Upvoting and Downvoting is a privilege, not a basic forum right. At least it should be.

ChoGathsSon·Jul 28, 2015·35 votes·2,394 views

Especially on a board that relates to gameplay and balance. You should only be given the right to upvote/downvote once you've acheived gold. The vast majority of the population is bronze and silver and their game knowledge isn't adequete enough to be able to dictate the direction of a discussion they understand nothing of by simply voting and moving on. Too many times I've seen a bronzie downvote a diamond and it's disgusting.

Doing this will improve the quality of discussion on these boards significantly. Bronze and silver players are still free to post to offer up their thoughts, interact and learn from the higher elo players but they should not be able to dictate the direction of a discussion. I don't want to hear how they think they have high elo game knowledge because they watch LCS or have viewed Scarras stream a few times. It's as simple as this, if you had game knowledge above that of bronze/silver, you wouldn't be bronze or silver because it's THAT easy to get out of bronze and silver.

I propose this change to go into effect immediately. As a diamond overlord, you are obligated to answer my call, Riot. I assure you this method will improve the quality of the discussion here and feedback. Gone will be the days of this board being filled with filth such as "zed op Pls nerf omg buff sona Syndra needs buffs." It's time to improve the quality of your boards riot. This is the best way.

80 Comments

NyannieJul 28, 201510 votes

:^)))))

DrCyanideJul 29, 201510 votes

All I can see is that method converting converting this:

[+11 votes] iRWood4: Why would that be better than building a BotRK?

[-14 votes] d5Elitiest: Don't talk back, I'm Diamond.

into this:

[-3 votes] iRWood4: Why would that be better than building a BotRK?

[+4 votes] d5Elitiest: Don't talk back, I'm Diamond.

We all know this exists, the Diamond player who claims they know best, yet doesn't offer any backup reasoning when questioned about it. I realize most Diamond players on the boards probably don't bring their rank up when they're actually being helpful, but there's still the perception that Diamond players posts on balance are generally as useful as trolls post. That perception would have to be broken before any lower elo players would sign on with this idea. (But at the end of the day, lets face it, Riot's the one that needs to sign on to this, regardless of how individuals here feel. Having >25% of their player base be OK with the idea could help encourage them though.)

Bronze and silver players are still free to post to offer up their thoughts, interact and learn from the higher elo players but they should not be able to dictate the direction of a discussion. I don't want to hear how they think they have high elo game knowledge because they watch LCS or have viewed Scarras stream a few times. It's as simple as this, if you had game knowledge above that of bronze/silver, you wouldn't be bronze or silver because it's THAT easy to get out of bronze and silver.

"Interact and learn from the higher elo players" and "I don't want to hear how they think" don't mesh. For that matter, neither does the notion that a player downvoted into oblivion doesn't direct a discussion, otherwise trolls would cease to be.

If the goal is to have intelligent conversation, and educate players of all elos, then you can't ignore the lower elo players when they're asking how something like AP Kog or Katarina is balanced, no matter how many times you've seen it before. They're not going to relate to, much less apply anything they learn from a discussion on the merits of lane swapping vs standard lanes so much as they'll apply good strategies against AP Kog or Katarina.

jaymc1130Jul 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

All I can see is that method converting converting this:

into this:

We all know this exists, the Diamond player who claims they know best, yet doesn't offer any backup reasoning when questioned about it. I realize most Diamond players on the boards probably don't bring their rank up when they're actually being helpful, but there's still the perception that Diamond players posts on balance are generally as useful as trolls post. That perception would have to be broken before any lower elo players would sign on with this idea. (But at the end of the day, lets face it, Riot's the one that needs to sign on to this, regardless of how individuals here feel. Having >25% of their player base be OK with the idea could help encourage them though.)

"Interact and learn from the higher elo players" and "I don't want to hear how they think" don't mesh. For that matter, neither does the notion that a player downvoted into oblivion doesn't direct a discussion, otherwise trolls would cease to be.

If the goal is to have intelligent conversation, and educate players of all elos, then you can't ignore the lower elo players when they're asking how something like AP Kog or Katarina is balanced, no matter how many times you've seen it before. They're not going to relate to, much less apply anything they learn from a discussion on the merits of lane swapping vs standard lanes so much as they'll apply good strategies against AP Kog or Katarina.

