Skip to content

On Ranked Rewards Requirements

Zeenic··3 votes·1,559 views

Riot Recently made it official that those who have been banned within the 3 months prior to the end of the season WILL NOT receive ranked rewards. I take issue with this based on my personal experience, psychological principles, common sense, and here is why.

I was banned for 2 weeks starting August 27th and unbanned the 10th of September. I was toxic repeatedly, frustrated with trolls and feeders, and received a justified ban. I learned my lesson as it was an extreme punishment. However, keep in mind a few things about the way I was banned. I had not received any previous form of punishment, this was my first offense. Instead of informing me my behavior was not ok or acceptable I was hit with an immediate two week ban. No prior punishment, chat restriction, ranked ban, ect to reform my behavior in any way. This goes against escalating punishment and although the ban is deserved, any form of previous punishment would have informed me to correct my behavior and I would have done so in an effort to preserve my ranked rewards and experience the game in a better light. Instead, bam! Two week ban with no chance to prove reformation before the end of the season, thus an auto-disqualification from rewards, and no prior punishment to change my behavior before being dished the 2nd harshest punishment in the game. Poorly handled in my opinion but such is the way of automation, referring to the AI software now banning people. I think tuning should be considered to actually follow escalation

Secondly, ranked rewards were previously a positive reinforcement tool used to validate good performance. This has since changed as good behavior is now a requirement too. Thus rewards reinforce both good behavior AND good gameplay, not either or. Good, stricter requirements to earn rewards in an effort to tighten up behavior. I have no issue here save for the poorly thought out 3-month rule. Here is why. Riot is using 3 months as a blanket standard to prove reformation before the end of the season because it holds statistical validity in their studies. This is good. The bad part is riot claims most players are neutral and they already have high reform rates. This means If you are banned after August 11th, you have no chance to prove you are reformed, in what is my opinion an efficient but unfair, and poorly constructed behavior changing program. Bad because if most players are indeed neutral, it was frustration, bad day, troll, ect that weakened their resolve as they felt their need to be toxic. Bad because this largely neutral player-base, who reforms at a high rate, is being punished with a ban as well as a loss of ranked rewards, for the same action! A misuse or over exaggeration of psychological punishment principles. Let us use a real world reformation program, the justice system. The law forbidding double jeopardy. You cannot be tried for the same crime. In addition, what is the difference between a player whose ban is lifted 3 months and a day and a player whose ban is lifted 2 months and 29 days? One day. Yet riot sees one player as reformed and the other as still toxic. Is that fair? Would it not be more fair to give every banned player ranked rewards if and only if they have 3 continuous months of positive or neutral behavior? Let us draw a parallel to the justice system once more. When convicted, you serve time much like a ban. You serve time and are rewarded with early release based on CONTINUOUS good or neutral behavior. Please keep in mind if the goal is to reform behavior. To create a better environment, it should be a timeline not a time-limit that should be considered. The time limit was for player skill, the timeline is player reformation. What the current 3-month rule says is that Riot only cares to reward players who reform ON THEIR TIME-LIMIT and dismisses all those who reform after. 3-continuous months makes more sense if the whole player-base is being considered because, as i previously stated, the difference between two reformed players banned 1 day apart is just that, one day. You don't serve a longer sentence based on the timing of you actions, it is not in agreement with behavior reform.

In summary, sure I was banned and the system worked because I am no longer toxic. However, any previous punishment would have been a nice/fair warning to change my behavior before escalating my status internally to a 2 week ban, WITHOUT an equal ACTIVE escalation in punishment. Instead I am my first offense, like many others, resulted in BOTH punishing me with a ban AND punishing me with a loss of rewards WITHOUT prior warning. Lastly, if the goal is to create and mold a positive environment though a punishment and reward system, at least follow though on these principles fairly so that everyone has a chance to prove they reformed behaviorally by making it 3 continuous months and not 3 months before the end of the season. At the end of the day the concern is on player reform, but don't treat us like pavlovian lab experiments with uber harsh first punishments (lacking real escalation) and different groups whose rewards hinge on your preference of time an not the principle of reformation.

TLDR: Use escalation when throwing down the ban mallet to make the system more fair and catch/change all them toxic pricks before throwing them in solitary confinement. Double jeopardy, WTF MATE!? GIMME JUDGE JUDY INSTEAD. NO? FINE, GIVE US 3-months of continuous servitude to prove WE HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT. THOSE TOXIC TERDS BANNED ON TIME SURE GOT A CHANCE :O

34 Comments

Chaotic Sage2 votes

Okay to start, the word 'fair' here is subjective. In Riot's eyes this could actually be an extremely generous offer as, keep in mind, they could have easily made it season long as a further punishment to those that received bans. Heck, I would have thought that that was extremely fair. People don't deserve rewards if they're so negative that they got banned. As for your ban reasoning, Riot has stated that if the behavior is deemed toxic enough the early stages of punishment will be skipped and immediate suspension will happen. Now about the law part, pretty sure you had to be sarcastic here cause applying a law like that to a private corporations in house justice system seems pretty silly. All in all just seems that you were toxic, got banned, have since reformed and are now salty that you got banned and are being denied rewards. Probably should just make a support ticket so a Riot behavior person can tell you their specific reasoning.

Zeenic2 votes

[{quoted}](name=Chaotic Sage,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=o5c7L7R3,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2015-10-07T21:58:02.962+0000)

Okay to start, the word 'fair' here is subjective. In Riot's eyes this could actually be an extremely generous offer as, keep in mind, they could have easily made it season long as a further punishment to those that received bans. Heck, I would have thought that that was extremely fair. People don't deserve rewards if they're so negative that they got banned. As for your ban reasoning, Riot has stated that if the behavior is deemed toxic enough the early stages of punishment will be skipped and immediate suspension will happen. Now about the law part, pretty sure you had to be sarcastic here cause applying a law like that to a private corporations in house justice system seems pretty silly. All in all just seems that you were toxic, got banned, have since reformed and are now salty that you got banned and are being denied rewards. Probably should just make a support ticket so a Riot behavior person can tell you their specific reasoning.

Fair is based on an opportunity for everyone banned to prove they have reformed, it is a universal opportunity I don't see in the current system. Secondly, did you not read my point on escalation. I and many other received no warning about our behavior to stop our toxic trends. This post is not about saltines, it is about flaws in the system that I would like to see changed. Inherit in the system are flags that deem whether or not someone should be punished. I am saying these flags are not conducive to stoping early toxicity, why I included an anecdotal example. I did make a ticket and exchanged a few emails with a rioter. They said, "You do bring up some interesting points and is a tough situation for those players who would fall just short of 3 months when the ranked season ends." Said rioter suggested I make a board post which is what I am doing. I was totally serious about the law example and used it for a few reasons. This is a game, and the law is real life. The law is a great standard to compare to especially since it applies to all US citizens and rioters have made relation between expected behavior in real life and the game. I think it was something along the lines of, 'you wouldn't go to a store and start shouting obscenities, you can't do that.'

Chaotic Sage1 votes

No. Fair is not a universal thing here. It's based on what Riot perceives as the right thing, since they are the ones who dictate this whole system. I did read escalation and pointed out that in cases of serious toxicity the escalation is skipped by Riot, another reasonable thing. You and thor other pepole were likely very toxic and fell under that category. I jave a few actual friends that have recenter recieved chat bans for being toxic in games amd another that tilts consistently and very badly to the point of toxic that recieved a 2 week suspension, like you, with no prior warning. To go on your idea of real world logic, would you give a muderer a slap on the wrist the first two times? Extreme example but the point stands. Not sure the law is the best comparison here, completely different parameters as there's a judge and jury there whereas here its a primarily automated response system. Also you can absolutely walk into a store and start shouting obscenities, you may be asked to leave but so long as you apologize and say you won't do it again you can generally still shop there.

Zeenic1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Chaotic Sage,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=o5c7L7R3,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2015-10-07T23:11:38.985+0000)

No. Fair is not a universal thing here. It's based on what Riot perceives as the right thing, since they are the ones who dictate this whole system. I did read escalation and pointed out that in cases of serious toxicity the escalation is skipped by Riot, another reasonable thing. You and thor other pepole were likely very toxic and fell under that category. I jave a few actual friends that have recenter recieved chat bans for being toxic in games amd another that tilts consistently and very badly to the point of toxic that recieved a 2 week suspension, like you, with no prior warning. To go on your idea of real world logic, would you give a muderer a slap on the wrist the first two times? Extreme example but the point stands. Not sure the law is the best comparison here, completely different parameters as there's a judge and jury there whereas here its a primarily automated response system. Also you can absolutely walk into a store and start shouting obscenities, you may be asked to leave but so long as you apologize and say you won't do it again you can generally still shop there.

I am saying, it is not fair to not allow everyone an opportunity to show they have reformed. The banning system has its flaws, but they are worsened by an unequal chance to show you have bettered yourself because of a 3 month timelimit and not a 3 month time line. Also, that was a rioters example not mine. The point they were trying to make is that it is unacceptable to go to a store and start shouting mean shit, you get in trouble for that, so they hold players to the same standard. They were just making a comparison to validate the reason for toxic punishments.

Chaotic Sage2 votes

Hey, hey guess what. If you hadn't been toxic to begin with, this wouldn't have happened. I hope they never have a reform system. You got punishment and you deserve every result of that. Don't do the crime if you don't wanna do the time. The fact that you happened to get extra punishment on top of it is gravy in my eyes. Toxic people just make this game worse in every aspect. Good that you 'reformed', but you don't deserve a chance at proving that. Just do it and keep not being toxic, you know, lIke you shold have been after agreeing to the sunmoners that Riot put out. You shouldn't get get rewarded for stopping toxicity, should just get the same rewards everyone else does, next season.

SmokedAlmonds2 votes

I'm not arguing that it isn't the 2nd harshest punishment, im saying how many punishments are less or more doesn't matter.

Rewards are positive reinforcement, but losing reliability for rewards is a punishment. (I meant to say removal of rewards, not rewards)

You have a chance to demonstrate reform. You can avoid punishment next season and get rewards then. You may be reformed now, but you have not sufficiently demonstrated it.

Zeenic1 votes

{quoted}

I'm not arguing that it isn't the 2nd harshest punishment, im saying how many punishments are less or more doesn't matter.

Rewards are positive reinforcement, but losing reliability for rewards is a punishment. (I meant to say removal of rewards, not rewards)

You have a chance to demonstrate reform. You can avoid punishment next season and get rewards then. You may be reformed now, but you have not sufficiently demonstrated it.

Bro this is my point, I, and every other person banned after the 3 month deadline, does not get a chance to prove they have. The focus is on reforming not punishing. Yet a deadline separates those who get a chance to reform and those who are punished and remain punished with no chance to prove they have reformed.

SmokedAlmonds1 votes

{quoted}

Bro this is my point, I, and every other person banned after the 3 month deadline, does not get a chance to prove they have. The focus is on reforming not punishing. Yet a deadline separates those who get a chance to reform and those who are punished and remain punished with no chance to prove they have reformed.

And im saying you have your chance, its just for next season.

You have to draw the line somewhere.

Zeenic1 votes

{quoted}

And im saying you have your chance, its just for next season.

You have to draw the line somewhere.

So you think it is fair that one group gets a chance of up to 3 months prior to the end of the season while the other has to wait a season and three months. That is a 15 month difference and that disparity is why I suggest it should be 3 continuous months of disciplined behavior. Because 15 months does not make much sense when two people who commit the same negative behavior can be punished 1 day apart, but their punishment is a 1 year difference. If behavior is the focus then the timeline should reward and punish based on behavior.

SmokedAlmonds1 votes

{quoted}

So you think it is fair that one group gets a chance of up to 3 months prior to the end of the season while the other has to wait a season and three months. That is a 15 month difference and that disparity is why I suggest it should be 3 continuous months of disciplined behavior. Because 15 months does not make much sense when two people who commit the same negative behavior can be punished 1 day apart, but their punishment is a 1 year difference. If behavior is the focus then the timeline should reward and punish based on behavior.

I think its fair, maybe not 100% ideal, but fair. What wasn't fair is that people who had to deal with w/e you did to get banned in the first place.

Maybe a bit unfair when they did this for the first time last year, but not now.

Zeenic1 votes

{quoted}

I think its fair, maybe not 100% ideal, but fair. What wasn't fair is that people who had to deal with w/e you did to get banned in the first place.

Maybe a bit unfair when they did this for the first time last year, but not now.

I disagree with you, I don't think it is fair, and it is easy to fix to make it so. I don't think it was fair that I raged, that it happened to be a bot lane who were feeding, that they got off and I got punished because they were duo reporting. But thanks for reading, your input, and for expressing your opinion clearly without childish reasoning, it's why I posted.

Jubbinaut1 votes

And what easy way would you do that? Adjust the arbitrary cut-off to a different arbitrary cut-off? How would that be more fair to the people still affected by it?

Zeenic1 votes

{quoted}

And what easy way would you do that? Adjust the arbitrary cut-off to a different arbitrary cut-off? How would that be more fair to the people still affected by it?

No it would be 3 continuous months starting with the day you are unbanned. Its not a cut off, its a 3 month period of neutral or positive behavior that gives everyone a chance to prove they are reformed.

Jubbinaut1 votes

{quoted}

No it would be 3 continuous months starting with the day you are unbanned. Its not a cut off, its a 3 month period of neutral or positive behavior that gives everyone a chance to prove they are reformed.

So, then, your problem isn't the arbitrary cut-off for rewards, but rather the arbitrary cut-off for the end of the season?

Or are you saying that you should be retroactively issued the seasonal rewards if you demonstrate reform after the season ends?

Zeenic1 votes

{quoted}

So, then, your problem isn't the arbitrary cut-off for rewards, but rather the arbitrary cut-off for the end of the season?

Or are you saying that you should be retroactively issued the seasonal rewards if you demonstrate reform after the season ends?

Exactly, the arbitrary cut off at the end of season was for player skill. Now that behavior is a factor you should give everyone one the chance to reform on equal grounds. So if you get unbanned 2 months and 29 days before the end of the season, you get your rewards back 1 day into the new season because you have shown reformation for 3 months, the statistical value riot says shows reformation. Similarly, if you are unbanned 1 day before the end of the season, you have to be neutral or positive for 3 straight months and will get your rewards back 2 months and 29 days into the new season. That way the 3 month rule applies to EVERYONE and EVERYONE has a chance to prove they are reformed.

Jubbinaut2 votes

{quoted}

Exactly, the arbitrary cut off at the end of season was for player skill.

Except it's not really arbitrary, is it? Seasons have pretty fixed lengths, and they're considered to be self-contained. But you're saying they shouldn't be self-contained?

So, then, how is it fair to retroactively give rewards for changes in behavior, but not retroactively give rewards for changes in skill? Oh, also, does that mean season rewards could be retroactively removed based on later behaviors?

And once you cross that barrier, what's the point of having distinct seasons at all? Because I want to be very clear: You are arguing that the very concept of Seasonal play is faulty - when very nearly everything Riot does with League (from patch/change schedules, to new releases) is based around it.

Zeenic1 votes

{quoted}

Except it's not really arbitrary, is it? Seasons have pretty fixed lengths, and they're considered to be self-contained. But you're saying they shouldn't be self-contained?

So, then, how is it fair to retroactively give rewards for changes in behavior, but not retroactively give rewards for changes in skill? Oh, also, does that mean season rewards could be retroactively removed based on later behaviors?

And once you cross that barrier, what's the point of having distinct seasons at all? Because I want to be very clear: You are arguing that the very concept of Seasonal play is faulty - when very nearly everything Riot does with League (from patch/change schedules, to new releases) is based around it.

Calm down with your assumptions, I am not saying seasonal play is faulty and your misconstruing of my words and even worse, thoughts is not helpful. Understand this, the season is separate from rewards now BECAUSE riot has made a requirement before the season ends, not as the season ends. In the same vein that you can get rewards removed before the season end, you should be able to prove you reformed from that behavior after the season ends. It is completely arbitraty when the focus is on behavior, as reinforcemnt stimuli are (ranked rewards). Skill is not a requiremnt for removal of rewards. I think they should be removed based on behavior becuase it doesnt make sense to keep you border just becuase you were able to behave on a time limit. You should be punished if the goal is to make the gameplay better and you can't do that, and you should be given rewards back once you proved you have reformed. The barrier is not one I am crossing, but one Riot has already crossed, I am simply saying make it fair for everyone. The deadline doesnt make any sense if you critically think about it becuase the goal is to reward players, excluding players based on a deadline is not conducive to that. Keep in mind 2 players who a banned a day apart can differ greatly in punishment, a year of no rewards, for comminting the same action. This does not make sense at all. There should be deadline but riot is looking at the deadline the wrong way. It should be a timeline not a a deadline. Or do you think it makes sense for a reformed player to have not have rewads next season while another toxic player gets a 2 week ban at the begining of next season but gets to keep his rewards? SO much for punishing bad behavior fairly. THey should both get rewards back once they have proven they can be positive or neurtal for 3 straight months, not 3 months before the season ends. Just think about it.

Jubbinaut1 votes

{quoted}

Calm down with your assumptions, I am not saying seasonal play is faulty and your misconstruing of my words and even worse, thoughts is not helpful.

Not assumptions. Extrapolations. I'm taking your argument and exploring its implications - nothing more, nothing less.

Understand this, the season is separate from rewards now BECAUSE riot has made a requirement before the season ends, not as the season ends. In the same vein that you can get rewards removed before the season end, you should be able to prove you reformed from that behavior after the season ends.

I don't really see how there's any difference. The requirement covers the season. It's based on your behavior during the season - just like your ranking is based on your actions during the season.

You're trying to disconnect the end of the season from the whole rest of the season, which is just nonsensical.

The deadline doesnt make any sense if you critically think about it becuase the goal is to reward players, excluding players based on a deadline is not conducive to that.

I want to be very, very clear here: the entire concept of Ranked Seasons is premised on the idea of excluding players based on a deadline.

Keep in mind 2 players who a banned a day apart can differ greatly in punishment, a year of no rewards, for comminting the same action. This does not make sense at all.

I agree. I personally believe that any player issued a ban at any point during the season should be restricted from Ranked Rewards. Riot has decided to be rather more lenient than that this season. I suspect it's due to the massive backlash they experienced when they first started discussing the behavioral requirements for this season.

rito smd pls1 votes

{quoted}

So you think it is fair that one group gets a chance of up to 3 months prior to the end of the season while the other has to wait a season and three months. That is a 15 month difference and that disparity is why I suggest it should be 3 continuous months of disciplined behavior. Because 15 months does not make much sense when two people who commit the same negative behavior can be punished 1 day apart, but their punishment is a 1 year difference. If behavior is the focus then the timeline should reward and punish based on behavior.

This actually makes sense. There is no difference between the people who were banned after August 10th to the people who were banned way before August 10th, especially since Riot NEVER announced these rules ahead of time, thus it's like saying, "hey all those people who got banned during the beginning of the season are lucky and we'll look past it" and then just flipping the bird to people who were banned way before Lyte even spoke about these potential changes.

Riot should have made it so that people who were banned after the 5.18 patch where they basically cleared chat restriction plates, didn't get the skin due to the fresh start. But now it's like the fresh start doesn't mean anything for some unlucky folks who have reformed by now.

They announced this 3 month duration in OCTOBER. All those players who got banned in August have reformed by now, most if not all. But it doesn't make sense to announce the 3 month duration without giving players a chance to reform.

Honestly, nobody is complaining that their bans were unfair, but for 4 long years only the WORST offenders got banned, there had never been an extreme problem of toxicity, and only the WORST records didn't receive rewards. But now Riot has made it so that a first time offender is now a "worst" offender, and that the people who were banned this season will be getting the rewards out of complete luck. This is a very sloppy way of doing things and realistically a professional company would not be squeezing in huge policies right before the end of a term, they'd leave if for the next term.

I give Riot 2/5 for professionalism this season.

Also before anybody starts commenting on my user name, I have never been banned before.

Zeenic1 votes

[{quoted}](name=rito smd pls,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=o5c7L7R3,comment-id=00050000000000000001,timestamp=2015-10-08T02:13:53.167+0000)

This actually makes sense. There is no difference between the people who were banned after August 10th to the people who were banned way before August 10th, especially since Riot NEVER announced these rules ahead of time, thus it's like saying, "hey all those people who got banned during the beginning of the season are lucky and we'll look past it" and then just flipping the bird to people who were banned way before Lyte even spoke about these potential changes.

Riot should have made it so that people who were banned after the 5.18 patch where they basically cleared chat restriction plates, didn't get the skin due to the fresh start. But now it's like the fresh start doesn't mean anything for some unlucky folks who have reformed by now.

They announced this 3 month duration in OCTOBER. All those players who got banned in August have reformed by now, most if not all. But it doesn't make sense to announce the 3 month duration without giving players a chance to reform.

Honestly, nobody is complaining that their bans were unfair, but for 4 long years only the WORST offenders got banned, there had never been an extreme problem of toxicity, and only the WORST records didn't receive rewards. But now Riot has made it so that a first time offender is now a "worst" offender, and that the people who were banned this season will be getting the rewards out of complete luck. This is a very sloppy way of doing things and realistically a professional company would not be squeezing in huge policies right before the end of a term, they'd leave if for the next term.

I give Riot 2/5 for professionalism this season.

Also before anybody starts commenting on my user name, I have never been banned before.

Yea exactly, my point is if you are going to punish based on behavior, then reward based on behavior ON EQUAL GROUNDS for EVERYONE. People who are banned 1 day apart and get such drastic differences in punishment does not make sense.

QWEbie1 votes

{quoted}

I'm not arguing that it isn't the 2nd harshest punishment, im saying how many punishments are less or more doesn't matter.

Rewards are positive reinforcement, but losing reliability for rewards is a punishment. (I meant to say removal of rewards, not rewards)

You have a chance to demonstrate reform. You can avoid punishment next season and get rewards then. You may be reformed now, but you have not sufficiently demonstrated it.

typical lol %%% response . community is full of beta cucks.

thepay31 votes

agree

Zeenic1 votes

{quoted}

agree

Thanks man, I put a lot of thought into this :P

Live2LetDie1 votes

I like their decision since its the first time they are doing it. It really makes people who care about getting a sexy skin, which is a lot, think twice about being toxic. Its just said that people have to be motivated to respect each other.

Zeenic1 votes

{quoted}

I like their decision since its the first time they are doing it. It really makes people who care about getting a sexy skin, which is a lot, think twice about being toxic. Its just said that people have to be motivated to respect each other.

I like the decision also, what I don't like is that it doesn't allow for equal opportunity to demonstrate reformation.

SmokedAlmonds1 votes

{quoted}

Riot Recently made it official that those who have been banned within the 3 months prior to the end of the season WILL NOT receive ranked rewards. I take issue with this based on my personal experience, psychological principles, common sense, and here is why.

I was banned for 2 weeks starting August 27th and unbanned the 10th of September. I was toxic repeatedly, frustrated with trolls and feeders, and received a justified ban. I learned my lesson as it was an extreme punishment. However, keep in mind a few things about the way I was banned. I had not received any previous form of punishment, this was my first offense. Instead of informing me my behavior was not ok or acceptable I was hit with an immediate two week ban. No prior punishment, chat restriction, ranked ban, ect to reform my behavior in any way. This goes against escalating punishment and although the ban is deserved, any form of previous punishment would have informed me to correct my behavior and I would have done so in an effort to preserve my ranked rewards and experience the game in a better light. Instead, bam! Two week ban with no chance to prove reformation before the end of the season, thus an auto-disqualification from rewards, and no prior punishment to change my behavior before being dished the 2nd harshest punishment in the game. Poorly handled in my opinion but such is the way of automation, referring to the AI software now banning people. I think tuning should be considered to actually follow escalation

The punishment escalation has already changed since then so I'm not sure that's really worth discussing anymore.

In your specific case maybe a lesser punishment or even a warning could have been enough but millions of people play this game and what best fits the most people is more important than individual cases. I also don't feel like "whats the least possible punishment that would work" is worth all that much thought, just a little to "lets not go way overboard". and I think 2 week ban easily falls short of overboard.

It being the "second harshest punishment in the game" is a silly way to describe it. If a 15 day ban existed that wouldn't make a 14 day ban any less harsh. You got banned from a game for 2 weeks and had to play your next favorite game or play on another account with less stuff.

Secondly, ranked rewards were previously a positive reinforcement tool used to validate good performance. This has since changed as good behavior is now a requirement too. Thus rewards reinforce both good behavior AND good gameplay, not either or. Good, stricter requirements to earn rewards in an effort to tighten up behavior. I have no issue here save for the poorly thought out 3-month rule. Here is why. Riot is using 3 months as a blanket standard to prove reformation before the end of the season because it holds statistical validity in their studies. This is good. The bad part is riot claims most players are neutral and they already have high reform rates. This means If you are banned after August 11th, you have no chance to prove you are reformed, in what is my opinion an efficient but unfair, and poorly constructed behavior changing program. Bad because if most players are indeed neutral, it was frustration, bad day, troll, ect that weakened their resolve as they felt their need to be toxic. Bad because this largely neutral player-base, who reforms at a high rate, is being punished with a ban as well as a loss of ranked rewards, for the same action! A misuse or over exaggeration of psychological punishment principles. Let us use a real world reformation program, the justice system. The law forbidding double jeopardy. You cannot be tried for the same crime. In addition, what is the difference between a player whose ban is lifted 3 months and a day and a player whose ban is lifted 2 months and 29 days? One day. Yet riot sees one player as reformed and the other as still toxic. Is that fair? Would it not be more fair to give every banned player ranked rewards if and only if they have 3 continuous months of positive or neutral behavior? Let us draw a parallel to the justice system once more. When convicted, you serve time much like a ban. You serve time and are rewarded with early release based on CONTINUOUS good or neutral behavior. Please keep in mind if the goal is to reform behavior. To create a better environment, it should be a timeline not a time-limit that should be considered. The time limit was for player skill, the timeline is player reformation. What the current 3-month rule says is that Riot only cares to reward players who reform ON THEIR TIME-LIMIT and dismisses all those who reform after. 3-continuous months makes more sense if the whole player-base is being considered because, as i previously stated, the difference between two reformed players banned 1 day apart is just that, one day. You don't serve a longer sentence based on the timing of you actions, it is not in agreement with behavior reform.

Punishments disqualifying people from season rewards was not new, they did the same(very similar) thing last year. You are right the line is arbritrary, but the line has to be somewhere. You have to choose some metric. I do think some other option like played X amount of games between your punishment and the end of the season without incident. But really I think any punishment during the season should disqualify you. In a perfect world maybe there could be an hour interview with people to see if they have reformed, but we dont.

This has nothing to do with double jeopardy. Its a punishment including multiple things. Just like the law, you can get like jail time and a fine. Probably even a better example would be Having a felony removing your ability to vote. You comit a crime, get punished and released. Later when an election happens you can't vote.

Zeenic2 votes

{quoted}

The punishment escalation has already changed since then so I'm not sure that's really worth discussing anymore.

In your specific case maybe a lesser punishment or even a warning could have been enough but millions of people play this game and what best fits the most people is more important than individual cases. I also don't feel like "whats the least possible punishment that would work" is worth all that much thought, just a little to "lets not go way overboard". and I think 2 week ban easily falls short of overboard.

It being the "second harshest punishment in the game" is a silly way to describe it. If a 15 day ban existed that wouldn't make a 14 day ban any less harsh. You got banned from a game for 2 weeks and had to play your next favorite game or play on another account with less stuff.

Punishments disqualifying people from season rewards was not new, they did the same(very similar) thing last year. You are right the line is arbritrary, but the line has to be somewhere. You have to choose some metric. I do think some other option like played X amount of games between your punishment and the end of the season without incident. But really I think any punishment during the season should disqualify you. In a perfect world maybe there could be an hour interview with people to see if they have reformed, but we dont.

This has nothing to do with double jeopardy. Its a punishment including multiple things. Just like the law, you can get like jail time and a fine. Probably even a better example would be Having a felony removing your ability to vote. You comit a crime, get punished and released. Later when an election happens you can't vote.

It is about the severity of the punishment, especially on a first offense. I got banned without prior warning, which would have been nice, and as such was punished, like many others, with a 2 week ban AS well as a loss of ranked rewards WITHOUT a chance to prove reformation based on the timing of the ban. I am saying the line is not a fair line, if you want player behavior reform make the line follow that train of thought. Ex. ban a player, give them a timeline to reform, not a time limit, then reward them for reforming. It is not a silly way to describe it, look at everything that was brought down on players in my situation because of timing. The second hardest ban is also amplified by the loss of rewards therefore the punishment extends to over a year. The focus should be on reformation not punishment.

SmokedAlmonds1 votes

{quoted}

It is about the severity of the punishment, especially on a first offense. I got banned without prior warning, which would have been nice, and as such was punished, like many others, with a 2 week ban AS well as a loss of ranked rewards WITHOUT a chance to prove reformation based on the timing of the ban. I am saying the line is not a fair line, if you want player behavior reform make the line follow that train of thought. Ex. ban a player, give them a timeline to reform, not a time limit, then reward them for reforming. It is not a silly way to describe it, look at everything that was brought down on players in my situation because of timing. The second hardest ban is also amplified by the loss of rewards therefore the punishment extends to over a year. The focus should be on reformation not punishment.

Like I said, I think a better line would be any ban during a season disqualifies you from rewards for that season.

You have a chance to reform, you can play next season and get rewards.

It is silly, How many punishments there are doesn't tell you anything about its severity. 14 day ban is no where near permaban on the scale and to treat it as such is ridiculous.

Rewards are one of the few significant punishments they can give out, the only other really being a perma ban. Short bans from a game just don't carry much weight for most people. Tying the rewards to behavior like this specifically addresses people who are overly aggressive. Since they can't risk getting banned because they lose eligibility for the rewards they are working for they have to tone it down otherwise there is no point even playing.

What metric would you use for reform then? I do think an additional way to work it off through playing games without incident would be good. But even with that, the line as to be somewhere. No matter what someone is going to be a day short or a game short.

Zeenic2 votes

{quoted}

Like I said, I think a better line would be any ban during a season disqualifies you from rewards for that season.

You have a chance to reform, you can play next season and get rewards.

It is silly, How many punishments there are doesn't tell you anything about its severity. 14 day ban is no where near permaban on the scale and to treat it as such is ridiculous.

Rewards are one of the few significant punishments they can give out, the only other really being a perma ban. Short bans from a game just don't carry much weight for most people. Tying the rewards to behavior like this specifically addresses people who are overly aggressive. Since they can't risk getting banned because they lose eligibility for the rewards they are working for they have to tone it down otherwise there is no point even playing.

That's not how the system is. I am saying it doesn't allow for equal demonstration of reformation, I think that point flew by you. I did not get a chance, nor did I receive a warning letting me know. It is the second harshest punishment they can give, no arguing. Perma ban is the worst, two weeks is the 2nd worst, not hard to see. You need to read up on conditioning, because rewards aren't a punishment. They are a positive reinforcement tool. Please re-read the article, a lot of your points are not counter points.

Kãtãrinã1 votes

Are there any eligibility requirements for these rewards outside of ranked results? Yes, some players are ineligible for rewards because of negative in-game behavior. This applies only to the 2015 season. Here are the details:

    • Players with bans or chat/ranked restrictions active when the season ends are ineligible for this year’s rewards
    • Players banned for seven days or more in the three months prior to the end of the season (August 10) are ineligible for this year’s rewards.
    • Players banned for boosting during the 2015 season remain ineligible for rewards
    • Players who experienced fraud-related and erroneous bans will still be eligible All players will have another chance at future ranked season rewards.

You usually only get 2 week bans if you were extremely toxic in a short amount of time. they also don't think you are fully "reformed" for a few months after your 2 week ban

DJColdCutz1 votes

It's okay; the skin reward is just a shitty Sivir skin.

Zeenic2 votes

{quoted}

It's okay; the skin reward is just a shitty Sivir skin.

Haha thanks that made me laugh, but its not about the skin. Its about allowing fair demonstration of reformation to everyone, equally since punishments are dished out based on behavior.

OhBoyItsaMegaman1 votes

A lot of people are dishonest about the circumstances surrounding their ban. We only have your word that you received a 2-week ban with no prior punishments of any kind.

Cut-offs are a fact of life. You can make the argument that someone who is one millimeter over the line doesn't deserve to be treated the same as someone who is exactly on the line, but you're not going to get any sympathy. Walk into class 60 seconds after it begins, and you're marked late. Are you really that much worse than someone who got there 60 seconds before you? Yes, because if you cared then you would make sure that you did not cross that line, even if it meant leaving 15 minutes early. Going close to the line means you don't respect the consequences of going over it, so you don't have any excuse when you go over it. People who toed the line and got away with it are no better than you, but they'll have no recourse when they find themselves crossing it.

Ah, but you can say that you didn't know that there would be a line, right? Riot did not announce beforehand that August 10th would be the cut-off date, so you had no way of knowing that punishments incurred even a single day after that date would result in a harsher punishment.

Consider a person who just had their drivers' license suspended for parking in a handicapped spot. He argues, "When I made the decision to park there, what I did was wrong. And I have no problem with being punished. But I thought that the punishment would be something like a fine, maybe a few hundred dollars. With that in mind, I broke the law, figuring that I might or might not get caught, and that it would not be so bad if I did get caught. That was wrong; I shouldn't have broken the law regardless. But I absolutely would not have done it if I knew that the punishment was so harsh. Now that I know, it's not like I will ever do it again, so do you really have to suspend my license? Whether I get a fine or a suspension, either way I'm never going to do it again, because my only reason for doing it was ignorance of the law and I'm not ignorant anymore. So there is no reason not to give me the lighter punishment since it will have exactly the same effect on my future behavior."

There is some merit to this argument. YOU don't get to use it.

And that's because you weren't thinking of the consequences at all at the time. You didn't say to yourself, "I'm being very toxic, and maybe I'll get caught, but even if I do I'm okay with the two-week ban I will receive." You didn't rationally plan that out. You acted with no regard for the possible consequences. So it doesn't matter that Riot didn't spell out exactly what was at stake and exactly what date those stakes increased. You would not have acted differently. You were not considering the consequences of your actions so you're not entitled to this argument.

pass me the guac1 votes

what if i was banned on the 11th of august?

More from [ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous

More by Zeenic