I got kicked off the game, couldn't log back in, but now I'm getting leavebuster'd?

JedenVojak·Jan 28, 2015·3 votes·1,217 views

Last night, (I guess technically this morning) I got kicked off of a game I was trying to play and could not log back in at all with the message "You have disconnected. Please check your internet connection and try again." When I later tried to log in the game told me the server was down.

Okay.

Now I log in and I get this Leave Buster warning telling me that AFKing or disconnecting from the game is bad and asking me to agree not to leave any other games. It wouldn't let me enter the message I wanted to type, so I'm leaving it here instead.

http://i.imgur.com/nyipSVD.png

26 Comments

Byakuya KuchikiJan 28, 20151 votes

I feel like people like you are trolling. like you still were out of the game? Leaverbuster is fine the way it is stop bitching about having to type in 2 words big deal its not like its some contract that if you break you are permabanned the amount of times you have to leave to get a perma ban or anythinga ctually serious is crazy

JedenVojakJan 29, 20152 votes

{quoted}

I feel like people like you are trolling. like you still were out of the game? Leaverbuster is fine the way it is stop bitching about having to type in 2 words big deal its not like its some contract that if you break you are permabanned the amount of times you have to leave to get a perma ban or anythinga ctually serious is crazy

I could understand a warning pop up or something like that.

When you have a thing saying, "Promise you won't ever leave again and we'll let you play" with you having to type in a "yes I'm sorry" that's a no go.

This isn't kindergarden; I'm not gonna be patronized to for being disconnected from a bots match. If that means I can't play, so be it.

JubbinautJan 29, 20152 votes

Well of course a warning pop-up would be fine. Click-throughs, after all, tend to be clicked through - no attention necessary. The point of the way this pop-up works is to ensure that people read it. That said, it would be nice if the way it read matched the intended message.

EleshakaiJan 28, 20151 votes

I'm sorry buddy... Riot doesn't care about intent anymore.

They don't care whose fault things are, who is responsible, or what caused it. They just care that the problem exists, and that they need to blame someone so that the masses can be appeased that 'something is being done'... so they blame you. Sorry. It sucks, but that's the truth of the matter.

JedenVojakJan 29, 20152 votes

{quoted}

I'm sorry buddy... Riot doesn't care about intent anymore.

They don't care whose fault things are, who is responsible, or what caused it. They just care that the problem exists, and that they need to blame someone so that the masses can be appeased that 'something is being done'... so they blame you. Sorry. It sucks, but that's the truth of the matter.

I can somewhat understand that. I've seen the threads for people getting mad about AFKers and the like, and I've had those games where people disconnect or other such things and we had to 4v5. People do get seriously mad, and I understand why.

That said 'stuff' happens. I generally don't report people if they disconnected, cause that's not really their fault, unless they say something obvious like "screw this game, I'm out".

The only thing they have to do is make it so people don't get any IP or elo (or whatever your rank up stuff is) if they have disconnected from the game for more than a 5 minute stretch and don't come back - no game, no IP; perfectly fair.

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I can somewhat understand that. I've seen the threads for people getting mad about AFKers and the like, and I've had those games where people disconnect or other such things and we had to 4v5. People do get seriously mad, and I understand why.

That said 'stuff' happens. I generally don't report people if they disconnected, cause that's not really their fault, unless they say something obvious like "screw this game, I'm out".

The only thing they have to do is make it so people don't get any IP or elo (or whatever your rank up stuff is) if they have disconnected from the game for more than a 5 minute stretch and don't come back - no game, no IP; perfectly fair.

ya, that's what made me quit. I don't want to financially support any company that doesn't care about intent when punishing.

JubbinautJan 29, 20152 votes

Thing is, this message - which is really terribly worded - is intended to do nothing more than ensure that you know that it's a very frowned-upon and disruptive behavior. That's all. It's not a punishment, or even an indication that punishment is eminent, as it shows up only the first time that a player disconnects (well, the first time after the new LB was implemented, anyway).

Leaverbuster still has a range of lenience to allow for "stuff" happening. It's lower than it used to be, but I've seen nothing to indicate that it's so low as to be stifling - or even come close to affecting conscientious players.

I recently received this warning myself on one of my smurfs, because my computer decided to reboot itself about 3 minutes before the game ended. I'm not worried. Pretty much every account has some leaves on it, and I go out of my way to avoid them.

JubbinautJan 29, 20151 votes

Before making such judgmental blanket accusations, I would be asking myself the following questions, and be sure that I had at least some pretty decent ideas about the answers:

How would you address discovering intent in the first place?

To what extent does "intent" forgive the behavior? (Or, to put this another way, how long do you forgive disruptive and destructive unintentional behavior based purely on the lack of intent?)

Which is more important - the intent of the action, or the effect the action has on others?

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Before making such judgmental blanket accusations, I would be asking myself the following questions, and be sure that I had at least some pretty decent ideas about the answers:

How would you address discovering intent in the first place?

