I created an elaborate thread about flaming and anger on the EU forums

WESTFALL·Mar 15, 2015·2 votes·860 views

@ Riot and the community : Let's talk a bit about anger ( long thread )

Maybe you would like to take a look, I've put some effort into it, we can also discuss here if you want .

35 Comments

JubbinautMar 15, 20152 votes

So here's the problem as I see it: you're conflating the emotion of anger with a specific expression of that emotion.

Anger is absolutely a natural emotion. Expressing that anger can absolutely be a healthy, natural, and positive thing. However, there are forms of expression that are neither healthy nor positive.

Specifically, flaming is a decidedly negative and unhealthy form of expression. It's harmful to both the flamer and the victim. As such, it's not considered to be acceptable behavior.

It's extremely unfortunate that some people don't learn healthy outlets for their anger - and I say that as a person who has had major and extreme anger management issues in the past. I still have problems with it, for that matter. But that doesn't - and shouldn't - make it acceptable to cause emotional harm to others.

WESTFALLMar 15, 20152 votes

I do have sort of an idea about what you're thinking when you say it is harmful for the victim.

But what do you mean when you say it's harmful for the flamer ? The flamer releases his anger, and it's over, no more tension, unless another episode of what it triggered it first time happens again . I can't see in what way it can possibly harm the flamer .

Well people should be taught how not to get so emotionally involved in some words typed by a random anonymous stranger on the internet in the first place . Shouldn't they ?

Either I'm a psychopath or being emotionally harmed by a LoL player seems utterly exaggerated.

Flaming is basically a bunch of words considered bad by society standards thrown in a small chat box by some random anonymous guy that has no idea of who you are . How can you be affected by something like that ?

It makes me think that people are not really affected by it, but their egos, their egos are affected by it , and their egos cry for help .

JubbinautMar 15, 20152 votes

[{quoted}](name=Phantom Panther,realm=EUNE,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=LqgiycwW,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2015-03-15T04:23:14.682+0000)

But what do you mean when you say it's harmful for the flamer ? The flamer releases his anger, and it's over, no more tension, unless another episode of what it triggered it first time happens again . I can't see in what way it can possibly harm the flamer .

I'm referring to it in a larger sense than the mere connection to League of Legends.

If you were to go around your regular life screaming obscenities at everyone that frustrated you, there would be consequences for that. I won't even go into the really harsh stuff (legal suits, criminal charges, etc). The rest is bad enough - being banned from stores, kicked out of bars, basically shunted away from society. How many friends do you think you'd have if you blew up at them every time they did something you didn't like? As someone who's been there let me tell you, it's not many.

League doesn't have those kinds of internal consequences. Instead, they enforce external consequences. Which is an unfortunate necessity.

And there's more besides that! Think on this: RandomGuy dies a few times due to some poor play. FlamerGuy gets pissed about it and starts bashing him. So what happens with RandomGuyA? Well, most commonly, he plays worse than before - further tanking FlamerGuy's chances of winning. By reacting in a decidedly anti-social manner, FlamerGuy has actually ensured the very situation he was angry about. This is actually really common with poor anger management techniques. They tend to exacerbate the very situations that cause them - creating a vicious cycle of negative actions and negative repercussions that's hell to get out of.

It's just... it's bad. And the worst part is that, in that "example?" Odds are good that RandomGuy went on to flame at some other random player in his next few games - so not only is FlamerGuy trapped in a cycle of rage, he's dragging other people down with him.

Well people should be taught how not to get so emotionally involved in some words typed by a random anonymous stranger on the internet in the first place . Shouldn't they ?

I don't disagree with that. However, I also believe that as many of those random, anonymous strangers as possible should be taught how not to be douchewads to each other. Because it's not okay to treat other people that way, regardless of how affected by it they are.

I don't care if some dude walks up to me and tells me I'm retarded, either in real life or in League. But that doesn't make doing stuff like that acceptable.

Either I'm a psychopath or being emotionally harmed by a LoL player seems utterly exaggerated.

Or you've never been upset by something someone else did or said in League. In which case, this whole debate is rather a moot point for you.

Flaming is basically a bunch of words considered bad by society standards thrown in a small chat box by some random anonymous guy that has no idea of who you are . How can you be affected by something like that ?

I dunno, you tell me. After all:

[{quoted}](name=Phantom Panther,realm=EUNE,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=LqgiycwW,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2015-03-15T04:23:14.682+0000)

I do have sort of an idea about what you're thinking when you say it is harmful for the victim.

WESTFALLMar 15, 20152 votes

Okay, i'm gonna take this step by step .

" If you were to go around your regular life screaming obscenities at everyone that frustrated you, there would be consequences for that. "

There are already people doing that, they are called mentally ill people, and you know what people do when they see them ? They ignore them, that's the same thing LoL players should do when someone suddenly starts flaming them for no actual reason .

"I won't even go into the really harsh stuff (legal suits, criminal charges, etc). The rest is bad enough - being banned from stores, kicked out of bars, basically shunted away from society. How many friends do you think you'd have if you blew up at them every time they did something you didn't like? As someone who's been there let me tell you, it's not many. "

You kinda exaggerate things here, first of all, doing anything to get banned from stores, kicked out of bars etc. means you intentionally do something wrong without being provoked, just like mentally ill people would do as i said above. And if you mean doing those things after you get provoked, well you have to do something much worse than what the dude who provoked you in the first place did right ? Otherwise this is not logical, so the one who will probably suffer the consequences is the dude that provoked you, not you who actually retaliated . But flaming is not worse than what people who make you flame in the first place actually do. They make the game harder for you to win . You only insult them, you don't have any physical impact on the game whatsoever.

Oh , and i always mock my friends whenever they do something I don't like lel, if your friends don't do that to you, they are not real friends . A friend is supposed to be someone who you can be real with, so you can basically say things to them without over-processing them .

And there's more besides that! Think on this: RandomGuy dies a few times due to some poor play. FlamerGuy gets pissed about it and starts bashing him. So what happens with RandomGuyA? Well, most commonly, he plays worse than before - further tanking FlamerGuy's chances of winning. By reacting in a decidedly anti-social manner, FlamerGuy has actually ensured the very situation he was angry about. This is actually really common with poor anger management techniques. They tend to exacerbate the very situations that cause them - creating a vicious cycle of negative actions and negative repercussions that's hell to get out of.
It's just... it's bad. And the worst part is that, in that "example?" Odds are good that RandomGuy went on to flame at some other random player in his next few games - so not only is FlamerGuy trapped in a cycle of rage, he's dragging other people down with him.

Ok now let's suppose that flaming is not punishable. RandomGuy dies, FlamerGuy starts bashing him, due to the fact that what FlamerGuy just did is not punishable RandomGuy would just ignore it most probably, or due to the fact that flaming wouldn't be punished, he would release his anger by flaming back, either way he wouldn't play worse than before in any of those 2 cases. People like RandomGuy in your example, only start playing bad because they get angry themselves at FlamerGuy but they don't express this anger, and it makes them perform badly after that , not releasing tension causes that .

FlamerGuy doesn't react in a decidedly anti-social manner, he reacts in a natural manner, now if you consider something natural to be anti-social, then it means that you consider treating someone in a social manner unnatural . You see ?

"I don't disagree with that. However, I also believe that as many of those random, anonymous strangers as possible should be taught how not to be douchewads to each other. Because it's not okay to treat other people that way, regardless of how affected by it they are.
I don't care if some dude walks up to me and tells me I'm retarded, either in real life or in League. But that doesn't make doing stuff like that acceptable."

Well people should accept that when someone flames, he doesn't necessarily say that because he hates the person itself, as a whole, they just hate the person for what they did, just as i can hate a dude in my team at a football game for scoring an own goal because of that, but after the game it's all over .

Flaming in LoL is not something personal, it has never been, and it can't really be, unless you're on a higher scale, like in challenger or at pro level where most players know each other personally also .

In real life no dude would come to you saying you're retarded without you doing anything that affected him, and if he did, as i said many times before, he's mentally deranged and you shouldn't really mind him .

Or you've never been upset by something someone else did or said in League. In which case, this whole debate is rather a moot point for you.

I'm not getting emotionally harmed by LoL players, through what they type in chat, maybe I should have added that. If getting angry about someone who intentionally leaves is considered as an emotional harm, then yes, I can be to a certain degree emotionally harmed by them, but that was because something they've did physically in game not about what they said to me in chat. I didn't really explain myself enough here, either way you should have found that in context that i was referring to what people say to me.

I dunno, you tell me. After all:

Well i just explained above why you think it's harmful for the victim, you think it affects them emotionally, when it shouldn't in fact affect it . The victim plays bad in the first place anyway, implying that the next bad plays it made were caused by the flame is just something that you assume, but you would have no actual proof of that . Or as i said, it could be caused by the tension that the victim doesn't externalizes . And you would say that if the victim would express her anger it would form a chain reaction, but what if the FlamerGuy wouldn't have externalized his expression of anger, he would be the one playing bad, and someone else would flame him. It would be a chain reaction in either way if you think about it

JubbinautMar 15, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Phantom Panther,realm=EUNE,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=LqgiycwW,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2015-03-15T05:37:20.429+0000)

There are already people doing that, they are called mentally ill people, and you know what people do when they see them ? They ignore them, that's the same thing LoL players should do when someone suddenly starts flaming them for no actual reason .

That's... not necessarily accurate. While it's certainly true that some mentally ill people do indeed go around screaming things at people, there needn't be an aspect of frustration for a mentally ill person to do so.

That one little word makes all the difference, because I'm not talking about mentally ill people. I'm talking about that guy who cusses out the cashier for dropping a box on his foot. I'm talking about the lady who spends half an hour cussing out the manager of her childcare facility because her child fell down. I am, in short, talking about perfectly normal people who react with irrationally exaggerated anger at minor provocations.

You kinda exaggerate things here, first of all, doing anything to get banned from stores, kicked out of bars etc. means you intentionally do something wrong without being provoked, just like mentally ill people would do as i said above. And if you mean doing those things after you get provoked, well you have to do something much worse than what the dude who provoked you in the first place did right ?

Not necessarily. If you're at a grocery store, and someone does... anything that leads to you verbally harassing him? They can - and often will - kick you out. Smaller stores will inform you that you're not to return. Keep in mind, I'm speaking from experience. I've seen these things happen, at Walmart. I've had to inform customers that they were banned from the store I work at now, because they started an argument with a guy that bumped into them.

And while I did link together many possibilities into what could easily be considered an exaggerated situation, each of them is easily within the realm of possibility. Hell, I've seen most of them happen.

Otherwise this is not logical, so the one who will probably suffer the consequences is the dude that provoked you, not you who actually retaliated . But flaming is not worse than what people who make you flame in the first place actually do. They make the game harder for you to win . You only insult them, you don't have any physical impact on the game whatsoever.

It needn't be worse. It need only be also bad. And that's exactly the situation in League.

In fact, it's perfectly possible - in both situations - for it to be perfectly innocent things that drive someone to anger. Expressing that anger in an anti-social way is unacceptable behavior in both formats.

Oh , and i always mock my friends whenever they do something I don't like lel, if your friends don't do that to you, they are not real friends . A friend is supposed to be someone who you can be real with, so you can basically say things to them without over-processing them .

Mocking is one thing. Berating and belittling is another thing entirely.

Ok now let's suppose that flaming is not punishable. RandomGuy dies, FlamerGuy starts bashing him, due to the fact that what FlamerGuy just did is not punishable RandomGuy would just ignore it most probably, or due to the fact that flaming wouldn't be punished, he would release his anger by flaming back, either way he wouldn't play worse than before in any of those 2 cases.

Well, no. In your case, he'd just stop playing entirely. It's likely both of them would, because they'd be too busy flaming each other.

People like RandomGuy in your example, only start playing bad because they get angry themselves at FlamerGuy but they don't express this anger, and it makes them perform badly after that , not releasing tension causes that .

I disagree. The flaming itself takes away from the game. If you're busy spraying chat with rage, you aren't playing.

FlamerGuy doesn't react in a decidedly anti-social manner, he reacts in a natural manner, now if you consider something natural to be anti-social, then it means that you consider treating someone in a social manner unnatural . You see ?

Before that argument has any merit, you're going to have to establish that flaming is a natural thing. Anger may be. Expressing anger may be. But my entire argument is that that behavior is neither natural, nor healthy.

Well people should accept that when someone flames, he doesn't necessarily say that because he hates the person itself, as a whole, they just hate the person for what they did, just as i can hate a dude in my team at a football game for scoring an own goal because of that, but after the game it's all over .

Flaming in LoL is not something personal, it has never been, and it can't really be, unless you're on a higher scale, like in challenger or at pro level where most players know each other personally also .

It doesn't really matter whether it's personal or not - it's still unacceptable.

In real life no dude would come to you saying you're retarded without you doing anything that affected him, and if he did, as i said many times before, he's mentally deranged and you shouldn't really mind him .

I can't tell if you're kidding or not at this point. I've had plenty of people that I've never spoken to insult me. I was bullied for most of my life, and I still have people - perfectly normal people who live perfectly normal lives - insult me as I pass by. Either you live in a very strange place, or you have a very strange view of "derangement."

I'm not getting emotionally harmed by LoL players, through what they type in chat, maybe I should have added that. If getting angry about someone who intentionally leaves is considered as an emotional harm, then yes, I can be to a certain degree emotionally harmed by them, but that was because something they've did physically in game not about what they said to me in chat. I didn't really explain myself enough here, either way you should have found that in context that i was referring to what people say to me.

So, it's rational to be emotionally harmed by things people may not (and most often do not) have control over, but irrational that people may be emotionally harmed by someone intentionally harassing and berating them? I really don't think that argument flies.

