My unpopular opinion on player behavior and punishments

Z Statistic··25 votes·2,529 views

I believe that punishments should fit the category of the offense. Actions in League (or really any game) fall into two broad categories: social and gameplay. Social is interacting with other players. Gameplay is strictly interacting with the game. They aren't perfect definitions, but I think they work, especially for MMOs. I know a lot of you played WoW and Runescape back in the day. Hurling offensive and rude speech incessantly would be a social thing whereas exploiting a glitch or griefing players (except for very specific circumstances) would be a gameplay thing. It's pretty cut and dry there.

In League, it's slightly more complicated. Sure, there are glitches like the 0 cooldown flash hack or the glitch that allowed one to leave a game and avoid loss of mmr and LP. That's pretty obvious. It's cheating. But what about griefing? Well, except in specific situations like 0/30/0, it's hard to tell if someone is just bad or intentionally feeding. There are actions in MMOs where the analogous thing in League is very murky. I firmly believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, so this restricts the gameplay abuses to things that are basically just cheating.

Think about it. Any time you confront a toxic person, what are they doing? 9:1 says verbally abusing you. Even if you want to punish them for that, it's clearly different from gameplay abuses. Now the crux of this point: in my humble opinion, gameplay abuses should be met with and only with gameplay restrictions, and social abuses should be met with and only with social restrictions.

What that amounts to is that I believe that a 14 day game ban for hurling gratuitous amounts of verbal filth at people is inappropriate. Instead, a mute is in order. This is different from chat restrictions. There, you CAN talk but only for a limited amount per game. A mute means you can't speak at all. And if they continue to abuse social systems after the mute is lifted? Scale it to a permanent mute. Don't ban them. If no one can hear their shit, does it make a sound? What does it matter if the person would call their teammates every slur under the sun for missing 3 cs if they can't actually say it to them?

Permanent bans imo be should saved only for cheaters and blatant griefers.

Riot, you have a mute system in place. If someone is muted several standard deviations greater than the mean, why not just start them muted for their 4 allies and 5 opponents? Chat restrictions are like the mother saying, 'ok, if you're good today, we'll go to Chucky Cheese's'. If the child has proven they are little brats, then the mother shouldn't even entertain the idea. Likewise, if someone has shown they don't care about chat restrictions, just mute them.

This could also expand into other social systems. For example, if they are auto-muted, they cannot add people first, only accept requests. They cannot initiate a conversation via pm, only respond one. These things need not automatically apply, but if someone adds people just to berate them, it's a great thing to have.

My opinion is born from a trend I've seen over the seasons: players are encouraged to report, not necessarily mute people. That's bonkers. In fact, a mute should be in the same category (not necessarily same strength though) as a report. Actually, I'll go a step further: the option to report a player for verbal abuse should be removed and instead, Riot should hammer in muting into players heads and treat mutes similar to verbal abuse reports.

I can't count on my hands the number of times people have posted on the forums over the years that they don't mute because then they don't have evidence to punish the person. That's ridiculous. It's also stupid. You want to report this person for your abuse but don't take steps to block him? That doesn't justify his behavior, but why would you willingly subject yourself to abuse for no good reason? Players need to take more responsibility for dealing with situations of verbal abuse instead of putting on Riot to vindicate them when Riot has already given us all the tools we need to deal with these cases as they happen.

TL;DR

  1. In my opinion, verbal abuse should lead only to chat restrictions, time/#game based mutes, and permanent mutes, not bans of any kind. Cheating and griefing should lead to bans and not CR/mutes.
  2. Riot should have more systems in place to facilitate social restrictions for the outliers.
  3. Muting players should be the go-to answer for dealing with toxic players, not reporting them.
  4. Mutes should be treated as report, but not necessarily as powerful as reports (sometimes you just don't want to see their messages, whether they are toxic or not.)

66 Comments

Zielmann15 votes

Except social issues become gameplay issues. The person being super negative in chat only brings down the whole team, which can directly translate to a loss. Or maybe the person is too busy typing into chat to actually be playing the game.

People shouldn't need to mute people. The feature exists as a way to help people deal with negative players, not as an excuse for those players to continue their behavior.

But my bigger issue with an idea like this is that the players who want to make your experience awful are going to find ways to do it. So you let the player who rages at his teammates for every little mistake they make, give warnings, temp chat restrictions, and eventually a chat ban. Do you really think that just because the player can't chat, they'll magically stop causing problems?

I don't believe that to be the case. That rager, once they've had their chat privileges permanently revoked, will find other means of taking their anger out on allies. And the only avenue left for that is through gameplay itself. Be it intentional feeding, going afk, abandoning the team, sabotaging farm from jungler or other laners, they're going to express their anger somehow.

So now with a system like that, the problem players are suddenly able to stay around the game far longer than they otherwise would have. They have to walk all the way through to the permanent chat ban. Then they'll have to work up through to a permaban for their gameplay behavior.

Z Statistic4 votes

A game I like to play is to remove all the 'should' and 'have to' from a sentence and see what you're left with. No one is excusing what people say. The only thing I'm saying is use the tools Riot has given you and mute people. Then Riot can treat mutes as reports.

