Boards›Gameplay

Instead of "Prisioner Island" for trolls. "Rising Tide" for honorable players. Please back this

Occams Raiser··53 votes·2,880 views

Would it be nice to be put in a special queue of honorable players that have been positive so long they get lifted up to a level where they can play with like minded people. I would have wanted this more than the free skin I got. Of course I got an Alistar skin so it was like not getting one at all. This is extended positive reinforcement. I have never been banned, if you haven't perhaps we would enjoy playing on the same team without wondering, "do you suck or are you trolling?" You know I am just having a bad game cause I don't consistently suck enough to be suspected of being a troll. It would be like having good credit. Build it up to 700 and you get into a Honorable Tier.

I can't see a down side except from someone that thinks a special club for good people that bad people can't get into is a bad thing. There aren't enough trolls to keep you from rising! Leaves the trolls be. We will rise above it just like we always do.

Special ICON that shows in team builder and and champion select for all queues. Not the honorable banners those are nonsense cause you can lose them for unknown reasons that deal with how many games you play. If I have a credit card with a 700 credit score, my score doesn't drop and my card doesn't get closed if I only buy one thing a year. Honor shouldn't fall off based on games played. Your honor rating should rise every time you play a game that doesn't result in multi reports. It will go up even faster when you are honored. It is not measured by an average of how many games you play. You could get into EXALTED TIER within 30 games. If you are a troll you will drop out just as fast.

Instead of a skin for good behavior give me serenity and a GG. "Congratulations summoner! Due to good behavior in an abundance of games you have been promoted to the EXALTED TIER!"

EDIT:

  1. States of being: Troll\toxic, unskilled\too casual, normal 50\50, Honorable, and EXALTED. You are not simply troll or not.

  2. It has been suggested that playing with other EXALTED/HONORABLE should be an optional queue in the "possible" event that there would be few in the pool resulting in long wait times.

  3. And honors placement doesn't happen until after level 20 at least.

137 Comments

qetzel24 votes

... This is prisoners island, isn't it? You are just phrasing it differently.

Or am I missing something?

Occams Raiser3 votes

You are missing something

No it isn't. Something to aspire to is not the same as something you fallen to. There is a general population,** admin segregation**, and parolees. If I tell you I won't be putting people in admin segregation, all of general population does not become** admin segregation** because I am still giving out parole. I was afraid that when I started this thread I would have to explain it in greater detail despite it not even being a nuanced concept.

Tis a nice day3 votes

If you put all bad apples in a pile away from the good apples, you will have a pile of good apples and bad apples. If you put all good apples in a pile away from the bad apples, you will have a pile of good apples and bad apples.

Putting the best/most honorable players into their own Honorable Tier is effectively equivalent to putting all of the not so honorable players into their own section, aka prisoner's island.

edit: I read some of your comments. To prevent further confusion, i think you should reword your thread to say: exalted/honorable players have the OPTION to only play with other honorable players, BUT CAN PLAY WITH ORDINARY PLAYERS WHENEVER THEY WANT.

T RexHasTinyArms4 votes

I wrote a reply that should be buried in here somewhere. Generally I think you're pretty open minded and willing to engage in discussion on these boards, but you should look at that post because whether it is a nuanced concept or not, the wording of your original post leads me to believe there is a disconnect between your proposal and what you intend for it to do. If I'm right and not over looking something then it's not a particularly nuanced concept, but the guy you're responding too is entirely right, because you did not propose the options you listed here, but a different scenario.

ZeeDrakon12 votes

So you want to be treated special because you act like a decent human beeing and not a moron?

UberAffe17 votes

I wouldn't mind being separated from all the asshats

Occams Raiser2 votes

thank you

Sooko2 votes

{quoted}

So you want to be treated special because you act like a decent human beeing and not a moron?

Well, not special, he will be treated like a decent human being by other decent human beings, instead of being stuck in a trash can with non decent human beings

Kapppaccino2 votes

{quoted}

Well, not special, he will be treated like a decent human being by other decent human beings, instead of being stuck in a trash can with non decent human beings

Like in high school?

