: The problem isn't that you got a 14-day without a 25-game; it's that you got a second 10-game rather than a 25-game. The next time you behave as you did in the games shown in the logs, you'll be permanently banned.
> [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=vPnejAp3,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-11-16T08:40:39.095+0000) > > The problem isn't that you got a 14-day without a 25-game; it's that you got a second 10-game rather than a 25-game. Or OP dropped a punishment tier in between those chat restrictions and was now incorrectly assigned a 14-day ban. If the system must have made a mistake either way, it seems a bit unfair to immediately favour one explanation over the other. @OP: If in doubt, write a support ticket. They'll either be able to explain why you received a 14-day ban or revert it if it has really been a mistake.
: Death Threats holding substance
It's obvious, a lot of people have already said it, but I still feel it's important enough to be said again: You're most likely safe, if you don't feel safe, talk to the police about it. Now, regarding the chatlogs: This didn't by any chance happen in allchat? Because if so you can just watch the replay from your match history. There's sometimes a problem with seeing all chat in replays, but that can be fixed by just changing the settings to *not* display allchat, then switch it back again.
: Make banning teams pick reportable already
If people openly admit that it is done to spite their teammate? Sure. But then people are just not going to be open about it anymore which makes it questionable how much effort this deserves. But at the end of the day there are valid reasons to ban somebody's preferred pick, and Riot never has and hopefully never will punish players for strategic disagreement.
: im not saying tantram is lying but saying if (reports > 0) { review(); } isnt evidence of him showing us the code. i could also say "i hacked riot and found the REAL CODE and it looks like this" if (reports > 4) { ban(); } this doesnt confirm anything. if he posted a video of him actually opening the code on a computer in the riotgames headquarter thats something else. but you said it yourself and i quote you from your own comment "An anecdote with no real content is not proof." OP did the same as tantram. post something without any evidence saying that it is true. again i know this community so id like to stress IM NOT SAYING TANTRAM IS LYING im just saying why is no real content fine when a rioter does it but when a normal player does it you call him out for it?
I agree that it's no real proof… but it's also not an anecdote. In this case we are talking about the thing itself; there's no need to interpret or extrapolate the information. If we could somehow prove that Tantram wasn't lying then that's that, we have proven that multiple reports are not more powerful than a single one. If we could somehow prove that a certain anecdote was true… then that only means that the anecdote is true. That doesn't mean it's a common occurrence or representative of the status quo in any meaningful way. You cannot conclude any correlation from it, let alone a causal link. The problems with anecdotal evidence are far larger than just whether it can be proven to be true.
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=q7uGWEvI,comment-id=00090000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-14T20:50:08.970+0000) > > That's already more of an effort than regular reports get. Why do you think tickets *inherently* deserve more attention than ingame reports? Because submitting a ticket requires more effort than a post-game report, and because a ticket indicates that someone is particularly interested in that issue. This is no different from customer support for other services.
> [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=q7uGWEvI,comment-id=000900000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-14T23:26:21.995+0000) > > Because submitting a ticket requires more effort than a post-game report, and because a ticket indicates that someone is particularly interested in that issue. But that's the thing: Whether somebody is particularly interested in that issue only tells you how confident that person themselves is that their report has merit. It says absolutely nothing about the reliability of their report. If we had a gigantic problem with deliberate false reports that would be a different thing. But we instead, looking around this subforum, it simply seems we have a huge amount of people who consistently and confidently identify people as trolls even when they're just playing badly. Why wouldn't those people also be interested enough to file a ticket? This is, btw, what I previously meant with people just being "upset" enough to write a ticket. While I admit that it may have been a poor choice of words, the core argument remains the same: Whatever it is that makes people write tickets does not automatically mean they have a better judgement when it comes to other peoples' behaviour. At best, they are probably more confident that their assessment is correct. But confidence sadly is not always a good indicator for reliability. Edit: I hope it's clear now that my post does not rely "wholly on the massive assumption that ticketers are largely just malicious, angry, arrogant people who misuse the system", but that it simply relies on the small assumption that ticketers are not significantly **less** malicious, angry, arrogant (or simply bad at determining other peoples' intent) than those who file in-game reports.
: You can upload screenshots and links to the match history when you report someone via a ticket. It allows for much more context than the in-game report does.
Links to the match history are hardly necessary, I'm sure that's not exactly difficult to pull up automatically when looking at a case. So in that this is not really any different from regular reports. In fact it's also **safer** for support to receive a link to the appropriate match history via some automated system. There have been issues with font related mixups in the past, i.e. lowercase L and uppercase i. And screenshots? Well, they still have to be confirmed, because if Riot starts issuing punishment based on screenshots that are supplied by players without checking them, we have a whole different problem on our hands. And if they need to be confirmed, we're looking at the problem that I've pointed out in my latest response to KFCeytron: That's already more effort than regular reports receive. So there would still have to be some *prior* reason to trust ticket reports more than ingame ones. More than that, however, if screenshots need to be confirmed anyway, one might as well just send the appropriate timestamps… which again is not different from an ingame report where you can also easily add these in the comments. In fact you could add the link to the match history in the comments, too. So I guess that makes my question: Why should Riot believe that a report via ticket with screenshots and a link to the match history is more reliable than an ingame report with timestamps and a link to the match history?
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=q7uGWEvI,comment-id=000900000000,timestamp=2019-11-14T11:36:23.587+0000) > > Okay, since you clearly misunderstand my post, let me be as concise as possible: > > Why should Riot believe that a report via ticket is more reliable than an ingame report? By reading it and making a judgment call about its validity, of course. Unless by "a report" you meant "every report" - believing that every report from one source is always better than every report from another source would obviously be a gross misconception.
> [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=q7uGWEvI,comment-id=0009000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-14T20:12:49.641+0000) > > By reading it and making a judgment call about its validity, of course. That's already more of an effort than regular reports get. Why do you think tickets *inherently* deserve more attention than ingame reports?
: Add additional report reasons to state in the post game report module
>Lack of Game Knowledge How would you even **detect** that? And if you just wanna go via number of reports: I used to frequently be the only member of the team that knew spell vamp worked on physical damage spells. And that was in gold. Imagine how many misconceptions exist in bronze and below. An even simpler argument against just counting reports: If the algorithm works, there's no need for action. If it doesn't, you can't trust the players you matched in the same game to validly use that report. There is no reason to ever trust the opinion of the players in a game more than the algorithm that placed them there.
