TrulyBland (EUNE)
: And my point is that the points that you use to support your argument lead to the detriment of all communication. Here's the tough thing: Words **don't** have intrinsic meaning. But to abandon that idea means to abandon the entire concept of communication, universal or otherwise, because it will lead to you having to question literally everything another person says. All communication ultimately works on protocols. The unproven assumption that the other person uses language in (roughly) the same way I use it in. It is right to question **specific** interpretations of **specific** words for **specific** reasons. But using "words have no intrinsic meaning" as a safe way to grant yourself deniability means you are denying communication on **any** level is possible. Long story short: Without pre-assumed meaning there cannot be interpretation, and without interpretation there is no communication. Just pointless screaming into the void.
> [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=0005000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T20:51:42.348+0000) > > And my point is that the points that you use to support your argument lead to the detriment of all communication. You don't consider "miscommunication" as "communication". Just because I misinterpret the intentions, doesn't mean someone isn't communicating with me. There is much more to "communication" than words. Some times, we don't even realize we are communicating or others are communicating.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: So... basically your point is that communication is impossible? That's a shame. Puts all those conversations I've had with other people quite into perspective. Oh, how I've wasted all my life with social interactions.
> [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=00050000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T20:25:11.575+0000) > > So... basically your point is that communication is impossible? Obviously not. I'm questioning "universal" communication. I don't think there is an universal language.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=00050000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T00:12:25.940+0000) > > Words don't have intrinsic meanings. Could you please explain, in detail, what you mean when you say "words"? Oh, also "don't"? I'm not 100% certain what you mean with that. Then there's this weird one… "have"... not sure what to make of it. I'd also love to know what "Intrinsic" means, by your definition. I've heard "Meanings" before, but after all you could mean something else entirely with it, so I'd be very grateful if you gave me your definition here as well. So, yeah… just define those five words without circular references and we should be good to go. And if possible avoid using new words, because I might have to ask you what those words mean so I can be sure to understand you.
> [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=000500000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-02-11T19:19:49.260+0000) > > Could you please explain, in detail, what you mean when you say "words"? > Oh, also "don't"? I'm not 100% certain what you mean with that. > Then there's this weird one… "have"... not sure what to make of it. > I'd also love to know what "Intrinsic" means, by your definition. > I've heard "Meanings" before, but after all you could mean something else entirely with it, so I'd be very grateful if you gave me your definition here as well. > > So, yeah… just define those five words without circular references and we should be good to go. > And if possible avoid using new words, because I might have to ask you what those words mean so I can be sure to understand you. Understanding is not necessary. Understanding is not guaranteed. As you so eloquently explained by asking me to define every single word I used.
: > [{quoted}](name=EvilDustMan,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=000500000000000200000002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T17:24:31.502+0000) > > What are you trying to say? Collusion.
> [{quoted}](name=EvilDustMan,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=00050000000000020000000200000000000000000000000000000002,timestamp=2019-02-11T17:34:53.310+0000) > > Incorrectly? Seen it, boring. Oh no child. I haven't even posted it yet. I can't believe your hatred ruins science for you. What's your favorite food? Maybe if I endorse it you won't eat it anymore?
: > [{quoted}](name=EvilDustMan,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=000500000000000200000002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T17:24:31.502+0000) > > What are you trying to say? Collusion.
> [{quoted}](name=EvilDustMan,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=00050000000000020000000200000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T17:28:24.659+0000) > > There is not some big discord gang against you. The only thing that ties together the dislike of your arguments is a love of reasonable logic. You are right. It is a small discord gang. Oh, speaking of reasonable logic, wait until you see this thread I'm making where I scientifically prove words don't hurt.
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=00050000000000020000000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T17:20:12.827+0000) > > Well duh. What is it one big discord gang? What are you trying to say?
> [{quoted}](name=EvilDustMan,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=000500000000000200000002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T17:24:31.502+0000) > > What are you trying to say? Collusion.
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=000500000000000200000002000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T17:08:50.570+0000) > > You should just say that next time. That is not the caption I personally would have given those pictures. > > I still have no clue how you expect to have a discussion with someone. I get by.
> [{quoted}](name=EvilDustMan,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=0005000000000002000000020000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T17:09:46.225+0000) > > I get by. Well duh. What is it one big discord gang?
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=0005000000000002000000020000,timestamp=2019-02-11T17:00:31.401+0000) > > So we reached the part where we spam off topic pictures in order to get the entire thread shut down. Good to know. This is a perfectly on topic picture. It means "wtf did I just read, this is insanity" but in picture form.
> [{quoted}](name=EvilDustMan,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=00050000000000020000000200000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T17:03:56.439+0000) > > This is a perfectly on topic picture. It means "wtf did I just read, this is insanity" but in picture form. You should just say that next time. That is not the caption I personally would have given those pictures. I still have no clue how you expect to have a discussion with someone.
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=00050000000000020000,timestamp=2019-02-11T04:07:37.711+0000) > > > What you fail to mention, is someone saying something "racist" out of love. For example, naming your child the double c word. Are all names racist now? https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/204/425/dee.jpg
> [{quoted}](name=EvilDustMan,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=000500000000000200000002,timestamp=2019-02-11T12:25:18.198+0000) > > https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/204/425/dee.jpg So we reached the part where we spam off topic pictures in order to get the entire thread shut down. Good to know.
Xidphel (NA)
: >Then take my word. no
> [{quoted}](name=Xidphel,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=VEF8E2Eq,comment-id=00020000000000000001,timestamp=2019-02-11T12:21:29.474+0000) > > no Are you kidding me? I wasn't even talking to you. At all. My advice doesn't make any sense outside of context. If you are so lonely, just make a new thread and I'll be there.