Occams Raiser2 votes

I don't get it. It didn't read like you thought it would.

Penta Penguin5 votes

Yes??

Keevalroy5 votes

{quoted}

So you want to be treated special because you act like a decent human beeing and not a moron?

Yes?

Shroom Junkie2 votes

{quoted}

So you want to be treated special because you act like a decent human beeing and not a moron?

lol wot He wants to play with civilized players that don't feed after they don't surrender the first time 'round.

Volt Cruelerz12 votes

The thing is, they want to intermix you guys with the rest of the population hoping you'll act as good examples.

Garurumon7 votes

And wait 60 minutes for a game? Sounds like prison island to me.

Shroom Junkie2 votes

{quoted}

And wait 60 minutes for a game? Sounds like prison island to me.

There are millions of players on League. I doubt it would be that hard to get a good match, unless you were the first to hundredth player to get into exalted tier. Plus, they could allow you to not do exalted if you don't want to wait.

SpecterVonBaren2 votes

The issue is that people are matched with their skill tier and under this idea they would also have to be matched based on their behavior.

Rootworth7 votes

WE ARE NOT FOOLS, ENGLISH MAN! AND YOU CANNOT FOOL US BY DESCRIBING PRISONER'S ISLAND DIFFERENTLY!

Occams Raiser3 votes

No it isn't. Something to aspire to is not the same as something you fallen to. There is a general population,** admin segregation**, and parolees. If I tell you I won't be putting people in admin segregation, all of general population does not become** admin segregation** because I am still giving out parole. I was afraid that when I started this thread I would have to explain it in greater detail despite it not even being a nuanced concept.

Dedrius4 votes

Whether you put the "good" players in a separate queue or the trolls in a separate queue, the outcome is still the same. It will still just be 2 separate queues between trolls and good players.

SolusInCadere4 votes

there was a similar post a while back about this, and it came to the following conclusion: If Rito attempted to split honorable players away from trolls using match making, not only would mistakes be made, but trolls would begin reporting people for trolling to keep them in the lower bracket.

This would result in an inability for players who were either new, or stuck for the reasons listed above to leave the lower bracket. "Real" players would be matched up with teams full of trolls, then never be able to get the honor necessary to achieve the higher bracket (because their games are full of trolls)

Also, trollers might honor each other to force them up into the "good little boy" bracket, at least temporarily.

FluxBound3 votes

The big problem I see here is that honor/good will is much harder to measure than shit level. It is obvious to see when someone is trolling or badmouthing, but many nice people go without notice. Another problem is red honor badge. This little guy is really just used to say "You kinda outperformed your team, win or loss." I'm sure there are people who get it but also give harsh feedback to their team.

T RexHasTinyArms2 votes

So the honor thing you mention w/ ribbons and credit scores is kinda a bad analogy if you aren't actually advocating for prisoners' island w/ a different name.

Your credit score doesn't go down because it doesn't matter how many people have good credit. Bad credit is actually pretty similar as an example to prisoners' island. The problem isn't that you lose points for not playing enough, the issue is that other players who play more EARN more points. If you create an honor que that is a priority/restricted to the nicest people for access, then it has to be a smaller percentage of the player base so that the normal que still has enough people that the majority of normal que will be neutral or positive players (although not as positive as honor que).

