My post was deemed uncivil and offensive (explain why)

SirTauntsALot·Dec 6, 2019·5 votes·3,925 views

I watched the video. In all videos the so called offender was trying to play at his best. He did not do well [the enemy team was indeed fed] but he was in no way running it down. He even used flashed in an effort to escape, you can see it. I don't know what RIot apologist you are but this is wrong on so many levels.

Also buying mobis a bannable offense? Come on dude. Go read the rules. You call yourself a specialist?

The above was a reply to one of the so called specialists who were claiming that a guy was rightfully banned because he played bad against an already fed team. He also claimed that buying mobis is a reason to get reported.

Calling him an apologist (meaning = "a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial " aka not offensive) apparently is offensive. Let me know what did you find offensive.

45 Comments

AeroWaffleDec 6, 20197 votes

I don't know what RIot apologist you are but this is wrong on so many levels.

This is rude.

You call yourself a specialist?

This is also rude. Their role as a specialist has no influence on their opinion whether or not someone was intentionally feeding.

He also claimed that buying mobis is a reason to get reported.

They mentioned mobi boots as part of the reason, but not the whole reason why they believed the intentional feeding ban was accurate. To accuse their opinion of being completely based on the mobi boots purchase is strawmaning their argument.

They even specifically stated that buying mobi boots alone does not mean that someone was intentionally feeding.

Buying mobis does not automatically mean someone is intentionally feeding

SirTauntsALotDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

This is rude.

Explain to me how you think it is rude? Is it because I used the word apologist? If i perhaps wrote " Why are you using an argument to defend something controversial" would that not make it rude? Let me know I'm curious.

This is also rude. Their role as a specialist has no influence on their opinion whether or not someone was intentionally feeding.

Okay. So asking them if they call themselves a specialist is rude? How so?

They mentioned mobi boots as part of the reason, but not the whole reason why they believed the intentional feeding ban was accurate. To accuse their opinion of being completely based on the mobi boots purchase is strawmanning their argument.

They even specifically stated that buying mobi boots alone does not mean that someone was intentionally feeding.

This has nothing to do with why my post was removed.

AeroWaffleDec 6, 20197 votes

{quoted}

Explain to me how you think it is rude? Is it because I used the word apologist? If i perhaps wrote " Why are you using an argument to defend something controversial" would that not make it rude? Let me know I'm curious.

It's dismissing their opinion and argument by throwing them into the category of "Riot apologist". Similar to calling someone a "Riot fanboy" to dismiss an argument.

Okay. So asking them if they call themselves a specialist is rude? How so?

The question implies that they are unqualified to have the title.

This has nothing to do with why my post was removed.

Then why did you include it in your post? Or were you just trying to throw more mud on their name?

SirTauntsALotDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

It's dismissing their opinion and argument by throwing them into the category of "Riot apologist". Similar to calling someone a "Riot fanboy" to dismiss an argument.

It's not the same thing because the definition of an apologist is not offensive. Nor is Riot fanboy. My post was deemed offensive.

The question implies that they are unqualified to have the title. Still, this is not offensive. I might call the president unqualified to serve the country that is not deemed offensive and that's why in democratic countries you don't get punished for this.

Then why did you include it in your post? Or were you just trying to throw more mud on their name? It has nothing to do with my post getting removed. It has everything to do though with the so called specialists opinion on the subject. Building unconventionally is not bannable by RIOT. Riot mentioned this so many times.

AeroWaffleDec 6, 20197 votes

{quoted}

It's not the same thing because the definition of an apologist is not offensive. Nor is Riot fanboy. My post was deemed offensive.

I said it was rude. In the PB section of the boards the rules pertaining to civility are much more strict than the other sections. You were generalizing them with a label so as to dismiss their opinion.

Still, this is not offensive. I might call the president unqualified to serve the country that is not deemed offensive and that's why in democratic countries you don't get punished for this.

This is Riot games. Not a country. There are behavioral rules to follow.

It has nothing to do with my post getting removed. It has everything to do though with the so called specialists opinion on the subject. Building unconventionally is not bannable by RIOT. Riot mentioned this so many times.

Again, you're making a strawman out of their argument. I feel like you're ignoring the point that I brought up that their argument was not entirely composed of the mobi-boots purchase. Similar to how you ignored their other points. Since it has nothing to do with the removal you're trying to continue the argument just so you can fling mud on them.

SirTauntsALotDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

I said it was rude. In the PB section of the boards the rules pertaining to civility are much more strict than the other sections. You were generalizing them with a label so as to dismiss their opinion.