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=q7uGWEvI,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2019-11-14T10:20:30.834+0000) > > I strongly doubt that this is true. The main purpose of reporting players via support ticket has always been exactly what is still possible to do now: Report players you weren't able to (or forgot) to report via the ingame method. I'm absolutely confident that they still at least sample reports, if for no other reason than to "audit" the automated system. > > And the thing is, there's no sensible reason to prioritize tickets over regular reports when it comes to manual reviews. The only thing a manual ticket shows is that you were **upset** enough to go through the effort of filing a ticket... but people are upset about many things that are not actually punishable. > > It's true that **IF** people reliably used tickets to file specifically reports for behaviour they are certain the IFS can't catch, then that would be a nice addition to the report system… but realistically a lot of people would just end up using this to "make sure" that their report would result in a manual review for no other reason than feeling entitled to having their case manually reviewed. At that point manual reviews are no longer reserved for the things where it likely makes sense to review them, and instead they are reserved for the loudest portion of the community. > > Treating all reports as equal is simply a more fair way of handling them, and randomized manual reviews offer a lot of advantages for machine learning. > The only reason I can see for considering one form of reporting more reliable, is if those reports **are** in fact more reliable. If that ceased to be the case (assuming it ever **was** the case to begin with) then it's definitely the correct choice to say "fuck it, from now on a report is a report, regardless of how it was submitted". The purpose of any human support system that operates in conjunction with an automated system is to catch errors, whether human error or computer error. For example, a user of a service may write a check greater than their bill, or the service's automated system might bill a user for an incorrect amount (a guy in NY got a $38m utility bill this year, a woman in Pennsylvania got a $284B utility bill a couple years ago, etc.). The human who notices the error can then contact the human support system - which has much more sophisticated "programming" than any computer - and correct the problem. Support tickets are still available (I presume) to correct the error of not reporting after a game, whether due to forgetfulness, a crash, etc. However, they are no longer available to correct the error of the IFS somehow letting the most blatantly obvious, clearly poor behavior go unpunished, as used to be possible. I think this is detrimental to the playerbase overall, for the reasons I outlined in my OP. The rest of your post relies wholly on the massive assumption that ticketers are largely just malicious, angry, arrogant people who misuse the system. I've seen many banned players post their conversations with Riot support on PB about supposed false positives, where they interact with multiple people who each independently confirm that the player's behavior was inappropriate, and eventually end up getting their tickets automatically closed. Why should players on the _receiving_ end of such inappropriate behavior not even be allowed to open a ticket about false negatives? It just gives the impression that when the automated system is asleep on the job, there's no supervisor to wake them up.
Okay, since you clearly misunderstand my post, let me be as concise as possible: Why should Riot believe that a report via ticket is more reliable than an ingame report?
: PSA: Riot Support has a category for behavior tickets, but now discards them
>and there is no longer any human backup system to handle them. I strongly doubt that this is true. The main purpose of reporting players via support ticket has always been exactly what is still possible to do now: Report players you weren't able to (or forgot) to report via the ingame method. I'm absolutely confident that they still at least sample reports, if for no other reason than to "audit" the automated system. And the thing is, there's no sensible reason to prioritize tickets over regular reports when it comes to manual reviews. The only thing a manual ticket shows is that you were **upset** enough to go through the effort of filing a ticket... but people are upset about many things that are not actually punishable. It's true that **IF** people reliably used tickets to file specifically reports for behaviour they are certain the IFS can't catch, then that would be a nice addition to the report system… but realistically a lot of people would just end up using this to "make sure" that their report would result in a manual review for no other reason than feeling entitled to having their case manually reviewed. At that point manual reviews are no longer reserved for the things where it likely makes sense to review them, and instead they are reserved for the loudest portion of the community. Treating all reports as equal is simply a more fair way of handling them, and randomized manual reviews offer a lot of advantages for machine learning. The only reason I can see for considering one form of reporting more reliable, is if those reports **are** in fact more reliable. If that ceased to be the case (assuming it ever **was** the case to begin with) then it's definitely the correct choice to say "fuck it, from now on a report is a report, regardless of how it was submitted".
: Report system still seemingly biased
>but long term toxic players seem to never be punished What do you base this on?
chabotj1 (NA)
: So draft and aram have a dodging problem. Institute a login timer to punish account cycling
>and then immediately logs back in on the same IP address That would ultimately have the same problems of IP bans. Namely, that they are easy to circumvent for individuals while being very harsh on larger shared networks. A simpler solution which doesn't rely on IP would be to only make the dodge timer count down while you are online with that account. I'm sure that, too, has some problems with it, but conceivably less so than IP based punishments.
: Any time you fuck with LP outside of winning or losing games, you poison individual ranks and the ladder itself. It's not fair to people in lower ranks to have to deal with punished players who lost 100LP or whatever your idea is. Low rank **is not a punishment**. This is also not fair to the enemy team who wins the match. 5 people have to win LP, 5 people have to lose LP or you poison the ladder. The enemy team's victory is hollow If their losing opponents don't actually lose. Additionally, you're all over the place. You want to apply similar punishments to ragequitters, people who have power outage, toxicplayers, and "trolls." Here's an idea - practice, farm more, ward more, change up your strategies, play different roles and stop blaming others and you might find yourself winning more games so that the rare loss due to an AFK player isn't the end of the world. Your rank only matters over time, not each individual match. If you ain't climbing, it's on you.
I generally agree with the point you are making... but only when talking about MMR. You are not matched based on your rank, you are matched based on your MMR. I don't agree with LP punishments to the extent as OP suggests them, but they wouldn't actually mess with matchmaking.
Ph03n1xb1rd (EUNE)
: What are you even talkin' about? Let me quote you: > There are reasons to enter traffic. Traffic is not inherently bad. People make traffic bad through their choices. People who get into car accidents caused by others are not to blame, just because they participated in traffic. And go through this one by one: - There are reasons to enter traffic: Yes, to get from A to B, as i said in my comment. - People make traffic bad through their choices: Yes, as i said: "There are assholes assing around" - People who get into car accidents caused by others are not to blame, just because they participated in traffic: I did not explicitly said this, but i totally agree with this, since those people had to enter traffic to reach their goal. You wrote almost the same thing as me, i really do not understand what do you think i'm misunderstanding. And for the LoL part: - There are reasons to have chat enabled: TBH not too much, especially for 90% of LoL players, but yeah, sometimes shotcalling can be helpful. - People make chat bad through their choices: Yes, as i said: "There are assholes assing around" - People who get flamed due to the choice of somebody else are not to blame, just because they participated in chat: And here it is a bit different. If the given person is an Inter, then he caused it for himself, and he is to blame. If he is not an inter and he is flamed, then of course, they are not to blame. If the given person fails to help himself and do not mute them flamer, then he is to blame. You can not be blamed for things what you have no control over. But you have control over the flamer (aka mute button) and you are to blame if you do not use it. I'm not saying flamers are good, what i'm saying is that people who do not mute flamers and complain about them are equally r%%%%%ed.
