Boards›Player Behavior

More specific rules?

XinZhao2WinNhao··2 votes·515 views

I think its better to have specific rules that actually tell us what we can and can't do rather than the generic "don't be a jerk", "don't be verbally abusive", etc. It's too much up to personal interpretation here.

The supreme court has 9 highly expert people who have studied almost everything about the constitution and that's what they dedicate their entire career to interpreting. There are also other branches to check and balance them. And even with all the checks and balances, there are still a lot of questions left over.

I'm going to guess that the rioters who deal with player behavior and forum moderators don't have the time to dedicate their entire career towards interpreting the rules and voting on this stuff since most rioters who deal with player behavior also do other things like maybe programming and many moderators have day jobs. It would be quite ridiculous to expect a video game to spend as much time interpreting the rules as the supreme court spends on the constitution.

So let's not leave it up to interpretation and have strictly defined rules rather than the generic "Don't be a jerk" because what is a jerk, or "verbal abuse" to 1 person might just be regular constructive criticism to another. There are people who consider things like duo mid to be assisting the enemy team or trolling, and sadly, the new dynamic queue system makes it impossible to duo mid without being called a troll, which furthers this interpretation. Dota has the same issue. Some people consider using an ult to KS as "ability abuse" while others call it kill secure.

The problem with all such games is the wide interpretation of the rules that everyone differs on.

9 Comments

Malhammers1 votes

Riot has said that "anything you wouldn't say at a loved one's funeral is considered punishable."

Which I think is bullshit...I wouldn't fart at my loved ones funeral..does that mean I will get punished for farting during a league match?

XinZhao2WinNhao1 votes

{quoted}

Riot has said that "anything you wouldn't say at a loved one's funeral is considered punishable."

And different cultures have different funeral customs. In funerals of some cultures, it's customary to actually roast the recently departed, for example. They view it as a way to celebrate their living life in a humorous way rather than focus on their death.

And what about nonverbal stuff? Like Duo mid? Some people consider duo mid trolling, and others consider it nonmeta. The new system seems to confirm that duo mid is trolling since the dynamic queue only allows for 1 mid, but riot has said they don't punish nonmeta. However if the system gave me mid and someone else wanted to join me mid I might not be too happy about that if I was prepared to be 1 solo mid game and everyone was prepared for that. But the system kinda pidgeonholed us into this meta, and Riot said they don't enforce the meta???? So that's another thing for debate.

No flash no life1 votes

While I did read the terms at some point, I admit when I first joined and played this game I didn't bother to read before I pressed the Agree button.

However, even then I still knew what's generally acceptable and what's not. It's not even about riot being too broad or specific. If you can't tell what's going to offend others and what isn't then you're going to have issue adapting to common sense in life.

XinZhao2WinNhao1 votes

[{quoted}](name=No flash no life,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AJBhKmcf,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2016-03-10T23:49:22.292+0000)

While I did read the terms at some point, I admit when I first joined and played this game I didn't bother to read before I pressed the Agree button.

However, even then I still knew what's generally acceptable and what's not. It's not even about riot being too broad or specific. If you can't tell what's going to offend others and what isn't then you're going to have issue adapting to common sense in life.

It's not always about offending people, though there are people who get offended by the most trivial of things, but that's another topic.

For example, the no naming and shaming rule. Right now the rule says "no naming and shaming." I posted a match history link only (yes, the names are there, but I didn't shame anyone), I did not mention any behaviors or shame anyone, only that "it is possible to have a score of 21/19" which is my own score and not anyone else's. According to the mods, that constitutes as "naming and shaming" because everyone else's name is on there, but I find that to be a rather inaccurate interpretation of the rule, and while I accept it because they were hired to run the site and I can't change anything about the rules or their interpretation, I can't help but feel upset about the lack of clarity in the rules there and I personally believe that that interpretation is bull since it's "naming and shaming" and there was no actual shaming taking place.

now, if they had a rule that actually said "you are not allowed to name anyone else in any way or link to anything that has others' names in it", (that would be a crappy rule, but at least it's clear and we would know what is expected of us) at least I would not feel like the mods are using loopholes in the wording of the rule to suit their own goals.

No flash no life1 votes

{quoted}

I posted a match history link only (yes, the names are there, but I didn't shame anyone), I did not mention any behaviors or shame anyone, only that "it is possible to have a score of 21/19" which is my own score and not anyone else's. According to the mods, that constitutes as "naming and shaming"

Point well made and I vaguely remember that discussion. If I remember correctly, the mods explained that linking to history itself wasn't the issue but the context seemed to suggest that someone else in that game history performed poorly, though I don't recall such context so either I'm missing out details or it wasn't explained clear enough.