Calling someone an apologist is not offensive! Disagreeing with someones opinion is not offensive. In your own words explain to me why it is rude.

This is Riot games. Not a country. There are behavioral rules to follow.

Oh... this is not a country? Damn. Now that you cleared this out for me, can you tell me where in the rules it mentions that implying that someone is unqualified is offensive?

Again, you're making a strawman out of their argument. I feel like you're ignoring the point that I brought up that their argument was not entirely composed of the mobi-boots purchase. Similar to how you ignored their other points. Since it has nothing to do with the removal you're trying to continue the argument just so you can fling mud on them.

I am not making a straw-man on their argument. I am disagreeing with their argument. Non of their points are valid. However this has nothing to do with my post being removed. I am not interested in fliing mud on them. I AM interested in defending unconventional builds. The reason? Lulu mid was once a troll pick. Later they found out that lulu mid was so strong to a point that she and an item (LB) got nerfed. So building unconventionally (like Kindred did) does not indicate even slightly that he was inting. Nothing in the video indicates that he was inting. However this is not the point of the current post. I am still struggling to understand why my post was removed.

P.S. their first sentence in their post says "First and foremost: You never buy mobis on Kindred. Doesn't seem like that big a deal on the surface, but here is why it's important:" so he does consider buying mobis on kindred bannable.

Ph03n1xb1rdDec 6, 20191 votes

Calling someone an apologist is not offensive! Disagreeing with someones opinion is not offensive. In your own words explain to me why it is rude.

It's rude because they feel like it's rude. I used the word nagger once on the Boards, i got banned for it, because they think it resembles another word. They will get offended by anything what they do not like, and since a group of this overly sensitive Rito fanbois make the rules, you will get punished.

ModJikkerDec 6, 20195 votes

{quoted}

It's rude because they feel like it's rude. I used the word nagger once on the Boards, i got banned for it, because they think it resembles another word. They will get offended by anything what they do not like, and since a group of this overly sensitive Rito fanbois make the rules, you will get punished.

Checking your violation history, you did not get banned for posting the word nagger. Do not spread false information. The comment in question would have been subject to removal for uncivil discussion regardless of the inclusion of the word nagger.

Ph03n1xb1rdDec 6, 20192 votes

{quoted}

Checking your violation history, you did not get banned for posting the word nagger. Do not spread false information. The comment in question would have been subject to removal for uncivil discussion regardless of the inclusion of the word nagger.

Well, i think it would be hard to post from a banned account, wouldn't it? :O

BTW I did not spread false information, maybe Djinn(or whatever name does the purple guy have) even remembers it (probably not, he has to remove too many posts). So please stop spreading false information about me spreading false information.

ModJikkerDec 6, 20196 votes

{quoted}

Well, i think it would be hard to post from a banned account, wouldn't it? :O

BTW I did not spread false information, maybe Djinn(or whatever name does the purple guy have) even remembers it (probably not, he has to remove too many posts). So please stop spreading false information about me spreading false information.

The removal was on your EUW account with a similar name. It was with a warning, but no ban.

This was the comment I found. Again, this would be subject to removal for uncivil discussion, but it received the warning because of the word nagger which has been used in media before as a substitute for a racial slur.

If he would have given a link to a match, then you would have deleted it because of naming shaming.

Why be such a nagger, do you really have to be against everybody who complains about trolls? I bet you would have instantly believed him if he would have been complaining about flaming xD

I do not want to derail this thread so if you have further discussion regarding this, you may make your own thread or come to the Discord.

ModPeriscopeDec 6, 20195 votes

^This. Better sums up why your comment was removed, SirTauntsALot.

SirTauntsALotDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

^This. Better sums up why your comment was removed, SirTauntsALot.

How does it sum it up?

Ph03n1xb1rdDec 6, 20191 votes

It's only rude because you used this word on a Rito fanboi.

ModPeriscopeDec 6, 20197 votes

Hey there,

Since updating the Player Behavior rules, we try to foster an environment on Player Behavior where people seeking feedback about their punishments get the best help they can. This includes cutting back on negativity, such as insulting punished players or belittling those who are attempting to point out negative, punishment-worthy behavior, as this can seriously detract from a player's feedback by derailing conversations.

So while that may fly in other areas, we're particularly strict about negativity in the PB section.

I watched the video. In all videos the so called offender was trying to play at his best. He did not do well [the enemy team was indeed fed] but he was in no way running it down. He even used flashed in an effort to escape, you can see it. . . Also buying mobis a bannable offense?

The above is ok, since you're stating your opinion regarding this player's behavior.

I don't know what RIot apologist you are but this is wrong on so many levels. . 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.

SirTauntsALotDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

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 can you please let me know which of the sections I violated?

KFCeytronDec 6, 20195 votes

{quoted}

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.

SirTauntsALotDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

"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.

KFCeytronDec 6, 20193 votes

{quoted}

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}

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?".

SirTauntsALotDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

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.

KFCeytronDec 6, 20193 votes

{quoted}

~~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}

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}

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.

SirTauntsALotDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

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.

KFCeytronDec 6, 20192 votes

{quoted}

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.

SirTauntsALotDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

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.

KFCeytronDec 6, 20193 votes

{quoted}

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.

SirTauntsALotDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

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.

KFCeytronDec 6, 20193 votes

{quoted}

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.

SirTauntsALotDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

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 For the name of logic, please try to understand what I am saying.

This person was discussing a controversial matter and was offering an argument --> this makes the person an apologist. THIS IS NOT AN OFFENSIVE WORD IN ANY COUNTRY OR WORLD! How can I make this clearer? The controversial discussion this person was having was directly in agreement of riot actions even though they were false in my opinion and the majority of the board --> hence Riot Apologist.

If "Riot Apologist" is deemed offensive for whatever reason where do you draw the line? Calling me a "Person" might be offensive to me. Is that violating Riot rules? My point is, what I said was not offensive unless you want it to be offensive. If any modarator wanted to keep the conversation civil and going they would have asked me to revise it. They did not which shows the hypocrisy.

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.

I AM following the rules. I do abide to them. Where in the rules does it forbid me to imply that a Specialist does not know the rules? For the 4th time you failed to reference me the rule.

ModPeriscopeDec 6, 20196 votes

However, what in my sentence is attacking the person. is it the word apologist? If so why is that regarded as attacking.

To me, it comes off as assuming the Specialist is always arguing in favor of something controversial or for a punishment. As in, you're saying it's pointless to argue with them, or that they have a one-track mind that doesn't consider others' view points or opinions. So yes, that comes off as insulting or at the least, an effort to derail.

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?

That line seemed to imply that this specialist had not read "the rules," nor did he seem informed to be in their position. Particularly, that the specialist seemed uninformed on saying that "buying mobis is a bannable offense." The specialist never said this.

SirTauntsALotDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

To me, it comes off as assuming the Specialist is always arguing in favor of something controversial or for a punishment. As in, you're saying it's pointless to argue with them, or that they have a one-track mind that doesn't consider others' view points or opinions. So yes, that comes off as insulting or at the least, an effort to derail.

Okay lets break what you said down and ignore the keyword you used "to me". ~~Controversial = ~~ ~~adjective. If you describe something or someone as controversial, you mean that they are the subject of intense public argument, disagreement, or disapproval. ~~ In the particular post, the Specialist WAS arguing something controversial since many players on the forum were disagreeing with him and many were agreeing with him.

That line seemed to imply that this specialist had not read "the rules," nor did he seem informed to be in their position. Particularly, that the specialist seemed uninformed on saying that "buying mobis is a bannable offense." The specialist never said this.

They did not seem to be informed. They did say that Mobis was questionable. Also the video they posted suggest that the person who got banned was inting. You can see from the video that the person was trying to escape (aka not inting). Therefore they are not informed from the Summoners Code what inting means.

At this point I am giving up all hope to find justice.

ModPeriscopeDec 7, 20192 votes

{quoted}

Okay lets break what you said down and ignore the keyword you used "to me". ~~Controversial = ~~ ~~adjective. If you describe something or someone as controversial, you mean that they are the subject of intense public argument, disagreement, or disapproval. ~~ In the particular post, the Specialist WAS arguing something controversial since many players on the forum were disagreeing with him and many were agreeing with him.

I'm not arguing if the point was controversial. Calling others a "Riot Apologist" did not appear to be something kind, but confrontational rather than factual.

They did not seem to be informed. They did say that Mobis was questionable. Also the video they posted suggest that the person who got banned was inting. You can see from the video that the person was trying to escape (aka not inting). Therefore they are not informed from the Summoners Code what inting means.

At this point I am giving up all hope to find justice.

I feel like I've been pretty clear about telling someone to "Read the rules. You call yourself a specialist?" Regardless if you feel they're uninformed, that just comes off as insulting.

A better way? You should cite a specific rule. As in, you violated the 1st rule in this Player Behavior rules update. In fact, I always think it's better to go to the source material when you're criticizing someone else's argument.

I'm sorry this may not be the answer you wanted regarding your removal, but again, it did not come with a warning. This is intended to be a slap on the wrist.