Also, you're making a huge assumption. You're begging the question that how can you conclude that someone who ONLY speaks like shit would start randomly doing gameplay breaking actions.

Besides, if Chat restrictions were a good solution to afkers, then why not do it as the go to instead of queue time length?

Mute people. It's that simple. You can't smack a 'no talking' sign over assholes' mouths in real life, but you can online. Use it.

Zielmann5 votes

I generally don't even have to use the mute feature. I'm generally capable of ignoring all the but worst offenders in my games. Sometimes I actually find myself laughing at these people.

But here's the basis behind my assumptions:

  • Historically, most players will reform their behavior after their first or second warnings (with the current system, the two sets of restrictions they ear)
  • Historically, if a player makes it past two runs through the system, reform rates plummet significantly. Basically, these players have no desire to correct their behavior or not
  • Given that people reaching 2-week or permaban level punishments in the current system generally have no intention to correct their behaviors, it means they realize what they're doing is wrong but consciously continue to do so

By that point, these people are intentionally causing problems. Just because you take away one means of doing so doesn't mean they won't find some other way to continue. And given how so many of the people act when they come on here complaining about their permabans, I do strongly believe a decent number of them would go on to find other ways to cause problems. Some even threaten to do just that on their next account in order to "beat the system".

Would permanent chat bans work for some people? I'm sure they would. But I also don't think the benefits would be worthwhile.

And frankly, given that following the simple rule of "don't be a dick" is enough to avoid punishments, I don't really have any remorse for people who manage to get banned.

Z Statistic3 votes

We're both asserting something based on personal beliefs and anecdotal evidence. But here's the difference between your assertion and mine:

You are assuming that people are guilty until proven innocent by outright assuming that muting players will just make people take more explicit avenues in the form of feeding. I am stating that we only punish people until we have ample evidence that they in fact did the crime. Just because someone lies and steals from their employer doesn't mean they are going to break into a dept store and steal from the register. It also doesn't mean they are going to assault their boss. The players clearly don't care about chat restrictions, but unless there is clear, objective evidence that your statement is reality, assuming it is true is paranoia at best.

Much of this is actually moot though; Riot almost certainly doesn't have this system specifically because there's really no objective point. My opinion in based pretty much on my principles instead of practicality. I just publish my unpopular opinions on these boards every once in a while because my opinions have largely unchanged since season 2 and back then I was considered part of the oversensitive group.

I'm mostly just posting this to help keep the witch hunt mobs' ideals in perspective.

Zielmann5 votes

I'm assuming that players who have already been proven guilty of an inability or unwillingness to reform will continue the same sorts of behavior. It's the same as the assumption Riot has made that brought them to the current ban structure. An assumption based on raw statistics they were able to gather across multiple years of issuing punishments and observing player behavior.

But yeah, it's just a difference in views on the topic. Not an issue really. Some discussion on these things is always good to have.

TrulyBland4 votes

My opinion in based pretty much on my principles instead of practicality.

This here is the problem. Riot used to do that as well. Permabans were only for the worst offenders, not the most frequent. People were able to regain their accounts if they had proven to have reformed, etc. etc. They even tried their best with quasi-permanent chat restrictions, that would kinda fit your suggestion.

But ultimately, it all was impractical. Most people that would still frequently misbehave after the first 2-week ban didn't ever change. So Riot started issuing permabans for repeated and frequent bad behaviour as well. Most people that tried to prove they were reformed after being permabanned, just ended up permabanned on their other account as well. Most people that were on those permanent chat restrictions starting drifting towards other ways of annoying/attacking their team.

All of these things catered to the minority (repeat offenders) of what was already a minority (toxic players) to begin with... all at the expense of those who never did anything wrong to begin with; or at least those who don't do enough wrong to get punished.

Short version: "This is why we can't have nice things"

That's not to say I disagree with your points... and Riot doesn't either, as shown by the introduction of chat restrictions. So while I think it's impractical to completely seperate gameplay and social punishments, like you suggest, it's always a good idea to discuss how it might be possible to reform the punishment system so everybody wins.

lolptwo3 votes

This pretty much, also Riot is desperately trying to find a way to renew their reputation for being one of the most toxic games in ESports

Z Statistic2 votes

This is true. Separation is hard due to lots of grey area. Much of the grey areas comes from the very ambiguous 'don't be a dick' rule. It may seem straight forward, but the same action can be viewed radically different by two different people. While I appreciate the flexibility of the rule, it also means there can be a bunch of nonsensical things clogging up the system for REAL issues. The other hard part of separation is that...gameplay abuses really aren't that common or are really hard to prove.

While hammering out a separation could be largely arbitrary, I think it would still lead to increased clarity. But again, we need data, so much of this is just going to be arguing theories and platitudes

scazzman1 votes

I disagree with this. The vast majority of ragers rage because they want to win. And if they see a player feeding or making bad mistakes. Thier only response "although not a good one" is to whine or insult them hoping they eventually listen

scazzman1 votes

It's the same as parents who spank their children. They do it not because they want them to be miserable. But because they are hoping to get results. And asking nicely isn't working. So their only other response is to get rude

Gromlet4 votes

[{quoted}](name=Menea Calais,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9YFK3ZYJ,comment-id=,timestamp=2016-02-16T21:31:09.830+0000)

I believe that punishments should fit the category of the offense. Actions in League (or really any game) fall into two broad categories: social and gameplay. Social is interacting with other players. Gameplay is strictly interacting with the game. They aren't perfect definitions, but I think they work, especially for MMOs. I know a lot of you played WoW and Runescape back in the day. Hurling offensive and rude speech incessantly would be a social thing whereas exploiting a glitch or griefing players (except for very specific circumstances) would be a gameplay thing. It's pretty cut and dry there.

In League, it's slightly more complicated. Sure, there are glitches like the 0 cooldown flash hack or the glitch that allowed one to leave a game and avoid loss of mmr and LP. That's pretty obvious. It's cheating. But what about griefing? Well, except in specific situations like 0/30/0, it's hard to tell if someone is just bad or intentionally feeding. There are actions in MMOs where the analogous thing in League is very murky. I firmly believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, so this restricts the gameplay abuses to things that are basically just cheating.

Think about it. Any time you confront a toxic person, what are they doing? 9:1 says verbally abusing you. Even if you want to punish them for that, it's clearly different from gameplay abuses. Now the crux of this point: in my humble opinion, gameplay abuses should be met with and only with gameplay restrictions, and social abuses should be met with and only with social restrictions.

What that amounts to is that I believe that a 14 day game ban for hurling gratuitous amounts of verbal filth at people is inappropriate. Instead, a mute is in order. This is different from chat restrictions. There, you CAN talk but only for a limited amount per game. A mute means you can't speak at all. And if they continue to abuse social systems after the mute is lifted? Scale it to a permanent mute. Don't ban them. If no one can hear their shit, does it make a sound? What does it matter if the person would call their teammates every slur under the sun for missing 3 cs if they can't actually say it to them?

Permanent bans imo be should saved only for cheaters and blatant griefers.

Riot, you have a mute system in place. If someone is muted several standard deviations greater than the mean, why not just start them muted for their 4 allies and 5 opponents? Chat restrictions are like the mother saying, 'ok, if you're good today, we'll go to Chucky Cheese's'. If the child has proven they are little brats, then the mother shouldn't even entertain the idea. Likewise, if someone has shown they don't care about chat restrictions, just mute them.

This could also expand into other social systems. For example, if they are auto-muted, they cannot add people first, only accept requests. They cannot initiate a conversation via pm, only respond one. These things need not automatically apply, but if someone adds people just to berate them, it's a great thing to have.

My opinion is born from a trend I've seen over the seasons: players are encouraged to report, not necessarily mute people. That's bonkers. In fact, a mute should be in the same category (not necessarily same strength though) as a report. Actually, I'll go a step further: the option to report a player for verbal abuse should be removed and instead, Riot should hammer in muting into players heads and treat mutes similar to verbal abuse reports.

I can't count on my hands the number of times people have posted on the forums over the years that they don't mute because then they don't have evidence to punish the person. That's ridiculous. It's also stupid. You want to report this person for your abuse but don't take steps to block him? That doesn't justify his behavior, but why would you willingly subject yourself to abuse for no good reason? Players need to take more responsibility for dealing with situations of verbal abuse instead of putting on Riot to vindicate them when Riot has already given us all the tools we need to deal with these cases as they happen.

  1. In my opinion, verbal abuse should lead only to chat restrictions, time/#game based mutes, and permanent mutes, not bans of any kind. Cheating and griefing should lead to bans and not CR/mutes.
  2. Riot should have more systems in place to facilitate social restrictions for the outliers.
  3. Muting players should be the go-to answer for dealing with toxic players, not reporting them.
  4. Mutes should be treated as report, but not necessarily as powerful as reports (sometimes you just don't want to see their messages, whether they are toxic or not.)

++++++

Gromlet-(ranked) I have been chat banned with the limited messages before. Not that I am proud but I learned a lesson from it. With that experience of being just chat restricted came to two distinct and immediate changes to game play and its effect upon it. One, I immediately noticed that having limited messages I was unable to communicate anything with my teammates to benefit our teamwork (ideas of engagements, tactics and objective priority). There just wasn't enough messages allotted to me so that I may collaborate. Two, I was unable to encourage my team. This one bugged me the most. When told I did good or my support said good job and I couldn't send a message. The times when your adc gets a kill with you and they get discouraged because they can praise you but you cant to them only 3 minutes later. I have even had teammates get frustrated with me because I wasn't responding to inquaries. So you know that, by simply putting a message limit on someone already has a diverse effect on the team and their ability to do what they are there to do in the first place, work as a team. By muting players and allowing them to enter ranked matches would create a disadvantage to your team from the start. Sure you can muster some words in at the champion select. But, as far as game-play goes, you cannot Mute or Permanently Mute a player in the game. This has to be one or two of the reasons why some, not all, of your ideas here may cause you to believe that its unpopular. Because it is demeaning to the League of Legends community.

I would like to see somewhat the opposite to what you are saying here. That repeated verbal abuse, harassment, hate speech, griefing and the like to be an account bannable offence. The idea coming from the same thought that society has on criminals. If you steal (verbally assault) someone, you are punished lightly at first but, will gradually become a jailable (bannable) offence. This type of system works in society and would work in this community. The fear of jail(being banned) simply stresses enough, in itself, to wean out the bad apples. length of ban would be the only issue here with this method. Everyone also knows that half the community has multiple accounts and even banning one account will only be encouragement for them to A)Fix their problem B)play the other account and get it banned to0 C)play that new account learning from the experience and never want to start a new account or mess up their main account ever again.

My 2 copper pieces.

Z Statistic2 votes

That depends. In some states and countries, petty theft is simply met with a fine larger than the value of the object in question. The main reason why this isn't the modus operandi in other countries is because it is ludicrously difficult to enforce as a significant portion of the petty thieves are homeless or too poor to pay the fee in the first place.

Jail time is, from what I can tell, a good alternative to a better (in theory) punishment.

ReadyxPlayerxOne4 votes

I don't see it that way. I think of league as like an online basketball court. If you go to your gym, and you are an asshole to the people there who are playing, they don't tell you that you can't talk and can still play the game. They specifically tell you, GTFO you're done, we don't want you here. It's no different. Just because there's an ability to separate the social and mechanical aspects of this game doesn't mean it should be done. Specifically because being unable to communicate with your team is a disadvantage to your team.

Z Statistic2 votes

The key difference is that you cannot slap a 'thou shalt not talk' sticker on someone's mouth in real life and expect them to remain absolutely silent. You can absolutely do this online at least in the form of a mute. Unless you were threatening people physically or actually assaulting them, I see no reason to kick you out of the gym if you actually could slap one of those stickers over someone's mouth in real life.

And while pings are not true substitute for full communication, they are honestly good enough. Plus, having 1 player down in terms of communication is almost not a hindrance at all as other people naturally try to pick up the slack when faced with a disadvantage.

ReadyxPlayerxOne2 votes

[{quoted}](name=Menea Calais,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9YFK3ZYJ,comment-id=000c0000,timestamp=2016-02-17T02:03:36.566+0000)

The key difference is that you cannot slap a 'thou shalt not talk' sticker on someone's mouth in real life and expect them to remain absolutely silent. You can absolutely do this online at least in the form of a mute. Unless you were threatening people physically or actually assaulting them, I see no reason to kick you out of the gym if you actually could slap one of those stickers over someone's mouth in real life.

And while pings are not true substitute for full communication, they are honestly good enough. Plus, having 1 player down in terms of communication is almost not a hindrance at all as other people naturally try to pick up the slack when faced with a disadvantage.

I don't see it that way. I don't want to play with a guy that's so immature and hateful that they can't control the basic urge to rage or troll. Just cause I CAN mute them doesn't mean I HAVE TO and it doesn't mean we should be forced to play with them. Muted or not.

scazzman1 votes

You don't want to play with him. But that guy also doesn't want to be banned.

ReadyxPlayerxOne1 votes

{quoted}

You don't want to play with him. But that guy also doesn't want to be banned.

I disagree. Their actions are what counts. They acted in a way that got them banned. Erego they wanted to be banned... or they need psychiatric help.

It doesn't work for any other argument. "Oh... I killed that guy and got locked up in jail... but I didn't want to be locked up in Jail" "Yeah, I started a brawl and got thrown out of a bar... but I really wanted to keep drinking in that bar." "Sure, I told my boss he was a total jerk right to his face... But I still wanted to have a job..." "I was only being funny when I used racist language and got banned... But I didn't want to be banned..." "So I raged a bit at some people who played a game with me and got banned... but I still wanted to play the game."

Get the idea now?

kaimuh2 votes

I completely agree with this, I got a 25 game chat restriction for calling someone a moron who was trolling. Was only toxic in ONE game and got the restriction which means one more report and i get banned. That is crazy to me, meanwhile someone who intentionally trolls matches but doesn't say anything never gets punished. Or abuses the system......Funny how there is a mute button to stop people from talking yet they still get banned yet you could cheat, troll, or abuse system and NEVER get banned. Way to go Rito.

Astôlfo2 votes

So... The logic here is like an ostrich's. "If I don't see/hear/etc it, it doesn't exist." Sure, people can mute toxic people, but they shouldn't have to. It's a measure of self-control, it doesn't get rid of the problem itself.

For another analogy, it's like not watching the news so you can pretend crime doesn't exist because you would never hear about it. That doesn't fix the problem itself. Locking up the criminals does. In addition, it creates a communication issue by having said chat bans.

Obviously, if they're being toxic frequently in chats, they're not being very healthy to the game. So, what's wrong with them getting banned? They fully deserve it. They only make it worse for everyone.

So no, I don't agree with this, sorry.

Z Statistic1 votes

Be careful with matches; your strawman might catch fire. I would suggest rereading my post carefully because almost nothing you said is a response to what I actually said.

The point that I can respond to is that I suggest Riot to act on metrics for frequency of mutes and being muted. If 90% of the people you play with mute you, then I think you should be muted before the game starts or receive a chat restriction. In that way, mutes are not just a bandaid but something that actively contributes to reforming players.

Astôlfo1 votes

Um... I was referring to how you believe that verbal abuse doesn't deserve a ban. That's entirely silly. I'm fine with mute counts being factored in, but as other people mentioned, it would take careful consideration as to how to apply it so it's not just used as a trolling tool.

MasterSomething2 votes

If I have to mute a player because he won't shut up about how bad of a player I am, I will report him. It's not so much I get offended, as it is annoying to deal with such a guy. I don't want to to play with annoying.

Weathered2 votes

Still kinda salty about the Alistar who followed me around in the jungle headbutting minions out of their pits to reset their leash meters. There is definitely ways to in game grief.

Edit: Read the rest of the post. Really good point. Only problem I see is that people who cant verbally take out their anger will eventually get frustrated enough and not have an outlet that they will do something else, like intentionally feed by running down into tower, or afk, or grief like the above mentioned. Still, really solid point that perma mutes should be more in order than bans.

Z Statistic1 votes

I know that's frustrating, but honestly, that's the kind of shit I'd expect from a Dunkey, MagikardUsedFly, Frost Prime, LilyPichu, etc. video, and I'd be rofling the whole time, especially with the skype audio playing. Of course, back on point, there are ways to grief, but a lot of them are not as cut and dry as their MMO counterpart. One example is kiting an outdoor boss to a major city. That is ALWAYS griefing according to Blizzard, which is why they put a leash on Lord Kazzack after it was done. More conventional things for League are much harder to prove unless done in multitude (like you're describing).

ABlueQuaker2 votes

Allowing someone to continue to play and then restricting their ability to communicate only disadvantages the poor teammates that get matched with them. People are banned from the game in its entirety to clearly and definitively say 'being an asshat to your team is not acceptable in any way, shape or form'. At the end of the day, toxic or not, people want to play LoL. If you make it a standard that you can be a complete fucktard to your team and still be allowed to play the game, it's going to become a cesspool of toxic scumbags.

Wanna know what a toxic player does when they're muted? They turn to passive-aggression.

Its All Skillzz1 votes

This system is pretty awesome and youd be better at lytes job than himself, if the toxic players are mute. cause i know alot of ragers who are diamond level or higher an just cant understand why their teammates are so much more worst than the enemy/themselves. i am one of those diamond players i might give you shit but i know what im talking about. ive lost 2 accounts already to people trolling me on purpose an me being salty about it. it got so bad that i dragged the chat window completely off my screen so i cant see anything anyone says ever.

lolptwo1 votes

This system makes sense, however I have a feeling the thing is Riot does not want these players playing their game. The harsh punishment of deleting their account is actually more of a realization punishment. The thing is many ppl have smurfs and 2nd accounts, how hard would it be to by pass your laws by me quickly jumping on a fresh acc, adding the person then talking shit to them. Boom I've just bypassed all my restrictions.

Also it would encourage trash talking to that level. The fear of losing your entire account actually shows. Listen if you act this way, We're going to take your account so stop now or else.

I like Riot's way better, and I have a Diamond 3, 2 million elophant score, all champs all runes permabanned account. I don't care about getting that acc back, I was toxic on it and deserved the punishment. Had they just permanently muted me, I don't think I ever would of reformed, I would of found more clever ways to insult people. That's the god honest truth.

Z Statistic1 votes

How would you have insulted people if you could have spoken to anyone in game, in lobby, or via pm? And if you're talking about buying certain items, how is this any different from people buying tears like today?

I don't disagree with the effectiveness. It's more of a disagreement in principle.

Mecha MaIphite1 votes

a lot of you played Runescape

buying gf 20k

Stephenizgod1 votes

I agree with most of what you said but I think the "mute=report" is not smart. Sometimes people mute to stop themselves from raging, sometimes people mute to avoid the distraction of a teammates whining/negativity/etc., sometimes people mute so they can focus better on their game rather than typing to teammates. Why shouldn't we report someone for being toxic? There're tons of reasons to mute but only 1 (valid) reason to report for toxicity and that is to get them punished for their bad behavior so they (hopefully) won't do it again.

Still I agree that Verbal toxicity should be met with Verbal restrictions ranging from Chat Restriction to Perma Muted, Gameplay toxicity should be met with Gameplay restrictions ranging from X Day Bans and Perma banned.

An exception should be Death Threats or telling someone to kill themselves, these should be immediately perma-banned. It is against the law to tell someone they should kill themselves or that you will kill them. It is not funny and it is not a joke, these kinds of comments are a serious offense and should be treated as such.

Z Statistic1 votes

Perhaps I need to edit the OP to be more clear. Mutes should not be weighted the same as reports, but they should definitely be taken into account beyond just being a bandaid. Everyone will mute people for whatever reason, benign or not. That said, if you are being muted by 90% of your teammates in all of your games, you probably have a verbage problem.

The reason I dislike the current incarnation of reports for verbal abuse is that, from what I can tell, people jump straight to reporting their teammates or enemies instead of just muting them because they want to be vindicated by Riot (for some reason.) I personally remind myself to mute people as often as I need to and as early as I need to. But, because I mute people pretty much immediately (e.g. 'wtf this soraka.'), I don't know if they are being toxic in the meantime or that was just a one time deal. Thus, I almost never report people.

Taking mutes into account when handing out verbal punishments should be baseline for this reason.

Stephenizgod3 votes

No offense, I'm not being mean or anything simply trying to discuss my point of view, but I still think its not a great idea. I don't think there is anything wrong with encouraging people to report for Verbal Toxicity. You are less likely to say something toxic if you think everyone will immediately report you for it, that threat alone keeps a lot of the toxicity down. Muting SHOULD count for something though like you suggest, but like you said it shouldn't hold as much weight as a Report. Doesn't mean we need to get rid of the current Report system, we can have both.

Personally I don't mute anyone, I think its a valuable tool for people who are more sensitive or just don't want to deal with others crap but i don't use it. Even the most toxic person can have good ideas even if said sarcastically, so even if what they are saying is annoying, I leave it alone on the off chance they come up with an idea. Plus the only time someones words effect me is when I am on tilt or on a losing spree, but its not even their words that are getting to me its the game.

Muting isn't a cure-all, its a bandaid, it doesn't fix what was said it only prevents more harm. Reporting doens't fix it either but it can at least prevent future wounds and is more effect than Muting someone.

Z Statistic1 votes

And how is the system muting a toxic person before the game starts less of a preemptive measure than bans?

Here's a bit more detail. Let's imagine a world with a semi-false dichotomy you can either have mutes or reports but both will count as tallies towards punishments. The superior choice depends on the abuse in question. If the person is verbally abusing people, then muting him is the clear option as this prevents you from being distracted by his toxicity in chat and otherwise performs the same job as a report. If the person is hacking or intentionally feeding, muting is less effective than reporting because reports can have extra details mutes don't (muting someone is generally self-explanatory though).

This is the main reason why I would push for muting to take the place of verbal abuse reports. Like reports, singular mutes are meaningless. However, relative frequencies are very useful in determining one's toxicity. The main difference is that mutes actively deal with the problem as it occurs as opposed to after the fact like reports.

It also encourages players not to engage toxic players; toxicity really only perpetuates if someone is there to throw fuel on the fire. Ragers are less likely to keep ranting if they aren't getting a response. This point is particularly important as according to Lyte, 75% of toxicity comes from Positive players. These are the kinds of players who just have a moment of weakness and may only continue the raging if they feel vindicated by retaliation. Removing that retaliation would most likely allow them to calm down so that if they play another game, they are less likely to rage and spread the toxicity like Lyte describes.

Stephenizgod1 votes

Ah I think there is a misunderstanding here.

I was saying Muting as in the Mute button, not Riot muting them as punishment. I think Riot should mute people instead of banning them from the game, they are less likely to make a new account and rage in that one too.

My point was clicking the Mute button should matter, but we should also keep the Report option since its more obvious than the Mute button. It is not always obvious why someone would Mute another person, it is however 100% obvious why someone is reporting someone. I see no reason to get rid of the ability to Report someone for Verbal Abuse nor do I think we should replace Reporting with the Mute button. I hate to repeat myself but I want to make my point clearer to avoid misunderstandings; you can Mute someone for several reason, so its not fair to punish someone for that OR not punish someone deserving because Mutes are not taken as important.

Z Statistic1 votes

It's pretty self-explanatory. People don't mute people for hacking, cheating, feeding, dancing in midlane, or stealing buffs for teh luls. There's really only one reason and it's because person A doesn't want to see what person B wrote. Now because the reason for THAT is uncertain (being toxic or just mildly irritating?), there needs to be a huge leeway for raw mute rates when looking at evidence.

I'm also fairly confident that if the person is being mildly annoying to the point that 90% of his teammate don't want to put up with his spam, he should probably tone it down even if he's not being toxic. There comes a point that the sheer multitude of frequency in being muted outweighs the levity of the thing said.

Report/mute cards would be useful as well, especially if the sample was larger than 3 or 5 games. I've always advocated for as many as 10 case in a report card just because only the ones in denial can explain away a 10 streak.

ReadyxPlayerxOne1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Menea Calais,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9YFK3ZYJ,comment-id=000b00000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-02-17T03:32:42.141+0000)

There's really only one reason and it's because person A doesn't want to see what person B wrote.

This isn't true. It's not the only reason. It's not even the main idea about the concept. There's a flaw in your thinking you refuse to accept. It's not about someone seeing what you wrote and not wanting to see it. That's infantile. It's about how person A is specifically using RIOT's social tool to attempt to harass someone else. It's because when they do this they 1. detract from the gameplay as statistically evident in RIOT's research and has been a tool tip for ages 2. are acting against the wishes of an OVERWHELMING majority of players as statistically evident in RIOT's research and 3. specifically will draw additional negativity from additional people and reduce the likelihood that those people and people they encounter will want queue additional games (which is specifically counterproductive to RIOT's business model).

