3 Strike rule for season rewards

KemoBigDSabi··3 votes·692 views

I see a lot of people complaining about losing their season rewards for one time offences (being banned) and i personally know people that are still eligible who have had hundred + chat restricted games for things a lot worse. First off most of the people complaining are people that have got into gold or plat for the first time so its a collective effort of their whole time playing and learning the game to climb and want to get better (being competitive). In my experience that leads to looking at the game as a whole while playing which in turn leads to questioning why people are doing certain things in ranked, from builds to positioning to 100 other things, which leads into getting your head bitten off and both participants "verbal abuse". Unlike other seasons riot waited till the end of the season to say what "might" effect season rewards because it's still getting discussed. This is also leading to a lot of trolls in ranked that don't care anymore and are ruining games. Riot also wants to reward reforming and not be harsh on people that do better which is why 100+ games of chat banned people get rewards if they complete their time. So my question, which i believe would help out everyone complaining on the boards, and is also simpler in my opinion is why not just punish people who have had more than 3 offenses of any kind during the season? With bans, in my opinion, being more focused around "Key" words then actually abuse or trolls or afks and apparently there was a outbreak of 2 week bans that randomly went out to "everyone". It just seems like a simple solution for those that are losing out on at least a year of work over less then 3 offences.

Simplified:

Don't punish people with less than 3 offenses over a year, there's a reason most of us grow up with a three strike rule.

11 Comments

SmokedAlmonds3 votes

The leniency is built in before the actual punishments. People are rarely punished for single incidents and it is expected that most people will occasionally cross the line. If you have been punished you have already committed multiple offenses.

KemoBigDSabi1 votes

but that's counter intuitive to how people function. hence why people do things they know are wrong until they get punished (and then sometimes even then after for multiple reasons). the problem here is the punishment, i feel, is a double punishment way worse then it needs to be.

SmokedAlmonds2 votes

{quoted}

but that's counter intuitive to how people function. hence why people do things they know are wrong until they get punished (and then sometimes even then after for multiple reasons). the problem here is the punishment, i feel, is a double punishment way worse then it needs to be.

If someone can't achieve their rank while following the rules why should they be allowed to get the rewards that go with it?

KemoBigDSabi1 votes

simply, the same reason a player can get a ring even if they are suspended during the season. The initial punishment is the punishment for the action that riot has deemed worthy, whereas the season rewards are based on your ability to play the game. Instead of double punishment riot should just make its initial punishment worse if it doesn't believe they are good enough.

SmokedAlmonds2 votes

{quoted}

simply, the same reason a player can get a ring even if they are suspended during the season. The initial punishment is the punishment for the action that riot has deemed worthy, whereas the season rewards are based on your ability to play the game. Instead of double punishment riot should just make its initial punishment worse if it doesn't believe they are good enough.

Removing eligibility helps deal with a different group of toxic players than standard punishments. People who aren't necessarily malicious but are over aggressive and/or hyper critical.

There is a big difference between professional sports and a game. People play a game to have fun, people who get punished are interfering with that for others. Sports don't make teams or players forfeit championships because its in their financial interest not to. If they did, w/e infraction would basically never happen again.

I don't even really view losing reward eligibility as a punishment. More like a statement that there is no point in playing ranked if you can't be civil.

KemoBigDSabi1 votes

If the team had to buy 1 less expensive ring it would cost them less thus improving their financial interest :D

The problem with removing season rewards from the different group that is over aggressive or hyper critical is there is no defined difference two people could do the exact same thing and 1 can get a 2 week ban and the other a 36 game restrict. now i person is getting rewards and the other is not. Thats why the 3 punishments in general works better than punishing different punishments different when rules arn't set in stone.

Deep Terror Nami2 votes

I would only agree to 2 strikes. If they didn't reform, then we don't want them, come back next year.

AMYS GRAVE2 votes

It takes more than three instances to get banned unless the behavior is particularly egregious.

KemoBigDSabi1 votes

maybe more then 3 random reports but not more than 3 warnings. like it doesnt go 7 game chat restrict 14 day restric then ban it can go 7 day restrict then instantly 2 week ban. whereas someone else can go 14 day restrick 78 game restrict, 137 game restrict 300 game restrict and then still get their rewards. thats my problem with it

SmokedAlmonds1 votes

{quoted}

maybe more then 3 random reports but not more than 3 warnings. like it doesnt go 7 game chat restrict 14 day restric then ban it can go 7 day restrict then instantly 2 week ban. whereas someone else can go 14 day restrick 78 game restrict, 137 game restrict 300 game restrict and then still get their rewards. thats my problem with it

That's because people are doing different things at different frequencies.

1 person might be chat restricted for being mildly toxic frequently and another might be extremely toxic a few times and be banned. The differences never seem obvious because we only see 1 to 3 chat logs no matter what because they only send examples of your behavior. If some guy was the most racist ever in 1 game and got banned and another guy just had tons of games calling people idiots and such they would be be here posting the 1 log they got sent so it seem inequitable. We only see severity in logs, not frequency which is a huge factor.

The problem you have is purely a perception problem.

nerak231 votes

.

More from [ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous

More by KemoBigDSabi