> [{quoted}](name=Ph03n1xb1rd,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=qQlKTBlR,comment-id=0001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-12T14:11:22.197+0000) > > But you have control over the flamer (aka mute button) and you are to blame if you do not use it. You only have control over the flamer (which is a pretty poor way of wording it, btw) once they have already started flaming. The only way to actually prevent yourself from being flamed is identical to the traffic analogy: Opt out of the entire thing. And that's not a reasonable thing to ask of people; at least not in the sense that if they don't do that they are to blame for the flame they receive.
Ph03n1xb1rd (EUNE)
: Okay, guess you really want to stick to this. Do you enter traffic TO BE IN TRAFFIC or do you enter traffic to get from A to B? Accidents, traffic jams, people honking at you and giving you the finger are things that happen in traffic and are bad, but you can not do shit about it, because you still want to get from A to B. When you start playing LoL, i assume you do it, because you want to play LoL, correct me if im wrong. (So already here your analogy is bad, since the goal of playing LoL is to play LoL. The goal of entering traffic is not to be in traffic. If i could just teleport from A to B i would never enter traffic in my life. If i could play LoL without playing LOL, oh w8.... this is different here.) Flamers in LoL are the same thing as people giving you a finger in traffic, but do you have a button to make all those fingers disappear? No, you dont (or if you have, go patent it fast and stop arguing on a forum). So just to summarize: Traffic: - You have to enter it, if you want to reach your goal in location B - There are assholes assing around, and you have no button to ignore them - These asshats force themselves on you because you have no way to ignore them, and to stop seeing them, you would have to sacrifice your goal (getting from A to B) LoL: - You enter it, because you want to enter it, you want to play LoL, the goal of playing LoL is playing LoL - There are assholes assing around, and you have a button to ignore them - These asshats can not force themselves on you, because you sacrifice nothing by ignoring them, and you can still reach your goal (play LoL) Of course my whole reasoning is based on the assumptions: - You enter trafficto get from A to B - You play LoL to play LoL
> [{quoted}](name=Ph03n1xb1rd,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=qQlKTBlR,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-12T13:44:43.522+0000) > > Okay, guess you really want to stick to this. > > Do you enter traffic […] > > When you start playing LoL[…] > > Flamers in LoL are the same thing as people giving you a finger in traffic[…] > >So just to summarize: >Traffic: >[…] > >LoL: >[…] There's really no point in continuing this discussion as long as you continue misunderstanding my analogy. Especially since this has to be intentional, since I've told you explicitly what "traffic" was in my analogy, and just as explicitly what it's not.
Ph03n1xb1rd (EUNE)
: ***
> I did not ask him to stop playing LoL (not entering traffic in your analogy) No, that's not what entering traffic was in my analogy, and I reckon you know it. But let me spell it out for you: There are reasons to have chat enabled. Chat is not inherently bad. **People** make chat bad through their choices. People who get flamed due to the choice of somebody else are not to blame, just because they participated in chat. There are reasons to enter traffic. Traffic is not inherently bad. **People** make traffic bad through their choices. People who get into car accidents caused by others are not to blame, just because they participated in traffic. If you want to discuss my analogy, I'm more than happy to do so. But please cut out the irrelevant red herrings and strawmen arguments. >I do not want him to sacrifice anything of his fun And yet you are asking him to do exactly that. You might not understand this, but a lot of people actually find chat (minus the flamers) to be a fun part of LoL and multiplayer games in general.
Ph03n1xb1rd (EUNE)
: > Flaming ruins the game for people trying a new champ, learning new roles, or someone who just got autofilled. No, it does not. They ruin their own fun by not muting. > Someone telling me that I am literally the worst Trist they've ever seen may not be false, but that doesn't mean I need to be berated every fight because of it. Can't happen in every fight, if you mute after the first ;) > Even if a teammate is the worst at positioning, you don't have to let everyone on both teams know that you see them as the reason you're losing. If he is really so bad, then it's a fact. Also it's better if he knows about it. Ps.: How were you supposed to link something, when you are already dead? O.o
> [{quoted}](name=Ph03n1xb1rd,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=qQlKTBlR,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-11-12T11:19:01.996+0000) > > No, it does not. They ruin their own fun by not muting. Just like getting into a car accident doesn't ruin your day. You ruin it yourself by entering traffic. I mean, how dare people partake in something which by itself is beneficial, but exposes them to a risk! Clearly it's their own fault.
: Calling someone a 'dog' isn't considered polite in Asian culture. And even if you don't go with that, considering the _**context**_ in which you used the word 'dog' there. You're humiliating him. > Krakerz633 : DOG GET OFF LEAGUE Krakerz633 : GO PLAY AT THE PARK Krakerz633 : WOOF WOOF > Krakerz633 : stop wasting my fucking time so i dont waste yours either and ff boomer > Krakerz633 : youre a dog Krakerz633 : you dog Krakerz633 : thank god Krakerz633 : inter Krakerz633 : small mental > Krakerz633 : wintrader mf Krakerz633 : ff 15 Krakerz633 : report mf Aside from calling him a 'small mental', 'wintrader'. Asking for reports and tilting him further. Other things as well but I'm too lazy to nitpick everything out.
> [{quoted}](name=Yin Yang Taoist,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=f088MIeO,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-11-12T05:55:09.179+0000) > > Calling someone a 'dog' isn't considered polite in Asian culture. And from what I've seen in PB chat logs and my own games recently, using dog as an insult is starting to become a thing on other servers as well.
: Reported as a one-trick
Look, I'm afraid it's fairly simple: If people didn't have a valid reason to report you, the reports wouldn't do anything. There are false positives, as no system is perfect, but they are rare. So if you have gone through literally all the punishment steps there are, it seems like it might be a good idea to practice some introspection and think about what you did to trigger those punishments. If you can't figure it out by yourself I suggest posting your chat logs. I'm sure people will help you figure out where you overstepped.
Leetri (EUW)
: This used to be a thing, but Riot had to remove it because people were unintentionally blocking their friends all the time. If you muted a friend in-game it would block them, which removes them from your friends list and they can't message you or send any friend requests anymore. All it takes is a slight miss-click in the scoreboard and you'll have a really fun time trying to figure out where your friend went and why nothing works anymore.
At the end of the day that reduces the problem to a technical issue, though. It shouldn't be necessary to block people in order to not see their post-game chat, when you have muted them in that particular game. More than that, though, it is to some degree the same kind of technical difficulty that, for years, has made it impossible to have pre/post game chat logs in reform cards. If they've been able to fix that, I figure they could fix the mute-issue as well. Whether it's worth the required effort is, of course, an entirely different question.
: > [{quoted}](name=Prandine,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=v3znJE6p,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-11-08T06:12:16.697+0000) > > If it's just a one off then no, but if spammed constantly and/or used alongside other unsportsmanlike behavior than yes. Honestly though I would just refrain from saying it entirely, as there's no real point to saying it at all whatsoever. We are humans not robots, a human will not say gg when he is paired with 4 r%%%%%s. A robot would say gg.
Been there, done that. So either I'm a robot in disguise, or you're simply dehumanizing people you disagree with. I'll let you decide. And if you don't want to say "gg"... just don't? Nobody is saying it should be punishable not to say "gg". There's just absolutely no need to make an announcement of the fact that you refuse to do so. **Especially** since this kind of action isn't just disrespectful to the teammates you blame for your loss, it's also disrespectful to the enemy who is entirely innocent in this.
CurS1VE (NA)
: Can you get banned for this?
That's just an elaborate way of saying "bg"... which is at worst a bit disrespectful. My guess would be that it's roughly in the same area as "gg ez", in that it may be recognized as so mildly negative that, even though it might contribute to a punishment, it's unlikely to ever trigger one on its own.
rujitra (NA)
: Not.. really. You have the right to issue a chargeback in accordance with the laws of the country your card is issued in (presuming US here) and your credit card contract. If you **should** know that it is not fraudulent (i.e. you agreed to a terms of use), even if you are ignorant and do not know that, then it is not a valid chargeback and can be fraud. Ignorance of the rules does not absolve one of responsibility to follow one. Sure, Riot has to provide the proof - but if the CC company determines that the Terms of Use are clear and that the OP should not have filed the chargeback in the first place, then the other ramifications would be in play. Nothing is a guarantee, of course, but I do not feel it's appropriate for people to **encourage** chargebacks without providing the entirety of the information about the potential downside to doing so. Riot can easily prove their side of the story - the OP willingly entered into a financial transaction to purchase a product in accordance with the Terms of Use they agreed to upon account creation and at each patch. Regardless, I don't think it's useful to try and get into the specifics here - we don't have a copy of the OP's CC contract, and my post is merely to attempt to explain the **potential** gravity of the situation. I would think that anyone would consider the risk of having CC accounts closed, potentially being required to repay any rolling balance one keeps on the card, and potential legal ramifications would be enough to get someone to think twice about it.
The terms of use wouldn't just have to be clear, they'd also have to be legal. What OP is accusing Riot of can hardly be just negated by some clause in a contract. If you the promised service/goods are not provided the way they were promised, people are entitled to a refund, regardless of what the terms of use say. And in this case there is clearly an implicit promise that you're actually able to use the Riot points, given that Riot has the monopsony on them, leaving the other party inherently in an incredibly weak position. And when it comes to looking at whether a contract is actually legal, there is an innate (and intentional) bias towards the weaker party. > I do not feel it's appropriate for people to encourage chargebacks without providing the entirety of the information about the potential downside to doing so. That's absolutely fair, and I hope that you don't think I'm encouraging chargebacks. Even in this case, where I believe(!) a chargeback would be legal, I think the more appropriate thing to do is to give Riot the opportunity to issue a refund. Especially since (again, assuming OP's story is true) this is something that Riot might want to be aware of and fix. In fact my objection to your post is the exact same, just from the other direction. I don't feel it's appropriate to scare people out of using a tool that exists explicitly to protect their rights as consumers, by stating "Regardless of your opinion, this is credit card fraud". If you had said "this could be regarded as fraud", or "this is potentially fraud" we wouldn't be having this conversation.
rujitra (NA)
: I'm not aware of any precedent that suggests that failure for a consumer to realize they have violated the terms of an establishment would prevent them from being subject to the consequences of that. Furthermore, the client should automatically log someone out when they are banned - it does not permit someone to remain connected to chat, it does not allow someone to form/join a party, it literally disconnects them from the client and forces them to log back in. Unless this has changed, this part of the OP's story is *very* fishy. One reason for this is so something like what is claimed here is impossible - buying RP after a ban has already been applied to the account.
I've seen stories of weirder bugs when it comes to being banned. But here's the thing: As long as OP has reason to believe that they were defrauded (even if it eventually is cleared up that this is not the case) OP would not be committing fraud. You have the right to issue a chargeback if you believe you have been defrauded. To state otherwise is to deny the whole **point** of chargebacks, which is offering consumer protection by shifting the burden of proof when the dispute gets to court. OP doesn't have to prove their side of the story, Riot has to prove theirs. And even if they manage to do that, that would by itself still not mean OP has actually committed fraud, because that would require OP to have intentionally issued a chargeback they **knew** not to be justified.
rujitra (NA)
: Unless your credit card explicitly permits you to chargeback things for "didn't like the product" (hint: most don't, unless they're a "premium" card with a high annual fee/spend requirement), then this is not a valid reason for a chargeback. A chargeback is explicitly for when you do not receive **what you purchased**. You purchased RP - and you received it in accordance with the Terms of Use you agreed to. There is no disputing that your account did receive the RP. As such, if you charge it back saying "i didn't get the product", that is fraud and a federal crime.
Normally I agree, issuing a chargeback because you are banned is fraudulent. When people had no opportunity to use the RP because they were banned shortly afterwards, I'd argue it's at least a grey area. But if things happened the way OP describes it, this situation is completely different from both of those. Riot, at the point of the purchase, should have been able to know that the RP had literally zero value for the OP. OP did **not** know that. So there are two options: A) This was not intended by Riot, and they themselves will agree to refund OP. B) This worked as Riot intended, in which case OP could probably make the claim that this was **fraud** and would most definitely be within their legal rights to issue a chargeback.
: Good to see we all *so clearly* understand the law. I'll just get my jacket then... Oh wait, I'm not being racist. He was responding to someone who thought Durooooo was suggesting Freedom of Speech would allow him to chatterbox away in a movie theater, and Durooooo politely pointed out that Freedom of Speech is, in fact, not suppressed in movie theaters. Then when confronted by a man blatantly exaggerating the point that Freedom of Speech doesn't allow people to yell N* a movie theater, he once again politely points out that racism is not illegal. At no point does he suggest that anyone is entitled to do such things.
But that's the thing: If OP believes freedom of speech is not suppressed in movie theatres then by the same logic it's also not suppressed in LoL. If it is suppressed in LoL, then by the same logic it is suppressed in movie theatres. Pointing out that racism is legal, no matter how polite, is a red herring. Not only does it not have any relevance to the subject, it distracts from it.
: Hey, Imperial Pandaa called the cops, not me.
Which makes sense, because it helps enforcing that somebody actually leaves. Racism might not be illegal, but trespassing is.
: You get a gold star! And if anyone does anything illegal to the man saying racist things, that man may be entitled to seek *legal justice*.
And how is that relevant? Nobody is doing anything illegal to the man saying racist things, and nobody is doing anything illegal to people who flame in LoL.
: If it was hate speech, prioritize that one, the rest are irrelevant if they get punished for hate speech. Like I said, more things checked doesn't equal more punishment.
>the rest are irrelevant if they get punished for hate speech Not really. Game related offenses and chat offenses escalate separately from one another. If that person is punished for hate speech, but not for inting, then that means the next gameplay offense won't be escalated to a permanent ban.
TrulyBland (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Tokishi,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=NdTlYcds,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-06T06:43:50.451+0000) > > Yeah, if I had poor overall performance. Again: Stop with your hypotheticals. Would you be willing to remove your access to ranked until you prove that you are a challenger level player? >Anyone who averages a D grading system shouldn't be allowed to play Ranked until they get their past 20-15 games to a C average. The grading system takes in vision score, objective control, cs'ing, KP, and KDA. It isn't perfect, but in terms of solo/duo, it would be fitting enough. If it's so fitting, why isn't it used? Why do you think only win or loss matters in terms of whether you gain or lose LP/MMR? Precisely because a measure like this can easily be biased, and you can at best determine a **correlation** between stats and likelihood to win, but not a causation. At this point, your suggestion doesn't even make *any* sense anymore, as relying on the grade, rather than peoples' actual contribution to their team's chance to win, means you are willing to ban even **good** players from ranked, as long as they play in a way that is not properly recognized by the grading system as contributing properly. At the end of the day, whether you are looking at winrate or grades, you are ignoring the obvious truth: If people are consistently performing worse than the people they are matched with… then that's because they are not matched with/against the players they should be matched with/against. So it's not a question of whether somebody is objectively bad or objectively good. It's a matter of how much noise there is in the matchmaking system. Even exceptionally **good** players cause such noise until they get where they belong. So banning good players from ranked makes as much sense as banning bad players. And more importantly: What counts as a "good" or "bad" player also has absolutely no objective measure. We can ban everybody above platinum, or everybody above bronze. We can ban everybody below gold, or everybody below diamond. Each of those would undeniably improve matchmaking. So, for the last time: Would you - not hypothetical you that is worse than you are now - **YOU** be willing to right here and now lose access to ranked so people who are better than you (or worse than you) have a less noisy match making system?
> [{quoted}](name=Tokishi,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=NdTlYcds,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-07T15:15:46.528+0000) > >Bro I already said it like 30 times, if I am playing like absolute trash Yeah, you said it like 30 times… and I said like 30 times that I'm not dealing in hypotheticals. So why do your answers keep beginning with "if"? > Why would I need to prove that I am a challenger level? This is the closest you have come to actually answering my question. Too bad that I can simply retort with your own statement: "People act like limiting a person's ranked access is a bad thing when it would improve the ranked match making quickly. " I just drew the completely arbitrary line somewhere where it inconveniences you. And from that counterquestion of yours and your prior reluctance to answer my question without hypothetical conditions, I believe you absolutely understand what is bad about limiting a person's ranked access because their skill is below some arbitrary line.
: the only one i can say is ranked tbh, but only the actual LP penalty; now i AM NOT advocating saying it shouldnt be punished, just not for switching norms to ranked. to elaborate, its basically because dodging a normal game or aram, then switching to ranked and dodging (ie, because your teamcomp seems bad) it WILL count as a *second* dodge, subtracting 10 lp. what i think is that you keep the timer but should not face the tier 2 penalty until you've actually dodged a ranked game twice.
Took me a bit to understand what you are saying here... but yeah, that honestly makes sense. You shouldn't effectively be losing LP for dodging (or more accurately: having dodged) an aram. It also makes sense from the perspective that intuitively the order in which you dodge games shouldn't matter. There's no reason why dodging an aram and then a ranked should be punished harsher than first dodging a ranked and then an aram.
: Perma bans!
>This is a suggestion but i think perma ban should be removed and replace by an ever increasing ban time. I mean let's look at this objectively. A year of ban time is as bad as being permanently banned. So why not do 14 days, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, etc. I feel like the impact is as significant. As we know the inevitable will come eventually. Meaning league will one day become irrelevant, an object of the past. That's just how games are, It a normal phenomenon. So when that happens, our accounts will be worth nothing. Our sentiments are whats giving our accounts meaning. The hard grind, the joy, the anger, etc. Once league fades into the past so will our attachment to the game. There's also the possibility of someone moving on in their life and simply quit league. Thus we don't know what will happen down the road in 1 or 2 years. That's why a ban of such length is as significant as permanently banning an account. This entire part of your post basically explains how perma bans and year long bans would be the same. Even if we assume that's true (which is a stretch by itself), that's not a sensible argument for a change to be made. In fact, if **you** actually thought they were the same, you hardly would have created this thread. >There's also a second thing i want to point out. We change as time passes so 1-2 years later our personality might shift into a more mellow way. This is the only thing you write which actually offers some support to the idea of year long bans as a replacement for permabans… and it's honestly not the best argument. Just because your personality has changed doesn't mean any consequences from your prior decisions vanish. At that point the mature thing to do is accept responsibility for the actions of your past self and, if you still want to play lol, simply create a new account.
Tokishi (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=NdTlYcds,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-05T22:39:49.721+0000) > > What is it with your obsession around winrates? You are aware that winrates don't reflect your skill, right? > Whether you're Iron V or Platinum I... eventually you'll approach 50% winrate. > > Also, how about you actually answer my question? > No "if I have x winrate", no "running it down". > I'm not asking some hypothetical version of you, I'm asking you specifically. Would you be willing to improve matchmaking by removing anybody up to and including your skill level from ranked? Yeah, if I had poor overall performance. We can break it down further I suppose. Anyone who averages a D grading system shouldn't be allowed to play Ranked until they get their past 20-15 games to a C average. The grading system takes in vision score, objective control, cs'ing, KP, and KDA. It isn't perfect, but in terms of solo/duo, it would be fitting enough. Because then you can't even just protect your KDA because then your overall score tanks. It isn't a removal par say, but rather a restriction until there's some evidence you're a better player.
> [{quoted}](name=Tokishi,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=NdTlYcds,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-06T06:43:50.451+0000) > > Yeah, if I had poor overall performance. Again: Stop with your hypotheticals. Would you be willing to remove your access to ranked until you prove that you are a challenger level player? >Anyone who averages a D grading system shouldn't be allowed to play Ranked until they get their past 20-15 games to a C average. The grading system takes in vision score, objective control, cs'ing, KP, and KDA. It isn't perfect, but in terms of solo/duo, it would be fitting enough. If it's so fitting, why isn't it used? Why do you think only win or loss matters in terms of whether you gain or lose LP/MMR? Precisely because a measure like this can easily be biased, and you can at best determine a **correlation** between stats and likelihood to win, but not a causation. At this point, your suggestion doesn't even make *any* sense anymore, as relying on the grade, rather than peoples' actual contribution to their team's chance to win, means you are willing to ban even **good** players from ranked, as long as they play in a way that is not properly recognized by the grading system as contributing properly. At the end of the day, whether you are looking at winrate or grades, you are ignoring the obvious truth: If people are consistently performing worse than the people they are matched with… then that's because they are not matched with/against the players they should be matched with/against. So it's not a question of whether somebody is objectively bad or objectively good. It's a matter of how much noise there is in the matchmaking system. Even exceptionally **good** players cause such noise until they get where they belong. So banning good players from ranked makes as much sense as banning bad players. And more importantly: What counts as a "good" or "bad" player also has absolutely no objective measure. We can ban everybody above platinum, or everybody above bronze. We can ban everybody below gold, or everybody below diamond. Each of those would undeniably improve matchmaking. So, for the last time: Would you - not hypothetical you that is worse than you are now - **YOU** be willing to right here and now lose access to ranked so people who are better than you (or worse than you) have a less noisy match making system?
Tokishi (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=TrulyBland,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=NdTlYcds,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-05T21:33:54.459+0000) > > So... would **you** be willing to remove your own ability to play ranked in order to improve ranked match making for those who are better than you? > Better yet, why not get rid of everybody who isn't average? Those are, after all the vast majority of players **and** those who are most affected by inaccurate match making. > > After all, following your logic this cannot possibly be a bad thing, when it would improve the ranked match making quickly. Well I mean, if I have a 35% w/r in ranked, I don't think running it down is going to make me any better. I need to either go flex or just norms to improve. It's unfair for other players to put my poor performance on their hands. Dead weighting is unfair for yourself and others
What is it with your obsession around winrates? You are aware that winrates don't reflect your skill, right? Whether you're Iron V or Platinum I... eventually you'll approach 50% winrate. Also, how about you actually answer my question? No "if I have x winrate", no "running it down". I'm not asking some hypothetical version of you, I'm asking you specifically. Would you be willing to improve matchmaking by removing anybody up to and including your skill level from ranked?
: Being Toxic[to the enemy team] (might) increases winrate
Apart from the effect being too small given the sample size, there's the additional problem that your previous experiment has a result on the next. After all your MMR changes while you play. I guess the best approach would be deciding at random whether to mute or flame, as this removes any bias created through the order of experiments over time. This would also fix the issue of winrate itself not being interesting in the long run, as either approach should eventually yield 50% winrate. By randomizing the approach per game you should get a 50% winrate, which is the result of your average performance using both strategies, meaning you would have a way of directly comparing your performance with each method. Only one problem left, easily highlighted in that last sentence: **your** performance. The biggest problem with the sample size of your "study" isn't the number of games, it's the number of players: One. And a sample size of one doesn't really allow you to make any conclusions about a larger group.
Tokishi (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Silent Gravity,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=NdTlYcds,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-05T19:11:11.194+0000) > > For every 4 players that lose along with them, there are 5 players moving up. > > I guess Math is a Midwest thing. yeah, probably because they don't have the guy with a 30% w/r on their team lol, and if you're unlucky enough to have that person on your team multiple games in a row, it obviously makes climbing a bit harder. People act like limiting a person's ranked access is a bad thing when it would improve the ranked match making quickly. No first timing champions in ranked, if you have a 35% or less over 20, or even 15, no ranked. If you rage quit from a ranked, immediate 24 hour penalty that can be repealed with Riot support.
> [{quoted}](name=Tokishi,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=NdTlYcds,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-11-05T20:07:12.308+0000) > > People act like limiting a person's ranked access is a bad thing when it would improve the ranked match making quickly. So... would **you** be willing to remove your own ability to play ranked in order to improve ranked match making for those who are better than you? Better yet, why not get rid of everybody who isn't average? Those are, after all the vast majority of players **and** those who are most affected by inaccurate match making. After all, following your logic this cannot possibly be a bad thing, when it would improve the ranked match making quickly.
: im quitting this game forever
>I love this game but after 10 years of I've had at least 10 accounts banned and over 50k hours of my life wasted. 10 years and over 50k hours of your life? I mean, I hate to say this, but this sounds like you may have a bit of a problem. And I say that as somebody who is on the computer constantly. But I do plenty of different things on the computer. Some things more productive, some less; and I'll gladly admit I do far too much unproductive shit. But even I can see that it cannot be healthy to pour close to 14 hours a day into one particular video game. Even if you were a streamer or pro player and actually earned your money through LoL I wouldn't consider this healthy. Maybe this latest permaban is a good opportunity for you to take a step back and think about some things. Especially if you stick to your decision to quit. >at the end of the day and we are PEOPLE . not robots, not apes PEOPLE or did you forget riot. This is just me nitpicking... but we actually are apes. The term includes humans.
: > The Elo system isn't just based on variance diminishing, it also is based on the fact that the place where your rating is accurate is a natural equilibrium that you are, at all times, more likely to approach than diverge from. That's the case because if the system thinks you are worse than you actually are, games will be skewed in your favour. > That means that if you have played 100 games, and due to chance are 10 wins away from your theoretical "true" rating, you are more likely to win your next game. > In contrast, if you flipped 100 coins which, due to chance, are 10 heads away from an equal number of heads and tails, you are **still** equally likely to flip heads or tails on your next coin toss. > Except it's actually worse, to "skew the games in your favour", that's basically putting you WITH and against " weaker" players, except weaker players are MORE likely not less to reduce your individual impact as they are more likely to feed. It is based on statistics, if you feed on multiple accounts, you are a feeder. just take an arbitrary going 0/5/0 + before the 8min mark or 0/10 before the 15min mark. on a 3/10 games basis, as feeding there you go. of course it's an arbitrary number, Riot can adapt it how they see fit. it might be unfair to some people, but right now having one feeder on your team is unfair to four people. And yes eventually you will beat the variance, maybe you have time for that, but i don't.
> [{quoted}](name=dead men waIking,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=w0H8h5c7,comment-id=000f000100000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-10-28T21:20:31.556+0000) > >Except it's actually worse, to "skew the games in your favour", that's basically putting you WITH and against " weaker" players, except weaker players are MORE likely not less to reduce your individual impact as they are more likely to feed. How much better your odds become may fluctuate, specifically in regards to certain elos where your individual impact is somewhat diminished, but it is an indisputable fact that your odds will increase. This doesn't depend on the distribution, this doesn't depend on individual impact, this is a direct statistical consequence. And given that you are the only fixed variable, that means that this increase in your chance to win **has** to mean you have a higher individual impact. I'm sorry, but what you are describing is simply mathematically impossible. > it might be unfair to some people, but right now having one feeder on your team is unfair to four people. You're overlooking the timing of this unfairness. What you are suggesting is **perpetually** unfair to specific playstyles and strategic choices, and therefore players who commit to those. It's not just one game in a hundred. Not even just one game in ten. Your suggestion introduces a bias into **every single game**. The four people? They just need to play more games and that one feeder they have will no longer matter. You are comparing "unfairness" of having bad luck in a single game, to the unfairness of having a system deliberately designed to punish you for decisions that are actually good for the team. >And yes eventually you will beat the variance, maybe you have time for that, but i don't. And how much time is that exactly? How much time does it take to beat the variance? And just in case you'll really whip your calculator out, just don't forget that the game actually actively helps you at beating the variance, since you are more likely to win if you lose a game.
: is black hole-ing gold reportable?
>would this not be intentionally assisting enemy team/ negative behavior/griefing? That depends... **are** they intentionally assisting the enemy team, or are they not? This kind of falls into the same rough category as supports "stealing" cs: Disagreement on strategy is not punishable. If it's done deliberately to piss others off or sabotage your chance to win that's a whole other story of course… although it's not likely going to be detected.
Nagake (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=iron4playa,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=OPFfPY2u,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2019-10-28T02:50:08.047+0000) > > it's obvious that you've been banned before for breaking the rules, and after being warned after your 14 day ban that anything else you do will get you a perm ban, you refused to reform and thus were perm banned for breaking the rules. xD I havent been banned in the recent past, maybe few years ago just muted but nothing like that in the last few years
> [{quoted}](name=Nagake,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=OPFfPY2u,comment-id=00090000,timestamp=2019-10-28T10:21:52.720+0000) > > I havent been banned in the recent past, maybe few years ago just muted but nothing like that in the last few years Have you played in the last few years? Because how recent a punishment was is essentially measured in games played. If you have, and you really have no recent history of punishments, then this definitely looks like a mistake.
Talisid (NA)
: So its been 10 years and we're still...
Logic dictates that the broader your responsibilities are, the larger the chance of becoming a scapegoat for somebody else's mistakes. For as long as jungle has a certain (even if small) responsibility towards all lanes, it will stay the most blamed role.
Lunatist (EUW)
: I also just want to say that this is the very first time that I get banned, and barely, maybe once every 50 games I behave like this. Also, the thresh who was calling me homophobic words has not been banned. So no matter what you say, if many people report you, you get banned. And, looking at his match history, he was feeding 9/10 times, disgraceful.
>I also just want to say that this is the very first time that I get banned Was it the first time you received punishment at all, or did you have chat restrictions before? >Also, the thresh who was calling me homophobic words has not been banned. That seems highly unlikely. Again, the "system" (hardly even deserves that name) which handles these sort of slurs is an extremely simple word filter. >So no matter what you say, if many people report you, you get banned. And you base this on... what? The person who literally wrote the code straight up copied the relevant code snippet. If the number of reports is larger than zero, it executes the review. You on the other hand have absolutely no idea how often you were reported, and you have absolutely no idea how often Thresh was reported apart from your own report.
Lunatist (EUW)
: Repeating what someone said to me to explain to other players why they should report him? That doesn't only seems quite unfair but really stupid too IMO. Players like this should be banned on the spot, and instead of Riot using bots to give out suspension, they should use humans to do it, because a robot cannot understand the context of the words used.
Riot's "robot" can understand context surprisingly well. The problem is that zero tolerance phrases are subject to a much much simpler detection system, which literally just looks at whether those words were said and doesn't take context into account at all. The reason for that is that these words are **extremely** rarely said in an innocent context, and as such even this crude kind of detection system has a really low false positive rate. Edit: It's also worth pointing out that the idea of banning people on the spot is completely incompatible with having humans dish out punishments. It's the main reason why they go for an automated machine learning system to begin with.
Lunatist (EUW)
: Pre Game Lobby: In Game: [All]Lunatist: gl hf Lunatist: lmao GA morde Lunatist: thresh stop feeding please Lunatist: tristana [All]Lunatist: ? Lunatist: ss bot?? [All]Lunatist: report my bot please Lunatist: thresh and tristana learn how to play Lunatist: you cant play Lunatist: you dont ss Lunatist: and you feed Lunatist: learn please Lunatist: yeah ekko cant play either Lunatist: ss bot????? Lunatist: thresh you idiot Lunatist: ss Lunatist: no you didnt Lunatist: 2 minutes ago you did Lunatist: 9/1 Lunatist: 1/7 Lunatist: ff please [All]Lunatist: fod? [All]Lunatist: you are the one calling me a %%%%%% [All]Lunatist: thresh literally called me a %%%%%% [All]Lunatist: add homophobia to the list Lunatist: what? Lunatist: i cant fight a 11/1 yasuo Lunatist: yeah cuz you can? Lunatist: thats why yasuo is 12/1 [All]Lunatist: report bot and jungle please [All]Lunatist: homophobia, nice [All]Lunatist: im not hating on him [All]Lunatist: until he called me a %%%%%% [All]Lunatist: and thresh good luck getting your account banned [All]Lunatist: thresh mom is a hooker [All]Lunatist: he is feeding, homophobic remarks and flaming [All]Lunatist: what else does he want [All]Lunatist: thresh [All]Lunatist: calling me a %%%%%% [All]Lunatist: rep bot Post Game Lobby: Lunatist: report thresh please Lunatist: for being homophobic Lunatist: calling people %%% is homophobia Game 4243108466: Lunatist: stop pi9nging me Lunatist: why give her the kill????? Lunatist: ap? Lunatist: im going ad Lunatist: just for mana [All]Lunatist: report amumu please [All]Lunatist: he is flaming so hard Lunatist: illaoi dw Lunatist: i hit 6 and i can probably destroy lux Lunatist: report me for what? Lunatist: she has too much cc Lunatist: the range is huge Lunatist: im muting you amumu Lunatist: report me Lunatist: im havcing a bad day sorry Lunatist: wp amumu Lunatist: she has so much cc Lunatist: its disgusting Lunatist: i am bad Lunatist: i kow Lunatist: just know that i am not inting on purpose Lunatist: im just shit Lunatist: yes Lunatist: 3v1? [All]Lunatist: report amumu for saying he hopes i get cancer Lunatist: i said i am bad Lunatist: report me Lunatist: im not doing it on purpose tho Lunatist: im gold my man Lunatist: i tried out irelia Lunatist: your mom boosted me Lunatist: ok imma mute u again Post Game Lobby: Game 4242915138: Pre Game Lobby: Lunatist: im going ad twisted fate Lunatist: malph can you gank early Lunatist: lmao dw about it Lunatist: dw man Lunatist: try at 6 tho Lunatist: tp or ignite?> Lunatist: ok In Game: Lunatist: 500k ahri wtf Lunatist: no life Lunatist: yeah Lunatist: but this is my smurf Lunatist: from a d3 acc Lunatist: stop feeding bot Lunatist: we lost top and bot Lunatist: darius stop [All]Lunatist: report my bot please [All]Lunatist: damn you hurt Lunatist: yeah because of top and bot [All]Lunatist: report bot and top pelase [All]Lunatist: please Lunatist: bot you are teh worst i have ever seen Lunatist: malphite Lunatist: malphite Lunatist: report these trash Lunatist: please Lunatist: STOP Lunatist: YOU IDIOT Lunatist: LEARN HOW TO PLAY BEFORE GOING RANKED Lunatist: they won anyways Lunatist: surrender please Lunatist: worst team ever [All]Lunatist: ahri [All]Lunatist: ahrio [All]Lunatist: ahri Lunatist: malphite report bot and top Lunatist: malphite Lunatist: malphite Lunatist: malphite Lunatist: malphite Lunatist: report bot and top please Lunatist: whos voting no? Lunatist: ??? Lunatist: ??? Lunatist: ??? Lunatist: ??? Lunatist: ??? Lunatist: ??? Lunatist: ??? Lunatist: ?? Lunatist: ??? Lunatist: ?? Lunatist: ?? Lunatist: ?? Lunatist: ?? Lunatist: ?? Lunatist: ?? Lunatist: ?? Lunatist: ?? Lunatist: ?? Lunatist: ?? Lunatist: ? Post Game Lobby: Lunatist: report my bot adn top lease
Repeating slurs is never a good idea. The zero tolerance filter really just scans for words, without context. I recommend writing a support ticket. There have been instances in the past where punishments in similar circumstances were reduced or even lifted. Just to dampen your expectations, though, these decisions depend a lot on how you conducted yourself in the rest of the logs, and the way you behaved yourself in chat was far from okay. Calling for reports as often as you are doing it (which is, btw, completely unnecessary - one report is all it takes) is considered passive aggressive. You are frequently blaming others for feeding and losing their lane. Nagging people to get them to surrender is also generally frowned upon. And let me be clear on one thing: You were flaming. You say you didn't insult Thresh, but your logs tell a very different story: >Lunatist: thresh stop feeding please >Lunatist: thresh and tristana learn how to play >Lunatist: you cant play >Lunatist: you dont ss >Lunatist: and you feed >Lunatist: learn please >Lunatist: thresh you idiot >[All]Lunatist: and thresh good luck getting your account banned >[All]Lunatist: thresh mom is a hooker Regardless of whether you succeed in getting that punishment reduced, I recommend cleaning up your act. This sort of behaviour **will** eventually have you permabanned if you reform. In fact, if the punishment isn't reduced, you are currently on your last chance.
: Suspensions percentages.
>Nowadays, more than 90% of bans come from chat. Would you rather 90 of bans be for inting or for flaming? Flaming. Definitely. Why? Because more chat based offenses are committed. If 90% of bans were for inting, that would mean the system that detects flaming would suck, badly, regardless of how good the system was at detecting inting. Given how well it works currently, the only way that statistic could be achieved would be by actively downgrading the system. [Edit: Or of course, by banning a lot of people for inting that aren't actually inting] Which shows exactly what the problem with exaggerated demands of this kind.
Fãith (EUW)
: Findet ihr diesen chat zu toxic ?
Instant Perma? Nein. Aber wenn du erst vor Kurzem schonmal gebannt wurdest, kann ich es schon nachvollziehen. In dem Fall scheinen ja auch noch andere Spiele mit in den Logs gewesen zu sein. Man darf da nicht vergessen, dass das System versucht einem alle relevanten Logs zu schicken (bis zu 3, glaube ich). Was du im dritten Spiel geschrieben hast bezeichnest du ja selber auch schon als toxic, ist also grundsätzlich auch relevant, egal ob die Logs alleine jetzt nen Permaban wert sind. Du hast es übrigens geschafft dich auf das NA-Forum zu verirren. Da findest du wahrscheinlich nicht sonderlich viele die Deutsch sprechen. [Instant Perma? No. But if your last ban was fairly recent, I can understand it. In this case there also seemed to be other games involved. It's worth remembering that the system tries to send you all the relevant logs (up to 3, I believe). And since you yourself are calling what you said toxic, it's obviously still relevant, regardless of whether these logs by themselves warranted a permaban. Btw, you seem to have stumbled into the NA forums. You're not exactly likely to find a lot of people speaking German here.]
: Really shows how PATHETIC this community has become.....
>When for a supposed "TEAM GAME" (or thats what I keep getting told anyways) the only way to play is to mute your allies, mute your enemies, and play like they dont exist. That shows more about yourself than it does about the community, since that's not even remotely the "only way to play".
Julevi (EUW)
: ***
I think he literally said "20x ur elo", not twenty times "ur elo". Edit: Guess there's a lesson to be learned here on how to properly avoid ambiguity.
zqfmgb (NA)
: Is typing "Free Hong Kong" actually against summoners code?
It would certainly not be in line with the forum rules to discuss political topics, especially if there is some matter of controversy, if they aren't directly related to video games or League of Legends. Not sure how or if that rule applies to ingame chat, though. I suppose it could be seen as an attempt to bait other people into arguments and generally derailing chat (which, if that is your intention, definitely warrants punishment). But as long as you are being sincere and treat others with respect, even if they disagree with your political opinion, I would assume you'd be fine.
: AeroWaffle posted a recent case. I got the reply to it because our comment chain has gotten too long.
> [{quoted}](name=SofaKingBroken,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=wPNymUlh,comment-id=00090000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-10-23T03:31:15.763+0000) > > Does the system work at all, or is this another ban from a support ticket manual review. We will never know So your theory can't be falsified, because only evidence that supports your point of view can be considered valid. If anybody doesn't know what "confirmation bias" means: This is a picture perfect example of it. [Edit: Sry, Pandaa, didn't realize this was already the deepest level of comments]
Exibir mais

TrulyBland

Nível 60 (EUNE)
Total de votos positivos
Criar uma discussão