a member of the League of Legends community, so obviously you are going to find history of me unrelated to this, but that doesn't mean what I am saying is untrue.
Prandine (NA)
: The TL:DR is that you're just another person who thinks that Riot only cares about money, which is why they permaban people. That couldn't be further from the truth. First of all, Riot tried permamutes in the past and it failed since most people with them just resorted to trolling, inting and griefing. Chat itself is not the issue, the people misusing it are. From [Riot Tantram:](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/wsObUaFj-if-tyler1?comment=00010001000000000000) > It really breaks down into two categories. > > 1.) Helping players reform > 2.) Shielding others from the behavior, at a cost. > > We used to issue chat restrictions that essentially scaled indefinitely. > > We were able to determine that after a certain point the penalty no longer helped with reform. The 10-game and 25-game counts for chat restrictions are based on data that they were both light enough, and felt strict enough to encourage people to understand their behavior is unacceptable in game and change it. > > We also saw that the players in this 'large restriction' category defaulted to gameplay altering means of harassing their team. It caused an increase in feeding and trolling. > > The sample size of this population and time frame is huge. Essentially the time spanning from the introduction of chat restrictions to the introduction of IFS. > > So my question for you is, would you rather have more feeders and less negative chat? Second off, not all permabanned players make a new account, and not all that do spend money on that new account. Though Riot does not want permabanned players to make new accounts they cannot stop them from doing so without causing collateral damage. That said though however, they do have ways of determining if multiple accounts are the same person, and not only that but lower leveled accounts are judged much harsher than higher leveled accounts are to help combat this problem. Besides, just like in other businesses toxic customers actually drive **AWAY** business, which in turn means **LESS** money for the owners. Because of this it's actually in Riot's best interest to kick out the ones driving away business than to keep them around and risk going out of business. To quote [Kei143](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/mmh6PidR-the-dreaded-downvoteers-in-this-discussion-board?comment=0001000100000000000100000004): >When Riot permabans someone, their philosophy is "the chances of this guy reforming isn't a whole lot, we'd rather not have him in the game". Thus in their eyes, they have already written off the toxic player as a paying client. >From a business standpoint, do they want to remove the toxic guy who has spent $500 but is causing a negative environment for 4-9 other players in every game? Those non-toxics are also spending $500 and probably will spend more, promote the game more when they are enjoying the game AND they won't cause a negative environment. >I personally think it is a fine argument to protect the ones that are paying money and aren't toxic rather than protecting the ones that may pay the same amount but are toxic. If a player truly valued their account then they should have thought of that before it got to the point where they got permabanned. Spending money =/= immunity to the rules like so many people like to believe foolishly. Finally Riot isn't committing any felonies here, as you're getting exactly what you payed for: RP equal to the amount of money spent (i.e. $20=$20 worth of RP). The stuff we own on our accounts isn't actually ours, we're just merely renting that space for as long as we abide by the rules, which put simply is "don't be a jerk", aka "don't do or say anything that you know will just tick people off". TL:DR your argument is flawed and has been debunked many times before. Riot is doing nothing wrong by upholding the rules they've set in place. Get over it.
> [{quoted}](name=Prandine,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-09-18T16:04:50.874+0000) > > The TL:DR is that you're just another person who thinks that Riot only cares about money, which is why they permaban people. That couldn't be further from the truth. First of all, Riot tried permamutes in the past and it failed since most people with them just resorted to trolling. inting and griefing. Chat itself is not the issue, the people misusing it are. From [Riot Tantram:](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/wsObUaFj-if-tyler1?comment=00010001000000000000) > > Second off, not all permabanned players make a new account, and not all that do spend money on that new account. Though Riot does not want permabanned players to make new accounts they cannot stop them from doing so without causing collateral damage. That said though however, they have ways of determining if multiple accounts are the same person, and not only that but lower leveled accounts are judged much harsher than higher leveled accounts are to help combat this problem. Besides, just like in other businesses toxic customers actually drive **AWAY** business, which in turn means **LESS** money for the owners. Because of this it's actually in Riot's best interest to kick out the ones driving away business than to keep them around and risk going out of business. To quote [Kei143](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/mmh6PidR-the-dreaded-downvoteers-in-this-discussion-board?comment=0001000100000000000100000004): > > If a player truly valued their account then they should have thought of that before it got to the point where they got permabanned. > > Finally Riot isn't committing any felonies here, as you're getting exactly what you payed for: RP equal to the amount of money spent (i.e. $20=$20 worth of RP). The stuff we own on our accounts isn't actually ours, we're just merely renting that space for as long as we abide by the rules, which put simply is "don't be a jerk". aka "don't do or say anything that you know will just tick people off". > > TL:DR your argument is flawed and has been debunked many times before. Riot is doing nothing wrong by upholding the rules they've set in place. Get over it. We appreciate your input, but that is not the feel players get when playing this game. For one the report system is utilized by the players who issue the reports, and it is automated. If you have a bad