Boards›[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous

It's a PvP game, people argue, get over it.

b1TLHaKERl·2/28/2015, 10:30:45 AM·6 votes·1,789 views

As the title says, it's a PvP game, people argue, get over it.

If you're too immature to deal with the reality that people in PvP games will always have arguments at one point or another, then you shouldn't be playing a PvP game in the first place.

The people asking Riot, "BAN THESE GUYS THEY WERE RUDE TO ME," welcome to the Internet buddy.

The only time Riot should ever step in is when it is absolutely, unequivocally necessary, and not to ban, but to gradually chat restrict or put people in low priority queues.

Banning fuels the black market, why do you think there is such a huge market for level 30 accounts? Does it really help to ban people when they just come back as smurfs or buy new accounts? The answer is obvious: No.

You ever wonder why there are so many bots in Normals? It doesn't take much logic to connect the dots. For the kids/trolls/incompetent ones who can't seem to figure it out, and are screaming/flaming for more bans, ironically I've seen many of them end up getting banned eventually, and what did they do? Did they finish high school? No. They made another League account, or asked mommy for money and bought a level 30 account off the black market. I don't expect people in League to think logically, most people who play League probably don't even have a high school degree, and will Google their way to feeling superior for the sake of board arguments, but the reality is if you can't connect the dots as to how bans are ultimately hurting League, then you're part of the problem. Luckily, Lyte seems to have brought this up recently, mentioning that bans do indeed end up as smurfs that ultimately hurt new players, and that chat restrictions and low priority queues are a better alternative. Whether this signifies a shift in policy, we will see, but I won't hold my breath.

40 Comments

CaptainTatertits2/28/2015, 11:01:41 AM5 votes

He's obviously trolling at this point :o

walk away, nothing to see here...

Deep Terror Nami2/28/2015, 10:37:11 AM5 votes

Why would you encourage acting horribly to other people? "This is how it's always been" is a shitty excuse to be rude, and is exactly how you perpetuate doing the wrong thing.

Poptart Evelynn2/28/2015, 10:54:22 AM4 votes

Just because someone wants to act like an ass doesn't mean we have to keep them in our community.

Be a dick get dick-a-fied.

Jubbinaut3/1/2015, 11:00:16 AM3 votes

{quoted}

Anyone else?

Well, since you asked...

{quoted}

As the title says, it's a PvP game, people argue, get over it.

This is a bandwagon fallacy, and could also be considered a genetic fallacy.

If you're too immature to deal with the reality that people in PvP games will always have arguments at one point or another, then you shouldn't be playing a PvP game in the first place.

"This is how things are so deal with it" is about as false an argument as has ever been made.

The people asking Riot, "BAN THESE GUYS THEY WERE RUDE TO ME," welcome to the Internet buddy.

There's that bandwagon fallacy again. "People on the internet are mean, and that's just how it is, so that makes it okay."

The only time Riot should ever step in is when it is absolutely, unequivocally necessary, and not to ban, but to gradually chat restrict or put people in low priority queues.

That has seemed to be their preference lately. Primarily because it is, in the long run, more effective to reform a player than it is to simply get rid of them. The question, though, is who defines when it's "necessary"? Because as things stand now, Riot does.

Banning fuels the black market, why do you think there is such a huge market for level 30 accounts? Does it really help to ban people when they just come back as smurfs or buy new accounts? The answer is obvious: No.

This is a false cause fallacy, with a bit of black-or-white fallacy (or false dichotomy) mixed in.

There are more factors than just bans that lead to the sale/purchase of accounts. And frankly, the market for raw lvl 30 accounts isn't particularly high. Many account purchases are made because of a desire for higher rank. Some are made for a fresh smurf.

You ever wonder why there are so many bots in Normals? It doesn't take much logic to connect the dots.

Same false-cause here. There's quite a lot of reasons for those bots. Some include leveling otherwise legitimate smurfs, and RAF fraud.

For the kids/trolls/incompetent ones who can't seem to figure it out, and are screaming/flaming for more bans, ironically I've seen many of them end up getting banned eventually, and what did they do? Did they finish high school? No. They made another League account, or asked mommy for money and bought a level 30 account off the black market.

What concerns me here isn't the strawman or the pre-emptive tu quoque and ad hominem fallacies. It's that you seem to see a stunningly large percentage of people being perma-banned, when frankly, Riot really doesn't issue that many permas.

I don't expect people in League to think logically, most people who play League probably don't even have a high school degree, and will Google their way to feeling superior for the sake of board arguments, but the reality is if you can't connect the dots as to how bans are ultimately hurting League, then you're part of the problem.

Bans can cause problems. Bans are not the sole source of those problems. Bans have - for some time now - been looked at as a "last resort" option, which led to the creation of new forms of sanction.

Luckily, Lyte seems to have brought this up recently, mentioning that bans do indeed end up as smurfs that ultimately hurt new players, and that chat restrictions and low priority queues are a better alternative. Whether this signifies a shift in policy, we will see, but I won't hold my breath.

If you define "recently" as "more than a year ago," then yes, he brought it up recently. And considering they've spent most of that year developing and testing new and less obtrusive ways to sanction players, I think it's extremely safe to say that it did indicate a shift in policy, way back when he first started making those statements.

In summary: your arguments hinge on a false-cause fallacy, and a bandwagon fallacy. You defend those with approximately zero actual evidence, and a gigantic pile of additional fallacies. You seem to have no real point beyond indicating that ragers should be allowed to spew vitriol over whomever they choose, which follows from exactly none of your other argument.

To be perfectly clear: this is not a dismissal (that would be a fallacy fallacy). But you're going to have to do a better job of making and supporting your point if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

CaptainTatertits2/28/2015, 10:37:26 AM3 votes

black market? REALLY? lol

because that's so illegal and stuff.

ATF gonna roll in and take dem leagues. mmmhmmm das wassup

b1TLHaKERl2/28/2015, 10:35:17 AM2 votes

Must have already hit the nail on the head, stay in school kids. Annie

A Small Dog2/28/2015, 10:37:16 AM2 votes

How did this get 309 view in under 5 mintues? I guess the board page is glitching on me or something. Or everyone who would want to click on this signed in at the same time. Still... Weird lol.

CaptainTatertits2/28/2015, 10:47:53 AM2 votes

But to get back on topic...

Personally, I think everyone that is rude to me in game should be banned, and have the LOL launcher redirect to Runescape.

But maybe that's just me.

b1TLHaKERl2/28/2015, 11:15:53 AM1 votes

Anyone else? Ahri

GaleWinUnleashed4/9/2015, 1:22:04 AM1 votes

This is not a response to your actual arguments, only a suggestion about how to present them in a more appealing manner:

I strongly recommend changing the tone of your arguments. Most of what you write comes across in an extremely negative way, but that could largely be fixed with a better choice of words. Your current writing style is overly abrasive and somewhat snobbish, which makes it difficult to take you seriously, even if/when you're correct. Just some food for thought.

Here's hoping your next post sounds more friendly.