Sobx (EUNE)
: The context and purpose of OP's messages is very clear, you're just trying to argue for no reason and you probably think you're much smarter than you actually are, buddy. Too bad not much of what you wrote makes remotely any sense.
> [{quoted}](name=Sobx,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=00050001,timestamp=2019-02-11T10:16:07.354+0000) > > The context and purpose of OP's messages is very clear, you're just trying to argue for no reason and you probably think you're much smarter than you actually are, buddy. Too bad not much of what you wrote makes remotely any sense. Well, miscommunications happen. Sorry.
Sobx (EUNE)
: >In what way is not racist? The example you gave is not even anything related to "context", you clearly don't understand how it works and what it means. What you did is just devolving a sentence into something that makes no sense and then you try to argue that "it doesn't make sense beacuse of lack of context". No, it doesn't make sense because it's not a proper, coherent sentence. You're wrong at the very core of your argument and I'm surprised other people gave you as much time as they did.
> [{quoted}](name=Sobx,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=0005000000000003,timestamp=2019-02-11T10:19:58.217+0000) > > The example you gave is not even anything related to "context", you clearly don't understand how it works and what it means. What you did is just devolving a sentence into something that makes no sense and then you try to argue that "it doesn't make sense beacuse of lack of context". No, it doesn't make sense because it's not a proper, coherent sentence. You're wrong at the very core of your argument and I'm surprised other people gave you as much time as they did. I hope you are aware that it is Riots decision to ignore context. Not mine personally. You don't think "making fun of someones voice and natural difficulty with certain english phonemes" is context? Remove the context. We are left with the "word in question". A word can't naturally be racist. Therefore, a word must be given context of race before it can be considered racist.
: Why are the mods so quick to lock threads?
Because they can. > Our responsibility is to make the best judgment call for how to handle a thread. This sometimes involves locking an otherwise fine thread due to the sheer number of problematic comments, and that is a standard policy. I like how I get down votes for quoting a herald.
Zonava (EUW)
: I guess but there's a reason why that phase exists :(
> [{quoted}](name=Zonava,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=zRiNhU4M,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-02-11T06:05:45.355+0000) > > I guess but there's a reason why that phase exists :( Just wait until after ban phase. You can't pick the champion if the enemy bans it anyways. Team mate might "steal" your pick but they are allowed to play whichever champion they want.
: judging by your posts on here, "your word" isn't worth anything to me
> [{quoted}](name=CharDeeMcDenniz,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=VEF8E2Eq,comment-id=00020000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T05:19:32.392+0000) > > judging by your posts on here, "your word" isn't worth anything to me Sure, go check multiple sources.
: the definition begins at step 2 of your cute little chart why am i feeding a troll? poor form on my part, sorry all
> [{quoted}](name=CharDeeMcDenniz,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=00050000000000020000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T05:22:51.471+0000) > > the definition begins at step 2 of your cute little chart I'm glad my chart helped.
Hotarµ (NA)
: > Not against the rules. You're right, it's not. And it's definitely not that big a deal in a norm game. >There is no such thing as "stealing" cs. Minions and monsters do not "belong" to any one person. Technically that's right, but funneling CS towards your ADC and camps to your jungler is one of the many facets of meta + teamwork that make up League. If you aren't 100% transparent with your teammates on what your strategy is and they don't fully agree with it, it's most certainly not something that's looked positively upon. >you didn't buy a support item, had the lowest ward score in the game, ______ >Not against the rules. Again, technically correct. See above. >That could be against the rules. Though it's depressing to think that if they simply died less obviously they wouldn't be punished. It is against the rules, OP was clearly intentionally feeding.
> [{quoted}](name=Hotarµ,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rAvAYHV7,comment-id=000000020000,timestamp=2019-02-11T04:49:01.793+0000) > > You're right, it's not. ~~And it's definitely not that big a deal in a norm game.~~ > > Technically that's right, ~~but funneling CS towards your ADC and camps to your jungler is one of the many facets of meta + teamwork that make up League.~~~~ If you aren't 100% transparent with your teammates on what your strategy is and they don't fully agree with it, it's most certainly not something that's looked positively upon. ~~ > had the lowest ward score in the game, > ______ > > Again, technically correct. See above. I went ahead and cleaned up your post. Hope you don't mind. > It is against the rules, OP was clearly intentionally feeding. I guess just ignoring the depressing things is one way to handle the situation. You do know that Riot has the only relevant opinion, right?
: Will my LP be dropped because of trolls in ranked?
Yup. Some teams even professional players can't solo carry.
Hotarµ (NA)
: I'm looking at the match history. You were playing Teemo support, from the looks of it you were stealing CS, you didn't buy a support item, had the lowest ward score in the game, and died 15 times _in the same spot_ in a 17 minute game. Definitely looks like you were intentionally feeding.
> [{quoted}](name=Hotarµ,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=rAvAYHV7,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-11T04:18:23.959+0000) > > You were playing Teemo support, Not against the rules. > from the looks of it you were stealing CS, There is no such thing as "stealing" cs. Minions and monsters do not "belong" to any one person. > you didn't buy a support item, Not against the rules. > had the lowest ward score in the game, Not against the rules. > and died 15 times _in the same spot_ in a 17 minute game. That could be against the rules. Though it's depressing to think that if they simply died less obviously they wouldn't be punished.
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=00050000000000020000,timestamp=2019-02-11T04:07:37.711+0000) > > Words do not have meaning. We give them meaning. Words start with no meaning. We give words meaning because we want to communicate. so we had the dictionary full of words first then assigned definitions to them later? do you even read what you type?