To do this means that you are looking at an X% restriction rather than a score>X restriction. If good credit was considered the top 5% of credit scores for instance it would not stay static at being good if you're over 700. If people as a whole raised their credit scores, then the new cut off might be 750 or 800. Similarly the ribbon system is based on the top 20% (I believe, but don't quote me on that number) of people with those honors. If you play less you have less opportunity to earn honor, and so when people move up and pass you, the ribbon goes away because you no longer meet the minimum qualification even though your score didn't go down. For an honor que to work, it would have to look like the ribbon system, because if you set an X minimum score instead of an X% minimum score, than eventually a majority of the community could work to build up enough points to meet the minimum X points required. At that point normal que becomes a low priority prisoners' island where the only people left are new players who just joined, and trolls who will make it difficult to build up honor/positive points as a new player and thus new players are locked into a more toxic que until they can work to get out by making more progress than was required of the previous players who left already. The only way to prevent this is to limit honor que to the top X% instead of a static number, which means that even if you don't get punished or do anything negative you could drop out of honor que privileges because someone below you improved their score and out ranks you now. While I get the sentiment that you want to be able to match with positive players, it could not be based off of the qualifications that were required for stuff like the mystery skin (ie not getting reports, generally being positive) because 95% of players (or something stupid like that) received that skin. Allowing everyone who met that standard to jump ship isn't creating a higher tier option in addition to normal que and low priority, it's just making normal que a permanent low priority que.

I'd love to hear your opinions and I hope I'm wrong and that this was a thread about making a positive reward for people, but if I'm reading it correctly you actually are arguing that you would like prisoners island. I hope this is a better explanation than Qetzel's question, and if there's something I'm missing that changes the logic I outlined here I'd love to hear it. As I see it currently though it would be a punishment system rather than a reward, and would be particularly oppressive to new players in terms of damaging their early experience w/ the game by restricting them to playing w/ trolls and toxic players.

Occams Raiser1 votes

For an honor que to work, it would have to look like the ribbon system, because if you set an X minimum score instead of an X% minimum score, than eventually a majority of the community could work to build up enough points to meet the minimum X points required.

You are telling me that when we win, I don't get to win anymore. When everyone has a score worthy of being there you can take the needle out of your arm cause you are high enough as it is. That is like thinking the credit card agencies are shaking in their boots wondering if there will ever come a day when there is no one who pays late or goes over their max.

But to the percentage thing. I suppose their would have to be a cap to how many could be in it. I thought there was a cap to challenger. Just as their are skill gradients, so is there of honor. People don't change like some think. Many become better fakers. It is a survival instinct. But in order for that survival instinct to be triggered, there must be pressure. Riot's current system does not provide that stimulus by way of positive or negative reinforcement.

Sad for me, the 2 ways my thinking could be flawed is if the majority of the community really is split into basically 2 groups with very little variance. In this case Riots problem is not eliminating the worst. The other way is one I didn't think about til now. If a small percent of the pop is all that is holding the game together, taking them out makes it unplayable. I consider how pervasive the effects of 1% troll is in total numbers. If you take out the five percent that is good, the troll pop would now break the game of the general pop by "skyrocketing" to 3-5%. Just by removing 3 million people you make the game unplayable for 27 million. That, I did not think of.

T RexHasTinyArms2 votes

I think the thing is that I'm not sure if you're arguing we should have a number cap or percent cap? Credit cards don't worry about credit rating bc if low credit is a PI no one really cares. However, the concept of removing the top 5% of positive players and the concept of earning the honor que after earning a certain number of points are two completely separate issues and the first post you made seemed like you were arguing for honor que after a certain number of points.

If you do it like challenger or something where you have to be top two hundred (or like 500k out of 30 million or something) the. I think this would work pretty well. It would be like the ribbon system though then where you could win or lose it based on how much other people were playing. With challenger you have to win consistently to move up from masters to challenger, and winning is probably harder than being consistently positive. If you are positive every game then win or lose you will almost always earn positive points when you win. Thus if it is like challenger where you have to stay in the top numbers then the honor que would end up being the people who play the most that are consistently positive bc they would rack up points the way a master'player would if they were winning 90% of their games.

If you did it the way you said in the first post as getting to an honor number requirement then it would be similar to when ribbons first came out. They were a certain honor level rather than % compared to total players and everyone had them, so if you did it like that then ALL the good players would end up in honor que eventually, and if you did it % based it would be awesome, but would be mostly for players who play a lot rather than good players who play occasionally.

