Boards›[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous

Trolls, Toxicity, Riot's Response + some

psych0crusher·9/17/2014, 6:53:10 AM·2 votes·1,305 views

It's out there and so far it's been unavoidable. We've all been there and I'm sure a lot of us have been guilty at one point or another.

That being said, let's take a look at Riot's response or attempt for a solution. http://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/2bb85l/if_you_are_racist_in_soloq_get_ready_for_a_14_day/cj3r0cr

"Some players have also asked why we've taken such an aggressive stance when we've been focused on reform; well, the key here is that for most players, reform approaches are quite effective. But, for a number of players, reform attempts have been very unsuccessful which forces us to remove some of these players from League entirely."

Reform is good. Transparency is good and much appreciated. However, basing a judgement on chat logs alone is simply a naive and -- dare i say -- a lazy attempt to find a solution to what's been plaguing the LoL community for the past, how many years?

To top it off, Riot's response is to dish out harsher punishments. I claim double standards. When homophobic statements are made, it's clearly a violation when 2 decades ago, it wouldn't even be an offense much less an issue. So let's take a look really quick. What's the drastic difference between twenty years ago and now? Progression of society perhaps? Then I say the idea of dishing out harsher punishment falls in the same category. We all know when it comes to behavior, positive reinforcements work SO MUCH better.

Riot's attempt at this = "Clicking an Honor butting"
@Riot, how about putting more efforts into finding a better solution via positive reinforcement instead of this, behind-the-times method of punishment. I'm not saying abolish punishment because those who do wrong should be punished.

But let's take a hypothetical situation where one player utterly destroys the enjoyment for others by being utterly selfish (it's a team game bro) in style of play. I mean, I'm sure you've seen a player just do his/her own thing refusing to actually part-take game changing battles and/or just doing their own thing. Blatantly taking farms from another teammate that's trying super hard to catch up after falling behind followed by least effective in a team battle or what not...

I feel PROVOKING players by making a game frustrating should be a punishable offense but there's really NO way to determine that w/ out an umpire/referee of sorts.

Let me ask you LoL Community. Have you ever fell victim to such players and it grinds your gears so hard.. i mean straight up shifting gears w/ out using the clutch.. that you become toxic yourself? Has this ever happened to you? And when the game is over, you're the one that is reported.

@Riot, if you're going to swing the hammer of judgement, it needs to be just (transparency but selective transparency). How can you swing it on all guilty parties when you're system of catching toxic players doesn't clearly catch all culprits of toxicity? How do you expect a player that is trolled 2 consecutive games out of a 3 game series followed by a 4 consecutive trolled games in a series of 5 not respond w/ similar actions? These are questions I would like you to address.

Now for some good stuff. I would like to see an in-game vote-to-mute system implemented where players on a team can vote to mute (a) specific player(s). Like how there is a voting system to surrender, why not apply it to muting which allows other players to know when team thinks he/she is being toxic. This increase deterrents for trolling or being toxic. Keep the current muting system when you can mute any individual player you want but add a vote mute. This will allow the player being toxic know that he/she is being toxic. It will prevent his/her toxicity from being heard and it will prevent toxic-INFECTION to others.

Here are a few things to be considered: duo-qs can deny a unanimous vote - this can still be dealt with via post-game reports. This can increase Riot's abilities to track and punish players that truly are being toxic. You have a player being voted on to mute, but it is denied. Post-game reports on that player should be emphasized

Abuse of the in-game-mute can run rampant. I mean, if Riot is going to test out 2500 code for permabans, I'm sure they can test this out too and see how it flows with increasing or decreasing a problem that has been plaguing LoL for quite some time now.

14 Comments

Baitsa Dasuto9/18/2014, 9:35:45 PM2 votes

Good point. What then happens when a player makes a request for a toxic player not to address him/her anymore? For example, "Please stop talking to me now. Thanks"

That would be trying to get the other player to change. It doesn't matter that you said "please" and "thanks". It's quite the opposite really: Because you acknowledge you don't want to hear what he has to say to you anymore, that person is actually more likely to flame you, as they feel spurred on by your actions, either because they feel provoked (because they're toxic) or because they feel satisfaction (if they're trolls).

