iNazz Permanent Ban Not Justified

Geohazard·Jan 31, 2016·2 votes·2,517 views

While playing a game just an hour ago, we were placed into a queue with a feeding Ryze. Not only did he feed, but he was toxic. Earlier in the day we had a feeding Shen and all he did was talk trash on his own team. However, this Ryze, as previously mentioned, is able to just go into a game and intentionally feed and talk trash, but it is okay. My friend, iNazz, got permanently banned for saying one offensive thing. While it was not entirely justified, it was also in response to the enemy team talking trash on us.

So Riot, please consider the fact that you are allowing players to ruin the fun for us by actually ruining the gameplay, but you don't even consider reading the entire chats to see if our frustrations are justified. You should probably clean up that issue over someone who may have hurt someone else's "feelings".

79 Comments

Deep Terror NamiJan 31, 201611 votes

Your entire post is about what someone else did. What did iNazz do? You don't get a permaban for no reason. Your friend will have either been consistently toxic across many games and ignoring all the prior punishments as if they were a joke, or his recent actions were so severe than an escalated punishment was called for.

PogChampEleGigglJan 31, 20168 votes

What's justified is that their terms of service states they can remove anybody from playing their game at any given time.

GeohazardJan 31, 20163 votes

While I respect that they would like to create a more "family friendly" game or whatever the atmosphere is that they are aiming for, they also implemented a mute button. If you mute, the bad things can't hurt your feelings anymore. Meanwhile, the feeders, trolls, afks, get away with all of their shenanigans.

TwigglesJan 31, 20165 votes

The mute button is not a license to be an asshole in the chat.

It's like saying you can't be arrested for disturbing the peace because people can just ignore you and/or plug their ears.

The whole "there is a mute button though" argument doesn't, hasn't ever, and never will hold any water. The fact that people keep trying it is baffling to say the least.

iNazzJan 31, 20161 votes

Did you really just try to compare a single mouse click in a video game to ignoring the crime of disturbing the peace?

Analogies like that (especially to discredit mute buttons) do not, have not ever, and never will hold any water. The fact that people keep trying to use them is baffling to say the least.

TwigglesJan 31, 20163 votes

Yes, I did. It is the same general principle. Obviously one is more significant than the other. Nobody is saying otherwise. You have not countered my argument here. Also, nice job coming up with your own clever comeback. I'm sure it took you all night to think of it. [slayer-jinx-unamused]

iNazzJan 31, 20161 votes

It's not an appropriate analogy whatsoever. The ways people deal with them are entirely different. You haven't even tried to counter any argument since you posted, I was just pointing that out. But, that point seemed to have went over your head.

Sorry for attempting to argue at your level, I'll refrain from attempting to have a conversation if you can't understand.

TwigglesJan 31, 20161 votes

My point remains regardless of whether or not you like my analogies. As I said in my first post, the mute button is not there to allow assholes to roam free and secrete their vitriol. My analogy is accurate because both situations represent a non-lethal circumstance in which the offended parties are simply being annoyed. Hitting the mute button or plugging your ears is a damage control measure that shouldn't have to be necessary in the first place.

Regardless of whether or not something can be ignored, that fact that something HAS to be ignored shows that there is a problem. People need to learn to accept that what they say and do has consequences. In your case, you were banned. In my case, I have opened myself up to more comments from the likes of you. Neither of these things are a pleasant situation, but we both reap what we sow.

So if you're going tell me how the mute button is an allowance to get away with whatever is said without having to answer for your actions, then I'm afraid it is going to fall on deaf ears. My response in that case would be essentially to grow up and get over your own sense of entitlement.

As a final word here, it doesn't matter what the context was. The same people who tout the mute button as an answer to all verbal toxicity don't actually take advantage of it themselves. Instead, they flame back in the chat and then claim that "they can just mute me." Meanwhile, they blame the system for something they themselves could have easily prevented by taking their own advice and muting without flaming back.

And now, I bid you good day, sir.

iNazzJan 31, 20161 votes

I suppose if that's your final word, then I'll tell you why you're wrong, and we'll accept that I'm in the right. That's on you, though.

Consider this analogy, I've posted it before but I'll reiterate it just to make the point clear: You wouldn't let someone from Activision or another company kick down your door and confiscate your copy of Call of Duty Black Ops: Big Brother Edition because you "secreted your vitriol" all over some kid on the microphone. Yet it's okay for Riot Games to do the same to a League of Legends account, according to you.

Almost any other online game with a report function does not account for negative behavior unless it's legitimate and malicious harassment over a longer period. These games also have mute functions implemented which can be used for the same function of simply shutting off annoying communications or stamping out rude behavior.

I'll even fix the problem of permanent bans for toxicity right here. You know what would stop people from being banned AND stop them from continuing to be toxic?

Permanant chat restrictions.

