[{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=00cvnEov,comment-id=00000002000000000000,timestamp=2018-06-01T02:56:53.921+0000)
The fun isn't guaranteed. You are not entitled to fun.
While true to an extent, I feel this especially applies to those who go out of their way to ruin the game experiences of others.
Getting permanently banned?
Obviously getting permabanned is no fun, which is all the more reason to do what you can to avoid it happening to you (you in the general sense I mean).
Is Riot ruining your fun? No. AKA not Riots responsibility.
Yes and no. No it's not Riot per-say ruining ones fun, but yes it is their responsibility to keep their players entertained if they want to keep their game up and running.
Says who? There doesn't need to be a line. You just want to draw one.
To quote Kei143:
When Riot permabans someone, their philosophy is "the chances of this guy reforming isn't a whole lot, we'd rather not have him in the game". Thus in their eyes, they have already written off the toxic player as a paying client.
From a business standpoint, do they want to remove the toxic guy who has spent $500 but is causing a negative environment for 4-9 other players in every game? Those non-toxics are also spending $500 and probably will spend more, promote the game more when they are enjoying the game AND they won't cause a negative environment.
I personally think it is a fine argument to protect the ones that are paying money and aren't toxic rather than protecting the ones that may pay the same amount but are toxic.
Also, from Ulanopo's Knowledge Base:
Riot is trying to police the internet and thats just stupid.
Well, to be fair, theyre really only trying to change the portion of the internet that they control, but thats a little beside the point. Its Riots house, therefore its their rules. They have a direct financial interest in removing the people who cause trouble lest they drive away business. You see the same thing at baseball games.
Its worth noting that Riots definition of causing trouble is the only one that matters. Riot is a huge believer in the power of math. You can be certain that they have very precise numbers for how much business a toxic player costs them. If they ban you, its because its worth it to them.
The point of the game isn't "interact with others in a mature and respectful manner". The point of the game is to play. It is entirely possible to play the game without "interacting with others in a mature and respectful manner".
This is true. However, there are many players out there who enjoy talking with their teammates and/or opponents in some of their games when the opportunity arises for it.
In part.
Are the degree holders still employed at Riot?
I say in part because the IFS was built on the feedback of players from how the previous disciplinary systems, such as the Tribunal, operated. The Tribunal was a primarily player-run system, which while helpful had a number of problems, including being slow to process and assign cases as well as people spam punishing/pardoning cases just for the heck of it rather than actually reviewing the cases in question. Riot later introduced infinitely scaling chat restrictions and found while they worked for some for most others they just switched to inting and trolling to ruin peoples games, things much more difficult to catch and punish for than simple chat related offenses are. From Riot Tantram:
It really breaks down into two categories.
1.) Helping players reform
2.) Shielding others from the behavior, at a cost.
We used to issue chat restrictions that essentially scaled indefinitely.
We were able to determine that after a certain point the penalty no longer helped with reform. The 10-game and 25-game counts for chat restrictions are based on data that they were both light enough, and felt strict enough to encourage people to understand their behavior is unacceptable in game and change it.
We also saw that the players in this 'large restriction' category defaulted to gameplay altering means of harassing their team. It caused an increase in feeding and trolling.
The sample size of this population and time frame is huge. Essentially the time spanning from the introduction of chat restrictions to the introduction of IFS.
So my question for you is, would you rather have more feeders and less negative chat?
As far as degree holders go as far as I know they still are, with only Lyte being one of the more notable ones with a degree to have left. That said though, it doesn't take a genius or a degree to figure out what kind of behavior is and isn't considered acceptable, at least in League of Legends anyways.