> [{quoted}](name=CharDeeMcDenniz,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=000500000000000200000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T04:18:06.807+0000) > > so we had the dictionary full of words first then assigned definitions to them later? > > do you even read what you type? "Order of operations": Sound wave AKA word (words start with no meaning) Intention (giving meaning to words) Interpretation (giving meaning to words) A whole lot of team work Assign definitions Write a dictionary
: i have no proof for this, just my opinion based on A LOT of gametime (both in LoL and other competitive games) it's my assumption that most people flame to get a reaction, they want to see others respond to what they say. That being said if these players cannot flame in text, they will not (or at least MUCH less often) get the desired reaction they are looking for by soft int'ing sure they may try it here and there but I think that just soft int'ing without using text would get boring for flamers really quick and they will either stop and just play the game, or go back to text flaming and get punished. either way is fine by me.
> [{quoted}](name=CharDeeMcDenniz,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=VEF8E2Eq,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T02:49:13.525+0000) > > i have no proof for this, just my opinion based on A LOT of gametime (both in LoL and other competitive games) Then take my word. > it's my assumption that most people flame to get a reaction, Most people flame because they are angry. It's that simple. The flame is not premeditated. Flame is usually a habitual behavior associated with anger.
Ulanopo (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2019-02-10T23:22:13.949+0000) > > Simply saying a word does not make a person racist. Especially, when there is no ill-intention behind the word. Wrong. Very, very wrong. Like super-duper, double-plus wrong. Words have meaning, that's why we use them. If someone says something racist out of ignorance or laziness, it's still racist. Our response might be different, but they were still racist. Oh, and the OP was **clearly** being racist.
> [{quoted}](name=Ulanopo,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=0005000000000002,timestamp=2019-02-11T02:35:11.638+0000) > > Wrong. Very, very wrong. Like super-duper, double-plus wrong. Is this where you bully me with your moderator powers? I wonder if you even bother reading anything I say. > Words have meaning, that's why we use them. Words do not have meaning. We give them meaning. Words start with no meaning. We give words meaning because we want to communicate. > If someone says something racist out of ignorance or laziness, it's still racist. Then you will never be able to translate between languages. Segregating language. I don't think you want that but maybe you do. What you fail to mention, is someone saying something "racist" out of love. For example, naming your child the double c word. Are all names racist now? > Oh, and the OP was **clearly** being racist. Then so are you. When I see those chat logs, I don't see race. Race - any group into which humans can be divided according to their shared physical or genetic characteristics Which physical and genetic characteristics are you noticing that I am not?
: Soft Inting is the Future
The world isn't round if I never believe. Flat earthers unite! (Just a bad game.)
rujitra (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=000500000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T01:10:11.666+0000) > > 1. Ever hear of a typo? (I'm not convinced it happened here but it does and may have. No, the keys do not have to be near each other for a typo.) Yes, they do. The definition of a typo is the *unintentional* incorrect pressing of a key. It is impossible for someone who is typing to have their finger **that** far away from the intended key unintentionally, unless they were “sight typing” (i.e. looking at each key they press with one finger instead of “speed typing” by memory), in which case they would **see** themselves being that far away from the correct key. It was not a typo. Period. > 2. Words can take on a broader intention than a single "race", "gender", etc.. For example, what if the OP was using "engrish" as a general insult and thus would use it against any race? The insult is based on the mistake of using the phoneme /r/ instead of the phoneme /l/. A quick google search confirms that the scholarly consensus is that this only happens in people whose first language is of sino-Japanese or other Asian language families. It was not a general insult. Period. > 3. You are being racist by implying "engrish" can only insult ONE SPECIFIC RACE. Does “Black” insult one specific race? How about the “n word” when used against someone of black skin color? Black is not a race. Nor is “African”. Those words are universally considered racist when used to insult people who are black. Racism does not have to be against only one race, and in fact, does not have to be against a specific race at all. The implication that some races are less than others, even if the specific race(s) which are superior is/are not specified, is racist. > 4. You keep ignoring that you aren't allowed context. It's a chat filter. Either the word is allowed or it is flagged. There is no middle ground. This is like saying “because the police arrested someone on a murder charge which they did not have reasonable cause to do, then in the course of an investigation in which they broke no rules discovered legitimate evidence of murder, the charge is invalid”. Just because the original punishment was issued without context does not make it invalid. If you wish to have a discussion over the system, that is a subject for another thread - having such a conversation on this thread is spam and thread hijacking as the purpose of this thread is discussing OP’s **specific** punishment validity - which enables us to verify context. > Fake science. This isn’t science, it is fact based on observation. Science implies some statistical or other analysis or hypothesis was used. The OP used the words to make fun of others for speaking in another language. Period. > There is virtually no context in this case. We have chat logs from 1 person. That is not the full story of the situation. You do not need the other chat logs when the OP themselves admitted they did it only because others were “speaking nonsense”. > EDIT: Do I even have to mention the possibility those 1 chat logs we have were doctored? Why would someone edit their chat logs to **include** racism?
