: No. Probably because I'm an Evelynn main.
> [{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=U6uOLbBF,comment-id=000b,timestamp=2019-04-29T16:46:03.017+0000) > > No. Probably because I'm an Evelynn main. Super love for this statement. My daughter's name is Evelynn and she's the only light in my life.
: You're welcome here friendo <3 {{sticker:sg-poppy}}
> [{quoted}](name=Get Ogre Here,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=U6uOLbBF,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-04-29T02:37:10.842+0000) > > You're welcome here friendo <3 > > {{sticker:sg-poppy}} everyone will pretend long enough to convince themsleves
Comentários de Rioters
: Stop saying that these champions are unoriginal and plain copies of other champs.
I downvoted because Riot doesn't care about originality. They could make unique champions if they want, but they have a system which literally ignores good ideas. I've seen tons of neat champion concepts on boards, but when I looked into it there's a huge system paradox with champion concepts on boards: A: Submitting a concept to Riot will prompt them to tell you to post in Concepts and Creations on the Boards page B: Riot employees aren't allowed to read champion concepts due to some creator's clause in their contracts So Riot doesn't do much to seek original ideas, and it seems to me that if it's the same developers then they just lack fresh originality. Yeah I said it. And their recent champion seems to suggest someone might have browsed boards and found a popular champion concept and just recycle it... https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/skin-champion-concepts/ZXhk0jTW-claire-the-magic-cat
RR8Rosie (NA)
: The last champ you played with is now stuck with you during an apocalypse, how long do you survive?
: Claire, the Magic Cat
: > [{quoted}](name=Sillae,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EIjEuE7k,comment-id=00070004,timestamp=2019-04-24T02:37:31.153+0000) > > "cc counters yi" > > congrats you have cracked the code > > crowd control is definitely the only thing that should counter a champ because crowd control is only effective on a small number of champs and yi isn't in his q for the majority of each of his fights > > > wait 2 seconds of down time on a SIon who can't die in those 2 seconds anyway vs 2 seconds of down time on a squishy in the middle of the enemy team? Of course CC is a champ specific counter. Why do you think people don't say " CC the tank"?
> [{quoted}](name=Need Gold 4 Tent,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EIjEuE7k,comment-id=000700040002,timestamp=2019-04-25T06:01:20.116+0000) > > 2 seconds of down time on a SIon who can't die in those 2 seconds anyway vs 2 seconds of down time on a squishy in the middle of the enemy team? Of course CC is a champ specific counter. Why do you think people don't say " CC the tank"? You.. Do.. CC.. the tank.. though.. In a lot cases it's the tank in charge of engaging, and to peel you're going to want to get the engage out of the way. When I play Ali, I pretty much force people to target me otherwise they don't get to my team. Tahm Kench and Skarner are good champs for landing CC on tanks.
: Found out the hardway how Yi's ult actually works.
{{champion:33}} {{item:1039}} {{item:2031}} {{item:3340}} {{item:3706}} {{item:3047}} {{item:1416}} {{item:3076}} {{item:3075}} {{item:3068}} You see, what makes Rammus dangerous isn't his "thorns" (W: Defensive Ball Curl), it's his armor-plated attacks (Passive: Spiked Shell). The dangerous thing about Rammus' Passive is his Taunt (E: Frenzying Taunt). The E+W combo does force enemies to hit you and take damage, but it also boosts your Attack Speed, and Attacks apply bonus magic damage based on Rammus' Armor. Bloodrazor increases Rammus Attack Speed, and adds another bonus damage buff of % Max Health. Essentially, If Rammus taunts a Yi with this build, the Yi is forced into a 2 second auto-attack duel against Rammus- and the funny thing is Rammus actually puts out heavy AA damage and under taunt has more AS than Yi too. Plus Rammus is Rammus, he's tank AF. I just miss the old Phantom Dancer.. literally the perfect item for Rammus. Master? Yi? LMAO. Master of face smash keyboard with dumb Q into my taunt.
