"Drivers who don't curse run into less traffic going to work." - Riot Games

Urgonnalearn2day·Sep 28, 2015·49 votes·4,227 views

I just woke up and was thinking about some of the concepts we just don't challenge as a community that we should. This will be a simple list and you guys and gals can add onto it.

About the title. It's a joke based on Riot's view of cursing in games causing you to lose more. Unfortunately correlation does not mean causation. Teams that win tend to not cuss because things are going well. Also typing in LoL is generally stupid in it's own right and can cause a loss. I'm betting you'll find less typing on winning teams also. Let's be real people.
The way Solo Q works is in itself toxic. 1 person can hold 4 other people hostage and there's literally nothing you can do about it. Yeah if they curse in game or afk you can get them a slap on the wrist, but then they just learn to say nothing in game or move around. Not only that.... people actually BEG the person not to be a jerk. This stuff stays with you to the next game.
We need a way to remove someone in champ select because it would honestly make the game WAY better. Yet we are worried about that 1 person's feelings..... that the other 4 people don't want on their team. Just make it so teams cannot abuse it and we're golden.

..... ladies and gentlemen you can take it from here:

66 Comments

Hyrum GraffSep 28, 201551 votes

"Aggressive drivers get cut off more often." -Riot Games

That's a better parallel. Because cursing has no effect on your fellow drivers, but being toxic does have an effect on fellow teammates.

So yes, it's true. If I'm on the highway, there are a few random jerks who will cut me off at every chance they get, weaving in and out of lanes so they can make it to work just a little bit faster, and I can't do jack shit about them. But the majority of drivers are NOT like that, except if I repeatedly cut them off, they're more likely to try to stop me or cut me off in return.

macromiteSep 28, 20151 votes

I think you missed the point entirely, your cursing because you got hit by traffic. the traffic came first, and you are cursing independent of it and towards it.

DaenSep 28, 201511 votes

That's not how the logic here works, unfortunately. If you are cursing independent of getting hit, the two pieces (getting hit and cursing) do not correlate. The OP is saying that Riot's statement does correlate, but his title has two pieces that are completely independent of one another, thus not correlating.

See what I mean?

Hyrum GraffSep 29, 20153 votes

{quoted}

the two pieces (getting hit and cursing) do not correlate. The OP is saying that Riot's statement does correlate, but his title has two pieces that are completely independent of one another, thus not correlating.

Public Disclaimer: I'm going to be pedantic here. If that annoys you, kindly do not read below this line

So, technically....

Saying two things correlate just means that you can find a correlation between them. A correlation is a number between -1 and 1 that indicates the strength of the relationship between two sets of numerical data. The closer to 0, the weaker the relationship. More positive => a stronger direct relationship (ie, # TVs per household and life expectancy), and more negative => stronger inverse relationship (ie, Frequency of smoking cigarettes and life expectancy). As such, two things that are unrelated still have a correlation, it's just likely near-zero.

The correct statistical word that people most often mean when they say "Correlation" is "Association," which refers to a relationship between two things (ex: Y and Z are associated. There is a strong association between Y and Z).

In your particular case I'd probably replace the words "do not correlate" with "have no relationship" or "are not associated."

macromiteSep 29, 20151 votes

the thing is, it does correlate, clearly you have not been hit by actually traffic before, like snail pace traffic. you are likely going to be mad, and possibly curse. because you curse while in traffic, it shows that, and it shows that more people curse who are in traffic than out of traffic. this is the idea of the statement, that the cause is the uncontrollable nature of traffic or the game, and that the person in the traffic cursing is not the one who is in charge of the situation, like how in league when you lose it's not always because of you.

what he said is instead saying that it is infact that players fault in every situation, that being an aggressive driver is the sole causation, but this is dramatically different from the original post, it is saying that players will make other players mad.

the secret is of course in the wording, the op suggests that there are unwinnable matches "traffic" and cursing is the toxicity that this causes, which makes perfect sense.

the post that I had originally replied to suggests that players are main factor, you can only be mad if someone makes you mad, and in turn you will make others mad. this also makes sense, but it is not the same or even just a rewording of the post.

JubbinautSep 29, 20152 votes

{quoted}

the thing is, it does correlate, clearly you have not been hit by actually traffic before, like snail pace traffic. you are likely going to be mad, and possibly curse. because you curse while in traffic, it shows that, and it shows that more people curse who are in traffic than out of traffic. this is the idea of the statement, that the cause is the uncontrollable nature of traffic or the game, and that the person in the traffic cursing is not the one who is in charge of the situation, like how in league when you lose it's not always because of you.

The difference, though, is that Riot's statement is intended as a two-way correlation. Both things are capable of affecting the other. It doesn't state a causative relationship, because the fact of the matter is that it's fairly complex - it's true that losing games can cause players to become toxic (when they otherwise wouldn't be), but it's also true that being toxic can cause players to lose games (that they might otherwise have won).

In the case of the OP's example, however, it only goes one way - there's no conceivable way for cursing in your car to influence traffic.

what he said is instead saying that it is infact that players fault in every situation, that being an aggressive driver is the sole causation, but this is dramatically different from the original post, it is saying that players will make other players mad.

He didn't state that it was the sole causation. In fact, he clearly indicated otherwise, saying, "If I'm on the highway, there are a few random jerks who will cut me off at every chance they get [...] and I can't do jack shit about them." Rather, he strongly implies that the relationship between the two was complex, much like the relationship between toxicity and win/loss.

macromiteSep 29, 20151 votes

riot does not present it as a two way interaction, instead the wording implies that you can win a completely lost game with nothing more than not using the chat function to yell at your team in a percentage of games, when this is not the case.

Cursing can't cause traffic in most cases, but it is a very accurate way to describe at least one instance of this problem, you are making an assumption that this is meant as a general quote, when it really just describes one specific scenario that the general quote does not accurately suggest under its wording, therefore making the general quote easily misunderstood and rather pointless to have in the game

No, he is in fact saying the only causation is aggravated drivers. read your own statement and think, why would someone cut someone off randomly? People tend towards being compassionate, and don't do things that actively hurt others without having a somewhat good reason. I'm not saying his point is wrong, I'm saying its different and irrelevant to the discussion.

On another note I can think of three incredibly roundabout ways that cursing can cause traffic, but that's not important. ~ I'm not here to just argue, so I feel like adding a second and irrelevant discussion to this, to lighten the mood.

have you seen the new crazy boris productions video?

JubbinautSep 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

riot does not present it as a two way interaction, instead the wording implies that you can win a completely lost game with nothing more than not using the chat function to yell at your team in a percentage of games, when this is not the case.

The statement is simply: "Toxic players lose x% more games." (I'm terrible with numbers, and don't recall the specific percentage it states)

The language there implies no causation - it's a purely correlative statement. It does not indicate whether the losses cause toxicity or the toxicity causes losses - but it does indicate that there is a connection between the two.

Any connection worth mentioning so blankly (that is, without clarifying language) must be a two-way connection. Which is why the OP's version causes a "wait a minute..." moment, while Riot's tends not to.

Cursing can't cause traffic in most cases, but it is a very accurate way to describe at least one instance of this problem, you are making an assumption that this is meant as a general quote, when it really just describes one specific scenario that the general quote does not accurately suggest under its wording, therefore making the general quote easily misunderstood and rather pointless to have in the game

I suppose that depends on what the purpose of its presence is.

No, he is in fact saying the only causation is aggravated drivers. read your own statement and think, why would someone cut someone off randomly?

Because they're in a hurry? Because they aren't paying attention? Because they're assholes?

But flip that same question to relate to League: why do people troll randomly?

People tend towards being compassionate, and don't do things that actively hurt others without having a somewhat good reason. I'm not saying his point is wrong, I'm saying its different and irrelevant to the discussion.

People tend not to actively and intentionally harm others, sure. But there's plenty of possible explanations for someone to do so without the intention of harm.

Even then, there's a significant disconnect in both situations - and people who don't recognize others as people tend not to treat them like people. Which goes a long way towards explaining the dozens of over-aggressive drivers I see every day, regardless of what I'm doing.

On another note I can think of three incredibly roundabout ways that cursing can cause traffic, but that's not important.

