I recently got perma banned as my first negative behavior punishment. I was only shown one chat log where I was toxic? Was this an error or was I so toxic that the system skipped the two week ban and went right to the perma ban. I'm not sure if I should post the game chat log for obvious reasons but can link them if needed.
Thank you, 4chan
RiotRiot Tantram15 votesIt was not an error.
We have a zero tolerance policy regarding hate speech. As such, your account was directly escalated to a permanent ban.
scazzman1 votes[{quoted}](name=Riot Tantram,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=7ea1f0H5,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2017-01-19T02:34:33.689+0000)
It was not an error.
We have a zero tolerance policy regarding hate speech. As such, your account was directly escalated to a permanent ban.
so when are you guys going to have zero tolerance for inting?
PROJECT Fizz7 votesThere is a fine line between inting and doing bad. Riot has a hard time drawing the line. If you played zed for the first time, and due to your inexperience, you went 0/16 (tad extreme, but still relevant) are you saying that you should be banned?
Riot has said that they would not punish players for being bad. They ban people when they can. But when there is little to no evidence, there is little they can do.
Chat on the other hand, is easy to tell. If someone uses hate speech, they will be punished. It's easier to draw the line there.
scazzman1 votes[{quoted}](name=PROJECT Fizz,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=7ea1f0H5,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2017-01-19T14:37:12.809+0000)
There is a fine line between inting and doing bad. Riot has a hard time drawing the line. If you played zed for the first time, and due to your inexperience, you went 0/16 (tad extreme, but still relevant) are you saying that you should be banned?
Riot has said that they would not punish players for being bad. They ban people when they can. But when there is little to no evidence, there is little they can do.
Chat on the other hand, is easy to tell. If someone uses hate speech, they will be punished. It's easier to draw the line there.
thats not what im saying. im saying why do inters get 14 dayed before getting permad yet people who use the word f*g or n***** get instantly permabanned
PROJECT Fizz1 votesthats not what im saying. im saying why do inters get 14 dayed before getting permad yet people who use the word f*g or n***** get instantly permabanned
My post is still an answer to this. It is harder to prove. Riot has said there is no punishment for being bad at this game.
If someone is inting, then they will be banned in time.
Again, CHAT is easy to tell. If you say any of those words under any circumstance, you will get banned. Inting is harder to tell.
You can be bad, and go 0/16 for matches on end, and not be punished. But it's hard to tell the difference between being bad at the game, and inting.
scazzman1 votes[{quoted}](name=PROJECT Fizz,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=7ea1f0H5,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2017-01-20T14:41:24.061+0000)
My post is still an answer to this. It is harder to prove. Riot has said there is no punishment for being bad at this game.
If someone is inting, then they will be banned in time.
Again, CHAT is easy to tell. If you say any of those words under any circumstance, you will get banned. Inting is harder to tell.
You can be bad, and go 0/16 for matches on end, and not be punished. But it's hard to tell the difference between being bad at the game, and inting.
Im talking about the ones who actually get caught. Why should PROVEN inters get a " second chance." Yet people who use words in chat don't
Grandis1 votes[{quoted}](name=Riot Tantram,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=7ea1f0H5,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2017-01-19T02:34:33.689+0000)
It was not an error.
We have a zero tolerance policy regarding hate speech. As such, your account was directly escalated to a permanent ban.
Please provide a source for this zero tolerance policy, as Riot has yet to openly describe any policy in anything other than a vague and undefined generalization. Also, you unbanned Incarnation after he was permanently banned for DDOS'ing and then claimed he is still banned, despite him being the mid laner for Cloud 9 since may 2015, and this was mere hours ago.
Kei1437 votesthey permaban accounts, not people (with exception for Tyler1).
Incarnation is still permabanned. Jensen had to level up Incarnati0n from scratch.
Grandis1 votesWhat does "All future accounts shall be banned on sight" mean to you then? Alternate future versions of Jensen that are not Jensen, because they come from a universe exactly like our own except everything is blue and Sandshrew exists while Ekans is extinct? It means they do ban people, dude. They banned "Nicolaj Jensen" and decreed that they would ban all future accounts of his on sight, but then they did not ban them on sight and let him back in. Arguably the most toxic player in all of Moba history, who committed actual criminal activity (DDOS is in fact criminal as of 2006 IIRC I'd need to check) and he's the one they let back in.
Kei1432 voteshmm right.
Jensen's punishment was ban on sight.