Think outside your own little world. Value the time other people want to play a game with you and regardless of how you feel about their gameplay or how your team did realize they teach sport teams at age 3 to shake hands with the other team and say good game. It's not just about the people getting banned. Are there ways to think about how to deal with them? Sure. Muting them instead of banning is a band aid on a bullet wound. It isn't employed by RIOT because it hasn't been shown to correct toxic behavior. They've tried it. They've specifically looked at ways to correct behavior and muting their speech entirely 1. isn't productive to the game and isn't fair to team mates forced to play with them (which is why restrictions allow you to convey meaningful strats if you choose) and 2. results mainly in these players finding more destructive and harder to track outlets for their toxicity.

Do I have to be any clearer or do you get it now?

Z Statistic1 votes

It's your right to comment on anything you want or jump into a conversation whenever, but I'd ask you to read the thing you're replying to before posting. You said

It's about how person A is specifically using RIOT's social tool to attempt to harass someone else.

when in my example, Person A is muting Person B without any context given. The logical conclusion from that response is that you believe that Player A is harassing Player B simply by virtue of muting them. That is a ludicrous stance to take, so I can only understand that you simply misunderstood the post.

But to answer your question, prove it. Riot tried exactly what I did? I've been playing for almost 4 years now. I don't remember anything like that. Give me sources, give me quotes, give me articles. You are asking me to take your word at face value simply because you're slapping Riot's name on it. Forgive me if I remain skeptical.

ReadyxPlayerxOne1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Menea Calais,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9YFK3ZYJ,comment-id=000b0000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-02-23T14:28:30.236+0000)

It's your right to comment on anything you want or jump into a conversation whenever, but I'd ask you to read the thing you're replying to before posting. You said

when in my example, Person A is muting Person B without any context given. The logical conclusion from that response is that you believe that Player A is harassing Player B simply by virtue of muting them. That is a ludicrous stance to take, so I can only understand that you simply misunderstood the post.

But to answer your question, prove it. Riot tried exactly what I did? I've been playing for almost 4 years now. I don't remember anything like that. Give me sources, give me quotes, give me articles. You are asking me to take your word at face value simply because you're slapping Riot's name on it. Forgive me if I remain skeptical.

You seem to be changing a lot of your arguments to fit your need. In your TLDR you state:

  1. In my opinion, verbal abuse should lead only to chat restrictions, time/#game based mutes, and permanent mutes, not bans of any kind. Cheating and griefing should lead to bans and not CR/mutes.
  • I don't think this is true, should be implemented and opens the door to a lot of trouble for many reasons and I've listed a few.
  1. Riot should have more systems in place to facilitate social restrictions for the outliers.
  • I again don't see why RIOT should have to cater to 5% of their community at the expense of the 95% because they refuse to "not be a jerk".
  1. Muting players should be the go-to answer for dealing with toxic players, not reporting them.
  • It's not enough. It never has been. When muting, they find other more toxic ways to harass in many, many situations. There's plenty of evidence to suggest this is true.
  1. Mutes should be treated as report, but not necessarily as powerful as reports (sometimes you just don't want to see their messages, whether they are toxic or not.)
  • We have a reporting system. You want an entirely new system just for 5% of the community. And you want it to circumvent the system RIOT has spent years fine tuning? I find this ludicrous.

To respond to your comments:

  1. My comment was responding to your comment and was in the context of your original post.
  • Your flawed argument is that there is a difference between "social" and "gaming" offenses.
  • I argue this is entirely untrue and that RIOT's business is to ensure a positive play experience for everyone and that creating a loophole for "social" offenses (which I don't see as less game ruining than software hacks, exploiting, or various other "gaming" offenses) isn't conducive to adding a benefit to the game and promoting a positive play environment.
  1. No one has EVER been punished in ANY way because another player muted them.
  • It's simply not been done. In this tribunal or in the current system or any iteration ever.
  • Adding this in would lead to millions of erroneous reports. Something RIOT has specifically had to combat and has a system that does a decent job about it.
  • The body of your idea is to suggest there is a difference between "social and gaming offenses". In that and subsequent comments, you mention some arguments that amount to misdirection at worst and ignorance at best. This is one of them. I don't infer that "Player A is harassing Player B simply by virtue of muting them". It IS ludicrous to suggest that. And I don't agree that your idea would benefit anyone. But my point goes to what's ACTUALLY taking place in game. Muting doesn't do anything but mute the player. Reporting them does. And that report isn't willy nilly about the actions it triggers. It specifically targets harassment and other specific, undesirable events (from a community and business perspective) and attempts to help the player correct their behavior and if they don't then it shows them the door.
  1. Read the tool tips. Talk with Mods, DO YOUR RESEARCH. I'm not here to do it for you. I've done mine. I don't care if you're skeptical. You want to "prove me wrong"? Great. Go find evidence.
  • RIOT has released a lot of information about their player behavior program and from the little bit they do you can assume that a LOT more is being done just so they have statistically relevant data. And yeah, it can be manipulated when released but that doesn't mean they don't have the real numbers and know what does and doesn't work.
  • Ask a mod. Ask them why are chat restrictions in existence? Why not use chat bans? They have specifically told me they tried that in beta and regional testing and have found it to be counterproductive to their Player Behavior goals. I really don't think they were lying to me.
  • RIOT's Lyte is famous for bragging and explaining (in posts, in press releases and at trade shows) how this system is specifically designed with community in mind and stemmed from capturing the wishes of the community and many many other things that back up what I'm saying.
  • There's more, but I'm again, not going to do your homework for you just because your ego thinks you're right and I'm wrong.

Seriously, come at me bro. Your kung fu is weak. You have a poor argument, an idea that defies logic and is full of loopholes and your position on my counterargument is deflective at best and egotistical and assumptive at worst.

Did I miss anything?

Z Statistic1 votes

Yeah, a TL;DR. My apologies for not wanting to read a textwall of a response.

ReadyxPlayerxOne1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Menea Calais,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9YFK3ZYJ,comment-id=000b000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-02-23T21:05:19.027+0000)

Yeah, a TL;DR. My apologies for not wanting to read a textwall of a response.

FROM THE GUY WITH A 78 LINE ORIGINAL POST.... LOL.

Here's the TLDR of my comment: YOU HAVE A TERRIBLE IDEA, MOVE ON.

I win dude. You can delete the post.

drops the mic

Z Statistic1 votes

If it makes you feel better to believe you won an argument on the internet, I'm legitimately happy for you, but I think I'll leave the OP up since I was expecting to get downvoted to hell but instead got a nice bit of support from a variety of people, some who were clearly rebuffed by the system and some who support the system but think it can be improved.

ReadyxPlayerxOne1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Menea Calais,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9YFK3ZYJ,comment-id=000b00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-02-24T01:44:00.354+0000)

If it makes you feel better to believe you won an argument on the internet, I'm legitimately happy for you, but I think I'll leave the OP up since I was expecting to get downvoted to hell but instead got a nice bit of support from a variety of people, some who were clearly rebuffed by the system and some who support the system but think it can be improved.

Even Trundle would say you're trolling at this point.

Z Statistic1 votes

Except I'm not, but whatever. No skin off my nose.

spirit cooking1 votes

They have data.

This is a key ratio to them:

How many banned people make new accounts, and how many just stop playing forever?

I'll bet 99% make new accounts and most of them spend money on those new accounts.

Riot can just perma chat ban can't they? No money in that.

Z Statistic2 votes

First, they have data; we do not. Second, when people have their collection taken away or turned worthless, they almost always abandon the collection instead of start over. We see this in TCG specifically with Zynga's attempt to milk more money which failed spectacularly and pretty much doomed that TCG forever.

I honestly think permanently muting players would be more lucrative because 1) they haven't lost their collection and will still keep playing and 2) are not in danger of losing access to this collection and are therefore still keen on spending money albeit not as much maybe.

spirit cooking1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Menea Calais,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9YFK3ZYJ,comment-id=00100000,timestamp=2016-02-17T04:09:04.662+0000)

First, they have data; we do not. Second, when people have their collection taken away or turned worthless, they almost always abandon the collection instead of start over. We see this in TCG specifically with Zynga's attempt to milk more money which failed spectacularly and pretty much doomed that TCG forever.

I honestly think permanently muting players would be more lucrative because 1) they haven't lost their collection and will still keep playing and 2) are not in danger of losing access to this collection and are therefore still keen on spending money albeit not as much maybe.

I think you're wrong, Ill bet most make a new account. Any Rioter care to comment? lol

Livin like Riven1 votes

I sometimes get a bit tilted and if I do, I mute people preemptively, just in case, so I can relax, calm myself a bit and give it another go. That'd be a report to people who haven't even done anything wrong. And personally, I get a bit more tilted in solo play than with friends. Assuming I'm not some freak statistical oddity, I'd say there are others in the same boat as me that would actually lash out at people and get muted. But I like playing with people who're upbeat and have a positive attitude, and it helps me stay the same way. So, suppose these others are muted and can't add these positive people who would otherwise deter their actions. That's just going to cause more problems than it fixes.

PROJECT CANCSUO1 votes

Nice post man. It is well written, and I 100% agree with what you have said. I never troll in-game, but I do get angry at others for when they troll me, or flame me for making a mistake. Simply banning players for these actions is not going to improve behavior in any sort of way. I was permanently banned, and of the 2 chat logs provided, one was insufficient(confirmed in a player support ticket by a riot member), but the other one was when i lashed out at someone in one bad statement, for stealing my jungle camps(literally sitting there and then using ability to take). Your idea is creative and i feel many others in the society would back it up, but heck, I doubt Riot will even swat an eye at this.

Dominick Destine1 votes

The flaw in your argument is that MOBAs nearly by definition are social games and require interaction to a level that, basically no other games do. Other games require coordination but only in MOBAs are factors such as precise communication about timing, position, cooldowns , enemy location and invisible items need to potentially be updated on a second by second basis (Ex: Enemy Ezreal ulting your low HP ally/"Veigar flash down 13:58"/etc.).

Basically if you can't socialize at all, you are putting your teammates at a disadvantage ... and that's even ignoring the negative social behavior, I am arguing for the extreme best case scenario of toxic players simply not being productive enough.... add any negative addition from their behavior and it's gg for you. Perma-ban(s) justified.

More from Player Behavior

More by Z Statistic