Occams Raiser2 votes

I would be ok with the challenger model if it had to based on play time Cause I wouldn't want a spot taken up by an infrequent player. I lost my ribbon and I play regularly. Not knowing why I lost it didn't help either.

Percentage vs points: I think it could be bases on a system where Riot was in control of the number of players controlling either based on how much of the player base they wanted in Exalted. If 700 is too low at the end of season 5, they would announce that it was moved to 750. I actually think that they could suspend the system if we were so goodie goodie in mass that the alternative side was becoming the minority. But I think that is wishful thinking. I think players are more consistent than that. I bet we would sooner be pushed out by people who just hit level 30 sooner than current player upping their score so much we became a majority worth checking.

I am sick of all the bonuses being cosmetic. Here is your ribbon now back in the gutters you go.

T RexHasTinyArms1 votes

Also I see you play Heimer, if you want to duo some time and are as positive as you say you are (I'm sure you are, but everyone has bad days and is grumpy sometimes) then I will gladly show you the power of the Donger. I have a couple more games on him and my stats are slightly better so I might know some tricks to teach you if you like him. Also I've been on a slump recently (playing shitty bc just stressed w/ life shit) but if I'm focused I'm decent w/ him and your MMR will probably bring mine down a little so we should be able to win some games and help you climb and be all happy and shit :D

Angry Monster2 votes

This is the same thing as prisoner island. You are isolating group from each other. It does not matter that people you are earning a spot in special isolation, the worse of the worse are still going to get grouped up. Does not matter if it is optional or not.

I am sure that you do not consider me a nice guy. Actually a lot of my friends think that too. Though i have never been banned, chat restricted or any thing. I got 1st round Santa Barron(which few got), when my nicer friends had to earn theirs. I got the free skin last year also. The idea of like minded people is a joke. Only sheep are like minded, everyone else has different ideas on how things should be. People agree on bare minimums, not on exact details.

Not to mention how this would fuck up match making.

Occams Raiser1 votes

Only sheep are like minded.

The smarter you are the more like minded you are to become with your peers. That doesn't mean you will not have a difference of opinion from time to time. But I doubt there are a lot of creationists hanging out with high levels of academia.

I haven't made my mind up about you. The internet makes people do things they wouldn't normally do in real life. I ad a few points to people behavior from the internet. I m not considered to be a likable person at first either. But i grow on people then they find out I am simply not much for small talk. In the end what you say in game would have little bearing on my enjoyment. As long as you aren't trying to actively ruin my fun I don't care. I can play with unskilled with out raging.

If you have five groups of honor, separating them in any way seems to make people snap to prisoner island. If I took out group 3 would it make 1,2,4, and 5 PI or does it just work like that with the extreme groups? I find it odd that removing the fifth group automatically turns 1-4 into one group. I guess it is just more nuanced in my head.

I don't think this would mess up matchmaking inherently. Until I see supporting data, I would not believe that skill and honor go hand and hand. I would love to see the data though.

Angry Monster2 votes

This is completely false. Individuality is expressed through thinking for ones self and beating to another drum.

Did Vango, Da Vinci, Einstein think like everyone else. They were dreamers that saw beyond of is and what could be. Plenty of other smart people existed at those times and had other interests and did their own thing.

The internet makes people do things they wouldn't normally do in real life.

I disagree with this statement, i think people would act this way if their were no consequences. In a end of the world scenario those people would behave like they do online. Proof of this concept is how kids act in school. When they think no one is watching can do some pretty abusive stuff to each other. Only later in life do we realize someone is always watching.

Occams Raiser1 votes

Did Vango, Da Vinci, Einstein think like everyone else.

Who were their peers? And I think you misunderstood. These people were well rounded individuals. Much of what they believed overlapped 85% of what everyone else was doing at the time. They were exceptional in a particular field. Why did you put van Gogh in there?