lane, other players may report you just for having a bad lane, and even worse people bully people who have bad lanes usually. I talked to players who explained that all parties were being toxic on their team, but since they had the bad lane, they got the report that lead to them being banned. Riot "Does not care who started it" but the system will flag the 4 reports coming down on 1 person, rather than his 1 report going to 4 people. We understand their is system to try and make sure people are not unjustly banned, but the point is these people usually have non toxic games. People have climbed the Ranked ladder have proven they can play with people without being toxic, and sometimes just have bad days. This game is heated. People get angry because it is a very competitive sport. Most players will do something toxic in at least 1 out of every 10 games. They may say this botlane sucks, or this Yasuo is feeding. They may not use profanity, but nevertheless they are triggering people to argue. The whole deal is, the biggest problem stems from the communication system. We find people tilt to toxic levels not because of the game, but usually because of their fellow teammates written critique of their gameplay. The communication system provided by Riot is a toxicity magnet. They even added emotes for players to taunt eachother while playing. They have never tried removing the communication system from toxic players to see if it helps improve their gameplay. Limiting chat for a few games is not removing chat from a player entirely. You may assume that people will just feed, but we found people feed usually because they are getting BMd. Also the game has a system inside of it to deal with feeders in Ranked Q's. Demotion. if they get demoted to a place where they are competitive they will play better, and BM less. Overall Riot is creating the problem by allowing Toxic players to chat. We also found that players who speak on comms in Discord or other platforms rage much less at eachother even when playing poorly. This is because most of these people who are described as Toxic, are actually good people who are experiencing cyber bullying, or being cyber bullies themselves, but in a real life setting these people are usually much more respectful of their fellow humans. The fact that a multimillion dollar organization has not realized this shows they have no interest in fixing the problem. They have a monopoly on this particular sport. Sure you could play another similar game, but it isn't Summoners Rift. Most players will continue to come back to this sport because they love it. You can ban their account, but most of them return. That is what we are finding. Out 547 people only 18 said they quit playing after being banned. That doesn't sound like this system is working to me, and furthermore those people are spending cash on this game. Most of them keep spending cash on this game after the ban. A lot of them aren't even 18. Some of them aren't even 16. Most of them have spent over 100 dollars on this game, and lose it because Riot thinks taking away their digital property is an effective way to end toxicity on their servers. Even though they understand most of these players will return. I myself have had an account banned even though all of my incidents were widely spread out. I had one ding, 3 months later another ding, a year later another ding, and finally a few months went by had a toxic argument on the comms with a player, and it resulted in me losing an account I had spent over 1000 dollars on. Of course I still play, made another account, and haven't had to many problems. This is why I found an interest in this, and have gotten other people together who feel the same to actually do something about it because this system is plainly unfair, and we believe it is also legally unfair.
usul1202 (NA)
: If you're not interested in linking the research in question, then how about explaining your methodology? Because no players punishments are released I find it very hard to believe you would achieve an unbiased player base. More likely, the only people answering your polls would be those who returned (a very small %, according to riot who *actually has the stats*) and thus wildly bias your datasets.
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=000000000001,timestamp=2018-09-18T16:03:53.210+0000) > > If you're not interested in linking the research in question, then how about explaining your methodology? Because no players punishments are released I find it very hard to believe you would achieve an unbiased player base. > > More likely, the only people answering your polls would be those who returned (a very small %, according to riot who *actually has the stats*) and thus wildly bias your datasets. We'd love to ask Riot for their data, but I highly doubt they would supply it. Even if you feel the data is wrong, do you think this practice of banning accounts entirely for communication violations is normal, when they could simply remove comms from toxic players?
Chermorg (NA)
: Funny, I have moderated these boards (and left the team on good terms due to time issues), and I’m not aware of any rule on the boards that prevents you from doing such. You are very much permitted to link to your study online, or failing that, at a minimum identify who you work for. You’re by no means *required* to, but you’re claiming you can’t - not that you won’t.
> [{quoted}](name=Chermorg,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AITipV7y,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-18T15:57:23.409+0000) > > Funny, I have moderated these boards (and left the team on good terms due to time issues), and I’m not aware of any rule on the boards that prevents you from doing such. > > You are very much permitted to link to your study online, or failing that, at a minimum identify who you work for. You’re by no means *required* to, but you’re claiming you can’t - not that you won’t. We posted this board yesterday with our information in it. We are in the motions of creating a Class Action Suite against Riot for these unfair practices, and we are trying to get people to come forward and share their stories. The Board was taken down, and after discussing the situation with the moderators they explained the problem was directing people to us. Since we are partly responsible for these studies it would be inadvertently revealing ourselves.
Show more

Vll5tQL3xS

Level 30 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion