This is where I disagree. I don't think looking at whether a person is banned or restricted on its own is the best way of figuring out which players demonstrated CONSISTENT negativity. I tried to explain people in this thread, but they just down vote me and assume I'm lying. I AM NOT CONSISTENTLY NEGATIVE. I was negative on a tilt for two months, that's it. The fact that I wasn't for the rest of the three years of playing proves the behaviour was NOT consistent, by definition of the word. I'm quite frankly sick of the down votes. I have done nothing to desrve such hatred, I just expressed my opinion and people had a go at me. Only a handful who have replied back have explained their opinions well, and I thank them for it and respect it, but guess what? they still down vote me. Honestly, i feel like reporting the spam down votes, its like unnecessary harassment.
I'm going to ignore two years of your play-time for the express reason that this entire system only accounts for this season. So, since it doesn't care about Season 3 or before, I won't either.
Within that, you demonstrated consistent negativity over a period of two months. You were punished for that period of time. And, frankly, since you were demonstrably and admittedly unsportsmanlike for a full fifth of the measured period, I simply don't understand why you think you deserve the same reward as players who managed to not earn a restriction.
The very functions of the reporting system - requiring a percentage of reported games to games played - indicate that in at least 15% of your overall games, you were negative enough for someone to report you. That stands as Riot's definition of "consistent negativity." It's why you wound up with a chat restriction.
It's really weird to me that you're trying to argue that you did it ("I deserved it") but that you didn't do it ("I wasn't consistently negative"). And it doesn't matter. Over a long period of time, you showed poor sportsmanship. Why should that entitle you to a sportsmanship award?
Also, there are a bunch of players who think the ninety five percent statistic is bullshit. I read one of the articles that said out of the recent period, only 94 people got chat restrictions. I find that hard to believe. Millions of people play league, and you are telling me less than one percent received chat restrictions? Sorry, but there's some shady shit going on. I could even go the EUW forums, find more than 94 people with chat restrictions and prove that wrong.
A) Those players are suffering from what we call a "Confirmation Bias." They look at the forums and whatever else and say to themselves "Gee, every third post here is about some different guy who has a chat restriction! That must mean that some 33% of players got chat restricted!" And they ignore the thousands of people that don't bother using the League forums, or boards, or Reddit, or whatever thing they're looking at - the players who just log in and play the game and enjoy it by themselves or with their friends.
B) Define "recent period" (or better yet, source the article) and we can discuss it. Otherwise, you have to know that there's no point to even having brought it up.
The fact is, my chat restriction was 22 games, that's it. It means, in pure numbers, that I ruined 22 or less games in league.
You don't get one chat-restricted game per game of negativity. That would be silly. You get a number of chat restricted games based upon how long the system/reviewer expects it to take you to reform. If you've been mildly toxic for a very long time, you might get a lot of them, to give you time to break the habit. If it's only been a relatively short time - say, 2 months? - you might get only a few, to help shift you back into your old habits. But it's certainly not a direct 1-for-1 ratio. So a 22-game restriction doesn't mean you ruined 22 games.