The internet has no consequences and society does so you are agreeing with me. If you take away civilization it would stand to reason that people would stop acting civil. If I restrict resources it also stand to reason that people will return to their baser instincts of survival. Kids are kids with undeveloped psyches, raging with hormones, and also stupid and short sighted.

Only later in life do we realize someone is always watching.

Is this a god thing?

Angry Monster2 votes

Who were their peers? And I think you misunderstood. These people were well rounded individuals. Much of what they believed overlapped 85% of what everyone else was doing at the time. They were exceptional in a particular field. Why did you put van Gogh in there?

Ok lets go with politcal parties then. Green, socialists, Reblic, Dem, libertarian, and the none interested. If being smart means grouping together then why are their so many political parties. Why can people come together? Cause they had different opinions. Hell their are subgroups in each group.

No matter what YOU think smart does not mean being similar or to follow.

Gogh is considered a great artist that had troubles, he was far from the norm of society. Are you saying he was not smart? Do you know what his IQ was? What biases are we using for smart?

Is this a god thing?

No that people are watching you even when they do not directly act against immediate behavior. Word gets around and people distance themselves from certain types of behavior.

Occams Raiser1 votes

I'm not being cheeky, you are talking about intelligence but using politicians as an example. They are a bunch of charismatic, lying, lawyers that whore themselves to special interest groups and lobbyists. But the thing is when the cameras are off, they are all drinking buddies. You have never seen the true side of a politician unless you are one with them behind close doors. That is why they don't being filmed during negotiations.

I say smart brings people together because there are a set finite possibilities when you aren't dealing with the subjective. Intelligence will bring you to the most logical conclusion. the smarter you are the closer you will arrive with the others. Every now and then something is counter intuitive. and it takes a genius to break the code. He is a lone but once he explains himself everyone rallies behind him and he becomes a focal point. That isn't the same as him breaking away from the norm. I am using intellect = smart, not talent, skilled or gifted.

Word gets around and people distance themselves from certain types of behavior.

But you are not interested in a system where people can distance themselves from negative behavior.

Angry Monster2 votes

You took the political groups to mean leaders, i meant the american people themselves. The leaders are way more partisan that the leaders, though they have preferred ways of doing things. They are smart people that have different views on how to get to usually the same goal. (point is they do not think the same way on topics)

How to cross a water way is not subjective but they are many ways to do it. You can fly, swim, cross with a bridge, and use a boat. What works for one person may not achieve the same results for another. They all get you across the body of water though.

But you are not interested in a system where people can distance themselves from negative behavior.

You still have not dispelled the issues with it, the eroding of what is considered bad and the people who are at the bottom will will never see the light of day. Riot has stated their mission is reform people not banish them. Til you have reasonable proof you can not go forward. Though to be honest you will never have proof to convince Lyte.

Occams Raiser1 votes

Americans aren't smart. A person is rational and smart, people are stupid and rash. You have seen Men in Black.

I don't care about people at the bottom that put themselves at the bottom. Worst case, they can create a new account and not be dicks the next time around. I don't really see this as a big deal. They already have multiple accounts anyway. If left alone trolls will infect others that are good. It does not work the other way around. There are people that are good and people that are bad. Cheater don't stop cheating. OG trolls don't stop trolling. If there is a system to exploit, it will be exploited by those that desire the easy route. It is possible that the only ones that could ever come back is the one that weren't trolls in the first place.

There is no reason for Riot to attempt reform. It isn't the most logical approach to stopping toxic people. They aren't susceptible to punishment in the long because of multiple accounts. There is no pressure for them to change is there? The only thing that could effect them is the loss of time or their account. I don't see what Riot sees if they are telling the truth. What is the point of reform? Why did they chose reform instead of banishment? Why is the reform of evil more important the protection of good?

In fact, the only reason to keep those that would do you "harm" to the innocent is because they are paying customers. They say that they don't give special treatment to those that pay. I guess that means they have to give leniency like we all buy skins. I didn't see that coming.