Excellent points sir, +1 for the debate points.

In regards to the two statements not meshing and conflicting, allow me to clarify, HD may do this himself in a moment but I believe I understand what he means (I have been known to be wrong in the past so I could be way off base here, but I think I'm right). What I think he means is that he finds it distasteful to hear from a lower level player that they know best when they provide no valid reasoning or ignore the valid reasoning of a higher level player. HD has very little problem interacting and helping lower level players when they address him with respect and consider his opinions and statements based on the merit they hold. He greatly dislikes being told "you're an idiot" with little to no context or reasoning. In his mind getting a down vote with no explanation as to why is akin to being told "you are an idiot" by another poster with less knowledge and experience. This is understandably frustrating.

DrCyanideJul 29, 20155 votes

The frustration of being called an idiot and down voted with no apparent reason is something that has been experienced by everyone who posts on these boards. If just a month ago a Diamond Player posted about their idea for playing Trundle as a support, they'd have been down voted for it, many without giving explanation. Enter Yellowstar playing him in the LCS as a Support, and all of a sudden the idea has merit, despite nothing changing with Trundle himself. If anything, there are probably more low-elo players willing to support (and upvote) such an off-meta pick than high elo players, as the "anything can work in Silver/Bronze" mentality is pretty strong in general.

jaymc1130Jul 29, 20152 votes

{quoted}

The frustration of being called an idiot and down voted with no apparent reason is something that has been experienced by everyone who posts on these boards. If just a month ago a Diamond Player posted about their idea for playing Trundle as a support, they'd have been down voted for it, many without giving explanation. Enter Yellowstar playing him in the LCS as a Support, and all of a sudden the idea has merit, despite nothing changing with Trundle himself. If anything, there are probably more low-elo players willing to support (and upvote) such an off-meta pick than high elo players, as the "anything can work in Silver/Bronze" mentality is pretty strong in general.

^ This is the most relevant real life example yet provided! Thank you sir! Have your +1, you earned it.

Vistha KaiJul 28, 20157 votes

ChoGathsSon's thread. Immediately downvoted by a Gold.

ChoGathsSonJul 28, 20157 votes

[{quoted}](name=Vistha Kai,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=dImNKEJ0,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2015-07-28T22:39:28.594+0000)

ChoGathsSon's thread. Immediately downvoted by a Gold.

Sorry, in chapter 7, section 3.2, it specifics that EUNE does not count. Your ability to upvote or downvote cannot be acheived until you hit diamond in EUNE.

Vistha KaiJul 28, 20153 votes

Still higher than 21st level on NA.

jaymc1130Jul 28, 20156 votes

[{quoted}](name=Vistha Kai,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=dImNKEJ0,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2015-07-28T22:39:28.594+0000)

ChoGathsSon's thread. Immediately downvoted by a Gold.

See, this is exactly why we have to remove the possibility of allowing "mob mentality" to dictate the boards and legitimate discussions.

jaymc1130Jul 28, 20157 votes

To be clear, the intent of this isn't to deny people an opinion, they would still be able to voice it. The concern is about the way downvoting in particular can become a detriment to a discussion since often times a post with the little "-"sign next to the number will automatically register with many players. They will see it and downvote without reading a post or considering the merits of the proposal in any way shape or form, thus stagnating and preventing the growth of the community. Because society has proven time after time that many things that become popular or unpopular to a handful of people and then see a wave of similar support based mostly on what is dubbed "mob mentality" this type of action needs to be removed as a possibility to allow for the community to grow and mature.

thinking manJul 28, 20156 votes

good post, dislikefather

MongooseJul 28, 20155 votes

GOD BLESS CHOGATHSSON

TeemoJenkinsJul 28, 20153 votes

YES, put us scrub bitches in our places and make sure we can't click an up or down button! AMAZING IDEA. Also, let's make it so that Pre-30 accounts can't post at all, except in a "New forum user" forum - oh wait... that means this thread would be removed... but it's for the good of the community, right?

ChoGathsSonJul 28, 20152 votes

{quoted}

YES, put us scrub bitches in our places and make sure we can't click an up or down button! AMAZING IDEA. Also, let's make it so that Pre-30 accounts can't post at all, except in a "New forum user" forum - oh wait... that means this thread would be removed... but it's for the good of the community, right?