Regardless though, I doubt they'd list spcifics since chances are by doing so ppl would find their way to do things that aren't listed but would otherwise fall under naming&shaming. While we may see frustrating cases like yours, we'll just have to judge whether we're stepping into the danger zone or not.

XinZhao2WinNhao1 votes

[{quoted}](name=No flash no life,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AJBhKmcf,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2016-03-11T01:26:33.484+0000)

Point well made and I vaguely remember that discussion. If I remember correctly, the mods explained that linking to history itself wasn't the issue but the context seemed to suggest that someone else in that game history performed poorly, though I don't recall such context so either I'm missing out details or it wasn't explained clear enough.

No, the mods said that I was hinting that someone was behaving badly.

I never hinted even close to that.

I quoted "how do you go 21/19" and I posted 2 match histories where my score was the only one close to 21/19. I never said that anyone was intentionally feeding or that they were breaking the rules or behaving bad, I just said that the score is possible.

No flash no life1 votes

{quoted}

I quoted "how do you go 21/19" and I posted 2 match histories where my score was the only one close to 21/19. I never said that anyone was intentionally feeding or that they were breaking the rules or behaving bad

Ah ic, and I might have an idea where the mod got the impression from. In your match history there could be ppl who got scores way, way worse than 21/19. By providing those links and quoting that phrase, it can be intepreted as following:

  • 21/19 is such a bad score, "how do you go 21/19"? How is it even possible?
  • How is it possible? Look, these ppl I played with/against got scores even worse than what seems to be impossible. AHAHAHAHAHAHA

Maybe this is a bit far fetched, but it's the closest relation I can think of.

XinZhao2WinNhao1 votes

[{quoted}](name=No flash no life,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=AJBhKmcf,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2016-03-11T03:25:12.646+0000)

Ah ic, and I might have an idea where the mod got the impression from. In your match history there could be ppl who got scores way, way worse than 21/19. By providing those links and quoting that phrase, it can be intepreted as following:

  • 21/19 is such a bad score, "how do you go 21/19"? How is it even possible?
  • How is it possible? Look, these ppl I played with/against got scores even worse than what seems to be impossible. AHAHAHAHAHAHA

Maybe this is a bit far fetched, but it's the closest relation I can think of.

Yes, that's probably what the mods assumed, they assumed I was accusing my teammates of intentionally feeding.

That's what I mean by the problem with open interpretation -> the constant issue of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. I think clearer rules for this example would be like:

-"Naming and shaming is considered naming and shaming if an average league player can look at the post and identify which person or group of people are being named specifically, and how exactly they are being shamed."

or "Do not post someone's name in the same post that you are discussing a behavioral issue."

or even "Do not post anyone's name in posts. Period."

All 3 of them are different rules, but any of the 3 would be clear rules that we would then understand clearly, and not feel like we are being unfairly short-changed by a misunderstanding.

But anyways, this isn't the only problem with open-interpretation rules.

Take the duo mid issue.

Riot says they won't enforce the meta. But they created Dynamic queue. Which enforces the meta.

So let's say you don't want to enforce the meta. What if someone queues for mid in dynamic queue, and someone else decides to go mid with them? That would piss the first mid laner off if he expected to solo mid. But can he report the other guy for duo mid? After all, you're not supposed to enforce the meta.

But what if you want to enforce the meta? Then it would be a blatant lie when Riot said they won't enforce the meta. A lot of nonmeta players, including myself, would be quite upset at this.

XinZhao2WinNhao1 votes

For the people who said "You should know what offends other people" realize that there are people who consider champion mastery offensive and would actually get upset about someone showing a champion mastery.

More from Player Behavior

The indefinite banning of Tyler1
Player Behavior4,799 comments
2,942
votes
14 day ban because playing Nunu Support with Smite is "stealing other people's roles"...?
Player Behavior1,525 comments
1,086
votes
Riot should add monthly status cards
Player Behavior241 comments
843
votes
Reminder that we haven't gotten our Summoner report cards yet :/
Player Behavior145 comments
619
votes
I'm not "triggered" by you throwing insults.
Player Behavior361 comments
548
votes
Black Alistar, King Rammus!!!!
Player Behavior462 comments
503
votes

More by XinZhao2WinNhao

Get rid of the "naming and shaming" designation for public streamers and YouTubers
Player Behavior18 comments
68
votes
Can we have a bronze border next season?
Gameplay133 comments
54
votes
Please show all the chat logs of everyone in the ban feedback
Player Behavior34 comments
16
votes
Game Times are Shorter than Ever... Queue times longer than ever
Gameplay4 comments
15
votes
PSA to garen players
Gameplay22 comments
11
votes
As a midlaner, I love ganking for bot lane
Gameplay14 comments
11
votes