Boards›Player Behavior

Priorities.

rujitra··1 votes·1,210 views

This is not just my opinion but that which is a general understood consensus among many online communities I am or have been a part of.

You cannot solve problems by cutting the flowers off without uprooting the plant itself.

Riot has shown time and time again that they do not understand this proverb. If they did, why do players get permabanned for toxicity when they're responding to Riot's failure to ban players that are poisonous to the community?

Riot should implement a hard-line policy against intentional feeding, trolling, refusing to play role, etc. One warning after one bad game. After that one warning, any further trolling gets an instant permanent ban with no chance of appeal.

By actually solving the root problem of players that are allowed to stay in the community who, by their actions, cause toxicity, Riot would prevent most of the toxicity that occurs.

Thoughts?

Also, I'd love for anyone downvoting to post a logical argument as to why I'm wrong when I say Riot should focus more on punishing the actual toxic behavior and not those who are negatively affected by it. Anyone want to?

31 Comments

ModUlanopo8 votes

why do players get permabanned for toxicity when they're responding to Riot's failure to ban players that are poisonous to the community?

Because adding to toxicity is never acceptable. If two people get into a shouting match in a theater, they're both getting thrown out, regardless of who started it. Same principle applies here.

rujitra2 votes

But if one person incites the entire theater to get angry at them (or a large majority of them), does the theater throw everyone out, or do they find the instigator?

Furthermore, that principle would be great if both people actually got punished consistently. Riot has a problem where people who are provoked get punished but the provokers usually do not - regardless of whether this is due to the fact that the provoked is seen as more toxic or what, it is a horrible strategy.

ModUlanopo5 votes

It would be better to argue the idea rather than the analogy. It's clear you understand what I'm trying to say, so let's proceed from there.

Riot has a problem where people who are provoked get punished but the provokers usually do not

How do you support this claim other than anecdotally? Riot says that >60% of the toxicity in League comes from people who are not routinely toxic. That being the case, doesn't it seem that the frequency of one's toxicity is the more important statistic?

Further, Riot has explained that punishments - regardless of their specific nature - start at about 50% effectiveness, which degrades by about 50% each step from there (50% of punished players correct themselves, then 25%, then 12.5% and so on).

Taken together, this suggests that in the ballpark of only 1% of players get permabanned, which is consistent with what they tell us. Of those, do we honestly believe there are a significant number who would be good citizens of the League community but for being provoked? No, these are people who have been consistently toxic and have chosen not to change.

rujitra2 votes

However, why is it that the toxicity level is so high still? If 60% of toxicity in League comes from players not routinely toxic, why is it that there is still this toxicity? Theoretically, Riot would be interested in finding out why these 60% of players were provoked to be toxic that one/two games, and then fix that problem so there is no further problems.

I think you will find that for the 60% (majority) of toxicity that comes from players who were provoked, they were provoked by players who have been or were reported for their provocation. By having a hard line against this type of trolling/provocation/intentional feeding, they can get the truly bad players out of the community, and while the percentage (60%) of toxicity by one-time toxic players may stay the same, the overall level of toxicity will go down.

If you have two pipes, one bringing water, one bringing sewage, into a tank at a 5:1 ratio water:sewage, and the tank drains slowly enough that the level is constant, are you really doing any good by draining a little more of the sewage after it's polluted the water? Or would it not be better to turn off the pipe that's bringing the sewage into the tank? I know this analogy isn't the best, but it's the closest I can get to accurately describing my idea without being too convoluted to make any sense.

Also thanks for having a decent discussion with me instead of flaming, I appreciate it.

ModUlanopo4 votes

Theoretically, Riot would be interested in finding out why these 60% of players were provoked to be toxic that one/two games, and then fix that problem so there is no further problems.

I think this is a far more complex problem than you're giving it credit for.

I think you will find that for the 60% (majority) of toxicity that comes from players who were provoked, they were provoked by players who have been or were reported for their provocation.

That is an unsupported assumption. I could just as easily point out that my experience is that most of the toxicity I encounter comes from Dunning-Kreuger challenged tryhards and it would be no less anecdotal.

I understand and accept that toxicity comes from many places. I don't have answers for that. My job as an Arbiter boils down to helping people look at behavior and situations from a new angle in the hopes they keep their account. As I frequently tout, your feelings are always valid, it's what you do with them that counts.

In this case, trying to argue that toxic behavior should be tolerated because it's "provoked" isn't going to fly. Both Riot and the community have been highly consistent on what they are not willing to tolerate and "two people bitching it out in the middle of a match" is high on that list.

In fact, if you want an interesting perspective on how individuals and communities express their values, I highly recommend Malcolm Gladwell's TED talk on "the perfect pasta sauce." Unfortunately, I have to get back to Iron Fist. This Netflix ain't gonna binge itself!

rujitra1 votes

I have never said that people's negative speech should be written off if it was provoked. I have said that Riot should focus more on the provocation than on the negative speech. When tribunal was around, it was common to see cases where intense provocation was given a pass by the community. This is why Tribunal was the only way that Riot could truly ensure the community was in charge. Two people bitching it out is much different from one person responding to trolling.

ModUlanopo3 votes

When tribunal was around, it was common to see cases where intense provocation was given a pass by the community.

I beg to differ. Yes, it happened, but it was rare.

Two people bitching it out is much different from one person responding to trolling.

In what way? I used to express it thus:

Timmy, Tommy and Sarah are trapped in an elevator. Timmy loses his temper and soils himself. Tommy gets angry at the smell and decides to retaliate by soiling himself. Now Sarah is trapped with two smelly idiots. Don't be Timmy or Tommy. Stop ****ing your pants.

Explain your position to me from Sarah's perspective.

rujitra1 votes

Sarah sees a troll. Sarah is angered by the troll. Sarah also sees someone getting verbally angry at the troll. Sarah understands, because Sarah is human, that it is human nature to get angry at the troll. Sarah does not get mad at Tommy for getting mad at Trolly, and recognizes that Trolly was the problem that caused her game to be ruined, not Tommy.

That's simple logic. Removing Tommy from the game, Sarah's game still would've been ruined by Trolly, 100%. Trolly would troll regardless of Tommy getting irate. However, by removing Trolly, there's at least a 50/50 chance that Tommy wouldn't have become irate (based upon the number of reformed toxic players given by Riot itself). Thus, by banning Trolly from riding the elevator after one trolly game, Tommy will have less of a likelihood of becoming toxic because of a troll. Thus, Sarah and Tommy both are able to keep playing good games, keeping two good members of the community around who both want to just have fun.

ModUlanopo2 votes

Except there's only a 16% chance that both Timmy and Tommy are both routinely toxic players and there's absolutely no evidence that Tommy isn't the more toxic of the two. Timmy is not necessarily a troll any more than Timmy is not one.

Again, you can't just assert the existence of a group of players that would not be toxic at all if they weren't goaded into it by a "real" toxic player. Assuming that both Timmy and Tommy both catch an IFS review, we have to understand they're both toxic far more often than they should be.

Further, history (in the form of Tribunal records and statements by Riot) shows that the image of Sarah being somehow tolerant or understanding of Tommy's behavior is also a myth. We've all had the game where Timmy starts ranting for whatever reason. In my experience - which is only as good as my perception and objectivity - Timmy can be survived and most people just batten down the hatches and try to wait him out.

It's when Tommy arrives on the scene that the situation becomes well and truly screwed. Combine this with the fact that there can be as many as three Sarahs and you can see how there is likely a sizeable population that has absolutely zero fucks to give about who "started it".

Finally, there's the question of "justified behavior". There are lots of studies that show how allowing an exception, especially for yourself, doesn't help maintain discipline. Instead, it erodes it. For example, "cheat days" are absolutely terrible for dieters. Even if the community were to suddenly become more tolerant of the Tommys, the community would not be served by granting them a pass on their behavior.

I think that's an essential problem most people don't consider: the moment you start saying that certain situations justify negative behavior is the moment people start looking to expand those criteria. Case-in-point: Florida's experiences with the expanded definition of the Castle Doctrine leading to highly questionable "self-defense" killings.

scazzman1 votes

{quoted}

Except there's only a 16% chance that both Timmy and Tommy are both routinely toxic players and there's absolutely no evidence that Tommy isn't the more toxic of the two. Timmy is not necessarily a troll any more than Timmy is not one. m Again, you can't just assert the existence of a group of players that would not be toxic at all if they weren't goaded into it by a "real" toxic player. Assuming that both Timmy and Tommy both catch an IFS review, we have to understand they're both toxic far more often than they should be.

Further, history (in the form of Tribunal records and statements by Riot) shows that the image of Sarah being somehow tolerant or understanding of Tommy's behavior is also a myth. We've all had the game where Timmy starts ranting for whatever reason. In my experience - which is only as good as my perception and objectivity - Timmy can be survived and most people just batten down the hatches and try to wait him out.