It's ok, I'll just repost it in a weeks time once my main is unbanned, which it was banned unjustly and I've filed an appeal with the Supreme Court

jaymc1130Jul 28, 20152 votes

{quoted}

It's ok, I'll just repost it in a weeks time once my main is unbanned, which it was banned unjustly and I've filed an appeal with the Supreme Court

Lol. Stop antagonizing the mods on purpose man! They hate when you get over on them on ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. It makes them feel powerless and in order to restore the sense of authority you steal from them they are forced to target you for ridiculous things. It makes them look bad, sure, but no one is coming out of that situation "clean". And the community can be deprived of your voice and concerns and positivity and that's bad for all of us. In other words, you getting banned on HD hurts us all as a community and is a bit selfish just to make your point and stick it to the mod crew who at this time are VERY aware they are doing a poor job.

ChoGathsSonJul 28, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Lol. Stop antagonizing the mods on purpose man! They hate when you get over on them on ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. It makes them feel powerless and in order to restore the sense of authority you steal from them they are forced to target you for ridiculous things. It makes them look bad, sure, but no one is coming out of that situation "clean". And the community can be deprived of your voice and concerns and positivity and that's bad for all of us. In other words, you getting banned on HD hurts us all as a community and is a bit selfish just to make your point and stick it to the mod crew who at this time are VERY aware they are doing a poor job.

I didn't do anything, I legit got retroactively banned for 7 days for posts I made days ago. It was because I told Stephanie Stone to shut up lol

jaymc1130Jul 28, 20152 votes

{quoted}

I didn't do anything, I legit got retroactively banned for 7 days for posts I made days ago. It was because I told Stephanie Stone to shut up lol

Lol, I kinda of guessed given the timing. She needed to be told. That was community service. You deserve a medal. Here, have my trophy that I got yesterday in G&B for my contributions. I think we deserve to share it.

Also, that is technically something. But seriously though, Shut up Stephanie Stone.

NERDSMASHER5000Jul 28, 20153 votes

Implying gold 5 is an accomplishment

Make it Plat+ only lmao

ChoGathsSonJul 28, 20153 votes

{quoted}

Implying gold 5 is an accomplishment

Make it Plat+ only lmao

I don't think it is either, but it is still what? Top 25%. I'm okay with allowing those players to vote.

NERDSMASHER5000Jul 28, 20152 votes

{quoted}

I don't think it is either, but it is still what? Top 25%. I'm okay with allowing those players to vote.

Top 25%

and then you realize more than half of all accounts created are smurfs

jaymc1130Jul 28, 20152 votes

{quoted}

Top 25%

and then you realize more than half of all accounts created are smurfs

Riot doesn't... They really think they have that many players... Apparently I count as 14. I'm only 1.

BudupopsJul 28, 20153 votes

reported for wrong board

ChoGathsSonJul 28, 20155 votes

{quoted}

reported for wrong board

This is related to the quality of discussion of this particular board. It's the correct board.

IcyPepperJul 28, 20152 votes

I think I finally understand.

Zed isn't op, Sona does not need buffs, nor does Syndra.

Is that what the higher elos have been trying to tell me? o.O

Icestar1186Jul 29, 20152 votes

This is a horrible idea. First, the idea is inherently flawed. Also, there are other boards, and there are people who don't play ranked. In addition, just because someone is Bronze doesn't mean they don't understand the metagame. Fourth, Riot would be alienating 70% of their fanbase. Finally, by your own logic, I have every right to ignore you.

First, it flat out wouldn't work. They can still comment, and that's what keeps a thread on top. So the "quality of discussion" wouldn't change. The upvote/downvote numbers would just be 70% smaller. So, to fix this, you say "I know! Ban them from posting if they aren't Gold!" Great idea! It still won't work! I've seen people in Gold 2 who still don't think support is a real role. I've seen detailed and accurate analysis of what a patch will do to the meta from a Bronze 5. Would you let the former post and not the latter? I think not. The quality of discussion would be unchanged either way, and if you take my "suggestion," the quantity would be drastically reduced.

Boards other than Gameplay and Balance exist. Would the same system be implemented there? Would we not be qualified to think a joke is funny? Would we not be allowed to upvote an interesting champion concept? If we would, how would Riot implement this only on select boards? It would take a lot of programing, which takes time and money away from fixing problems that actually exist. Also, what about people who don't play ranked? I find it highly believable that someone could have Platinum-level skill without ever joining solo queue.

In addition, game knowledge is not exclusive to high ELO. I understand the strengths and weaknesses of most champions (not that this means I own them all or can play them all; this just means I know what they do and how they do it). I understand that taking towers is important, taking dragons is important, and you need to ward. I may not be good at those things, but I understand the importance. People are often exaggerate balance problems (see: Vayne, Riven, etc.), but they're often right to some degree. Ekko was quite strong on release. Riven does snowball pretty hard. Vayne is a good tankbuster, and is pretty strong in the current meta. What increases your ELO is timing, foresight, and mechanics as much as it is game knowledge. Any Bronze 5 could tell you sated devourer would be a buff to autoattack junglers, for one thing. To be above Bronze 5, 25 LP, you need to understand a lot about the game. Much of it you learn by level 20. It's honestly offensive that people treat Bronze and Silver like they know as little about the game as a level 3 newbie.

Most players are between Bronze and Gold. In fact, I believe it is safe to say that 70% of players are Silver 1 or lower. Riot would be taking a huge risk to ban 70% of the playerbase from voting on balance threads. It would piss a huge number of people off, myself included. Riot would probably lose a significant number of players over it, and that is not worth maybe slightly possibly improving the quality of discussion. If you decide to ban them from even commenting, then Riot loses even more players and the boards are now utterly dead. Congratulations. I hope you're proud of yourself.

Finally, by your logic, I have every right to ignore you. Only Gold and above provide meaningful discussion, right? You aren't even level 30! How could you possibly provide meaningful discussion? Don't bring rank into things, especially if you can't back up your so-called argument.

jaymc1130Jul 29, 20152 votes

Finally, by your logic, I have every right to ignore you. Only Gold and above provide meaningful discussion, right? You aren't even level 30! How could you possibly provide meaningful discussion? Don't bring rank into things, especially if you can't back up your so-called argument.

He's actually Diamond. =P

Another thing to consider. He's posting on his smurf. I'm also Diamond 1. I'm also posting on a smurf. And no, I'm not pulling your leg. Op.gg HateDaddy and Likeamaws. He is HD, I am Likeamaws.

Edit: I'm actually going to + 1 the comment above this, it brings up a good debate point. Smurfs would no longer be able to have as much power. People like myself with 14 accounts have a lot of board influence. I tend not to use mine, I like my voice to be heard and considered based on the merits of the things I say, but smurfs do allow for the possibility of abusing some board features, such as the report function. For example, if I were so inclined I COULD report your post for no reason at all and have you banned from the boards just by myself. I will NEVER do that. EVER. Its a gross misuse of my influence on the boards, and something to which I am morally opposed. But some posters are not so morally inclined. We have had problems the last month or so because of precisely this abuse occurring with the report feature by posters using smurfs and have had a number of incidents that have resulted in poster bans from the boards for basically nothing. Those affected include myself and HD. We have taken these concerns to Keyru and she is doing what she can about that. But we have a responsibility to do something also, as members of the community. Part and parcel of that is why this post was created. We hope the discussion on this topic, particularly where it relates to other similar topics can have the desired affect of correcting some of the mistakes that occur on the board.

Icestar1186Jul 29, 20151 votes

Any argument based entirely around "low elo is made up of idiots" is doomed to failure. Either you're a hypocrite or you're a diamond overlord looking down on the average players. I agree that smurfs are a problem, but there are ways specifically to combat them - like perhaps allow only one of them to vote?

jaymc1130Jul 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Any argument based entirely around "low elo is made up of idiots" is doomed to failure. Either you're a hypocrite or you're a diamond overlord looking down on the average players. I agree that smurfs are a problem, but there are ways specifically to combat them - like perhaps allow only one of them to vote?

Ah! And how would we allow only one account to vote? Please, do elaborate good sir.

Icestar1186Jul 29, 20151 votes

Detect votes coming from the same IP address.

jaymc1130Jul 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Detect votes coming from the same IP address.

