"If You're Good Enough, You Will Climb"

{quoted}

To the contrary, they do. For example, not to pick on Yasuo players, but...

Yasuo: (dies) gg im done Me: We can still win this Yasuo: lol, this team

The reason is that players who rage or grief or give up when they tilt are toxic. Like playground bullies who see their smiling peers as taunting them, they see nice comments as sarcasm or insults because that’s how they understand human nature. They think everyone is a jerk like them since, well, projecting is part of being a jerk.

That’s why nice-ness alone cannot drive this breed of toxicity out. If we want to remove its pernicuous effect from the game, then it must be identified and punished like the more obvious misdeeds of flaming, or running it down mid.

In your Yasuo example, the yas player isn't in any worse condition than he was before o.o. Sure the kind words didn't help, but it also didn't worsen the situation (unlike telling him to uninstall for instance). I also don't want to get into the minutia of all this, but dropping that ban hammer (aka negative punishment via operant conditioning) is actually the less effective way to encourage behavior. The better way is positive rewards conditioning (rewarding when positive behavior is shown). The research is fascinating :), did most of my undergrad on this stuff.

Reference: Coon, D & Mitterer, JO. Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 2010.

Salkind, NJ & Rasmussen, K. Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology, Volume 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2008.

{quoted}

Then you've given up on the problem. You can't change the individuals so if you're not willing to change the game systems that handle them then there is no recourse left. You've resigned yourself to accepting this problem forever until you're willing to change the punishment system to deal with these people.

I don't blame a system when, ultimately, the responsibility is on people and society to shepherd change. That may be overly optimistic or sheltered of me I will admit, but I never expect a system to singularly create behavior or societal change. Rather its a combination of my small individual efforts combined with systemic change that creates sustainable positive growth. Its my responsibility as a person to do what ever small or little act I can to fix the root problem, in this case by showing kindness and empathy towards the people I'm playing with & against.

To bring it to a really personal place, when I was younger one could have argued it was the "school system" that caused me to battle depression & suicidal thoughts. However, it was a small group of people (couple teachers and a new friend) who took the responsibility upon themselves to combat the root causes of that depression (in my case loneliness and lack of self worth). It was them, not the system, that helped me stabilize.

Again, I'm not saying the system can't be changed to make this work easier. That absolutely needs to and is being done (honor, reporting tool, matchmaking, etc). However, recusing yourself from the responsibility of combating the negative symptoms of life that manifest in toxicity by blaming the "system" is a bs move to me.

Sorry for being so inflamed by this (and taking it to a very personal story), but I feel very strongly about topics like these. We all have to step up and take responsibility for our own part of the solution, whether it be in a game or in life.

“If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem.” ― Eldridge Cleaver

[{quoted}](name=Huang Shaotian,realm=OCE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=MkNAelF2,comment-id=000100030000000300000000,timestamp=2018-06-21T01:18:31.651+0000)

1%!! hope I don't end up with you in my squad! ;) ;)

That definitely doesn't mean I have a defeatist approach to the game lol. It just means that I enter the game with my own objectives to define "success" and while those objects include getting a chicken dinner, they aren't limited to it. What I'm saying with that is those games empower me to define my own success rather than having it pre-defined for me. Both states of success (defined and undefined) are extremely valid, and I play both at different points :D. However its nice to have that choice is all.

{quoted}

Too bad the game promotes toxicness and unfairity.

Would love to hear in detail what specific systems or parts of the game you think promote these things. If its something that actually promotes toxicity (such as a system that gives people loot to feed, etc) that we should 100% rectify it. However, as far as I know most of the game systems in League (while not perfect) are neutral in their bends and its up to the players who inhabit those systems to make them lean toxic or wholesome.

Systems are easy to blame but many times aren't the root cause of the problem :(. In my experience its the human heart / nature thats needs the most love, not the systems :S.

{quoted}

This idea that winning isn't the point isn't going go over very well for ranked as long as you're only awarding MMR and LP to the winning team. If Riot's stance is that winning isn't everything, start awarding MMR and LP for individual play, even on a losing team.

Also, one thing I constantly hear Rioters say is "everyone has a bad game sometimes and we don't want to punish someone for having a bad game." What about the other 4 people who have to play with the feeder? I'd much prefer punish the one person for feeding than allow that one person to cause 4 other people to consistently lose. Unless of course you're going to fall back to "winning isn't everything" again. In which case, see above.

I totally hear you and understand the frustration. However, I'd encourage you to ask yourself the question "where do you draw the line to prevent banning bad players?". "Feeder" is a pretty broad term that definitely encompasses players who do intentionally try to ruin the game for others, but I'd hazard a guess is more widely used to insult players who are just outclassed or not as good at the game (I've definitely been called a feeder before, but in those games I've just been outclasses. Never tried to feed on purpose). I 100% disagree with a move that pushes to permanently ban underperforming players just to satisfy the temporary anger of higher performing players in a game.

I bring up this example because, from a data standpoint, "true feeders" and "underperforming players" are indistinguishable from each other (as far as I know) using current data. CS, kills, deaths, map movements, reports (which are faulty and subject to bias & frustration), even historical win / loss would look similar for both parties. So rather than taking extreme punitive action to ensure the small % of "true feeders" are banned by carpet bombing all of these cases, we choose to take a "long horizon" approach where time can work its magic and allow report patterns to arise. The downside is that swift and righteous judgement on "true feeders" isn't as much of a possibility because the system trends toward forgiving rather than unyielding. Hope that makes sense o.o