This is where you REACT: You simply don't answer him any more. That way the toxic person doesn't have anything to work with, as most people feel foolish when they realize they're talking to themselves. Of course there will always be people who will keep ranting - there was a case just a day ago where Lyte smited somebody who kept flaming non-stop for twenty minutes in his chat logs - like literally a line every 5-8 seconds. You can only mute those people, I'm afraid.

When talking about intentions, you can unintentionally do things as well. Does being provoked require a provoker with the intent to provoke? Or can provocation occur even without the intent to provoke? This is where I think discussion can help.

I for one, fall for it ALLLL the time. I really do. I utterly hate it when I'm working my butt off and trying to win (or catch-up for a late(r) game presence) only to be robbed of any attempts to do so followed by a "you suck, go uninstall" How is that not considered provoking? As much as players are different, they all respond in various different ways right? If I feel frustrated/angry when such things mentioned above happen, then how is that NOT considered provoking?

"You suck, go uninstall" is verbal harassment - you should report that person for it. On the other hand to be "robbed of an attempt to win the game" is highly subjective - the word "robbing", for example suggest malicious intent, which you cannot prove. Maybe your teammate really thought he needed that farm/buff, just like you did? It may not be the nicest thing to do, but there are only so many resources around during any given minute of the game, and sometimes players have widely differing opinions about how they should be distributed. Instead of fuming at your team mate, you should instead go look for a different objective to take. Infighting between teammates - and it does NOT matter "who started it" - makes it even more likely you will lose.

As Lyte said, the community as a whole decides what is considered toxic behavior - you can express your opinion by choosing to report somebody after the game. But you cannot expect that the rules cater to your definition of being provoked alone. We all get to decide this; it's a majority vote. This is really important, and I will explain it further down.

Granted, I really do like your point in regards to intent. I think it's super valid, but it wont cover because intent or not, one can be provoked even if intentions are not there.

We are all human beings, and there are many, many situations, both in-game and and "in the real world", where we feel hurt, provoked, or simply feel injustice towards us. But sometimes we act in the same way towards others and don't think anything about it. Try to look at it from your teammate's side: There, too, is a human being who might think that your attempts to win the game might be misguided, and that is why he might take your farms/kills/buffs, because as much as he might dislike you, and you might dislike him: You both share a common goal: You both want to win. It's like this 99.999% of the time.

You might have heard of the quote "The wiser head gives in". It`s a stupid, frustrating quote, but when working towards a common goal, it works. It all comes down to asking yourself a simple question: I might hate my teammate's guts, but do I hate him enough to not try looking for a way to win which factors in his particular playstyle?

Baitsa Dasuto9/17/2014, 12:21:53 PM2 votes

But let's take a hypothetical situation where one player utterly destroys the enjoyment for others by being utterly selfish (it's a team game bro) in style of play. I mean, I'm sure you've seen a player just do his/her own thing refusing to actually part-take game changing battles and/or just doing their own thing. Blatantly taking farms from another teammate that's trying super hard to catch up after falling behind followed by least effective in a team battle or what not...

How can you tell it's blatant? "I know it when I see it" doesn't really cut it here, because how subjective this kind of thing is. It would be almost impossible even for an outsider to tell if somebody is stealing somebody's farm in order to troll him, and when you're playing the game, you're almost guaranteed to be subjective. Maybe he just has the mindset "I need this farm in order to carry this game better"? The thing is, you are not the team leader. Your team mates are allowed to make their own decisions if they think it's going to help the game in progress, no matter how much you think what they are doing is wrong.

While we're discussing anecdotal evidence, I've been playing with a friend a lot who had a really selfish play style. Yet he often carried the game by playing a mean Katarina. In one of these games, we won with some 55 kills or so, of which he had 48 - and zero, I repeat, 0 assists. Was his playstyle selfish? Absolutely! But he did carry the game. "Selfish" isn't really an argument if you don't also apply it to games where you are winning.

I feel PROVOKING players by making a game frustrating should be a punishable offense but there's really NO way to determine that w/ out an umpire/referee of sorts.

Provoking requires intent, which you cannot prove. Most of the time, people merely FEEL provoked, when the other guy has no such intent, because of the way moral bias works.

Let me tell you right now an important concept which is used by psychologists all over the world: You cannot change how people act. You can merely change yourself. By doing so, however, you change how other people REACT to you, which is the only way to change other people that actually works. One very, VERY important reason to not be toxic in-game, and the reason why people who aren't toxic win more games!