Angry Monster2 votes

Movie quotes are funny, cause they are just zingers. Its like saying Americans are not compassionate but people are. Americans give more money to those in need than most others. Its a stupid generalization that a mass can not think coherently. Did people totally flip out on 9 11, nope and people did not go kill every Muslim in the USA either.

There is no reason for Riot to attempt reform. It isn't the most logical approach to stopping toxic people. They aren't susceptible to punishment in the long because of multiple accounts. There is no pressure for them to change is there? The only thing that could effect them is the loss of time or their account. I don't see what Riot sees if they are telling the truth. What is the point of reform? Why did they chose reform instead of banishment? Why is the reform of evil more important the protection of good?

Yet you say the prison system is wrong in the other post. You can not have it both ways. Either you believe in punishment like the prison system or you believe in reform like riot. You do not get to say one at this time and not at the other time. There is a 3rd option and we could kill most of the prison population and leave the infractions alive. Though many people are against that, you may not be though. How do you justify being lenient on the real life criminals and harder on trolls? It makes no sense. You have to have a clear(not jumping around) belief system, which you seem to lack.

You once said i am the jaded one for not caring about people in general. I think you might want to look in the mirror pot.

Occams Raiser1 votes

What is the flaw in prisoner island? I never asked.

Angry Monster1 votes

Paraphrasing Lyte

A toxic environment will can cause other to be toxic, through stress and constant abuse. In a super toxic environment(prisoner island) their is little chance of rising out of it since everyone is toxic. The behavior becomes the normal and very little chance for improvement. Lyte has posts on this if you look for them. /end

Its like telling someone to eat healthy then only provide them junk food to eat. The toxic environment get worse since this is all they know. You can not point to people in their games of good behavior for them to work towards since all the good people are isolated from them.

You also end up with sub cultures where different behaviors are ok. This will split the community on what is acceptable, instead of reforming people into decent behavior.

Occams Raiser1 votes

Does this argument he poses convince you? It is the dilution of a contamination. Instead of sanitizing or quarantining the virus you feed it players at a greater rate than it can grown drowning it in its own food. Under his premise there is nothing to stop the virus from spreading except hope. I didn't know prayer had started working.

Step one.

A toxic environment will can cause other to be toxic

Step two

In a super toxic environment their is little chance of rising out of it since everyone (should be almost) is toxic.

Step three

The behavior becomes the normal and very little chance for improvement.

He is describing the current toxicity. I suppose he then flips a logic 180 and says, "that is why we leave the good with the bad. In the hopes that good beats evil." Silly boy. I wonder how many credits he has in psychology and philosophy. I don't know where he got this shit. This argument is internally inconsistent.

You also end up with sub cultures where different behaviors are ok.

What is the down side to this? The community is split on what is acceptable and their is toxicity in community. If you split the community across the line of what they feel is acceptable behavior everyone is happy. Well the trolls won't be happy. HA HA

Angry Monster2 votes

I believe that people when always dumped on and never see the other possibilities will start to become what was attacking them. You see this all the time on the forums, " i was just defending my self"or " i have the right to defend my self". Legit or not this is what people do.

I disagree with

He is describing the current toxicity

This is not the current state of things. It may feel that way to you, but that is a personal problem of perception. The forums as usual is the classic case of vocal minority, the silent majority do not even visit.

Since you think Lyte is wrong can you post your credentials? And if they are legit you should make a ticket to lyte and discuses with him why you think he is wrong.

What is the down side to this? The community is split on what is acceptable and their is toxicity in community. If you split the community across the line of what they feel is acceptable behavior everyone is happy. Well the trolls won't be happy. HA HA

Cause a split in standards makes it so you can not punish players anymore. You get groups that say racism is ok cause their is a sub section of the player base that is ok with it. You have to condone all behavior at that point instead of having min standards. Does Riot want to be know as the company that condones the worst of the worse?

