: All Female Tournament
Y'know, every time someone suggests a separate but equal LoL for women, I'm sure we all think of how sexist and ridiculous that is due to LoL not being a physical activity and thus having an equal playing field, but now that I think of it, it might actually be worthwhile merely due to numbers. There simply aren't nearly as many women out there who have the skill and motivation to play LoL at a professional level. I think I've heard of the occasional woman being on a pro team, but whenever someone tries to put together an all-female team it ends up consisting of Diamonds and Masters or something, and they can't seriously compete. The candidate pool just isn't big enough. If as many women were driven to excel at LoL as men are, I'm sure it'd be around 50/50, but it simply isn't. So perhaps an entirely separate tournament, drawing from lower skill tiers so as to include more women, would be appropriate.
: Mordekaiser Could Cure Depression
If he told them to divide into an army one billion strong with laser eyes and super strength for every soldier, would they do it?
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=QFhcip6G,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T05:59:39.004+0000) > > It is actually not acceptable behavior. This is the message the chat restriction is intended to convey to you. Explain why. Because it's beyond my comprehension why saying something which does nothing, attacks nobody, and doesn't create a toxic environment is wrong to the level of requiring any punishment. If I was to afk, then great. Also keep in mind, my entire team was constantly spamming "just afk, you're trash". At that point if I Had afked. Guess what would of happened? absolutely nothing.. THAT would of been punishable imo, yet the thing which is actually toxic is not even punished or enforced, but just because I happen to type I'm afking, then not actually do it.. is toxic? Are you really that dense to believe this is actually wrong? Just because I got punished doesn't mean I did anything wrong, hence the post. Nobody has yet reasonably, intelligently, and untrollishly explained anything, besides "you said some words, you got punished." is the farthest of the argument so far lol... To make matters more laughable to anyone who's downvoting this, or agreeing with Riot, even by Riots own words, jostling, and wise cracks are fine.. Not their exact words, and while I was obviously irritated, irritation is not toxic, or bannable... I never once said anything outside of irritation, and in terms of "just dodge" playful poking to someone who did it to me... Still waiting for those toxic moments even by Riots extreme snowflake standards.
> [{quoted}](name=KnightLakega,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=QFhcip6G,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-08T09:00:31.519+0000) > > Explain why. > > Because it's beyond my comprehension why saying something which does nothing, attacks nobody, and doesn't create a toxic environment is wrong to the level of requiring any punishment. > > If I was to afk, then great. > > Also keep in mind, my entire team was constantly spamming "just afk, you're trash". At that point if I Had afked. Guess what would of happened? absolutely nothing.. THAT would of been punishable imo, yet the thing which is actually toxic is not even punished or enforced, but just because I happen to type I'm afking, then not actually do it.. is toxic? > > Are you really that dense to believe this is actually wrong? > > Just because I got punished doesn't mean I did anything wrong, hence the post. > > Nobody has yet reasonably, intelligently, and untrollishly explained anything, besides "you said some words, you got punished." is the farthest of the argument so far lol... > > To make matters more laughable to anyone who's downvoting this, or agreeing with Riot, even by Riots own words, jostling, and wise cracks are fine.. Not their exact words, and while I was obviously irritated, irritation is not toxic, or bannable... > > I never once said anything outside of irritation, and in terms of "just dodge" playful poking to someone who did it to me... > > Still waiting for those toxic moments even by Riots extreme snowflake standards. Riot does not accept it, and they make the rules (based on the desires of most customers). That makes it unacceptable, quite literally. The people who reported you felt attacked by what they perceived as your toxic behavior. Most of your chat messages are devoted to arguing, spreading blame, and insults. I don't think it's too surprising that someone might not like that. What your team was or wasn't spamming is irrelevant to your chat restriction. You are given a punishment based on your behavior and no one else's. Note how I'm taking time out of my day to help you and you repay me with insults, calling me dense. Do you think that's not "actually wrong" to do? You got punished because you broke the rules. It doesn't matter whether you like them. If you break them, you can get a punishment. If you'd really like me to point out and explain your "toxic moments" so that you can avoid such behavior in the future and keep your account free of increasing punishments (which will eventually conclude with a permaban if you continue this kind of behavior), I would respond to a courteous request.
: > [{quoted}](name=iiGazeii,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=QFhcip6G,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-11-28T16:06:02.747+0000) > > I've raged, complained and criticized, and I ended this season at honor level 5. The thing is, I keep it civil. I don't be overly mean or aggressive, I don't say slurs or threaten to AFK/leave. You don't need perfect behavior, just acceptable behavior. It is acceptable behavior. Saying you're gonna afk and not doing it is fine lol.. I've never been tilted when someone is like "I'm gonna afk" then they didn't, and kept trying to pull a win..
> [{quoted}](name=KnightLakega,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=QFhcip6G,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-12-08T05:56:23.285+0000) > > It is acceptable behavior. Saying you're gonna afk and not doing it is fine lol.. I've never been tilted when someone is like "I'm gonna afk" then they didn't, and kept trying to pull a win.. It is actually not acceptable behavior. This is the message the chat restriction is intended to convey to you.
: LOL you wrote all that for one small post? I wish I had that kind of free time...
> [{quoted}](name=UltimateShield13,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=7Lh6pJLL,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2019-12-08T05:43:33.006+0000) > > LOL you wrote all that for one small post? I wish I had that kind of free time... No, I didn't.
KingYusa (NA)
: I think Riot is way too strict when it comes to punishments
You repeatedly call the jungler an AI, tell your team to join you in a forfeit, belittle the support, tell a teammate to learn to play, accuse someone of inting, rank shame, announce that the game is lost, call someone a "fuck head," announce that you're "auto piloting" (no longer playing to win)... your behavior was thoroughly unacceptable at every turn. I didn't see a single positive chat message from you. All you do is flame. You think a month is long enough to reset a punishment tier after you've already gotten three punishments and Riot has told you in no uncertain terms that the next one is permanent? What punishment do you expect instead, another 14-day suspension? At that point a player would be spending as much time playing as being suspended. And you didn't even say that a month or two is on the border between too harsh and acceptable; it's "way too strict." How long should a player have to follow the rules to drop a punishment tier? A week? Three days? Could your behavior have been worse? Yes. Was your behavior even close to acceptable? No. Riot told you to stop and you didn't, so your account is permabanned. You weren't punished for misbehaving in one game. You were punished for misbehaving in _one more_ game, in a consistent pattern of negative behavior that breaks the game's rules. Additionally, the reform card doesn't always show all the matches that led to your punishment: it randomly selects up to several matches. You might see three matches, but you also might see as few as one, even for players whose punishment stems not from a small number of egregious infractions but rather from dozens of instances of mild toxicity. The purpose of the reform card is to tell you how to reform, so it shows you an example of the behavior that prompted your punishment and explains that such behavior is inappropriate and should be avoided if you want to maintain an account in good standing. Usually, one transgression by itself wouldn't be enough to bring such a punishment to an otherwise clean account, but the IFS works on an escalating punishment system. Breaking a minor rule, like engaging the team in useless arguments, has a minor punishment: a chat restriction. Breaking that same rule over and over again, however, doesn't prompt an endless series of chat restrictions. The severity of the punishment ramps up over time, because the goal is to eliminate the punished player's willingness to break the game's rules. If two chat restrictions don't stop the useless arguments, the system will increase the punishment to a 14-day suspension and deliver a very clear message that the continued rule-breaking is becoming a serious issue and any further instances will result in a permaban. Again, the point is to put a stop to this misbehavior. If a player is more interested in repeatedly breaking the rules than in maintaining access to their account, they'll lose access to their account. Of course, it's possible to break major rules, like cheating, threatening people, or using chat for hate speech, and skip punishment tiers so that a clean account ends up with a 14-day suspension or even a permaban. From [Riot's support knowledgebase](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/207489286-Instant-Feedback-System-FAQ-): > **PUNISHMENTS GENERALLY FOLLOW A BASIC ESCALATION PATH:** > > * First Offense: 10 Game Chat Restriction > * Second Offense: 25 Game Chat Restriction > * Third Offense: Two Week Suspension > * Fourth Offense: Permanent Suspension > > However, it is possible to skip to a Two Week or Permanent suspension based on the severity of the behavior in the game. Excessive negative behavior can result in a Two-Week or Permanent suspension at any time without having a chat restriction on the account.
Terozu (NA)
: Hey, as they say, "more than a handful's a waste". Jinx is the hottest girl in the game.
> [{quoted}](name=Terozu,realm=NA,application-id=Ir7ZrJjF,discussion-id=2Wecf8MZ,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-12-07T18:04:25.649+0000) > > Hey, as they say, "more than a handful's a waste". > Jinx is the hottest girl in the game. It's only a waste if you're nothing more than a floating pair of disembodied hands. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XLUL_NM8CtA/hqdefault.jpg
: So Clash is broken
Crash is broken? What a surprise.
: Imagine crying about Katarina in 2019. She's one of two assassins who isn't insane right now. She has no CC, is not tanky, doesn't reset her health, {{item:3026}} is useless on her, and every single one of her abilities has a tremendous amount of counter play.
> [{quoted}](name=NaughtyWord,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=0YLvNMWx,comment-id=000c,timestamp=2019-12-07T09:00:10.383+0000) > > Imagine crying about Katarina in 2019. Check the thread's creation date.
GenoXx (NA)
: So Riot Forge was made....
This is no different from Sega licensing Sonic to third-party devs and publishers. Let the flood of Early Access-tier titles begin! Personally, I can't wait to watch AVGN's review of [LoL '06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr_rd6DpxM0).
: Senna's abilities can go through Yasuo's W
Turzo (OCE)
: Will we get a new League Client?
https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/general-discussion/gQ8KNJbW-lower-spec-mode https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/general-discussion/ikEYV1eU-when-your-toaster-cant-even-potato-lowest-spec-mode
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9fsXp4Kc,comment-id=000c0000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-12-06T12:06:42.851+0000) > > Nope. Doing something that you know will annoy people is basically the definition of griefing. It doesn't matter whether it's the goal or a side effect. Disrupting games with their poor communication is punishable whether you find it fun or you just don't care, just like disconnecting frequently because your computer's power supply is broken will eventually result in a LeaverBuster whether you do it for fun or you just don't care. > > It is possible to still be trying to win and yet also be annoying your teammates. That Smite Singed support case from years ago is one such instance, and Riot defended the ban. > > My definition is an explanation of what sort of behavior Riot punishes as griefing. With a team game, you will sometimes have to be told or ask what's expected of you: that's teamwork. From "can we lane swap? I'm getting countered really hard" to "none of us wants you to use that strategy, so please don't," it's a vital part of success. > > There's nothing wrong with coming up with crazy ideas and trying them out, per se. But you do have to communicate it properly with your team and ensure that they're on board with it. "I do what I want" doesn't cut it. So wait hold up if I hover a champ that I play as a support and my adc says "i hate this support choose another one" but i pick my support anyway that's considered griefing???? You cant bend to the whim of everyone on your team all the time. Like yeah it's common courtesy but if I wanna play a specific champ I'm not gonna let my team tell me what to do as long as I want to win and try to win.
> [{quoted}](name=Krissi2197,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9fsXp4Kc,comment-id=000c00000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T14:06:38.608+0000) > > So wait hold up if I hover a champ that I play as a support and my adc says "i hate this support choose another one" but i pick my support anyway that's considered griefing???? > > You cant bend to the whim of everyone on your team all the time. Like yeah it's common courtesy but if I wanna play a specific champ I'm not gonna let my team tell me what to do as long as I want to win and try to win. If you just do whatever you want all the time and refuse to work with your team and start to accumulate lots of reports, yes, you can get punished for being awful to play with on an ongoing basis. If your ADC says they don't like your pick, talk to them, try to figure out why, explain your pick, maybe come up with a compromise. If _they_ appear impossible to work with and you don't think appeasing them is an option, just pick your champ and report the annoying person after the match (or, preferably, dodge).
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=00030001000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T11:52:52.267+0000) > > If the "real life experiences" and "real hardships" and "lessons" of "grown-ass men" have not taught them how to behave in an online video game, then teaching them that behavior when they fail at it is 100% reasonable and in line and should be here on the forums. No it isn't, its absurd. How does one behave on the internet? How Riot tells them to? Good luck with that buddy. >Punishing people for breaking the rules and behaving like loutish, obstinate, ill-mannered, entitled children fits with everything in my >blood and culture as an American: courteous, reasonable, and willing to learn new things. Well we are talking about fun video games right? Oh wait, you're talking about in real life in person? This is the internet, lets not forget, and also how do you know you are reasonable? What if you're not?
> [{quoted}](name=CominTowardsYa,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=000300010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T11:58:18.233+0000) > > No it isn't, its absurd. > How does one behave on the internet? How Riot tells them to? Good luck with that buddy. > > Well we are talking about fun video games right? > > Oh wait, you're talking about in real life in person? > > This is the internet, lets not forget, and also how do you know you are reasonable? > What if you're not? What's absurd is adults behaving like uneducated children. "It's the Internet" isn't an excuse to throw manners and respect out the window. Yes, whoever wants to access a private entity's services has to abide by their rules, or suffer consequences like post removals and punishments. Online or in person, is there ever a good time to be a brat? I know I try to be reasonable, and I think that's a much better thing to value than the ability to say whatever you want on someone else's platform.
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T11:54:30.908+0000) > > It's rude to imply that someone is a shill with worthless opinions, which is against the rules, and which is what you did, which is in part why the post was removed. I did not imply that they are shill with worthless opinions. I meant what I wrote, that they are a Riot Apologist. Which is what they are. I explained this so many times.
> [{quoted}](name=SirTauntsALot,realm=EUW,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=000300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T12:06:05.214+0000) > > I did not imply that they are shill with worthless opinions. I meant what I wrote that they are a Riot Apologist. Which is what they are. I explained this so many times. Yes, you did. This is the message that whoever reported you, whatever mod handled it, and several people in this thread got when we looked at your post. If you meant what you wrote, then you meant something insulting, because that is what you wrote. We explained this so many times. As long as you're able to stop calling people Riot apologists and stop using phrases like "you call yourself a specialist?", that'll suffice. You don't have to agree with, understand, or like the rules; you just have to follow them. Otherwise you'll get posts removed. I'll say nothing more, and what happens next is up to you.
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9fsXp4Kc,comment-id=000c00000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T10:55:06.288+0000) > > It is griefing. It might not be inting, but it's still something you know will irritate your team. As I made quite clear, if you are aware that the team isn't cool with your plan but you do it anyway, then you're knowingly doing something that will bother them. If you want to play Int Sion and your team is like "ugh, everyone's trying that but they never do it right and the enemy ends up with a fed carry who stomps us, please don't" but you're like "screw you guys, I can do whatever I want as long as I try to win (within the limitations I've set)," that is griefing. If you're like "hey, anybody mind if I try Int Sion?" and your team keeps quiet, then it's okay. I mean, it's best if they actually say they're okay with it, but if they don't actively disagree when you ask, there's not much else you can do. If they don't like that plan they're expected to say so. It's "opt out," you might say. > > Yes, this guy was griefing because he tried to give the enemy team kills so that they would have a better chance of winning the game. However, if he instead legit thought that his strategy would win them the game, then whether it's griefing depends on whether his team told him not to. If they were okay with it, it's fine. If they weren't okay with it but he did it anyway, then it would be griefing. > > If a player is trying to win and working with their team, it's fine. > > If a player is trying to lose or refusing to work with their team, it's griefing. That's a fallacy. There are plenty of things that irritate people in League and it is not the player's job to bend to the whim of other players on their team or change the way they play to avoid irritating people. Griefing by definition is **intentionally** irritating or harassing other players. It is someone who acts in bad faith, who is not trying to win a game but whose purpose is to anger their teammates. It is **NOT** someone who plays something the team doesn't like or plays the game differently which unintentionally irritates people. Your definition is illogical and obviously Riot does not uphold that definition nor does any other game company out there as it would kill the popularity of their game. Nobody wants to be told or have to ask how to play a game. Many off-meta strategies that are now meta are born from people coming up with crazy ideas and trying them out. Riot has for the most part embraced off meta strategies throughout it's history and innovation has been what has fueled it's popularity. It's players who don't understand what griefing is that leads to unwarranted reporting and the broken system where real trolls/griefers don't get punished.
> [{quoted}](name=OneMustFall,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9fsXp4Kc,comment-id=000c000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-12-06T11:43:23.135+0000) > > That's a fallacy. There are plenty of things that irritate people in League and it is not the player's job to bend to the whim of other players on their team or change the way they play to avoid irritating people. Griefing by definition is **intentionally** irritating or harassing other players. It is someone who acts in bad faith, who is not trying to win a game but whose purpose is to anger their teammates. It is **NOT** someone who plays something the team doesn't like or plays the game differently which unintentionally irritates people. Nope. Doing something that you know will annoy people is basically the definition of griefing. It doesn't matter whether it's the goal or a side effect. Disrupting games with their poor communication is punishable whether you find it fun or you just don't care, just like disconnecting frequently because your computer's power supply is broken will eventually result in a LeaverBuster whether you do it for fun or you just don't care. It is possible to still be trying to win and yet also be annoying your teammates. That Smite Singed support case from years ago is one such instance, and Riot defended the ban. > [{quoted}](name=OneMustFall,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9fsXp4Kc,comment-id=000c000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-12-06T11:43:23.135+0000) > > Your definition is illogical and obviously Riot does not uphold that definition nor does any other game company out there as it would kill the popularity of their game. Nobody wants to be told or have to ask how to play a game. Many off-meta strategies that are now meta are born from people coming up with crazy ideas and trying them out. Riot has for the most part embraced off meta strategies throughout it's history and innovation has been what has fueled it's popularity. It's players who don't understand what griefing is that leads to unwarranted reporting and the broken system where real trolls/griefers don't get punished. My definition is an explanation of what sort of behavior Riot punishes as griefing. With a team game, you will sometimes have to be told or ask what's expected of you: that's teamwork. From "can we lane swap? I'm getting countered really hard" to "none of us wants you to use that strategy, so please don't," it's a vital part of success. There's nothing wrong with coming up with crazy ideas and trying them out, per se. But you do have to communicate it properly with your team and ensure that they're on board with it. "I do what I want" doesn't cut it.
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=000300000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T11:45:40.935+0000) > > I think that's the point of contention. If you had said something along the lines of "I don't know what inting/griefing permaban decision apologist you are" it would at least have been more accurate and precise. Broadening it to "Riot apologist" makes it sound like you're calling that person a shill who will defend anything Riot does just because it's Riot. Again... Even if what I said was not accurate (which it is in this case and I explained it in my highlights in the previous post) this does not violate any rules of the board. Hence, there is no explanation to why the post was removed.
> [{quoted}](name=SirTauntsALot,realm=EUW,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=0003000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T11:48:36.409+0000) > > Again... Even if what I said was not accurate (which it is in this case and I explained it in my highlights in the previous post) this does not violate any rules of the board. Hence, there is no explanation to why the post was removed. It's rude to imply that someone is a shill with worthless opinions, which is against the rules, and which is what you did, which is in part why the post was removed.
: I don't think they (Riot) should be doing what judges with years of ethical legal practice are doing with chat bans. I do however think the mods are constrained by their guidelines and have no choice in how they run the boards. I think they are most of the time reasonable until it becomes about them teaching grown ass men who have had real life experiences and endured real hardships lessons about improving their behavior on a video game. This is out of line, and should not be here on the forums. If the Mods don't approve of adult conversations, they can remove them, but punishing people for expressing their opinions goes against everything in my blood and culture as an American.
> [{quoted}](name=CominTowardsYa,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=0003000100000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T11:34:51.282+0000) > > I don't think they (Riot) should be doing what judges with years of ethical legal practice are doing with chat bans. > > I do however think the mods are constrained by their guidelines and have no choice in how they run the boards. > > I think they are most of the time reasonable until it becomes about them teaching grown ass men who have had real life experiences and endured real hardships lessons about improving their behavior on a video game. > > This is out of line, and should not be here on the forums. If the Mods don't approve of adult conversations, they can remove them, but punishing people for expressing their opinions goes against everything in my blood and culture as an American. If the "real life experiences" and "real hardships" and "lessons" of "grown-ass men" have not taught them how to behave in an online video game, then teaching them that behavior when they fail at it is 100% reasonable and in line and should be here on the forums. Punishing people for breaking the rules and behaving like loutish, obstinate, ill-mannered, entitled children fits with everything in my blood and culture as an American: courteous, reasonable, and willing to learn new things.
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=0003000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T10:43:06.008+0000) > > I said: > > "Why label someone a Riot apologist?" > > You read: > > "Why label Riot an apologist?" > > You misread what I wrote. Well perhaps you should phrase your words better? Here is what you wrote: > According to the definition I quoted, an apologist defends something controversial. Is Riot Games itself controversial? In every way? In some ways? Which ways would those be? When I read the above I believe its only natural to read what you actually wrote? > According to the definition, you misapplied the term. Riot wasn't the controversial topic. The inting ban was. I agree with the above. That is my point. I never said Riot is the controversial topic. The inting ban topic was... Which is related to Riot policies . Preposition 1: _***~~A person defending a controversial topic is an apologist ( see definition you quoted). ~~***_ Preposition 2: _***~~This is a controversial topic which he is defending and is directly related to Riot policies. ~~***_ Conclusion: _*~~ Hence a Riot Apologist! ~~*_ > Labeling someone an apologist for Riot in general makes it seem like they're only saying the ban was justified because they'd defend anything Riot does. I understand what you are saying but the above does not violate any of the board rules. If they are quote them here! > > He does know the rules, because the banned player was obviously trolling. Diving directly into the enemy team, spamming the dance emote until he gets hooked, etc. - trolling. Apparently the warning wasn't enough. the summoners code: - Does not have "dancing emote" listed as a bannable offence. - Does not have unconventional build paths or strategies listed as a bannable offence. - Having a bad game is not a bannable offence ( multiple games are but he has only a very few bad games and is climbing consistently ) The "Specialist" mentioned that the above justified a ban. This indicates his lack for the rules or choosing to ignore the rules. Furthermore, The banned person was: - Dealing the same damage / or more damage than his allies. - Tried to escape in the fights but failed. (using flash to run away). - Did not offend anyone in game. - Tried to deal damage even kited the in one case ( proving that he was not trying to int) - Is climbing consistently ( showing that he is not trolling ) > It is the same thing. You said: > > "Since when asking someone a question belittles them." Yes, I was asking a question. I did not use any offensive word. You did. > And all I did was ask you a question. No, you did not. You used an offensive characterization towards me which is not the same. P.s. i don't mind the characterization you used. Just wanted to point out / highlight the difference.
> [{quoted}](name=SirTauntsALot,realm=EUW,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T11:23:11.068+0000) > > I agree with the above. That is my point. I never said Riot is the controversial topic. The inting ban topic was... Which is related to Riot policies . A person defending a controversial topic is an apologist ( see definition you quoted). Since this is a controversial topic which he is defending and is directly related to Riot policies. Hence a Riot Apologist! I think that's the point of contention. If you had said something along the lines of "I don't know what inting/griefing permaban decision apologist you are" it would at least have been more accurate and precise. Broadening it to "Riot apologist" makes it sound like you're calling that person a shill who will defend anything Riot does just because it's Riot.
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9fsXp4Kc,comment-id=000c00000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T10:55:06.288+0000) > > If a player is trying to lose or refusing to work with their team, it's griefing. The summoner's code states "Do not report your teammates for strategic disagreements" Riot already ruled on this a while back - as long as you are legitimately trying to win the game, off meta strats are fine, and you can play the game the way you want. As I recall smite singed support was the case in question which led to this ruling.
> [{quoted}](name=JedenVojak,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9fsXp4Kc,comment-id=000c000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T11:18:24.645+0000) > > The summoner's code states "Do not report your teammates for strategic disagreements" > > Riot already ruled on this a while back - as long as you are legitimately trying to win the game, off meta strats are fine, and you can play the game the way you want. As I recall smite singed support was the case in question which led to this ruling. I cannot find your quote of the Summoner's Code in [the Summoner's Code](https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/game-info/get-started/summoners-code/). I do not think it states such. However, I did find a [Riot response to that Smite Singed support situation on Boards](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/79aGu3wR-support-singed-isnt-banable-but-thats-not-the-point?comment=006b). Notably: > For what it’s worth, we believe the penalty was warranted because in literally hundreds of games the player inflicted a huge amount of disruption on players who didn’t agree to their chemistry experiments. It all comes down to whether you're pissing people off. If your off-meta strat is annoying your team and they don't want it or agree to it, then you actually can't play the game that way (not without breaking the rules, at any rate). So I'm afraid you're wrong about that, too.
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9fsXp4Kc,comment-id=000c000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T00:25:19.694+0000) > > Actually, if you do something that the rest of your team indicates they're not okay with, that's griefing. Maybe someone in Diamond actually believes that TP/Smite Singed support is a viable way to win a ranked game in Diamond. But if they tell the team they intend to do that and everyone goes "oh no please don't that's a terrible strategy please pick something traditional," going through with that plan is griefing. Same for someone who goes Smite/Flash Lee jungle with excellent jungle runes and a great jungle build path planned... when the team already had a jungler locked in. Maybe that Lee thinks two junglers on a team will work great. If the team asks that Lee to fill his designated role instead of being a second jungler, though, he needs to do that or he risks a 14-day suspension. No it isn't. Not doing what your team wants you to do is not griefing. If that was true anybody who plays off meta champs would get banned or people who implement split push strategies (Inting Sion) would be banned. You don't have to ask permission to play the way you want to play. The game would be complete shit if that was true. Griefing requires intent. Intentionally trying to ruin someone else's game or intentionally not playing your role. This guy was clearly griefing because he went into other people's lanes and stood next to enemy towers to try to get himself killed. He wasn't trying a different strategy out, he was trolling his team because the other team banned Pyke. Don't put this guy in the same corner as people who actually try in games but play off-meta champs or implement unique strategies. That's not cool.
> [{quoted}](name=OneMustFall,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9fsXp4Kc,comment-id=000c0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T09:09:16.603+0000) > > No it isn't. Not doing what your team wants you to do is not griefing. If that was true anybody who plays off meta champs would get banned or people who implement split push strategies (Inting Sion) would be banned. You don't have to ask permission to play the way you want to play. The game would be complete shit if that was true. > > Griefing requires intent. Intentionally trying to ruin someone else's game or intentionally not playing your role. This guy was clearly griefing because he went into other people's lanes and stood next to enemy towers to try to get himself killed. He wasn't trying a different strategy out, he was trolling his team because the other team banned Pyke. Don't put this guy in the same corner as people who actually try in games but play off-meta champs or implement unique strategies. That's not cool. It is griefing. It might not be inting, but it's still something you know will irritate your team. As I made quite clear, if you are aware that the team isn't cool with your plan but you do it anyway, then you're knowingly doing something that will bother them. If you want to play Int Sion and your team is like "ugh, everyone's trying that but they never do it right and the enemy ends up with a fed carry who stomps us, please don't" but you're like "screw you guys, I can do whatever I want as long as I try to win (within the limitations I've set)," that is griefing. If you're like "hey, anybody mind if I try Int Sion?" and your team keeps quiet, then it's okay. I mean, it's best if they actually say they're okay with it, but if they don't actively disagree when you ask, there's not much else you can do. If they don't like that plan they're expected to say so. It's "opt out," you might say. Yes, this guy was griefing because he tried to give the enemy team kills so that they would have a better chance of winning the game. However, if he instead legit thought that his strategy would win them the game, then whether it's griefing depends on whether his team told him not to. If they were okay with it, it's fine. If they weren't okay with it but he did it anyway, then it would be griefing. If a player is trying to win and working with their team, it's fine. If a player is trying to lose or refusing to work with their team, it's griefing.
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T08:57:52.779+0000) > > According to the definition I quoted, an apologist defends something controversial. Is Riot Games itself controversial? In every way? In some ways? Which ways would those be? _***~~Controversial = ~~***_ _*~~adjective. If you describe something or someone as controversial, you mean that they are the subject of intense public argument, disagreement, or disapproval. ~~*_ I did not call RIot an apologist. I called the Specialist and apologist. Which according to your definition is correct. Because he was discussing a controversial topic (cf. definition of controversial above). > He does know the rules. As far as how asking a question belittles someone, how long have you been an unbearable fool? I'm not _calling_ you an unbearable fool. I'm just asking a question. This is fine, right? He does not know the rules because the OP was obviously not trolling in that particular game. Also, even though your words mean nothing to me, your insult is not the same thing with my question. Because the person has a title of " Specialist" whether I do not hold such title. So you are comparing 2 different things. I am not using an offensive word or a rude word.
> [{quoted}](name=SirTauntsALot,realm=EUW,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T09:15:34.702+0000) > > _***~~Controversial = ~~***_ _*~~adjective. If you describe something or someone as controversial, you mean that they are the subject of intense public argument, disagreement, or disapproval. ~~*_ > > I did not call RIot an apologist. I called the Specialist and apologist. Which according to your definition is correct. Because he was discussing a controversial topic (cf. definition of controversial above). I said: "Why label someone a Riot apologist?" You read: "Why label Riot an apologist?" You misread what I wrote. According to the definition, you misapplied the term. Riot wasn't the controversial topic. The inting ban was. Labeling someone an apologist for Riot in general makes it seem like they're only saying the ban was justified because they'd defend anything Riot does. > [{quoted}](name=SirTauntsALot,realm=EUW,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T09:15:34.702+0000) > > He does not know the rules because the OP was obviously not trolling in that particular game. He does know the rules, because the banned player was obviously trolling. Diving directly into the enemy team, spamming the dance emote until he gets hooked, etc. - trolling. Apparently the warning wasn't enough. > [{quoted}](name=SirTauntsALot,realm=EUW,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T09:15:34.702+0000) > > Also, even though your words mean nothing to me, your insult is not the same thing with my question. Because the person has a title of " Specialist" whether I do not hold such title. So you are comparing 2 different things. I am not using an offensive word or a rude word. It is the same thing. You said: "Since when asking someone a question belittles them." And all I did was ask you a question. TL;DR: Your post was correctly removed, and you're not fooling anyone.
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T08:24:20.111+0000) > > "I don't know what RIot apologist you are" > > From OED: > > Calling someone an apologist for a company makes it sound like they have some kind of undue attachment to it and will defend it even when it's in the wrong. wow... you literally copied and pasted the definition yet you give it your own different definition? When I call someone an apologist I mean just that. When I call someone someone an apologist for a company I don't imply that they have some kind of undue attachment to it and will defend it even when it's in the wrong". Like just wow. Should I start putting disclaimers for each word that I say? > "Go read the rules. You call yourself a specialist?" > > This suggests that the poster neither deserves any particular recognition of their efforts and contributions nor has even read the rules they purport to explain when these are obviously false. The only point of that statement and the question that followed it was to belittle. It suggests that he doesn't know the rules (which he doesn't). Since when asking someone a question belittles them. To end this conversation, The only answer that would be honest is the following " Hey mate! Here at Riot we don't like non PC people. We like PC and we don't take criticism especially for specialists or Mods. So fuck off mate we will delete your posts". This would be enough for me and I would even say thank you.
> [{quoted}](name=SirTauntsALot,realm=EUW,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T08:34:46.113+0000) > > wow... you literally copied and pasted the definition yet you give it your own different definition? When I call someone an apologist I mean just that. When I call someone someone an apologist for a company I don't imply that they have some kind of undue attachment to it and will defend it even when it's in the wrong". Like just wow. Should I start putting disclaimers for each word that I say? According to the definition I quoted, an apologist defends something controversial. Is Riot Games itself controversial? In every way? In some ways? Which ways would those be? Only the ways that pertain to that now-closed thread, viz banning an inter? Seems like it would more accurately be the ban decision which was "controversial" (which it wouldn't have been if the banned player's friends and smurfs hadn't interfered). Why label someone a _Riot_ apologist? It gives the impression that the person would make a similar defense of anything Riot does, biasing them heavily in this particular case. Basically, calling someone a Riot apologist ignores their actual argument in favor of poisoning the well. > [{quoted}](name=SirTauntsALot,realm=EUW,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T08:34:46.113+0000) > > It suggests that he doesn't know the rules (which he doesn't). Since when asking someone a question belittles them. > > To end this conversation, The only answer that would be honest is the following " Hey mate! Here at Riot we don't like non PC people. We like PC and we don't take criticism especially for specialists or Mods. So fuck off mate we will delete your posts". This would be enough for me and I would even say thank you. He does know the rules. As far as how asking a question belittles someone, how long have you been an unbearable fool? I'm not _calling_ you an unbearable fool. I'm just asking a question. This is fine, right? Your reasoning in this thread is the equivalent of "all I did was call someone a stick. Are sticks so bad? Do we not like words that end with the letter G?".
: Riot declares ally bots in PvE not their problem to correct
What do you mean by a bug with "ally bots"? Was it an attempt at satire regarding the leveling bots? Putting that in Report a Bug is taking it too far. Also, moderators are not Riot employees; they're player volunteers. Moving your joke post out of Report a Bug isn't any kind of "declaration" of Riot's positions or policies (other than "don't clutter up the bug reporting section," I suppose).
: > [{quoted}](name=Periscope,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-12-06T07:45:51.928+0000) > > The above is ok, since you're stating your opinion regarding this player's behavior. > . > Come on dude. Go read the rules. You call yourself a specialist? > > This is not, as you're attacking the person instead of their argument. This would have been removed regardless of with whom you were conversing. > > I'll also point out that you did not receive a warning for this infraction. Okay, thank you for trying to give me a better answer. However, what in my sentence is attacking the person. is it the word apologist? If so, why is that regarded as attacking. The fact that I asked him to go and read the rules? Is that offensive? Asking him if he calls himself a specialist (implying that he did not read the rules ? ) is that attacking him? if so, how? Edit: from the link you attached [here](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/OjEUxbwH-player-behavior-rules-update) can you please let me know which of the sections I violated?
> [{quoted}](name=SirTauntsALot,realm=EUW,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=BBYniPdH,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-12-06T08:09:08.303+0000) > > Okay, thank you for trying to give me a better answer. However, what in my sentence is attacking the person. is it the word apologist? If so why is that regarded as attacking. The fact that I asked him to go and read the rules? Is that offensive? Asking him if he calls himself a specialist (implying that he did not read the rules ? ) is that attacking him? if so how? "I don't know what RIot apologist you are" From OED: > a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial. > "an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s" Calling someone an apologist for a company makes it sound like they have some kind of undue attachment to it and will defend it even when it's in the wrong. "Go read the rules. You call yourself a specialist?" This suggests that the poster neither deserves any particular recognition of their efforts and contributions nor has even read the rules they purport to explain when these are obviously false. The only point of that statement and the question that followed it was to belittle.
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4NveyOEn,comment-id=0003000000000001,timestamp=2019-12-06T06:10:54.870+0000) > > What you said was: > > You used phrases like: > > "never" > "for any reason" > > The content you quoted, however, uses phrases like: > > "almost never" > "usually" > "generally" > > These two groups of phrases have different meanings. Effectively, your claim is false. > > The key is this: > > If Riot doesn't think they made a mistake, they don't lift a ban. And usually they don't think they made a mistake. But sometimes, they see that they have made a mistake, and in those cases, they may - and occasionally do - lift a ban. even if it's incorrectly placed they won't appeal it. they just go "tough shit. we not appealing it" don't you think with all the permaban stories that show up on the boards there would also be stories of those getting bans appealed? the reason there aren't any appeal stories is because riot never appeals them.
> [{quoted}](name=Inkling Commando,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4NveyOEn,comment-id=00030000000000010000,timestamp=2019-12-06T06:16:37.013+0000) > > even if it's incorrectly placed they won't appeal it. they just go "tough shit. we not appealing it" don't you think with all the permaban stories that show up on the boards there would also be stories of those getting bans appealed? the reason there aren't any appeal stories is because riot never appeals them. There _are_ stories of permabans getting appealed and lifted. We just see very, _very_ few of them because permabans are almost always correctly placed. Not every time, but nearly so. The reason we see so few successful appeals is because Riot permabans almost no one for fear of false positives, so people who do manage to get banned have thoroughly earned it. Seriously; I had a teammate a month ago who ran it down starting at minute 2 or so (0/26 in 18 minutes), while screaming about teaching the team a lesson and shouting homophobic slurs... no punishment.
: > [{quoted}](name=AeroWaffle,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4NveyOEn,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-12-06T04:45:20.601+0000) > > [Never?](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/uVnmlJde-3rd-party-program-bans) https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/360025054013-Understanding-Getting-Permabanned "CAN MY PERMABAN BE REMOVED? Permabans are almost never removed. Usually by the time you have reached being permabanned, you have already been banned before. You were aware that your behavior was unacceptable according to the Terms of Use and the Summoner’s Code. Bans coming from the Instant Feedback System are generally not lifted or adjusted. Correctly placed penalties will not be removed." yes. never.
> [{quoted}](name=Inkling Commando,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4NveyOEn,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2019-12-06T05:01:06.902+0000) > > https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/360025054013-Understanding-Getting-Permabanned > > "CAN MY PERMABAN BE REMOVED? > Permabans are almost never removed. Usually by the time you have reached being permabanned, you have already been banned before. You were aware that your behavior was unacceptable according to the Terms of Use and the Summoner’s Code. Bans coming from the Instant Feedback System are generally not lifted or adjusted. Correctly placed penalties will not be removed." > > yes. never. What you said was: > [{quoted}](name=Inkling Commando,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4NveyOEn,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-12-05T20:12:01.483+0000) > > just accept it. riot never appeals restrictions or bans for any reason. You used phrases like: "never" "for any reason" The content you quoted, however, uses phrases like: "almost never" "usually" "generally" These two groups of phrases have different meanings. Effectively, your claim is false. The key is this: > Correctly placed penalties will not be removed. If Riot doesn't think they made a mistake, they don't lift a ban. And usually they don't think they made a mistake. But sometimes, they see that they have made a mistake, and in those cases, they may - and occasionally do - lift a ban.
: Should I contact Riot support about my case, or was the punishment just and accept my punishment?
You weren't punished for misbehaving in one game. You were punished for misbehaving in _one more_ game, in a consistent pattern of negative behavior that breaks the game's rules. Additionally, the reform card doesn't always show all the matches that led to your punishment: it randomly selects up to several matches. You might see three matches, but you also might see as few as one, even for players whose punishment stems not from a small number of egregious infractions but rather from dozens of instances of mild toxicity. The purpose of the reform card is to tell you how to reform, so it shows you an example of the behavior that prompted your punishment and explains that such behavior is inappropriate and should be avoided if you want to maintain an account in good standing. Your opinion of the rules is of zero relevance. When a cop stops you for going 40 in a 25 zone, you can claim "I think the limit should be 45 here" all you want. You're still getting a ticket. If a librarian asks you to keep your voice down while you use the facilities, shouting that libraries should be loud will simply get you escorted out. If you go to a friend's house who insists that you remove your shoes while you're in their home, "that's a stupid rule and I do what I want" will lose you a friend. If you are using someone else's services, facilities, equipment, etc., you abide by their rules or you deal with the consequences. If you think the rules should change, that is a completely different conversation (and I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for your chances at convincing Riot to change their rules to allow behavior like yours). From [Riot's support knowledgebase](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/360024051193-Understanding-Different-Ban-Types-FAQs): > We work with the overall community and within our own company guidelines to identify what disruptive behavior is and what the consequences for those behaviors should be. We understand that it can be difficult to know where the line is, which is why we provide chat logs and we have a few tiers in the ban process in order to allow for you to learn and grow. A 10-game chat restriction is the lightest possible punishment, and it _is_ your warning. You freely admit that you were toxic - don't be toxic anymore, and you won't get punished anymore.
: Please Bring back Tribunal
Many years ago, LoL's behavior system used something called the Tribunal, comprising player volunteers who logged into a system that showed them chat logs from reported players. Those volunteers would then vote on whether to punish or pardon the reported player's case. This system's main flaw was that it simply took far too long due to LoL's huge playerbase. Participants would often be reviewing chat logs that were several months old, with a growing backlog. In addition to that, not every participant took the task seriously: some would spam the same verdict for every case without even reading the chat log, or even invert their verdicts on purpose. The current system, called the Instant Feedback System, or IFS, is automated software that uses machine learning to determine what behavior should be punishable and when a player's behavior should be punished. It started with data from the Tribunal, and has been learning and adapting for years. It operates on the same basic principles as a spam filter: get a corpus of data (emails/chat logs), have humans categorize each item as acceptable or unacceptable, find patterns within each category, and then finally look for those patterns to automatically categorize new items without direct human evaluation. Each report is like clicking the "spam" button. When a new pattern starts to get lots of reports, the IFS recognizes it as a new form of toxicity. The IFS is efficient and unbiased. The Tribunal was not.
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AWfxjl6E,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-12-06T01:34:38.916+0000) > > Some may have gotten name changes, or post on different accounts now. sorry I forgot about you kfceytron. You are kool too.
> [{quoted}](name=Calamitosus Cini,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AWfxjl6E,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-12-06T01:36:30.761+0000) > > sorry I forgot about you kfceytron. You are kool too. yey :3
: Did all of the old school forum goers leave? Is Jikker and Rift Herald Djinn the only two left?
Some may have gotten name changes, or post on different accounts now.
: oh I thought he was JG. but hey idk I wasnt there if ure building tank supp item than smite inst that bad. obviously parring it with teleport is a big sign of a troll, given that ignite or heal would help the duo alot more. But I still cant say that, that alone makes someone a troll. Trolling is when ure intentionally fucking up the match, not because u picked something somebody doesnt agree to. Maybe he wanted to use teleport to help out other lanes when roaming. But like i said I wasnt there, maybe he was trolling big time. But u cant deny people will blow up over someone just honestly doing bad in a ranked match.
> [{quoted}](name=SUPER BIG NUTZ,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9fsXp4Kc,comment-id=000c00000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T23:53:11.054+0000) > > oh I thought he was JG. but hey idk I wasnt there if ure building tank supp item than smite inst that bad. obviously parring it with teleport is a big sign of a troll, given that ignite or heal would help the duo alot more. But I still cant say that, that alone makes someone a troll. > > Trolling is when ure intentionally fucking up the match, not because u picked something somebody doesnt agree to. Maybe he wanted to use teleport to help out other lanes when roaming. But like i said I wasnt there, maybe he was trolling big time. But u cant deny people will blow up over someone just honestly doing bad in a ranked match. Actually, if you do something that the rest of your team indicates they're not okay with, that's griefing. Maybe someone in Diamond actually believes that TP/Smite Singed support is a viable way to win a ranked game in Diamond. But if they tell the team they intend to do that and everyone goes "oh no please don't that's a terrible strategy please pick something traditional," going through with that plan is griefing. Same for someone who goes Smite/Flash Lee jungle with excellent jungle runes and a great jungle build path planned... when the team already had a jungler locked in. Maybe that Lee thinks two junglers on a team will work great. If the team asks that Lee to fill his designated role instead of being a second jungler, though, he needs to do that or he risks a 14-day suspension.
i3erny (NA)
: Sona needs a Buff, there is no more Klpetomancy
According to [Riot's "OP line" chart released in April of this year for patch 9.08](https://twitter.com/RiotRepertoir/status/1121824617344028672), Sona had at that time the highest WR in the game at around 54%, only escaping nerfs because everyone thinks she's useless and nobody bans her. Right now, op.gg says she's at 51.54%, lolalytics.com says 50.3% in Plat+ and 56.3% for "best on champ" (whatever that is), champion.gg says 50.25%, leagueofgraphs.com says 49.8%, and metasrc.com says 52.61%. Believe it or not, it is possible to be squishy and useful at the same time.
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cWXzcnRx,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-05T00:07:39.380+0000) > > What's the problem with posting links rather than uploading attachments directly to Boards? The problem is that you need permission. You need enough posts per day/week and enough upvotes otherwise you get blocked from links other than youtube, and a few other things. It's been 5 years and I still dont have that ability.
> [{quoted}](name=Dreamspitter,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=cWXzcnRx,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-12-05T18:47:20.903+0000) > > The problem is that you need permission. You need enough posts per day/week and enough upvotes otherwise you get blocked from links other than youtube, and a few other things. It's been 5 years and I still dont have that ability. And if we had the ability to upload files, that same restriction wouldn't apply?
: this Bot shit is getting out of hand
Kai Guy (NA)
: Hey KFC. How may more times do you think I will end up explaining to folks that tanks tank Via positioning and ability usage rather then statballing?
> [{quoted}](name=Kai Guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=BqnKIR0b,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-12-05T02:14:56.112+0000) > > Hey KFC. How may more times do you think I will end up explaining to folks that tanks tank Via positioning and ability usage rather then statballing? However many times you have the patience for.
: How is everyone today?
Is this a "how are you? I'm fine, thanks" thing, or an actual question?
: the state of braum sickens me
Because tanks are expected to buy or otherwise choose additional defensive options (health, resistances, active items, etc.) that synergize with whatever makes them tanky.
: Weird idea so honest opinions please
They're already coming out with an entirely separate TCG and it doesn't involve LoL shards, so don't hold your breath.
: How to just put an image into a post without a link?
What's the problem with posting links rather than uploading attachments directly to Boards?
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EP0tuhkI,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-12-03T02:54:07.312+0000) > > Okay, first things first: > > If you misbehave but a teammate or opponent does or says something even worse, you should definitely report them after the match, just as someone reported you for your own misbehavior. Yes, that's certainly possible. Reports are not a limited resource. Any time someone believes that another player violated LoL's behavioral standards, they can report that player. Punishments are similarly not limited: if more than one player in a game merits a punishment, they can both get a punishment. This can happen even if the players in question were antagonizing each other. The IFS doesn't need to weigh the severity of all reported players' actions and then "award" the "winner" with a punishment; it's not a contest. > > Think of it like dealing with a noisy person in a library: ask them to keep it down, and then notify library staff and move to another area if that doesn't work. If you get into a shouting match with them, you're just as likely to be removed, even if you weren't shouting _quite_ as loudly as they were. The goal is a quiet library. > > The only chat messages included in your chat log are your own for a single, extremely good reason: they are the only ones taken into account for your punishment, because they're the only ones in your control. The things other players said and did in your match might produce in you an impulse to do certain things that may include breaking LoL's rules, but your behavior is your own, and you are responsible for it. If you really think about it, this is a good thing. If a toxic player's goading could exempt you from punishment for your flaming them, calling for reports, etc., then it would logically go the other way as well, resulting in punishments for players who didn't necessarily break any rules but weren't quite as friendly and positive as their teammates. Can you imagine a world where "didn't participate in the dance party and ignored all of our jokes" was a valid report that could get someone suspended for two weeks? We don't want that situation anymore than we want "called our support a braindead waste of space" to be considered an _invalid_ report just because, say, the support was telling their team to harm themselves while they merrily ran it down mid. > > Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I must admit that I'm kind of struggling with this particular log. It might be that the mild bickering is something you do very frequently, and it just built up. If you'd had two prior punishments (10-game and 25-game chat restrictions), the next punishment would be a 14-day. If you don't have prior punishments, definitely send in a ticket. If you've had two chat restrictions before... maybe still send in a ticket, to see if you can get a bit more background on it. Interesting. I have gotten those two chat restrictions before (and I completely deserved them in hindsight, but only by the rules set by the game. I still think toxicity shouldn't be punished). The ban is over now, but how do I send a ticket?
> [{quoted}](name=Moakmeister,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=EP0tuhkI,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-12-04T02:44:37.423+0000) > > Interesting. I have gotten those two chat restrictions before (and I completely deserved them in hindsight, but only by the rules set by the game. I still think toxicity shouldn't be punished). The ban is over now, but how do I send a ticket? Given the previous chat restrictions, this punishment makes more sense. It looks like you were arguing with multiple teammates, which is negative even if you weren't flaming and insulting them. Also keep in mind that the reform card shows an example of the kind of behavior that got you punished, not all the matches where you were validly reported. You can try submitting a ticket by going to https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/requests/new and logging in, but don't expect much.
intense (NA)
: WTF? IS THIS EVEN REMOTELY ENOUGH TO GET A PERMA BAN?
You weren't punished for misbehaving in one game. You were punished for misbehaving in _one more_ game, in a consistent pattern of negative behavior that breaks the game's rules. Additionally, the reform card doesn't always show all the matches that led to your punishment: it randomly selects up to several matches. You might see three matches, but you also might see as few as one, even for players whose punishment stems not from a small number of egregious infractions but rather from dozens of instances of mild toxicity. The purpose of the reform card is to tell you how to reform, so it shows you an example of the behavior that prompted your punishment and explains that such behavior is inappropriate and should be avoided if you want to maintain an account in good standing. Did you find something in Riot's store [allowing you to break the ToS](https://i.imgur.com/AvDSnZF.png)? No, because such a service is not offered. Regardless of how much money you spend, you are required to follow the same rules as everyone else. If the IFS determines that you've been validly reported in violation of those rules, you'll be punished according to those rules. If you wanted to avoid a punishment, you should've followed the rules. Usually, one transgression by itself wouldn't be enough to bring such a punishment to an otherwise clean account, but the IFS works on an escalating punishment system. Breaking a minor rule, like engaging the team in useless arguments, has a minor punishment: a chat restriction. Breaking that same rule over and over again, however, doesn't prompt an endless series of chat restrictions. The severity of the punishment ramps up over time, because the goal is to eliminate the punished player's willingness to break the game's rules. If two chat restrictions don't stop the useless arguments, the system will increase the punishment to a 14-day suspension and deliver a very clear message that the continued rule-breaking is becoming a serious issue and any further instances will result in a permaban. Again, the point is to put a stop to this misbehavior. If a player is more interested in repeatedly breaking the rules than in maintaining access to their account, they'll lose access to their account. Of course, it's possible to break major rules, like cheating, threatening people, or using chat for hate speech, and skip punishment tiers so that a clean account ends up with a 14-day suspension or even a permaban. From [Riot's support knowledgebase](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/207489286-Instant-Feedback-System-FAQ-): > **PUNISHMENTS GENERALLY FOLLOW A BASIC ESCALATION PATH:** > > * First Offense: 10 Game Chat Restriction > * Second Offense: 25 Game Chat Restriction > * Third Offense: Two Week Suspension > * Fourth Offense: Permanent Suspension > > However, it is possible to skip to a Two Week or Permanent suspension based on the severity of the behavior in the game. Excessive negative behavior can result in a Two-Week or Permanent suspension at any time without having a chat restriction on the account. From [Riot's support knowledgebase](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/201752884-Reporting-a-Player): > Do not threaten or repeatedly tell a player you will report them. Doing so can encourage players who are already negative to continue their behavior. Whether they know they are being reported or not has no bearing to whether the system will act on them. But most importantly, repeatedly threatening or arguing with a negative player can end up derailing the game for everyone else and then open yourself up to reports and possible disciplinary action as well. Avoid negative thoughts and useless chatting with poor performing teammates! Focus on victory by muting the offending player and then reporting them at the end of the game. > > Do not ask other players in the match to report the offending player. It only takes one report for our systems to review a game. Additional reports will not do anything for the offending player; however as mentioned above, it could open yourself up to a report of your own; especially if you are derailing the match by constantly demanding reports of other players. [](http:///) > [{quoted}](name=intense,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=q42TTTws,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-12-03T05:44:13.414+0000) > > the only thing I said that could be considered offensive was "stfu" Actually, most of your chat was devoted to arguing with your team, calling for reports, calling out teammates' scores, giving up, blaming your team for the loss, calling teammates unskilled, and so on. The only non-negative thing you said was the non-sequitur rhyme (one query sprite cranberry etc.). > [{quoted}](name=intense,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=q42TTTws,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-12-03T05:44:13.414+0000) > > but i was getting spammed missing ping for using flash to kill morde. The 2 people flaming me (kha and cait) were the 2 doing the worst on the team. Riot doesn't care who started it. Someone else's misbehavior does not justify your own. From [Riot's support knowledgebase](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/207489286-Instant-Feedback-System-FAQ-): > * Simply speaking, retaliation is not an acceptable or justifiable behavior. An argument between two players can easily create a negative experience for the rest of the players in the game with you. Regardless of the other player’s actions, this does not justify your own behavior. You alone are responsible for your actions within the game.If you encounter a toxic player like this, the best option is to simply report their behavior and move on. > * Reports are a vital piece to the puzzle. If you are not sure of what sort of behavior is reportable take a look at the [Reporting a Player FAQ](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/201752884-Reporting-a-Player) A low score per se isn't punishable by anything other than a lower chance of winning that match. > [{quoted}](name=intense,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=q42TTTws,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-12-03T05:44:13.414+0000) > > I wasnt trolling and I wasnt inting. True, but you were toxic in chat, which is also against the rules. You do this habitually with no indication that you'd ever change, so Riot permabanned your account.
Kythers (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=N1tIdBOE,comment-id=000c,timestamp=2019-12-03T01:38:53.334+0000) > > Paid for by > > https://dotesports-media.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/29123538/TDqiyana.png > > https://i.redd.it/zc9snr45ucr31.png > > https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/SnYIAZLGHPHUillxqR7MPPXzs_s=/0x0:1215x717/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:1215x717):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/18971831/Ahri_Splash_11.jpg > > etc. pay money for women being objectified by selling skins that objectify women {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}} we live in a funny world
> [{quoted}](name=Kythers,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=N1tIdBOE,comment-id=000c0000,timestamp=2019-12-03T05:22:26.347+0000) > > pay money for women being objectified by selling skins that objectify women > {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}} > we live in a funny world It's a funny, funny, funny world but it would be nothing NOTHING not one little thing without GD
afmghost (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AszEdsb9,comment-id=00020001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-03T04:18:41.881+0000) > > No, I'm comparing reasoning. "Someone built AD Lux therefore Lux is bad" is nonsense in the same way as "someone with a car that has LED headlights used their high-beams when they shouldn't have therefore LED headlights are bad." Your logic is simply flawed, that's all. I'm saying that they need to figure it out, and it's a bad idea to use them because it is dangerous to use them until they are properly aligned. I am also saying LEDs are already bright enough and do not need a setting that makes them brighter than the sun. Nobody needs that much brightness. If LED headlights were properly aligned and didn't cause temporary blindness to oncoming traffic, I'd be for them. As they are right now, however, they impede more than they help, so I am against them. And if I saw a Lux player go for an AD build, I would blame the punishment system because that player is clearly trolling. I mean you can read about her before you play, the game classifies her as a mage (and possibly a support, it's been a year), and the recommended items are items that are ideal for AP casters. This covers all bases, so nobody with the right might will conclude that she's anything besides a mage or a support should they try to pick her up
> [{quoted}](name=afmghost,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AszEdsb9,comment-id=000200010000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-03T05:04:55.128+0000) > > I'm saying that they need to figure it out, and it's a bad idea to use them because it is dangerous to use them until they are properly aligned. I am also saying LEDs are already bright enough and do not need a setting that makes them brighter than the sun. Nobody needs that much brightness. > If LED headlights were properly aligned and didn't cause temporary blindness to oncoming traffic, I'd be for them. As they are right now, however, they impede more than they help, so I am against them. > > And if I saw a Lux player go for an AD build, I would blame the punishment system because that player is clearly trolling. I mean you can read about her before you play, the game classifies her as a mage (and possibly a support, it's been a year), and the recommended items are items that are ideal for AP casters. This covers all bases, so nobody with the right might will conclude that she's anything besides a mage or a support should they try to pick her up Yeah, just like nobody would conclude that LEDs are too bright or LEDs aren't aimed properly. You can read about LEDs before designing systems with them. SOME _designs_ that _include_ LEDs are set too bright for their application. SOME _designs_ that _include_ LEDs aren't aimed properly. There is nothing wrong with the idea of using LEDs in automotive headlights per se. However, merely including LEDs in a design doesn't automatically make that design perfect. It's possible to design a shitty system that just so happens to use LEDs.
