rujitra (NA)
: It is. Unfortunately, Riot stopped punishing refusal to communicate years ago.
rujitra (NA)
: That was the unskilled player report. They actually did punish failure to communicate if someone refused to communicate in any form.
only when it is combo'd with you doing something weird way out of the meta and refuse to discuss with your team AND you do it consistently over many, many games. Refusing to communicate by itself has NEVER been a punishable offense and I dare you to name one person who has ever been punisher purely for refusing to communicate without doing anything that's considered not the norm. Back when refusing to communicate was a report option that was during the Tribunal era, there has NEVER been a single case in Tribunal where refusing to communicate was even in the reported category they've shown. Can you give me one example of someone punished PURELY for refusing to communicate?
Korahor (NA)
: unbanning
Reintroduce more toxicity into player pool is probably not a good way celebrate their 10th anniversary. If we are to go by the 3 previous unbanning experiments, we can probably guess how your idea will go down...
zPOOPz (NA)
: and I've never used any absolute verbiage that skill is the only choice. hell, I even acknowledged that luck may be a variable TWICE. I'm not sure where you are getting that I think skill is the only thing that matter and I disregarded anything else when I openly acknowledged luck TWICE. I insisted on correcting you because you said > well seeing as we established already that **it's no based on skill** in the first place but on luck You are the one who disregarded by point about skill in the first place and tried to put word in my mouth (read the bolded part). pretty sure that's called strawman. > you are determined that your argument (skill) is the only one that can ever be valid and disregard arguments that claim otherwise. ... So what was that word you're trying to call me?
well, this is going on long enough. I enjoyed our little argument with little jabs here and there and no one pulled any serious personally insults. been fun, but this thread is derailed long enough I the entertainment values I got out of this ran dry. grades can be based on both skill and luck! let's leave it at that
zPOOPz (NA)
: and I've never used any absolute verbiage that skill is the only choice. hell, I even acknowledged that luck may be a variable TWICE. I'm not sure where you are getting that I think skill is the only thing that matter and I disregarded anything else when I openly acknowledged luck TWICE. I insisted on correcting you because you said > well seeing as we established already that **it's no based on skill** in the first place but on luck You are the one who disregarded by point about skill in the first place and tried to put word in my mouth (read the bolded part). pretty sure that's called strawman. > you are determined that your argument (skill) is the only one that can ever be valid and disregard arguments that claim otherwise. ... So what was that word you're trying to call me?
so....either I am a keyboard warrior or I accept being strawman'ed? There's no good choice is there?
: i didn't say it's based "purely on luck". just that luck is one of the variables used to get it. the only thing that varies is the %. but the luck is nevertheless present, just as much as the skill part is
and I've never used any absolute verbiage that skill is the only choice. hell, I even acknowledged that luck may be a variable TWICE. I'm not sure where you are getting that I think skill is the only thing that matter and I disregarded anything else when I openly acknowledged luck TWICE. I insisted on correcting you because you said > well seeing as we established already that **it's no based on skill** in the first place but on luck You are the one who disregarded by point about skill in the first place and tried to put word in my mouth (read the bolded part). pretty sure that's called strawman. > you are determined that your argument (skill) is the only one that can ever be valid and disregard arguments that claim otherwise. ... So what was that word you're trying to call me?
: you mentioned it, sure but then went on to finish by going > But that's not to say grade is based purely on luck. as if the luck part is just hapenstance and not generally valid
Is there a language barrier here? If something is not based purely on luck. That just means luck is not the absolute 100% certainty of cause. It can be something else. It means luck is not the only choice. That is all that it means.
: >I feel like I'm being strawman-ed. I'm pretty sure I have been insistence that grade is based on skill. Sure, you spam enough games of something, you'll get luck. But that's not to say grade is based purely on luck. you're not being strawmanned. the problem is that you have an opinion on how mastery 7 is achieved and despite the fact that there are other ways to get it(luck), you are determined that your argument (skill) is the only one that can ever be valid and disregard arguments that claim otherwise. {{sticker:sg-ahri-3}} there was a word for people like you but i just can't seem to remember it... {{sticker:sg-lulu}}
2 times I acknowledged that S can be obtained by luck. Where are you getting that I think skill is the only way??? Am I being trolled? > (although an argument can be made that the more you play, the more you may get "lucky" and get S grade, but that's beside the point) . > Sure, you spam enough games of something, you'll get luck.