[slayer-jinx-wink]

There you go. Harsh enough to stop the "secretion of vitriol", yet fair enough that you're not swiping your product out of the hands of a consumer entirely. Look at that Riot, they'll still be able to buy your champions, $30 cosmetics, ward skins, summoner icons, XP boosts, IP boosts, Rune Pages, and name changes, too! Your risk of losing a customer is even lower! On top of all that, they won't be able to hurt feelings of random people they may never meet again. Problem solved!

The expectation for a perfect game where everyone is nice to each other all the time is no more than a delusion. Perm banning them is not a fair solution, and where one is banned, another ten will appear in their place. This is not the way to solve the problem.

I don't want any more people with the off-chance of being banned for being the slightest bit offensive to lose money and entertainment over this product because the company is not concerned with protecting their legitimate consumers, and not just the ones that are being "good" according to their standards. Get rid of cheaters, get rid of trolls, get rid of feeders, get rid of botters. I even just gave you the fairest option for solving the issue of "toxic" players (which apparently I was).

Thanks for reading.

VyleExyleJan 31, 20162 votes

{quoted}

I suppose if that's your final word, then I'll tell you why you're wrong, and we'll accept that I'm in the right. That's on you, though.

Consider this analogy, I've posted it before but I'll reiterate it just to make the point clear: You wouldn't let someone from Activision or another company kick down your door and confiscate your copy of Call of Duty Black Ops: Big Brother Edition because you "secreted your vitriol" all over some kid on the microphone. Yet it's okay for Riot Games to do the same to a League of Legends account, according to you.

Almost any other online game with a report function does not account for negative behavior unless it's legitimate and malicious harassment over a longer period. These games also have mute functions implemented which can be used for the same function of simply shutting off annoying communications or stamping out rude behavior.

I'll even fix the problem of permanent bans for toxicity right here. You know what would stop people from being banned AND stop them from continuing to be toxic?

Permanant chat restrictions.

[slayer-jinx-wink]

There you go. Harsh enough to stop the "secretion of vitriol", yet fair enough that you're not swiping your product out of the hands of a consumer entirely. Look at that Riot, they'll still be able to buy your champions, $30 cosmetics, ward skins, summoner icons, XP boosts, IP boosts, Rune Pages, and name changes, too! Your risk of losing a customer is even lower! On top of all that, they won't be able to hurt feelings of random people they may never meet again. Problem solved!

The expectation for a perfect game where everyone is nice to each other all the time is no more than a delusion. Perm banning them is not a fair solution, and where one is banned, another ten will appear in their place. This is not the way to solve the problem.

I don't want any more people with the off-chance of being banned for being the slightest bit offensive to lose money and entertainment over this product because the company is not concerned with protecting their legitimate consumers, and not just the ones that are being "good" according to their standards. Get rid of cheaters, get rid of trolls, get rid of feeders, get rid of botters. I even just gave you the fairest option for solving the issue of "toxic" players (which apparently I was).

Thanks for reading.

I mean... I guess we can "accept" that you're right...

Did that work? Are you able to log back in? Let me know

TwigglesJan 31, 20163 votes

then I'll tell you why you're wrong, and we'll accept that I'm in the right.

Wishing won't make it so, but I welcome you to try.

You wouldn't let someone from Activision or another company kick down your door and confiscate your copy of Call of Duty Black Ops: Big Brother Edition because you "secreted your vitriol" all over some kid on the microphone.

Of course not. You know why? Because that is a product. League of Legends is a service. League of Legends is free to play, whereas you need to buy a copy of CoD: BLOPS. And before you mention skins and RP and such, none of that is required to play. It is simply a virtual credit added to your account (which is still owned by Riot Games regardless as stipulated in the Terms of Service). Riot has every right to deny their service to someone they deem a hazard to the community. Just like a bar or theater does.

Permanant chat restrictions.

Congrats. Now instead of having people flaming the chat when they feel slighted, they'll just troll through gameplay because "These idiots/assholes don't deserve to win hurr durr." Riot's method prevents that, as those who are permabanned are those that either show extreme or constant negative impact. Warnings are given out. Those who ignore them are subject to reprisal. Period.

Perm banning them is not a fair solution, and where one is banned, another ten will appear in their place.

This is not a problem with the system, but with the attitudes of the players.

the company is not concerned with protecting their legitimate consumers

Everyone who plays this game is a legitimate consumer. The ones that don't drive others off with their negativity are the ones who are desired.

Get rid of cheaters, get rid of trolls, get rid of feeders, get rid of botters.

This already happens. The difference is that they don't cry about it on the boards because they don't have the same misguided web of support that verbal abusers seem to have.

Thanks for reading.

You're welcome. And finally...

I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!

VyleExyleJan 31, 20162 votes

{quoted}

Wishing won't make it so, but I welcome you to try.

Of course not. You know why? Because that is a product. League of Legends is a service. League of Legends is free to play, whereas you need to buy a copy of CoD: BLOPS. And before you mention skins and RP and such, none of that is required to play. It is simply a virtual credit added to your account (which is still owned by Riot Games regardless as stipulated in the Terms of Service). Riot has every right to deny their service to someone they deem a hazard to the community. Just like a bar or theater does.