To what extent does "intent" forgive the behavior? (Or, to put this another way, how long do you forgive disruptive and destructive unintentional behavior based purely on the lack of intent?)

Which is more important - the intent of the action, or the effect the action has on others?

The intent. If you look at nearly every criminal system, accidental damages are typically pardoned while intentional are punished.

If I trip down the stairs and land on you, breaking your neck... in most legal systems I'll be given no punishment since I did nothing wrong. I committed no crime. It'd be considered a fatal accident.

Intent is what DEFINES a punishable act. If a store's camera sees a chocolate bar fall off a display, through no act of mine, into the hood of my coat... they won't consider me a shoplifter, they'll just take the chocolate bar back.

The intent is the most important thing. Because reason would dictate that you not punish people for things outside of their control.

So yes, if you were going to remove intent from the punishment process, then I have EVERY right to accuse you of being immoral. And I will. If a person is accident prone, they are doing no wrong. Now, if at some point you discover that those 'accidents' merely APPEARED to be accidents, then the situation changes and the punishments become far more harsh since you not only committed crimes but also lied about them(which is another crime, btw).

As to how to discover intent... If you have no way of discovering intent, then I don't think it's reasonable for you to start punishing, honestly. Situations should have to reach the point where it is beyond any plausible doubt if you're going to punish without the ability to detect intent.

JubbinautJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

The intent. If you look at nearly every criminal system, accidental damages are typically pardoned while intentional are punished.

If I trip down the stairs and land on you, breaking your neck... in most legal systems I'll be given no punishment since I did nothing wrong. I committed no crime. It'd be considered a fatal accident.

If you trip down the stairs multiple times and land on multiple people and break their necks... in most legal systems, you'd deal with accusations at least of criminal negligence.

So, the question remains: to what extent does intent forgive the behavior? How many times is a person allowed to accidentally ruin someone else's before you address the negative situations created by that person?

Intent is what DEFINES a punishable act. If a store's camera sees a chocolate bar fall off a display, through no act of mine, into the hood of my coat... they won't consider me a shoplifter, they'll just take the chocolate bar back.

This is contrary to my own personal experiences in both directions. I've had friends accused of shoplifting things they didn't know they had with them, and I've had friends who were caught shoplifting, who were simply asked to return the items.

And the question still remains: to what extent does intent forgive the behavior? How many times is a person allowed to accidentally catch chocolate bars with their coat before that behavior is addressed?

So yes, if you were going to remove intent from the punishment process, then I have EVERY right to accuse you of being immoral. And I will. If a person is accident prone, they are doing no wrong. Now, if at some point you discover that those 'accidents' merely APPEARED to be accidents, then the situation changes and the punishments become far more harsh since you not only committed crimes but also lied about them(which is another crime, btw).

I beg to differ.

The point of my questions, and the way I presented them, is this:

If you cannot, at least, propose solutions to the issues you claim to have, then judging the inability of others to address those issues in a way that fits your particular perspective is unreasonable.

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

If you trip down the stairs multiple times and land on multiple people and break their necks... in most legal systems, you'd deal with accusations at least of criminal negligence.

So, the question remains: to what extent does intent forgive the behavior? How many times is a person allowed to accidentally ruin someone else's before you address the negative situations created by that person?

This is contrary to my own personal experiences in both directions. I've had friends accused of shoplifting things they didn't know they had with them, and I've had friends who were caught shoplifting, who were simply asked to return the items.

And the question still remains: to what extent does intent forgive the behavior? How many times is a person allowed to accidentally catch chocolate bars with their coat before that behavior is addressed?

I beg to differ.

The point of my questions, and the way I presented them, is this:

If you cannot, at least, propose solutions to the issues you claim to have, then judging the inability of others to address those issues in a way that fits your particular perspective is unreasonable.

Gross Negligence would not be 'accident prone' they'd have to prove the person was failing to do something. Like if a person was dancing while going down the stairs and tripped constantly, then that could be seen as 'criminal negligence' because an act they were taking was creating the situation that led to it. But if a person was just walking normally down the stairs and tripped, there would be no case for 'criminal negligence'. Another example, continuing the 'tripping down stairs' would be if the person failed to properly clean their stairs and slipped. Again, they did an act within reason that led to it.

And in the 'accidentally catching chocolate bars' thing, it'd depend entirely on whether or not there was proof. If the person constantly kept claiming it, then eventually there would be cause for doubt. But if it was caught on camera every time, and they could clearly see the person just walked by and didn't notice it... then I doubt a store manager would ever reach the limit. They might get baffled as to why so many chocolate bars keep falling, but if the person can be proven to have done nothing out of the ordinary by camera footage, then they'd never be penalized.

And that's sort of the thing. If you're going to punish without accounting for intent... you have to make DAMNED SURE you're giving the person EVERY REASONABLE DOUBT. Right now people are getting penalized on their second or third occurrence. I know one person who had their internet dc once during a ranked game, they got back in after 4 minutes. Then the next day they had to restart the client during a bot game. These are the only two occurrences within the past several months, but they have a 5 minute 'low priority'. Somehow I don't think that's 'every reasonable doubt'.