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=0005000000000000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T01:27:42.337+0000) > > Yes, they do. Jesus. You just refuse to admit I am right. When I was growing up, I typed with 4-6 fingers. I didn't use "home row". Never underestimate a typo. > The insult is based on the mistake of using the phoneme /r/ instead of the phoneme /l/. A quick google search confirms that the scholarly consensus is that this only happens in people whose first language is of sino-Japanese or other Asian language families. It was not a general insult. Period. Jesus. You are going off the rails. I'm not even on Google. Google doesn't know a single thing about me. How would Google know which insults I use? Those "scholars" never ran a study on my behavior. > Does “Black” insult one specific race? Black isn't an insult. Black is a color. > Racism does not have to be against only one race, and in fact, does not have to be against a specific race at all. The implication that some races are less than others, even if the specific race(s) which are superior is/are not specified, is racist. This part is tricky. There is no implication. When there is no implication, it can't be racist. In fact, there is no discrimination between races at all. It is indiscriminate. Largely, this is just semantics arguing. I'm mainly just saying you are mislabeling. All types of negativity are unwanted by Riot though so it doesn't actually matter how it is labeled. >Just because the original punishment was issued without context does not make it invalid. Oh, you finally admit there was no context? A girl can dream. > This isn’t science, it is fact based on observation. Jesus. Fact based on observation. Mine too. > The OP used the words to make fun of others for speaking in another language. Period. You can't prove it because there is no context. Period. Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty. Just because you say they were making fun of "asians", doesn't mean that is what happened. Not all "asian" languages look or sound the same. > You do not need the other chat logs when the OP themselves admitted they did it only because others were “speaking nonsense”. I wasn't aware "speaking nonsense" was limited to a specific race. I'm pretty sure every race is capable of speaking nonsense. > Why would someone edit their chat logs to **include** racism? Unintentional. I for one didn't know the double c word was a racial insult. Misleading evidence. This "single" thing got me banned. When in reality it is these "multiple" things got me banned.
: UNFAIR PERMA BAN????
If you are to continue playing this game, you need to mute negative people. Mute them at the very first sign of negativity. Mute will completely block so much negativity that you will feel better. Don't allow people to insult you. Mute it as fast as you can.
rujitra (NA)
: The op used the word "engrish". The OP told someone to "speak" that. They then used words virtually only used to be racist. For someone who preaches about context, you seem to only care about context when it suits your opinion, and not in cases like this where it proves the punishment was more than merited.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=00050000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-02-11T00:33:45.109+0000) > > The op used the word "engrish". 1. Ever hear of a typo? (I'm not convinced it happened here but it does and may have. No, the keys do not have to be near each other for a typo.) 2. Words can take on a broader intention than a single "race", "gender", etc.. For example, what if the OP was using "engrish" as a general insult and thus would use it against any race? 3. You are being racist by implying "engrish" can only insult ONE SPECIFIC RACE. 4. You keep ignoring that you aren't allowed context. It's a chat filter. Either the word is allowed or it is flagged. There is no middle ground. > They then used words virtually only used to be racist. Fake science. > For someone who preaches about context, you seem to only care about context when it suits your opinion, and not in cases like this where it proves the punishment was more than merited. There is virtually no context in this case. We have chat logs from 1 person. That is not the full story of the situation. EDIT: Do I even have to mention the possibility those 1 chat logs we have were doctored?
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=00050000000000010000,timestamp=2019-02-11T00:19:26.645+0000) > > Except, they didn't even mention a single race. > > You can't even argue which race they were racist towards. Asians! No, okay, this has got to be a troll account. I no longer believe any sane person can honestly attempt to say this.
> [{quoted}](name=EvilDustMan,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=000500000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T00:24:36.370+0000) > > Asians! No, okay, this has got to be a troll account. I no longer believe any sane person can honestly attempt to say this. Asians? Because the entire continent of Asia speaks the same language? You are being racist.
rujitra (NA)
: Your defense of racism is usually illogical, but especially so in this case. The OP **clearly**, based on context, intended to be racist with those words.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=000500000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-11T00:16:46.743+0000) > > Your defense of racism is usually illogical, but especially so in this case. > > The OP **clearly**, based on context, intended to be racist with those words. What context? You can't even prove which race the OP was supposedly racist towards. con·text [ˈkäntekst] NOUN the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed. EDIT: You should just move on. If you think I defend racism, you are delusional. I don't even believe in race.
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2019-02-10T23:22:13.949+0000) > > Did you miss the part where I said "without context"? > > I'll strike out the context of your reply. > > Doesn't make sense anymore. Maybe because racism requires context. > > Simply saying a word does not make a person racist. Especially, when there is no ill-intention behind the word. He is specifically being racist in this scenario! This is direct racism!
> [{quoted}](name=EvilDustMan,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=0005000000000001,timestamp=2019-02-11T00:13:00.819+0000) > > He is specifically being racist in this scenario! This is direct racism! Except, they didn't even mention a single race. You can't even argue which race they were racist towards.
rujitra (NA)
: The words themselves have no meaning other than a parody of the Chinese language mostly, but also other Asian languages. You are trying to say the word "bandaid" can't be said to refer to a bandage outside of context. Like... What? It always means bandage. The word **cannot** be used without the intent to make fun of Asian languages, because quite simply that is the only meaning of the word. If I go up to someone and say "food", even outside of context, you cannot claim I was not attempting to refer to nutritional items consumed by animals, period, because that is the **only** meaning of the word.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-10T23:26:13.259+0000) > > The words themselves have no meaning other than a parody of the Chinese language mostly, but also other Asian languages. Words don't have intrinsic meanings. Words have subjective meanings and are even vulnerable to misinterpretation. You don't speak for the laws of God that "word" can only have one meaning ever. > You are trying to say the word "bandaid" can't be said to refer to a bandage outside of context. Like... What? It always means bandage. Ironically, band-aid has multiple definitions: 1. a brand name 2. a thin piece of cloth on a strip that sticks to the skin and is used to cover small cuts 3. used to describe something that will only be helpful for a short time or in a limited way: > The word **cannot** be used without the intent to make fun of Asian languages, because quite simply that is the only meaning of the word. No. That is the only meaning of the word THAT YOU WILL PERSONALLY ACCEPT. I can use ANY word on the "zero tolerance" list with positive intentions. Want to blow your mind? Some people are actually named "C##ng C##ng". That is their legal name. (The actual letters and not my censored version.) > If I go up to someone and say "food", even outside of context, you cannot claim I was not attempting to refer to nutritional items consumed by animals, period, because that is the **only** meaning of the word. Food for the soul. Food for thought. Junk food. Healthy food. Fast food. Processed food. Poisoned food. Cross word puzzle answers. Pictionary. Languages other than english. Coded word/anagram. That is so much context for a word that can only possibly mean one thing.