Congrats. Now instead of having people flaming the chat when they feel slighted, they'll just troll through gameplay because "These idiots/assholes don't deserve to win hurr durr." Riot's method prevents that, as those who are permabanned are those that either show extreme or constant negative impact. Warnings are given out. Those who ignore them are subject to reprisal. Period.

This is not a problem with the system, but with the attitudes of the players.

Everyone who plays this game is a legitimate consumer. The ones that don't drive others off with their negativity are the ones who are desired.

This already happens. The difference is that they don't cry about it on the boards because they don't have the same misguided web of support that verbal abusers seem to have.

You're welcome. And finally...

I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!

Spot on

iNazzJan 31, 20161 votes

League of Legends is a service.

It's actually a product, though. A game is a product. League of Legends, the "game", as stated by the first line ToS, confirms it as a product. But, you could be right, since there are legal loopholes all through the ToS to construe as Riot sees fit...like you are with my arguments, for example.

Now instead of having people flaming the chat when they feel slighted, they'll just troll through gameplay because "These idiots/assholes don't deserve to win hurr durr." Riot's method prevents that, as those who are permabanned are those that either show extreme or constant negative impact. Warnings are given out. Those who ignore them are subject to reprisal. Period.

Now you're assuming all verbal abusers are also trolls and don't actually want to play the game. I don't understand that logic. The only thing they prevent is people spending money on their game. Isn't that what they want?

This is not a problem with the system, but with the attitudes of the players.

Riot has people whose jobs are to help manage the community. Once again, I assert, the expectation that everyone being nice to each other in a competitive online game is a delusion. The punishment system is still unfair to one specific group of "offenders."

This already happens. The difference is that they don't cry about it on the boards because they don't have the same misguided web of support that verbal abusers seem to have.

They deserve permanent bans, but verbal abusers do not. Verbal abusers deserve punishment, but not permanent bans. I'm glad we cleared that up.

See you, thanks for understanding.

[slayer-jinx-catface]

RatbertFeb 1, 20161 votes

But riot doesn't want people to stop spending money, so they ban verbal abusers. what are you saying here?

They manage with bans and warnings. It's also delusional to think police can stop all crime, yet they still exist (and for good reason).

The punishments riot doles out for any reason are very well known, it doesn't matter how severe you think it is, because riot has the final say on length and severity of punishments. They consider verbal abuse permabannable, so here you are.

It's not unfair because you agreed to play by the rules and broke them, and agreed to let riot ban "your" account as they see fit.

tshu19875Feb 1, 20161 votes

He spent money on the game before and may have continued to spend more if he wasn't banned so what is your point?

RatbertFeb 1, 20162 votes

Because while riot wants spenders, they also want those that can act appropriately and within the given rules. I didn't really get his first point anyways.

tshu19875Feb 1, 20161 votes

His first point about League being a product?

MeilinIIFeb 1, 20161 votes

There's a point where RIOT loses more money from the players toxic assholes drive away than they make from asshole buying skins. This is the balance they strike when banning.

LukeTheSheppyJan 31, 20167 votes

Tell him to screenshot his logs and post them here. We'll wait.

iNazzJan 31, 20161 votes

If you're going to dismiss this post because I'm the banned player, you might as well stop reading right here and go back to playing.

First, it's cool that Riot doesn't actually care about improving their game's community by removing trolls, feeders, elitists, and other malicious and intentionally disrespectful people. They only care about banning people who get angry and lash out at said offenders.

I spent around 60 bucks on this game and played it for about 5 years. I'm only upset that Riot essentially took my money and kicked me out because I did not behave according to their hivemind. How long ago was 1984, again? Over three decades?

Just remember that the company does not care about you, the player and community, and only the money you may invest into their black hole of a video game. They don't care about improving the community, and choose to take the easy way out by making it seem as such. The hundreds of thousands of bans like this one are all they have to try and prove they're making their community a better place, when that is far from the case. I'm severely disappointed in the Tribunal and their moderating practices, and it's been that way since long before I was banned.

Thanks for the good times while they lasted.

LukeTheSheppyJan 31, 20168 votes

{quoted}

If you're going to dismiss this post because I'm the banned player, you might as well stop reading right here and go back to playing.

First, it's cool that Riot doesn't actually care about improving their game's community by removing trolls, feeders, elitists, and other malicious and intentionally disrespectful people. They only care about banning people who get angry and lash out at said offenders.

I spent around 60 bucks on this game and played it for about 5 years. I'm only upset that Riot essentially took my money and kicked me out because I did not behave according to their hivemind. How long ago was 1984, again? Over three decades?

Just remember that the company does not care about you, the player and community, and only the money you may invest into their black hole of a video game. They don't care about improving the community, and choose to take the easy way out by making it seem as such. The hundreds of thousands of bans like this one are all they have to try and prove they're making their community a better place, when that is far from the case. I'm severely disappointed in the Tribunal and their moderating practices, and it's been that way since I've been banned.

Thanks for the good times while they lasted.

This sounds like every banned post ever. I swear it must be a copypasta at this point.
If someone has to mute you, it means you were already a dick to them. Reporting you is just saving others from that treatment.
The amount of money and time you played is irrelevant.
If you want any traction in having others believe it's not justified, we will be happy if you'd post your reform card.

iNazzJan 31, 20161 votes

{quoted}

This sounds like every banned post ever. I swear it must be a copypasta at this point.

If someone has to mute you, it means you were already a dick to them. Reporting you is just saving others from that treatment.

The amount of money and time you played is irrelevant.

If you want any traction in having others believe it's not justified, we will be happy if you'd post your reform card.

"I see this all the time so it's irrelevant" - you
Everyone has access to the mute function.
Spoken like a true dedicated League of Legends player. Good on you, you're doing Riot's work for them.
The way I was being a dick to people is irrelevant.

Come at me with an actual attempt to debate the issue next time.

VyleExyleJan 31, 20166 votes

{quoted}

"I see this all the time so it's irrelevant" - you

Everyone has access to the mute function.

Spoken like a true dedicated League of Legends player. Good on you, you're doing Riot's work for them.

The way I was being a dick to people is irrelevant.

Come at me with an actual attempt to debate the issue next time.

You're putting words in his mouth
People shouldn't have to mute you
So people who understand the rules are just sheep
You're claiming you weren't that bad, so it's relevant
You started this with "my friend" because you are dishonest and don't want to be held accountable for your actions.

LukeTheSheppyJan 31, 20163 votes

{quoted}

You're putting words in his mouth

People shouldn't have to mute you

So people who understand the rules are just sheep

You're claiming you weren't that bad, so it's relevant

You started this with "my friend" because you are dishonest and don't want to be held accountable for your actions.

Jesus Christ I can here to respond to what he said but you did it for me. Thanks for that. :D

VyleExyleJan 31, 20163 votes

{quoted}

Jesus Christ I can here to respond to what he said but you did it for me. Thanks for that. :D

Anything else I can do for you while I'm at it?

LukeTheSheppyJan 31, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Anything else I can do for you while I'm at it?

Want to play Melee?

VyleExyleJan 31, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Want to play Melee?

Melee what?

LukeTheSheppyJan 31, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Melee what?

Super Smash Bros Melee

iNazzJan 31, 20161 votes

{quoted}

You're putting words in his mouth

People shouldn't have to mute you

So people who understand the rules are just sheep

You're claiming you weren't that bad, so it's relevant

You started this with "my friend" because you are dishonest and don't want to be held accountable for your actions.

That's exactly what he was implying. Just because you ignore an argument countless times does not discredit it. I thought that was obvious.
Then get rid of the mute function, if no one should ever have to mute anybody, right?
Learn to question things once in a while instead of accepting everything as "right" and "just" because big brother Riot tells you so.
That's not what I'm claiming at all.
I don't even know what you're talking about in this one.

I told you people to stop reading if you were just going to discredit my whole post since I was banned, but I guess you can't even get that far. Did I not make it clear? Sorry for making it difficult on you.

VyleExyleJan 31, 20161 votes

{quoted}

That's exactly what he was implying. Just because you ignore an argument countless times does not discredit it. I thought that was obvious.

Then get rid of the mute function, if no one should ever have to mute anybody, right?

Learn to question things once in a while instead of accepting everything as "right" and "just" because big brother Riot tells you so.

That's not what I'm claiming at all.

I don't even know what you're talking about in this one.

I told you people to stop reading if you were just going to discredit my whole post since I was banned, but I guess you can't even get that far. Did I not make it clear? Sorry for making it difficult on you.

Just no, you don't get to decide what someone else was implying if it isn't what they actually said. This garbage that you and your friend came here with is nothing out of the ordinary. He never called it irrelevant, but I will... You got banned for being, well, you.
Mute can have an appropriate use in other instances where it doesn't warrant a ban, like a group conversation that you find annoying/distracting but still isn't toxic or offensive. Some people use the mute function preemptively so their team doesn't get the better of them and cause them to rage (try it on your next account)
There are things to question, but the rules created by a private company in their private server just isn't it. This isn't 1700 Boston, you aren't a revolutionary, you are a customer (errr, former customer) of a company and you failed to follow the rules of their business model.
Actually, it's exactly what you and your "friend" are claiming, the title even says "Ban Not Justified." So people would like to see your reform card to determine if your van was, or was not justified, since justifying something is when you show proper cause, and we're assuming RIOT did in fact provide you with that information since you refused to share it.
I was accusing your "friend" of being you on a different account.

iNazzJan 31, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Just no, you don't get to decide what someone else was implying if it isn't what they actually said. This garbage that you and your friend came here with is nothing out of the ordinary. He never called it irrelevant, but I will... You got banned for being, well, you.

Mute can have an appropriate use in other instances where it doesn't warrant a ban, like a group conversation that you find annoying/distracting but still isn't toxic or offensive. Some people use the mute function preemptively so their team doesn't get the better of them and cause them to rage (try it on your next account)

There are things to question, but the rules created by a private company in their private server just isn't it. This isn't 1700 Boston, you aren't a revolutionary, you are a customer (errr, former customer) of a company and you failed to follow the rules of their business model.

Actually, it's exactly what you and your "friend" are claiming, the title even says "Ban Not Justified." So people would like to see your reform card to determine if your van was, or was not justified, since justifying something is when you show proper cause, and we're assuming RIOT did in fact provide you with that information since you refused to share it.

I was accusing your "friend" of being you on a different account.

I'm not deciding it...that's genuinely what he was implying. You can say it isn't, but just because that's not how you see it, that doesn't mean how it is.
The tools are there to stop letting your feelings be hurt without being passive-aggressive and reporting them, hoping the big meanie on the other side of the computer screen goes away.
So I need to be a revolutionary and start a big national movement to question the quality of a company's community management? I get it, now. Thanks for clarifying, you're such a great help.

Also, perm bans for "toxicity" is akin to men in suits from Activision marching into my room and snapping my Call of Duty game disk in half because I made fun of someone over the mic one too many times. Riot Games and Tencent are the only companies who support revoking access to a product, paid or not, on the grounds of inappropriate behavior, and it has not bettered the game in any way.

The ban, according to Riot's wonderful rule system (that still permits the trolls and feeders that reported me to play and cause more bans, mind you) will be justified no matter what evidence I present against it. In the gaming community as a whole, banning people over hurt feelings is never a justified act.
You're really tossing accusations at me, now? That's just cruel. I thought we could have a decent debate about this, but you don't seem interested. I won't waste my time if you're simply going to mull that situation in your head the whole time.

Thanks anyway.

TwigglesJan 31, 20163 votes

Riot Games and Tencent are the only companies who support revoking access to a product, paid or not, on the grounds of inappropriate behavior

Go to a theater, restaurant, bar, or just about anywhere and start causing trouble. Shouting obscenities and berating/belittling the people around you. You will eventually be removed from the premises, and you will not necessarily be entitled to a refund or even an eventual return to the property.

Theaters, office buildings, bars, and restaurants ban people based on their behavior, and League of Legends does as well. Undesirable elements are removed from the particular establishment in each of these instances. This, in turn, keeps the remainder of the establishment's employees and/or customers happier than if those undesirable elements were allowed to remain.

The ban, according to Riot's wonderful rule system (that still permits the trolls and feeders that reported me to play and cause more bans, mind you)

Trolls don't cause bans. Immature and knee-jerk reactions to trolls do. Grow up, learn some self-control, and own the consequences of your actions instead of blaming your own decisions on the actions of others.

banning people over hurt feelings is never a justified act.

Nice opinion there. Breaking the terms of service you agree to twice every patch is also never justified, but that didn't stop you.

Think of it this way. Riot bans one toxic pissant. That's one less customer. Alternatively, that one toxic pissant flames their games so hard that over the course of a month, they flame 5 other players into quitting the game entirely. That's 5 times as much potential revenue lost compared to just banning the one person. The decision there is easy.

And before you say "But the trolls who made me rage weren't banned!", re-read the bolded text above.

iNazzJan 31, 20161 votes

Please don't compare the casual and non-competitive atmospheres of "Theaters, office buildings, bars, and restaurants" to a competitive video game. It doesn't make any sense, since you're not on opposing teams to win a game while...watching a movie?

Trolls don't cause bans. Immature and knee-jerk reactions to trolls do. Grow up, learn some self-control, and own the consequences of your actions instead of blaming your own decisions on the actions of others.

So, trolls are the good guys, now? Their victims deserve the punishment, then? I understand, I'll remember to start trolling instead of telling the trolls to screw off. That's one way to grow up and self-improve. Your advice has opened up new doors for me.

Nice opinion there. Breaking the terms of service you agree to twice every patch is also never justified, but that didn't stop you.

There needs to be change. These terms of service are making victims of customers, holding accounts hostage and pushing their control over the consumer beyond what is acceptable for a video game.

Think of it this way. Riot bans one toxic pissant. That's one less customer. Alternatively, that one toxic pissant flames their games so hard that over the course of a month, they flame 5 other players into quitting the game entirely. That's 5 times as much potential revenue lost compared to just banning the one person. The decision there is easy.

That's what chat restrictions are for. To stop flaming. They normally succeed, and if they don't, then there are temporary suspensions and more restrictions. There are ways to keep "toxic pissants" and other players as your customers, without having to lose either of them.

TwigglesJan 31, 20163 votes

Please don't compare the casual and non-competitive atmospheres of "Theaters, office buildings, bars, and restaurants" to a competitive video game. It doesn't make any sense, since you're not on opposing teams to win a game while...watching a movie?

Venue is irrelevant. The principle is the same. You said no other company restricts access to their services based on behavior. I proved your statement incorrect. You saying it doesn't make any sense simply illustrates your lack of understanding in the discussion.

So, trolls are the good guys, now? Their victims deserve the punishment, then? I understand, I'll remember to start trolling instead of telling the trolls to screw off. That's one way to grow up and self-improve. Your advice has opened up new doors for me.

You took THIS from what I said?! XD Trolls are not the good guys. Their victims deserve punishment if they become a problem themselves rather than acting rationally and with maturity. Better answer: Ignore the trolls and report after the game. You telling them to screw off does literally nothing. What? You think they'll stop being mean because you asked? You clearly don't understand what growing up entails, and this particular bit of commentary from you only cements the idea that your ban was perfectly justified.

There needs to be change. These terms of service are making victims of customers, holding accounts hostage and pushing their control over the consumer beyond what is acceptable for a video game.

There only 'needs to be a change' because YOU were held accountable for your actions. The ToS are not making victims of customers. The trolls and ragers are. The distinction lies in how the victims handle their situations. Those that respond with more negativity make victims of others as well, becoming part of the overall problem. Those that respond by muting/ignoring and reporting are not punished, as they did everything they were supposed to without escalating the situation.

That's what chat restrictions are for. To stop flaming. They normally succeed, and if they don't, then there are temporary suspensions and more restrictions. There are ways to keep "toxic pissants" and other players as your customers, without having to lose either of them.

What might these "more restrictions" be? A ban seems perfectly reasonable for someone who regularly exhibits negative behaviors despite several warnings, but how would YOU handle those who don't respond to chat restrictions and temp bans?

iNazzJan 31, 20161 votes

Venue is irrelevant. The principle is the same. You said no other company restricts access to their services based on behavior. I proved your statement incorrect. You saying it doesn't make any sense simply illustrates your lack of understanding in the discussion.

You're cherrypicking. You're trying to use logical fallacies against me and failing, that much is obvious.

Their victims deserve punishment if they become a problem themselves rather than acting rationally and with maturity.

You're still blaming the victim for their own punishment.

Better answer: Ignore the trolls and report after the game. You telling them to screw off does literally nothing. What? You think they'll stop being mean because you asked? You clearly don't understand what growing up entails, and this particular bit of commentary from you only cements the idea that your ban was perfectly justified.

Oh boy, I could have a field day with this one. This could be applied to literally any other offense, yet only with verbal abusers does it apparently matter. Any troll who knows what they're doing knows how to avoid being punished despite reports. I could go troll by pretending to have a bad game right now and cost the whole team a win. Then you continue to attack my character further even during a civil discussion. Awfully mature of yourself, might I add.

There only 'needs to be a change' because YOU were held accountable for your actions. The ToS are not making victims of customers. The trolls and ragers are. The distinction lies in how the victims handle their situations. Those that respond with more negativity make victims of others as well, becoming part of the overall problem. Those that respond by muting/ignoring and reporting are not punished, as they did everything they were supposed to without escalating the situation.

Mum get the camera, here's another good one. By letting the trolls to remain and focusing on those raging at said trolls, they're banning more and more players as a result. Trolls just need to report their victim and move on to the next game, remaining unpunished. They create verbal abusers, and the abusers are banned while the troll keeps making more and more of them. I can use that logic too, see?

What might these "more restrictions" be? A ban seems perfectly reasonable for someone who regularly exhibits negative behaviors despite several warnings, but how would YOU handle those who don't respond to chat restrictions and temp bans?

I laid it out in another post that you already attempted (and failed) to rebuke.

TwigglesJan 31, 20162 votes

You're cherrypicking. You're trying to use logical fallacies against me and failing, that much is obvious.

You can call it what you want. All you can do is say "Nuh uh. That analogy doesn't work because it doesn't!" I've presented no fallacy here. You are simply refusing to acknowledge the point of the analogy.

You're still blaming the victim for their own punishment.

Yes. Because THEY are the ones who escalated the situation. The victims that handle the situation rationally are not punished, and in turn get the original offenders punished.

Oh boy, I could have a field day with this one. This could be applied to literally any other offense, yet only with verbal abusers does it apparently matter. Any troll who knows what they're doing knows how to avoid being punished despite reports. I could go troll by pretending to have a bad game right now and cost the whole team a win. Then you continue to attack my character further even during a civil discussion. Awfully mature of yourself, might I add.

It DOES in fact apply to any other offense and matters for each of them. Trolls get their due eventually, but don't come to the forums to whine about it because they don't have the same sickening support structure as verbal abusers. Further, I didn't 'attack your character.' You showed your immaturity with your comment and I called you out on it. You might be thinking, "Then maybe I should report you!" If we were in a game of League, you would probably be right. After all, I am continuing to post here knowing full well that nothing I say will change your mind and that you are determined to justify your poor behavior in any way you can. In fact, I might just stop responding after this post. You'll probably chock it up as some sort of victory. But at the end of the day, you are still banned and the game is slightly better off for it.

Mum get the camera, here's another good one. By letting the trolls to remain and focusing on those raging at said trolls, they're banning more and more players as a result. Trolls just need to report their victim and move on to the next game, remaining unpunished. They create verbal abusers, and the abusers are banned while the troll keeps making more and more of them. I can use that logic too, see?

Trolls are banned too. This has been explained to you several times now. Troll reports will do nothing if the victim reacts maturely to the situation. If they react by pointlessly flinging insults and making a bad situation worse, they will be rightfully dealt with. Preferably by a single chat restriction followed by the realization that they need to focus less on the troll and more on the game.

I'll finally end this little exchange by repeating some previously stated advice that I hope against all odds that you will take to heart.

Grow up, learn some self-control, and own the consequences of your actions instead of blaming your own decisions on the actions of others.

And now, I bid you good day, sir.

iNazzJan 31, 20161 votes

I've presented no fallacy here. You are simply refusing to acknowledge the point of the analogy.

Your analogy didn't rebuke any point to begin with, even if there wasn't any fallacies. You can't just say "Yuh huh my analogy works because it does!" See how that works?

Yes. Because THEY are the ones who escalated the situation. The victims that handle the situation rationally are not punished, and in turn get the original offenders punished.

All right, then how about this analogy, since you just love absurd analogies: Someone's being raped, and kill the rapist in self defense. They should be punished because they escalated the rape to a murder, right?

After all, I am continuing to post here knowing full well that nothing I say will change your mind and that you are determined to justify your poor behavior in any way you can. In fact, I might just stop responding after this post. You'll probably chock it up as some sort of victory. But at the end of the day, you are still banned and the game is slightly better off for it.

So you're dismissing the argument, now? Well, I suppose if you want to have called your time and effort wasted, then go ahead. You're determined to justify bad business practices and unfair punishment, and I guess that won't change. I might have lost my LoL account, but at least I kept my dignity by not putting up lame excuses for the Tribunal's punishment system. For all intents and purposes, I'm not in the wrong here, I don't even want unbanned, but the community will never improve as long as this system is in place. Riot can ban as many "toxic" players as they want to look good and attempt to fool people like you, but the reality is obvious to everyone else.

Grow up, learn some self-control, and own the consequences of your actions instead of blaming your own decisions on the actions of others.

What kind of self-righteous advice is that? You just completely ignored everything wrong with the Tribunal and scooted your own soapbox in here to preach in favor of your Chinese overlords. I don't know what you're trying to get out of it. I'll give you some in return, on the off-chance you might have been actually trying to help me:

Grow up, grow a pair, and learn that sticking up for yourself when you're wronged is always justified.

Bye.

CrisisEchoesJan 31, 20163 votes

{quoted}

Your analogy didn't rebuke any point to begin with, even if there wasn't any fallacies. You can't just say "Yuh huh my analogy works because it does!" See how that works?

All right, then how about this analogy, since you just love absurd analogies: Someone's being raped, and kill the rapist in self defense. They should be punished because they escalated the rape to a murder, right?

So you're dismissing the argument, now? Well, I suppose if you want to have called your time and effort wasted, then go ahead. You're determined to justify bad business practices and unfair punishment, and I guess that won't change. I might have lost my LoL account, but at least I kept my dignity by not putting up lame excuses for the Tribunal's punishment system. For all intents and purposes, I'm not in the wrong here, I don't even want unbanned, but the community will never improve as long as this system is in place. Riot can ban as many "toxic" players as they want to look good and attempt to fool people like you, but the reality is obvious to everyone else.

What kind of self-righteous advice is that? You just completely ignored everything wrong with the Tribunal and scooted your own soapbox in here to preach in favor of your Chinese overlords. I don't know what you're trying to get out of it. I'll give you some in return, on the off-chance you might have been actually trying to help me:

Grow up, grow a pair, and learn that sticking up for yourself when you're wronged is always justified.

Bye.

Kid, Toxicity ruins a team atmosphere. 2 people calling eachother "bitches, fuckers, ect," can be the difference between a winning game and a losing one. It makes people play worse, it makes everyone become distracted, and quite frankly, its a waste of time. Everyone else just sits by and shakes their head... Enjoy your ban, youve earned it. Sincerely, Reformed toxic player. [slayer-pantheon-thumbs]

TwigglesJan 31, 20162 votes

Your analogy didn't rebuke any point to begin with, even if there wasn't any fallacies. You can't just say "Yuh huh my analogy works because it does!" See how that works?

My analogy did rebuke a point. You are simply refusing to acknowledge that. And I quote from you: "Riot Games and Tencent are the only companies who support revoking access to a product, paid or not, on the grounds of inappropriate behavior"

I proved this incorrect. That much is certain. Moving on.

