Why remove my comments for "harassment and insults"?

{quoted}There is a reason it's called NAME and shame.

There is, yes. As the person who wrote the updated rules, we kept it called that because it's clear in the majority of circumstances and takes less time to write than "Identifying an individual in any manner intended to shame them for their posting habits, gameplay habits, or other behavioral actions." The text of the rule itself makes no mention of an actual name being required -- if you called me, for example, "that Herald who posts on Discuss the Boards all the time" in a post intended to shame me that would be a violation of the rules.

{quoted}

That sounds like a sentence straight out of 1984. There is a reason it's called NAME and shame. Because you have to NAME someone or something to actually shame it.

Not necessarily, as any identifier could be considered naming. It would definitely be a roundabout usage of the rule, but cant say its not exactly invalid. This is why when you remove content and list the rule, it should include WHY, because a rule does not stand on its own. If you cannot defend the usage of a rule or law, then it should not be used.

From what it looks like, it's more like 'Guess Who then Shame' which is actually resorting to the same thing as 'Naming and Shaming'. It does not matter who you conclude who the person in question is after back and forth attempts to name an unknown, you still come to a conclusion to find one and only one player to target with shaming. They might not be the same person in the minds involved with the discussion you still bring upon a type of 'witch hunt' that tries to find and harass someone with shame.

{quoted}

That sounds like a sentence straight out of 1984. There is a reason it's called NAME and shame. Because you have to NAME someone or something to actually shame it.

If i were to write: ”the guy that wrote this is an idiot”. It wouldnt count as naming? Good to know. (I dont mean u are an idiot, i just took it for example. Please dont remove this mods)

Good thing Issac Asimov thinks 1984 is horseshit.

Implying someone's name is just the same as saying it, without saying it. People will catch on and understand what you mean.

{quoted}that wasn't an insult, that's clarification, people tend to find the rules to be ambiguous in general, which if i remember correctly is actually a strategy in contract law in order to always hold the upper hand.

It's clarification to a point calling out a specific person for problematic behavior. The original comment is this:

Just waiting for a certain someone (we all know who) to come by and tell us how they probably just had their power go out and then had a bad game.

The OP then engages in a comment chain clarifying who this individual is. This is calling out an individual in an identifiable manner for negative behavior, and that's prohibited by the Naming & Shaming rule.

{quoted}

that wasn't an insult, that's clarification, people tend to find the rules to be ambiguous in general, which if i remember correctly is actually a strategy in contract law in order to always hold the upper hand.

Actually, it's common in contract law for any lack of clarity to be held against the party that wrote the contract.

Harassment is continuous by the way. not single use, so it's neither named nor harassment.

From the EEOC (which is the template for a great many states' harassment laws):

Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.

The key terms here are "severe or pervasive" and "intimidating, hostile, or abusive", at least with regard to the Boards. We generally consider any behavior that has the net effect of discouraging others from using the Boards as "hostile".

[{quoted}](name=General Esdeath ,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=1Qq7fEYo,comment-id=00000002,timestamp=2019-10-24T21:00:31.053+0000)Unless I'm remembering wrong, the rules state these are name and shame

-Personal attacks -Posts that accuse others of causing a negative in-game experience -Posts targeted at witch-hunting / naming and shaming -Posts accusing others of malicious activity -Posts that accuse others of cheating or using illegal services -Posts accusing others of trolling on the Boards

I would say this comment is the problematic one, and the other is clean-up for trying to make it clearer who this individual is:

Just waiting for a certain someone (we all know who) to come by and tell us how they probably just had their power go out and then had a bad game.

I can't see an argument that this isn't shining an intentionally negative light on this person's posting habits. You didn't even just say "just waiting for someone to..." which could be a generic comment on posters in general -- you called out a specific person, and then helped others to identify them.

{quoted}

No where in that statement did he call out the individual player.

The Djinn directly addressed that in the comment you replied to.

"The Naming & Shaming rule doesn't actually require you to name a specific person, and using other identifiers in an attempt to identify a single person for negative purposes falls into the category of naming/shaming."

The post doesn't even state if it is for an individual person or a group..

Then you didn't read the post. There is no other way to take the statement portion, "a certain someone [we all know who]".

{quoted}The post doesn't even state if it is for an individual person or a group.

The context is important here. The post mentioned "a specific someone (we all know who)." That's problematic in and of itself, but possibly not worth a removal. What made it cross the line fully was the OP and another poster engaging in a back-and-forth game to make it clear exactly who was being referred to.

I really think that this rule needs to be looked at and made sure league moderators are better than the NFL

I will bring this up to know if a clarity change in the rule would be helpful. I know that this is a violation of the spirit of the rule though, and our rules are not written to be 100% all-encompassing because leaving no room for flexibility to handle violations of the rules in principle (but not in specifically written language) leaves us with people who constantly push to violate the spirit of the rule without the letter of the rule.

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=1Qq7fEYo,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-10-24T21:46:56.479+0000)

Agreed.

But when it becomes "You know that one certain someone we all know who..." and someone responds with "does this person also [specific individually identifying habit]" and you respond with "if the person you're thinking of also [second individually identifying habit]," then it is no longer open ended.

That is what happened here, and why it was removed.

ah the full story, welp did what you had to then good on ya

[{quoted}](name=General Esdeath ,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=1Qq7fEYo,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-10-24T22:32:49.012+0000)

Man I hated that kid. I used to tilt my body so he touched me and I'd tell our teacher.

[sg-syndra]

Well, somebody told the teacher.

[{quoted}](name=General Esdeath ,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=1Qq7fEYo,comment-id=000b0000,timestamp=2019-10-31T01:38:13.391+0000)

By that logic I can accuse anyone of talking about me by claiming they are, then having their post removed.

You can abuse that loophole but normally, who has the time to go around doing that?! Boredom!? Maybe! Please don't take my earlier post the wrong way. I am definitely on your side. Like I said, sometimes certain people drive you so crazy that you're incredulous about their existence over the Rift and surprised that they are still able to access the game, given how malicious and abhorrent that they are. But when that happens, according to Riot.. you may only report them or submit a ticket with screenshots, showing evidence.

If you think about it, it does make a little bit of sense. Because if everyone who was dissatisfied did this, started calling people out over the forums..

.. it'd just become a flea market. We wouldn't be able to do normal discussions or address actual topics that the boards were created for, right?! Also, some of them might even be the unreasonable players who just post their side of the story while cleverly dismissing their own poisonous words which may have started the entire thing, in the first place. You only get one side of the story and no one knows the entire thing! Which, may start a 'witch hunt' on a person who was actually innocent in the first place!

So, I do understand why they made this rule. And at the same time, I feel your pain as well.. being someone who has had to deal with such obstructive players on the Rift before. I think that most of everyone who reads this post, including you my dear OP, has! So, the right place for this would be 'Submitting a Ticket' to report said player because that's where they address these issues.