Instead of banning players from playing the game for in-chat issues, I suggest blocking the issue itself- restricting players chat, up to permanent chat restriction. **I believe that this change will both: lower the toxicity in the game and allow players to continue playing. **
ModThe Djinn14 votesRiot tried this (or a variant with ever-increasing chat restrictions that was basically the same thing) in the past. It actually increased toxicity, as players resorted to other, harder-to-detect behavior, competed to see who could get the longest chat restrictions, and frustrated teammates by their inability to communicate even in an emergency.
Specter Cornix3 votesInability to communicate? That's literally what pings are for. To coordinate without using chat.
ModThe Djinn10 votes[{quoted}](name=Specter Cornix,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=2iT0QZj8,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2018-09-28T12:03:12.999+0000)
Inability to communicate? That's literally what pings are for. To coordinate without using chat.
Correct, but pings lack the option for more in-depth communication when/if needed. That's a minor point compared to the others though -- this WAS tried, and it INCREASED toxicity overall.
Specter Cornix1 votesToxicity in what? Griefing? AFK? All of those are reportable offenses and can result in in-game ban, but it is simply illogical to make restriction to gameplay when the specific issue is chat.
ModThe Djinn6 votes[{quoted}](name=Specter Cornix,realm=EUW,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=2iT0QZj8,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-28T12:10:42.268+0000)All of those are reportable offenses and can result in in-game ban...
They are also harder to detect and occurred with such statistical confidence that it proved better to just ban players who weren't able to reform rather than extend their toxicity into other methods.
...but it is simply illogical to make restriction to gameplay when the specific issue is chat.
This is highly opinionated. Personally I think it makes a lot of sense -- if you can't prove you can follow the rather straightforward rules of the game (which, yes, include chat), you don't get to play the game. The rules of chat are just as much a part of League as the "no feeding" rule or the "no trolling" rule, and they aren't any less important to the overall experience. Break the rules, get asked to leave. It's fairly simple.
Voldymort4 votesand the chat is part of the game, hence the ban on said game
it's not that hard to get it
Specter Cornix1 votes[deleted]
CharDeeMcDenniz4 votesi hear personal attacks are a good way to gain support for a petition
Voldymort2 votesi don't understand how you got the ideea that i'd be interested in licking you...
[sg-syndra]
CharDeeMcDenniz6 votesLOL you probably should have done your homework before you did this...
[zombie-brand-facepalm]
Specter Cornix1 votesThat's pretty unfolded criticism you have there.
#REM
Voldymort4 votesyou don't understand metaphors, do you?
Voldymort6 votesI believe that this change will both: lower the toxicity in the game and allow players to continue playing.
Specter Cornix2 votesYou want to say an account ban solves the problem? Do you unironically think 3-4 account perma bans stop players from creating more and being more toxic?
Voldymort3 votesriot can't stop players from making new accounts
but the climb from 1 to 30 is annoying enough to maybe make them think twice between breaking the rules, don't you think?
Kei1431 votesBut if you've been punished 4 times, Riot doesn't want you to continue playing the game...
Specter Cornix1 votesBut it doesn't matter, you see, because toxic players will still make a new account, level it and be toxic on the way
Kei1435 votesSome will, some won't.
Those that did leave, Riot has succeeded in removing them from the community.
The question is what is the tolerance level for those that continue to be toxic and banned. Eventually they'll get fed up and move on.
mlm olo mlm1 votesI suggest blocking the issue itself- restricting players chat, up to permanent chat restriction.
Chat is not the issue. Poor game play is the issue. Poor game play causes the negative chat.
mtothe6thpower2 votesNah, someone else playing badly isn't an excuse to be a jerk. If you can't control yourself when someone else is playing poorly enough to not flame then you're breaking the rules, and therefore get punished. Chat is the issue when you're breaking the rules.
mlm olo mlm1 votesYou misread sweetheart. I didn't say it was an excuse. I said it was the cause. Two birds with one stone kind of thing.
TrulyBland2 votesYou very clearly said "chat is not the issue" and "Poor game play is the issue". Whether you meant to say it or not, you very clearly implied the whole blame lies with poor game play, which makes it an excuse.
Apart from that, even the point you actually meant to make is extremely naive. There are a lot of things that can breed toxicity in chat, especially because even things such as "poor game play" are very subjective, meaning you will never actually get rid of it.
mtothe6thpower3 votes[{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=2iT0QZj8,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2018-09-28T16:35:45.655+0000)
Chat is not the issue. Poor game play is the issue. Poor game play causes the negative chat.
