Banned for 10 days..?

{quoted}

and in my quote i said restrictions

I made a difference between restrictions and bans.

That's funny, that's not what I copy/pasted. Let me try again:

{quoted}

to instantly banning me for 14 days without reviewing it, and without sending me any e-mails or anything.

Still says bans.

and again, it's not an e-mail issue. I know it's not, they just never sent me an e-mail. Why would i get every other e-mail they send EXCEPT for the one about my ban, hmm? oh, probably because they never sent one. Seems simple enough.

Perhaps because your address provider dumped it into a junk folder. Perhaps because it failed to send properly. Perhaps because the address is stored in a different location than the ones used for other emails, and was input incorrectly or corrupted.

Which would be addressed by changing or verifying the address, and then requesting another email - assuming that the ban was issued somewhere in the last month or so.

and no, it wasn't the game before that. The game before that hardly anyone said a word. It was a quick and easy win on our part, so there's nothing to have been reported from the game before. it was that game, and if bans happen within 15 minutes, then no one is reviewing its accuracy.

People are not reviewing every case. There is, however, a fairly sophisticated machine-learning based chat-detection algorithm handling them. Spot-checks have shown a false-positive rate on par with the Tribunal.

A system that merely checked the number of reported games to determine whether a punishment should be issued would be orders of magnitude faster - to the point that 15 minutes would be insanely slow.

Honestly, i'd much prefer riot to have an option to just take chat out all together. It's really not necessary with pings, and the pre, during, and post game chat are mostly used just for toxicity anyways. Fuck the mute button, i dont want to talk to anyone or see anything.

So turn off all chat, type "/mute all" at the beginning of each match, and don't type. Seems easy enough.

[{quoted}](name=freya od,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=Gkv8J06I,comment-id=0005000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-08-06T20:12:32.692+0000)

1. acting in self defense is perfectly acceptable. Why does EVERYONE ELSE always have to be the bigger person? If there are teammates lieing on you in all chat, trying to get you reported, saying you did xyz, you should be allowed to defend yourself.

Acting in self-defense is acceptable, so long as it is not - in and of itself - toxic.

2. asking for reports is not abusive. It's punishing a toxic player with enough reports in one game that they'll be highly targeted as having done something obviously wrong. How is that bullying? it isn't. It's not even close. Saying, "mid or feed" would be bullying. more reports at once is, in fact, more threatening than just one. Higher volume of reports get you punished much faster, and possibly even harsher, than just maybe one report from random joe.

The system builds cases based on the number of reported games, so having multiple reports in a single game makes no significant difference to it. This has been a part of the report system for longer than I've been playing, and it's explicitly to ensure that "random joe" has just as much of a voice as a 4-man premade.

The fact that more reports are perceived as more threatening is exactly how it's bullying - after all, bullying is nothing more than making threats in an attempt to make someone do what you want them to.

3. no one has EVER been banned for taunting or false reporting. Show me any cases where this has happened, because this is completely unheard of. Proof, or i'm going to assume you're just making everything up as you go along so you can seem like you think you know what you're talking about, but you really don't.

I was referring to pinging and taunting. And in that, I can offer an actual case where a player was banned for emote spam. Here is the TBI Forum post about it. Here is WookieeCookie's response about it - which encapsulates their general views on the subject.

While I have no specific cases I can point to regarding bans for false reports - because they've always been handled in-house - Riot has stated repeatedly since before I started playing that it was punishable - though to my understanding the last ban wave for it was some number of months before I started.

4. the AI is not as fabulous as you think it is. I think it maybe scan for certain words, if it even scans at all. Scanning is periodic and not done for every case, people can indeed receive punishment by volume of reports instead of scanning for negativity.

You think? That's cool. I'm delivering information distributed by the people that designed the system. I'll let people make up their own minds as to which carries more weight, but personally? I'll trust the guy that built the system to tell me how it works.

You post all over the boards, and you are always so annoying and full of it.

If you find me annoying, feel free to not pay attention to me. That's absolutely within your rights.

slow clap this is the best thing I've ever read on the boards. Very well-written, thought out, and I could never, in a million years, have said it any better. Thank you.

{quoted}

You can argue it's Riot's policy (although I believe that's only about retaliation and other toxic behavior) but there is no "strawman argument" here.

You falsely represented my position in order to prove my position false by attacking your misrepresentation. That's the definition of a strawman argument.

To suggest that an evaluation is more accurate devoid of context in ANYTHING makes no sense.

That's not what I suggested. I'm simply pointing out that the context isn't relevant in determining whether or not a particular statement is toxic. Or, to put it perhaps a more explicit way, "There is no context in which it becomes acceptable for a player to exhibit toxic behavior."

Which is all I've ever tried to say about it.

You ignored the stealing example but it's a perfect illustration of where an identical action might not be equally severe due to contextual issues (unless you really believe they are the same - which wouldn't totally surprise me). Moreover, there was no claim that context justifies abusive behavior. You're misunderstanding the points made if that's what you got from it.

I didn't ignore the stealing example. I addressed it by pointing out that it's a strawman argument. Because it misrepresents my position.

I'm not sure why you have such confidence in this system unless you work on Riot's team for it. It's really not a very good system and lacks the necessary oversight.

Because every scrap of evidence I've seen shows it to be effective at exactly what it's intended to be effective at.

There are cases like the above which prove to me that there are issues with it. Even the fact that it learns from what's reported instead of having objective guidelines can be an issue when people frequently make false reports for similar things (I gave examples). At that point, it becomes part of its standard.

A FALSE report is a report for a game that has no toxicity. If the game has no recognizable toxicity, WHY would the system assume that some common phrase should suddenly be considered toxic? That would lead to a system that considers "gg" toxic. Or "well played." Or "great job." Or "dragon in 30."

That would be utterly stupid - any idiot would recognize that as problematic. And regardless of what you may think of them, Riot's PB development team are not idiots (at very least not all of them).

Pings already have restrictions in place and can be muted but I suppose they can be abused if someone really tries. I don't see the same for taunts. There were never meant to serve a gameplay function so players should be able to use them any way they like.

http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2795867&page=12#post31839662

That's an old TBI case regarding a player banned for emote spam.

Most people asking for reports have already observed toxic behavior and know that it deserves to at least be evaluated. It's not even an appeal for reform.

If that's all they want, then all they need is to issue their own report, since the game builds cases (thus triggering evaluation) based on the number of reported games, rather than the number of reports per game.

You can disagree all you want. I don't care. You're welcome to your opinion. I'm simply pointing out Riot's stance on the matter. Because their stance is what's relevant in the context of the game.

You seem to misunderstand my point in posting here. My goal is to help these players avoid future bans/restrictions by pointing out the things that Riot punishes for. That's all.

The report requests in that chat are literally NOTHING like "go play in traffic" or "just go kill yourself" or even in the same category at all.

I didn't say they were. "Go play in traffic" and "go kill yourself" would fall under the category of death threats, while the report calls and similar comments may fall under the heading of ban threats.

Please note that these are two different categories, as I had clearly indicated in that post. The only point of similarity is that neither is directly a "threat," yet may be categorized under that a larger heading that uses the word anyway.

Again, this is a strawman argument. Please try not to misrepresent my position.

And yes, you are blaming the victim 100%.

In that he is the victim of toxicity, and I am blaming him, yes.

But I am not blaming him for being a victim of toxicity - which is a requirement of the term "victim blaming."

Yes, you can say that it is factual someone holds a certain opinion but that isn't what someone means about factual. It might be factual that person X thinks eating dirt is delicious. You ask them and they always say yes. Dirt being delicious is not, however, a statement of fact. Again, it's so obviously not the intended meaning of factual that I don't know why you bring it up.

I brought it up because it was a somewhat comparable situation to the point I was trying to make. That point seems to have missed you, so I'll be dropping this line of discussion after restating the point as clearly and unequivocally as I can:

TRUTH and TOXICITY are not mutually exclusive.

If you really believe this, go duo with 10-20 people over 2-3 dozen games and tell them to report you in-game every time for verbal abuse. Make sure your chat is nothing but a shining beacon of positivity and teamwork. You will find yourself chat restricted anyway as this experiment has been done already. I urge you to try it before responding to this as it highlights a key problem with the system and how false reports are counted.

It's also been shown that every experiment of the sort falsely presented their data. Specifically, they were punished for other games, where they were toxic.

Yes, I've seen them. Yes, I read the threads, both on the forums/boards and on reddit.

False reports create an artificial pattern when there is none and said player should not be under "toxic" on the spectrum but the threshold was lowered.

This presumes that the system assumes that any reported game is toxic. If the system made that assumption, why would it ever review anything?

That - again - would be stupid design. It would be both better and easier, to my mind, to have it review the games with no assumptions regarding whether any individual game is toxic or not. To do otherwise would be to apply human bias to a system that bears a primary benefit of being unbiased. Which, like I said, would be stupid.

It's just like being annoying. Saying "are we there yet?" one time isn't annoying. Saying it 10x in 10 minutes is. If I tell you that someone said it 10x in 10 minutes but in fact they only said it once, you'd think they were annoying when they really weren't.

So, you mean, if you lied to me about something and I had no way to fact-check it, I might believe something false about someone?

That's true, but it doesn't really apply here, since the claims can be and are fact-checked.

Which is kind of the whole point.

As far as just deciding whether something is negative being sufficient, that is really no basis for a report. Maybe we're talking about Power Rangers and I say the Pink Ninja Ranger sucks. Am I going to get flagged for negative attitude now? Just providing a negative opinion on something isn't the same as negative attitude. Likewise, "we shouldn't clump in teamfights" is constructive not negative attitude. "don't teamfight, we're getting crushed" isn't negative attitude either but can be a negative statement.

You're conflating two different uses of the word "negative," here. Please don't do that. It doesn't reflect well.

When I refer to "negative," I'm not talking about negative grammatical constructs (i.e. statements that include or use the word "no" or its derivatives). I'm talking about emotionally negative language - notable because it is divisive and disruptive to community members (on the small scale, this would be a team/players in a match).

Most people who claim they aren't toxic after getting punished actually are and tend to admit it once they see the logs so I don't think it would be even half as hard as the old Tribunal.

You must not have been around the TBI and PB forums. Huge numbers of players posted there complaining about their punishments. Every single one I saw was valid.

The tendency I have seen is that people who claim they aren't toxic after being punished not only actually are, but they refuse to admit it - either claiming something wrong with the system, or that Riot's policies should allow them to do whatever it is they were doing.