SirTauntsALotDec 9, 20191 votes

{quoted}

A better way? You should cite a specific rule. As in, you violated the 1st rule in this Player Behavior rules update. In fact, I always think it's better to go to the source material when you're criticizing someone else's argument.

Please revisit his post and let me know if the way he addressed the OP being banned was in the best way. Did he site any rule? No. Based on what you are saying I could call anything offensive. A line needs to be drawn.

I'm sorry this may not be the answer you wanted regarding your removal, but again, it did not come with a warning. This is intended to be a slap on the wrist.

Not to worry. I don't expect to be treated fair on the boards anymore.

CominTowardsYaDec 6, 20192 votes

Why can't you guys tell the person to edit their post first? Is it really so much work compared to deleting it, and writing a reason?

I have had some posts taken down, but no warnings as far as I know, and its kind of annoying to put some effort in keeping the boards living and current, and your effort gets scrapped by surprise.

SirTauntsALotDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

Why can't you guys tell the person to edit their post first? Is it really so much work compared to deleting it, and writing a reason?

I have had some posts taken down, but no warnings as far as I know, and its kind of annoying to put some effort in keeping the boards living and current, and your effort gets scrapped by surprise.

Because obviously they don't care to keep the boards civil as they say. They are abusing their power to avoid criticism. If this is not the case they would have better policies. As you say their first point of contact would be asking someone to revise their post stating CLEARLY, without any vague definitions, why the post is offensive.

CominTowardsYaDec 6, 20191 votes

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.

KFCeytronDec 6, 20194 votes

{quoted}

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.

CominTowardsYaDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

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?

KFCeytronDec 6, 20196 votes

{quoted}

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.

CominTowardsYaDec 6, 20192 votes

{quoted}

What's absurd is adults behaving like uneducated children.

So people who are unducated, and people who are children should be excluded from Riot games? Moreover, people who are adults, playing a video game cannot act as children do and have fun? hmm...

"It's the Internet" isn't an excuse to throw manners and respect out the window.

(sorry a bit of a rant)

When someone acts the fool in a game through chat disrespecting people, there is a two was street my friend. When someone on the street disrespects you, you either puss out and walk away, or let them know they are asking for trouble. The Internet is more like the street than anything else, you deal with random people, and cannot do anything physically to them, so its free reign. The disrespect shown by others is a perfect excuse to meet them head on with whatever language you need to put them in their place. Riot doesn't cultivate any culture here other than scaring people into becoming passive aggressive little weasels who report people and say nothing back. It is lame and a horrible way for any self respecting man to conduct himself in the face of adversity in real life and on the street. If you saw me on the street in person, and you said some shit that people say to disrespect people in this game to my face, I probably wouldn't get violent, but you'd at least get some word from me, and be scared that at any moment something bad might happen, and that looming threat is enough.

Here that threat is nothing more than mommy Riot to go tattle on, and report people who use bad words and talk mean. That is childish if anything is. You want to condemn childlike behavior, then act like a man and stop this nonsense of pretending bad words online are anything to worry about. This is absurd as I said before.

Yes, whoever wants to access a private entity's services has to abide by their rules, or suffer consequences like post >removals and punishments.

The internet is public, Riot uses the Internet for its cyber roadways, its not private. Its more like a public subway full of all the same types of people you love so much.

Online or in person, is there ever a good time to be a brat?

Yes there is.

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.

Fair enough. I just don't agree with you.

JuleviDec 6, 20196 votes

If you saw me on the street in person, and you said some shit that people say to disrespect people in this game to my face, I probably wouldn't get violent, but you'd at least get some word from me, and be scared that at any moment something bad might happen, and that looming threat is enough.

Watch out, we got a badass over here.

SirTauntsALotDec 6, 20191 votes

{quoted}

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.

I understand that Riot has rules. It's their game. I understand that they expect you to obey the rules. However, the situation of my post I have not violated any rule. You have yet to quote a rule mentioning my violation.

Umbral RegentDec 6, 20195 votes

Why can't you guys tell the person to edit their post first? Is it really so much work compared to deleting it, and writing a reason?

I'm pretty sure that a big reason that they don't comment to the player to edit their post/comment is because of stuff like this thread exactly; the person in question believes wholeheartedly that they're in the right, get argumentative, and with that being set in a comment string instead of its own thread discussing a removal, it'd kind of just derail the thread the player was replying to.

It's not a matter of it being more work to reply and ask someone to edit their post, more that it's just altogether better for discussion as a whole if the post/comment were removed and the poster/commenter prompted to make a thread here on Discuss the Boards if they don't understand the reason for the removal.