And you would say that if the victim would express her anger it would form a chain reaction, but what if the FlamerGuy wouldn't have externalized his expression of anger, he would be the one playing bad, and someone else would flame him. It would be a chain reaction in either way if you think about it

This presumes that flaming is the only possible form of emotional expression. Which simply isn't true. There are plenty of perfectly healthy ways to express anger, that are actually more effective in this case because they don't create the same kinds of situations.

WESTFALLMar 15, 20151 votes

"That one little word makes all the difference, because I'm not talking about mentally ill people. I'm talking about that guy who cusses out the cashier for dropping a box on his foot. I'm talking about the lady who spends half an hour cussing out the manager of her childcare facility because her child fell down. I am, in short, talking about perfectly normal people who react with irrationally exaggerated anger at minor provocations."

Telling someone that he's an idiot for feeding his enemy laner doesn't seem an irrationally exaggerated anger. It pretty much seems rational, and not exaggerated at all to be honest .

"Not necessarily. If you're at a grocery store, and someone does... anything that leads to you verbally harassing him? They can - and often will - kick you out. Smaller stores will inform you that you're not to return. Keep in mind, I'm speaking from experience. I've seen these things happen, at Walmart. I've had to inform customers that they were banned from the store I work at now, because they started an argument with a guy that bumped into them. "
"And while I did link together many possibilities into what could easily be considered an exaggerated situation, each of them is easily within the realm of possibility. Hell, I've seen most of them happen."

So if someone harms you physically in a store, in any way, and you verbally insult them, you will be the one kicked out and banned from the store? That doesn't sound right mate. Because it's not true.

It needn't be worse. It need only be also bad. And that's exactly the situation in League.
In fact, it's perfectly possible - in both situations - for it to be perfectly innocent things that drive someone to anger. Expressing that anger in an anti-social way is unacceptable behavior in both formats.

It does need to be worse. You will never be punished IRL at least if someone harms you physically and you retaliate verbally. I just gave an example in some other discussion on how if someone scratches my car unintentionally with his keys and i call him a dickhead i wouldn't be the one that can face charges, he could be the one that faces charges because he physically harmed me if i chose to call the police.

Now the police won't come and give him a fine, and then say, oh but you also called him an idiot because he scratched your car, here you'll also get fined. That will never ever happen, no matter how much you people would like to exaggerate it .

Mocking is one thing. Berating and belittling is another thing entirely.

I tell my friends that they are retards, i insult them, i basically say anything that i would say to a LoL player if they do something bad to me. It's no difference really. Cause they know that i'd only be mad because what they did and it will be over soon, that's what LoL players fail to comprehend. If someone flames you, they don't mean it literally, if they tell you that you're an idiot, they don't mean you're an idiot in a literal sense, then mean you're an idiot for what you've done.

Well, no. In your case, he'd just stop playing entirely. It's likely both of them would, because they'd be too busy flaming each other.

Exaggeration again. Why would they continue to bash themselves if the tension was already released from both of them, it's illogical. You're implying that they're a bit dumb aren't you ?

I disagree. The flaming itself takes away from the game. If you're busy spraying chat with rage, you aren't playing.

I even got an example in the other thread where a dude said he was playing blitz, and he was getting constantly flamed by his team, he didn't flame, he kept the rage inside him, but at a point he snapped, sold all his items, and bought ad items instead.

It doesn't take too much to type a sentence in the chat, that time you spend typing is insignificant comparing to the heat that would build up inside you if you don't let it go .

I can't tell if you're kidding or not at this point. I've had plenty of people that I've never spoken to insult me. I was bullied for most of my life, and I still have people - perfectly normal people who live perfectly normal lives - insult me as I pass by. Either you live in a very strange place, or you have a very strange view of "derangement."

Yeah, but when you were bullied, did u have an option to mute your bullies, did you have an option to filter the words that came from their mouths. You didn't, LoL do has a defense mechanism against those kind of things.

And to be on point with your argument, people who bully , are in fact deranged to a certain degree , you can consider them mentally ill to a certain degree .Still, it is something entirely different compared to what happens in LoL. Maybe my example was a bit off.

But you can't bully people in LoL. Unless they accept it. Anonymous people can't bully other anonymous people, I explained that, to be bullied you have to feel a certain threat, well that threat is not present in League of Legends, because the other player doesn't know you, he wouldn't be able to physically harm you even if he wants to.

The absence of threat means that bullying can't happen. Get it now ?

So, it's rational to be emotionally harmed by things people may not (and most often do not) have control over, but irrational that people may be emotionally harmed by someone intentionally harassing and berating them? I really don't think that argument flies.

How can u say it's things that people have no control over it ? Don't they control their champions , don't they decide where to go and what to do with them during a game ?

It is irrational to be harmed by something that doesn't affect you physically in any sort of way, yes.

This presumes that flaming is the only possible form of emotional expression. Which simply isn't true. There are plenty of perfectly healthy ways to express anger, that are actually more effective in this case because they don't create the same kinds of situations.

Oh yeah ? Like what ? I honestly want to hear some examples of that .

JubbinautMar 15, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Phantom Panther,realm=EUNE,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=LqgiycwW,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-03-15T18:13:49.074+0000)

Telling someone that he's an idiot for feeding his enemy laner doesn't seem an irrationally exaggerated anger. It pretty much seems rational, and not exaggerated at all to be honest .

Consider the scale - he's failing at what he's trying to do in a meaningless video game. You, however, are specifically and directly trying to insult him. For being in a position that the very functions of the game require (after all, someone has to lose). That - according to the community at large - is escalating, and unacceptable.

So if someone harms you physically in a store, in any way, and you verbally insult them, you will be the one kicked out and banned from the store? That doesn't sound right mate. Because it's not true.

If someone accidentally does something that may bring harm to you, and you respond by screaming obscenities at them, yeah. You'll be asked to leave. You can tell me it's not true, but I've been the guy who had to kick people out for it. I know better.

Now, if someone intentionally does something that brings harm to you, and you respond by screaming obscenities at them, you'll both be asked to leave - your business simply isn't as important as removing your disruption from all the other customers.

It does need to be worse. You will never be punished IRL at least if someone harms you physically and you retaliate verbally. I just gave an example in some other discussion on how if someone scratches my car unintentionally with his keys and i call him a dickhead i wouldn't be the one that can face charges, he could be the one that faces charges because he physically harmed me if i chose to call the police.

A) If all he did was scratch your car, he didn't harm you physically, and the police won't do much more than fill out an incident report (because they got called) and advise you to contact your insurance company - at best. B) If all you did was call him a dickhead, you aren't really in the same kind of position I'm talking about - on the other hand, if you followed him around for an hour insulting him, you can face charges. Because that's harassment.

Now the police won't come and give him a fine, and then say, oh but you also called him an idiot because he scratched your car, here you'll also get fined. That will never ever happen, no matter how much you people would like to exaggerate it .

Well, no. Obviously.

I tell my friends that they are retards, i insult them, i basically say anything that i would say to a LoL player if they do something bad to me. It's no difference really. Cause they know that i'd only be mad because what they did and it will be over soon, that's what LoL players fail to comprehend. If someone flames you, they don't mean it literally, if they tell you that you're an idiot, they don't mean you're an idiot in a literal sense, then mean you're an idiot for what you've done.

Do you realize that what you literally just said was "if they tell you you're an idiot, they don't mean you're an idiot, they mean you're an idiot"?

That is complete nonsense. And I want to note that I deeply appreciate how you completely ignore and dismiss my experiences across the board, but insist that your experiences matter. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Either they're both valid as points in this discussion, or neither of them is.

Exaggeration again. Why would they continue to bash themselves if the tension was already released from both of them, it's illogical. You're implying that they're a bit dumb aren't you ?

No. I'm implying that they're angry. Which, I thought, was the whole premise of your original argument.

I even got an example in the other thread where a dude said he was playing blitz, and he was getting constantly flamed by his team, he didn't flame, he kept the rage inside him, but at a point he snapped, sold all his items, and bought ad items instead.

It doesn't take too much to type a sentence in the chat, that time you spend typing is insignificant comparing to the heat that would build up inside you if you don't let it go .

So pretend he types that sentence. Do you think he magically feels all better? Now he's managed to piss off the other people even more, so they rage harder - which angers him more, so he rages harder. Honestly, you can keep accusing me of exaggerating, but these are things I have personally seen and experienced. They're also pretty well-known concepts in psychology. How the hell do you think arguments in real life grow from random comments into hospitalizing fist-fights?

Yeah, but when you were bullied, did u have an option to mute your bullies, did you have an option to filter the words that came from their mouths. You didn't, LoL do has a defense mechanism against those kind of things.

I had - and used - the option to leave the situation. I also had - and used - the option to report their behavior to the local authorities (school officials), because those behaviors were considered unacceptable to that community.

And to be on point with your argument, people who bully , are in fact deranged to a certain degree , you can consider them mentally ill to a certain degree .Still, it is something entirely different compared to what happens in LoL. Maybe my example was a bit off.

You're going to need to prove that, if you're going to claim it.

The absence of threat means that bullying can't happen. Get it now ?

Except that's not really true. And bullying wasn't really my point, merely a specific aspect of it. You failed entirely to address the other two samples.

So, it's rational to be emotionally harmed by things people may not (and most often do not) have control over, but irrational that people may be emotionally harmed by someone intentionally harassing and berating them? I really don't think that argument flies.

How can u say it's things that people have no control over it ? Don't they control their champions , don't they decide where to go and what to do with them during a game ?

Your specific example was: "If getting angry about someone who intentionally leaves is considered as an emotional harm..." Now, I'm going to pretend that you don't have some incredibly awesome machine that always knows the difference between an intentional leave and an unintentional one - because there's no such thing.

So if you're going to tell me that I have control over when the power at my apartment goes out, or my computer shuts itself off, or my ISP decides to shut my connection off for an hour, I'm afraid you're terribly mistaken.

It is irrational to be harmed by something that doesn't affect you physically in any sort of way, yes.

So, then, it's irrational to be harmed by leavers of any sort, or trolls of any sort in League. After all, they don't affect you physically, either. And since it's irrational to be harmed by them, it's also irrational to respond to it with anger - after all, what do you have to be angry about? They haven't done anything harmful to you, right?

Oh yeah ? Like what ? I honestly want to hear some examples of that .

Really? Okay, sure.

Yell at your monitor - yelling and vocalizing in general have been demonstrated to be particularly effective at calming both physical and emotional pain, as well as their associated emotional reactions. In fact, it's far more effective than typing - and is completely harmless to other players.
Punch a pillow - physical expressions in general have also been demonstrated to be particularly effective at releasing stress and anger. It's important, however, to ensure that what you're using to express in this manner isn't likely to harm or be harmed by you - thus the pillow.
Stress balls - this is literally their entire purpose - pause and squeeze one when you begin feeling frustrated to allow a physical expression of that frustration.
Stretch - anger often includes physical tension - releasing this stress often helps reduce the anger response.
Deep breathing - Similarly, taking slow, deep "belly breaths" can help you to physically relax, which - again - allows that anger to release.

While I'm on this subject, here's an article on anger management - what it means, why it's important, and some methods to help.

And from the American Psychological Association:

"Is It Good To "Let it All Hang Out?"

Psychologists now say that this is a dangerous myth. Some people use this theory as a license to hurt others. Research has found that "letting it rip" with anger actually escalates anger and aggression and does nothing to help you (or the person you're angry with) resolve the situation.

This is the crux of my argument. According to the APA, the very basis of your argument isn't true. Beyond that, it's evident that the way you've conflated anger and flaming is also untrue. Indeed, as I've demonstrated, flaming is neither the only nor even the best method of handling or expressing anger.

All the rest of the stuff above is just window-dressing.

WESTFALLMar 15, 20151 votes

Consider the scale - he's failing at what he's trying to do in a meaningless video game. You, however, are specifically and directly trying to insult him. For being in a position that the very functions of the game require (after all, someone has to lose). That - according to the community at large - is escalating, and unacceptable.

He's failing at something that also affects me. I and i think all of us get mad at ourselves when we fail, it's kind of like the same thing . There are also other ways to release steam, that people who actually fail can also do.

The magic word is sorry . Saying sorry kind of let's other players know that you acknowledge what you did bad and you also don't like it .

But Riot doesn't promote this, they never tell players to say sorry after they fail. They only tell them to report flamers after they get flamed for their fails .

If someone accidentally does something that may bring harm to you, and you respond by screaming obscenities at them, yeah. You'll be asked to leave. You can tell me it's not true, but I've been the guy who had to kick people out for it. I know better.

But that someone who accidentally does something that may bring harm to you, won't stop or make it hard for you to reach your goal . In which case you would probably not care so much about it and not insult him or anything.

Now, if someone intentionally does something that brings harm to you, and you respond by screaming obscenities at them, you'll both be asked to leave - your business simply isn't as important as removing your disruption from all the other customers.

It isn't fair to make them both leave, sincerely . And I don't think it would happen, because when someone would intentionally bring harm to me, i will insult him and then I'd probably tell someone about what happened to me. I don't think they will eventually get back on me and moralize how i shouldn't have insulted him after what he did to me. But Riot does that and it seems irrational.

Getting both of us to leave would be ignorant.

A) If all he did was scratch your car, he didn't harm you physically, and the police won't do much more than fill out an incident report (because they got called) and advise you to contact your insurance company - at best.

If someone destroys or harms material things that belong to you, it means they do harm you by physical means . I don't think you can just go out and scratch someone's care and not get punished for it as you suggest it. To make it more visible, let's assume the car is a Bugatti even though it doesn't really matter what car is , now those scratches would cost loads of money to fix. I don't think they would just fill out an incident report .