: well seeing as we established already that it's no based on skill in the first place but on luck, i see no point for the entire argument. even if it was influenced by honor, it wouldn't change anything overall. it would still be a shit way to grade champion skill on someone back in the day i had a friend who graded your significance on ammount of games played. even tho years have passed, we now have a name for that mentality: mastery level/score {{sticker:garen-swing}}
I feel like I'm being strawman-ed. I'm pretty sure I have been insistence that grade is based on skill. Sure, you spam enough games of something, you'll get luck. But that's not to say grade is based purely on luck. I'm done with you as well.
: if you have friends at the bottom of the barrel in iron 4, ask them to show you their mastery 7 champions. if their accounts are a few seasons strong there's more than a few. i {{champion:86}} -tee it!
You are still missing the point of OP. He wants grade S to be more or less based on honors instead of actual skill.
: >Mastery should be about...your mastery of the champion too bad it's not. it just means "i've played a lot of games with this guy" the {{champion:74}} with the highest mastery score (almost 10 mil) in the world is silver 4 currently with ~3000 heimer games this season
But he is not talking about mastery score (although i can see how the title can be a bit misleading). He is talking about grade. You can (in theory) have 10m champion score and never reached mastery level 7 because you need several grade S or above for that. That's more based on skills rather than amount of games you play (although an argument can be made that the more you play, the more you may get "lucky" and get S grade, but that's beside the point). You need certain amount of skills to get S grade.
JettryX (EUW)
: Champion master and honors after a game.
No thank. I don't need to see people begging for honors excessively and distract everyone from the game. Mastery should be about...your mastery of the champion, not how good of a beggar you are.
Arukado (NA)
: Banned For cheating even though i didnt cheat
https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us submit a support ticket
: The reason why new people AVOID rank!
I've been playing ranked since season 3. I also play flex ranked (for the victorious Orianna chroma) purely solo and I get put with pre-made pretty much every flex ranked games (sometimes even double duos). I don't really experienced as much toxicity (that does not mean I experienced no toxicity...) as most people claimed. That's just my personal experience of course. If you go into games accept that you'll win/lose 40-60% of the time and a loss is inevitable, you'll find that it'll be okay to lose some games even because of afk/inter/troll/etc. Go into games prepare to use the mute function, but only when things go south. Respect your teammates and don't full mute before they even say anything. That's my ways anyway.
Trias000 (EUNE)
: Never give up
Sorry, this game is called League of Legends, NOT League of Losers or League of Quitters.
WujuFire (EUW)
: Ranked system
I have been playing League since Season 3 and I play ranked. Plz do not speak for me. You do not speak for "all of us summoners". 1) feeding is not against the rules. for someone to win lane, the opposing laner must lose lane (e.g. feeding) https://matchhistory.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/EUW1/4235891679/229182271?tab=overview https://matchhistory.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/EUW1/4234233655/229182271?tab=overview https://matchhistory.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/EUW1/4215559935/229182271?tab=overview https://matchhistory.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/EUW1/4194354466/229182271?tab=overview You feed your ass off too. How much extra LP are you willing to lose? 2) how do you define "carrying"? It can means a tank who prevent all damage from adc but have very little kda and damage to show for it. Or a support who cc or tank for adc, but have no glory. Or a jungle who applies pressures all over the map even if he doesn't kill anyone.
Mr Tyson (NA)
: I don't think that is how boards are supposed to work. That is what comments are for. You are supposed to upvote things that belong on the bopards, and downvote things that don't belong on the boards. Apparently, dissenting opinions have no place on these boards. I think I have been quite good with my comments clarifying issues. People have thought I'm complaining about a punishment, and their comments get upvoted. I have not been punished in any way, nor have I left a game or done anything that would get me a punishment. Apparently me explaining that deserves a downvote. So one of 2 things is going on. Either it is 'disagreeable' that I don't think punishments should not be punished, **AND** it is disagreeable that I do follow the code and don't negatively impact games. Or, you all are sheep, I have said something you somehow deemed undesirable, and anything I say must be bad and downvoted to show that desenters don't belong. Check the first comment thread, and tell me I'm wrong. The one with meowwow7. He completely ignored the entire post, and got upvotes. I clarified, and even informed everyone I am in fact, not toxic in the games. Downvotes. Sheep mentality.
if say I agree with Imperial Pandaa and disagree with you, in stead of parroting or copy and paste what pandaa said, a simple downvote on you and upvote on him convey my disagreement with you and agreement with him. Now if 30 people who downvoted you typed pretty much the same disagreement, then this thread will be flooded with pretty much the same 30 comments. Downvote and upvote are much more clean to convey agreement/disagreement without spamming the same comments 30 times. Besides, you called the community psychopathic, which is a little overblown on a more serious medical condition. What exactly were you expecting? Tons of upvotes?