afmghost (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AszEdsb9,comment-id=000200010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-03T03:38:47.873+0000) > > https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Jackie-Chan-WTF.jpg > > Who came up with the idea to play Lux? You've improved your team's physical damage while trashing your team's magic damage, as well as making your abilities near useless. Well done, genius. > Also, stop stealing jungle buffs. It's like you have no sense of lane etiquette at all. > > {{champion:99}} {{item:1055}} {{item:3031}} {{item:3046}} {{item:3153}} {{item:3006}} > > Well until they figure out how to properly build her, she's a champ that doesn't belong in games. You're comparing one league match that will probably be forgotten by day's end to something that could result in tens of thousands of dollars in property damage, in addition to potentially causing critical or terminal injury.
> [{quoted}](name=afmghost,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AszEdsb9,comment-id=0002000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-03T04:14:05.173+0000) > > You're comparing one league match that will probably be forgotten by day's end to something that could result in tens of thousands of dollars in property damage, in addition to potentially causing critical or terminal injury. No, I'm comparing reasoning. "Someone built AD Lux therefore Lux is bad" is nonsense in the same way as "someone with a car that has LED headlights used their high-beams when they shouldn't have therefore LED headlights are bad." Your logic is simply flawed, that's all.
afmghost (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AszEdsb9,comment-id=0002000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-03T03:17:19.926+0000) > > And you have provided absolutely no arguments in favor of not putting LEDs on a car (headlights? cabin lights? tail lights?). All of your complaints are related to improper design, installation, and maintenance of headlights, independent of how the light is generated. Well until they figure out how to properly install them, it's a technology that doesn't belong on cars.
> [{quoted}](name=afmghost,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AszEdsb9,comment-id=00020001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-03T03:22:28.600+0000) > > Well until they figure out how to properly install them, it's a technology that doesn't belong on cars. https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Jackie-Chan-WTF.jpg Who came up with the idea to play Lux? You've improved your team's physical damage while trashing your team's magic damage, as well as making your abilities near useless. Well done, genius. Also, stop stealing jungle buffs. It's like you have no sense of lane etiquette at all. {{champion:99}} {{item:1055}} {{item:3031}} {{item:3046}} {{item:3153}} {{item:3006}} Well until they figure out how to properly build her, she's a champ that doesn't belong in games.
afmghost (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AszEdsb9,comment-id=00020001000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-03T03:02:12.488+0000) > > Proper rotation isn't the fault of the light-emitting technology. > > "Human headlights"? > > A) Human error is not a fault of LEDs > B) An overly-bright headlight design is not the fault of LEDs For starters, I called them "human headlights" as a joke. Secondly, I'm not attacking LED lights. I'm saying that they should not go on a car, not that they should cease to exist altogether.
> [{quoted}](name=afmghost,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AszEdsb9,comment-id=000200010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-12-03T03:07:12.017+0000) > > For starters, I called them "human headlights" as a joke. > Secondly, I'm not attacking LED lights. I'm saying that they should not go on a car, not that they should cease to exist altogether. And you have provided absolutely no arguments in favor of not putting LEDs on a car (headlights? cabin lights? tail lights?). All of your complaints are related to improper design, installation, and maintenance of headlights, independent of how the light is generated.
afmghost (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=KFCeytron,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AszEdsb9,comment-id=000200010000,timestamp=2019-12-03T01:00:23.871+0000) > > Proper aim of headlights has absolutely nothing to do with LEDs. More light is a design decision that has nothing to do with LEDs. Every headlight has a "high beam" function, not just LEDs. Using that function incorrectly has nothing to do with LEDs. True, but right now, I am not convinced they are rotated properly. It shouldn't be considered too hard to ask that they are aimed so that they shine their light on other cars, not the occupants. As for brights, I am well aware that both human and LED headlights have that setting. The complaint is that A: I am not convinced that people know when to use them, and B: LEDs should not be equipped with the setting, as they are already overkill without it.
> [{quoted}](name=afmghost,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=AszEdsb9,comment-id=0002000100000000,timestamp=2019-12-03T02:56:00.804+0000) > > True, but right now, I am not convinced they are rotated properly. It shouldn't be considered too hard to ask that they are aimed so that they shine their light on other cars, not the occupants. > As for brights, I am well aware that both human and LED headlights have that setting. The complaint is that > A: I am not convinced that people know when to use them, and > B: LEDs should not be equipped with the setting, as they are already overkill without it. Proper rotation isn't the fault of the light-emitting technology. "Human headlights"? A) Human error is not a fault of LEDs B) An overly-bright headlight design is not the fault of LEDs
: Did I really deserve a 14 day ban for this chat log?
Okay, first things first: If you misbehave but a teammate or opponent does or says something even worse, you should definitely report them after the match, just as someone reported you for your own misbehavior. Yes, that's certainly possible. Reports are not a limited resource. Any time someone believes that another player violated LoL's behavioral standards, they can report that player. Punishments are similarly not limited: if more than one player in a game merits a punishment, they can both get a punishment. This can happen even if the players in question were antagonizing each other. The IFS doesn't need to weigh the severity of all reported players' actions and then "award" the "winner" with a punishment; it's not a contest. Think of it like dealing with a noisy person in a library: ask them to keep it down, and then notify library staff and move to another area if that doesn't work. If you get into a shouting match with them, you're just as likely to be removed, even if you weren't shouting _quite_ as loudly as they were. The goal is a quiet library. The only chat messages included in your chat log are your own for a single, extremely good reason: they are the only ones taken into account for your punishment, because they're the only ones in your control. The things other players said and did in your match might produce in you an impulse to do certain things that may include breaking LoL's rules, but your behavior is your own, and you are responsible for it. If you really think about it, this is a good thing. If a toxic player's goading could exempt you from punishment for your flaming them, calling for reports, etc., then it would logically go the other way as well, resulting in punishments for players who didn't necessarily break any rules but weren't quite as friendly and positive as their teammates. Can you imagine a world where "didn't participate in the dance party and ignored all of our jokes" was a valid report that could get someone suspended for two weeks? We don't want that situation anymore than we want "called our support a braindead waste of space" to be considered an _invalid_ report just because, say, the support was telling their team to harm themselves while they merrily ran it down mid. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I must admit that I'm kind of struggling with this particular log. It might be that the mild bickering is something you do very frequently, and it just built up. If you'd had two prior punishments (10-game and 25-game chat restrictions), the next punishment would be a 14-day. If you don't have prior punishments, definitely send in a ticket. If you've had two chat restrictions before... maybe still send in a ticket, to see if you can get a bit more background on it.
: Literally been this way since Forums.
> [{quoted}](name=MetaCosmos,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=Tq7EFelU,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-12-03T01:26:13.261+0000) > > Literally been this way since Forums. Not only that, a bunch of downvotes would automatically lock a thread on Forums.
Exibir mais

KFCeytron

Nível 88 (NA)
Total de votos positivos
Criar uma discussão