SHIN0BU (NA)
: Think about it for a moment, if you had zero issues with behavior, why mute others? If someone has to mute others without them saying anything yet that means that the person premuted them, and only people with chat problems deal with this issue of shutting off chat.
> [{quoted}](name=Fadkiller,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9MfX39mg,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-10T23:18:47.843+0000) > > Think about it for a moment, if you had zero issues with behavior, why mute others? Prevention of unwanted chat. Hyper-focus on personal game play. Simply because they want to or enjoy the games more. > If someone has to mute others without them saying anything yet that means that the person premuted them, and only people with chat problems deal with this issue of shutting off chat. They don't HAVE to mute others. They CHOOSE to mute others. Mute is an OPTION given to everyone. Besides, "behavior problems" is subjective and vague.
rujitra (NA)
: In what way is making fun of someone's voice and natural difficulty with certain English phonemes not racist?
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=XyruXXEm,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2019-02-10T23:07:19.726+0000) > > In what way is making fun of someone's voice and natural difficulty with certain English phonemes not racist? Did you miss the part where I said "without context"? I'll strike out the context of your reply. >In what way is ~~making fun of someone's voice and natural difficulty with certain English phonemes~~ not racist? Doesn't make sense anymore. Maybe because racism requires context. Simply saying a word does not make a person racist. Especially, when there is no ill-intention behind the word.
: Suspended for a single word.
I don't think Riot punished you for just one word. I've seen many mildly negative chat logs get punished. I do feel it is bull shit of Riot to declare words without context are undeniably racist.
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lQljtcMb,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2019-02-10T19:44:35.943+0000) > > It's NOT OK to VOICE how you don't think the game is winnable and suggest you should just surrender. That's called negative attitude. Go ahead and ask Riot. "i think we should FF, enemy botlane is too fed" "i dont think we can win this one, lets just go next" "hey guys i fed and i dont think we can come back from this one" as long as you dont actually blame anyone for WHY the game is lost (which is more often then not apparent by the rest of the team, and other then yourself ofc) then you wont be punished at all, hands down.
> [{quoted}](name=FOR JUSTICE,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lQljtcMb,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-10T19:45:57.212+0000) > > "i think we should FF, enemy botlane is too fed" > "i dont think we can win this one, lets just go next" > "hey guys i fed and i dont think we can come back from this one" > > as long as you dont actually blame anyone for WHY the game is lost (which is more often then not apparent by the rest of the team, and other then yourself ofc) then you wont be punished at all, hands down. You really should go talk to Riot. Riot makes the rules. Riot enforces the rules. P.S. I've seen Riot issue punishments for "giving up" and "defeatist attitude".
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=lQljtcMb,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-02-10T19:13:36.198+0000) > > The worst part is you suggested people get punished for negative chat. > > calling for a surrender vote = not punishable > > defeatist attitude in chat = punishable no.... not a single time in the post did i say that, or even so much as imply that. in fact, i directly stated the exact opposite: > its OK to voice how you don't think the game is winnable and suggest you should just surrender suggesting the team should isnt toxic at all. all im saying is, if they repeatedly told you no, then dont waste time typing and just play out the game, because chances are a third, fourth, fifth, or sixth vote will end up yielding the same answer unless someone else is the one to suggest it.
It's NOT OK to VOICE how you don't think the game is winnable and suggest you should just surrender. That's called negative attitude. Go ahead and ask Riot.
: Just a quick PSA about surrender vote
The worst part is you suggested people get punished for negative chat. calling for a surrender vote = not punishable defeatist attitude in chat = punishable
SHIN0BU (NA)
: They’re right though, if you have no issue with what you say, then mute all never really happens. Having everyone muted usually means they have behavior issues, so yeah. Btw what they said is inference not generalization.
> [{quoted}](name=Fadkiller,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9MfX39mg,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-02-10T18:54:31.836+0000) > > They’re right though, if you have no issue with what you say, then mute all never really happens. Having everyone muted usually means they have behavior issues, so yeah. Btw what they said is inference not generalization. "The types of people" = generalization "Mute all" is a feature anyone is allowed to use. Stop stereotyping.
Modi (NA)
: They way I understand it as it was explained, there are three components: 1. Games played 2. Positive (or at least non-negative) behavior 3. Honors earned *and given* They have not given anyone a true formula on how to earn honor tiers to prevent people from trying to game the system, but as far as I know, these three factors are the inputs into your honor level.
> [{quoted}](name=Modi,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Tyokvsfu,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-10T00:39:35.017+0000) > > They way I understand it as it was explained, there are three components: > > 1. Games played > 2. Positive (or at least non-negative) behavior > 3. Honors earned *and given* > > They have not given anyone a true formula on how to earn honor tiers to prevent people from trying to game the system, but as far as I know, these three factors are the inputs into your honor level. 2 is a little more nuanced. Riot doesn't identify positive or neutral behavior. Riot identifies negative behavior. This means exceptionally positive behavior has the same honor progress as neutral behavior. Negative behavior that avoids detection has the same honor progress as well.
Jo0o (NA)
: Five Critical Improvements to Riot's Behavioral System (from somebody who has never been punished)
2) Then "bad guys" learn how to avoid IFS detection. What's the phrase I'm looking for, tunnel vision? Yea, Riot is tunnel visioned on punishing the bad guys. 3) Conspiracy: I think Riot either doesn't punish often or punishes very often. Riot doesn't want the public to know how often they punish. EDIT 4) 75% of people improve their behavior after just a verbal warning. 5) Remove the randomness. Costs no extra money to Riot. Players get what they actually want.