ßlameMyADC (EUNE)
: Stop queueing me with people I reported last game
Just because you reported someone doesn't mean that person did anything wrong. You can report someone for any reason or absolutely no reason at all. What you are asking for is a way to abuse and manipulate matchmaking (which may or may not be your intention, but it will be abused this way). If you want to reduce the chance of being queued with someone you previously played, then simply wait a few minutes before hitting the Play button. It is a small inconvenience (by your own choice) to preserve the integrity of matchmaking.
: I am from a family of lawyers. Threatening to rape and kill someone online on any platform is a federal crime. Educate yourself. I don't mean to sound bitter or mean but you can take it lightly, not everyone does. Hiding behind a screen and joking about raping a 2 year old does not make it okay.
and? do these lawyers family of yours not "educate" you on how to properly report it to the correct people? In case they didn't, Rito is not the correct people to report "cyber crime". Educate yourself.
: Why do you let people say things like "EZ"
report them post game and then go into option and disable /all chat
Jesari (NA)
: Revised/Reposed:So people who hack you, and gift themselves through your account don't get punished
In a lot of cases, not even the real polices with real authorities can just willy nilly ask for people identity on the net without a subpoena of some kind or nilly willy search people without probable cause. Who are you with what authority to demand to know the identity of that person? If you claim to be hacked, gift me something, you get to request whatever real account data Rito has on me??? That's all kind of questionable legality (or publicity) shits that would rain down on Rito.
: > [{quoted}](name=zPOOPz,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=5NPK27w1,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-10-18T01:20:41.662+0000) > > If you are currently Gold+ rank, it is kind of a big deal. You will not get your end season rewards, victorious skin, ward, etc. (if those matter to you). I doubt you have enough time to climb back to Honor 2 now. It says that if you have active chat restrictions. I've already gotten rid of the restriction as it was only 9 games.
Did the requirements changed this season? Honor 2 is required for end season rewards for the last 3 years...
: Chat Restricted. Is the system a lot stricter than it used to be?
If you are currently Gold+ rank, it is kind of a big deal. You will not get your end season rewards, victorious skin, ward, etc. (if those matter to you). I doubt you have enough time to climb back to Honor 2 now.
: Power in numbers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7BLtQHYY7g "dying game"
: when is it 6pm in california? in how many hours?
8 hours from now
: how would they know he shared the account though?
Rito usually does not go after people for this kind of thing as far as I know (although they can and will perma people for it). It's most likely at the bottom of their priorities unless it's the case of boosting/account sharing. I've only brought it up because OP openly admitted to sharing his account.
: That’s actually not true, telling someone to shut up is in itself a punishable offense. I have a support ticket from Riot stating this.
Yes, telling someone to shut up is flaming and flaming is against the rules. Therefore it is a punishable offense. The support agent is not wrong on that regards. However, in practice, the IFS gives people a lot of leniency toward something super mild like a single "shut up". No one has ever been punished for just one "shut up" and nothing else. If you can give me an actual example of someone who got punished for just one "shut up" and there's no other punishable offenses in their chat log.....
: I believe flaming and a solitary “shut up” are different. Currently, because it is an AI system, you will be punished for saying such even if only a couple times throughout a 30 minute game. (In correlation with my previous hypothetical scenario) I’d argue that isn’t toxic and it shouldnt be punishable. That was the case previously too, as far as I recall that wouldn’t be enough to garner a mute. Because this system uses keywords (which as I previously stated is useful for non tolerable remarks (racist, homophobic, etc.) but ends up being borderline comical for other things like “shut up” or “boner”. Like am I hallucinating in thinking that that should be fine? Game might as well be rated E at this point.
give me ONE chat log where someone got punished for a single instance of "shut up" no one ever get punished for just "shut up" whether by the IFS or Tribunal. Usually there are much more flaming, passive-aggressive, condescension, negativity, argument, rank/kda/etc. shaming, report harassment, etc. etc. involved ON TOP of that one "shut up"
: > [{quoted}](name=zPOOPz,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=hdT8v9dH,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-10-16T20:02:11.659+0000) > > account sharing is perma-bannable offense by itself. > > Are you sure your brother didnt share your account with his friends or use it to play at friend's house? I don't think giving it to his brother accounts for account sharing.