Hmm, this is an ok thought. What about IP addresses that have multiple players in the household though? If my lil bro is over and playing or posting (yeah right, never ever has he posted but just as an example I'll use him) what would happen to his potential vote? Would it not be allowed? I don't even want to think about what might happen for a pro gaming house! Lol, ONLY ONE OF YOU GETS TO VOTE!!! YOU BETTER DECIDE!! Lol. How could we solve that?

Icestar1186Jul 29, 20151 votes

Same computer, then. I'm pretty sure that should be possible.

jaymc1130Jul 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Same computer, then. I'm pretty sure that should be possible.

What if multiple play on the same computer? This is probably a rarer case, but still worth thinking about.

Icestar1186Jul 30, 20151 votes

I agree, there are issues, but it's better than banning silver and below from voting.

jaymc1130Jul 30, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I agree, there are issues, but it's better than banning silver and below from voting.

Ok, so we are making some progress as a community then, we know there are some issues, and we've proposed some solutions which also have issues. Its going to come down to a compromise at some point. We may have to give up something to get something. The question then becomes, what is the most acceptable trade off for the community as a whole?

LuggJul 29, 20152 votes

So you are saying that a guy who has 200 games and does really well in his promos and gets placed in Gold 4 knows more than a Silver player who has over 1000 games played? I don't think so.

PikmintsJul 29, 20152 votes

Upvoting and downvoting in a reddit-style thread simply promotes circle jerk style posting. There was a thread a Rioter made forever ago that asked "Why do you upvote or downvote thigs?" The most upvoted thing said "I upvote things that promote discussion even if they disagree with my view", which I can guarantee is not how the majority of forum goers do it.

The amount of times I've seen the top comment on a post be "Rito pls" or ":^)" is 50% of the reason I question coming to these boards when the thought crosses my mind. People downvote things that they disagree with without commenting as to why, regardless if the post in question was thoroughly explaining itself or a mere misconception.

The only way I imagine a board of this style could truly go from this style to one that promotes discussion while preventing circlejerking would be disallowing people to vote on a thread/comment unless they comment on it, and their point would be removed should their post receive significant downvotes itself. Not flawless, but certainly better than getting a thoroughly explained response downvoted simply because it's not the popular opinion with nobody explaining why they downvoted.

ElJanitorFrankJul 29, 20151 votes

Sure, lets make it more like a real-world government where specific groups aren't represented.

I don't understand, if the majority of the players are silver/bronze as you say (which they are) then why the hell wouldn't the majority be able to vote? That's utterly preposterous. What if it's for a skin idea? How skilled you are at the game gives you no right whatsoever to decide whether or not it is a good skin in representing the majority.

What about problems only in low elo? That's like a rich person deciding how much welfare is. They have no clue what the problems associated with welfare are, they shouldn't be the ones to exclusively decide.

This is a ridiculous idea that looks good on the outside.

jaymc1130Jul 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Sure, lets make it more like a real-world government where specific groups aren't represented.

I don't understand, if the majority of the players are silver/bronze as you say (which they are) then why the hell wouldn't the majority be able to vote? That's utterly preposterous. What if it's for a skin idea? How skilled you are at the game gives you no right whatsoever to decide whether or not it is a good skin in representing the majority.

What about problems only in low elo? That's like a rich person deciding how much welfare is. They have no clue what the problems associated with welfare are, they shouldn't be the ones to exclusively decide.

This is a ridiculous idea that looks good on the outside.

Just because the majority in the real world in America can vote does NOT mean the majority are represented in government. American government is mostly controlled by the 1%, special interest groups representing the extremely wealthy. Now I'm not saying that's a good thing, or that I want that for the boards. But I would like to see some degree of control placed on the "mob mentality" aspect of downvoting.

Perhaps, as has been suggest by many players in the past, including HateDaddy himself (His smurf: ChoGathsSon) the G&B board should have separate sections for players within each MMR range? You are correct that low level player concerns are NOT high level player concerns all the time, and vice versa, so perhaps we should maybe consider something like that again. If you have the required rank the boards would let you post and vote on matters within that specific board subsection. If you don't have the required rank you could view, but not direct the flow of conversation. Thoughts on this folks?