Comentários de Rioters
: > [{quoted}](name=Ten Summer Suns,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fbsU1aJH,comment-id=0003000000020000,timestamp=2019-04-23T04:20:05.465+0000) > > The problem is, if you allow people to ban champions then they can leverage the system to make sure they get good champs. 2 rerolls and a ban. That's 3 champions you don't want out the gutter. If you get a premade team of 5 that only own the same 10 champions, it gives 5 people 24 champions and 20 champion options. Do you see the problem now? > > watch: > > 5 players own the same 10 champs and only these champs.. lets make the example easy instead of realistic: > {{champion:266}} {{champion:103}} {{champion:84}} {{champion:12}} {{champion:32}} {{champion:34}} {{champion:1}} {{champion:22}} {{champion:136}} {{champion:268}} > > and these 14 champs are on free roto: > {{champion:432}} {{champion:53}} {{champion:63}} {{champion:201}} {{champion:51}} {{champion:164}} {{champion:69}} {{champion:31}} {{champion:42}} {{champion:122}} {{champion:131}} {{champion:36}} {{champion:119}} {{champion:245}} > > Now, because all 5 players have only the same 24 choices, they can ban: > {{champion:432}} {{champion:53}} {{champion:63}} {{champion:201}} {{champion:51}} > > Now they only have 19 champs left to be assigned. > They get: > {{champion:266}} {{champion:103}} {{champion:84}} {{champion:12}} {{champion:32}} > They all reroll: > {{champion:34}} {{champion:1}} {{champion:22}} {{champion:136}} {{champion:268}} > Another reroll: > {{champion:164}} {{champion:69}} {{champion:31}} {{champion:42}} {{champion:122}} > > Meaning that these 4 are lost: > {{champion:131}} {{champion:36}} {{champion:119}} {{champion:245}} > > The success rate of getting a champ you want is extremely high. And I'm pretty sure you can play ARAM only owning 6 champs.. so my 10 champion example gives room for failure where there can actually be a 100% success rate. False. You need at least 13 champions available to play ARAM with 10 bans. 5 unique bans on your team. 5 unique bans on the enemy team. 1 champion for you to have rolled initially 2 champions for you to reroll into. That said, there's already measures in place to ensure that no player is stuck to 13 champions. It's at least 30 assuming 0 owned champions due to 3 free week rotations being included. It doesn't change that it's not at any point pulling from the full roster for all players, simply pulling from available champions for each player. Simply making it pull from the entire roster means everyone has an equal chance to get the strong ARAM champs that are not banned. Or did you not notice how no ARAM game has ever had duplicate champions on opposite teams?
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fbsU1aJH,comment-id=00030000000200000000,timestamp=2019-04-23T07:15:38.706+0000) > > False. You need at least 13 champions available to play ARAM with 10 bans. > > 5 unique bans on your team. > 5 unique bans on the enemy team. > 1 champion for you to have rolled initially > 2 champions for you to reroll into. > > That said, there's already measures in place to ensure that no player is stuck to 13 champions. It's at least 30 assuming 0 owned champions due to 3 free week rotations being included. > > It doesn't change that it's not at any point pulling from the full roster for all players, simply pulling from available champions for each player. Simply making it pull from the entire roster means everyone has an equal chance to get the strong ARAM champs that are not banned. Or did you not notice how no ARAM game has ever had duplicate champions on opposite teams? Since when does "reply" become "quote".. anyways.. I wasn't aware they were pulling from 3 weeks of rotation. Is this new too?
: > [{quoted}](name=Ten Summer Suns,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fbsU1aJH,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-04-22T21:59:43.750+0000) > > Free rotation champs are available too, though I'm assuming you're not actually an ARAM player, just a League player who sometimes hops on ARAM. > So your opinion is irrelevant. > > Note that the popular opinion is in support of bans? > That's because the majority is irrelevant. > Play Summoners Rift. That's still "Available" rather than "All". The point is that it's not "All Random". I happen to agree that bans were a good thing and that removing them was a poor move by Riot. I enjoyed ARAM a bit more knowing certain problem champions couldn't be lucked out. I also wish that Riot wasn't refusing to do the one thing to actually kill ARAM accounts.