Standards of players slowly erode as they learn they do not have to worry about punishment. I am not say everyone will sink to the bottom of the pile but what is now consider normal will be considered exceptional.

Occams Raiser1 votes

Does Riot want to be know as the company that condones the worst of the worse?

I am sure they thank the stars for EA everyday.

The one thing all these mobas have going for them, everyone thinks that every community is toxic. SO no of them are an worse than the other.

This is not the current state of things. It may feel that way to you, but that is a personal problem of perception.

This is said a lot but the perception is overwhelming and they would be the first corporation that didn't care about perception over truth. I know perception in their workplace is serious business so this just happens to be a perception they don't care a bout witch is cool in the grand scheme.

Standards of players slowly erode as they learn they do not have to worry about punishment.

I thought that was my point.

I don't have any credential. Since Lyte and I are on even playing fields when it comes to our assertions, I can just cast out his argument off hand as unfounded. He can do the same, as he does by the community's response. I guess if you feel like real world prison is like prisoner island, the only way to get out would to be given a chance in the real world, after you server your time

Angry Monster2 votes

Lyte has a PHD is psychology or something along those lines(yes he has posted what it is but i do not care to remember what it is.), he has the credentials that you are lacking. This is why you are fighting a up hill battle. You are guessing and using your opinion as fact while Lyte is using research from published scientific works. This is not about you and me, I am just the guy taking Lytes POV.

from me Standards of players slowly erode as they learn they do not have to worry about punishment.

from Occams Raiser I thought that was my point.

I disagree with what you are saying. You are saying that things are already degrading, the fact that numbers release by Riot tell a different story. You can not just use just your POV as a metric, you could be a anomaly(aka universe hates you) or have to high of standards.

I think what are proposing will degrade the social standards over time. Nothing quite keeps people aware of whats bad as seeing what not to be like in their games.

This is said a lot but the perception is overwhelming and they would be the first corporation that didn't care about perception over truth. I know perception in their workplace is serious business so this just happens to be a perception they don't care a bout witch is cool in the grand scheme.

You mean your perception is overwhelming you. If riot is right roughly 90% of the players are overall happy. Lyte has done some board experiments where people were asked to point out which games in their history were toxic and then lyte pulled the logs into the game. Their were some toxicity but less than 1%. It was mostly people overly stressed in a game and reading more into something and getting their feelings hurt. Lyte went one step forward and found examples of beyond good sportsmanship in 1 of the last 10 games, while most were just neutral. This brought the fact negative stays with people more than the positive.

Maybe things are not as bad as you think they are. You also could be one of those overly sensitive people that remember the bad more than the good. you are aware less than 5% of the player base uses the boards and maybe 5% of that is making complaint threads. Their just to little in your corner to back you up.

Occams Raiser1 votes

I guess in the end. RIot will be Riot. If you believe what business say about it own shit, that is up to you. If he has a PHD that does help his argument. Another thing that helps his argument is being a part of the actual company. ha ha. So it never really matter what I thought. It is all based on opinion. We haven't got our prison systems worked out because we aren't accepting of hard truths. Sometimes the data is just too hard to pars. I don't know of any studies that have been done on Moba gaming. I am assuming it was done on the side of "what must we do to be most profitable" and for that, none of this is relevant.

I try not be cynical but when a problem seems simple I need to be shown why it is hard. I see a group of people that could be eliminated. Riot does not wish to eliminate them. They have their reasons that don't make sense to me. That's cool. No quarantine, no elevation, no justice. I don't know which road they are taking but I have never seen one where you let the criminals roam the streets in hopes that populous will reform them.

If it is one percent bad, one percent should be purged annually. Maybe it is different on the internet. While you have one group of doctors saying the anonymity of the internet makes people behave badly, you can have another group of doctors say that they know how to reform the faceless.

I have never seen a corporation give real numbers to its customers.

Angry Monster2 votes

I have never seen a corporation give real numbers to its customers.

You would not know either way. Again your POV is that they always lie.