: League of legends needs a way to report specic in game comments
Congratulations! You have just found a fundamental flaw of the instant feedback system.
rujitra (NA)
: The types of people being pushed to “mute all” and not communicate are not the type of players you want communicating anyway. The reason those players are doing that is because they refuse to behave appropriately, they are unable to take criticism or advice from others, and much of their desired chat messages they want to send are going to be toxic. You are actually better off if players like that are not using chat, because their toxicity and inability to cooperate with others will only bring the team down.
> [{quoted}](name=rujitra,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9MfX39mg,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-02-09T19:17:57.297+0000) > > The types of people being pushed to “mute all” and not communicate are not the type of players you want communicating anyway. Generalization, opinion, and projection. God loves all children.
: Riots discipline system (Please help)
Did you delete your other thread or was it deleted by moderators? I think you should further argue the Kled point. Players don't want to see negative chat. Why would they want to hear it, repetitively?
Snowbrand (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Q7iqrNEE,comment-id=00050001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-09T15:26:52.561+0000) > > You can't control other people. You should take care to be non-toxic. The more you focus on other people, the easier it is to lose track of your own behavior. > So you tell me I shouldn't be toxic (which I'm not), but others should get a free pass? > Chat is not an intrinsic part of the game. It is a bonus feature. > It pretty much is for communication even tho it doesn't works that way usually. Telling teammates to help do baron is intrinsic, a ward just died, strategies makes chat intrinsic. > I must stress again, real life does NOT have a mute button. You are experiencing a fantasy environment (internet) from within a reality (life). > So Cyberbullying is different from bullying, because you can unfriend or mute people? Both are the same if it's in real life or on the internet. Same with toxicity. > You didn't even last one sentence. That is what happens when you lose focus of yourself. > You make no sense and I take that to mean that you are trolling. Getting banned isn't the same as getting persecuted. > There is a famous saying, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". > Yes, apply that to toxic behavior > Unfortunately, it's Riots desire. I agree with you that it's not Riots responsibility. However, Riot actually wants to adjust negative behaviors. > They don't, but if you don't follow their rules you get kicked out. That's all. > You can't control other people. > No of course you can't, but Riot can control who plays their game > Apply all that logic to yourself. I do, but this game don't make me tilt and rage in chat and I can stop myself from hurting and making my teammates lose the game from me tilting them. Im not gonna answer anymore on this post, because from the way you answer (like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" but then keep saying toxic chat is good for you and your teammates or dodging my example of banning my mum and calling it persecution) I guess you just wants to provoke and make you feel like you control others emotions. I take that from you saying that you can't control other people (even tho it makes you sound like you actually believe it). Maybe I'm wrong, but the way you answer makes no sense and sounds like you are just saying stuff to get a reaction. So good luck, and if you actually believe everything you say well, I'm sure Riot will keep having a good standard for what behavior is allowed in the game even tho it sometimes could work out better. As you said and quoted from Jesus: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
One last attempt as I leave. Toxicity is like an angry elephant rampaging through city streets. Poking it with a stick (punishment) just makes it more angry. A better method is to warn innocent bystanders and wait for the elephant to calm down (this is not the same as letting toxic people get a free pass).
: What to do about afk?
Make a fun game that people will enjoy playing.
Snowbrand (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Q7iqrNEE,comment-id=000500010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-09T00:57:01.354+0000) > > Move to a loving state of mind. Look to make the world better. Don't look to remove evil. Look to add good. If someone is getting bullied, boost their self-esteem. Counter the evil by doing good. > Yea, that's why toxicity is bad. You just explained the very reason why Riot is against toxicity, it doesn't give you a loving state of the mind. Toxicity lowers people self-esteem, it makes the world a worse place and it's add bad. If that's what you wanna achive then I'm on, but to say that toxicity helps achive this is almost bisarre. > There are differences. For example, internet has a mute button. > It's the real world, you talk to real people, it's not a PvE. If you play boardgames it's in the real world, playing games on the couch or on the pc with your friends is also about real life, it isn't really any different. Bullying and cyberbullying isn't any different just because some of the bullying is on the internet. If u really wanna write toxic stuff it's super easy. Use Word and write everything you wanna say and u achive the same thing without hurting anybody or making people upset, tilted and unfocused on the game. How hard can it be? > The "toxic" people you are persecuting are real people as well. Are you treating them fairly? If your mother used negative chat, would you banish her account? Is it possible that complaining and retaliation are not he most effective methods for adjusting negative behavior? There is a common theme to treat "bad" people poorly. That doesn't make one better than the people they are persecuting. What makes one better, is treating people nice even when it is hardest to do so. > I'm not persecuting anyone. Yes, I would definitly banish her account and that would be fair. That would actually be good for her so she could socialize and do other stuff instead, if she can't handle the pressure of a game. No, they are definitly not the best ways to adjust negative behavior, but it's not Riots job to adjust peoples negative behavior, it's on them, their parents or people around them. That's not Riots responsibility. > No. It's not about being "more important". It's about compassion and sympathy. > I can't say that it's about compassion and sympathy to let people make other people lose games through tilt or making others upset or hurt. If they can't controll their emotions in a constructive way, maybe this isn't the game for them. Maybe they should actually do something helpful in life instead and learn something about life like get a job, keep up with their friends or work on their personal relationships instead of playing a game that just makes them rage and tilt.