> [{quoted}](name=Busty Demoness,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fbsU1aJH,comment-id=000300000002,timestamp=2019-04-23T00:55:07.016+0000) > > That's still "Available" rather than "All". The point is that it's not "All Random". > > I happen to agree that bans were a good thing and that removing them was a poor move by Riot. I enjoyed ARAM a bit more knowing certain problem champions couldn't be lucked out. I also wish that Riot wasn't refusing to do the one thing to actually kill ARAM accounts. The problem is, if you allow people to ban champions then they can leverage the system to make sure they get good champs. 2 rerolls and a ban. That's 3 champions you don't want out the gutter. If you get a premade team of 5 that only own the same 10 champions, it gives 5 people 24 champions and 20 champion options. Do you see the problem now? watch: 5 players own the same 10 champs and only these champs.. lets make the example easy instead of realistic: {{champion:266}} {{champion:103}} {{champion:84}} {{champion:12}} {{champion:32}} {{champion:34}} {{champion:1}} {{champion:22}} {{champion:136}} {{champion:268}} and these 14 champs are on free roto: {{champion:432}} {{champion:53}} {{champion:63}} {{champion:201}} {{champion:51}} {{champion:164}} {{champion:69}} {{champion:31}} {{champion:42}} {{champion:122}} {{champion:131}} {{champion:36}} {{champion:119}} {{champion:245}} Now, because all 5 players have only the same 24 choices, they can ban: {{champion:432}} {{champion:53}} {{champion:63}} {{champion:201}} {{champion:51}} Now they only have 19 champs left to be assigned. They get: {{champion:266}} {{champion:103}} {{champion:84}} {{champion:12}} {{champion:32}} They all reroll: {{champion:34}} {{champion:1}} {{champion:22}} {{champion:136}} {{champion:268}} Another reroll: {{champion:164}} {{champion:69}} {{champion:31}} {{champion:42}} {{champion:122}} Meaning that these 4 are lost: {{champion:131}} {{champion:36}} {{champion:119}} {{champion:245}} The success rate of getting a champ you want is extremely high. And I'm pretty sure you can play ARAM only owning 6 champs.. so my 10 champion example gives room for failure where there can actually be a 100% success rate.
Saezio (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Ten Summer Suns,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fbsU1aJH,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-04-22T21:59:43.750+0000) > > Free rotation champs are available too, though I'm assuming you're not actually an ARAM player, just a League player who sometimes hops on ARAM. > So your opinion is irrelevant. > > Note that the popular opinion is in support of bans? > That's because the majority is irrelevant. > Play Summoners Rift. I have 8,5k Aram games. I own all champions. Any reason as to why all champs should not be open ? Or at least if they allow people to rig the system, allow everyone to limit their pools. I only play arams since season 3 (maybe 3% SR games just to get gold for the skin)
> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fbsU1aJH,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2019-04-22T22:59:31.069+0000) > > I have 8,5k Aram games. > > I own all champions. > > Any reason as to why all champs should not be open ? Or at least if they allow people to rig the system, allow everyone to limit their pools. > > I only play arams since season 3 (maybe 3% SR games just to get gold for the skin) It's not really the same argument. I'd try an ARAM with all champs available it sounds interesting. But I'm trying to keep ARAM from having bans. Makes no sense to me.
Saezio (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=dragfin12,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fbsU1aJH,comment-id=000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-04-22T16:31:23.385+0000) > > I am sure it is low on this account. I am guessing though that you have a very hard time grasping the fact that you can have as many accounts as you wish playing league so wasting your time looking up this account means pretty much nothing to anyone but yourself. > > Math comes into play when you take into account the 14 weekly free champions that can be given to those playing ARAM. When you take that into account then ARAM accounts become a myth and like I have already said blown out of proportion by people like you. > > But you keep on believing what you want if that makes you happy. First of all, it's not 14 champs the free rotation for aram. Second, show me your ARAM account, because this account has many aram games played daily on it and you claim you play aram on another account with higher MMR when this account has low MMR AND a lot of arams played. (proof like you say) Third, let's see if you can follow some math. Let's say aram players want to play specific 35 champions (just an estimate), and let's say they have those 35 champions and 25 champs they don't already own because of the free rotation. So, a total of 60 champions in the pool. It would seem that it's about an even chance of getting the champ they want, BUT they can roll once. So in order to not get the champ they want it would be a chance of 25/60 * 25/60=17%. BUT if they are grouped with 4 more similar accounts it would mean, their chance of landing 5/5 broken champions is higher than 41% (because they can roll for eachother)
> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fbsU1aJH,comment-id=0000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-04-22T16:46:58.727+0000) > > First of all, it's not 14 champs the free rotation for aram. > > Second, show me your ARAM account, because this account has many aram games played daily on it and you claim you play aram on another account with higher MMR when this account has low MMR AND a lot of arams played. (proof like you say) > > Third, let's see if you can follow some math. > Let's say aram players want to play specific 35 champions (just an estimate), and let's say they have those 35 champions and 25 champs they don't already own because of the free rotation. So, a total of 60 champions in the pool. It would seem that it's about an even chance of getting the champ they want, BUT they can roll once. So in order to not get the champ they want it would be a chance of 25/60 * 25/60=17%. BUT if they are grouped with 4 more similar accounts it would mean, their chance of landing 5/5 broken champions is higher than 41% (because they can roll for eachother) Your math is the wrong math friend. This isn't a matter of % chance to pull out of X champs. You have 10 people getting champions. All 10 people presumably own a combination of champions. Maybe all 10 own Soraka, and 3 own Rammus. Unless Rammus is on roto only 3 players can get him. Then it's a probability of: Player A: 1 / x Player B: 1 / y Player C: 1 / z Then you multiply AxBxC for that probability of any one player getting that Champ. But even THIS math is flawed because it ignores the probabilities of other players and THEIR champs. If Player "D" gets Soraka, it increases Player A's chances of getting Rammus by -1 champion. If Player A has 20 champs, and Soraka is one of them. Now Player A has 19 champs left. 1/19 is greater than 1/20. Also: There is the reroll reserve now. Let's assume everyone owns all champs for this. 10 players with a max of 2 rrs each. That can bench 20 champions potentially (might never happen in reality but the possibility exists). Team A is then cut off from the 4 champions their allies hold, the 5 champions their enemies hold, and the ten champions their enemies banned. If you add 10 bans to the mix: It eliminates 19 champions on either side. And 40 champions have been named in the process: 20 rerolls, 10 bans, 10 selections. Also, in a system with 2 rrs per player and 1 ban per player, a premade team can literally circumvent the randomness and land someone the champ they want. If I own only 20 champions including free rotos, and I queue with a team that owns the same 20 champs only: We can ban and rr until everyone gets their champion just by banning champions we own and don't want and rerolling Champions we get and don't want. The best arguable defense against this is the random chance our enemy gets the champ first. It's more abusive to allow bans in ARAM. MATHEMATICALLY.
Saezio (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Ten Summer Suns,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fbsU1aJH,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-04-22T21:59:43.750+0000) > > Free rotation champs are available too, though I'm assuming you're not actually an ARAM player, just a League player who sometimes hops on ARAM. > So your opinion is irrelevant. > > Note that the popular opinion is in support of bans? > That's because the majority is irrelevant. > Play Summoners Rift. You wanna post on your aram account or would I see you own just champions that are considered "op"? Limited-pool account's opinions are irrelevant, it's like asking someone if they think their main champion should be nerfed...
> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fbsU1aJH,comment-id=000300000001,timestamp=2019-04-22T23:02:52.465+0000) > > You wanna post on your aram account or would I see you own just champions that are considered "op"? > > Limited-pool account's opinions are irrelevant, it's like asking someone if they think their main champion should be nerfed... This is my account. I haven't played ARAM because it was that stupid Bilgewater nonsense. My fave ARAM champs? Janna and Nami Alistar Rammus Jhin Kassadin I don't even own jhin or Kass because the hextech system made it a pain in the ass to acquire champs. And my original account is banned. I started League in Season 2 playing Alistar Top. I discovered the joys of ARAM c. Season 5.
Saezio (EUNE)
: It's also not ARAM if you don't have ALL champions enabled. It's ORAM owned random all mid
> [{quoted}](name=Saezio,realm=EUNE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fbsU1aJH,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-04-22T13:33:48.520+0000) > > It's also not ARAM if you don't have ALL champions enabled. > > It's ORAM owned random all mid Free rotation champs are available too, though I'm assuming you're not actually an ARAM player, just a League player who sometimes hops on ARAM. So your opinion is irrelevant. Note that the popular opinion is in support of bans? That's because the majority is irrelevant. Play Summoners Rift.
Comentários de Rioters
Salron (NA)
: Spell thief would make for a shitty ultimate
> [{quoted}](name=Aarron,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=x9vkcac7,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-04-20T22:12:04.853+0000) > > Spell thief would make for a shitty ultimate {{champion:517}} riot's obviously given up on good ult ideas
Comentários de Rioters
y0r1ck (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Ten Summer Suns,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=uloMcihE,comment-id=0014,timestamp=2019-04-21T02:15:36.410+0000) > > I voted no because the randomness of the selection makes getting OP champions feel really rewarding. Having bans in ARAM literally takes from what ARAM was meant to be. Maybe the solution is to have Ranked ARAM like people have proposed in the past, and in Ranked ARAM bans would be reasonable. But in "norms" let it have the chaos of complete randomness. Rewarding for what? You get a reward for being lucky? That doesn't sound good to me. Yes, banning some champions will make the mode less random. This feels worthwhile to me because I can choose to cut out matchups I find uninteractive. Maybe that is the solution. Though I think it's not.
I'm into trading cards. So random rewards/ "pulls" are really nice for me. I like the complete uncertainty. Banning champs makes it more certain who you won't get. It's an equivalent of counting cards. 2 rerolls. 1 champ given. 10 bans, 4 allies. 15 champions you know you can't get on a rr, 10 of which were banned.
Vacus (NA)
: There is no bot that bans people. Your behavior was just unacceptable.
> [{quoted}](name=Vacus,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=U2hylPnT,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-04-21T02:16:08.010+0000) > > There is no bot that bans people. Your behavior was just unacceptable. Downvote for lack of independent thought. So long as laws are absolute then there can be no justice.
Zraebiel (NA)
: Bring Bans Back To ARAM (Poll)
I voted no because the randomness of the selection makes getting OP champions feel really rewarding. Having bans in ARAM literally takes from what ARAM was meant to be. Maybe the solution is to have Ranked ARAM like people have proposed in the past, and in Ranked ARAM bans would be reasonable. But in "norms" let it have the chaos of complete randomness.
: You go back in time to 1v1 your self ..
We would sit there all game showing off the Cowbell. {{champion:12}}
Comentários de Rioters
Comentários de Rioters
: > [{quoted}](name=Ten Summer Suns,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=LFj3Yh8f,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-04-17T22:41:23.973+0000)Did you check the link? I did. That's how I know something weird is going on. I see your word "crashing" as "e t a r d ing" and your word "is exactly" as "i e t a r d ctly", both without spaces. This seems like a board glitch of some kind, and is causing censor issues. I may have to ask someone to look into this.
That is weird. I mean, I had 3 games of chat logs and removed the other two games because they weren't part of my discussion. Idk if that's part of it? I clicked "copy text" and it copied all 3 games, so I removed "Game 1" and "Game 3". Then I edited the words "Game 2" to discourage the "what about Game 1?" comments. I'm just giving you a play by play if it helps diagnose the issue.
Ulanopo (NA)
: You were given a 24-hour boards ban due to a number of posts demonstrating you weren't using the Boards respectfully: >You need to read a dictionary some time, because you're clearly not comprehending >end slap to face >Clear indication that you do not read. you're just one of the sheep who "browse for trigger words" >Look! One of the sheep I mentioned earlier. If you actually read my post I was going to let you off with warnings, but then you posted: >Ewww get off my post. Thoughtless creature. Sack of skin population. Do as I'm told and create a blind order for subservience worm. You're standard-issue, right from the liberal-indoctrination public school systems. I bet you were never written up for "insubordination" because you don't know what it means to think and live for yourself. Please reconsider the way you speak to others.
Are you suggesting that you're tampering with my posts because of a separate post? Unless you're suggesting I'm being hacked, then I don't see the relevance.
: This is a weird one. Poking around the back-end shows that the text phrase "e t a r d" appears numerous places where I couldn't expect it to, such as in the middle of other words. This might be a board glitch, 'cause I promise you we're not censoring any part of words like "crashing."
Did you check the link? These are some censored sentences: (I know which words should be censored fyi) Ten Summer Suns: i got called r%%%%%ed for my comp %%%%%ing (comp crashing) Ten Summer Su%%%%%et tilted (get tilted) Ten Summer S%%%%%youre getting tilted over a game (you're getting tilted) Ten Summer Su%%%%% can play like one (I can play like one) Ten Summer Suns: that i%%%%%ctly what happened (that is exactly what happened) Why the censorship? I put the texts in parentheses. Question though: because I know the system tries preventing the circumventing of words.. like you can't say the "n word' replacing "g" with "6". Does the system think that my name plus the ":" symbol is trying to circumvent the "n word"?
Crocele (NA)
: How do you play against akali?
Rodsquad (EUW)
: There's no "but actually!" , Zoe is a child.
I hope everyone who comments on this has their computer traced by the FBI. Just to be sure.
Kalikain (NA)
: I love this strategy. -1.
> [{quoted}](name=Kalikain,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=yIZrjdfH,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-04-17T04:42:49.287+0000) > > I love this strategy. -1.
Comentários de Rioters
: 15 mins to 19:59 has to be unanimous 20min+ has to be playercount-1 to surrender (regarding Summoners Rift) that is the voting rules for Forfeiting a match
/surrender @ 19:30 {{champion:48}} DECLINE *has to wait 5 minutes* At least make a 20min surrender refresh.
Hotarµ (NA)
: It's almost like there's more to that quote, but I can't remember what it is on account of me being blind...
A coward came upon the thought you oh-so-ironically can't remember due to not having visual sight.. your comment is pretty ableist. Blind people have poor memory now? Pretty comfortable position talking about the blind on a computer screen. Anyways, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" is just a poem, not a real applicable rule, even when it's applied. Lawsuits exist in sake of the idea of "an eye for an eye". Considering we can measure the ineffectiveness of the prison system, then sending people to prison seems to only be justified out of some sense or need for vengeance, or an apathy of some kind toward their "villain". I could just as easily say, "A taste of your own medicine", but you would probably quote Mary Poppins to me and how a "spoonful of sugar" in this case is maintain a façade of kindness to people that don't really deserve it, right? That seems to be the ongoing altruism on boards. Be more agreeable or get slandered and have the slander against you justified because you have Boards "officials" refereeing the slander.
Ulanopo (NA)
: You were given a 24-hour boards ban due to a number of posts demonstrating you weren't using the Boards respectfully: >You need to read a dictionary some time, because you're clearly not comprehending >end slap to face >Clear indication that you do not read. you're just one of the sheep who "browse for trigger words" >Look! One of the sheep I mentioned earlier. If you actually read my post I was going to let you off with warnings, but then you posted: >Ewww get off my post. Thoughtless creature. Sack of skin population. Do as I'm told and create a blind order for subservience worm. You're standard-issue, right from the liberal-indoctrination public school systems. I bet you were never written up for "insubordination" because you don't know what it means to think and live for yourself. Please reconsider the way you speak to others.
This doesn't explain why the word " crashing " is censored in the post I linked. Why is everything you say irrelevant to the discussion?
: you got hyper defensive over a colloquial term then lashed out, and hypocritically used another mental disability to insult the guy "Don't say the R word it's offensive, you autist!" seriously?
Comentários de Rioters
: Not even sorry
Why is "crashing" censored?
Comentários de Rioters
: Hey bud, all we're seeing here is iamverysmart. Your degrees, studies, published papers, and anything else don't mean an ounce of shit, especially if you're just going to insult people. Play by League's rules or get punished.
I'm not insulting anyone. I'm stating that a grade school indoctrination doesn't give you enough information to have an informed opinion on the subject. The education system has become too socialized, and it promotes unhealthy opinions under the guise of fact. A good example of this is religion in schools, under the pretense of "freedom of religion", the system effectively removed historical texts from curriculums because people who came out of the indoctrinated system were taught to believe these texts held no merit or relevance. It's actually considered intelligent to lack Faith in today's society, despite the greater majority of geniuses having a steady and firm belief in God. And if I do somehow carry on the image of being "verysmart" then it would be prudent to listen and to learn, instead of trying to further the ignorance of society with uninformed opinions. I'm truly sorry if you manage to take insult from what I say. The reality is there are 5 distinct species of human in existence, you're probably the majority.
o Maui o (NA)
: You are incorrect.
I was published for my essays on justice and inequality. Read "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality" some time. Then come back to me when you get a real education instead of indoctrinated grade school opinions.
: Wholly agreed. My main gripe with Riot and their system is they include natural kinds of negativity like critisism, sarcasm, arguing, expressing dissatisfaction, etc,. for things that aren't allowed in chat. This simply leads to players feeling like their being heavily restricted, and causes them to avoid using chat altogether. Regulating all kinds of negativity, will certainly lead to some players feeling resentment towards a system that punishes them for saying what is natural in a competitive game
See, the problem is one of politics. In this community, there are 4 classes essentially. 1 Big Riot. 2 Riot Red Team. 3 Specialists & Mods 4 Playerbase Big Riot dissembles through the Red Team. The Red team takes all the heat, and has very little power compared to the power they're perceived to have. The Red team dissembles through the Mods and Specialists, and Mods and Specialists are embers of the Playerbase that have shown they are easy to manipulate/control. This is how it works: Player base believes "X" is okay. Big Riot creates a standard that "X" is not okay. Red Team is made to enforce the standard "X" is not okay. Player base exposes members that immediately follow the new standard. After time, these subservients are cast into the roles of "mods, specialists, etc.". Red Team leaves player behavior to the subservient player base, and gives them a plastic badge. Leaving a reality where 95% of the game actually believes "X" is okay, and a dissembled 5% acting as the 100% saying otherwise. The problem is the mods, specialists, etc. actually believe they're special. And without any real education or understanding of anything they strut around boards pretending to be important by parroting bullshit ideas they were hand fed, and too groomed by society to realize their own subservience. I'm talking about people literally being trained to forget their sense of freedom.
hiyares (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Laufplanke,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=ZyoHaJwd,comment-id=00000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-04-13T19:42:01.624+0000) > > lol. > > Feel free to leave, my dude. Riot does not have to give you a place to be toxic or insulting to other players, there are plenty of other games that can provide you with what you want, I am pretty sure about it. you ever been to the us? you should hang out in the low income areas and see how we tend to speak to each other on a daily basis. context is important it changes the meaning of what a certain phrase means the problem is when your talking about online interactions the whole hidden context of facial features hand gestures tone of voice are not there. so everyone just gets butt hurt from everything and its so stupid cant say anything to anyone i cant even call my friend his fucking nickname in game. im hispanic i live by the border of mexico we all speak spanish right so his name is enrique nicknamke is %%%% its gonna be bluured out because in english its offensive to a single religious belief keeke. In all honesty i just dont think that all this cultural bs should be shoved into a game setting it has no place for it and it makes no sense to me why a game which has various cultures in it would try to. and also if anyone even just says they are trying or its just a bad game they are free from any inting of feeding reports pretty much but you tell them 1 thing and you get banned or chat restricted for like 3 days lol
I've said this before about how it seems "low income" dialect is all banned. Like "the n-word" and it's really sad that I even have to say "the n-word" even if speaking in context of the word itself- which in a courtroom is acceptable. Frankly, the only people offended by anyone saying it are the middle-class guilty white people. Oh no the brothers are playing on my game, I'm not safe they used that word that starts with "n" instead of the word "buddy, pal, or friend". Like I want to literally take these twerps and walk them down my block sometime. These little worms would probably think I was about to rob and murder them.
o Maui o (NA)
: Maybe it would be best not to think of a behavior as acceptable simply because it is common. It's not ok to be a jerk. Sure, everyone wants to vent when they get frustrated, and toxicity is common in competitive environments, but that doesn't make it ok to be a jerk to a group of strangers who are trying to play a game.
Okay, but just think for a second. Imagine how people were before we made written laws. How did we decide what the written laws would be? This is the relationship between "culture" and "social structure". So, yes, behavior actually IS acceptable when it's common. And any rule or institution that says otherwise is, by definition, tyrannical. **EDIT** The study of political science can be disturbing. But- in a cult of cannibals for example, this cult all has a similar belief. Now the FBI arrests them. The FBI has every right based on how we construct our larger society, laws, etc. But that cult also had rights, despite whatever we think about them, our beliefs are tyrannical to their culture. But we can justify it because their culture is whack. But when you study organizations, you really have to pretend- put yourself in the perspective of the organization. Every single person is their own nation. It is how we decide to ally ourselves with other people that begins to create standards. But we are all, very much independent from the whole and have the ability to act how we want. Not to get into indoctrination, but there's a good reason this type of education isn't entirely accessible to the population.
Ulanopo (NA)
: >Because when you take natural behavior, and criminalize it, you won't change behavior as much as criminalize the normal behavior. That isn't really how culture works. Social mores develop so we can coexist - otherwise we'd be killing each other and stealing stuff. The mores of League are pretty straightforward: don't intentionally feed, don't afk and don't be an ass in chat.
You didn't read anything I said, it's clear by your conclusion and understanding of sociology. The "mores" of League are not the rules, nor the behavior of players- but a measure of the relationship between "rules" and "behavior". And the fact you used the word "more" instead of "norm" is another indication that you only ever briefly brushed up on the subject of sociology because "mores" are the measures of actions which exceed the social standard. So you used a field-relevant term to try flexing some knowledge, but the joke is you used the word completely wrong. The RULES of League really are straight forward, as I said in the OP. Don't try restating what I said as some pretense that you're correcting me, especially if you don't truly understand what you're talking about. The culture of League has variety. People of all personalities and backgrounds play the game. The Rules are an observance of what is "normal" and attempts to construct REAL guidelines based on that principle. That's the IDEAL. So you're general knowledge of sociology, ignoring terminology, is essentially correct. But when you apply it to the real world, it's a more fluid relationship that hinges on conditions. There are 2 conditions: the rules, and the behavior. IDEALISTICALLY, the rules appropriate the behavior: the culture creates norms that the institution executes as law. REALISTICALLY, the institution controls the making of the rules, and can instate a structure however they see fit. Whether or not an institution can appropriate this structure is studied within the field of political science. But the essence is- that an institution may restrict the culture in a way that people will not change their behavior- because they believe their behavior is correct--and the system merely exists to eradicate these people. **EDIT** And you can't argue fact: People aren't changing just because they get reported.. they blame the report system. They won't change because they feel they do nothing wrong, because they're acting like everyone else. THIS IS LEGITIMATELY EVERY SINGLE "WRONGFUL BAN" POST ON FORUMS. So what are you trying to argue?
: Don't be an ass, you don't have to be judged.
Do you realize the blatant hypocrisy of your statement?
: Is YOUR name OFFENSIVE???????
Am I an ableist just because I'm from a decanary solar system and you only have one sun?
Comentários de Rioters
: > [{quoted}](name=Ten Summer Suns,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=mLsKA0tl,comment-id=00000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-04-07T17:41:23.952+0000) > > If Player D is in a Party with Player A maybe. What is funny about this statement is you have already said I don't read; and I specifically mention they are in a premade aka party. >But then the report system could observe parties as a whole as well, good cop and bad cop is still a bad operation. So you are going to invalidate reports of a premade because maybe 1 person is an asshole? I get that you hate how some people are petty with how they report. We can only hope people report responsibly. I typically only report for the Zero Tolerance stuff; and that isn't to be petty. I simply don't believe hate speech and encouraging suicide have any place in any online game. On a certain level, part of your idea can be good. Flagging yourself isn't my concern, the concern is that the report gets thrown out.
What is funny about this statement is that you're actually proving you can't read. I said if A and D are in a party together, the comprehension part of reading seems to flew past you. You said all 4 were in a party together. I said only if two were in the party. So I'll wait for you to go back to school and learn how ironic your statement of suggested irony is. THATS FUNNY.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ten Summer Suns,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=mLsKA0tl,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2019-04-08T06:14:18.279+0000) > > > To be frank, I've been profiling and analyzing people and arguments for years. And unlike these 16-year old liberals who also claim to be experts, I'm a legitimately certified expert in the field. It is literally my everyday job to make deductive evaluations and formulate predictions. Despite your claim that you're an expert in the field, you've ruined any hope of community support with your insults and generalizations alone. You also seem to be bringing in politics for no apparent reason other than to create another insulting generalization. And really? A generalization ad hominem? No one here has mentioned their age nor would a person's age matter. That doesn't sound like a good way to make an argument. You might want to look back and reevaluate how you present your argument.
If I wanted to sell an idea I would use sales tactics "agree, kill, close" "feel, felt, found" etc. I know how to trick people into agreement. I've studied Pascal. I'm actually trying, in vain, to find those who are exceptional to basic psychology. Those whom are able to filter what they read and form a unique opinion. By using negative language, most people are immediately turned hostile. These people are irrelevant for discussion. First, you must eliminate the non-players and isolate the players. Then address the isolated players separately. Argue if you want, but I don't care for fools who wish to believe the world is different.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ten Summer Suns,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=mLsKA0tl,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2019-04-07T07:12:18.334+0000) > > The only people that would downvote this thread are those who currently use the report system as a way to troll. I downvoted because it's failing as a discussion, you're just insulting anyone that disagrees with you.
"you're just insulting everyone that disagrees with you." There is no matter of opinion. The way I proposed it creates an absolute. The system I'm suggesting can't hurt anybody who has no intention of abusing the system. Because the system I'm proposing would have literally no effect on the people that use the system responsibly, then the responsible players would have no reason to object. The only people this would affect are the people that are abusing the system. Therefore, anyone that disagrees with me is by logical default one of two people: Unaware and Aware. The unaware are just ignorant of what's going on and disagree for no real reason other than to be contrarian or for whatever reason, they are just not understanding. The aware are the ones knowing exactly what I'm talking about, and since they have something to lose are fighting the idea just to be able to keep abusing the system. To be frank, I've been profiling and analyzing people and arguments for years. And unlike these 16-year old liberals who also claim to be experts, I'm a legitimately certified expert in the field. It is literally my everyday job to make deductive evaluations and formulate predictions. There is no exception to the layout of the scheme. You're either oblivious to it, or abusing it, or in agreement, or didn't care enough to read or respond. There are no other options pal. And you can try crying about it and weaseling circular arguments, but I'm savvy to the perpetuities of lies.
Exibir mais

Ten Summer Suns

Nível 71 (NA)
Total de votos positivos
Criar uma discussão