I would love to know how it's possible for traffic (whether seen as a system or as intentional choices by others) could possibly be caused by someone sitting in their car and cursing about it - an action that, presumably, those others would be effectively unaware of.

EDIT: It occurs to me that this last paragraph in particular might seem rather confrontational. That was not my intention - I'm simply incapable of conceiving of any valid claim of connection there.

3tysonSep 28, 201515 votes

Thing is everyone in lol knows best

you know better than me what i should do

people would get removed for picking certain champs

I can honestly tell that if i have to suport im most likely best of playing leblanc sup

with 3 snares and free warding all over the enemy jg on her w i feel like shes a leggit suport

This would not be allowed annymore until its a normal thig in lcs

Trias000Sep 28, 20152 votes

3 snares?

3tysonSep 28, 20153 votes

Trow in e wait ult wait e is of cooldown e 3 snares

Silents429Sep 28, 20151 votes

God damn I want to see a LB support now.

3tysonSep 28, 20151 votes

lol i build her tanky you get to go in fights and snare people you get to ward everywhere and they cant kil u

i you get to bait like a baws

and you get to hide in a bush flash out annywhere with w and trow out a snare every like 4 seconds

T RexHasTinyArmsSep 28, 20151 votes

used to be kinda common and even saw pro play when she has the silence still

SpicaySep 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Thing is everyone in lol knows best

you know better than me what i should do

people would get removed for picking certain champs

I can honestly tell that if i have to suport im most likely best of playing leblanc sup

with 3 snares and free warding all over the enemy jg on her w i feel like shes a leggit suport

This would not be allowed annymore until its a normal thig in lcs

I actually like support LeBlanc as well..just as much as I like mid J4, mid Irelia, mid Yi and Triforce Yasuo.

Sadly the sheep will only accept something when they see it in high level play. Used to be that when I built Tri on Yasuo people called me a troll, or a fucking moron..and apparently now it's the norm?

3tysonSep 29, 20151 votes

even if i carry game i might still be troling lol

DessemSep 29, 20151 votes

Remember that guy who built Triforce Kog'Maw, got laughed at and called a baddie until he took it to competitive, won with it and now everyone uses Triforce Kog'Maw?

Yeah. If someone picks an off-meta champion for a specific role, I usually assume they know what they're doing (if Ranked), and otherwise allow them to test it (if Unranked).

I've seen a Leona jungle work, and I've seen a Yasuo+Janna botlane work.

JubbinautSep 28, 201510 votes

{quoted}

About the title. It's a joke based on Riot's view of cursing in games causing you to lose more. Unfortunately correlation does not mean causation. Teams that win tend to not cuss because things are going well. Also typing in LoL is generally stupid in it's own right and can cause a loss. I'm betting you'll find less typing on winning teams also. Let's be real people.

Riot doesn't care about cursing in games. I have never understood where this idea comes from. Profanity - in and of itself - is neither frowned-upon, nor is it considered punishable. Additionally, Riot's statements make no claims of causation - they only indicate correlation.

The way Solo Q works is in itself toxic. 1 person can hold 4 other people hostage and there's literally nothing you can do about it. Yeah if they curse in game or afk you can get them a slap on the wrist, but then they just learn to say nothing in game or move around. Not only that.... people actually BEG the person not to be a jerk. This stuff stays with you to the next game.

I... would love an explanation of how 1 person can keep the other 4 from leaving the game when they want to. I mean, it requires a supermajority to surrender, but that's not at all the same thing as a unanimous decision.

We need a way to remove someone in champ select because it would honestly make the game WAY better. Yet we are worried about that 1 person's feelings..... that the other 4 people don't want on their team. Just make it so teams cannot abuse it and we're golden.

Sounds simple enough. So how would we make that unabusable?

Live-scan of the chat to determine the validity of the vote? Hrm. No, that wouldn't help anything if you're trying to vote out someone that silently auto-locked.
Pre-determined pick criteria to determine validity? That goes pretty strongly against Riot's "not defining the meta" stance - probably not a good plan.

Well, that's all I can think of - but then, I didn't really sleep last night, so I'm a little brain dead. Perhaps you've got some more workable thoughts on it?

Urgonnalearn2daySep 28, 20153 votes

{quoted}

Riot doesn't care about cursing in games. I have never understood where this idea comes from. Profanity - in and of itself - is neither frowned-upon, nor is it considered punishable. Additionally, Riot's statements make no claims of causation - they only indicate correlation.

I... would love an explanation of how 1 person can keep the other 4 from leaving the game when they want to. I mean, it requires a supermajority to surrender, but that's not at all the same thing as a unanimous decision.

Sounds simple enough. So how would we make that unabusable?

Live-scan of the chat to determine the validity of the vote? Hrm. No, that wouldn't help anything if you're trying to vote out someone that silently auto-locked.

Pre-determined pick criteria to determine validity? That goes pretty strongly against Riot's "not defining the meta" stance - probably not a good plan.

Well, that's all I can think of - but then, I didn't really sleep last night, so I'm a little brain dead. Perhaps you've got some more workable thoughts on it?

Well I come from the mindset that if 4 people think your champ choice is bad to the point they are willing to remove you then it's best you're removed. It's best for all parties. That's the best case against it. Most of the time the people who would be removed would be the guy saying mid or feed.

I was in my silver promos... 2 wins 3 losses all decided by trolls. Literally first game of my promos "I'm feeding till I get banned." I thought he was kidding, but I looked him up. .. he wasn't.

I can't stop a loss there... I'm just stuck with a terrible experience. Yes people can surrender, but more times than not you get 1 other person who won't.

Welcome to a 50 min loss. Oh and if you don't help. .. you get reports for afk.

Wonderful.... so I have a troll hard feeding and I have to keep playing a drawn out game on the small chance I might win with what will feel like hell.

I've won a game before with a feeder. It felt almost as bad as a loss.

JubbinautSep 28, 20152 votes

{quoted}

Well I come from the mindset that if 4 people think your champ choice is bad to the point they are willing to remove you then it's best you're removed. It's best for all parties. That's the best case against it. Most of the time the people who would be removed would be the guy saying mid or feed.

Fair enough, but that doesn't say much about abuse-cases. It would also act as a systemic enforcement of an arbitrary meta - something Riot has stated they want to avoid.

I'm not saying that a vote-kick system is unworkable. There's certainly benefits to it. But as things stand, the costs seem to massively outweigh those benefits.

And there's a good chance the whole thing will be moot once Team Builder Draft hits and becomes the standard queue method for Ranked.

Urgonnalearn2daySep 28, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Fair enough, but that doesn't say much about abuse-cases. It would also act as a systemic enforcement of an arbitrary meta - something Riot has stated they want to avoid.

I'm not saying that a vote-kick system is unworkable. There's certainly benefits to it. But as things stand, the costs seem to massively outweigh those benefits.

And there's a good chance the whole thing will be moot once Team Builder Draft hits and becomes the standard queue method for Ranked.

You'll still have the issue unless it works like the current team builder. Most people are okay with off meta choices. It's the "I'm going poppy jungle and you're going to deal with it" ass hats.

I've seen a metric ton of outright dumb ekko jungles. Like a ekko 1/2 half health with blue buff diving a full health lvl 6 veigar. I'm like no, danger, red ping 5 times. .. dives anyway and dies. It would be great if it showed proficiency with the champ also before they got on your ranked team. We're this late into the season and we still have people 1st timing champs in ranked.

I'd be vote kicking anyone who was shady; it would have to be toned down from what I personally would want.

Ekko jungle? No games with ekko played? This is ranked? Off the island with you.

JubbinautSep 28, 20151 votes

{quoted}

You'll still have the issue unless it works like the current team builder. Most people are okay with off meta choices. It's the "I'm going poppy jungle and you're going to deal with it" ass hats.

According to what I've read about it, you select two roles you're willing to play (including a "fill" option). It matches people based on that, gathers them into a lobby where they can discuss what they want to pick and ban, and then sticks them into the standard Draft pick/ban phase.

Obviously, it won't solve all the problems - people who just genuinely want to be jerks for the sake of being jerks will still be more than capable of doing whatever the hell they want. But I expect it will obviate most of the problems - simply by enabling better capacity for communication, and preventing the "everybody wants to play mid" kind of thing.

kile147Sep 28, 20151 votes

I mean Riot wouldn't be enforcing the meta though, we would with the tools Riot gives us (which we already do). If you could only get a few lobby kicks per X games played then it would be less abuse-able too. "Yeah I don't like the idea of LB support, but I only have one kick left for awhile and I'd rather save it for someone who is actually being an asshat"

I feel like the biggest issue with this would be that if it worked it might improve player behavior up until the game starts, at which point they'd reveal themselves as trolls. Now the tool can't catch the people it was intended to and instead is just being used to decide who people play (which while not awful is not intended)

JubbinautSep 28, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I mean Riot wouldn't be enforcing the meta though, we would with the tools Riot gives us (which we already do). If you could only get a few lobby kicks per X games played then it would be less abuse-able too. "Yeah I don't like the idea of LB support, but I only have one kick left for awhile and I'd rather save it for someone who is actually being an asshat"

Riot wouldn't, no. They would, instead, have built a system to do so. Which is why I chose the term "systemic enforcement."

I feel like the biggest issue with this would be that if it worked it might improve player behavior up until the game starts, at which point they'd reveal themselves as trolls. Now the tool can't catch the people it was intended to and instead is just being used to decide who people play (which while not awful is not intended)

Which means it wouldn't really fix the problem it's supposed to fix, and would exacerbate a whole different problem (meta stagnation). All-in-all, probably not a great approach - too much cost, too little return.

T RexHasTinyArmsSep 28, 20151 votes

The restricted number of kicks is a possible solution to make it less abuseable, but there is a fundamental flaw w/ vote kick systems. You have one of two issues:

Issue 1, you punish players who are trying to be helpful to their team. A while back I stopped playing ADC because I'm bad at it and I don't like the role enough to practice it to improve to the level I play at in ranked so it became something that being willing to play was damaging my climb. I tell my team every game that I can play every role except for ADC and I almost never have an issue. If no one on the team has interest in playing adc (usually someone asks for it though) then I'll offer to play heimer bot lane if someone can go physical damage in another lane, bc heimer gives the push ability that an AD would so if we can early baron (easier w/ heimer than most comps) then we can push hard mid game and win before their ADC out scales me. It's not the best pick but I have a decent win rate when I've had to do it and probably a 100% better chance to win a game w/ it than if I play ADC against an ADC main at my rank, and if I'm not in promos I usually just dodge. I'm not trolling but a lot of people freak out about it and given that I really try not to force my team to play such an odd comp unless I absolutely have to, I think it would be pretty painful if a vote kick lost me promos when I was trying to do something good for my team and not cause an auto loss playing a traditional ADC bot lane.

Issue 2, if you don't punish people harshly enough for being vote kicked (which the punishment is what causes issue 1) then you end up with the issue of people trying to abuse the vote kick by trying to get kicked. Even if there is a chance to have to play a really stupid champ+role combo, many people would risk it and hope that at least one of the 4 people (or all if it had to count against all) would vote to kick them so they didn't have to play the role they didn't want to.

It is hard to remove one of those issues w/out creating the other. Also personally it feels kind of awesome to win something w/ a player who plays something so off the wall that none of us think it will work but they ask us to trust them bc they swear they aren't trolling. When they come through and you're just like, how did you just make that work?!?! it's pretty awesome.

B3ERSep 28, 20156 votes

Riot wouldn't know what to do about toxicity even if they had a guy with a Ph.D in Neuroscience.

ThePartyLeaderSep 28, 20154 votes

I would have to believe the actual parallel would be drivers in traffic who curse or rage get in more accidents. I would think this would be true but obviously don't have stats.

meatjunjunSep 28, 20151 votes

Think the point OP is trying to make isn't about winning or losing. It's about the fact that you can get mad in traffic, but it doesn't make the traffic go away. For League, you cursing at a troll doesn't stop or hurt the troll in any way.

And yet, Riot tells the people getting mad that they're the issue, when it fact the root cause of all the problems is that traffic (aka trolls)

How do you fix traffic, you build more roads, not tell the guy with road rage to calm down.

Leon3789Sep 28, 20151 votes

That's not the full story either, people getting mad and becoming "toxic" (Quotes because sometimes it's not attempting to be toxic, it just comes off that way) DOES affect other players, in fact, since trolls aren't affected by it all you're doing is wasting time and messing up people if they aren't trolling.

If I'm in a game and doing poorly, getting pissed off at me and yelling every 2 seconds and blaming the WHOLE lose on me, that doesn't help, in fact it does the opposite, people actually do worse under these conditions. That's what riot's saying.

XIII VanitasSep 28, 20152 votes

False. The root problem is when your anger affects the way you play or act towards other players. Being mad is legit, being a dick isn't. You're responsible for what you do.

Urgonnalearn2daySep 28, 20151 votes

{quoted}

False. The root problem is when your anger affects the way you play or act towards other players. Being mad is legit, being a dick isn't. You're responsible for what you do.

Unfortunately being angry isn't a rarity in this game because the base system allows for people to jerk your chain rather easily with little recourse. We're stuck with this person for at least 20 min potentially longer. With our current system we just have to take it. Can't leave without a penalty. Riot does this for game's integrity, but they leave in people who troll so you just can't get away from it.

SkullDuggery19Sep 28, 20152 votes

This is just wrong. How is the troll not the root of the problem?

Sometimes this whole "personal responsibility" bullshit is just a way to kick the victim.

Go troll someone in real life and see if anyone sides with you after you get punched. Better yet, watch the youtube video of idiots getting knocked out for "pranks." This is how real people respond to childish idiocy. If Riot wants the community to grow up, then they have to start treating people like they are.

XIII VanitasSep 29, 20151 votes

So the only way you know how to react is through violence (verbal or physical)? You are as much childish as trolls, if you don't know how to control yourself.

SkullDuggery19Sep 30, 20151 votes

lol, the world is run through violence or the threat of it. How do you think America got to where it is, you know...the top of the economic food chain.

DaenSep 28, 20153 votes

Also typing in LoL is generally stupid in it's own right and can cause a loss. I'm betting you'll find less typing on winning teams also. Let's be real people.

I don't really calculate my experience in wins or losses. What I can say, however, is that games where there's lots of typing (read: positive) are generally a lot more enjoyable. When I'm able to interact with my team, engage with the enemy in light banter, etc. it makes the game feel a lot more alive.

Just my opinion, of course, YMMV.

KING OF MASKSSep 28, 20152 votes

Extremely accurate thread title, rito's shitty use of statistics has always bothered me.

HalcyonDwellerSep 28, 20151 votes

I agree with you that statistics shouldn't be used this way, but everyone does this. Everyone uses statistics this way; advertisers, politicians, corporations, etc.

No need to hate on RIOT specifically for it.

KING OF MASKSSep 28, 20151 votes

Yeah, but everyone expects advertisers/politicians/corporations to manipulate things like statistics to suit their agendas. When a game developer that supposedly prides (forgive my cynicism, but perhaps it would be better to use the past tense there: prided) itself on community interaction and transparency is pulling the same shit, it's pretty goddamn irritating.

HalcyonDwellerSep 28, 20151 votes

Fair enough, and I do wish RIOT would talk with us on the forums more.

DaenSep 28, 20152 votes

So, while I agree in general that there are some issues with correlation vs causation in some of Riot's statistics, your title is misleading. As Hyrum Graff mentioned, the difference between Riot's statement and yours is that there is a correlation with theirs. There is no correlation whatsoever between a driver cursing to him or her self and encountering more drivers, they just aren't dependent scenarios.

That being said, the statement "toxic players lose more" is a tricky pickle. It is true, because a toxic player can lower morale, but I doubt it's true to quite the extent Riot shows us due to the fact players who are losing already are more likely to be toxic.

bulldoggamerSep 28, 20152 votes

I've found that if you stay positive, forgiving, and compliment often you don't run into toxic players nearly as much as if you go on the defensive. Alot of toxicity can be prevented through your own attitude. People will be salty from coming off a bad game of dealing with real life. If you have their back and let them know that making mistakes is ok they can turn it around and you can just stomp teams. You never can control other people but you can control yourself and your attitude can either negatively or positively impact those around you.

iainB85Sep 28, 20152 votes

Seems like a silly thing to nit pick on.

Sure, they are omitting causality in that statement -- but if it makes even just one player have a more positive attitude then what's the harm?

NarsicusSep 28, 20152 votes

The point of that comment is that your actions can and do affect the other people in your games. Your behavior will impact your allies, and while everyone responds differently, most people do not respond positively to a teammate screaming at them for sucking.

When it comes down to it, League is a team game and as such working with others is something that is a necessary part of that experience. Sometimes you are going to get relatively poor teammates that you have to make up for, sometimes you are going to have great teammates that carry the game, and sometimes you will be the teammate in either the first or second example. It all happens.

You can only account for yourself in these scenarios and what is important to remember if you care about winning (and most people do) is that the best chance you have of success is when your team is playing at their individual best. And because your actions can and do influence the behavior of your teammates you can choose to be a positive force that keeps morale up and stops people from going on tilt and try to stay in the game for a chance to snag victory, or you can be a negative force that makes your team haggard and wary and likely to give in at the first sign the scales are tipping.

What I am getting at here is there is only one person you can depend on to improve the cohesion and play of your team and unsurprisingly that person is you. Could the system be better? Absolutely there is always room for improvement. But regardless of the changes they make if you are running into solo queue you are always going to have to deal with random teammates, how you choose to interact with these people is up to you.

Magister RagunSep 29, 20152 votes

Oh man! Correlation does not equal causation, and losing causes toxicity! Good thing you spotted that! I am sure the player behavior team at riot with their statistics Phds would be interested in learning about this effect! Aren't they just silly? Just like how physicists think that something exploded into nothing in the big bang? didn't anyone ever tell them that nothing can't explode?

Or you know, being professionals they control for that factor and look at how cursing effects future play, and study success of games given their earlier state rather than just comparing two big numbers.

TNHA BaritoneSep 28, 20151 votes

Its not JUST CURSING. It's cursing at your teammates with negative intentions.

GorgannanSep 28, 20151 votes

The example is bad. Winning doesn't always happen but getting to work will. I'd like to point out also that they could easily say not being toxic makes you win more by only including comebacks. Also I feel there is equal cursing in wins and losses.

Photos of GhostsSep 28, 20151 votes

If drivers could hear each others, well, drivers who insult others would be more likely to be involved in crashes. So you're a ridiculous flamer trying to justify their flaming by discrediting Lyte, who pulls numbers out of a weird place of his and yet you don't even manage to correctly discredit him off of that.

BeMyFriendPleaseSep 29, 20151 votes

Welcome to league of "let bullies have their way or be banned for it"

AbyssionKnightSep 29, 20151 votes

The title isn't an accurate representation of Riots Stance. "People who curse while driving get into more Accidents" is a more accurate representation of Riots opinion, and is factually sound. A high emotion driver is going to be more aggressive while driving. That means more risks, and hitting the gas / brake harder. More aggressive driving does increase your odds of getting into an accident because aggressive driving is often unsafe.

The same applies to the game. An angry player is more likely to lose the game, because they are letting their emotions get the better of them. They're willing to make more risky plays, usually pay less attention to the map, and in their frustration either go too deep into a team fight (hitting the gas hard) or have no faith in their team and pull out early (hitting the brake hard). Overly emotional playstyles tend to result in more losses because your emotions tend to prevent you from being as tactical as someone with a cool head.

Of course that's not an absolute, and some players can be completely toxic or constantly angry and still win / play to the best of their abilities. Riot is just talking in broad strokes though, not implying everyone is the same.

DeynaTaggerungSep 29, 20151 votes

In this case I'd agree with Riot for several reasons.

When one person is being a jerk(let's assume cursing means in a rude demaning way) it fractures team cohesion, and whatever you may believe League is a VERY team focused game and if the team isn't working together they'll lose pretty quickly.
Being rude and aggressive puts people on tilt much more quickly, so losing lanes will lose harder
Generally at the point a player loses their calm they begin to give up on the game. Especially in lower elo this means they don't look for way to come back in the game and don't take advantage of throws the opposing team does.

While players who don't cuss may still experience these problems a negative/rude teammate just makes all of them worse and because of that causes the people in those games to be more likely to lose.