If you believe what business say about it own shit

its not a matter of what i believe its what i got. I am at least aware how small the board community is and how few posts are angry about the toxicity. By that metric you are plainly wrong.

Hyrum Graff2 votes

So, my concern is that by creating a walled garden for honorable people, you increase toxicity and remove role models for your average person, making them more likely to think that toxicity is normal and end up defaulting into that pattern of behavior, themselves.

Personally, I think I'd prefer them to do research to figure out what the optimal team comp for creating positive players in the long run is (if I had to guess, I'd say it's probably, two role models, two neutral people, and one neutral/semi-toxic person -- truly toxic people should be banned) and then to pair people into comps like that as much as possible.

Occams Raiser1 votes

There are no role models in league. What you call role models I call troll food. The only alternative would be hard punishment. The only argument against it would be if all the great people go the trolls would eat the good and the game would become unplayable.

if I had to guess, I'd say it's probably, two role models, two neutral people, and one neutral/semi-toxic person

I don't know what semi-toxic is but I hope your idea never sees the light.

Hyrum Graff2 votes

[{quoted}](name=Occams Raiser,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=tA77UNf2,comment-id=00170000,timestamp=2015-05-11T20:42:32.817+0000)

There are no role models in league. What you call role models I call troll food.

That's an interesting statement. What did you think I mean by a role model?

The only alternative would be hard punishment.

I disagree here. I think through a combination of punishments and rewards of various degrees (ie, chat bans are an excellent light punishment) will go a long way towards reforming our community.

The only argument against it would be if all the great people go the trolls would eat the good and the game would become unplayable.

That's basically what I was saying. I'm not sure if that would happen, just worried that it might. Also, what you call "great people" here is what I mean by "role models." (a player who's positive even in the face of negativity)

I don't know what semi-toxic is

Someone who tells me to kill myself deserves to be banned, no questions asked. Someone who is upset that I'm performing poorly, and is trying to give me advice, but the advice is given in an offensive way, is what I was calling semi-toxic.

In retrospect, I think "Mildly toxic" or "unintentionally toxic" would have been a better/clearer phrase to use.

I hope your idea never sees the light.

Why?

I mean this in two ways. First, why are you against it? and Second, why would you wish ill on my idea when (I think) we both want the same thing (better community)?

Tis a nice day1 votes

If you put all bad apples in a pile away from the good apples, you will have a pile of good apples and bad apples. If you put all good apples in a pile away from the bad apples, you will have a pile of good apples and bad apples.

Putting the best/most honorable players into their own Honorable Tier is effectively equivalent to putting all of the not so honorable players into their own section, aka prisoner's island.

edit: I think you're onto something, but it's not very well explained in the thread.

Occams Raiser1 votes

Perhaps on the surface. I overestimated people. I never thought that there would be so many that think there are only two states a player can exist in. It just makes logical sense to me that if there is a fringe 1% evil, that there would have to be an equivalent fringe 1%, or more, that were excellent. I thought they would get it. I was so wrong. What do you call someone that only see things in black and white? I don't know a word that doesn't sound insulting.

Ariel the Cruel3 votes

What do you call someone that only see things in black and white? I don't know a word that doesn't sound insulting.

http://media.tumblr.com/97d2f83ce5a34c85993050b69539ce7d/tumblr_inline_ni54z9Bw171r7lem6.gif

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes

More by Occams Raiser

Ok then, what about a NO CONTEST RULE for DCs?
Gameplay166 comments
150
votes
I'm not bying sight stone anymore. Support going on strike.
Gameplay183 comments
71
votes
NEW STAT: Relinquished GOLD. Now you know you suck!
Gameplay83 comments
64
votes
Why won't anyone upgrade their vision Trinkets?
Gameplay145 comments
57
votes
HOW DARE you play bard in ranked FIRST WEEK!
Gameplay45 comments
35
votes
Why do people turn stupid in RANKED but play well in Normals?
Gameplay55 comments
30
votes