B) If all you did was call him a dickhead, you aren't really in the same kind of position I'm talking about - on the other hand, if you followed him around for an hour insulting him, you can face charges. Because that's harassment.

You can't follow people around for an hour insulting them in League of Legends without them being able to do anything about it. They can mute you or apply language filters. And that's not flaming in the usual sense. You're kinda referring to a flame spam there.

Do you realize that what you literally just said was "if they tell you you're an idiot, they don't mean you're an idiot, they mean you're an idiot "?

They mean you're an idiot for what you said. English is not my native language and it's sometimes hard for me to explain certain things. I guess this falls into that category . Let me rephrase that :

** If they tell you that you're an idiot, they don't mean that you're an idiot in the literal sense, they kinda mean you did something an idiot would do** . It's strictly related to the action you performed not to your identity.

That is complete nonsense. And I want to note that I deeply appreciate how you completely ignore and dismiss my experiences across the board, but insist that your experiences matter. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Either they're both valid as points in this discussion, or neither of them is.

In what way did i dismiss your personal experience ? Can you give me an example ? Anyway, i always try to be objective, and i think you can't really consider subjective experiences as facts where there is no evidence of it.

No. I'm implying that they're angry. Which, I thought, was the whole premise of your original argument.

They wouldn't be angry if they already released the tension, the tension is what keeps them angry. So no tension , no anger i guess ...

So pretend he types that sentence. Do you think he magically feels all better? Now he's managed to piss off the other people even more, so they rage harder - which angers him more, so he rages harder. Honestly, you can keep accusing me of exaggerating, but these are things I have personally seen and experienced. They're also pretty well-known concepts in psychology. How the hell do you think arguments in real life grow from random comments into hospitalizing fist-fights?

He will , feel better, he let steam off , because that's basically what flaming is . Hence the word flame .

His teammates have the choice to rage more or ignore him , and he also has that choice to get affected by what they say or just ignore it .

I explained it time by time, people flaming just because someone else flamed them is a choice, you can ignore it, and if you ignore it you can win the game , just as the flames wouldn't have happened at all.

Flaming because someone made it harder for you to win, either intentionally or accidentally , is an externalization of a natural thing that occurs which is anger.

So the chart would be like this :

Normal content player > Anger > Flaming > Steam gets let off > Normal content player

Without flaming it would be like this :

Normal content player > Anger > No externalization of emotions > Tension keeps being built up > Emotionally unstable player

I had - and used - the option to leave the situation. I also had - and used - the option to report their behavior to the local authorities (school officials), because those behaviors were considered unacceptable to that community.

Leaving the situation is just like leaving the game... Reporting someone to the local authorities because they insulted you for doing something that affected them won't get them in any kind of trouble.

You're going to need to prove that, if you're going to claim it.

Of course, here you go, i'll also leave you a link : https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/big-bad-bully

"Bullies, for the most part, are different from you and me. Studies reliably show that they have a distinctive cognitive make-up—a hostile attributional bias, a kind of paranoia. "

Except that's not really true. And bullying wasn't really my point, merely a specific aspect of it. You failed entirely to address the other two samples.

I talk about flaming, you give me an example of you getting bullied, i explain to you that bullying can't actually happen in league of legends and then you tell me that bullying wasn't really your point.

Then you tell me i failed to address the other two samples .

Your specific example was: "If getting angry about someone who intentionally leaves is considered as an emotional harm..." Now, I'm going to pretend that you don't have some incredibly awesome machine that always knows the difference between an intentional leave and an unintentional one - because there's no such thing.

It's simple, you picked the most favorable example to fit your opinion, by thinking you can disprove me with it. But you see, i didn't say someone who leaves , i said someone who intentionally leaves. When someone intentionally leaves they telegraph it, either by saying that they will leave, either threatening before they actually do it. I didn't imply i always know when they do it intentionally or not, i only talked about the instances when it is obvious. It's not like I always get mad when someone leaves, i acknowledge that internet problems might happen, or any other rl problems in general .

So if you're going to tell me that I have control over when the power at my apartment goes out, or my computer shuts itself off, or my ISP decides to shut my connection off for an hour, I'm afraid you're terribly mistaken.

You're out of context hardcore by now .

So, then, it's irrational to be harmed by leavers of any sort, or trolls of any sort in League. After all, they don't affect you physically, either. And since it's irrational to be harmed by them, it's also irrational to respond to it with anger - after all, what do you have to be angry about? They haven't done anything harmful to you, right?

Where did you get this conclusion from ? Seriously, where ? They do affect the game physically , which affects the outcome of it, which affects my MMR/ELO.

So they do affect me physically. That's what gets me angry.

JubbinautMar 15, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Phantom Panther,realm=EUNE,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=LqgiycwW,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-03-15T20:54:09.959+0000)

He's failing at something that also affects me. I and i think all of us get mad at ourselves when we fail, it's kind of like the same thing . There are also other ways to release steam, that people who actually fail can also do.

The magic word is sorry . Saying sorry kind of let's other players know that you acknowledge what you did bad and you also don't like it .

But Riot doesn't promote this, they never tell players to say sorry after they fail. They only tell them to report flamers after they get flamed for their fails .

Here's what I don't understand. Why is it his responsibility to preempt your behavior? Why is it his responsibility to apologize - otherwise you get to flame him freely? Why aren't you held responsible for your behavior?

But that someone who accidentally does something that may bring harm to you, won't stop or make it hard for you to reach your goal . In which case you would probably not care so much about it and not insult him or anything.

Except that's not commonly the case. I can't tell you the number of times I've been insulted - or seen people insulted - for nothing more than bumping into someone next to me/them. But I imagine you'll dismiss that as "derangement," or tell me it never happens.

It isn't fair to make them both leave, sincerely . And I don't think it would happen, because when someone would intentionally bring harm to me, i will insult him and then I'd probably tell someone about what happened to me. I don't think they will eventually get back on me and moralize how i shouldn't have insulted him after what he did to me. But Riot does that and it seems irrational.

Getting both of us to leave would be ignorant.

Again - I don't care if you think it would happen or not. It does and has. As I've said more than once, I've been a part of situations like this. I've worked retail for almost a decade and a half. When I'm talking about store policies and company policies, I'm not creating imaginary things that fit my world-view. I'm telling you things I've seen and done.

If someone destroys or harms material things that belong to you, it means they do harm you by physical means . I don't think you can just go out and scratch someone's care and not get punished for it as you suggest it. To make it more visible, let's assume the car is a Bugatti even though it doesn't really matter what car is , now those scratches would cost loads of money to fix. I don't think they would just fill out an incident report .

They harm physically harm your things. They do not physically harm you. Harm to your things may cause emotional harm, but that's a different discussion.

You can't follow people around for an hour insulting them in League of Legends without them being able to do anything about it. They can mute you or apply language filters. And that's not flaming in the usual sense. You're kinda referring to a flame spam there.

I'm referring to harassment and verbal abuse. You're right that there is a tool to reduce the harm done by such behaviors, but that should never be an excuse to allow those behaviors.

Another poster used a pretty solid metaphor for this - if you stab me, I can go to the hospital to have it treated, thus minimizing the harm you've actually done. But my access to healthcare should in no way excuse the fact that you stabbed me in the first place.

In the same sense, if you flame at me, I can certainly mute you, and thus minimize the harm you cause me. But my ability to mute you should in no way excuse the fact that you flamed at me in the first place.

In what way did i dismiss your personal experience ? Can you give me an example ? Anyway, i always try to be objective, and i think you can't really consider subjective experiences as facts where there is no evidence of it.

I certainly can give you examples. The italics is my quote (with bolding for emphasis). What follows was your response (again, with bolding for emphasis).

"Not necessarily. If you're at a grocery store, and someone does... anything that leads to you verbally harassing him? They can - and often will - kick you out. Smaller stores will inform you that you're not to return. Keep in mind, I'm speaking from experience. I've seen these things happen, at Walmart. I've had to inform customers that they were banned from the store I work at now, because they started an argument with a guy that bumped into them. "

So if someone harms you physically in a store, in any way, and you verbally insult them, you will be the one kicked out and banned from the store? That doesn't sound right mate. Because it's not true.

To summarize that: in response to me informing you that I have actually seen the responses I'm discussing, as well as actually taking part in those responses, you flatly state that it's not true. If that's not dismissive, it's certainly calling me a liar, which - in my opinion - is worse.

Or this one: The italics is from me (with bolding for emphasis). What follows is from you, along that conversational line (again, bolding for emphasis).

How many friends do you think you'd have if you blew up at them every time they did something you didn't like? As someone who's been there let me tell you, it's not many.

I tell my friends that they are retards, i insult them, i basically say anything that i would say to a LoL player if they do something bad to me. It's no difference really. Cause they know that i'd only be mad because what they did and it will be over soon...

Again, completely dismissing my experiences, in favor of your own. It's understandable, but let's keep it straight: Either both of our experiences are valid points, or neither of them are.

He will , feel better, he let steam off , because that's basically what flaming is . Hence the word flame .

Except that's not the usual case. To return to that APA quote I offered: "Research has found that "letting it rip" with anger actually escalates anger and aggression and does nothing to help you (or the person you're angry with) resolve the situation." In other words, it tends to NOT reduce anger, but escalate it.

Flaming because someone made it harder for you to win, either intentionally or accidentally , is an externalization of a natural thing that occurs which is anger.

So the chart would be like this :

Normal content player > Anger > Flaming > Steam gets let off > Normal content player

Without flaming it would be like this :

Normal content player > Anger > No externalization of emotions > Tension keeps being built up > Emotionally unstable player

Forgetting the fact that you still haven't managed to demonstrate that flaming actually reduces anger (which is contradicted by the APA), you're still operating under the assumption that flaming is the only method of externalizing anger. I think I've clearly shown that to be false.

Of course, here you go, i'll also leave you a link : https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/big-bad-bully

"Bullies, for the most part, are different from you and me. Studies reliably show that they have a distinctive cognitive make-up—a hostile attributional bias, a kind of paranoia. "

A different cognitive make-up does not a derangement make. If it did, we'd all be deranged, and the word would have no meaning.

I talk about flaming, you give me an example of you getting bullied, i explain to you that bullying can't actually happen in league of legends and then you tell me that bullying wasn't really your point.

Then you tell me i failed to address the other two samples .

To be clear, the full quote of what I said regarding being bullied was this (again, bold for emphasis): "I've had plenty of people that I've never spoken to insult me. I was bullied for most of my life, and I still have people - perfectly normal people who live perfectly normal lives - insult me as I pass by."

Of the three things I spoke about there, I refer to bullying once. You chose to focus on that one aspect, which was tangential to the overall point.

It's simple, you picked the most favorable example to fit your opinion, by thinking you can disprove me with it. But you see, i didn't say someone who leaves , i said someone who intentionally leaves. When someone intentionally leaves they telegraph it, either by saying that they will leave, either threatening before they actually do it. I didn't imply i always know when they do it intentionally or not, i only talked about the instances when it is obvious. It's not like I always get mad when someone leaves, i acknowledge that internet problems might happen, or any other rl problems in general .

Where did you get this conclusion from ? Seriously, where ? They do affect the game physically , which affects the outcome of it, which affects my MMR/ELO.

So they do affect me physically. That's what gets me angry.

You're talking about imaginary things. It's a digital game, composed of strings of 1s and 0s. Your rating is an artificially generated number that has no connection to anything else. Not only are none of these things physical, in a very true sense, they aren't even real. They're make-pretend, a mutual delusion we - the members of this community - share.

By no means does that invalidate our emotional investment - in fact, the only thing real about it, in fact, is our emotional investment in it. But to claim that someone who makes mistakes that cost you a game (a game that, by its very nature, you will lose about 50% of the time) is harming you physically is disingenuous.

WESTFALLMar 15, 20151 votes

Here's what I don't understand. Why is it his responsibility to preempt your behavior? Why is it his responsibility to apologize - otherwise you get to flame him freely? Why aren't you held responsible for your behavior?

It's his responsibility because he was the one failing in the first place.

What ? Are you implying that it isn't your fault when you fail ?

Okay, now that you agree with me, aren't you supposed to say sorry when you fail ? Is someone else supposed to say it for you ? Do everyone else has to pretend that they don't care about what you just did just so you won't report them ?

Cause when you fail, you kinda get the power you see ? You become the shepherd . Any sheep in the flock dares to say something ? You report them, they will be punished. You create tension when you fail, and the bigger the fail the bigger the tension. A tension that other players are not allowed to release.

It is not right that you should get power when you do so .

Except that's not commonly the case. I can't tell you the number of times I've been insulted - or seen people insulted - for nothing more than bumping into someone next to me/them. But I imagine you'll dismiss that as "derangement," or tell me it never happens.

And did you get affected by it ? Did you walk around all day thinking about how that random asshole insulted you ? I guess not .

Those things can happen, but they have little if any impact at all on the other person.

Again - I don't care if you think it would happen or not. It does and has. As I've said more than once, I've been a part of situations like this. I've worked retail for almost a decade and a half. When I'm talking about store policies and company policies, I'm not creating imaginary things that fit my world-view. I'm telling you things I've seen and done.

But do you find it rational ? Do you consider it to be the right thing?

Cause I don't, at all . If someone intentionally produced a harm to you and you insulted them for that, you shouldn't be thrown in the same pot as him .

Your reaction was natural, getting angry was natural in this situation. Him intentionally producing a harm to you out of a sudden is irrational and unnatural.

They harm physically harm your things. They do not physically harm you. Harm to your things may cause emotional harm, but that's a different discussion.

When they physically harm your things , they produce material damage to you. You can't say that if you set my home on fire it would be an emotional harm, it may also produce emotional harm but in essence it is a physical harm. Doing damage to someone's belongings is still physical harm mate.