You said that poor gameplay causes bad chat, therefore you're excusing bad chat from people who play with others who are not having a good game. That's how excuses work, you're saying that A is the cause of B therefore B should be excused. You never said it verbatim, but it's implicit in what you said.
Also, don't call me sweetheart, I'm a grown ass man not your sweetheart.
mlm olo mlm1 votesNo. You are trying to put words in my mouth. Get rid of A and B doesn't exist. AKA nothing to excuse.
mtothe6thpower1 votesThat's literally an excuse. B exists because of A, therefore A should be removed isn't fair, especially if A isn't against the rules. Playing badly isn't against the rules, negative chat is. Playing poorly only causes negative chat when people feel they are entitles to a "good" team.
mlm olo mlm1 votesUnintentionally playing badly isn't against the rules. Intentionally playing badly is.
The less people that are intentionally playing badly, the less negative chat there will be.
The less people that are unintentionally playing badly, the less negative chat there will be.
The less people that are playing badly, the less negative chat there will be.
No excuses in sight.
mtothe6thpower1 votes[{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=2iT0QZj8,comment-id=0006000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-29T05:33:43.313+0000)
Unintentionally playing badly isn't against the rules. Intentionally playing badly is.
True, which is presumably why people get banned for inting and other forms of griefing.
The less people that are intentionally playing badly, the less negative chat there will be.
The less people that are unintentionally playing badly, the less negative chat there will be.
Even if this is true, you can't remove people who unintentionally play badly. Some people are legitimately bad at the game but they don't break rules so you can't ban them.
The less people that are playing badly, the less negative chat there will be.
No excuses in sight.
Even if your premise is true, which I honestly doubt since anonymity is a helluva drug, you can't remove bad play from the game without removing people who are legitimately just bad, so what's the point? How does your approach add anything to the conversation at hand?
mlm olo mlm1 votesYou don't even know my approach.
You made up your own fucking theory.
I'm not going to go into detail. You are coloring with black and white. I use way more colors.
mtothe6thpower2 votesYour approach is "The less people that are playing badly, the less negative chat there will be." So, how exactly do you propose to lower the amount of people playing badly? I'm genuinely curious how to lower bad gameplay without removing bad players.
Also, you don't have to get so emotional, it's just a conversation.
mlm olo mlm1 votesOh now you want to ask me about my approach?
Got tired of telling me what my own ideas are?
Clash is a good example for you to research. The tournament nature imitates a permanent ban for bad play, while providing huge rewards for good play.
mtothe6thpower1 votesNo, I want you to clarify your approach.
So, with your clash example, it seems like you're saying that bad players should be banned. Which is why I'm asking for clarification. You keep claiming to not want people to be banned, but that's the only way to actively remove bad players from the game. So I'm confused on what your stance is, thus clarification.
Really, again, no need to be so emotional it's just a conversation.
mlm olo mlm1 votesOh, so you are still telling me what my approach is. I thought we moved past that.
** The less** people that are playing badly, the less negative chat there will be.
Reduction, not extinction. My approach is to reduce the occurrence of poor game play. Naturally, reducing chat negativity as well.
mtothe6thpower1 votesNo, I'm saying that your example implies something. That's not me saying what your approach is, that's me saying that your given approach is unclear in it's intent based on your examples given.
Okay, then still my question stands, how to you propose to reduce the occurrence of bad play without banning people? You have still not answered that.
mtothe6thpower2 votesExamples can leave implication, ,I don't see how you can believe they can't.
I asked multiple times, you refuse to give me your position and deflect.
So, is it champion balance or poor game play that causes negative chat?
mtothe6thpower1 votesHow do you propose to remove bad gameplay, thereby reducing negative chat? That's the debate, the thing i have been asking you about this entire time.
mtothe6thpower1 votesOkay, so that example maybe helps new players but it will, likely, do very little to help anyone that isn't a new player.
What else would you do to help other players, ones that have been playing for a while to lessen their bad play? Since they likely make up a much much greater number of people causing toxicity by their play.
mtothe6thpower1 votesNew players are rarely grouped with experienced players. The games internal match making tends to match based on skill, yes even in normals, so new players who have lower skill are most likely playing with other new players who are just as bad, therefore less likely to rage.
So, let me get this straight. You think that complicating the match making algorithm even more by introducing 3 more variables in how games are matched will bring queue times down? And you say people would rather play their third choice than their fifth, but what about when they get their fifth choice? That would likely be even more frustrating than autofill. But ignoring all that, that suggestion then ignores players who
mtothe6thpower1 votesSo, being more picky helps queue times, but so does being less picky. Hmmm yes, i see the logic there.
Link to a study or other scholarly article on that algorithm? Since it's real world tested it should be easy to find.
You haven't made a single valid point and have constantly walked back your position, but I'm the one with no points or arguments, sure.
mtothe6thpower1 votesYou prove my point about your suggested method of matchmaking increasing queue times. It mentions a woman who has a kidney disease that needs a transfer, starting at 28:57. It talks about 200 groupings being in a group and it leaving hundreds or thousands of matches from that, and it takes 30 minutes. And I feel like it'd be a safe bet to say that there's more than 1000 players, scaled up by 5 to match team numbers, playing at one time. So the system would then have to find the best match from all of the people in a given queue, and it's not a 1 to 1 like it is with kidneys, it's 5 different variables.
mtothe6thpower1 votesPoint out a lie in my statement. Please, point out a single lie in what I posted.
TrulyBland2 votes[{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=2iT0QZj8,comment-id=00060000000000010000,timestamp=2018-09-29T05:04:46.396+0000)
No. You are trying to put words in my mouth. Get rid of A and B doesn't exist.
And once again you reverted to this argument even though you admitted by yourself:
[{quoted}](name=mlm olo mlm,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=2iT0QZj8,comment-id=00060000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-28T23:15:48.519+0000)
100% of negative chat is not caused by game play. A majority is. That leaves somewhere between 51-99 percent for your imagination to run wild with.
Thank you for making it so obvious that you are constantly moving the goal posts. As a matter of fact this proves that you are even willing to try and move the goal posts back to the original position when you are talking with somebody who has not yet called you out on your shit.
If you are willing to say things you don't even believe in, just to win an argument... what credibility does any of your points hold? What's the point of arguing with somebody who doesn't believe their own arguments?
mlm olo mlm1 votesI didn't make the "A" and "B" analogy.
I can see where my original post is lackluster. I'm ready to say 99% of negative chat is caused by poor game play. Thus, it's more efficient to reduce poor game play than negative chat.
TrulyBland1 votesIt's great that you are "ready" to say that... but you didn't. You've tried a second time to claim that all of negative chat is caused by poor game play, until I once again called you out on it. This time even more explicitely.
Stop trying to weasel your way out of this. You deliberately said something you had already acknowledged to be false.
mlm olo mlm1 votesOh no. I misspoke on a video game internet forum. What ever will I do?
My original post was sarcastic. Obviously, there is not a SINGULAR ISSUE in league. Yall are really taking this overboard.
TrulyBland1 votesSo your first post was sarcastic... is that why you kept defending it in such an ironclad manner? Why you reiterated it not once, but twice? Btw, you're still missing the explanation for the two birds one stone expression. You've used up misspeaking and sarcasm, so I guess that one happened when your cat ran over your keyboard.
What are we taking overboard exactly? Holding you accountable for your statements?
mlm olo mlm1 votesThe person I was actually talking to had no problems understanding me. That is good enough for me.
mtothe6thpower1 votesMoving the goal posts is a specialty of theirs.
I don't think someone necessarily has to believe their arguments to make a good point, since I've seen people who are firmly against social issues such as marriage etc make really strong arguments why they should be allowed when pressed. My mom and I liked to argue each others points in stuff to try to understand better, it was useful.
TrulyBland1 votesYeah I wasn't really happy with the way I phrased that, but couldn't come up with a better draft. I'm well aware that playing the devil's advocate can create great insights… it can even make sense to use an argument that you know isn't actually valid, in some cases.
But when you are basing an argument on a fact, you are not only stating the argument, but you are also implicitly repeating the fact itself. If you are using an argument that is based on a "fact" you believe (or worse: know) to be false, you are therefore not just using an invalid argument, you are also actively spreading misinformation. And while the first may lead to a better understanding of the topic that is being argued about, all the second can do is obfuscate said understanding.
mtothe6thpower1 votesThat's fair, just wanted to put my 2c in on that bit, but I do understand where you're coming from with that.
Okay yeah, I see what you mean. Sorry for making you write all that out.
[zombie-brand-facepalm]
TrulyBland1 votesNo problem. As said, I didn't like the way I phrased it either, so I definitely know where you were coming from, too.