All right, then how about this analogy, since you just love absurd analogies: Someone's being raped, and kill the rapist in self defense. They should be punished because they escalated the rape to a murder, right?

Yes. In certain circumstances. However, there is an exception when there is no other choice for the victim. This is why I use analogies. I actually know how. In any assault situation, rape included, it is preferable to incapacitate the offender rather than kill them. This way, they are given a fair trial (and in most rape cases swiftly imprisoned and in some states executed). If killing the attacker is the only option, then so be it.

HOWEVER. In League of Legends, lashing out is never the only way out. In fact, it never solves anything. The proper response is muting/ignoring (similar in effect to incapacitating the example's rapist) and then reporting them (alerting the authorities). This way, the problem is addressed by the system (much like a judge in a courtroom) and the offender is punished with a chat restriction/ban (imprisoned/executed in the rape example).

So you're dismissing the argument, now? Well, I suppose if you want to have called your time and effort wasted, then go ahead. You're determined to justify bad business practices and unfair punishment, and I guess that won't change. I might have lost my LoL account, but at least I kept my dignity by not putting up lame excuses for the Tribunal's punishment system. For all intents and purposes, I'm not in the wrong here, I don't even want unbanned, but the community will never improve as long as this system is in place. Riot can ban as many "toxic" players as they want to look good and attempt to fool people like you, but the reality is obvious to everyone else.

I'm dismissing the argument because you never intended to entertain it in the first place. My time and effort was wasted from the beginning, and yet here I still am. I've explained why the business practices are fine in other posts in this thread (which you similarly ignored the entire point of). And I've also tried to explain how the punishment system is fine. The fact that people like yourself are banned is proof that it is working well and as intended. For all intents and purposes, you are in the wrong here. hence your ban. The only obvious reality here is that you simply can't accept that your words and actions have consequences and can only think to pass the blame to someone else.

Grow up, grow a pair, and learn that sticking up for yourself when you're wronged is always justified.

Let me just fix this for you. I'll start by repeating myself for the final time: Grow up, learn some self-control, and own the consequences of your actions instead of blaming your own decisions on the actions of others.

Verbally abusing other people in League is NEVER justified. Engaging in such behavior simply makes you a part of the overall problem.

And truly finally...

I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!

LF AnnieJan 31, 20161 votes

im lost, the OP has games played with the banned guy? explain point 5.

VyleExyleJan 31, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=LF Annie,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=9kpQIfe3,comment-id=00030000000000000002,timestamp=2016-01-31T17:33:10.770+0000)

im lost, the OP has games played with the banned guy? explain point 5.

I don't take the time to analyze every banned player's match history, so if you did thank you...

But my assumption was that he is writing it from another account, he was too "good cop, bad cop" where is friend stuck up for him but he was more nonchalant and OK with being banned

tshu19875Jan 31, 20161 votes

iNazz was not writing from another account. Geohazard is a friend of iNazz.

VyleExyleJan 31, 20161 votes

{quoted}

iNazz was not writing from another account. Geohazard is a friend of iNazz.

That's fine, I was just making an observation on the approach... That's all

tshu19875Jan 31, 20161 votes

If you just said you were making an observation why did you say "But my assumption was that he is writing it from another account, he was too "good cop, bad cop" where is friend stuck up for him but he was more nonchalant and OK with being banned" earlier

VyleExyleJan 31, 20161 votes

{quoted}

If you just said you were making an observation why did you say "But my assumption was that he is writing it from another account, he was too "good cop, bad cop" where is friend stuck up for him but he was more nonchalant and OK with being banned" earlier

Right, the observation about the style and approach led me to believe it was someone writing it from a different account.

After it was pointed out that the two accounts were definitely separate I left it at that. It was a simple assumption based on an observation.

Have you not seen the other people who come to the boards pleading for their other account back? I thought this was just a new approach on that method.

tshu19875Jan 31, 20161 votes

Given his previous comments on the board, why would you think he wants his account back?

VyleExyleJan 31, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Given his previous comments on the board, why would you think he wants his account back?

Because it appeared to be a good cop/bad cop routine, with the OP asking for the account to be reinstated (by saying the ban wasn't justified)

That was part of what led me to believe it was one person

tshu19875Jan 31, 20161 votes

He never asked for his account to be reinstated. His friend was only saying the permanent ban wasn't justified as the title of the post states

VyleExyleJan 31, 20161 votes

{quoted}

I keep telling you, based on the approach I assumed that's what they (what I thought was just him at the time) were going for.

You're really caught up on this... Is there something I can help you with?

Never mind, just realized they're your boys, so everything you say defending the guy who was so toxic he refuses to even try to defend the toxicity in his reform card is irrelevant.

Later!

tshu19875Jan 31, 20161 votes

We may be friends but I can't say he wasn't toxic as I have been more toxic than him sometimes. He just has a shorter fuse before he loses it on someone but he has a very competitive nature and doesn't like losing.