Although Riot did consider Jensen reformed later. So, I guess that is an interesting ruling.
Grandis1 voteshmm right.
Jensen's punishment was ban on sight.
Although Riot did consider Jensen reformed later. So, I guess that is an interesting ruling.
It's exceptionally interesting. His initial ban ruling came on 01-23-2013, yet in March of 2015 they made the decision that he would be allowed to become Cloud 9's mid laner based on his "in game behavior up to that point demonstrating reform". We know that he was coaching SK Gaming, because Riot refused to allow Jensen backstage or to be a active member during the 2014 World Championship in Korea, which was in September 2014.
Coaching has nothing to do with "In game behavior", and Riot admitted that he was playing league of legends on a new account during the time frame between his initial perma ban on 01-23-2013 and his re-admittance to the game on 5-11-2015 when they said "according to our monitoring tools, he has not been implicated in any DDOS or Drophacking-related exploits since Q2 2013". What happened to "All future accounts will be banned on sight"?
It's especially noteworthy because only two players in the history of LoL have ever been "Permabanned", which riot has always said means they will ban any confirmed accounts you have on sight, and of the two he was DDOS'ing, which is criminal activity. It implies that not only does Riot have no standard, but that they do not care about their community. How can they make the claim "We want to promote good sportsmanship" and then say "Oh that player we perma banned for the most serious offenses a lol player can be held accountable for, we actually were letting him play again and think he's reformed so he's back. Nevermind that he was already back since we've been monitoring him, you should just ignore that."? It's deliberately hypocritical.
EDIT: And people are DEFENDING this, which is the most baffling thing to me. I've not seen self destructive logic this bad since Selin Gören apologized to European migrants for being raped by a migrant because "She didn't want to appear racist". This the exact same type of logic. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/16/member-of-german-left-youth-party-apologizes-to-refugees-on-facebook-after-alleged-sexual-assault-by-migrant/
DrCyanide2 votesAs I recall, the way the lifetime bans work is that they do ban the accounts on sight, but can only really sight them if they're streaming or posting YouTube videos. As such, playing without any fame, as if you were an average Joe, lets you past the ban.
My understanding was that to get the lifetime ban reversed, Jensen had to reveal all of his "average Joe" accounts and subject them to review, and had he not reformed those accounts would likely have been banned as well.
The ruling in lifetime bans is that they're "indefinite", having no set finish time. They can be ended at an arbitrary time as Riot sees fit though.
Grandis1 votesAs I recall, the way the lifetime bans work is that they do ban the accounts on sight, but can only really sight them if they're streaming or posting YouTube videos. As such, playing without any fame, as if you were an average Joe, lets you past the ban.
My understanding was that to get the lifetime ban reversed, Jensen had to reveal all of his "average Joe" accounts and subject them to review, and had he not reformed those accounts would likely have been banned as well.
This is factual, and largely the problem. Jensen did not just get banned for language or behavior, he was banned for DDOS'ing. He was actually banned right alongside another player named "Khaled Abusagr", he's the post right above Jensen's on the source page (I'll link below again). Here's the copy and pasted post they gave:
Recently, Riot completed an investigation into the account histories of the players on teams which are scheduled to compete in the upcoming League of Legends Championship Series (LCS) European Qualifier.
The investigation has confirmed a number of facts in the player history of Khaled Abusagr (Abusagr), including a consistent pattern of in-game verbal abuse, racism, anti-Semitism and threatening behavior which require immediate action.
**Abusagrs current account, StunnedandSlayed, has been suspended by the Tribunal five times, including a recent two-week suspension in December. This account has established a persistent record of in-game harassment, verbal abuse, and unacceptable behavior: 54% of reports were for Offensive Language, Verbal Abuse, and Negative Attitude. StunnedandSlayed has been reported in 18% of total matches and is currently before the Tribunal for a possible permaban. ** **Much worse, however, is the unprecedented multitude of violations in Abusagrs gameplay history: He previously has been permabanned on three additional accounts, including the notorious DarkwinJax account. The DarkwinJax account established the highest harassment score ever recorded on the EU West server. No player, before or since, has matched this degree of negative behavior. In game chat, Abusagr has threatened to physically injure players, including a Riot employee. His previous accounts are replete with a very large number of racist and anti-Semitic insults. DarkwinJax was reported more than 1,000 times during a 375-game period (Feb-Apr 2012). ** Despite years of repeated punishments, official warnings, and permabans, Abusagr has continued his pattern of unacceptable behavior during the past several months under the StunnedandSlayed account, even as his team advanced into the upcoming LCS EU Qualifier.
So the only two people banned from LoL permanently were a player who constantly demonstrated extreme negativity and also engaged in criminal cheating activity by DDOS'ing (Jensen) and a player who demonstrated arguably even more negativity to the point of making death threats and threats of violence directly to other players and even Riot staff (Abusagr). One player (Jensen) made a new account and played as a nobody until he became a coach for SK gaming, while the other (Abusagr) made multiple new accounts and continued making threats of violence, pretty blatantly announcing that he was back. Neither of them should have been allowed back in, but the one they allow is also the cheater. At least the other one is only screaming at people, Jensen DDOS'ed people. I can understand letting him coach SK gaming, if they want to hire him as a coach that is their choice, but Riot needs to adhere to their own standard if they want to make any claims about being credible.
Source here: http://forums.euw.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=1015978&page=1#post10180118
The ruling in lifetime bans is that they're "indefinite", having no set finish time. They can be ended at an arbitrary time as Riot sees fit though.
Generally speaking, an indefinite ban from any sporting event means "From now until the end of time, unless specific circumstances or factors that were not able to be predicted come to light or unless specified". So for example, if someone gets banned from a sports team for getting into a bar fight where they ended up taking the life of another person, and then several years later it turns out that the players actions did not actually result in the persons death but some other factor unknown at the time, they could re-evaluate the indefinite ban because new circumstances have come to light. This is why most people get a suspension for either a season or a specific number of games depending on the severity of their infraction. If something is worthy of a life time ban, then it needs to STAY a life time ban. DDOS'ing is even worse than using a hack, it requires a person to actively target the person they are DDOS'ing, as opposed to a hack which is still cheating but not targeting anyone. There is a certain amount of maliciousness that makes it very worthy of a lifetime ban. Also, the rest of the dialogue in the report from Riot determines whether or not "Indefinite" is meant to be "Unlimited" or "Without a set time frame". I cannot condone such apologetic thinking or mindsets, especially when the people making it are making the claim to support positive sportsmanship.
DrCyanide2 votesAlso, the rest of the dialogue in the report from Riot determines whether or not "Indefinite" is meant to be "Unlimited" or "Without a set time frame". I cannot condone such apologetic thinking or mindsets, especially when the people making it are making the claim to support positive sportsmanship.
Their policy of reviewing such players means it's "without a set time frame" in most cases. They define it here:
Indefinite: Indefinite suspensions are subject to review, but suspended players need to meet the highest standard of conduct over a sufficient period of time to be permitted back into the League.
- What is considered a “sufficient period of time” may vary from case-to-case and will depend on the severity of the original offense and any offenses thereafter.
- Indefinite suspensions are reserved for players at the more severe end of the scale who in the past would have received a permaban.
- Indefinite suspensions are subject to review at the end of their minimum suspension term (see below).
Minimum Suspension Term (Indefinite only): This is the minimum amount of time an indefinite suspension must stand before the affected player is eligible for competitive play, provided they pass their review.
- This doesn’t apply to fixed suspensions
- The term is defined X number of splits (2 splits being considered equivalent to 1 season of competitive play)
- This can’t be any less than 2 splits (equivalent to 1 season)
- In exceptionally rare cases, an indefinite suspension with no minimum suspension term can be levied, meaning the suspended player would never be reviewed. Such a suspension will be reserved for only the most extreme offenses such as those which have severe effects outside of the game (criminal offenses like sexual assault, for example).
Clearly DDOSing other players isn't on the same level as sexual assault, thus Jensen was periodically reviewed.
This Is Your Dad2 votesPlease provide a source for this zero tolerance policy, as Riot has yet to openly describe any policy in anything other than a vague and undefined generalization. Also, you unbanned Incarnation after he was permanently banned for DDOS'ing and then claimed he is still banned, despite him being the mid laner for Cloud 9 since may 2015, and this was mere hours ago.
Being vague allows them to address problems individually so as to avoid loopholes and con-artists, I'd think. With a source, you come across "technicalities". That's partly why the Constitution is always misinterpreted by those who read it a certain way.... Maybe that's not how it is but, Just offering my view.
Grandis1 votes[{quoted}](name=Anti Teemo,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=7ea1f0H5,comment-id=000300010001,timestamp=2017-01-19T09:11:55.614+0000)
Being vague allows them to address problems individually so as to avoid loopholes and con-artists, I'd think. With a source, you come across "technicalities". That's partly why the Constitution is always misinterpreted by those who read it a certain way.... Maybe that's not how it is but, Just offering my view.
Being vague is what creates those loop holes in the first place. This is in fact one of the problems with the constitution, is that some of it is very general. For example, the 2nd amendment that people in my home state of Texas adore. It states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." no more, no less. Without defining what "arms" you have the right to bear, or placing a limitation that is stated properly, people can make a lot of different arguments that are all contradictory and yet still all correct at the same time. Technically speaking, a person who owns a rocket launcher can live next to a person who owns a pistol, and the person who owns the pistol can believe all he wants that the rocket man shouldn't have the rocket, he can make extremely good arguments for how dangerous and stupid it is while the rocket man can argue that he has the right to own any firearm he wants, but until "to keep and bear arms" is better defined neither of them is wrong. And what about the edgy kid down the street who owns a katana? Is that covered in "arms"? Both rocket and pistol man say no, arms specifically refers to firearms, but this is something that is not defined so everyone is right and wrong at the same time with completely contradictory views. This only breeds conflict and loop holes, it doesn't make it easier and more efficient to deal with.
TrulyBland2 votesBeing vague is what creates those loop holes in the first place.
Then you seem to have a different definition of "loop hole" than most people I know. Typically a loop hole refers to something very specific technically not breaking the letter of the law, even though it does in fact go against the spirit of the law.
The law "Everything bad is punished" doesn't have any loopholes. A lot of people might escape that rule due to its vagueness, but there is nothing that breaks the spirit of the law without breaking the letter of the law, simply because they are identical in this extreme example.
The law "Saying "fuck" in this exact spelling without capital letters or homoglyphs is punished" has lots of loopholes because a lot of specific cases that are bad for the same reasons will not be punished because they technically are not covered by the rule.
Vagueness makesrules difficult to apply, but it allows flexibility which can cover loopholes.
Your example from the constitution btw works directly inverse, because it's a rule that doesn't declare what's punishable, but what isn't punishable. Where Riot's system has the flexibility to punish things, the constitution (in this case) allows for flexibility to avoid punsihment.
Grandis1 votesThen you seem to have a different definition of "loop hole" than most people I know. Typically a loop hole refers to something very specific technically not breaking the letter of the law, even though it does in fact go against the spirit of the law.
The law "Everything bad is punished" doesn't have any loopholes. A lot of people might escape that rule due to its vagueness, but there is nothing that breaks the spirit of the law without breaking the letter of the law, simply because they are identical in this extreme example.
The law "Saying "fuck" in this exact spelling without capital letters or homoglyphs is punished" has lots of loopholes because a lot of specific cases that are bad for the same reasons will not be punished because they technically are not covered by the rule.
Vagueness makesrules difficult to apply, but it allows flexibility which can cover loopholes.
Your example from the constitution btw works directly inverse, because it's a rule that doesn't declare what's punishable, but what isn't punishable. Where Riot's system has the flexibility to punish things, the constitution (in this case) allows for flexibility to avoid punsihment.
You have just described the loop hole, in detail.
TrulyBland1 votesTo be clear: I was just trying to clear up the obvious semantic differences. If I managed to describe what you call a loop hole, then I'm happy with myself, as that was my intention. Well, half of it. The second half was explaining the other end of the spectrum typically referred to as loop holes (very very specific laws that don't manage to cover all the cases they were designed for)
Edit: Short version of the conundrum: Vague rules are difficult to apply to (theoretically) every offense. Specific rules are easy to apply to one portion of offenses and cannot at all be applied to the rest.
LostFr0st10 votesYou should post the chat logs if you'd like more context. In severe cases such as hate speech, the system will escalate the case to a permanent ban, since League has a zero-tolerance policy for it.
Ad Vitam Aeterna1 votesYou can skip the 14 day ban if they feel it warrants it. Enjoy climbing on the new account
OnlyYouCanHearMe1 votesIf you would like us to review the logs and give you a little insight, feel free to post them. As LF has mentioned, some of the more severe instances of toxicity can skip the chat restrictions and proceed directly to either a temporary or permanent suspension.
One thing to keep in mind, chat logs are also only shown for the more recent games. That doesn't mean that it was the only game that you may have been reported for, or that the system may have flagged you for having a negative behavior within.
I am sorry that we don't have better information for you, but perhaps we can help you keep from having this same situation happen again if you make a new account.