if he is not the one playing on that account, it is account sharing (being hacked notwithstanding)
: I'd like to reiterate that I believe neither of these systems are amazing by themselves but I'd like to point out the inaccuracies of any AI system and the circumstances revolving around inaccuracies. You can submit a support ticket if you feel wrongly punished sure, but take a hypothetical case like this for instance; >You're being flamed by a blatant racist for the majority of the game, you mute him but the rest of your teammates are still engaging with this idiot. >You tell this guy dude please shut up and play the game >You're bestowed a mute or temporary ban because shut up is a key word for the AI system AI doesn't account for circumstantial evidence and I'd have a hard time justifying any sort of punishment on the guy that said shut up. But hey, maybe I'm misinterpreting the kind of environment riot is trying to create
I participated actively during the Tribunal era. If you want to go by my accuracy rates, circumstantial evidence is meaningless when the person in question did flame. My accuracy rating took several hits when I voted to pardon someone who got flamed by their team and toward the end, flamed back. The majority decision is still punished. If you vote punish blindly without reading in Tribunal, you would get about 90% accuracy rating....circumstantial evidence or not
: I've been Perma-Banned for Third Party Software even tho I haven't used any...
account sharing is perma-bannable offense by itself. Are you sure your brother didnt share your account with his friends or use it to play at friend's house?
Gall (NA)
: @Riot Tantrum Just got this when I logged in today after my midterms :)
: I think the problem is that all other competitors from other games are generally not as stingy with their LP equivalent (rating), if you are good and confident in your play, getting more games in, in a day, is more inmportant thank clinging to 4v5s
nonetheless, the central point of your thread is that Rito should implement a system to allow your team to leave game early if there is an afk (you did want LP win/loss to be the same, which is a good thing). Rito already has such a system. It's called surrender vote. Now I can agree that maybe Rito should move it up to say 10 minutes surrender under special conditions like a teammate never connect and we couldn't remake. But I do have a problem if a single teammate should be allowed to leave if the rest of the team still wish to finish the game. If the team wants to leave, then the team has the option to surrender early. But that's just my opinion.
: Sure 4v5 is winnable like 5% of the time but Id rather get into a new game wherein i have all 4 of my teammates
But you cannot make the same selfish decision as the guy who went afk in the first place and leave the rest of your teammates to play 3v5, at least not without consequences. Rito gave us the chance to surrender, as a team. That's when all of you can leave game without consequences assuming the entire team no longer want to play it out. Perhaps if you want to move the 15 minutes surrender time up to like 10 minutes if you have afk 4 minutes in or something, that's more reasonable. But this is a team game, you win as a team, you surrender as a team (or super majority of the team if 20+ minutes).
: > [{quoted}](name=Ebonmaw,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=WhFMWLyb,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2019-10-14T19:52:26.102+0000) > > How do you defend your self ? > > You fight fire with fire or ? I mean if someone's lighting you on fire you gotta throw it back and get it off lmao
That's not how fire works. It gets both of you on fire. So people around you instead of having to avoid one flaming asshole, now they have 2 flaming assholes to avoid getting fire on them.
: please tell me - future
Who cares? If you did nothing wrong, then the IFS will find nothing. Use your own advice and mute the people who beg for report. Report them yourselves if you feel like it.
: Nah the LP system would stay exact same of course
So herein lies a problem. The win/loss LP should remain exact the same is the most fair point. However, if one person afk and the other 3 teammates wish to continue to play for a chance to win (perhaps one or more of them on a promo series or perhaps people just want to play the game out even if 4v5), but you allow the 4th to afk without consequence, would that be fair to the other 3 people who wants to play it out? There's a chance to win 4v5. I haven't heard anyone ever said there's a chance to win 3v5 unless the enemy surrender for some reason.
: Modernize LeaverBuster
I assume you'll want that match to be null and void and no one would gain or lose LP as well? Because if the remaining teammates don't lose LP, but winning team do gain, then it will be abused all to hell.
: I just wanned to know, I dont know why is there so many dislikes. I'm not trying to avoid my punishment or prove I'm innocent, judging by tickets It's like chasing wind in the mountains. Thanks for clarifying this.
One thing you need to understand is that the IFS (the bot that banned you originally) doesn't work without a report from other players. It is not automatic like LeaveBuster. If you got banned, it is 100% because SOMEONE (or multiple someones) reported you. No report = no IFS = no review. I can pretty much say for certain that someone did reported you that game. Otherwise, the IFS would not be triggered. Perhaps there was some miscommunications with support because they should tell you more or less what I told you here. It's not exactly a secret that they need to hide..... Even if you were in a pre-made 5 and you are sure no one on your team reported you, remember that the enemies can also reported you. Perhaps not for the "kys", but maybe they salt reported you or for whatever reason and that report would triggered the IFS which would see that "kys" of yours. You may be able to control your team if you are pre-made 5 and be sure no one reported you, but always remember that there are also the other 5 enemy players that you have no control over that can still reported you for any reason or no reason at all.