ElJanitorFrankJul 29, 20151 votes

Personally, if they were to limit board voting, which I don't think they should, they should limit it too people who are level 30+.

That way you get people who have experience with the game, good or bad. Think about how many people are unranked in the game, or don't play ranked (like me for example, I've got 6 ranked games total, not including provisionals)

Limiting what people can do based on group just sounds way to limiting too me. If people want advice ONLY from a high-level player, they can just fucking check. No need to completely shut out low elo players. Personally, I'd trust a Platinum Poppy main on Poppy advice than a pro in C9 on Poppy advice. One is a better player, but the other has more experience on the subject.

Sure, lower divisions can still post what they want, according to this rule set, but they are still mis-represented. I can already envision a post that does nothing but insult low-elo players, and having all the upvotes because none of them can vote on it.

It just doesn't make sense. I see equally eye-rolling posts from low and high-elo players alike.

And another thing that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, is that Bronze and Silver being the biggest categories actually makes the AVERAGE player high-silver low-gold. This system would only allow above-average players to vote, which is ridiculous.

jaymc1130Jul 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Personally, if they were to limit board voting, which I don't think they should, they should limit it too people who are level 30+.

That way you get people who have experience with the game, good or bad. Think about how many people are unranked in the game, or don't play ranked (like me for example, I've got 6 ranked games total, not including provisionals)

Limiting what people can do based on group just sounds way to limiting too me. If people want advice ONLY from a high-level player, they can just fucking check. No need to completely shut out low elo players. Personally, I'd trust a Platinum Poppy main on Poppy advice than a pro in C9 on Poppy advice. One is a better player, but the other has more experience on the subject.

Sure, lower divisions can still post what they want, according to this rule set, but they are still mis-represented. I can already envision a post that does nothing but insult low-elo players, and having all the upvotes because none of them can vote on it.

It just doesn't make sense. I see equally eye-rolling posts from low and high-elo players alike.

And another thing that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, is that Bronze and Silver being the biggest categories actually makes the AVERAGE player high-silver low-gold. This system would only allow above-average players to vote, which is ridiculous.

Some excellent points made here.

The one thing I really want to respond to is the above average player being allowed to vote thing. Would you allow a 16 year old to vote for the president of the United States? Or a 12 year old? Or a 6 year old? There has to be some kind of process that determines a person is able to make a good decision in terms of voting for who they want representing the leading country in the free world. In America that process is to make certain individuals are of an adult age and thus can understand adult concepts and the basics at least of how the world and the country function before they are allowed to have a say in that functionality. This is done to make sure the maturity level of the person offering his or her vote and opinion is of a high enough quality to be credible and have merit.

Proposing this type of deal for only the above average players is quite similar. Would you like it if a bronze 5 player said katarina was too weak and needed huge buffs because shes difficult to win with when the player builds 6 Essence Reavers on Kat? Would you like it if Riot then considered this opinion based on the 1 million upvotes it receives and buffs Katarina out the wazuu? Similarly would you like an intelligent recommendation from a very experienced and talented player being cast off into the depths of downvote oblivion because the majority of the League playing population read the post but was too immature or unknowledgeable to understand its content and for the champion the recommendation was about to remain unbearable to have to play against?

Icestar1186Jul 29, 20152 votes

Frankly, it's not the same at all. Age is correlated with maturity. Not political knowledge. And you're drastically exaggerating your examples.

ElJanitorFrankJul 29, 20152 votes

A few things to point out, on the Katarina example: If 1 million players did up vote it, then it'd be clear the majority take issue on Katarina building 6 Essence Reavers, and she should be changed accordingly. Riot themselves uses multiple sources to balance anyway, so they might take that into account, and in those 1 million upvotes, there are extremely high chances that gold+players are part of the population upvoting.

This goes into your other point on voting age, would you rather a 16 year old whose been studying politics for his whole life vote, or an 80 year old who has lived isolated on a farm with no technology his whole life? Maybe someone is unranked but has diamond MMR, compared to a gold player with silver MMR. The more informed Diamond MMR player cannot vote because they don't want to waste their time on an arbitrary ranking system, they would rather just PLAY THE GAME. This is important, because almost every single change to the game as a whole affects both ranked and unranked. Diamond MMR player has more experience and knowledge than most players, but he has no input on the changes to the game are, even though he is much more suited to making the decisions than most of the people who voted in the first place.