> [{quoted}](name=Snowbrand,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Q7iqrNEE,comment-id=0005000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-09T02:00:49.530+0000) > > Yea, that's why toxicity is bad. You can't control other people. You should take care to be non-toxic. The more you focus on other people, the easier it is to lose track of your own behavior. > It's the real world, you talk to real people, it's not a PvE. Chat is not an intrinsic part of the game. It is a bonus feature. I must stress again, real life does NOT have a mute button. You are experiencing a fantasy environment (internet) from within a reality (life). > I'm not persecuting anyone. Yes, I would definitly banish her account and that would be fair. You didn't even last one sentence. That is what happens when you lose focus of yourself. There is a famous saying, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". > That's not Riots responsibility. Unfortunately, it's Riots desire. I agree with you that it's not Riots responsibility. However, Riot actually wants to adjust negative behaviors. > I can't say that it's about compassion and sympathy to let people make other people lose games through tilt or making others upset or hurt. You can't control other people. > Maybe they should actually do something helpful in life instead and learn something about life like get a job, keep up with their friends or work on their personal relationships instead of playing a game that just makes them rage and tilt. Apply all that logic to yourself.
Snowbrand (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Q7iqrNEE,comment-id=0005000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-08T19:11:42.481+0000) > > Perhaps you are not aware of some common situations people lose self-control? > > Deciding when and what type of food to eat. Cheering at a sporting event. Daydreaming. Drug intoxication, including things such as sugar. Dating. Sleep. > > To claim constant, unbending self-control is to claim status among humans greatest spiritual leaders. The fact is though, our greatest spiritual leaders are not common on Earth. > I'm talking about normal self-control to not hurt other people in words or in deeds. What you are saying is that we should give people a free pass to be mean to others and hurt others feelings because you lack the self-control to stop you from that. Most people have that control to not hurt others in that way. > A lot of toxicity comes from anger. I'd wager all of it does but I don't believe I could prove such claims. > Huh? But it's not the same thing, and that was my only point? Because you said people are afraid to get angreý? But you can be angry without being toxic. > When an animal is feeling threatened, it usually has a specific behavior. A cat might hiss. A dog might bark. Same concept with negative chat. It's a way for people to express themselves. A very effective method as well. > So you feel threatened by other people and that's why you are toxic? It isn't tho, it's shows a lack of social skill and development. If you still feel the need, you can scream at the computer instead that doesn't hurt anyone. Edit: It's like saying bullying is okay because it helps people express themselves. > Yes, that is a plausible idea. It's called opt-in chat. > ** You are totally blinded, no reason to keep arguing . > > Reread your last sentence and do some self-reflection. Ask yourself, are you getting easily triggered? Ask yourself, is there love or anger in your words? > I probably I am yes, to some extent. But you totally missed the point, if your teammates play bad and you get triggered by that and need to flame in chat then it might be a bad idea to play the game. It's different then getting triggered by people intentionally trying to hurt you. It's not their fault for playing bad or whatever it is, BUT it is your fault for hurting other people. Neither. Im neither angry or loving in this response. > Don't prioritize league over real life. Don't suggest that people act negatively in real life as a substitute for acting negatively in a video game. The problem is that you are making a difference between real life and internet. But internet is also part of real life. You talk to real people and write to real people. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean that they doesn't exist. You make a case for your selfish need to use chat to flame other people, but you don't care that other people might get hurt in the process because your need is more important. And that's why this post is so stupid and gets downvoted for this reason. I can't tell tho if you are a troll and just try to provoke or if u are real. 'if u are real, well I kinda feel bad for you.
> [{quoted}](name=Snowbrand,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Q7iqrNEE,comment-id=00050001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-08T22:14:10.791+0000) > > I'm talking about normal self-control to not hurt other people in words or in deeds. Some people really struggle with impulse control and have physical evidence from brain scans to back their claims. Some people have amazing impulse control and can hold their breath for 20 minutes. It's a spectrum. Just because you think something is easy or normal does not mean it is the same for every person. > Huh? But it's not the same thing, and that was my only point? Because you said people are afraid to get angreý? But you can be angry without being toxic. I didn't say people were afraid to get angry. I said they don't usually WANT to get angry. Anger is not always easy to control. Give me an example of being toxic without being angry. > So you feel threatened by other people and that's why you are toxic? No. It was an example of a negative social cue. > If you still feel the need, you can scream at the computer instead that doesn't hurt anyone. Possibly hurts neighbors and self. Neighbors and self don't have a 100% effective mute button. > Edit: It's like saying bullying is okay because it helps people express themselves. I never said it was ok to bully. You said toxic chat has no use. I provided an example use for toxic chat. > You are totally blinded, no reason to keep arguing . You continue to argue though? How you can call me "blind" because I suggest it's possible to preemptively mute negative chat? > I probably I am yes, to some extent. But you totally missed the point, if your teammates play bad and you get triggered by that and need to flame in chat then it might be a bad idea to play the game. I didn't miss the point. I am redirecting your attention from other people to your self. I am showing you a way to coexist. The problem is. I have to convince you that coexistence is a worthwhile goal. Not an easy task when the person is screaming "justice" and "revenge". > Neither. Im neither angry or loving in this response. Move to a loving state of mind. Look to make the world better. Don't look to remove evil. Look to add good. If someone is getting bullied, boost their self-esteem. Counter the evil by doing good. > The problem is that you are making a difference between real life and internet. But internet is also a part of real life. There are differences. For example, internet has a mute button. >You talk to real people and write to real people. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean that they doesn't exist. The "toxic" people you are persecuting are real people as well. Are you treating them fairly? If your mother used negative chat, would you banish her account? Is it possible that complaining and retaliation are not he most effective methods for adjusting negative behavior? There is a common theme to treat "bad" people poorly. That doesn't make one better than the people they are persecuting. What makes one better, is treating people nice even when it is hardest to do so. > You make a case for your selfish need to use chat to flame other people, but you don't care that other people might get hurt in the process because your need is more important. No. It's not about being "more important". It's about compassion and sympathy. Everyone is equally as important. Thus, a way of coexistence needs to be developed. The mute button is almost miraculous in it's ability to prevent personal harm. The mute button benefits every one involved in the situation. The toxic person is not being punished and the victim is immune to harm. > And that's why this post is so stupid and gets downvoted for this reason. 5 "alleged" people down voted. The world is full of over 8 billion people. Really not a good sample size. Besides, life has adversity. You think Martin Luther King Jr. never met a critic? > I can't tell tho if you are a troll and just try to provoke or if u are real. 'if u are real, well I kinda feel bad for you. Well allow me to make this easier for you. Are you trolling or are you serious? If you are trolling, don't bother typing up a response and we will both move on to happier days. If you are serious, please take time to carefully examine everything I have said to you. I'm willing to expend energy for your benefit. So long as, you approach with an open mind and earnest intent.