I'm referring to harassment and verbal abuse. You're right that there is a tool to reduce the harm done by such behaviors, but that should never be an excuse to allow those behaviors.

There isn't only one, there are 2 actually . And by the right use of them you can protect yourself from flaming 100% every single time . Players chose not to do it. Why ? Can you explain ? Want me to explain ? I already told u an excuse on why it should be allowed. And it's a perfectly valid one .

Another poster used a pretty solid metaphor for this - if you stab me, I can go to the hospital to have it treated, thus minimizing the harm you've actually done. But my access to healthcare should in no way excuse the fact that you stabbed me in the first place.

The stab produces physical effects, flaming doesn't , insults don't. I can't ignore the fact that someone is stabbing me because it will still cause repercussions . I have no choice in this situation.

If you flame someone, they have the choice to ignore you. People think that if you flame someone, they immediately get angry, naah, they have the choice, to ignore, or to reduce their chances of winning intentionally . And doing the latter one is highly irrational .

In the same sense, if you flame at me, I can certainly mute you, and thus minimize the harm you cause me. But my ability to mute you should in no way excuse the fact that you flamed at me in the first place.

That's so egotistical. If you know that flaming harms you, and that you can reduce the chances of you getting flamed by applying safety measures, why wouldn't you do it ? Only so you can complain that you got flamed ? Only so you can report people ? Do you feel a certain power when reporting people ? Do you feel pride ? You feel that you did something good ?

This... harm that you people say flaming produces, is not something real, it's something that your egos create. Because it doesn't really affect you, but by saying it does, you receive power, the power over others , the power to report and punish people .

I certainly can give you examples. The italics is my quote (with bolding for emphasis). What follows was your response (again, with bolding for emphasis).

Well you were talking about people doing anything. And i kind of asked if your story would happen even if they physically harm you . Because u used the word anything . And after that i said that it wouldn't feel right in this circumstance. I still don't think that would happen, you kind of exaggerated your claims when you used the word anything .

Or this one: The italics is from me (with bolding for emphasis). What follows is from you, along that conversational line (again, bolding for emphasis).

Again, completely dismissing my experiences, in favor of your own. It's understandable, but let's keep it straight: Either both of our experiences are valid points, or neither of them are.

Well, you, saying people wouldn't have many friends if they insult them when they do anything bad, is just vague . Just because it happened to you, doesn't mean it usually happens, because it doesn't. You're trying to tell me that people will stop being friends due to a couple of insults ? Maybe it was something exceptional in your case, maybe you exaggerated with the insults, or maybe your friends did and you stopped being friends with them.

When I now say that it doesn't usually happen like you described it, I don't dismiss it on my personal subjective reality, i'm dismissing it by comparing it to what happens normally. And if you ask any other person if they stopped being friends with someone due to a couple of insults, the most prominent response you'll get is no. Because that's what friends usually do, they insult each other without any of them taking it literally .

The fact that my case is closer to normality than yours, doesn't mean i dismiss yours based on mine. Cause i dismiss it based the on average results in a way. I'm saying that it doesn't usually happen like you say it does . But just that it doesn't usually happen like you say it does , does not mean that you lied, or that you're a liar and i don't believe what you say. I just say that it won't usually happen as you describe it .

Except that's not the usual case. To return to that APA quote I offered: "Research has found that "letting it rip" with anger actually escalates anger and aggression and does nothing to help you (or the person you're angry with) resolve the situation." In other words, it tends to NOT reduce anger, but escalate it.

How can it escalate the anger (which is basically provoked by the tension you get) when you let go off that tension ? It doesn't seem logical . It's like having a bunch of wood sticks, and instead of setting fire of one at a time and letting it go, you keep adding and adding and adding wood sticks till you get a whole bunch of them and only then set them on fire. Will the fire be bigger when you set them on fire before you throw them or when you set them on fire after you threw them all in one place ?

Tell me . Based on my comparison . Without minding what the APA said . Which one would cause a bigger fire ? Doesn't it seem all logical and rational ?

Exactly, this study doesn't seem to actually say the truth. You have to understand that they are supposed to protect people from unsocial behavior . They can't basically tell everyone that it's okay to let your anger go sometimes, because they are an authority, they are the APA . And if the APA tells people that it's okay and normal to let steam off , everyone would probably do it , because they have an authority backing them up. But in real life that would have harsh repercussions , unlike in League of Legends .

Forgetting the fact that you still haven't managed to demonstrate that flaming actually reduces anger (which is contradicted by the APA), you're still operating under the assumption that flaming is the only method of externalizing anger. I think I've clearly shown that to be false.

I will wait for an answer to my above question to respond to this . Anyway you've seemed to quite ignore my chart nicely there. Wanna say that my chart is wrong ?

A different cognitive make-up does not a derangement make. If it did, we'd all be deranged, and the word would have no meaning.

Give me a break now would you ? I just proved to you that bullies are pretty close to what mentally ill people are. Thus why i was saying that they can be considered mentally deranged to a certain degree. I didn't freaking said that they are the same thing as mentally ill people.

To be clear, the full quote of what I said regarding being bullied was this (again, bold for emphasis): "I've had plenty of people that I've never spoken to insult me. I was bullied for most of my life, and I still have people - perfectly normal people who live perfectly normal lives - insult me as I pass by."

But that kind of implies that they saw you, that they know your identity to a certain degree, and that's why you got affected by it, in league of legends you're pretty much anonymous . Why would you get affected by it ? You're not threatened by anything like if they would have saw you in real life.

JubbinautMar 16, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Phantom Panther,realm=EUNE,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=LqgiycwW,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-03-15T23:51:38.952+0000)

Okay, now that you agree with me, aren't you supposed to say sorry when you fail ? Is someone else supposed to say it for you ? Do everyone else has to pretend that they don't care about what you just did just so you won't report them ?

You are now arguing that because it's rude to not apologize when you make a mistake, it's acceptable for you to be rude in return. You are, in essence, attempting to make the case that two wrongs makes a right.

The actions of others are never an excuse for your own actions.

Cause when you fail, you kinda get the power you see ? You become the shepherd . Any sheep in the flock dares to say something ? You report them, they will be punished. You create tension when you fail, and the bigger the fail the bigger the tension. A tension that other players are not allowed to release.

This is premised on a Black-or-white fallacy

And did you get affected by it ? Did you walk around all day thinking about how that random asshole insulted you ? I guess not .

Whether I did or not is entirely irrelevant to the point that such behavior is not considered to be acceptable.

But do you find it rational ? Do you consider it to be the right thing?

Your reaction was natural, getting angry was natural in this situation. Him intentionally producing a harm to you out of a sudden is irrational and unnatural.

Getting angry was natural. Responding to that anger in such a way was not. And if I have reason to believe that it would disrupt other customers? Yes, I think it's rational. You're looking at the wrong viewpoint. Specifically, in that situation, my concern was protecting all of my other customers from that one person's disruption.

When they physically harm your things , they produce material damage to you. You can't say that if you set my home on fire it would be an emotional harm, it may also produce emotional harm but in essence it is a physical harm. Doing damage to someone's belongings is still physical harm mate.

You are not your stuff. I don't know how else to address this. You are not your stuff.

I do not expect it to cause physical harm, as that's defined thusly: "The term "physical harm" as used in the Act and this part means any physical injury to the body, including an injury that caused, either temporarily or permanently, partial or total physical disability, incapacity or disfigurement. In no event shall physical harm include mental pain, anguish, or suffering, or fear of injury."

There isn't only one, there are 2 actually . And by the right use of them you can protect yourself from flaming 100% every single time . Players chose not to do it. Why ? Can you explain ? Want me to explain ?

Personally, I choose to avoid preemptive muting because I find communicating with my team more effective when we can see each other's chat. I don't know of another form of protection that's considered acceptable by community standards. Feel free to enlighten me.

The stab produces physical effects, flaming doesn't , insults don't. I can't ignore the fact that someone is stabbing me because it will still cause repercussions . I have no choice in this situation.

Thank you for pin-pointing the one difference between the two situations. Now, would you mind trying to explain how that changes the actual point I'm making?

If you flame someone, they have the choice to ignore you. People think that if you flame someone, they immediately get angry, naah, they have the choice, to ignore, or to reduce their chances of winning intentionally . And doing the latter one is highly irrational .

So why would you make the decision to be angry?

That's so egotistical. If you know that flaming harms you, and that you can reduce the chances of you getting flamed by applying safety measures, why wouldn't you do it ? Only so you can complain that you got flamed ? Only so you can report people ? Do you feel a certain power when reporting people ? Do you feel pride ? You feel that you did something good ?

I spoke above about my reasons for not preemptively muting. I can't speak for the rest of the community, but I would assume they would tend to agree.

This... harm that you people say flaming produces, is not something real, it's something that your egos create. Because it doesn't really affect you, but by saying it does, you receive power, the power over others , the power to report and punish people .

I don't think you get to make this argument. You're claiming that they shouldn't be upset about things that aren't real, while at the same time claiming that you should get to be upset about things that aren't real.

Well you were talking about people doing anything. And i kind of asked if your story would happen even if they physically harm you . Because u used the word anything . And after that i said that it wouldn't feel right in this circumstance. I still don't think that would happen, you kind of exaggerated your claims when you used the word anything .

Fallacy of Ambiguity. In addition to the word "anything", I also used the word "can" - meaning, quite simply, that it's a possibility.

Well, you, saying people wouldn't have many friends if they insult them when they do anything bad, is just vague . Just because it happened to you, doesn't mean it usually happens, because it doesn't. You're trying to tell me that people will stop being friends due to a couple of insults ? Maybe it was something exceptional in your case, maybe you exaggerated with the insults, or maybe your friends did and you stopped being friends with them.

Let me try again: "How many friends do you think you'd have if you blew up at them every time they did something you didn't like?"

I get the impression you aren't reading all of what I'm saying so that you can cherry-pick arguments against it. Please recognize that I am trying very hard to ensure sufficient context in my statements - if you don't see such context, feel free to ask for clarification.

"A couple insults" doesn't really qualify as "blowing up" at them, does it?

How can it escalate the anger (which is basically provoked by the tension you get) when you let go off that tension ? It doesn't seem logical . It's like having a bunch of wood sticks, and instead of setting fire of one at a time and letting it go, you keep adding and adding and adding wood sticks till you get a whole bunch of them and only then set them on fire. Will the fire be bigger when you set them on fire before you throw them or when you set them on fire after you threw them all in one place ?

Fallacy of Personal Incredulity.

Additionally, I have no idea how to even begin approaching this metaphor, because I don't see how it actually relates.

I will wait for an answer to my above question to respond to this . Anyway you've seemed to quite ignore my chart nicely there. Wanna say that my chart is wrong ?

I didn't ignore your chart. I addressed the problems behind the chart.

You still bear the burden of proof, here: for your chart to be accurate, you must first demonstrate that flaming acts to reduce anger. You must then, also, demonstrate that flaming is either the best or the only method of expressing anger.

Since - so far - you have not done so, the chart is irrelevant.

Give me a break now would you ? I just proved to you that bullies are pretty close to what mentally ill people are. Thus why i was saying that they can be considered mentally deranged to a certain degree. I didn't freaking said that they are the same thing as mentally ill people.

No. You proved to me that bullies have a distinctive cognitive make-up, and are prone to certain types of biases. I countered by indicating that everyone has different cognitive make-ups, and are prone to certain types of biases.

So in that sense, bullies fit within the norms. You've also been conflating derangement with behavioral disorders, which isn't really accurate, either.

But that kind of implies that they saw you, that they know your identity to a certain degree, and that's why you got affected by it, in league of legends you're pretty much anonymous .

So my face is me, but my account isn't? My MMR is connected to my account - which isn't me. So things that affect my MMR don't really affect me personally, but rather my account - which is a digital construct that's not even actually owned by me.

So why, then, should I be bothered by changes to my MMR?

Why would you get affected by it ? You're not threatened by anything like if they would have saw you in real life.

We aren't talking about threats, we're talking about personal insults. Notice how I didn't say that I was threatened? So why are you trying to shift things to that?

WESTFALLMar 16, 20151 votes

I wanted to go to sleep now but it seems like you don't understand anything .

You are now arguing that because it's rude to not apologize when you make a mistake, it's acceptable for you to be rude in return. You are, in essence, attempting to make the case that two wrongs makes a right.

That wasn't my point at all .

I'm not "rude" because he's not apologizing . I'm "rude" because i let go off the tension that he created in the first place. And I explained so many goddamn times the reasons i and other people flame. Why are you putting words in my mouth ?

The fact that people can in fact say sorry would release some of that tension by default . Without me having to do anything .

The reason behind the anger doesn't have to do anything with his choice to say sorry or not .Because the anger still builds up , him apologizing only has to do with the need to let go off the tension .

The actions of others are never an excuse for your own actions.

Well but this logic it means that you agree that someone flaming you is not an excuse for you to get upset .

But getting angry is not an action that you chose to do. It's something natural .

This is premised on a Black-or-white fallacy

Black or white fallacy you say. That means , I presented two alternative states that are the only possibilities , when in fact more possibilities exist .

Tell me my two alternatives that i presented in that situation .

Now please present me the other possibilities that exist .

Whether I did or not is entirely irrelevant to the point that such behavior is not considered to be acceptable.

Why do you think it is not relevant ? If something doesn't actually affect you , why would you consider punishing it ?

Getting angry was natural. Responding to that anger in such a way was not. And if I have reason to believe that it would disrupt other customers? Yes, I think it's rational. You're looking at the wrong viewpoint. Specifically, in that situation, my concern was protecting all of my other customers from that one person's disruption.

You're looking from the perspective in which you're the owner of the store and you can take actions based on what you think it's right or wrong. And in this scenario you highly believe that people who physically harm others are just as dangerous as people who verbally insult others which is pretty much bullshit .