Again, if you're going to remove intent... you have to give the person every reasonable doubt. You can't just punish for a few occasions. You have to make sure that the chance that this was NOT simply 'accidental' is nearly zero. Or else I cannot support you. I WILL not support you. Ever. It is immoral in my eyes. And it's caving in to people who have an unhealthy attitude way too easily.

Edit: I don't think we'll ever come to an agreement on this though. We've had this argument several times and it always comes to the same thing: You're fine with it. I think it's immoral. The subject's too much of a grey area for there to be a 'right' or 'wrong' answer. But I'll be blunt: I think it's wrong. I think it is the greatest error Riot has ever made, and it is severe enough that it HAS stopped me from being willing to ever play their game again until they correct it.

To me it feels like one of two things:

Riot has some crazy dream of creating an idyllic world that only includes the most perfect players. People to whom LoL is the core of their life, who have perfect internet, perfect life situations, etc. and if you're not a part of that, then they don't care.
They want to be able to tell the people who have been whining 'see we're doing something' and don't care who they hurt by 'doing something'.

And as to my proposed solution: as I said. If you cannot account for intent, make the system lenient enough that it will only punish those who can say with near certainty are responsible for their own situation. If you're disconnecting twice a day every day... or if you're saying something in chat about leaving right before you leave every time... or if you only leave when you're more than x kills behind or immediately after dying... then a case can be made.

But right now, they're not even trying. A leave is a leave to them. There's no system in place for evne ATTEMPTING to determine the cause of the leave beyond checking if Riot's server was down at the time. And that's the problem. It doesn't matter if I can come up with a solution, what matters is that they don't even care enough to try.

JubbinautJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Gross Negligence would not be 'accident prone' they'd have to prove the person was failing to do something. Like if a person was dancing while going down the stairs and tripped constantly, then that could be seen as 'criminal negligence' because an act they were taking was creating the situation that led to it. But if a person was just walking normally down the stairs and tripped, there would be no case for 'criminal negligence'. Another example, continuing the 'tripping down stairs' would be if the person failed to properly clean their stairs and slipped. Again, they did an act within reason that led to it.

That was criminal negligence, not necessarily gross negligence. Gross negligence requires recklessness. Criminal negligence requires only that the act be "careless, inattentive, neglectful, [or] willfully blind." To shift from the metaphor into the appropriate context, that may include not addressing - or actively ignoring - known or common problems with one's personal setup: i.e., queuing for games with the knowledge one's connection is spotty.

Which you've indicated more than once to be something you believe should be acceptable.

My point in even mentioning the criminal negligence issue was to illustrate that even in criminal law, allowances are made for carelessness regarding the needs of others, without requiring intent.

And that's sort of the thing. If you're going to punish without accounting for intent... you have to make DAMNED SURE you're giving the person EVERY REASONABLE DOUBT. Right now people are getting penalized on their second or third occurrence. I know one person who had their internet dc once during a ranked game, they got back in after 4 minutes. Then the next day they had to restart the client during a bot game. These are the only two occurrences within the past several months, but they have a 5 minute 'low priority'. Somehow I don't think that's 'every reasonable doubt'.

I have several friends who've experienced similar issues, without being hit with low priority queues. I fail to see the relevance of either anecdote.

In fact, I could mention the multiple times since the new Leaverbuster hit that I've had connection issues (freezing at login, drops mid-game, etc), and I've never been put in low priority queue, nor have I received the "i agree" message, except on that one smurf.

Edit: I don't think we'll ever come to an agreement on this though. We've had this argument several times and it always comes to the same thing: You're fine with it. I think it's immoral. The subject's too much of a grey area for there to be a 'right' or 'wrong' answer. But I'll be blunt: I think it's wrong. I think it is the greatest error Riot has ever made, and it is severe enough that it HAS stopped me from being willing to ever play their game again until they correct it.

Thing is, though, I'm not "fine with it". I don't actually disagree with you. But I have seen exactly zero reason to believe that Riot has not accounted for every rational complaint you've made.

The difference is that I agree with the same policy they've always had regarding leaves: If your connection can't keep you in the game, you should either fix it or play something else. I agree with that for two reasons:

It's no fun to be constantly disconnected from your games, and games should be fun, so if you aren't having fun (because you aren't actually playing the game) then you should totally find something more enjoyable to do (or, y'know, fix the problem so you aren't being disconnected so much).
It's no fun for everyone else when one player ruins the game. And they have absolutely zero control over it. At least the disconnecting player had some amount of control.

Riot has some crazy dream of creating an idyllic world that only includes the most perfect players. People to whom LoL is the core of their life, who have perfect internet, perfect life situations, etc. and if you're not a part of that, then they don't care.

I think Riot has some crazy dream of expecting people to take responsibility for their decisions. Because, let's be honest, that's what you're advocating here: a lack of personal responsibility.

