Boards›Player Behavior

Player Behavior is the problem, though not in the way that you think.

k4e shade··3 votes·2,531 views

_edit:

I'm going to ask would-be readers to upvote this post, on the sheer merit alone of avoiding groupthink. I think if we could agree on one thing, it would be that thinking independently as an individual is healthier than thinking as a group, and that the right to say something should be equally viewed whether or not one should agree or disagree, and should warn you that removing the right for your opinions to be heard or viewed on the notion that some would disagree is a damaging and dangerous trend, both as a community and a culture. Thank you. _

Riot white knights aside, I'm here to address the real concern: player behavior, though, not in the way that you think.

I've been permanently banned. In fact, everyone that I've ever met has lost an account. Riot claims that it is in the aspirations that the community will evolve as a whole and that toxicity (a term developed from this community) will diminish in return. Except, we don't see that.

I'm still playing. I'm sure I've been chat restricted. In fact, I've been playing since 2010 or so, on multiple accounts, over the course of years. And you know what? So has everyone else I've met.

In fact, you can level from 1 to 30 and not meet a single new player in this game. I'm doing it right now. Why is that? Well, everyone there has lost an account. And yet, Riot claims that only a very microscopic percentage of the community is actually losing their accounts. So where's all the new people? Don't believe me? Na.op.gg my account and check the average cs/min of the people in my games. 150-200 cs in under 20 minutes is a new player? lol?

Not here, I promise you. Sure, maybe there's some sprawled about every nook and cranny. And Riot will be eager to release numbers that are never supported by any independent organization - all the statistics for Riot are supplied by Riot and Riot only. Tai Lopez says he has a Lamborghini in his garage so you should by his book. You believe him too?

What I do think is that there is a very fortunate minority of players over the years have been called newb, bad, etc. who takes great pleasure in the system that Riot has orchestrated. In fact, Riot's founders insisted that this is the reason the system exists, from their own experiences. So what we have lads is a bunch of kids who were tired of being teased on the internet and couldn't take it anymore, so that they created a system to be bullies to the would-be bullies.

The passive aggressive nature of the League of Legends community spews hate. People int, grief, feed, throw, and afk more in this game than in any other. Can I prove it? No, but where there's smoke there's fires - and this community is above and beyond the most maliciously spoken about community to ever exist in gaming (trust me, i've been around for a few). It takes Barrens chat to a whole new level, or it would, should people be allowed to talk.

You know what else I find funny? Every single post in this discussion, every single one, has been reaffirmed by the community suchas "burn the witch". Not once did you forgive or forsake an accusation or a loss of account, suspension, etc. Not once did you pardon the individual and say 'shit happens' or 'hey why can I only see one side of the coin?' No. You said burn them every chance you got. You're not toxic? Turn the other cheek much?

If you're not toxic why do you suggest that you want everyone to lose an account. If you're not toxic why are you more passive aggressive and/or plain aggressive to a larger extent here than is allowed in game. If you're not toxic why do you seem to take joy in every single time a person makes an appeal in this forum. If this company isn't toxic why did it spew hatred to Tyler1 when the 1 million people was enough cash to lose to unban him.

Do you know what I think? I think this culture's a fad. I think it hasn't been repeated ever since for good reason - I don't think any other company wants to deal with this. You created a monster far worse than any other you would've ever had. Now instead of getting harmlessly flamed by a person you can mute, you risk losing hundreds of dollars for a word you typed.

I think what we clearly have here is a bunch of self-proclaimed victims that instead of passing mercy and happiness they pass around punishment and guilt. I think you're exactly what you hate.

I'm here to tell you I'm not spending another dime on this company, and I'm eagerly urging other to do the same. I'll be here while the ship sinks, smiling and laughing at you, waving your precious culture goodbye. Onto the next game where you break your keyboards every time somebody is mean to you on the internet. What a bunch of meanies. Too bad so sad.

So keep passing judgement, burning every would-be player until they refuse to spend money and you sink with the ship. I've never seen a community be the cause of their own downfall so eagerly.

Enjoy.

p.s.

I'm going to list, in no specific order, similar games in the competitive industry over the last decade or two, that are/were considered incredibly relevant, self-sustained by the community, and did not encounter the same problems that Riot seems to face. You can take from this what you will, though I'd assume nothing at all.

World of Warcraft04-18 Counterstrike1.6 CounterstrikeGO Hearthstone MTG Dota1 Dota2 Guild Wars1 Guild Wars2 Starcraft1 Starcraft2 PlayerUnknownBG Overwatch Destiny1 Destiny2 Call of DutyFranchise HaloFranchise FIFA Madden SSMB/SF/Tekken

So why didn't anyone else copy Riot's behavioral system? Well, simply put, there was no incentive to do so. If there was, you indeed would see a multitude of imitation, as we do everywhere else in games from FPS to MOBA's to MMO's. You see, companies don't imitate failure in business, it just makes no sense. What I'm sure they did do/are doing is taking a look or repeating some of Riot's successes, but what we clearly see is no attempt to recreate their department of toxicity - and we won't. Because it was exactly that: a failure.

So what is the message from the other organizations to you, and to Riot? Well, the message is clear. They certainly didn't think you lot were capable of being judge and jury - that much is obvious. Nor do they think a systematic version of word tags resulting in punishment is a good idea, either. So whereas you'd like to tell yourselves, Riot, and anyone who opposes you that what you've done has been a successful attempt to reinvent the gaming community, what we see is actually quite the opposite, that you've failed. Miserably, actually.

You've come up so shorthanded that while having the arguably most influence in gaming at one point and time, not a single company, studio, etc. imitated your work. None. Zero. You know what's so crazy about that? I can't think of a single company that that's not true for given the same circumstances. Ouch. Yikes. Your passive aggressive buzz words. See what I did there?

;)

So go ahead and respond. Downvote me (most likely, rather than counterpoint, as most snowflakes dread real argument) in the manner to which is your custom when any piece of information or statement that is not apart of your groupthink is made available. Show me all those statistics provided by Riot at www.imright.com, it's hilarious. Be more condescending, snarly, scheming and dismissive than anything that would be actually allowed by your own system. Be more hypocritical. It makes me smile. It makes me laugh. I look forward to it.

74 Comments

ModPeriscope5 votes

In fact, everyone that I've ever met has lost an account.

I've never been punished, let alone banned.

Not once did you forgive or forsake an accusation or a loss of account, suspension, etc. Not once did you pardon the individual and say 'shit happens' or 'hey why can I only see one side of the coin?' No. You said burn them every chance you got.

That is not true.

If you feel like your punishment was unjust, then write a support ticket or post your chat logs, and other players can weigh in on them.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

I've never been punished, let alone banned.

That is not true.

If you feel like your punishment was unjust, then write a support ticket or post your chat logs, and other players can weigh in on them.

I'm not sure if correcting banter and accidental dying to cross game behavior to be of the same plane. I find it altogether too convenient for Riot to say "feel free to protest" when anything other than admitted banter from both parties would be deemed de facto harassment.

Allow me to step back and applaud you for never saying a negative thing towards another player. My God, how do you do it? He comes again. I mean honestly. Whereas I'm sure this works miracles with the (clearly) impressionable collegiate crowd, it does little to sway me, sir.

"I, for one, have never done another man ill will, nor should you". I suppose all the Mother Theresa's of the world just happen to be playing Riot games.

You don't think this seems remotely pretentious?

You know what the problem is with other players passing judgement on potential offenders? The would-be jury is apart of the potentially offended. And you see nothing wrong with that. Possibly last game!

We've seen the level of forgiveness of peers give - I'm getting down voted on comments that I've done nothing but provide website links with an added statement. The post itself is downvoted three times and yet nothing else is said as to why other than for the fact that someone disagreed.

This entire thing would be considered harassment by the in game legislation.

In game:

Conversation = Harassment Banter = Harassment Advice = Harassment Debate = Harassment

So clearly, I would prefer to not rely on my peers as they're more interested in seeing how many people they can set ablaze, which is (excuse me) fucking ironic considered the very thing they seem so desperate to rid themselves of is malicious behavior.

There are a multitude of YouTube videos suggesting that all players mute all chat and do not type/talk in game whatsoever. That is sick. Absolutely sick. And Riot seems to think as an entity that that's a healthy player response.

ModPeriscope1 votes

You don't think this seems remotely pretentious?

All I did was rebut your claims; you've taken what I said about my punishment history, and have extrapolated what would be my in-game behavior.

We've seen the level of forgiveness of peers give - I'm getting down voted

Try not to read too much into votes. Players upvote and downvote for good reasons, bad reasons, and no reasons alike.

HalcyonDweller4 votes

Toxicity was a word used long before the creation of league of legends. It was already used to describe unhealthy relationships and friendships.

Be careful what you claim is factual, if you make too many false claims then your whole argument can fall apart.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

Toxicity was a word used long before the creation of league of legends. It was already used to describe unhealthy relationships and friendships.

Be careful what you claim is factual, if you make too many false claims then your whole argument can fall apart.

Oh yeah? Source it.

Google SEO the slang term for toxicity/toxic pre 2009. If what you say is true it should be pretty easy. I'll give you some suggestions, just in case you're having a hard time searching boards.

You could search posts on TL.net pre 2009, Cyberathetlic League, TWL, MLG, GB, PGT,WCG, Arenajunkies, etc.

If what you say is true, we should see a plethora of posts referencing the word toxic just as we do now.

HalcyonDweller6 votes

https://www.google.com/search?q=toxic+relationship&client=firefox-b-1-ab&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2000%2Ccd_max%3A2002&tbm=

That's a google search using the time filter from 2000 to 2002.

Literally the first result is a webpage (dated Oct 9, 2000) from Oprah's website telling people to "Confront Your Toxic Relationship"

League of legends was released in 2009 - 9 years later FYI.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

https://www.google.com/search?q=toxic+relationship&client=firefox-b-1-ab&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2000%2Ccd_max%3A2002&tbm=

That's a google search using the time filter from 2000 to 2002.

Literally the first result is a webpage (dated Oct 9, 2000) from Oprah's website telling people to "Confront Your Toxic Relationship"

League of legends was released in 2009 - 9 years later FYI.

I'm well aware of what a toxic relationship is, I'm not really sure how this applies to a slang term used in gaming pre (2009). There's plenty of definitions that exist in the English language that aren't present in gaming, I'm not so certain you have much of a correlation here.

If there's any confusion, I wasn't insisting that Riot created the word Toxic, I was noting that they'd been the first community to largely reference it and apply it to gaming, with much irony.

HalcyonDweller6 votes

The point of contention is whether the word "toxicity" originated because of the league of legends community.

You asked me to source it so I did. It's not my fault that the facts contradict you.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

The point of contention is whether the word "toxicity" originated because of the league of legends community.

You asked me to source it so I did. It's not my fault that the facts contradict you.

I thought it would be quite obvious since we were discussing a game, on a gaming forum, about gaming culture, in a gaming community, using a gaming buzz word, that we were speaking in the realm of gaming.

Avoiding debate isn't the same thing as being good at it. Most everyone can circumvent a topic, probably why they're so prone to doing it. It's easier and requires much less precision.

If you're so in the dark concerning insinuation, I'll be certain to be quite clear in the future. It impresses me, no less, how remarkably suited the forum culture is to inciting riot (no pun intended) on a discussion that has almost nothing to do with the discussion.

Stop derailing the thread. If you have no argument with my points, then have no argument. If you think you're impressing my peers by nitpicking to be impressive, and if that's your only aim for accomplishment, then consider yourself accomplished.

But it means nothing to me. All it seems that you're trying to do is run away from my points.

I was noting that Riot created a buzzword for a culture that Riot contradicts in buzzword fashion and mused how it was entertaining (in written form). I'm not really sure how you proclaiming the word existed before Riot used it in coalition with their fad is you 'winning' a debate, due to nothing you've actually stated countering my initial point.

AeroWaffle5 votes

Avoiding debate isn't the same thing as being good at it. Most everyone can circumvent a topic, probably why they're so prone to doing it. It's easier and requires much less precision.

Wouldn't that be what you're doing? You asked for the previous use of the term, and only when it was pointed out you shift the goalposts. Why does the term toxicity have to be used only in the context of video games? We're talking about people's behavior, what does it matter if it's behavior online or in person? It was a term to describe bad behavior.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

Wouldn't that be what you're doing? You asked for the previous use of the term, and only when it was pointed out you shift the goalposts. Why does the term toxicity have to be used only in the context of video games? We're talking about people's behavior, what does it matter if it's behavior online or in person? It was a term to describe bad behavior.

Yes, a term described by Riot, and none before them. That was my point. Not that toxic behavior doesn't exist, not that the word toxic doesn't exist, the irony in which a company the creates a buzzword for toxic becomes the most toxic. That was the entire statement. Or, it was hoping to be the entire statement of that one-liner of my own.

I'm assuming for sake of argument that should we have a conversation about Algebra that everyone knows how to add and utilize different numbers in a setting. Should we continue to argue about numbers or addition I'll just stop replying. It's childish and has no real outcome other than it is atagonistic.

HalcyonDweller5 votes

So you're suggesting that Riot made the community toxic by bringing the label of toxicity into their discussions about the community?

Giving name to a problem can certainly exacerbate it, but it wouldn't need a name if it wasn't a problem in the first place. People brought their abusive and humiliating behaviors to league from other games, for example I knew someone in highschool who regularly told other people to kill themselves over mistakes. He learned that in WoW, then brought it with him to league. That's certainly not Riot's fault.

This is my last comment before I log off and return later to give a full response to your post. Just saying what needed to be said to close out the discussion chain about the word "toxic."

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

So you're suggesting that Riot made the community toxic by bringing the label of toxicity into their discussions about the community?

Giving name to a problem can certainly exacerbate it, but it wouldn't need a name if it wasn't a problem in the first place. People brought their abusive and humiliating behaviors to league from other games, for example I knew someone in highschool who regularly told other people to kill themselves over mistakes. He learned that in WoW, then brought it with him to league. That's certainly not Riot's fault.

This is my last comment before I log off and return later to give a full response to your post. Just saying what needed to be said to close out the discussion chain about the word "toxic."

Ok well, I fail to see then if it's such an inherent problem with other communities why do the communities require zero effort to indulge them?

I would actually argue that Riot, in demands with the internet (more or less) change themselves, in fact sparked a resentment like no other, and thus has the community to which they have for it.

I challenge you to experience the other MOBA's for yourself first handed, and hope you realize there is perhaps no difference ultimately in the players who play them, and yet, not only do they survive without such an abusive form of retaliation, they almost thrive off of the lack of it?

I just find it a bit coincidental that the sole company that makes it their motto to tackle toxicity seems to have the biggest issues with it. Don't you? At the end of the day, if everyone's just as (if not more) angry, then what was the point?

The guy who got cursed out is still mad, the guy who lost the game due to the argument still lost, and the guy who did the most cursing lost their account.

Everyone is a loser in this situation, punishments were all handed out, and there was no saving grace here. The guy's still coming back, the other guy's still feeding and the last is going to be who they were for the last X amount of years because suffice to say a video game doesn't change who you are.

Rather than meet that aggressive attitude with pacifying embrace Riot (you) (the community) etc. decided to fight fire with fire. I'm merely noting, to my own amusement, how it has not worked for you.

You could point out any 'facts' you like, as i'd said, from imright.com, we all see that the game is just as toxic as dota2 or smite or hots if not MORE.

You've still managed to create the we vs them mentality, except not only is it the gosu vs hasu, the good vs bad, the x versus y, it's also the reported and the reportee.

I just don't get it, myself.

And don't give yourself to any delusions. If Riot really cared about your feelings they'd let none of us back. But here we are. They care about $, it's a business. And i'm pretty certain the entire ban you for your attitude so you can spend $ again on a free to play game to do the same attitude is a business tactic under a veil, which is even more evil than the entire construction of everything else to do with it. Isn't it?

AeroWaffle4 votes

I'm not sure what you're talking about there since I remember Xbox live as well as any multiplayer first person shooter have pretty damn poor behavior, several times worse than what I see now in league.

I view MMO's as a different enough game type that it self-polices itself. You're not forced to be in groups or raids with other people. If someone is going out of their way to harass you, you can contact a GM about it and the restrictions are pretty damn harsh when the GMs take action.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

I'm not sure what you're talking about there since I remember Xbox live as well as any multiplayer first person shooter have pretty damn poor behavior, several times worse than what I see now in league.

I view MMO's as a different enough game type that it self-polices itself. You're not forced to be in groups or raids with other people. If someone is going out of their way to harass you, you can contact a GM about it and the restrictions are pretty damn harsh at people.

What restrictions? Where? There's no restrictions. I promise you that you can say whatever you want under the sun in Durotar, it happens all the time. I've never heard of anyone receiving an infraction anywhere that didn't have something to do with directly manipulating the game.

In fact, google it. Google "I was banned for X" statement for World of Warcraft or Guilds Wars 2. You can do it for League. I was banned for League comes up with tons of results.

The game has to encounter players they do not know all the time, whether it be raid, RBG, or arena (to use WoW for an example), and Guild Wars 2 has a solo/duo platform identical to Riot (see, they do copy some things) met with strangers that require communication in a 5v5 setting.

I'm not sure why you're implying that League of Legends is the only game (i mean not even within their own genre) that requires the teamwork of strangers in order to compete successfully I must determine that you've not played many other games.

Even if you look to the genre, no other game within the genre has the same punishment system.

AeroWaffle4 votes

What restrictions? Where? There's no restrictions. I promise you that you can say whatever you want under the sun in Durotar, it happens all the time. I've never heard of anyone receiving an infraction anywhere that didn't have something to do with directly manipulating the game.

I've seen several people banned for harassment, it's rare but it happens. They do have it in their policy, https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/42673.

The game has to encounter players they do not know all the time, whether it be raid, RBG, or arena (to use WoW for an example), and Guild Wars 2 has a solo/duo platform identical to Riot (see, they do copy some things) met with strangers that require communication in a 5v5 setting.

But in raids, groups, or arena the player has several more options to deal with a unruly player. Be it vote-kick, just removing the member from the party, or just leaving the group with very little punishment (at worst a 30min lock out in a dungeon). League can't have many of these tools to keep the integrity of the game. You can't just swap in a new player when one leaves and players have a high penalty for leaving.

I'm not sure why you're implying that League of Legends is the only game (i mean not even within their own genre) that requires the teamwork of strangers in order to compete successfully I must determine that you've not played many other games. Even if you look to the genre, no other game within the genre has the same punishment system.

I never implied any such thing. One of the reasons why I choose league over Dota 2 is because of Riot's behavioral policy. My experience in Dota 2 was much worse.

AeroWaffle3 votes

[{quoted}](name=k4e shade,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=0fhQkVck,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-11T01:10:30.539+0000)

Yes, and I also feel as though many people have chosen Riot for their policies (probably just as many who've left). But I have to ask, why? Are you unable to deal with critique, be it inflammatory or not? Does it really unsettle to you so, what someone says on the internet?

I think this is most likely an age thing. The original internet culture was very much anti "the man", very freedom of speech, much more akin to a "Hackers" movie or something of that sort. Don't censor me, I'll express my views as I feel like it, etc.

It seems like the new climate forgot the entire predisposition of the original, and funny enough, seem to oppose everything that they stood for.

If you'd said this same thing in the 90's there would've been equally if not more contempt against you. I'm not saying one is superior to the other, but I am denoting history.

The hacker culture is clearly gone, and I'm not so sure in it's place is a better one. Didn't we already have pc sjw snowflakes? Like, wasn't that already a thing, somewhere?

My question isn't as much as to why is the internet culture a bunch of trolling idiots, it's more or less why did you, knowingly, enter said realm and then attempt to dispose of it in a notion of superiority?

If you don't like the way the gaming world was, why come to it in the first place? I think Riot asking everyone else to change just because they had "feels" is kind of dictatorial.

I didn't play the game to be bitched at. It's that simple.

AeroWaffle3 votes

[{quoted}](name=k4e shade,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=0fhQkVck,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002,timestamp=2018-05-11T01:41:55.119+0000)

Alright but, um, how are you supposed to learn? Trial and error via 500 attempts? I think there's lines to which are acceptable and unacceptable. I think "getting bitched at" is a broad term, applicable to not only gaming. Life is confrontational, why hide from it here? I mean, you could mute them, but I don't think that's what you want, right? You want to punish them, for, I don't know, sake of your own ego. Because your feelings were hurt so then you want them to hurt, otherwise you'd just mute them, right?

If I'm in the middle of the game a vast majority of the "advice", even those without blatant insults, given to someone that does something that's (perceived to be) wrong it's something that's obvious to the player already or it's something that falls under "hindsight is 20/20".

Actual helpful advice during a game is rare.

When I want to spend time to improve in the game I actually spend time to watch people play and/or consider how I played the previous games and the results it obtained. I'm perfectly capable of observing my own play without someone trying to take it upon themselves to point out my mistakes for the sake of their own ego.

When I report someone for poor behavior, the game was already a worse experience because of their behavior. I know that reporting them is not going to make that one game a better experience, but I hope for the chance of other players to not have the same disappointing experience if they keep up the poor behavior.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

If I'm in the middle of the game a vast majority of the "advice", even those without blatant insults, given to someone that does something that's (perceived to be) wrong it's something that's obvious to the player already or it's something that falls under "hindsight is 20/20".

Actual helpful advice during a game is rare.

When I want to spend time to improve in the game I actually spend time to watch people play and/or consider how I played the previous games and the results it obtained. I'm perfectly capable of observing my own play without someone trying to take it upon themselves to point out my mistakes for the sake of their own ego.

When I report someone for poor behavior, the game was already a worse experience because of their behavior. I know that reporting them is not going to make that one game a better experience, but I hope for the chance of other players to not have the same disappointing experience if they keep up the poor behavior.

You don't have the right to not be offended, you have the right to not be harassed. I think that there's a notable difference, though the vast majority of the community seems to not think there is one.

For sake of argument, I would presume seeing as though you seem to be a player who does not like criticism, you are indeed a player who said next team would indeed be in need of saving from as well, though you might not see it that way.

Personally, I would probably rather have the individual with thicker skin and a open to debate attitude that may or may not be offensive from time to time rather than a person who didn't want anything but positive reinforcement thrown their way or it would by in large affect them.

I'm going to go on a limb here but I'd think that would be a safer bet for business and other faculties of life as well. Being 'easily triggered' or 'easily offended', I wouldn't think of these as trademarks for success. I know of lots of great men in this world who have short tempers and are typical of egregious behavior, but not many of the opposite spectrum.

Some food for thought, if nothing else.

AeroWaffle1 votes

[{quoted}](name=k4e shade,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=0fhQkVck,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000004,timestamp=2018-05-11T02:13:34.793+0000)

You don't have the right to not be offended, you have the right to not be harassed. I think that there's a notable difference, though the vast majority of the community seems to not think there is one.

For sake of argument, I would presume seeing as though you seem to be a player who does not like criticism, you are indeed a player who said next team would indeed be in need of saving from as well, though you might not see it that way.

Personally, I would probably rather have the individual with thicker skin and a open to debate attitude that may or may not be offensive from time to time rather than a person who didn't want anything but positive reinforcement thrown their way or it would by in large affect them.

I'm going to go on a limb here but I'd think that would be a safer bet for business and other faculties of life as well. Being 'easily triggered' or 'easily offended', I wouldn't think of these as trademarks for success. I know of lots of great men in this world who have short tempers and are typical of egregious behavior, but not many of the opposite spectrum.

Some food for thought, if nothing else.

When did I say anything about offended? Most of the time it's just annoying. I play video games to have fun, and it annoys me that some people just don't have the civility to treat other people with any amount of respect.

Your "For sake of argument" seems to be only for the sake of argument since it's based off a presumption.

Kei1433 votes

Hmmmm... a wall of text with misunderstanding on how match making and how the behavioral system works.

With the amount of misconception here, I'm not even sure where I should start to comment this.

k4e shade2 votes

{quoted}

Hmmmm... a wall of text with misunderstanding on how match making and how the behavioral system works.

With the amount of misconception here, I'm not even sure where I should start to comment this.

Oh, please do. I mean, you could just rest with the edgy one-liner, but I've seen that before.

HalcyonDweller5 votes

Treating everyone like garbage if they don't kiss your feet and agree with everything you say is a terrible way to try to prove a point. If anything you're going to turn more people off of your beliefs than you would have if you had never done so in the first place.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

Treating everyone like garbage if they don't kiss your feet and agree with everything you say is a terrible way to try to prove a point. If anything you're going to turn more people off of your beliefs than you would have if you had never done so in the first place.

I'm pretty sure i'm just mirroring behavior =\ if you think that's treating others like garbage, I think you should look inward, not outward. I think all we've seen is a bunch of downvotes and replies that really have nothing to do with any of my points.

Did you not like my points?

I could summarize a more brief, detailed list, and then you all could tackle them one by one. With as much time as you're spending trying to one up me with snazzy catch phrases, I think you'd have the time to address something that I'd actually said.

HalcyonDweller4 votes

I didn't read very far into it. Stopped when you made false claims. As will a lot of people. But that's besides the point.

If you wanted a discussion about this subject, you wouldn't be using every one of your replies as an opportunity to passive aggressively imply that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid and beneath you.

Pro-tip: you're not better than everyone else. And if you act like you are and dismiss them as if they are beneath you, then you're not really trying to have a discussion at all, you're just trying to show off. "Look how great I am for having these opinions, guys? GUYS? Oh you don't agree? Well you don't count!" lol the hypocrisy of your attitude is astounding.

Kei1433 votes

In fact, you can level from 1 to 30 and not meet a single new player in this game. I'm doing it right now. Why is that? Well, everyone there has lost an account. And yet, Riot claims that only a very microscopic percentage of the community is actually losing their accounts. So where's all the new people? Don't believe me? Na.op.gg my account and check the average cs/min of the people in my games. 150-200 cs in under 20 minutes is a new player? lol?

I guess I'll start here.

Match making is quick to put you in the proper MMR, esp if you have experience already. 5 games is all it takes to get you out of true "new player" land. You are lvl 27 now, which means you have been matched against the players of your MMR for a long time now.

You really over estimate what the true new players know about the game.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

I guess I'll start here.

Match making is quick to put you in the proper MMR, esp if you have experience already. 5 games is all it takes to get you out of true "new player" land. You are lvl 27 now, which means you have been matched against the players of your MMR for a long time now.

You really over estimate what the true new players know about the game.

I don't, know, which is why I said it's a little silly to presume we're all new. Are you implying all of my accounts have been forever matched intuitively with people of my own skill level, and yet for some reason we can't seem to do the same thing in ranked without a damned win/loss ratio as the saving grace?

Kei1432 votes

Ranked match making is more well done than blind pick match making.

While there is a tiny bit of MMR splash from your most played game modes to the other game modes, people's blind pick MMR is still different than their ranked MMR.

Meaning there will be more "1 sided games" in blind pick than ranked as someone will be out of place of where they are supposed to be. Especially if they are playing with a friend with a different MMR.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

Ranked match making is more well done than blind pick match making.

While there is a tiny bit of MMR splash from your most played game modes to the other game modes, people's blind pick MMR is still different than their ranked MMR.

Meaning there will be more "1 sided games" in blind pick than ranked as someone will be out of place of where they are supposed to be. Especially if they are playing with a friend with a different MMR.

It seems a bit random, though I wouldn't agree that ranked MMR makes a whole lot of sense. There is lots of data to support (haha) that some roles carry much more exceptionally than others, as is there a notion that starting a beginner and/or would be inexperienced player at 1300ish instead of 800ish is kind of silly. Assuming everyone is "decent" instead of "new" when they're in placements is kind of moronic, don't you think?

Now, I don't think everyone placing into ranked is new - that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, some of them are new to ranked. And I don't think there's a strong likelihood that people who are new to ranked belong in the middle of the pack, for obvious reasons, since we don't assume that to be true anywhere else, ever, anywhere. LOL. Sorry. Had to.

Kei1431 votes

Lets talk about blind pick MMR for now, as that's what you are experiencing.

Lets say playerA is in silver (for numeric sakes, I'll use 850 MMR), and has a friend, playerB, in plat (I'll use 1500 MMR here). Their average MMR is 1175. So they will be placed in a match with a bunch of Golds of around 1200 MMR. The plat player will probably stomp the golds in lane, but at the same time, the silver probably will get stomped as well. It ends up being a question of who can capitalize on their lead more.

Using the same plat player might have a true MMR of 1750 in ranked. But because of how MMR splash works between game modes. Blind pick only registers him as 1500 MMR.

If you read one of the recent /dev blogs for ranked in 2019, you can see that Riot does acknowledge that there are MMR differences in different roles. That Plat player could be at 1750 MMR when using his main, but only 1600 MMR when using his non-main in his familiar role. He also can only be a 1500 MMR when he's playing his off-role, which further reasons why the MMR of other players will be lower in other game modes.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

Lets talk about blind pick MMR for now, as that's what you are experiencing.

Lets say playerA is in silver (for numeric sakes, I'll use 850 MMR), and has a friend, playerB, in plat (I'll use 1500 MMR here). Their average MMR is 1175. So they will be placed in a match with a bunch of Golds of around 1200 MMR. The plat player will probably stomp the golds in lane, but at the same time, the silver probably will get stomped as well. It ends up being a question of who can capitalize on their lead more.

Using the same plat player might have a true MMR of 1750 in ranked. But because of how MMR splash works between game modes. Blind pick only registers him as 1500 MMR.

If you read one of the recent /dev blogs for ranked in 2019, you can see that Riot does acknowledge that there are MMR differences in different roles. That Plat player could be at 1750 MMR when using his main, but only 1600 MMR when using his non-main in his familiar role. He also can only be a 1500 MMR when he's playing his off-role, which further reasons why the MMR of other players will be lower in other game modes.

Well, that would be a good idea if they did that. For some reason I'm roughly 1500-1600 MMR in normals (IF websites third party are accurate, which I'm not saying they are) depending on the day of the week, despite W/L apparently (i've won 6 in a row and seen my normal MMR go down, which makes me question the whole thing).

There -should- be main roles and off roles. I have friends who can jungle at our normal MMR but feed, feed, feed if they're adc.

Kei1431 votes

Reds have laughed at how inaccurate 3rd party websites are for MMR analysis. So that should say something.

There also is a hidden MMR decay, which makes sense if you consider that people's peak skills deteriorate when not consistently performing a task.

AeroWaffle3 votes

So go ahead and respond. Downvote me in the manner to which is your custom when any piece of information that is apart of your groupthink. Be more condescending, snarly, scheming and dismissive than anything that would be actually allowed by your own system. Be more hypocritical. It makes me smile. It makes me laugh. I look forward to it.

An honest question, what is the point in discussion when it's obvious that you're going to dismiss any opinion other than your own?

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

An honest question, what is the point in discussion when it's obvious that you're going to dismiss any opinion other than your own?

Kind of ironic question, isn't that what you lot do? I mean, you can just hit the back button on your browser and go to, um, any post anywhere.

HalcyonDweller2 votes

Nice obfuscation. Now answer the question.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

Nice obfuscation. Now answer the question.

I don't think I'm being dismissive at all of your opinions. You don't seem to have one, unless I haven't noticed. All you've said is what is the point of my post should I not be open to any opinions, but you've been certain to not let me know what those are.

I promise you, if you give me your opinion, I'll be sure to consider it well before I answer.

HalcyonDweller2 votes

Aight, when I get home tonight I'll give your post an actual read. Then share my full thoughts on the subject.

But really, you're preemptively harassing anyone who might disagree with you, and you're posturing more than a jock in front of the cheerleaders. So please, you don't have to pretend to care about others opinions when you've already shown that you don't.

Gabresol3 votes

"Blablabla I got banned blablabla the report system sucks blablabla League is dying blablabla gonna quit league blablabla you all suck if you keep playing blablabla"

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

"Blablabla I got banned blablabla the report system sucks blablabla League is dying blablabla gonna quit league blablabla you all suck if you keep playing blablabla"

You're super clever

archerno12 votes

None of those games ever came even close to league population. I dont think even combined they did. And most of them are as toxic if not more toxic than league. They just dont enforce their rules because their populations are small.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

None of those games ever came even close to league population. I dont think even combined they did. And most of them are as toxic if not more toxic than league. They just dont enforce their rules because their populations are small.

Fortnite has almost three times the population of league on Twitch, PUBG has a larger population, and World of Warcraft had a provable 11 million subscribers at one point. League of Legends has barely double the population of just 1 Blizzard game, let alone all of them. So no, that's not correct at all actually, if Twitch is any estimate of gaming populations (which it shows that it has the tendency to be).

That, and you're probably too young to know this, but pretty much all of online gaming at one point in time was broken down into Starcraft, FIFA, and Counterstrike. Well, if you trust the WCG and CAL during their reign.

This is the crazy part about this. Nowhere do we have any reason to believe aside from Riot's own claims that League of Legends has the populations that they've stated. They have literally spent the last 8 or so years saying that everyone plays League, when we clearly see that isn't true in any other representation of League of Legends independently comparably to other venues.

archerno11 votes

[{quoted}](name=k4e shade,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=0fhQkVck,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-05-11T00:06:00.516+0000)

Fortnite has almost three times the population of league on Twitch, PUBG has a larger population, and World of Warcraft had a provable 11 million subscribers at one point. League of Legends has barely double the population of just 1 Blizzard game, let alone all of them. So no, that's not correct at all actually, if Twitch is any estimate of gaming populations (which it shows that it has the tendency to be).

That, and you're probably too young to know this, but pretty much all of online gaming at one point in time was broken down into Starcraft, FIFA, and Counterstrike. Well, if you trust the WCG and CAL during their reign.

This is the crazy part about this. Nowhere do we have any reason to believe aside from Riot's own claims that League of Legends has the populations that they've stated. They have literally spent the last 8 or so years saying that everyone plays League, when we clearly see that isn't true in any other representation of League of Legends independently comparably to other venues.

Last info we had about League population was 100m. Thats almost 10x WOW had. Watching streams and playing game is different. Most Fortnite viewers are 12 year old kids watching Ninja. Twitch isnt estimate of anything. Fortnite doesnt even have half of League population and its played on PC, consoles and mobile phones.

YerroFever2 votes

[{quoted}](name=k4e shade,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=0fhQkVck,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-05-10T23:33:43.691+0000)

You know what else I find funny? Every single post in this discussion, every single one, has been reaffirmed by the community suchas "burn the witch". Not once did you forgive or forsake an accusation or a loss of account, suspension, etc. Not once did you pardon the individual and say 'shit happens' or 'hey why can I only see one side of the coin?' No. You said burn them every chance you got. You're not toxic? Turn the other cheek much?

The question isn't why do people not forgive, the question is why don't people learn?

Virtually all of the people who come here posting about a temp ban or a permaban have admitted to prior punishments.

Is it bad that the community says "well..... you had multiple chances, why did you continue your toxic behavior?" to an individual who has had multiple punishments or is it the individual's fault for not taking those multiple chances to reform?

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

The question isn't why do people not forgive, the question is why don't people learn?

Virtually all of the people who come here posting about a temp ban or a permaban have admitted to prior punishments.

Is it bad that the community says "well..... you had multiple chances, why did you continue your toxic behavior?" to an individual who has had multiple punishments or is it the individual's fault for not taking those multiple chances to reform?

I mean that's a fair point. I think it's equally fair to pose a question (call it utilitarian, if you'd like), why are we in fact more sensitive in a gaming situation than we are realistically in life, and is it at the end of the day more pragmatic?

Why, in this certain situation, let's say, would the person who was offended by the actions of the other in game (let's agree that in essence that's what it is), has less rights of action towards those offenses than the individual who committed those actions due to verbal expression that is more easily ignored than the actual action for what they're accounted?

I don't believe, for example, that the person intentionally dying twelve times in a match has more rights (if any) than the person who told them to "stop fxcking feeding". The person dying on purpose could just mute them, but the person who's upset and reacting can't automatically win the game, can they? We have a difference of outcome.

If you ask me should people who are continuously offensive without merit be punished, I'd say without a doubt yes. Over and over. But that's not the case, is it? The conversations aren't one sided, are they? But the punishments are, most likely.

I'd argue what it usually is, is one person flaming another person who is flaming, one reports the other and it just so happens to have happened to one more than the other. Eventually both get removed, and sure, but are free to recreate accounts and recreate the same environment once again, perpetuating the problem.

You're not solving toxicity - you're not even attempting. I'd argue that you're doing exactly the opposite, you're pouring gasoline on it.

YerroFever1 votes

[{quoted}](name=k4e shade,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=0fhQkVck,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2018-05-11T00:38:51.185+0000)

I mean that's a fair point. I think it's equally fair to pose a question (call it utilitarian, if you'd like), why are we in fact more sensitive in a gaming situation than we are realistically in life, and is it at the end of the day more pragmatic?

Why, in this certain situation, let's say, would the person who was offended by the actions of the other in game (let's agree that in essence that's what it is), has less rights of action towards those offenses than the individual who committed those actions due to verbal expression that is more easily ignored than the actual action for what they're accounted?

I don't believe, for example, that the person intentionally dying twelve times in a match has more rights (if any) than the person who told them to "stop fxcking feeding". The person dying on purpose could just mute them, but the person who's upset and reacting can't automatically win the game, can they? We have a difference of outcome.

If you ask me should people who are continuously offensive without merit be punished, I'd say without a doubt yes. Over and over. But that's not the case, is it? The conversations aren't one sided, are they? But the punishments are, most likely.

I'd argue what it usually is, is one person flaming another person who is flaming, one reports the other and it just so happens to have happened to one more than the other. Eventually both get removed, and sure, but are free to recreate accounts and recreate the same environment once again, perpetuating the problem.

You're not solving toxicity - you're not even attempting. I'd argue that you're doing exactly the opposite, you're pouring gasoline on it.

I don't think it's necessarily that people are more sensitive online, I think it's that people are more brash online than they are IRL. The mask of anonymity lets people do things they wouldn't normally do IRL without social consequence. They can disappear on the internet and come back with a new name and no one will know the difference.

I don't see people at restaurants screaming "kys" or "n_____" or "f_____" at someone without being asked to leave.

You specifically say:

The conversations aren't one sided, are they? But the punishments are, most likely.

But you don't have any evidence to support that someone else didn't get a punishment. There's no way we'd know unless the person admitted to getting punished. However, many people lie on the forums. They say they don't have punishments and then Tantram comes down and smites the crap out of the poster and discloses how many punishments they have had... and I have never seen anyone dispute Tantram. The most I have seen is that they claim those punishments shouldn't count because they're not "recent" and even then, people have very strange definitions as recent. I remember a poster disputing that 2 weeks was not recent.

Unfortunately, you don't know the situation because we're only seeing one person's chats. There was one chat where someone, in all chat, claimed their teammate called them a derogatory term and that their ban was a false positive and then Tantram came down and said that the chat logs indicated no one in the game said that term except for him and that he made the story up to try and get someone punished and then he stated he was escalating the situation with player support based on prior behavior.... and that person didn't even try to defend themselves against the statement that no one else said that term in the game.

As for your final statement:

You're not solving toxicity - you're not even attempting. I'd argue that you're doing exactly the opposite, you're pouring gasoline on it.

I want to go back to this statement here:

If you ask me should people who are continuously offensive without merit be punished, I'd say without a doubt yes. Over and over.

This gives me insight into how you view the world. This statement "offensive without merit" indicates to me that you believe it is OK to be "offensive with merit."

It appears that you are trying to justify toxicity. You seem to want to pour gasoline on it yourself.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

I don't think it's necessarily that people are more sensitive online, I think it's that people are more brash online than they are IRL. The mask of anonymity lets people do things they wouldn't normally do IRL without social consequence. They can disappear on the internet and come back with a new name and no one will know the difference.

I don't see people at restaurants screaming "kys" or "n_____" or "f_____" at someone without being asked to leave.

You specifically say:

But you don't have any evidence to support that someone else didn't get a punishment. There's no way we'd know unless the person admitted to getting punished. However, many people lie on the forums. They say they don't have punishments and then Tantram comes down and smites the crap out of the poster and discloses how many punishments they have had... and I have never seen anyone dispute Tantram. The most I have seen is that they claim those punishments shouldn't count because they're not "recent" and even then, people have very strange definitions as recent. I remember a poster disputing that 2 weeks was not recent.

Unfortunately, you don't know the situation because we're only seeing one person's chats. There was one chat where someone, in all chat, claimed their teammate called them a derogatory term and that their ban was a false positive and then Tantram came down and said that the chat logs indicated no one in the game said that term except for him and that he made the story up to try and get someone punished and then he stated he was escalating the situation with player support based on prior behavior.... and that person didn't even try to defend themselves against the statement that no one else said that term in the game.

As for your final statement:

I want to go back to this statement here:

This gives me insight into how you view the world. This statement "offensive without merit" indicates to me that you believe it is OK to be "offensive with merit."

It appears that you are trying to justify toxicity. You seem to want to pour gasoline on it yourself.

I think you open the door to verbal insults the moment you use them. I think that's usually common sense, or in some capacities what we coin self defense. I believe if you throw punches you deserve to get punched, I mean that's essentially what Hammurabi's code said, right?

As for your points, no I can't believe the conversations were entirely one sided, however, I think that the laws of probability would insist that they're not, so... I can lean on that.

Oh, and I do agree with you, people are most certainly prone to disrespect online comparatively to real life. However, I disagree that it would (presumably disagree) be a negative thing. I think such environments build character, to a degree. You can have all your world of fluff for all you adore it, but that's just not simply the way the world (at all) is. Pretending otherwise simply hinders you, imho. Not a very cuddly philosophy, but mine nevertheless. And no, this isn't a "well we should be cold because the world is?", moreso a "the world is cold as fuck so you'd ought be prepared".

I think we're creating a climate that is very anti free speech, pro censorship, and any or all of their degrees are ones that I most rigorously oppose, so long as it's within reason. More or less I think the punishment should fit the crime, and in these cases I really don't think it does.

Was the person spewing insults at me deserving of the forfeiture of an account that potentially cost him hundreds to the thousands? No, don't be ridiculous. In short, I'd say probably grow up, get some thicker skin, etc. and to the guy who's really upset (even if it's me) relax, it's just a game, stop being a prick. etc.

I don't think you need to send either of them (the in game troll, noob, harasser, etc) to a verbal or metaphorical time out. I think the community would survive without the looming nanny.

YerroFever3 votes

[{quoted}](name=k4e shade,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=0fhQkVck,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-11T01:24:11.889+0000)

I think you open the door to verbal insults the moment you use them. I think that's usually common sense, or in some capacities what we coin self defense. I believe if you throw punches you deserve to get punched, I mean that's essentially what Hammurabi's code said, right?

Yeah, Hammurabi's code is eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. But that could leave everyone blind and toothless.

I understand and I agree that when someone comes at you, they should be ready to be met with equal force. However, this is Riot's house. LOL is Riot's property. I recognize that I have to follow Riot's rules when I play on Riot's property and I think that's where we differ.

I know Riot isn't perfect, but Riot is doing the best they can to curb toxicity and based on my personal experience of playing league for years... the overall severity of toxicity has gone down in my games. This is anecdotal evidence and it may not be representative of what is happening as a trend, but also, these posts on the forums are also may not necessarily representative of what is happening as a trend because lots of people lie on the forums to try and get sympathy because they think that the forums have the power to reverse punishments when we actually don't. We're just here to try and help people figure out why they got punished and if we don't know, then we suggest they open a support ticket. However, most of the time, it's pretty obvious why someone got punished and people just want to argue that they should be allowed to say the things they say and act the way they do.

As for your points, no I can't believe the conversations were entirely one sided, however, I think that the laws of probability would insist that they're not, so... I can lean on that.

I have seen entirely one sided flames in my games and so I know that it's possible and often is one sided. Rarely do I see people go back and forth with each other. This is why I don't always believe every single person who says they were only defending themselves when the chat log seems to lean on the "I'm just throwing insults and flames at you and I'm escalating it so that you respond to me and say something punishable so that we both get punished and not just me." I've seen people like that in games. I've played LoL for years.... many many years. I have seen almost every single type of chat log that has been on the forums in my own games that I have played.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

Yeah, Hammurabi's code is eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. But that could leave everyone blind and toothless.

I understand and I agree that when someone comes at you, they should be ready to be met with equal force. However, this is Riot's house. LOL is Riot's property. I recognize that I have to follow Riot's rules when I play on Riot's property and I think that's where we differ.

I know Riot isn't perfect, but Riot is doing the best they can to curb toxicity and based on my personal experience of playing league for years... the overall severity of toxicity has gone down in my games. This is anecdotal evidence and it may not be representative of what is happening as a trend, but also, these posts on the forums are also may not necessarily representative of what is happening as a trend because lots of people lie on the forums to try and get sympathy because they think that the forums have the power to reverse punishments when we actually don't. We're just here to try and help people figure out why they got punished and if we don't know, then we suggest they open a support ticket. However, most of the time, it's pretty obvious why someone got punished and people just want to argue that they should be allowed to say the things they say and act the way they do.

I have seen entirely one sided flames in my games and so I know that it's possible and often is one sided. Rarely do I see people go back and forth with each other. This is why I don't always believe every single person who says they were only defending themselves when the chat log seems to lean on the "I'm just throwing insults and flames at you and I'm escalating it so that you respond to me and say something punishable so that we both get punished and not just me." I've seen people like that in games. I've played LoL for years.... many many years. I have seen almost every single type of chat log that has been on the forums in my own games that I have played.

I attempted to edit that but I didn't do so successfully, I meant to say that I'd seen games that were back and forth, not just one sided, and i think riot treats them the same way.

And yes, I could agree with the notion that it is Riot's property. My dilemma is not so much a company having its own ruleset, it more similarly tied to a company creating an entirely new ruleset. I'm not sure if it's obvious by the everything about me, but i'm to the right, so-to-speak, so these trends are ones that I find distasteful, personally.

Would this not be stationed on the internet in a video game (would it not be what it is), I would be in total agreement with you. However, I do hold strongly to the notion that the internet is the last stand of our otherwise slimming freedoms? And I don't think we should be taking this for granted, turn by turn.

I was all pro don't blame with racist slurs etc. in video games or attacks or malicious endeavors - i was right there with you guys. When it came down to "don't swear at me" and "don't hurt my feelings" is when I started saying people were being extremist, so don't take me the wrong way.

I'm just saying (as I have with other avenues in life) that it's come too far. This is too much. We are not creating a positive future. We are aiming to, but where it's going is probably not a good path to be on. In the stead of bullies we have fear from retaliation of almost anything, and I don't think one is superior to the other, I think it's most likely worse.

YerroFever1 votes

[{quoted}](name=k4e shade,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=0fhQkVck,comment-id=000400000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-05-11T01:50:13.937+0000)

I attempted to edit that but I didn't do so successfully, I meant to say that I'd seen games that were back and forth, not just one sided, and i think riot treats them the same way.

You are correct in that Riot does treat them the same way. Riot has always said that you are punished for what you say and they have said that the best way to handle toxic chat is to mute the person and report them.

And yes, I could agree with the notion that it is Riot's property. My dilemma is not so much a company having its own ruleset, it more similarly tied to a company creating an entirely new ruleset. I'm not sure if it's obvious by the everything about me, but i'm to the right, so-to-speak, so these trends are ones that I find distasteful, personally.

Not necessarily. If we are to analyze this with american tort law, there are things called "counter claims" where someone can sue the person suing them for a related event to the first lawsuit.

There are many instances where people have destroyed each other's properties in response to each other and the end result is that each person still pays the other for the destruction of property regardless of who started it.

It's not that Riot is creating a whole new rule set, it's that Riot is taking the stance that things shouldn't be viewed as criminal law, but things should be viewed as civil law.

I can see why it's confusing because there's an authoritarian figure coming down and punishing people and it feels like the police, but it's the same thing as a mom coming down on their children's friends and setting the behavior rules for her household and if the guests do not want to follow the rules, the mom kicks the friends out of the house.

Would this not be stationed on the internet in a video game (would it not be what it is), I would be in total agreement with you. However, I do hold strongly to the notion that the internet is the last stand of our otherwise slimming freedoms? And I don't think we should be taking this for granted, turn by turn.

What freedom are you losing here? Remember that freedom of speech shall not be infringed upon by the government. If I go into a Church and start telling people in their Church that God isn't real, that Church has every right to remove me from the property. If I go to your home and start reading the dictionary out loud and you don't want to hear me reading the dictionary, you have every right to remove me from your property.

I was all pro don't blame with racist slurs etc. in video games or attacks or malicious endeavors - i was right there with you guys. When it came down to "don't swear at me" and "don't hurt my feelings" is when I started saying people were being extremist, so don't take me the wrong way.

I'm against "don't hurt my feelings" because constructive criticism can still hurt people's feelings because some people take personal failures hard and don't look at it as someone trying to help with the best of intentions. I feel like there's a disconnect because when Riot says "don't be a dick to other players" some people take it as "Riot is sheltering snowflakes." Lots of the people who claim they get banned for minor chat infractions call their punishments "bans" but when asked about it, they say "10/25 game chat ban" which means it's a chat restriction, the slap on the wrist. Whether the description of "ban" is intentional or not, people sometimes twist the truth to get sympathy from the forums when it actually serves no purpose as we don't have the power to reverse punishments.

I'm also against "don't swear at me" and so is Riot. I have said shit and fuck a whole lot, in games, and even on the forums, and I haven't been punished for it. Riot has said they don't punish for swears. I believe Tantram is the one who said that. Lots of people say "fucking (slur)" and claim Riot is punishing people for the swears and the slurs, but they're really getting punished for the slurs and not the swears.

I'm just saying (as I have with other avenues in life) that it's come too far. This is too much. We are not creating a positive future. We are aiming to, but where it's going is probably not a good path to be on. In the stead of bullies we have fear from retaliation of almost anything, and I don't think one is superior to the other, I think it's most likely worse.

I'd have to get very political, historical, and legal to respond and it will derail the comment so I'm just going to say I disagree with some things you are saying but I respect that your opinion is different from mine.

k4e shade1 votes

{quoted}

You are correct in that Riot does treat them the same way. Riot has always said that you are punished for what you say and they have said that the best way to handle toxic chat is to mute the person and report them.

Not necessarily. If we are to analyze this with american tort law, there are things called "counter claims" where someone can sue the person suing them for a related event to the first lawsuit.

There are many instances where people have destroyed each other's properties in response to each other and the end result is that each person still pays the other for the destruction of property regardless of who started it.

It's not that Riot is creating a whole new rule set, it's that Riot is taking the stance that things shouldn't be viewed as criminal law, but things should be viewed as civil law.

I can see why it's confusing because there's an authoritarian figure coming down and punishing people and it feels like the police, but it's the same thing as a mom coming down on their children's friends and setting the behavior rules for her household and if the guests do not want to follow the rules, the mom kicks the friends out of the house.

What freedom are you losing here? Remember that freedom of speech shall not be infringed upon by the government. If I go into a Church and start telling people in their Church that God isn't real, that Church has every right to remove me from the property. If I go to your home and start reading the dictionary out loud and you don't want to hear me reading the dictionary, you have every right to remove me from your property.

I'm against "don't hurt my feelings" because constructive criticism can still hurt people's feelings because some people take personal failures hard and don't look at it as someone trying to help with the best of intentions. I feel like there's a disconnect because when Riot says "don't be a dick to other players" some people take it as "Riot is sheltering snowflakes." Lots of the people who claim they get banned for minor chat infractions call their punishments "bans" but when asked about it, they say "10/25 game chat ban" which means it's a chat restriction, the slap on the wrist. Whether the description of "ban" is intentional or not, people sometimes twist the truth to get sympathy from the forums when it actually serves no purpose as we don't have the power to reverse punishments.

I'm also against "don't swear at me" and so is Riot. I have said shit and fuck a whole lot, in games, and even on the forums, and I haven't been punished for it. Riot has said they don't punish for swears. I believe Tantram is the one who said that. Lots of people say "fucking (slur)" and claim Riot is punishing people for the swears and the slurs, but they're really getting punished for the slurs and not the swears.

I'd have to get very political, historical, and legal to respond and it will derail the comment so I'm just going to say I disagree with some things you are saying but I respect that your opinion is different from mine.

I appreciate your honest and well constructed feed back, I truly do, such things give me hope that we might have conversations about disagreement. I will say that this seems to be a very ambiguous place to a draw a line, that your feelings on cursing and mine on harassment are not so very different. You seem to think one is silly, as do I them both. I'm merely suggesting that we've already reached peak levels of silliness, as to where you seem to disagree. Though I do thank you again for your commentary.

More from Player Behavior

The indefinite banning of Tyler1
Player Behavior4,799 comments
2,942
votes
14 day ban because playing Nunu Support with Smite is "stealing other people's roles"...?
Player Behavior1,525 comments
1,086
votes
Riot should add monthly status cards
Player Behavior241 comments
843
votes
Reminder that we haven't gotten our Summoner report cards yet :/
Player Behavior145 comments
619
votes
I'm not "triggered" by you throwing insults.
Player Behavior361 comments
548
votes
Black Alistar, King Rammus!!!!
Player Behavior462 comments
503
votes