In other words: By being toxic you tell the world you don't actually want to win, that your petty argument is more important than the game you're having with your four mates, of which only one, maybe, is toxic. It is, in a way, a form of assisting the enemy team, by destroying the solidarity within your own team.

Baitsa Dasuto9/17/2014, 12:22:32 PM2 votes

Let me ask you LoL Community. Have you ever fell victim to such players and it grinds your gears so hard.. i mean straight up shifting gears w/ out using the clutch.. that you become toxic yourself? Has this ever happened to you? And when the game is over, you're the one that is reported.

The first and only time I played ranked we had a Fizz who acted as a self-appointed team leader and flamed me the whole game, despite telling him beforehand that this is my first placement match. After half an hour of this I got really sarcastic on him, and while I didn't use any offensive words, I did tell him in post-game chat that his toxic behavior has now inspired me to only play Udyr in ranked anymore. Not only was it childish, it didn't help me one bit during the game, and didn't even provide me with catharsis afterwards. And while there certainly was some gear-shifting involved, it still hit me like a truck. This is something I really regret - not only shouldn't I have let myself and my playstyle be influenced by him, I should just have muted him after the pre-game chat. The thing is, I didn't know how to react, and this was back when I actually thought that you could get banned for "refusing to communicate" by muting people. So, maybe this is one point RIOT could communicate better? Other than that, I can really only say that toxic behavior is never okay, not even in when you're retaliating, since it ruins the game for other people even more than it already is ruined.

@Riot, if you're going to swing the hammer of judgement, it needs to be just (transparency but selective transparency). How can you swing it on all guilty parties when you're system of catching toxic players doesn't clearly catch all culprits of toxicity? How do you expect a player that is trolled 2 consecutive games out of a 3 game series followed by a 4 consecutive trolled games in a series of 5 not respond w/ similar actions? These are questions I would like you to address.

I never had trolls this much. Yes, I had lots of people who didn't play the way I would have wanted them to play. Something that isn't ban-worthy.

Now for some good stuff. I would like to see an in-game vote-to-mute system implemented where players on a team can vote to mute (a) specific player(s). Like how there is a voting system to surrender, why not apply it to muting which allows other players to know when team thinks he/she is being toxic. This increase deterrents for trolling or being toxic. Keep the current muting system when you can mute any individual player you want but add a vote mute. This will allow the player being toxic know that he/she is being toxic. It will prevent his/her toxicity from being heard and it will prevent toxic-INFECTION to others.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_music why this really isn't a good idea...

Here are a few things to be considered: duo-qs can deny a unanimous vote - this can still be dealt with via post-game reports. This can increase Riot's abilities to track and punish players that truly are being toxic. You have a player being voted on to mute, but it is denied. Post-game reports on that player should be emphasized

In my opinion, the system Lyte is working on is already working in reducing toxic behavior. Remember: The whole LOL community gets to decide what is considered toxic behavior (by analysing the reports) - defining "the law" differently game-by-game by having five people, at the same time, become judge and potential accused, you turn it into "mob law". Not a good idea. People are selfish bastards, which would result in players only being punished for playing badly, and increase toxic behavior in people feeling "justified", because they won the in-game court. Also, four people ganging up on one player is abuse.

Baitsa Dasuto9/18/2014, 9:36:38 PM2 votes

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_music why this really isn't a good idea...

Where/how would this be a public display of punishment intended to shame a player. Hmmm I do see your point about a player being shamed with an in-game vote to mute system. However, outside of the 4 other players, it shouldn't be displayed that the player was muted. And as for duration, of the mute, it should only last for that specific game.

It would still create an overwhelmingly negative experience - not only for the player who got muted. More importantly: It won't help you win the game. It just makes it much more likely you will lose or get somebody who goes AFK. After all, if his four teammates hate his guts, why should he work towards victory with them? LOL is, after all, still a teamgame. If he doesn't think he's part of a team he will not be able to play his best. It all comes down to basic psychology, even neurology. When you feel bad, your brain's performance suffers. And being told by ALL your teammates, or even 3 of your 4 teammates, that they don't want to hear you anymore, sure is a major blow to your whole being. You couldn't even punish people who play worse afterwards, as most people could not control feeling bad. After all, not being told that your teammates hate you is a VERY basic need.