This isn't just about having a 100% balanced game, it's about making it more enjoyable. I personally don't think that a suggestion quite like yours would come into play, because to most people, a 100% balanced game IS more enjoyable, and these boards are full of condescending players that will downvote any thread like that into oblivion, HOWEVER, if people simply want Katarina to be OP for whatever reason at all, why not? If it makes the majority's experience more enjoyable, why not put it in the game anyway?

jaymc1130Jul 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

A few things to point out, on the Katarina example: If 1 million players did up vote it, then it'd be clear the majority take issue on Katarina building 6 Essence Reavers, and she should be changed accordingly. Riot themselves uses multiple sources to balance anyway, so they might take that into account, and in those 1 million upvotes, there are extremely high chances that gold+players are part of the population upvoting.

This goes into your other point on voting age, would you rather a 16 year old whose been studying politics for his whole life vote, or an 80 year old who has lived isolated on a farm with no technology his whole life? Maybe someone is unranked but has diamond MMR, compared to a gold player with silver MMR. The more informed Diamond MMR player cannot vote because they don't want to waste their time on an arbitrary ranking system, they would rather just PLAY THE GAME. This is important, because almost every single change to the game as a whole affects both ranked and unranked. Diamond MMR player has more experience and knowledge than most players, but he has no input on the changes to the game are, even though he is much more suited to making the decisions than most of the people who voted in the first place.

This isn't just about having a 100% balanced game, it's about making it more enjoyable. I personally don't think that a suggestion quite like yours would come into play, because to most people, a 100% balanced game IS more enjoyable, and these boards are full of condescending players that will downvote any thread like that into oblivion, HOWEVER, if people simply want Katarina to be OP for whatever reason at all, why not? If it makes the majority's experience more enjoyable, why not put it in the game anyway?

I do not agree with all of this, but it is extremely well said and crafted! Have your +1 sir!

In respect to the 16 year old and the 80 year old I would prefer to have only the input of the elderly gentleman. Book reading is not equal to real life experience, and that lack will surely affect his decision making policies. Just the same, one of my all time favorite book series is the Ender's Game novels by Orson Scott Card. In them, very, VERY, young people are shown to have the precise abilities required to change the world for the better. Andrew Wiggin saves the Earth, and later on suffering from guilt at his xenocide saves several alien populations as well. His brother Peter is installed as the leader of the entire planet at an age where most people would just be applying to go to a University. Julian Delphiki (Bean) uses his influence to direct the course of all humanity in an international conflict that spreads across the globe beginning at an age where he has barely entered puberty. So I will concede to some degree on that point, but in my real life experience, the lessons I have been taught would lead me to believe that the youngster in your example would be ill equipped to handle the responsibility.

ElJanitorFrankJul 29, 20152 votes

Stop being courteous and debating like you're supposed to, stuff like that is shunned and feared on the magical plane of existence known as the interwebs.

On the 80 year old vs 16 year old, I was imagining an old type of man who might know some folk-wisdom, but overall, has little to no grasp on how to run a country. Think 10th century peasant. He is wise in the ways of the earth, but socially, politically, he might as well be a 10 year old.

I have been developing a new respect for elderly people, I have to admit. Before I turned into a teenager, I didn't think anything of it, but growing up, year after year, I began to realize that with age comes a LOT of wisdom. Talking to my grandma all the time and what not really led me to think that experience is simply the best teacher in regards to how the world works (from a human's perspective).

In hindsight, it isn't the perfect analogy, because said 16 year old won't be part of the majority, and are usually protected from most laws (or changes to the game in this manner of speaking) because they have someone who's responsible for them.

But I stand by my reasoning that they shouldn't lock out voting to the majority of players, just because they don't play ranked or have a poorer than average (or, well average) rank.

jaymc1130Jul 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Stop being courteous and debating like you're supposed to, stuff like that is shunned and feared on the magical plane of existence known as the interwebs.

On the 80 year old vs 16 year old, I was imagining an old type of man who might know some folk-wisdom, but overall, has little to no grasp on how to run a country. Think 10th century peasant. He is wise in the ways of the earth, but socially, politically, he might as well be a 10 year old.