Your time management skills suck? Screw it, play League anytime you feel like it, and leave whenever you want, because reasons.

You know your internet's having issues? Screw it, play League anytime you want and disconnect all day, because reasons.

And that's frankly not okay. We - and I mean the larger Western culture (I'm sure others, but that's all I feel confident speaking about) - hold people to a higher standard than that. We expect people to manage their time, to meet the needs of the people in their life - like Riot expects players to manage their time to meet the needs of the people in their game. We expect people to maintain their tools, vehicles, yards, etc, - like Riot expects players to maintain their systems and connections. And honestly? That's the entire reason I don't see it as abnormal or unreasonable: because it's the same expectations people have of each other in every other aspect of life. Why should this community be different from any other?

And that doesn't mean that life doesn't come first. It means that Riot expects players to address those priorities before playing. I don't see how that's anything but reasonable.

EleshakaiJan 29, 20152 votes

The fundamental difference comes to this:

I don't see people disconnecting as a negative experience.

To me, it's only negative if they're doing it intentionally because that's disrespectful. That is showing a willful disrespect for me as their ally or their opponent.

But disconnecting due to internet issues, or power issues, or having to go to take care of a sick family member(and you seem to be okay with Riot's statement that if you have a relative you may POTENTIALLY need your help but doesn't always, you shouldn't play their game - which I think is absolutely inhuman of them), have to deal with a small child, or having to deal with any other of life's problems - bear in mind that not all issues CAN be 'addressed before you play' some of them happen at inopportune times.... I think that's perfectly fine. I'll just have fun with the game and move on to the next one. Can't win them all, anyways. It doesn't bother me in the least. Why? Because my attitude towards the game is not unhealthy... I recognize not only that it is 'just a game' but also that winning is not the goal. So many people in Western culture have this sick mindset that their goal is what should actually be the RESULT of their goal. Whether it be fame, wealth, victory... those are not goals. The goal should be along the lines of personal achievement - being a skilled athlete, being a good singer, having a business that succeeds, being a skilled player - and the fame, victory, or wealth comes as a result of succeeding at your goal. And if you have a healthy mindset, then someone having problems that result in them disconnecting does NOT affect your success, and thus doesn't create a negative experience - it doesn't even have to make things less fun, hell trying to see how well you CAN do in a 4v5 has created some of the most fun games I've ever had.
When all 4 remaining players have the right mindset... it's awesome. Such a great experience. I've had times where all four players were fine with the guy leaving because he had a good reason, and we justdid our best with what we had left. Those players had the right attitude.

JubbinautJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

The fundamental difference comes to this:

I don't see people disconnecting as a negative experience.

I don't enjoy the lack of agency that comes with being stuck in a game I have virtually no chance of winning. That's certainly a negative experience to me, regardless of how it happens, and since playing while a man down is one of the surest ways to guarantee an unwinnable game (and ensure that nothing any individual does on the 4-person team has any significant value), it certainly qualifies.

Of course, that doesn't mean I blame the disconnected person for it. One of the reasons I don't bother with blaming them, and manage to deal with the frustration that comes with being made irrelevant, is that I know they don't do it often - or that if they do, actions will be taken to protect players like myself, who just want to play a balanced match where our actions are meaningful.

and you seem to be okay with Riot's statement that if you have a relative you may POTENTIALLY need your help but doesn't always, you shouldn't play their game - which I think is absolutely inhuman of them

I think that's either a drastic oversimplification of their stance, or an intentional misrepresentation of it.

If you have a relative who may potentially need your help, but doesn't always, you should do everything in your power to make sure they won't need you for the next hour or so before you play. If you find that your play is being disrupted regularly anyway, you should attempt to adjust your play schedule to better fit that. In other words, you should fit your play to suit your life.

It's the responsible thing to do, and applies to all games, and all aspects of life.

And if you have a healthy mindset, then someone having problems that result in them disconnecting does NOT affect your success, and thus doesn't create a negative experience

For all that you assume I disagree with the mindset you propose - which is interesting, considering how I've often specifically agreed with it - I cannot agree that disconnects never create negative experiences.

Even ignoring the "I want to win" aspect - which should always be considered true, even if it isn't one's primary goal, since it is at least nominally the goal of any given match - there's still the balance and agency aspect.

Simply put, unbalanced games are less often enjoyable, and games where one lacks agency are rarely enjoyable. Disconnects can - and most often do - create both of those situations.

And none of this is remotely addressing what I'm trying to say - again, you've turned this into an opportunity to get on your soapbox about how "inhumane" Riot is, to expect people to be responsible for their own time and equipment. Forget that it's pretty standard for the culture to have those expectations. That doesn't apply because reasons.

I don't even want to talk about the current system with you, because frankly, it's not unlike arguing with a Creationist - it's never useful, never helpful, and the complete lack of concern for the perspectives of others does nothing more than make me hate myself for even trying.