It`s also really exploitable. People could see this system, even though it only mutes the person, as a way to punish bad players ingame, creating a very negative experience. And this is why, in my opinion, it comes down to mob law.

Baitsa Dasuto9/18/2014, 9:37:05 PM2 votes

I can definitely see the reaction to being "shamed" can lead to increase trollism. I fully understand that. However, even as Riot puts out, most players drastically change their behavior after being warned or what not. This will be an **IMMEDIATE **warning w/ out going through the drawn out legal court procedures of the justice league errrr the panel votes adjudicating after the fact.

I want to put an emphasis on the **immediate **-- this is where it really counts for the other 4 players on the team, not two weeks after the game is lost, but this comes in instantly. So then you have the immediate chance that the toxic player will improve behavior right then and there which -- as a player -- would much prefer.

First of all, four people are not the community as a whole. You simply NEED standards you can orientate on. But every team is a microcosm of their own, and as everybody has different ideas of what is important in a game, every game has a different team-opinion of what is important. Some people might think it's unforgivable to give first blood, no matter the circumstances, while other people - like me - are fine with a game as long as nobody flames, goes AFK/disconnects or intentionally feeds. Some people might think "in this situation, we should push mid" while other people would, in the same situation, decide the team needs to "go baron". How is it possible to cater to every four-panel team of judges every game, when you've never met these people before, and, most likely, never will?

Second, even if they think they have been "warned", they know that they only have been warned by four people. They don't know the community as a whole has a problem with their behavior, if they're really toxic. This system of yours only works for the most toxic of flamers (who might be muted about every game they play) but does nothing but harm people who simply have differing play styles (which ties into number one)

And, number three - and this ties into number two - when a player gets punished through the tribunal, they know these warnings come from RIOT themselves. RIOT represents the community, and RIOT alone can disallow access to their precious League of Legends(TM) Accounts. The reason why RIOT's punishments work is because they have real repercussions. Now you could argue "Why not simply give the person in queston a 1-hour in-game ban if they've been muted by their four team mates", but that would not reduce toxicity, because it could be used to blackmail each other.

Instead of forcing teammates to work together, giving them a majority mute function would place all of them in a Prisoner's Dilemma type of situation, as when there's only four people left, you can bet that they will reflexively try to Mute-Vote each other for the slightest of reasons, lest they will be Mute-Voted first, no matter if it has repercussions or not. And while you're ingame you simply don't have the time to think about the pros and cons of muting this person or the other. I simply prefer to mute the person who offends me myself.

BTW, I really think "punishment for chat behavior" and "punishment for in-game behavior" should be discussed separately, as one of these things is much more easy to punish than the other. :)

InsaneSamurai9/17/2014, 9:56:25 AM1 votes

I have to agree with you. People laugh at the idea of getting reported because the punishments are far too lenient. Riot has a somewhat Disney-esque view on things, constantly saying things like 'everyone has bad days', and 'most players improve after chat restrictions' (of course they statistically get reported less, they can't speak!).

The worst Riot quote I seem to see too often is- 'We can't control what people do'. The thing is- No, Riot can't directly control what people do. However, Riot can make the penalties for trolling people harsh enough that a drastically lower percentage of people will find it worth it to troll/afk/whatever.

SteampunkJester10/3/2014, 8:28:04 AM1 votes

Psycho i am completely with you on this, ive been pushed to that limit by people saying im raging when im just making a calm statement i had entire lobby report me for something along the lines as "i guess i couldnt outrun you or your ult did more damage then i thought it would" these statements have gotten certain people to change peoples perspective on me and cause me to be a victim of a lobby report when i was never angry nor mad or any sort of anger to insight such abuse by the entire lobby :/ I just goes to show if one determined troll really wanted to make or break a game he can with enough determination he can cause both teams to implode especially yours if your losing. Morale is the name of the game and frankly it controls the outcome of things in a match simply put - -if you dont get first blood -Losing lane -behind a small amount of points -sarcastic remarks -tower diving -getting caught -no wards -not skilled enough with certain champs -lack of last hitting -all chatting to much -afk -threats

  • (WORST) elo ranks

any small spark of these can cause any determined troll to easily break the will of a "TEAM" or enemy "TEAM and for the sake of things! so i suggest this vote ban cause the spread of toxicity is every game these days. it cant be avoided, its hard to ignore it due to your team talking trash and agreeing with troll or enemy team agreeing,