You're looking at it from a subjective point of view, not from an objective one. From your subjective point of view you don't really care if something is fair or not because it's your goddamn store.

But Riot should care about fairness .

You are not your stuff. I don't know how else to address this. You are not your stuff.

But your belongings do have a role in your identity, in making you who you are. So they are in fact part of you. As i gave a perfect example with the house. You could also say that the house is not me, that you didn't harm me physically, but you did, that house was part of my identity .

The word "physical" doesn't only refer to the body, it also refers to everything that can be observed through our senses, everything concrete .

Personally, I choose to avoid preemptive muting because I find communicating with my team more effective when we can see each other's chat. I don't know of another form of protection that's considered acceptable by community standards. Feel free to enlighten me.

Language filter, is the other form of protection , which would suit your needs even better. You will still see the relevant, and the bad words would get filtered so you won't see them .

Thank you for pin-pointing the one difference between the two situations. Now, would you mind trying to explain how that changes the actual point I'm making?

The point is that you can ignore insults and flames, you can't ignore someone stabbing you basically . I guess it't not really my fault for you not getting the point. Because it was pretty clear .

So why would you make the decision to be angry?

Getting angry is not a decision . Getting angry happens without your consent .

People who get flamed do not get angry if they chose not to ignore the one who flamed them . Because you can't suddenly become angry by wanting to . Refusing to ignore someone is a decision you take, you can't get yourself angry on purpose.

Try that, see if it works .

People who bother with flames , start letting their ego dictate what they do . And that's not anger, that's pure self-centredness .

I spoke above about my reasons for not preemptively muting. I can't speak for the rest of the community, but I would assume they would tend to agree.

You only said how you wouldn't preemptively mute someone. But you can still apply language filters as i said above . And that would solve your problems .

I don't think you get to make this argument. You're claiming that they shouldn't be upset about things that aren't real, while at the same time claiming that you should get to be upset about things that aren't real.

You going afk in my game, IS REAL and it affects me PHYSICALLY !!!!!!!

I bloody lose elo because of you. Something concrete, visible is bloody happening !

Me flaming you doesn't affect you PHYSICALLY !!!!!!!

I don't reduce your chances of winning the goddamn game. If you perform bad after that it's simply because you chose not to ignore me, and doesn't have anything to do with what i said to you !!

Is it so freaking hard to get this into your head where everything seems perfect and in place?

What the hell doesn't seem real to you ?

Fallacy of Ambiguity. In addition to the word "anything", I also used the word "can" - meaning, quite simply, that it's a possibility.

Okay, now you really let me show you how you contradict yourself :

"Not necessarily. If you're at a grocery store, and someone does... anything that leads to you verbally harassing him? They can - and often will - kick you out.

In addition to the word "anything", I also used the word "can"

When you used can you used it to point a possibility that "they would kick you out"!

It doesn't have anything to do with the way you used the word anything .

Please stop embarrassing yourself .

Let me try again: "How many friends do you think you'd have if you blew up at them every time they did something you didn't like?"

I get the impression you aren't reading all of what I'm saying so that you can cherry-pick arguments against it. Please recognize that I am trying very hard to ensure sufficient context in my statements - if you don't see such context, feel free to ask for clarification.

"A couple insults" doesn't really qualify as "blowing up" at them, does it?

Well then why the f*ck are you talking about blowing up ? Because as you said, a couple of insults don't qualify as blowing up. And that's what i was talking about in the first place, insults, flames ...

Fallacy of Personal Incredulity.

Dude , how the actual f*ck do you come up with those fallacies. Because they don't have any actual relation to what I'm saying. I can basically throw this fallacy over all you basically said telling you that you just don't understand it .

Additionally, I have no idea how to even begin approaching this metaphor, because I don't see how it actually relates.

What don't you understand from it ?

I didn't ignore your chart. I addressed the problems behind the chart.

You still bear the burden of proof, here: for your chart to be accurate, you must first demonstrate that flaming acts to reduce anger. You must then, also, demonstrate that flaming is either the best or the only method of expressing anger.

Since - so far - you have not done so, the chart is irrelevant.

Well most people can accept that flaming acts reduce anger, cause it's an externalization of it and when you externalize a feeling you basically let go of it .

I kinda explained in a logical way why it is the best way of expressing it . Just because something logic wasn't followed by research doesn't mean you can't assume it isn't true .

Just like if you'd look at your clock and see that it' says 11:11 , you'd assume that in 9 minutes it would show 11:20 without doing any research about it, without checking if it's calibrated , without checking the battery etc .

No. You proved to me that bullies have a distinctive cognitive make-up, and are prone to certain types of biases. I countered by indicating that everyone has different cognitive make-ups, and are prone to certain types of biases.

So in that sense, bullies fit within the norms. You've also been conflating derangement with behavioral disorders, which isn't really accurate, either.

The study said, and i type exactly " Bullies, for the most part, are different from you and me " Implying their cognitive make-up is distinctive of that of a normal person , hence the comparison ** you and me *** .

So my face is me, but my account isn't? My MMR is connected to my account - which isn't me. So things that affect my MMR don't really affect me personally, but rather my account - which is a digital construct that's not even actually owned by me.

Your identity is not the same thing as your account . Your account is part of your identity , but it's a part of your identity that remains anonymous . We don't really know who's account it is unless we know the person behind it .

So why, then, should I be bothered by changes to my MMR?

Your MMR can also be considered part of your identity, changes to it are physical and can affect you .

You seem to revolve around that same stupid idea that whatever it is in the digital world is not something that affects you physically .

Well the money on your visa card. Is something not physical by your standards ? They don't actually exist ? And they can't affect you physically ?

That's what i thought so, good boy, now stop embarrassing yourself in front of other readers of this thread .

JubbinautMar 16, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Phantom Panther,realm=EUNE,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=LqgiycwW,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-03-16T03:42:24.424+0000)

That wasn't my point at all .

I'm not "rude" because he's not apologizing . I'm "rude" because i let go off the tension that he created in the first place. And I explained so many goddamn times the reasons i and other people flame. Why are you putting words in my mouth ?

So you're blaming other people for your actions, then?

You're outright stating that your actions are the only "rational" response to those of other people - and therefore, they should be responsible for those actions. And that's nonsense.

Well but this logic it means that you agree that someone flaming you is not an excuse for you to get upset .

You're conflating emotion with action.

Being angry or upset is not an action - it's not so much a thing you do as a thing that happens. On the other hand, flaming someone is an action. It is a willful decision that you make.

As such, it is valid to say that the actions of others do not excuse flaming; but it is not valid to say that the actions of others do not excuse being upset.

Black or white fallacy you say. That means , I presented two alternative states that are the only possibilities , when in fact more possibilities exist .

I stated that it was premised on a black-or-white fallacy. By this, I mean that the core of the argument hinges on that fallacy, rather than the fallacy being explicitly stated in the argument.

That being said, here are the basic alternatives your argument assumes: If a player fails at something, the other players have only the following two options:

A) Flame him and risk reports, or B) Don't flame him and suppress their anger.

Alternatives would include any other method of expressing that emotion that doesn't involve verbally abusing the player who made the mistake. They would also include discussing the problem with the player in a clear-headed way to resolve the situation.

They might also include avoiding the anger in the first place.

Why do you think it is not relevant ? If something doesn't actually affect you , why would you consider punishing it ?

Because whether or not it affects me has nothing to do with whether or not it may affect other people. And society at large has decided that they don't appreciate that kind of behavior - it's not considered acceptable.

But Riot should care about fairness .

Riot should care about what's best for their business. Just like the store owner. From an objective point of view, it's important to recognize that - again - the negative actions of one person never excuse the negative actions of another.

The word "physical" doesn't only refer to the body, it also refers to everything that can be observed through our senses, everything concrete .

Legally speaking, it does only refer to the body.

Language filter, is the other form of protection , which would suit your needs even better. You will still see the relevant, and the bad words would get filtered so you won't see them .

For this to be accurate, it must be impossible to insult people without using words that would be caught by the filter. As the filter focuses specifically on profanity and specific types of hate speech, it is fully possible to insult people while using words that would not be caught by the filter.

The point is that you can ignore insults and flames, you can't ignore someone stabbing you basically . I guess it't not really my fault for you not getting the point. Because it was pretty clear .

Yeah, except that that doesn't change my point. My point is that the ability to mitigate future harm doesn't make prior harm acceptable.

Getting angry is not a decision . Getting angry happens without your consent .

And yet you made the argument that the people who are flamed choose to be angry. So is it a choice? Or is it not? Because you can't argue both ways.

You going afk in my game, IS REAL and it affects me PHYSICALLY !!!!!!!

I really think you have either a very strange definition of the word physically, or you have a very strange worldview.

I bloody lose elo because of you. Something concrete, visible is bloody happening !

Elo is an imaginary construct. It's an artificial representation of approximated skill. And it's meaningless outside of the context of this game.

That doesn't qualify for any definition of the word "physical" that I've ever heard.

I don't reduce your chances of winning the goddamn game. If you perform bad after that it's simply because you chose not to ignore me, and doesn't have anything to do with what i said to you !!

If my actions can affect your chances of winning, why is it that your actions can't affect my chances of winning? This isn't even a contradiction - it's straight up hypocritical.

Okay, now you really let me show you how you contradict yourself :

When you used can you used it to point a possibility that "they would kick you out"!

It doesn't have anything to do with the way you used the word anything .

You seem to misunderstand the context, then. Regardless of what the other person does, your actions in response to that can be reason enough to remove you from the premises.

Because in those environments, you will be held responsible for what you do.

I use the word "can," because it isn't always the case - much depends on the "anything" in question, as well as how you choose to react.

Dude , how the actual f*ck do you come up with those fallacies. Because they don't have any actual relation to what I'm saying. I can basically throw this fallacy over all you basically said telling you that you just don't understand it .

That's not what the fallacy means. The fallacy of personal incredulity means making an argument that because something doesn't make sense to you, it can't be true.

You outright dismissed my argument with the statement: "How can it escalate the anger (which is basically provoked by the tension you get) when you let go off that tension ? It doesn't seem logical." Or, in other words, "I don't understand how that would work, so it can't be true."

What don't you understand from it ?

I thought I made that clear. My apologies. I don't understand how the metaphor you make applies to the situation we're discussion. What do the sticks represent? What does the fire represent?

Well most people can accept that flaming acts reduce anger, cause it's an externalization of it and when you externalize a feeling you basically let go of it.

"Most people" may believe that (though I doubt it). Psychologists claim otherwise.

I kinda explained in a logical way why it is the best way of expressing it . Just because something logic wasn't followed by research doesn't mean you can't assume it isn't true .

And I pointed out flaws with that logic that you have yet to effectively address.

The study said, and i type exactly " Bullies, for the most part, are different from you and me " Implying their cognitive make-up is distinctive of that of a normal person , hence the comparison ** you and me *** .

And yet my cognitive make-up is also distinctive from that of a "normal person." I'm more than willing to bet that yours is as well - judging purely from your arguments here, you seem to have an abnormal empathic response.

Does that mean that we are also deranged?

Well the money on your visa card. Is something not physical by your standards ? They don't actually exist ? And they can't affect you physically ?

That's what i thought so, good boy, now stop embarrassing yourself in front of other readers of this thread .

No. The money in my bank account is not something physical. It's a digital representation. And no, it cannot affect me physically - though it can affect me financially.

WESTFALLMar 16, 20151 votes

We aren't talking about threats, we're talking about personal insults. Notice how I didn't say that I was threatened? So why are you trying to shift things to that?

Insults only affect you if you feel a threat coming from them. That's what I'm saying. No threat = no reason to get affected by it

JubbinautMar 16, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Phantom Panther,realm=EUNE,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=LqgiycwW,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2015-03-16T03:43:51.423+0000)

Insults only affect you if you feel a threat coming from them. That's what I'm saying. No threat = no reason to get affected by it

I'm afraid you're going to have to actually demonstrate that. I've seen far too many people hurt by insults to believe that an insult requires threat behind it to be effective.

WESTFALLMar 16, 20151 votes

You're talking about imaginary things. It's a digital game, composed of strings of 1s and 0s. Your rating is an artificially generated number that has no connection to anything else. Not only are none of these things physical, in a very true sense, they aren't even real. They're make-pretend, a mutual delusion we - the members of this community - share.

Their actions are physical . Them choosing to click in one way or another is physical . Even though what i see is digital, yes. And when i say they affect me physically, by physical i don't necessarily refer to something that is tangible, but to something that is concrete, that exists . Like my goddamn ELO .

By no means does that invalidate our emotional investment - in fact, the only thing real about it, in fact, is our emotional investment in it. But to claim that someone who makes mistakes that cost you a game (a game that, by its very nature, you will lose about 50% of the time) is harming you physically is disingenuous.

How the freaking hell is that disingenuous ? Isn't there concrete evidence that it is harming me ?

Well there is . The fact that when they die they make it harder for me to win the game is evident, the fact that i lose LP after a loss is also a goddamn evidence of that .

So how can claiming that someone who makes me lose something when evidence proves it, can be disingenuous ?

JubbinautMar 16, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Phantom Panther,realm=EUNE,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=LqgiycwW,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2015-03-16T00:01:30.532+0000)

Their actions are physical . Them choosing to click in one way or another is physical . Even though what i see is digital, yes. And when i say they affect me physically, by physical i don't necessarily refer to something that is tangible, but to something that is concrete, that exists . Like my goddamn ELO .

Your Elo - which is an artificially generated number, connected to nothing but your account is... concrete?

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. You are not your account. Things that affect your account are not physically harmful to you.

You might claim they are emotionally harmful. You might make the argument that they are financially harmful. But there's no conceivable way for them to be physically harmful.

How the freaking hell is that disingenuous ? Isn't there concrete evidence that it is harming me ?

Well there is . The fact that when they die they make it harder for me to win the game is evident, the fact that i lose LP after a loss is also a goddamn evidence of that .

So how can claiming that someone who makes me lose something when evidence proves it, can be disingenuous ?

Well, first you have to prove that it's actually harmful to you in a meaningful sense - which you haven't done.

See, the game is designed such that you will lose about 50% of your games. Some of those losses will be because of you, some will be because of other people, and some games will simply be unwinnable.

Because loss is a requirement of the game - hell, it's a basic function - claiming that losing is harmful to you is disingenuous.

WESTFALLMar 15, 20151 votes

And in regards to your methods :

Yell at your monitor - yelling and vocalizing in general have been demonstrated to be particularly effective at calming both physical and emotional pain, as well as their associated emotional reactions. In fact, it's far more effective than typing - and is completely harmless to other players.

I just had a dude in the other thread tell me how he usually does this, but then proceeded to tell me that his hands will start shaking and his anger will still remain. Also, it's unpractical , I can't scream or yell or anything while my roommate is still in the room. Plus it looks retarded with all due respect, someone screaming at his monitor for a video game is just like that angry german kid on youtube.

Punch a pillow - physical expressions in general have also been demonstrated to be particularly effective at releasing stress and anger. It's important, however, to ensure that what you're using to express in this manner isn't likely to harm or be harmed by you - thus the pillow.

Yup, i will hold a pillow near me so i can punch it whenever someone gets me angry in LoL. I'm gonna need a bunch of them actually, about a truck full I guess . Plus look at it from an objective perspective, it looks retarded, and it doesn't help. None of those methods work, and i will explain below why. They all have a big ass flaw .

Stress balls - this is literally their entire purpose - pause and squeeze one when you begin feeling frustrated to allow a physical expression of that frustration.
Stretch - anger often includes physical tension - releasing this stress often helps reduce the anger response.
Deep breathing - Similarly, taking slow, deep "belly breaths" can help you to physically relax, which - again - allows that anger to release.

All of those , don't work to release tension. Because they all lack one thing.

** THE CAUSE OF THE TENSION **

If this would work, there would be no conflicts, ever. Everyone would just have his tiny stress ball in their pockets and the world would be all peaceful.

To let off feelings you need to confront the cause of them. That's why rape victims need to confront their rapists to get over it .

It's simple, really .

"Is It Good To "Let it All Hang Out?"
Psychologists now say that this is a dangerous myth. Some people use this theory as a license to hurt others. Research has found that "letting it rip" with anger actually escalates anger and aggression and does nothing to help you (or the person you're angry with) resolve the situation.

You took that off an anger management book, do you expect an anger management book to tell you to that suppressing anger is bad for you ? It wouldn't be a good anger management book if it'd tell you that wouldn't it ?

Let me give you accurate examples of why suppressing anger is bad :

http://www.webmd.com/men/guide/anger-management

" Suppressed anger can be an underlying cause of anxiety and depression. Anger that is not appropriately expressed can disrupt relationships, affect thinking and behavior patterns, and create a variety of physical problems. Chronic (long-term) anger has been linked to health issues such as high blood pressure, heart problems, headaches, skin disorders, and digestive problems. In addition, anger can be linked to problems such as crime, emotional and physical abuse, and other violent behavior. "

https://www.healthshare.com.au/questions/2017-i-tend-to-suppress-my-anger-is-this-bad-for-my-health/

There's quite a lot of research showing that anger suppression is linked to a range of health problems. Some papers that I've seen show an increased risk for:

Coronary heart disease
High blood pressure
Death following heart attack
Reduced anti-cancer response in prostate cancer

Other findings show that people who suppress anger are more likely to:

Act violently if they drink alcohol
Experience worse pain if they have lower back problems
Sleep poorly (another risk factor for health problems)
Have anxiety and depression

http://www.examiner.com/article/suppressing-anger-is-an-unhealthy-behavior

Suppressing anger is a dangerous habit to get into. It is something that many of us fall into because we are taught from a young age not to have tantrums, to stay in control, and not take our anger out in public where it might cause an embarrassing scene. It is basically when an individual feels the anger, but does not express it. People often harbor ill feelings for long periods of time and just try avoid thinking about them. He or she keeps the feelings inside so the public does not know that the individual is angry. Couples might suppress their anger in front of their children so as not to get them upset. An employee might suppress his anger towards his boss because he is worried that expressing it might have bad repercussions for his career.

So what i was basically saying before, now also said by a Mental Health Examiner.

JubbinautMar 15, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Phantom Panther,realm=EUNE,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=LqgiycwW,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2015-03-15T21:16:41.472+0000)

If this would work, there would be no conflicts, ever. Everyone would just have his tiny stress ball in their pockets and the world would be all peaceful.

Not all conflicts are caused by anger or tension. Nor was my list intended to be all-inclusive. Nor are any of those methods effective 100% of the time, and I had no intention of implying such.

You asked for a list of other methods of expression. I offered such. But don't worry, I do recognize the movement of the goalposts, here.

To let off feelings you need to confront the cause of them. That's why rape victims need to confront their rapists to get over it .

That's not always the case. Even when it is, though, you're conflating again - flaming is a non-productive form of confrontation. Which is what makes it a poor anger management tool.

You took that off an anger management book, do you expect an anger management book to tell you to that suppressing anger is bad for you ? It wouldn't be a good anger management book if it'd tell you that wouldn't it ?

Actually, I do expect a good anger management book to tell me that. But this didn't come from a book. I took it from an APA article (http://www.apa.org/topics/anger/control.aspx ) on their website (thus the link). I'm supposing you didn't actually read it. Let me offer some other quotes from it:

"Anger is a completely normal, usually healthy, human emotion."
"Anger can be suppressed, and then converted or redirected. This happens when you hold in your anger, stop thinking about it, and focus on something positive. The aim is to inhibit or suppress your anger and convert it into more constructive behavior. The danger in this type of response is that if it isn't allowed outward expression, your anger can turn inward—on yourself. Anger turned inward may cause hypertension, high blood pressure, or depression."
"Unexpressed anger can create other problems. It can lead to pathological expressions of anger, such as passive-aggressive behavior (getting back at people indirectly, without telling them why, rather than confronting them head-on) or a personality that seems perpetually cynical and hostile."

And from the anger management (http://www.helpguide.org/articles/emotional-health/anger-management.htm ) article I linked before that:

"While it’s true that suppressing and ignoring anger is unhealthy, venting is no better. Anger is not something you have to “let out” in an aggressive way in order to avoid blowing up. In fact, outbursts and tirades only fuel the fire and reinforce your anger problem."

So... yes. It does indicate that suppressing anger can be bad for you.

So what i was basically saying before, now also said by a Mental Health Examiner.

Yeah, except that at no point have I indicated that you should suppress your anger. Hell, it was one of the first things I said. From my initial post: "Expressing that anger can absolutely be a healthy, natural, and positive thing." I have, however, outright stated that flaming is not a healthy method of expression.

Here's some quotes from your own cherry-picked links.

Starting with the webmd link:

"When you start feeling angry, try deep breathing, positive self-talk, or stopping your angry thoughts."
"Although expressing anger is better than keeping it in, anger should be expressed in an appropriate way. Frequent outbursts of anger are often counter-productive and cause problems in relationships with others. Anger outbursts are also stressful to your nervous and cardiovascular systems and can make health problems worse. "
"Learn to assert yourself, expressing your feelings calmly and directly without becoming defensive, hostile, or emotionally charged."

From the healthshare link:

"So rather than suppression, emotions, whether anger or any other type, need to be clearly acknowledged by the one experiencing it and then responded to in the most appropriate way."
"Yes it is damaging to health to suppress anger but it is also damaging to act out in anger."

From the Examiner link:

"One of the best habits to develop is the ability to walk away from a situation that is causing anger. Unplug yourself from the drama, take a deep breathe and just remove oneself from the entire situation."
"Learning how to get your point across without igniting is also a skill that helps in avoiding suppression without causing a scene."

WESTFALLMar 17, 20151 votes

Of course experts and doctors , psychologists etc. say you shouldn't express your anger because they are trying to protect you and society in general.

Doing that in real life would be disastrous .

Doing that in LoL isn't . At all .

JubbinautMar 17, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Phantom Panther,realm=EUNE,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=LqgiycwW,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2015-03-17T04:37:03.843+0000)

Of course experts and doctors , psychologists etc. say you shouldn't express your anger because they are trying to protect you and society in general.

Yeah. Only, at least one quote from two thirds of your links strongly indicates that you should express your anger.

From your webmd link: "Although expressing anger is better than keeping it in, anger should be expressed in an appropriate way," and "Learn to assert yourself, expressing your feelings calmly and directly without becoming defensive, hostile, or emotionally charged."

From your Examiner link: "Learning how to get your point across without igniting..."

I imagine if I go back through them, I can find more that indicate that point.

Edit: Yeah, in digging through the third link, I found this: "Communication Coaching would also help to teach you healthier ways to communicate and express your upset feelings."

I think you need to go ahead and acknowledge that you're now arguing against the validity of your own sources. That's not helping your case in the slightest.

WESTFALLMar 17, 20151 votes

I also said

** Doing that in real life would be disastrous . **

** Doing that in LoL isn't . At all . **

Do you consider that not having anything to do with the statement you chose to comment on ?

That's why you just ignored it ?

JubbinautMar 17, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Phantom Panther,realm=EUNE,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=LqgiycwW,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2015-03-17T12:19:31.470+0000)

I also said

** Doing that in real life would be disastrous . **

** Doing that in LoL isn't . At all . **

Do you consider that not having anything to do with the statement you chose to comment on ?

That's why you just ignored it ?

I could have left it. I actually felt that it was connected, in the same way that the roof of a house is connected. But I decided to cut it, to save space and keep things looking pretty while I addressed the foundation of your argument there.

And - again, like the roof of a house - without a foundation, those statements just don't do very much.

You have alternately claimed that my sources indicated that one should suppress their anger - which I demonstrated to be false.

You then claimed that both sets of sources indicated that one should not express their anger - which I demonstrated to be false.

Since both sets of sources claim the same thing - outbursts of anger are unhealthy, I don't see how it matters whether or not inherent or imposed consequences are added to that. Even if there are no consequences, it is still unhealthy.

WESTFALLMar 17, 20151 votes

Since both sets of sources claim the same thing - outbursts of anger are unhealthy, I don't see how it matters whether or not inherent or imposed consequences are added to that. Even if there are no consequences, it is still unhealthy.

Okay, let's say it is how you tell us it is.

Then what causes outbursts of anger ? Isn't suppressing it to the point in which it can't be suppressed anymore the reason why outbursts happen ?

The longer someone suppresses that anger, the bigger the outburst.

So isn't better for someone to have smaller constant outbursts that have little to no impact rather than bigger and rarer outbursts that have huge impact ?

JubbinautMar 17, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Phantom Panther,realm=EUNE,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=LqgiycwW,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000001000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2015-03-17T19:50:10.887+0000)

Then what causes outbursts of anger ? Isn't suppressing it to the point in which it can't be suppressed anymore the reason why outbursts happen ?

That is a potential cause, yes. Some outbursts are the result of immediate impressions of anger. Some come from other emotions that are misidentified as anger.

Regardless of the source, however, outbursts like that are harmful, and tend to perpetuate the cycle of rage.

The longer someone suppresses that anger, the bigger the outburst.

This is often true. Which is why suppression is not recommended as an anger management technique. Rather, they tend to focus on expression through redirection and resolution, with calming techniques used to ensure appropriate timing.

So isn't better for someone to have smaller constant outbursts that have little to no impact rather than bigger and rarer outbursts that have huge impact ?

It is better to not have outbursts at all. It is best to handle anger in an appropriate manner, by ensuring that the time and place are appropriate for the expression of it, and utilizing it as a driving force for productive ends, rather than as a destructive force in and of itself.

EDIT: We seem to have reached the nesting limit, here. I'll still be keeping an eye on the thread, so feel free to continue this in a new posting group.

Matthias9119Mar 16, 20152 votes

Had some trouble posting this as a reply to a deeply nested conversation down there, so here you go:

I'm not "rude" because he's not apologizing . I'm "rude" because i let go off the tension that he created in the first place. And I explained so many goddamn times the reasons i and other people flame. Why are you putting words in my mouth ? The fact that people can in fact say sorry would release some of that tension by default . Without me having to do anything .

Barring extremely strong evidence to the contrary, someone making a misplay in League was not doing so to piss you off. Demanding that people apologize for misplays is absurd. They weren't doing it to you personally.

Well but this logic it means that you agree that someone flaming you is not an excuse for you to get upset.

There's a difference between "getting upset" and taking out your anger on your teammates.
No, person A flaming person B does not justify person B flaming them back. But neither does person A playing badly justify person B flaming them for it.

What you're trying to claim is "I'm justified in getting upset and yelling at people for playing badly, but they're not justified in getting upset when I yell at them". This is ridiculous. Someone has to lose every League match, and unless both teams are full of pros it's very likely that a huge number of mistakes or misplays were made throughout the match. It's not acceptable to yell and scream and berate your teammates for everything that goes wrong. You are welcome to CALMLY discuss strategy with your teammates -- even criticism is fine if it's delivered appropriately. Screaming insults at anyone who fucked up in your opinion is not okay.

WESTFALLMar 16, 20151 votes

Okay, I guess I'm not going anywhere with those kind of threads. And it's understandable.

You people feel the need to protect your egos. Because that's all you protect, when you suggest reporting people for a couple of bad words said in the chat box. Those words don't affect anything else but your own ego, your own self image, they don't affect you emotionally as some people keep saying, at least in most cases. You don't report people because they actually made you feel bad when they flamed you, you report them to get revenge, to avenge your EGO because they've hurt it when they said you're bad. Maybe you don't even realize that.

I didn't want to talk about this because I wanna be able to start flaming people hardcore and not get punished. This is not my goal. It never actually was. I'm not someone who insults people for pleasure, the fact that i`ve got the red ribbon for being a honorable opponent and the green ribbon for being a great teammate just prove that .

What I'm trying to do, is stop Riot from giving power to the people who play badly.

Again, I don't condemn them, and I understand that people might have bad games, bad days, or can be just bad themselves.

But let's assume one of your teammates, is bad, or let's assume that he isn't quite bad, but he got mad at you for not giving him a blue buff as a jungler. Now he might start giving out kills to his enemy laner.

While he does that, he can hide between the " I'm just a bad player " or " I'm just having a bad game " lie walls. He won't get punished in no way. Because hey, no one would consider him toxic if they only consider the chat box right ?

Now that's not really my point, but now , if he keeps feeding kills to an enemy laner, his team mates will slowly start to get mad at him, no matter how hard you'll try to suggest or to tell me that they won't. Let's be real, no one likes someone feeding in his team, even if they don't do it intentionally.

So he's basically creating a state, in which his teammates all get angry, and he get's to be the one with the power. He gets to be the privileged one. Why you'd say ? Well because he can purposely get his teammates angry and they can't do anything about it, but if they dare to express they anger, they will get punished by Riot .

And let's also compare it to a 5v5 football game. The dude in your team keeps scoring own goals. You might say he's a bad player and all of that, but after a couple of own goals scored, would you still care about how bad he is or how you must be polite to him cause he's a stranger ? Yes, maybe you could still not care about the own goals and try paying attention to what you first looked for when you wanted to play that football game, like having some fun or exercising. But what if it's a game that can earn you some rewards ?

A game which you participated in just to get that reward, not to exercise, or necessarily have fun.

Would you not get mad at him ?

Does this seem fair to you ? I want a honest answer.

Plus, i also started those threads, because I personally, don't get affected at all, by people flaming me . They could say anything they ever want to me, it doesn't change my play style, it doesn't change my mood, i don't get nervous, I don't get stressed .

And when i actually realized that, I wondered, why am I not affected by it, and other players act like they get murdered if someone does it to them.

What makes me more special than them ? I don't believe in that . I don't believe that I'm special. I believe that they in most cases, fake it.

They fake that they get hurt by flames so they can report their flamer. You don't like when someone is criticizing you, so you report him.

And don't tell me criticism is any different than flaming, it's basically the same thing with different words.

And people also get chat restricted by criticizing only.

People also get chat restricted by using sarcasm, cynical remarks, jokes.

How is this even possible ? What are they trying to actually protect if not their own inflated egos ?

Matthias9119Mar 16, 20151 votes

But let's assume one of your teammates, is bad, or let's assume that he isn't quite bad, but he got mad at you for not giving him a blue buff as a jungler. Now he might start giving out kills to his enemy laner. ...

So he's basically creating a state, in which his teammates all get angry, and he get's to be the one with the power. He gets to be the privileged one. Why you'd say ? Well because he can purposely get his teammates angry and they can't do anything about it, but if they dare to express they anger, they will get punished by Riot .

Woah. Woah. Hold on. You're conflating someone having a bad game with someone "purposely" (sic) getting his teammates angry by intentionally feeding. Those are completely different situations.

Let's be real, no one likes someone feeding in his team, even if they don't do it intentionally.

Can it be frustrating to lose? Sure. But one team has to lose every game. It's not acceptable to rage at your teammates just because the other team is winning the match. If you pulled that crap playing pickup basketball at the local park, you'd be asked to leave pretty quickly. Maybe with a black eye or a few missing teeth, depending on where you were playing.

I have a little more sympathy when someone is intentionally screwing you over. But not much.

I personally, don't get affected at all, by people flaming me . They could say anything they ever want to me, it doesn't change my play style, it doesn't change my mood, i don't get nervous, I don't get stressed .

And when i actually realized that, I wondered, why am I not affected by it, and other players act like they get murdered if someone does it to them.

What makes me more special than them ? I don't believe in that . I don't believe that I'm special. I believe that they in most cases, fake it.

I've seen the "I don't care if people flame me, therefore getting upset about it must be stupid and flaming should be allowed" argument before. If it really never bothers you, good for you. Personally I'm also way past the point where anything a random person says on the Internet bothers me, at least most of the time. That doesn't mean I want to deal with it all the time, or that I don't think it is corrosive to the spirit of the community as a whole.

But let me assure you that most people are not "faking it" and do not like being yelled at and insulted, especially when it is undeserved. Cases like this got slam-dunked by Tribunal constantly, and Riot has said that Tribunal was way more permissive than their own Player Behavior staff. If it was only a handful of hyper-sensitive players filing reports for verbal abuse and negative attitude, players wouldn't regularly have been punished for it.

Let me flip your argument around: I don't care if my teammates play badly, as long as they're not clearly intentionally feeding. Why are you getting so upset about it? It's ridiculous; only a child would get upset about losing at a video game. I think you're faking it because you like raging at people.

Now, I already know what you're going to say in response -- "no, it's different, it really hurts me when I lose!". But you getting hurt over losing virtual ranking points in a video game is just as "real" as someone getting hurt by flaming and verbal abuse. So if that's the only response you have, then you have no argument at all.

And don't tell me criticism is any different than flaming, it's basically the same thing with different words.

No. No, it is not. "Flaming" is when you are just venting anger at someone to hurt them. And how you express things does matter.

Does [a teammate sabotaging your game on purpose] seem fair to you ? I want a honest answer.

No, of course it's not fair, and it's frustrating. But does yelling and screaming at the person do anything positive? No. Does it make the game even worse for the rest of your team? Yes. Does the community think it is acceptable behavior? No.

And people also get chat restricted by criticizing only.

No, they don't. Although I have seen players who think they are giving constructive criticism but are actually being huge jerks about it.

People also get chat restricted by using sarcasm, cynical remarks, jokes.

You can, but you have to be way out of line with what the community is okay with. "I was just kidding when I told him to uninstall and drink bleach!" doesn't make saying something like that okay.

WESTFALLMar 17, 20151 votes

Woah. Woah. Hold on. You're conflating someone having a bad game with someone "purposely" (sic) getting his teammates angry by intentionally feeding. Those are completely different situations.

There was an**or **in my phrase. You might have either missed it, or ignore it .

And they are not completely different situations because they both involve someone playing bad and they both give power to the one that's playing bad. Even if they do it intentionally or not. It doesn't matter.

Can it be frustrating to lose? Sure. But one team has to lose every game. It's not acceptable to rage at your teammates just because the other team is winning the match. If you pulled that crap playing pickup basketball at the local park, you'd be asked to leave pretty quickly. Maybe with a black eye or a few missing teeth, depending on where you were playing.

Well, that's just your opinion about what would happen man. That doesn't prove anything. They might as well just start telling the guy that he's a fucking moron if he starts doing really bad mistakes.

You fail to comprehend that, because you're using an example in which there is no pressure, the players in your example are not playing the game competitively , they don't play it for a reward. Because if you would add that to your example , i don't think it would still be how you're supposing it to be .

I've seen the "I don't care if people flame me, therefore getting upset about it must be stupid and flaming should be allowed" argument before. If it really never bothers you, good for you. Personally I'm also way past the point where anything a random person says on the Internet bothers me, at least most of the time. That doesn't mean I want to deal with it all the time, or that I don't think it is corrosive to the spirit of the community as a whole.

What do you mean when you say you don't want to deal with it ?

Do you imply that you don't have the choice to ignore it or to pay attention to it ?

By dealing with it you imply that you chose to pay attention to it rather than ignoring it ?

But let me assure you that most people are not "faking it" and do not like being yelled at and insulted, especially when it is undeserved. Cases like this got slam-dunked by Tribunal constantly, and Riot has said that Tribunal was way more permissive than their own Player Behavior staff. If it was only a handful of hyper-sensitive players filing reports for verbal abuse and negative attitude, players wouldn't regularly have been punished for it.

I never said that people like being insulted or flamed. But not liking something and not being affected by something are two different things .

This is the major problem you people don't understand when you try to disprove me when i say flames don't affect them .

** TO LIKE =/= TO BE AFFECTED **

Let me flip your argument around: I don't care if my teammates play badly, as long as they're not clearly intentionally feeding. Why are you getting so upset about it? It's ridiculous; only a child would get upset about losing at a video game. I think you're faking it because you like raging at people.

Because it affects me ! It clearly affects me in a concrete way, they reduce my chances of winning that game. And if i eventually lose, they make my mmr/elo drop .

And when i say ** affects ** i'm referring to the fact that they are imposing consequences on me .

Now, I already know what you're going to say in response -- "no, it's different, it really hurts me when I lose!". But you getting hurt over losing virtual ranking points in a video game is just as "real" as someone getting hurt by flaming and verbal abuse. So if that's the only response you have, then you have no argument at all.

Dude, I'm suffering the consequences of their own actions .

Are you implying that the virtual ranked points are not real ? That they are an illusion ?

Getting to a certain league or division can be considered my goal, getting those points is vital for me reaching my goal.

They reduce my chances of reaching that goal.

So they are "hurting" me directly in a concrete way .

Which is way different than what flaming does.

No. No, it is not. "Flaming" is when you are just venting anger at someone to hurt them. And how you express things does matter.

Criticism = the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing

When people flame they also express disapproval . They don't note the person's faults because it is implied .

Do they not ? Do you disagree ?

When my jungler towerdives at lvl 3 and he gives a free kill to my enemy laner, and i tell him he's an idiot, i'm expressing disapproval . I'm not explaining his fail to him because i suppose that he already knows what he did wrong .

No, of course it's not fair, and it's frustrating. But does yelling and screaming at the person do anything positive? No. Does it make the game even worse for the rest of your team? Yes. Does the community think it is acceptable behavior? No.

Yes, yelling and screaming at the person releases tension, I let off steam through it .

Does it make the game worse for the rest of my team ? No ? In what way does it make it worse when I am not even addressing them in the first place?

I do agree that the community doesn't think it is an acceptable behavior. But that doesn't mean anything.

What the community thinks can change.

Did people agree when Galileo Galilei when he said that the earth revolves around the sun ? No . Was he right ? Yes

What the community thinks doesn't determine if something is wrong or right .

The masses of people in general, don't have any clue of what is and what it not beneficial to their evolution . They can be quick to approve or disprove anything .

No, they don't. Although I have seen players who think they are giving constructive criticism but are actually being huge jerks about it.

Yes they goddamn are. I saw a red posting it , that's why I even added sarcasm and cynical remarks. I remember seeing it somewhere.

You can, but you have to be way out of line with what the community is okay with. "I was just kidding when I told him to uninstall and drink bleach!" doesn't make saying something like that okay.

Lel. Well who defines that ? Who defines what the community is okay with ? The ones who report ?

If that's so, the ones who report him are like what part of the community ? 0.001% ?

So that means you're deciding what is punishable or not based on a small percent of people that consider it to be punishable .

Doesn't make sense at all .

Matthias9119Mar 17, 20151 votes

And they are not completely different situations because...

Stop. Just... stop. If you think that someone losing due to getting outplayed or making a mistake and someone intentionally throwing a match are in any way comparable... I don't even know what to say. This is like saying that someone bumping into you by mistake and someone punching you in the face are the same because they both involved people touching you.

You fail to comprehend that, because you're using an example in which there is no pressure, the players in your example are not playing the game competitively...

You're the one arguing that League is some life or death thing you need to rage about.

You really think random strangers at the gym would be fine with you calling them fucking idiots every time they miss a free throw or have the ball stolen from them? Go try that and let us know how it goes.

What do you mean when you say you don't want to deal with it ?

I mean that it's annoying when people rage, and it's bad for the community as a whole.

Yes, I can mute them. It's tiresome to have to mute people all the time or have the chat filled with whining and flaming if I want to keep the lines of communication open. It's a more pleasant experience to play League without that crap.

Do you imply that you don't have the choice to ignore it or to pay attention to it ? By dealing with it you imply that you chose to pay attention to it rather than ignoring it ?

If I'm trying to look at what my teammates are saying in chat, at the very least it's annoying and distracting when the chat is full of pointless raging. If I have to actually go and mute somebody, that's distracting too. And if they're pissing off everyone else on the team and making them play worse, then that's pretty bad too.

In fact, the rager is directly hurting my chances of winning, which according to you is the worst thing anyone can do in League.

I never said that people like being insulted or flamed. But not liking something and not being affected by something are two different things.

If they don't like it, then it's affecting them negatively. That's literally the effect that it's having on them -- it makes them unhappy and upset.

You don't just get to arbitrarily decide what other people should care about. That's not how life works, sorry.

Are you implying that the virtual ranked points are not real ? That they are an illusion ?

I'm saying they are exactly as "real" as the words you're reading right now. It's all a bunch of electrons on a server somewhere.

If you argue that losing virtual ranking points is a serious harm to your person, then yelling insults at someone can cause an equal amount of harm and is just as serious. You can't argue that things that make you upset are horrible and unacceptable, but things that make other people upset are harmless and they're just being too sensitive. You're not a special and unique snowflake.

When my jungler towerdives at lvl 3 and he gives a free kill to my enemy laner, and i tell him he's an idiot, i'm expressing disapproval.

Yes, I guess if you want to get pedantic, "flaming" is a subset of criticism.

You can criticize without insulting or berating. There's a big difference.

I'm not explaining his fail to him because i suppose that he already knows what he did wrong .