: I agree, but you can also reveal the message hidden by downvotes. Which I do since I don't trust a reply/quote to contain everything. It also depends on what our focus is. I was referring to overall posts since I call those threads. I call what we are discussing a subthread. My lingo may not match OPs or yours, so clarity would help. ^_^´
> [{quoted}](name=Imperial Pandaa,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=pyIs3HuB,comment-id=000200020000,timestamp=2019-02-08T07:35:42.043+0000) > I think we are all on the same track now. The thing that bothers me about the down votes, is that there is practically no visible support for it. Very few people make an effort to defend down votes.
Snowbrand (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Q7iqrNEE,comment-id=00050001000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-08T01:44:37.050+0000) > > Every single person on this planet suffers from lack of self-control. > Is that supposed to be a serious statement or are you just trolling now lol? A lot of people have self-control (most people I know), but many kids playing games like league doesn't have self-control that's true. > 1. That means most people don't want to get angry. > 2. That makes negative behavior an effective social cue. > Toxicity and being angry isn't the same thing, it's also how you handle your anger. Not sure what your second point is ment to say? > So instead of venting through easily muted means, you suggest people resort to unmutable means? Furthermore, instead of venting through a physically safe environment, you suggest people resort to physical violence? > So people should start their games with /mute all from the start of their games so they don't have to see the flame and verbal abuse so that people that can't control themselves in chat can get a free pass? If you can't handle your anger and feel the need to insult your teammates and flame everyone in chat then yes, you should keep it to yourself and vent your anger somewhere else, ruin your own life if u want but u don't have to ruin others lifes. Or maybe better, don't play league if you get easily triggered. > Your league game is not more important than real life people. What's your point? So you are changing your mind now and saying that YOUR league game isn't more important then the people you hurt by verbally abusing them? If that's what you say, then we can agree on that and there is no more need for this post
> [{quoted}](name=Snowbrand,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Q7iqrNEE,comment-id=000500010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-08T13:24:24.643+0000) > > Is that supposed to be a serious statement or are you just trolling now lol? A lot of people have self-control (most people I know), but many kids playing games like league doesn't have self-control that's true. Perhaps you are not aware of some common situations people lose self-control? Deciding when and what type of food to eat. Cheering at a sporting event. Daydreaming. Drug intoxication, including things such as sugar. Dating. Sleep. To claim constant, unbending self-control is to claim status among humans greatest spiritual leaders. The fact is though, our greatest spiritual leaders are not common on Earth. > Toxicity and being angry isn't the same thing, it's also how you handle your anger. Not sure what your second point is ment to say? A lot of toxicity comes from anger. I'd wager all of it does but I don't believe I could prove such claims. When an animal is feeling threatened, it usually has a specific behavior. A cat might hiss. A dog might bark. Same concept with negative chat. It's a way for people to express themselves. A very effective method as well. > So people should start their games with /mute all from the start of their games so they don't have to see the flame and verbal abuse Yes, that is a plausible idea. It's called opt-in chat. > If you can't handle your anger and feel the need to insult your teammates and flame everyone in chat then yes, you should keep it to yourself and vent your anger somewhere else, ruin your own life if u want but u don't have to ruin others lifes. **Or maybe better, don't play league if you get easily triggered. ** Reread your last sentence and do some self-reflection. Ask yourself, are you getting easily triggered? Ask yourself, is there love or anger in your words? > What's your point? Don't prioritize league over real life. Don't suggest that people act negatively in real life as a substitute for acting negatively in a video game.
: Are they disagreeing with the opinion or hiw the opinion is presented? Granted it isn't always constant, but there seems to be a difference between disagreement of an idea and disagreement with the presentation. As an example, these will have the same title, but different bodies: >Are Punishments too Harsh? ___ >Body 1: Is the punishment system by Riot to unforgiving at certain levels? They believe in reform, but give up after a few mishaps. This is even more shown with cases of Zero Tolerance when someone only gets a singular punishment before a permanent ban. Is there perhaps a better way to encourage change in behavior? ___ >Body 2: Fuck Rito and their bullshit punishment system. Showing fucking favortism to steamers cause they advertsie the game. Unbanning their bitch asses while the common player gets screwed. God damn snowflakes ruin everything. Body 1 I would share my opinion, and leave unvoted as they actually want a discussion. Meanwhile, body 2 makes it feel liek they don't want a discussion; but instead an echo chamber.
Forgive my interruption, but your vote influences what other people are exposed to. I can appreciate that the intentions are most likely good. However, humans have a broad spectrum of personalities. We are not all interested in the same things. Why not allow the individual to decide which threads are right for themselves?
Apriccot (NA)
: Where are the downvoted threads?
You know, about 2-3 months ago the moderators acknowledged the idea of removing down votes. A status update would be nice.
Show more

mlm olo mlm

Level 12 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion