Banned

Bruçë Lêè·Feb 22, 2018·1 votes·373 views

Hey. My name is George i'm from Greece and i'm 16years old. I love playing league of legends because i spend some time to have fun and play with my friends. But yesterday i got banned for flaming because a guy flame me first and after i just said about his score and his farm and he just report me and i got banned. PLEASE if you can unban me i will appreciate it and i will never flame again. If you don't trust me and you don't believe me you can mute me for a long time or for ever. I just wanna play and have some fun with my friends and spend some time. I promise that i will be a good guy. Thanks for your time!

32 Comments

ModThe DjinnFeb 22, 20186 votes

Riot does not -- and has no plans to -- unban any accounts that were legitimately banned.

If you believe your ban was in error, you can send a support ticket in, or post your chat logs here for community input.

Do note, however, that just because someone else flamed you does not give you permission to violate the rules yourself. Chastising another player for their play is not permitted, even if they have behaved worse to you.

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

Riot Unbanned Tyler1--- They've also overturned many "error" tickets that legitimately had arguments in them. It is misleading to say Riot won't unban accounts because they do. However the probability is small
The ticket process will take you awhile, legitimate ban or not. You're going to have to get through some copy paste responses.
The Djinn is correct-- What they do doesn't excuse you, however the fact that they can do worse and possibly not get punished is a major flaw we all hope will be fixed soon. I suggest the permanent mute

Jo0oFeb 22, 20184 votes

1: No, it's accurate. Riot never unbans accounts unless an error on their part was made. Tyler1 didn't get any permanently banned accounts back, he just had his ID ban lifted, allowing him to play new accounts and stream without being auto-banned. I still disagree with that decision, but it has nothing to do with an individual player having their account unbanned.

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

Ok so his ID ban was lifted,

but that doesn't discredit every ban I've seen lifted off the boards.

Jo0oFeb 22, 20181 votes

Of which I've seen very, very few. Like, less than five, over years.

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

So even in your observations, I'm right. You can't say "never" or "won't happen" if there's cases where it does :p

That's all I'm saying here

Jo0oFeb 22, 20182 votes

When the exceptions to a rule are so incredibly infrequent as these, are they worth describing as "many"?

Djinn's comment was accurate and inclusive. Bans aren't overturned except when an error is found. If he believes an error was made, he can make a support ticket, and/or copy his logs here for community input. There's nothing misleading in that statement. There's no common appeal process, no forum to debate the merits of an individual's ban and make promises of reformation and penance in exchange for leniency.

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

You're back pedaling---

Its either true or not

You're either right or you're not right. Djinn is in a position where him saying true or untrue statements matters a bit more.

There is a forum to debate: on the tickets and here.

Please stop--- I didn't even tell the OP the overturn was likely

Jo0oFeb 22, 20181 votes

Christ dude, I'm not a fucking politician. Failing to mention exceptions isn't a lie, and I don't need to maintain perfect, unassailable consistency in every word I choose to earn the right not to be called a liar by you.

Djinn said that legitimate bans of accounts are never overturned. This is accurate, without exception. Your nitpicking of that statement involves semantic nuances that aren't even accurate: Tyler1's situation has no bearing on that statement, and somebody getting their erroneous ban overturned is the very definition of an illegitimate ban.

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

No dude lol Its not accurate "without exception" XD

If it was without exception then there would be 0 overturns and mistakes.

Its not a nuance, its an untrue statement. Also, there were plenty of overturned bans where there was legitimate bickering in logs, but was overturned anyway. Considering the spread of what people come here showing what they've gotten banned for, I doubt any person here can give a 100% what you will and will not get banned for. Basically the standard for erroneous is about as vague as the reformation standard.

With it being subject to individual circumstance, you can't say they "won't do it"

Jo0oFeb 22, 20181 votes

Demonstrate an exception of Djinn's statement for me.

You realize neither of us wins this argument, right? We're essentially debating the meaning of the word "legitimate". Illegitimate bans do, in fact, get overturned. Which is what Djinn said initially. What's the point of continuing here?

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

Person receives ban and doubts its validity
Person submits ticket/board post
For X reason ban is lifted. You have your exception that Riot won't overturn bans

YerroFeverFeb 22, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Person receives ban and doubts its validity

Person submits ticket/board post

For X reason ban is lifted. You have your exception that Riot won't overturn bans

Just to note, you are actually misquoting JoOo.

{quoted}

1: No, it's accurate. Riot never unbans accounts unless an error on their part was made. Tyler1 didn't get any permanently banned accounts back, he just had his ID ban lifted, allowing him to play new accounts and stream without being auto-banned. I still disagree with that decision, but it has nothing to do with an individual player having their account unbanned.

Let me highlight what you are misquoting

Riot never unbans accounts unless an error on their part was made.

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

lol good of you to join

subjective. I'll just keep repeating that word.

Jo0oFeb 22, 20182 votes

Which sounds like an illegitimate ban to me.

We're just debating what Djinn meant by "legitimate", which is pointless. Behaviorally speaking, which is what the OP is in for, there's no real grey area. OP admits to flaming. Flaming is against the rules. The ban is legitimate. Legitimate bans will not be overturned. You don't get to say "I'm really sorry, it won't happen again" and receive leniency.

Are we done with this yet? I don't think your opinion of the banning system is at all different from Djinn's or my own, except that you took issue with some of Djinn's wording. This isn't a debate, it's just a semantic ass-grabbing.

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

It sounds like ya'll just wanted OP to not even try, which is why I'm even responding.

Djinn's definition is subjective even on Riot's end, so yes I can say its not a true statement because Riot doesn't even have their own clear cut standard of who can get away with what. They can say "flaming" is against the rules, but there've been "flamers" who had their cases overturned. Unless you're saying the only mistake the bans can make is if you're an angel and somehow it got you. Im sure that's happened too, but I've read the logs of overturned bans and standing bans and sometimes there's not much difference.

Subjective---

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

The legitimate and valid parts are subjective

KaiokoFeb 22, 20181 votes

Tyler1's accounts were never unbanned nor will they ever be. His permanent game ban (as in he would immediately get banned the moment he created a new account) no longer is in effect.

They do overturn bans if there is a legitimate error picked up by the system. If OP posts his chat logs we can tell him if he has a chance. I'm very doubtful of that considering he fully admits to flaming.

YerroFeverFeb 22, 20181 votes

Riot has said time and time again, rightfully banned accounts will not be unbanned.

It doesn't sound like you got a Player ID ban so you can open a new account. You can still come back and create a new account to play with your friends.

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

You can still come back and give Riot more money ;) lol

Not saying that's entirely their motivation for the punishment system, but you can't say someone isn't doing the Mr. Burns when the profits of returning toxic players comes in XD

YerroFeverFeb 22, 20182 votes

{quoted}

You can still come back and give Riot more money ;) lol

Not saying that's entirely their motivation for the punishment system, but you can't say someone isn't doing the Mr. Burns when the profits of returning toxic players comes in XD

This is a conspiracy theory that has no basis in logic or reality. This is on the premise that permabanned players continue to spend money on the game and give Riot more money.

What is logical about spending more money on a game you have already been permabanned from? Why would it make sense to spend money on a game that you may get permabanned from again?

This is a free to play game. No subscriptions.

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

Ok, it may be a rumor running around, but it does have basis in logic and "reality" even though its probably untrue. Its a company. They care about profit margins. You can't deny that if a returning player spends money after having a banned account they don't profit XD I'm sure it costs more to ID ban hoards of players rather than ban the account from playing too. Once again, not saying thats the reason, but c'mon buddy :P

And before you say "who would do that? spend all that money again? Wouldn't happen" lol never underestimate the WTF factor of the human race and their personal interests. I'm sure even without banned accounts there are people out there with multiple accounts and multiple amounts of dollars invested in each.

YerroFeverFeb 22, 20182 votes

{quoted}

Ok, it may be a rumor running around, but it does have basis in logic and "reality" even though its probably untrue. Its a company. They care about profit margins. You can't deny that if a returning player spends money after having a banned account they don't profit XD I'm sure it costs more to ID ban hoards of players rather than ban the account from playing too. Once again, not saying thats the reason, but c'mon buddy :P

And before you say "who would do that? spend all that money again? Wouldn't happen" lol never underestimate the WTF factor of the human race and their personal interests. I'm sure even without banned accounts there are people out there with multiple accounts and multiple amounts of dollars invested in each.

So by your own admission, it is probably untrue, which means in your head, that it is statistically more likely than not that people DON'T spend money on the game after a permaban.

The ONLY part of the theory that is true is that buying more RP = profit. Everything else actually makes very little sense logically.

"never underestimate the wtf factor of the human race and personal interests." So are you admitting that this is a preposterous idea?

A profit model is only good when it generates profit.

Conspiracy Theory Model: Non Permabanned Players: More likely to spend money because they have little to no fear of getting permabanned and losing their investment.

Permaban: Equally likely to spend money in spite of having lost their initial investment.

Logic-based Theory Model: Non Punished Players: More likely to spend money because they have little to no fear of getting permabanned and losing their investment.

Chat restricted or Temp banned Players: Less likely to spend money because they're risking losing an investment.

Permaban: Unlikely to spend money again based on the fact that they've already lost a previous investment.

Punishments in game mean people are less likely to spend money on the game again. The economic model of Riot uses is that the number of people who stay and generate profit, create more profit than the people who get permabanned on the very low likelihood that they ever spend money on the game again.

Yes the purpose of punishments is to generate money, but NOT from permabanned players. They are using their punishment system to encourage friendly and honorable players to spend money because they are eliminating the unfriendly and toxic players.

This is why it is a conspiracy theory. People take the obvious fact that Riot wants to make money, but they create a conspiracy behind the reasoning into something that makes no sense just to exonerate themselves from guilt. The people who tout this conspiracy theory after their ban have the ideology of, "even though I'm bad, Riot is worse than I am."

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

You really wanna argue lol

I stopped reading when you said even I admit its unlikely people spend the extra money: you didn't bother reading what I was saying so I won't bother reading yours.

Its unlikely Riot chose this punishment system solely to get returning players to spend more money.

That's all. No this is not me conceding you're right, just bowing out of what will probably be a waste of energy :)

YerroFeverFeb 22, 20182 votes

{quoted}

You really wanna argue lol

I stopped reading when you said even I admit its unlikely people spend the extra money: you didn't bother reading what I was saying so I won't bother reading yours.

Its unlikely Riot chose this punishment system solely to get returning players to spend more money.

That's all. No this is not me conceding you're right, just bowing out of what will probably be a waste of energy :)

Actually I did read your whole response and I addressed it by dissecting your sentences and showing what presumptions you used in your choice of words. Like if someone says "the sky is blue, not green" we all have to presume that the speaker and the listener both know what "the sky" is referring to and that they disagree on what "blue" is and what "green" is.

If you dislike having your sentences picked apart for being self defeating, think more before you type them?

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

I didn't read far enough to see you pick things apart because I doubted your comprehension within the first two sentences.

Go ahead and respond though, I don't mind you getting last word :)

YerroFeverFeb 22, 20183 votes

{quoted}

I didn't read far enough to see you pick things apart because I doubted your comprehension within the first two sentences.

Go ahead and respond though, I don't mind you getting last word :)

The purpose of your replies at this point is actually not to discuss anything because all you want to do is insult me rather than actually discuss why the statement that riot bans people to get more money out of those banned players is absurd.

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

Sigh

No dude. I've just decided speaking with you specifically was unfruitful and I want to bow out. Sorry if you're offended I just don't think you comprehended my points before you ranted.

YerroFeverFeb 22, 20183 votes

{quoted}

Sigh

No dude. I've just decided speaking with you specifically was unfruitful and I want to bow out. Sorry if you're offended I just don't think you comprehended my points before you ranted.

Actually, if you wanted to bow out, you could have actually just stopped responding, but you specifically stated

I doubted your comprehension within the first two sentences.

Passive aggressive insult.

So to quote you... "it's subjective"

SorenAlucardFeb 22, 20181 votes

You're choosing to be offended

When you read something and don't get what the writer was saying it means you didn't comprehend it. As the person who wrote it, I think I can say you didn't understand. That doesn't mean I'm calling you stupid.

You're right, I should've stopped responding and stuck to my guns.

YerroFeverFeb 22, 20182 votes

{quoted}

You're choosing to be offended

When you read something and don't get what the writer was saying it means you didn't comprehend it. As the person who wrote it, I think I can say you didn't understand. That doesn't mean I'm calling you stupid.

You're right, I should've stopped responding and stuck to my guns.

But it's also subjective. Is it that I lack reading comprehension or is it that you lack clarity in expression?

What you write is not always what you convey. You may want to say X but because the specific order in which you say things, Y comes out.

So thus why I said, you should be more thoughtful about what you write.

You think it's a misunderstanding of "You didn't understand" but you said "I doubt your comprehension"

EDIT: If I say, "I doubt your comprehension on expression vs intent" what would your response be had there not been the explanation above?