If you think he already knows what he did wrong, why are you telling him he's an idiot? It has no effect except to make him or her feel and probably play worse. It's not like you even tried to offer some sort of useful advice.

Does it make the game worse for the rest of my team ? No ? In what way does it make it worse when I am not even addressing them in the first place?

Because now they have to deal with both someone who is playing poorly and someone who is raging. Or two people who are raging instead of one. Or they have to mute both of you if you start going at it, hurting team communication. And you're probably making the struggling player perform even worse, which is hurting your team's chances of winning even more.

If you actually cared about winning rather than making your wounded ego feel better, you wouldn't rage and flip out at your teammates, since it makes you less likely to win. So I don't really buy the "I have to rage because I care about winning!" argument either. You're just giving in to your emotions because it feels good in the moment to lash out when you're frustrated.

Yes they goddamn are. I saw a red posting it...

Bullshit. Link to a quote from a Rioter where they said they punish anyone who critcizes a teammate, even if they do it calmly and constructively.

What the community thinks doesn't determine if something is wrong or right .

According to Riot, actually, that's exactly what happens. If you want to play matchmade games, you need to behave in a way that most of the community finds tolerable.

Feel free to queue up on a 5-man premade and rage at your teammates like crazy.

If that's so, the ones who report him are like what part of the community ? 0.001% ?

Ah, yes, the old "it's only a few hyper-sensitive kiddies who are offended" argument.

I covered that one already, actually -- but no, it's not "0.001%" of the community. To get a Tribunal case when Tribunal was up, players had to be reported in at least 12-15% of their games over time. Then a supermajority of Tribunal voters had to agree that the case was punishable. It probably works a bit differently now for chat restrictions, but you still have to get reported quite a lot to have the potential of anything happening to you.

On top of that, Riot has a report weighting system, so players who are actually hyper-sensitive (or just trying to get other people in trouble) and file reports that the community or Riot doesn't agree with eventually get ignored by the reporting system. Boy who cries wolf and all that.

WESTFALLMar 17, 20151 votes

Stop. Just... stop. If you think that someone losing due to getting outplayed or making a mistake and someone intentionally throwing a match are in any way comparable... I don't even know what to say. This is like saying that someone bumping into you by mistake and someone punching you in the face are the same because they both involved people touching you.

I swear you people start getting on my nerves. You don't understand basic logic. You put words in my mouth. You alter my ideas just to make them easier for you to disprove them.

Where did i say that they are not in any way comparable ? I said ** they are not completely different ** as you goddamn suggested .

Don't you see the difference ? Are you doing it intentionally ?

And your example is totally totally stupid. Your comparison doesn't reflect what's happening. If you would have wanted to give a good example you would have compared someone bumping into you by mistake with someone bumping into you intentionally .

Why aggravate the action to suit your argument ?

You're the one arguing that League is some life or death thing you need to rage about.

Again you're exaggerating to fit your argument.

You really think random strangers at the gym would be fine with you calling them fucking idiots every time they miss a free throw or have the ball stolen from them? Go try that and let us know how it goes.

No, because there is no fcking pressure there , no one has anything meaningful to lose in that situation ** is it so hard for you to get it ?

If I'm trying to look at what my teammates are saying in chat, at the very least it's annoying and distracting when the chat is full of pointless raging. If I have to actually go and mute somebody, that's distracting too. And if they're pissing off everyone else on the team and making them play worse, then that's pretty bad too.

Looking at the chat doesn't mean you deal with anything, trying to comprehend what someone said means dealing with it , in your case . Why try that when someone has something bad to say ? Oh how distracting can it be to press a button ?

That's what i pretty much explained, no one can piss anyone off through the chat box unless they chose to pay attention to it and not ignore it.

I feel like I'm basically explaining the same thing to you over and over again and you just chose to ignore it .

In fact, the rager is directly hurting my chances of winning, which according to you is the worst thing anyone can do in League.

Directly ? Explain to me please, how it is directly . Does he destroy one of your own turrets when he flames ? Does he give kills to the enemy team when he flames ?

That's not direct by any means. And the changes of winning are affected by the player's own actions. If someone flames you and you suddenly start playing like shit, it's not his fault that he flamed you, it's your fault for starting to play like shit .

Why are you trying to excuse your own actions and to blame someone else for them ?

If they don't like it, then it's affecting them negatively. That's literally the effect that it's having on them -- it makes them unhappy and upset.

How can you say that ? Do you even think before you type ?

So according to your logic, me not liking someone's shirt, means that his shirt is affecting me negatively .

To like : : to enjoy (something) : to get pleasure from (something)

To be affected : : to be influenced , changed, acted upon or emotionally stirred or moved .

You don't just get to arbitrarily decide what other people should care about. That's not how life works, sorry.

I could say ** That's not how life works ** to every argument anyone would ever say to me .

But that's just ignorant to say ...

I'm saying they are exactly as "real" as the words you're reading right now. It's all a bunch of electrons on a server somewhere.

Yes, but they are real, I can see them, it's something concrete that exists.

If by real you mean tangible , of course they are not tangible, but they are visible. And basically everything visible is real .

If you argue that losing virtual ranking points is a serious harm to your person, then yelling insults at someone can cause an equal amount of harm and is just as serious. You can't argue that things that make you upset are horrible and unacceptable, but things that make other people upset are harmless and they're just being too sensitive. You're not a special and unique snowflake.

I can't chose if losing a game affects my ranked points or not .

But you can chose if flaming "affects" you or not. So that's basically a "harm" you chose to inflict upon you when you pay attention and try to rationalize it when someone flames you .

No , no , no . You guys that think flaming is directly affecting you are the ones thinking you're special and unique snowflakes.

If you think he already knows what he did wrong, why are you telling him he's an idiot? It has no effect except to make him or her feel and probably play worse. It's not like you even tried to offer some sort of useful advice.

Because what he did was something that an idiot would do. It's pretty simple.

And telling him that he's an idiot takes less time to type than properly explaining to him what he did wrong and what he should have done in that scenario .

Do you assume one wouldn't know what he did wrong when doing that, in my example ?

Because now they have to deal with both someone who is playing poorly and someone who is raging. Or two people who are raging instead of one. Or they have to mute both of you if you start going at it, hurting team communication. And you're probably making the struggling player perform even worse, which is hurting your team's chances of winning even more.

Raging in real life affects people because it's loud and disturbing. You can't practically rage in league of legends. You can just type letters, that in no way can be loud or disturbing.

Saying that flaming is the same thing as raging means you can't use basic logic my buddy .

They would have had to do with someone playing poorly even if I wouldn't have flamed the dude, because that's what he was doing before it, playing poorly .

If you actually cared about winning rather than making your wounded ego feel better, you wouldn't rage and flip out at your teammates, since it makes you less likely to win. So I don't really buy the "I have to rage because I care about winning!" argument either. You're just giving in to your emotions because it feels good in the moment to lash out when you're frustrated.

They don't wound my ego, they wound my chances of winning.

They get their egos wounded when people flame them.

Comprende ?

Bullshit. Link to a quote from a Rioter where they said they punish anyone who critcizes a teammate, even if they do it calmly and constructively.

I won't really bother searching for it for hours just to prove that to you, oh and why do you have to add **calmly and constructively ** to your criticism now ? Because you're unsure of the fact that people get banned for it so you have to plant those words that might save your argument in case i prove that criticism is punishable ?

That's sad man ..

According to Riot, actually, that's exactly what happens. If you want to play matchmade games, you need to behave in a way that most of the community finds tolerable.

It's Riot who basically determines what is right or wrong. The fact that they base it on on what the community thinks is another story .

Anyway, as i said, opinions are not static, they're prone to change. Just because something feels unacceptable now for someone doesn't mean it can't feel acceptable for him later .

Feel free to queue up on a 5-man premade and rage at your teammates like crazy.

Don't see a point in saying this , but whatever .

Ah, yes, the old "it's only a few hyper-sensitive kiddies who are offended" argument.

I covered that one already, actually -- but no, it's not "0.001%" of the community. To get a Tribunal case when Tribunal was up, players had to be reported in at least 12-15% of their games over time. Then a supermajority of Tribunal voters had to agree that the case was punishable. It probably works a bit differently now for chat restrictions, but you still have to get reported quite a lot to have the potential of anything happening to you.

So basically if i'm reported in 12-15% of my games it means that in the rest of 88-85% i didn't get reported. Meaning less people got offended by me flaming that they actually did . And we should also take into consideration how many people report you per game to be even closer to the truth.

People at the tribunal were only punishing flames not because they considered it necessarily bad, but because they were told that flaming is punishable.

I guess you don't get it .

If i have to do my job, it doesn't matter what i consider that i should do, I have to do what my boss tells me. So that was exactly what people at the tribunal were doing .

Matthias9119Mar 17, 20151 votes

There's no point arguing with you if your entire argument boils down to "no, you're wrong and I'm right." If you're going to completely dismiss other people's feelings and opinions, there's no way to change your mind about this. You're basically arguing that what bothers you (losing) is more important than what bothers other people (getting flamed), which is by its nature a subjective argument. If you're not willing to consider other people's viewpoints, then there is no point in discussing this with you -- you're just looking for yes men to tell you that you're right.

I can't chose if losing a game affects my ranked points or not .

But you can chose if flaming "affects" you or not. So that's basically a "harm" you chose to inflict upon you when you pay attention and try to rationalize it when someone flames you .

This is not a persuasive argument. If someone can "choose" not to be harmed by flaming, then you can "choose" not to be harmed by losing rank. The only harm you are claiming is emotional.

I won't really bother searching for it for hours just to prove that to you...

So you never saw that and you just made it up to suit your argument. Okay then. Glad we cleared that up. Burden of proof is on the accuser; if you want to claim that Riot said something, you need to provide the reference. If you can't provide it then it hurts your credibility. Or would you like to retract that claim?

oh and why do you have to add calmly and constructively to your criticism now ?

I qualified it before, you just ignored it. Don't try to claim I'm moving the goalposts. "U FCKING SUCK FGT" qualifies as "criticism", I guess, but is not an acceptable way to communicate with your team. The standard isn't "don't say anything negative ever", the standard is "don't be a jerk".

WESTFALLMar 17, 20151 votes

There's no point arguing with you if your entire argument boils down to "no, you're wrong and I'm right."

Well, we can't be both right if we contradict ourselves can we ?

Want us to be both right ? Lel.

I didn't say " no you're wrong and I'm right " without explaining it, if that's what you suggest..

It's not like i contest what you're saying without any logical explanation of why i do that .

If you're going to completely dismiss other people's feelings and opinions, there's no way to change your mind about this. You're basically arguing that what bothers you (losing) is more important than what bothers other people (getting flamed), which is by its nature a subjective argument.

When you say that, you're basically saying that i'm not right to think that something clear and concrete that is happening ( losing games ) is worse than something imaginary , that has no evidence of it happening ( getting hurt by flames ).

And I even told you so many times how you can't do anything about the first one and but how you can actually prevent the latter from happening.

I'm not the one ignorant here, sorry to tell you that

If you're not willing to consider other people's viewpoints, then there is no point in discussing this with you -- you're just looking for yes men to tell you that you're right.

If i contradict your viewpoints doesn't mean that i don't consider them.

This is not a persuasive argument. If someone can "choose" not to be harmed by flaming, then you can "choose" not to be harmed by losing rank. The only harm you are claiming is emotional.

How can you be so god damn illogic ?

What you say there is exactly just like saying :

If someone can choose not to be harmed by insults then he can choose not to be harmed by losing his wallet.

Don't you f*cking realize that in the first case the person doesn't lose anything physical, and in the latter they actually lose something physical.

Is the only harm they get emotional, when they lose their f*cking wallet ? Is the only harm I get emotional, when I lose MMR/ELO ?

Are you lacking so much god damn sense not to be able to tell a difference between those two ?

If i f*cking come out to your house and set it on fire, the only harm you would claim would be an emotional one ?

GOD BLESS.

I don't want to sound rude, but you don't have common sense.

So you never saw that and you just made it up to suit your argument. Okay then. Glad we cleared that up. Burden of proof is on the accuser; if you want to claim that Riot said something, you need to provide the reference. If you can't provide it then it hurts your credibility. Or would you like to retract that claim?

Yeah dude just because I don't want to search for hours through the forums to show evidence of it to you it means that I made it up to suit my argument .

I don't even care if you don't believe me at this point because that's not the main point of the discussion .

I qualified it before, you just ignored it. Don't try to claim I'm moving the goalposts.

This was the initial statement that started the discussion

And people also get chat restricted by criticizing only.

You added the rest to suit your story .

Matthias9119Mar 17, 20151 votes

When you say that, you're basically saying that i'm not right to think that something clear and concrete that is happening ( losing games ) is worse than something imaginary , that has no evidence of it happening ( getting hurt by flames ).

That's not exactly what I am saying, but it's close.

You have every right to care about losing matches or losing MMR/rank. I don't get to decide what is important or meaningful or painful for you.

Other people have just as much right to care about people being jerks to them. You don't get to decide what is important or meaningful or painful for them.

What you are arguing boils down to: "When something I think is bad happens to me, I have the right to be upset and lash out. But when something bad happens to someone else they have to just put up with it if I don't think it is that bad."

You are calling your own opinion more valuable than other people's. Which is a very natural thing to do, but not a convincing argument.

Either way, just because something happened that you dislike, it doesn't justify being a jerk to other players.

This was the initial statement that started the discussion

And people also get chat restricted by criticizing only.

Yes, you said that. Then I said that was wrong and that players who criticize without being jerks don't get in trouble. Then you claimed that my statement --- the qualified one -- was wrong because you'd seen a red post. Then I called bullshit and you refused to actually cite the source you claimed to have seen.