What I wanted to address was whether or not you had a proposition yourself that touched on these concerns of yours. Perhaps it's not reasonable of me to expect others to handle things by the same standards I do, but I think that it's also unreasonable to expect others to address issues you perceive (because of your priorities) that they don't (because of their priorities), when you can't be bothered to attempt it yourself.

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

I've said several times that it's pointless to discuss this. We have a fundamental difference in perspective. There's no bridging that.

The proposition is to make the system lenient enough that you'll never catch someone who didn't deserve it.

I've said that several times. If you can't account for intent, you have to make it lenient enough that you go beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's the only solution I can come up with that isn't going to be far too manpower expensive for riot to try it(I know they don't want to have a full customer service staff manning these situations like some companies do, so I get that and have avoided the obvious solution which is to introduce the human element).

I've never felt that someone disconnecting removes agency. I still have complete control, I just have a reduced chance of victory. Not a problem in the long run, afterall... you can't win every game.

I did want to address one point:

f you have a relative who may potentially need your help, but doesn't always, you should do everything in your power to make sure they won't need you for the next hour or so before you play. If you find that your play is being disrupted regularly anyway, you should attempt to adjust your play schedule to better fit that. In other words, you should fit your play to suit your life.

You've clearly never had one, and that explains how you can say this. People who have severe chronic pain conditions, or chronic medical issues, or mental illnesses, etc.... they aren't people you can just 'do things to make sure they don't need you'. They can be fine one minute and not the next. And it can happen 3 days in a row, and then not again for 6 weeks. These types of issues are typically NOT PREDICTABLE. They're not something where you can go 'you're fine for an hour right?' because they won't KNOW if they're fine for an hour.

They could think they are, but 10 minutes later try to go to the bathroom and realize their joints are actintg up enough that they can't get up on their own... or that their chronic stomach issue has hit them and they need someone to sit with them while they spend an hour in the bathroom - my Mom for a while had a condition like that. She'd have a spasm and be stuck in the bathroom for an hour - it came out of nowhere... sometimes it'd happen five days in a row, then she might go 6 mnoths without it happening. Or she might have it happen once then again next week but then 3 weeks with no attacks. And someone would need to spend time with her during that time so she didn't feel alone. Whoever was home would keep her company and make sure everything was okay. It happens. You can't 'alter your play schedule around it' because it wasn't predictable. A LOT of medical conditions are like that.

Basically it's either 'Riot's system is lenient enough to account for it' or 'Riot doesn't want me to play their game because of it', there's no middle ground because there's nothing I have control over except whether I play the game. And the option is either: Play like normal, or never play. Because I can't control when I'm going to need to leave, and if Riot's system isn't going to ALLOW me to take care of x family member, or hell... even my OWN medical condition if I'm the one who has it... then I have to quit entirely. And that's what this system is saying: If you're not the 'ideal player', don't play or we'll punish you for it, and maybe even eventually ban you.

(note: I'm not CURRENTLY in a position like this, fortunately my mother recovered... and I moved out eventually to... but that's my problem with the system. That statement is immoral in my eyes. I cannot accept it, and you'll never convince me otherwise. You're welcome to disagree, hell you're welcome to support their decision to say 'f you' to everyone who doesn't have reliable play conditions... but I won't agree with you and we'll never see eye to eye on this.)

JubbinautJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

The proposition is to make the system lenient enough that you'll never catch someone who didn't deserve it.

And you haven't established that they *haven't done so.

I've never felt that someone disconnecting removes agency. I still have complete control, I just have a reduced chance of victory. Not a problem in the long run, afterall... you can't win every game.

In most games that I've played with a disconnected player, I stopped mattering. Seriously. The very fact that they can out-push (by being in more places than our team), out-farm (by being safer with greater numbers than our team), and therefore out-build me means that when my team does try to fight, my presence is meaningless.

No, really. I might as well be an Intermediate bot for all my relevance. It's true that I can choose to do things, but whether those things are meaningful in any sense is... less true.

And honestly? I don't play to win. I play to have fun and feel relevant. Remove the relevance, and you remove the fun.

You've clearly never had one, and that explains how you can say this. People who have severe chronic pain conditions, or chronic medical issues, or mental illnesses, etc.... they aren't people you can just 'do things to make sure they don't need you'. They can be fine one minute and not the next. And it can happen 3 days in a row, and then not again for 6 weeks. These types of issues are typically NOT PREDICTABLE. They're not something where you can go 'you're fine for an hour right?' because they won't KNOW if they're fine for an hour.

That's true, I haven't, at least to that extent. I've been lucky that way, and I know it. Doesn't change my point, though, which was just that last little sentence: "you should fit your play to suit your life."

If your life is of necessity chaotic enough that you cannot predict a safe 30-60 minutes to set aside for a game that can't just be walked away from without consequences (for yourself and others), then you probably shouldn't play that kind of game until you can. It's not fair to others, and it's not fair to yourself. It's short-sighted and irresponsible to put yourself in that situation.

Fifteen years ago, I might have agreed with you. If I'd been in a situation like that, and been trying to play a game like this, and wound up with some low priority queue or a ban or something for all my leaves, I probably would have thrown a fuss. Of course, I've grown up since then, and learned the importance of being responsible for my decisions.

(As a note, I don't mean that statement to imply anything about you personally. We've obviously led very different lives and learned different lessons, and the last thing I want to do is downplay your experiences)

To me, once it reaches that point, it's no longer about Riot's systems. It becomes a matter of personal priorities, and of ensuring that you have - to the absolute best of your abilities - ensured that your life is stable for the time it takes to play a match. Because that's better for you, as well as everyone else.

Look, all of this is irrelevant to my overall point. All of it. Because this is my point:

If you can't propose something that both addresses what they need to address and accounts for the issues you have with what's currently in place, then you maybe shouldn't use every opportunity to jump on your soapbox.

Or, y'know, maybe you could at least stop acting like they're heartless monsters. That would be nice.

I don't care that you don't like their system. You're fully welcome to that opinion. But it straight-up sickens me the way you turn every discussion into an excuse to tell people that Riot doesn't care what they're going through - even when you're responding to Rioters expressing concern about things!

And all because they have priorities that don't line up with yours. That's just... selfish, man.

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

It's a video game. If they expect someone to avoid a video game that might be their only relief from the stress of their life simply because their life is so stressful....

then yes, I consider them heartless monsters.

Really, the people in those situations are the people who need games like this the most. Intense games that will take their minds off things but still allow them to feel connected to people... they're the people who need it the most. The people who have the most stressful lives.

Sorry, but that's the way I feel. You're welcome to disagree. You're welcome to hate me for it. Hell you're welcome to say whatever the hell you want on the subject...but it's true. The fact that they're taking the people who need this type of game the most, the people who can benefit from it the most... and telling them to f off because their life isn't perfect for playing.... makes them heartless in my eyes.

I won't say individual rioters are heartless, I've seen enough to see that the people who DON'T make the decisions on this subject are decent human beings... but the company and the pb team... they're heartless in my eyes.

JubbinautJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

It's a video game. If they expect someone to avoid a video game that might be their only relief from the stress of their life simply because their life is so stressful....

then yes, I consider them heartless monsters.

Really, the people in those situations are the people who need games like this the most. Intense games that will take their minds off things but still allow them to feel connected to people... they're the people who need it the most. The people who have the most stressful lives.

Need games? Sure. Need League? Not so much.

If League of Legends was the only game in the world - or if MOBAs were the only genre of game in the world - I might agree with you.

But they aren't, and it's not. There are other options. Specifically, there are options that are more fitting to those lifestyles (MMOs come to mind). I see nothing wrong with encouraging people to do things that are genuinely more fitting to their lives.

And I have never seen any benefit to meeting the desires of the extreme minority at the expense of the needs or desires of the vast majority.

Sorry, but that's the way I feel. You're welcome to disagree. You're welcome to hate me for it. Hell you're welcome to say whatever the hell you want on the subject...but it's true. The fact that they're taking the people who need this type of game the most, the people who can benefit from it the most... and telling them to f off because their life isn't perfect for playing.... makes them heartless in my eyes.

You're misrepresenting their position again. And over-representing that of a group that I'm not even sure exists, who have safer and better alternatives. You're conflating League of Legends with gaming as a whole, and discounting entire genres of gaming to make your point.

And your point doesn't even begin to address what I've said. Why is it so heartless to expect people - ostensibly (mostly) adults - to be responsible for their lives? Why is it so heartless to expect them to account for what their actions do to others?

Why is it so unacceptable that Riot asks these people to try to be responsible, but it's perfectly okay that they're so irresponsible?

Why is it so terrible of Riot to punish these people for things they do, but it's perfectly okay that they punish others for no reason at all?

And I know you'll tell me that they shouldn't care about winning, but I've already established it doesn't have to be about winning for leaves to create negative experiences. And I'm sure you'll strongly imply that my opinion on that matter is irrelevant, but what makes yours so much more important than mine? Or anyone else's, for that matter?

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

When did I ever say your opinion wasn't important? It doesn't CHANGE mine, but you're absolutely welcome to it. I'm not even trying to convince you otherwise. I'm just defending my right to maintain and express my opinion.

I don't consider 'these people' irresponsible. In fact, I consider a person who leaves a game to take care of a suddenly sick relative, or to deal with an emergency to be far more responsible than a person who wouldn't. I don't consider a person who isn't an expert at fixing computers to be irresponsible if they choose to play a video game. I don't consider a person who lives in a city with traditionally unstable power grids to be irresponsible if they choose to play a video game. I don't consider a person who plays a video game not knowing their internet is going to go out to be irresponsible. None of these are things that make a person irresponsible in my eyes.

I don't expect someone who leaves a game to take care of their sick brother, mother, sister, wife, husband, child, etc. to consider how them leaving affects someone in a video game's chances of winning. No. I really don't. They have more important things to think about. And I want them to think of that. And when they come back to play, I want the game to still be waiting there for them, because they'll want something fun to do that will keep them in touch with the rest of the world. When you're taking care of a sick relative... the most important thing is to feel connected to other people, and a game like LoL(or WoW or DotA/etc.) is great at that. But a lot of those other games require subscriptions, good internet, massive time commitments(MMOs are particularly bad for this, especially free ones) or strong computers that some can't necessarily afford.

As to my point... there are stories on an almost monthly basis on these forums of people for whom League of Legends has helped them through a stressful time. Some of these stories ARE coping with relatives' or their own illness. It's not uncommon. There are probably many more who never say anything.

If these people were turned away from the game... would they have coped as well? You say 'find something else' but what if this is what BRINGS THEM JOY. Another game might not do that for them, assuming another game can be found that fits their needs... League of Legends has a pretty good thing going.

Afterall, name one other game that will offer the following:

Requires very minimal internet speeds.
Requires a low quality computer.
Is 100% free to play.
Is social.
Is high paced and intense enough to allow a person to embroil themselves entirely in it.
Requires minimal long-term commitment.(you can play as much or as little as you want and get the same experience)

JubbinautJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

When did I ever say your opinion wasn't important? It doesn't CHANGE mine, but you're absolutely welcome to it. I'm not even trying to convince you otherwise. I'm just defending my right to maintain and express my opinion.

I wasn't referring to my opinion regarding LB. I was referring to the majority opinion regarding the effect of Leavers. My reasoning goes like this:

The majority of players (I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of players) are of the opinion that Leavers are harmful to their experience. Riot's policies are made with this in mind. You demonize Riot for those policies. In what way are you not being dismissive of those opinions?

I don't consider 'these people' irresponsible. In fact, I consider a person who leaves a game to take care of a suddenly sick relative, or to deal with an emergency to be far more responsible than a person who wouldn't. I don't consider a person who isn't an expert at fixing computers to be irresponsible if they choose to play a video game. I don't consider a person who lives in a city with traditionally unstable power grids to be irresponsible if they choose to play a video game. I don't consider a person who plays a video game not knowing their internet is going to go out to be irresponsible. None of these are things that make a person irresponsible in my eyes.

Oh, for crying out loud. I'll tell you like Rioters told you:

#If you have to leave the game for something in your life, please leave the game and take care of real life.

And then I'll add this:

Your time, and your machines, are your responsibility. Not caring for them or accounting for them is irresponsible.

I don't expect someone who leaves a game to take care of their sick brother, mother, sister, wife, husband, child, etc. to consider how them leaving affects someone in a video game's chances of winning.

Nor do I. I expect someone who has a sick brother, mother, sister, wife, husband, child, etc. to consider the needs of that sick loved one, and the needs of the game they choose to play. And then I expect them to select a game that fits the needs of their life at the time.

Because that's responsible.

As to my point... there are stories on an almost monthly basis on these forums of people for whom League of Legends has helped them through a stressful time. Some of these stories ARE coping with relatives' or their own illness. It's not uncommon. There are probably many more who never say anything.

If these people were turned away from the game... would they have coped as well? You say 'find something else' but what if this is what BRINGS THEM JOY. Another game might not do that for them, assuming another game can be found that fits their needs... League of Legends has a pretty good thing going.

I'm not saying find something else. I'm saying find something that fits your life. If League can fit your needs, GOOD! Do it! If, however, it can't, then it can't. Trying to make it work is unfair to you, and to the other people who have - through no fault of their own - are forced to deal with the consequences of your attempts to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Afterall, name one other game that will offer the following:

Requires very minimal internet speeds.

Requires a low quality computer.

Is 100% free to play.

Is social.

Is high paced and intense enough to allow a person to embroil themselves entirely in it.

Requires minimal long-term commitment.(you can play as much or as little as you want and get the same experience)

ToR fits all of those (I've been playing off-and-on since it first went f2p, and have the same experience as if I played it constantly... though it takes chronologically longer, since my total hours played isn't the same as it would be otherwise)

Hearthstone and other f2p cccgs tend to fit all of those, with the caveat that "high-paced" not be a specific reference to twitch gameplay, but rather to intellectual (or attentional) investment (they tend toward slower pace, but more in-depth thought).

Team Fortress 2 (and other f2p shooters) fits every aspect of that entirely, including the social aspect.

Path of Exile (and other f2p Diablo clones).

Rusty Hearts.

Elsword.

I'm sure I could find more specific examples, but frankly I'm sick of staring at lists.

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

Nor do I. I expect someone who has a sick brother, mother, sister, wife, husband, child, etc. to consider the needs of that sick loved one, and the needs of the game they choose to play. And then I expect them to select a game that fits the needs of their life at the time.

So you're saying that, if League is the game they enjoy. The one game they enjoy. They should give up the one thing that brings them joy in their stressful life simply because their life is stressful?

And when their loved one asks 'why don't you play league anymore, you had so much fun' and they tell that person 'well, Riot's policies would punish me for coming to take care of you' how do you think that's going to make them feel?

You're basically telling me that if you want to play League of Legends, you have to revolve your entire life around it and if you're not willing to do that, find another game. You word it differently, but that's the message. You say 'find a game that fits your life' but what you're really saying is 'fit your life to the game you're playing' and not 'fit the game to your life' because I can fit League of Legends into anyone's life. These people ARE fitting the game into their life, it just means that they might have to leave a game once in a while which is really not a big deal. It's a game. Get over yourself if you're taking it so seriously that them leaving is negatively impacting you in any noteworthy way - especially so much so that you want them to quit the game over it and 'find something else'. Seriously. It's becoming FAR too important to you, near-obsessive levels of such at that point. And that's not healthy.

(Edit: Rioters words don't match their actions. Their words say 'leave the game and take care of it' but their actions say 'never leave the game or we'll force an ultimatum on you and punish you if you break it enough times' which is why I don't trust their words)

You've had a privileged life free of dealing with these types of things, so I suppose its understandable that you can't imagine what it'd be like to be told what you're telling me... and I suppose it's also understandable that you can't empathize with someone in a situation like that... but... it's disheartening to read you defending this type of decision honestly.

I am losing respect for you with every line you type on this subject, so before I lose it entirely... I think I'm going to stop replying, because it's depressing to read.

Best wishes.

JubbinautJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

So you're saying that, if League is the game they enjoy. The one game they enjoy. They should give up the one thing that brings them joy in their stressful life simply because their life is stressful?

And when their loved one asks 'why don't you play league anymore, you had so much fun' and they tell that person 'well, Riot's policies would punish me for coming to take care of you' how do you think that's going to make them feel?

You're basically telling me that if you want to play League of Legends, you have to revolve your entire life around it and if you're not willing to do that, find another game. You word it differently, but that's the message. You say 'find a game that fits your life' but what you're really saying is 'fit your life to the game you're playing' and not 'fit the game to your life' because I can fit League of Legends into anyone's life. These people ARE fitting the game into their life, it just means that they might have to leave a game once in a while which is really not a big deal. It's a game. Get over yourself if you're taking it so seriously that them leaving is negatively impacting you in any noteworthy way - especially so much so that you want them to quit the game over it and 'find something else'. Seriously. It's becoming FAR too important to you, near-obsessive levels of such at that point. And that's not healthy.

I'm not saying they should quit the game. I'm saying they should fit their play to their lives.

Regardless of how you choose to interpret my words, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if your life is hectic, and out of your control, you should play games that accommodate that. I'm saying that you should consider the facts of your life when you decide what games to play.

I am, in short, saying that the things you do in your free time should be things that are appropriate to the kind of free time you have.

I really don't understand how you translate that differently, or why you insist on putting words in my mouth.

You've had a privileged life free of dealing with these types of things, so I suppose its understandable that you can't imagine what it'd be like to be told what you're telling me... and I suppose it's also understandable that you can't empathize with someone in a situation like that... but... it's disheartening to read you defending this type of decision honestly.

I empathize fully. I respect it fully. I appreciate it fully. Although, because I believe that one should put their lives before their game choices, I suppose that makes me a terrible person.

Regardless of what you've decided to project on me, I agree with what you're saying. I really do. But I happen to believe that players in those kinds of situations (and I like how this entire discussion has once again moved away from anything I was trying to establish and into the tiniest of niche cases... it's funny) should game responsibly.

That means not playing games that require more of an immediate time investment than they can offer.

That doesn't mean they can't play League. It just means they need to be sure that they are able to do so before they queue. Can't leave a sick loved one alone? Wait until they sleep, or enlist someone to help care for them occasionally (partner, SO, neighbor, whatever).

That means playing games that fit the lives they lead.

Just like everyone else.

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

That means playing games that fit the lives they lead. Just like everyone else.

Also known as: If you aren't the perfect player in the perfect situation, quit.

Which is what I've been saying the whole time.

And you can't fathom what it'd be like to spend all day taking care of someone... to have them calm down for a bit, so you think you can fit some time playing in... and decide to play the game you love, and then find you've been banned because two weeks ago, the last time you had a chance to play, you had to leave suddenly because their condition worsened and they woke up.

Or... well, I said I'd stop replying, but here I am. Damn, I'm going to leave it here.

Quite simply: You're happy with the system because you can't fathom what it'd be like to be in the situation where the system would punish you for something completely beyond your control. I can, so I'm not happy with it. Different experiences, different point of view. But because of my experiences, I cannot see this system as anything but horrendously immoral. Because of your experiences, it seems perfectly fine.

It actually kinda reminds me of a scaled down version of the first episode of Cross Ange... she thinks it's perfectly okay to exile the Norma because of what she's been told. But to the poor mother, it's the worst tragedy imaginable...

I hope you're never forced into the situation where this impacts you directly, Jubb. I really do. I guess that's all I can say.