: Can a Rioter punish you without reports on your account?
Yes. Support has discretions to apply manual ban on any account they see fit.
: > [{quoted}](name=zPOOPz,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=q2N1HuQ2,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-14T12:20:17.453+0000) > > sorry, I'm not a 12 yrs old Well, I see you cannot accept those terms you just said lol. Good thing you are hiding under an alt-account. By the way, did you know league of legends is marketed towards teenagers? Suits me.
I'm not rising to your bait. Let our discussion ends here.
: > [{quoted}](name=zPOOPz,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=q2N1HuQ2,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-14T05:25:11.354+0000) > > Once more time, this is PLAYER BEHAVIOR board, NOT Gameplay board. If you want to discuss the efficiency of support taking cs, then Gameplay board is where that discussion should take place. As per the rules, support taking cs is NOT against the rules. Whether I am willing to accept those terms or not is irrelevant to the fact that nothing the Graves did is against the rules or was he trolling (as per RIto definition of trolling). So can you duo with me as you as ADC and I'll play graves support. Let's go ranked so friend me on your main account. Go on!
sorry, I'm not a 12 yrs old
: Is This A Reportable and Bannable Offense?
define "troll in this manner". What did he do? ban someone's pick intent is not against the rules. picking lucian into ANY role is not against the rules. taking cs as a support is not against the rules. If he did not go to bot lane when game starts is most likely against the rules.
: > [{quoted}](name=zPOOPz,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=q2N1HuQ2,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-14T04:21:05.198+0000) > > It's hard to argue that support taking cs can reduce the efficiency of the team power. But this is Player Behavior, not Gameplay board. If he is assigned support and he went bot. He is playing his role. Picking Graves is not against the rules. Taking Doran first item is not against the rules. Taking cs even as a support is not against the rules (again, remember that this is Player Behavior board, not Gameplay). > > How is he a rolestealer??? Aside from the flaming part which is a offense. I don't know how much are you willing to accept those terms if people did that to you though.
Once more time, this is PLAYER BEHAVIOR board, NOT Gameplay board. If you want to discuss the efficiency of support taking cs, then Gameplay board is where that discussion should take place. As per the rules, support taking cs is NOT against the rules. Whether I am willing to accept those terms or not is irrelevant to the fact that nothing the Graves did is against the rules or was he trolling (as per RIto definition of trolling).
: Permanently banned for third party software??
What's wrong with the thread you made 43 minutes ago that's still on the first page?
: Get trolled and chat restricted nerd
Picking Graves is not trolling. Taking Doran blade is not trolling. Taking cs as a support is not trolling (as per Rito rules). He got chat restricted because you flamed. NOT because you were trolled because you were not trolled (as per the official rules). It is your choice to flame, take responsibility for your actions.
: > [{quoted}](name=Imperial Pandaa,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=q2N1HuQ2,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-10-14T03:57:51.085+0000) > > Somehow, I doubt that is the only thing you said. But again, rolestealers should be banned off especially if its ranked.
It's hard to argue that support taking cs can reduce the efficiency of the team power. But this is Player Behavior, not Gameplay board. If he is assigned support and he went bot. He is playing his role. Picking Graves is not against the rules. Taking Doran first item is not against the rules. Taking cs even as a support is not against the rules (again, remember that this is Player Behavior board, not Gameplay). How is he a rolestealer???
PiRSqr (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=AeroWaffle,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=xkzu1WGm,comment-id=000100000001,timestamp=2019-10-13T22:33:41.337+0000) > > If you intentionally fed or trolled, it doesn't really matter if you changed your mind later in the match. You still placed your team at a huge disadvantage on purpose. So this is a 1st offense penalty? a 14 day ban...
yes, considering almost everyone on this board would be just as happy if first offense is straight to perma ban for intentionally feeding....
: I lost lp because a tryndamere forgot smite
who are you to say what the enemy team can and cannot do regarding their lane assignments?
: We SERIOUSLY need a Compensation System in Place
are you prepared to not gain any LP if there is one of those on the enemy team and you won if any compensations are to be implemented? If losing team gets free LP compensations, then winning team shouldn't receive any LP for winning. Otherwise, you just create LP inflation.
Show more

zPOOPz

Level 34 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion