Second Chat Restriction should be extended

The Ecdysiast··2 votes·280 views

Leave the first at 10 days as a warning.

But 25 days is not long enough to cause any real change in behavior for the player. Anyone with the kind of personality to change after as few as 25 games would have already changed their behavior after being given the 10 game warning. The difference between 10 and 25 games of chat restriction has no meaning.

##I propose that the second punishment be lengthened to an entire 6 months, and switched to a complete ban from chat rather than a restriction on the number of messages.

Edit: As one commenter pointed out, the half-year could just go by with the offender waiting it out. Though I disagree with the point that waiting 6 months would do nothing to reform the player, perhaps the suggestion could simply be to increase the restriction from 25 to 400 games, along with the complete ban on chat.

This way, the player in question will get used to playing without chatting in the first place. Then, even if they have nothing nice to say they'll be in the habit of saying nothing at all. Plus, any player with the type of personality that would be affected simply by being punished twice regardless of the punishment would still also be reformed.

This is one of the only options for actually reforming players, since there's no resources to have a support team to talk to players about how they act in game. It'll allow someone to learn from their mistakes over a meaningful period of time without any help from another player.

And what if they go right back to acting that way after 6 whole months of having no chat function? Then hit them with the 14-day ban and permaban after that. There is no downside to a change like this, since I'm not suggesting we change the 3rd and 4th punishments.

Special note: This has nothing to do with myself. I'm suggesting this for the good of the community as a whole. We can all get along.

9 Comments

elduris1 votes

At 6 months of limited chat capabilities, I'd actually prefer the two week suspension. If 25 games of restricted chat is not enough for a player to see that something with their behavior is wrong, then what difference will 6 months make?

But, I'm not the final stop on the opinion train. Let's see what other people think!

The Ecdysiast1 votes

Two things in response:

  1. The difference between 10 and 25 games is the decider. Any player who would change from only 25 games would have already changed from the 10-game warning. But lengthening that second punishment would force them to look at their behavior over a much longer period of time. As it stands, 25 games isn't even enough to move from one rank to the next. Why should anyone expect it to be enough to change someone's behavior if it's not even enough to make someone ward?

  2. The second part of my suggestion is to switch it to a complete ban from chat rather than an allotted-messages restriction. Then, even without self reflection the player is forced to become accustomed to having no ability to chat in-game anyway. Thus, players prone to throwing tantrums will get used to doing so out loud rather than through the in-game chat.

MUSHROOM MIDGET1 votes

I PROPOSE NO MORE WEAK LITTLE BABY PUNISHMENTS. PERMANENT BAN FOR ANY OFFENSE. SEE IF THAT GETS THE POINT ACROSS

ModPrandine

I understand your concern but I think that the current system is fine as it is. If 10 or 25 games worth of chat restrictions is not enough to get the point across then what good would a 6 month CR do other than discourage the person in question from reforming?

The Ecdysiast1 votes

The point is exactly that. 25 games isn't enough. Anyone who would change from 25 would never have gotten to that point, because ten would have been enough for them. It's too small to make any difference to anyone who ignored the first ten.

6 months wouldn't discourage them. It would force them. As I said, they would become used to playing without any in-game chat function.

Longer punishments don't discourage reform unless they're unreasonably long (like a permanent ban). The punishment needs to be long enough so that reform is actually possible, rather than so short that it makes no difference.

ModPrandine

{quoted}

The point is exactly that. 25 games isn't enough. Anyone who would change from 25 would never have gotten to that point, because ten would have been enough for them. It's too small to make any difference to anyone who ignored the first ten.

6 months wouldn't discourage them. It would force them. As I said, they would become used to playing without any in-game chat function.

Longer punishments don't discourage reform unless they're unreasonably long (like a permanent ban). The punishment needs to be long enough so that reform is actually possible, rather than so short that it makes no difference.

Riot tried stacking chat restrictions in the past and what they found was that the worst offenders would just switch to other forms of griefing and harassment, such as gameplay trolling and intentional feeding/afking. With the way the system works now it starts off light with the CR then goes up by 15 games if the offender got punished again. If the chat restrictions didn't work then they get temp banned and then permabanned if the final warning didn't work.

If a person truly wants to reform then they'll put in the actual work that it takes to do so. If they'd rather continue being a jerk to others then they'll just get removed from the game entirely.

The Ecdysiast1 votes

The people who intentionally feed/ Disco Nunu aren't the same ones who are verbally abusive. It's just the same punishment. They don't switch, they just continue what they were already doing.

It's not a matter of wanting to reform, because by the point someone is forced to have that desire it's already to late. It needs to be driven into their subconscious that chatting isn't a way to express anger, which forcing them to play without it would do.

ModPrandine

{quoted}

The people who intentionally feed/ Disco Nunu aren't the same ones who are verbally abusive. It's just the same punishment. They don't switch, they just continue what they were already doing.

Where's your proof on this? Link me to some cases of this happening.

It's not a matter of wanting to reform, because by the point someone is forced to have that desire it's already to late. It needs to be driven into their subconscious that chatting isn't a way to express anger, which forcing them to play without it would do.

I would say that the 35 games worth of chat restrictions are more than enough to get that point across under normal circumstances. For the others, if 35 games worth of chat restrictions aren't enough to get that point across then what proof or guarantee is there that 6 months worth of chat restrictions would fare any better?

On top of that, the reason why that Riot makes the CR's go by games rather than days is so that players can't just simply wait it out and continue on like the punishment never even happened in the first place. A 6 month Chat Restriction? Oh well I could just wait it out and then proceed to come back and act up again like nothing ever happened to me to begin with. By going by games I'm actually forced to actually play the game in order to work off the punishment rather than just simply wait it out.

The Ecdysiast1 votes

Link me to some proof of players who are chat restricted only, completely changing their method of toxicity.

The fact that anyone ever gets to the 14 day ban is proof enough that 35 games is not enough to get the point across.

You're underestimating a 6 month wait period. If anyone waits half a year to play the game again, it'll work just as well as playing the game without chat for half a year. And the very fact it hasn't been tested is why it needs to be implemented-- for testing purposes. There is no guarantee that it will work, but there is plenty of proof that the current system isn't guaranteed to work.

Like I said in the OP, if they just go back to being toxic then the 3rd and 4th punishments still go into effect.

More from Player Behavior

More by The Ecdysiast