I have been developing a new respect for elderly people, I have to admit. Before I turned into a teenager, I didn't think anything of it, but growing up, year after year, I began to realize that with age comes a LOT of wisdom. Talking to my grandma all the time and what not really led me to think that experience is simply the best teacher in regards to how the world works (from a human's perspective).

In hindsight, it isn't the perfect analogy, because said 16 year old won't be part of the majority, and are usually protected from most laws (or changes to the game in this manner of speaking) because they have someone who's responsible for them.

But I stand by my reasoning that they shouldn't lock out voting to the majority of players, just because they don't play ranked or have a poorer than average (or, well average) rank.

Hahahah! Thanks for the laugh man! Love it when other board goers can make me chuckle, I know I'm a different breed and the type of civil discussion the community gets from me can often be in short supply. I'm not perfect myself and have my moments where it slips, that's for certain, but I do try.

I was thinking pretty much along the same lines as you in terms of the earth wise elderly gentleman and the strapping highly intelligent youth. We seem to have a very similar thought process.

No analogy can be "perfect", don't try to make a perfect one. Make the one that you feel best fits the situation from your viewpoint. I'd actually be one of the first to agree we cannot lock out the majority of the playerbase. That won't work well at all. But I have to play devil's advocate for both sides of this debate since I'm the one driving it at the moment. I actually much prefer an idea suggested by HD about a year and a half ago and then suggested again within this thread about requiring a person who up or down votes a post (not a response to a post though, just the post itself) to also comment within the post giving the reason behind the vote. This brings up the obvious issue about the time invest of posting and up/downvoting on the boards as it requires a greater investment to do so, and I do not have a clear answer to that, other than those who care enough to vote will also choose to spend the time explaining why.

ElJanitorFrankJul 29, 20151 votes

If I may drag this discussion on further, I'd like to counter the system you brought up as well. It does make some sense, but you could be coming at it from a point of neutrality, and that means that up voting/down voting won't make a lot of sense.

Those types of threads are few and far between, but I can tell you I rarely vote either way, I'm just like that, I guess. I rarely like or dislike youtube videos, even though that's where a lot of my time is spent.

I wouldn't be opposed to giving that as an option. If anything, I agree with the idea that everybody should have an option. I don't think said option would be useful for voting based on rank, however, because that just locks people out of making a choice in the first place, and can skew your votes in your favor with no gain.

If I make a thread saying Vayne is OP, I'd like to enable that system, people will either be for or against the idea. But if I say something that's a PSA, for example one I've seen recently is that Windows 10 is coming out tomorrow, and if you don't want it to automatically update it, you need to turn off auto updates in your windows options. There is no opinion being provided, it's just informing you. You can't be for or against it.

I'm going to preemptively admit that isn't a great example, as there's no reason to dislike it, and plenty of reasons to bump it to the front page, but there isn't anything I can think of off the top of my head otherwise.

jaymc1130Jul 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

If I may drag this discussion on further, I'd like to counter the system you brought up as well. It does make some sense, but you could be coming at it from a point of neutrality, and that means that up voting/down voting won't make a lot of sense.

Those types of threads are few and far between, but I can tell you I rarely vote either way, I'm just like that, I guess. I rarely like or dislike youtube videos, even though that's where a lot of my time is spent.

I wouldn't be opposed to giving that as an option. If anything, I agree with the idea that everybody should have an option. I don't think said option would be useful for voting based on rank, however, because that just locks people out of making a choice in the first place, and can skew your votes in your favor with no gain.

If I make a thread saying Vayne is OP, I'd like to enable that system, people will either be for or against the idea. But if I say something that's a PSA, for example one I've seen recently is that Windows 10 is coming out tomorrow, and if you don't want it to automatically update it, you need to turn off auto updates in your windows options. There is no opinion being provided, it's just informing you. You can't be for or against it.

I'm going to preemptively admit that isn't a great example, as there's no reason to dislike it, and plenty of reasons to bump it to the front page, but there isn't anything I can think of off the top of my head otherwise.

Huh, hadn't thought about stuff like PSA's in relation to this at all. Thanks for bringing that up! I'm fixing to get in game but I will consider this.