It's when Tommy arrives on the scene that the situation becomes well and truly screwed. Combine this with the fact that there can be as many as three Sarahs and you can see how there is likely a sizeable population that has absolutely zero fucks to give about who "started it".

Finally, there's the question of "justified behavior". There are lots of studies that show how allowing an exception, especially for yourself, doesn't help maintain discipline. Instead, it erodes it. For example, "cheat days" are absolutely terrible for dieters. Even if the community were to suddenly become more tolerant of the Tommys, the community would not be served by granting them a pass on their behavior.

I think that's an essential problem most people don't consider: the moment you start saying that certain situations justify negative behavior is the moment people start looking to expand those criteria. Case-in-point: Florida's experiences with the expanded definition of the Castle Doctrine leading to highly questionable "self-defense" killings.

there actually is a VERY high percentage of players who are toxic, but outside of chat, and almost impossible to punish

examples include

  • Ping spam
  • voting no on surrenders not because they are trying to win, but just to prevent people from leaving
  • doing the opposite of anything pinged or said in chat
  • not trying to lose but playing "half assed"
  • Anivia TahmKench Bard
  • "soft" inting
  • afk farming
ModUlanopo1 votes

Riot's statements about intermittent toxicity were not limited to chat offenses.

scazzman1 votes

{quoted}

Riot's statements about intermittent toxicity were not limited to chat offenses.

Okay. But im sure it doesn't take into account the massive amount of people who are able to be toxic and avoid getting banned

This Is Your Dad1 votes

{quoted}

I beg to differ. Yes, it happened, but it was rare.

In what way? I used to express it thus:

Timmy, Tommy and Sarah are trapped in an elevator. Timmy loses his temper and soils himself. Tommy gets angry at the smell and decides to retaliate by soiling himself. Now Sarah is trapped with two smelly idiots. Don't be Timmy or Tommy. Stop ****ing your pants.

Explain your position to me from Sarah's perspective.

Timmy, Tommy and Sarah are trapped in an elevator because Tommy cut the power to be a jerk. Timmy saw Tommy cut the power, and starts yelling at him. Sarah gets mad at Timmy for yelling at Tommy, not realizing that Tommy cut the power. Timmy takes the blame, and Tommy laughs at him when Sarah looks away.

PlsTouchMeGently1 votes

Complete side note: how is Iron Fist? A lot of people I know are saying its pretty terrible.

ModUlanopo1 votes

I'm finding the plot to be predictable and uninteresting, the characters to be flat and the pacing to be simply awful.

PlsTouchMeGently1 votes

Ugh that's too bad. I really had high hopes for it.

EvilDustMan6 votes

Because feeders and AFKers aren't the only thing that cause toxicity.

Some people are just assholes because things aren't going their way.

rujitra2 votes

However, the vast majority of toxic games (at least in lower elos where 50+% of the players lie) are due to either someone who is trolling, refusing to play their role, intentionally feeding, or otherwise causing negativity.

The definition of "toxic" is something that poisons a community. People getting angry at people instigating trouble is not toxic. People instigating trouble is toxic.

Analogy: When you go to the doctor with a cough and a runny nose, does the doctor immediately prescribe you antibiotics? no. The doctor finds the root cause of the problem and treats that.

EvilDustMan4 votes

{quoted}

However, the vast majority of toxic games (at least in lower elos where 50+% of the players lie) are due to either someone who is trolling, refusing to play their role, intentionally feeding, or otherwise causing negativity.

[Citation Needed]

rujitra1 votes

This isn't Wikipedia. No citation is needed as this is a forum where we all state our opinions.

I have never experienced a toxic game that has not had one of the players above. In a survey of many people from various circles that I know in real life (but do not play League with), including people from Bronze through Gold and people who don't play ranked at all, they all express this problem. Toxicity is behavior, not speech. Behavior that causes so called "toxic" speech from others is the real problem that Riot avoids by taking the "easy" road and punishing those who they can CTRL-F bad words in the chat logs in 25 seconds or less.

This is the same as in real life. (most) People are not inherently bad or negative. They may be inherently selfish, but not inherently abrasive.

Great Muta2 votes

You are really hitting the nail on the head tonight man and I love it. It's so great to finally see some people around here are looking at the roots of the problem.

Totally agreed.

Riot isn't consistent enough, swift enough or hard enough on people who break the rules.

This is how it goes:

  1. Player A sees Player B break the rules and reports him

  2. Player B doesn't get banned and keeps on breaking the rules

  3. Player A sees that nothing is going to happen, so he starts breaking the rules.

  4. And before you know it, Player C sees Player A breaking the rules and sees nothing happens after a report and then repeats steps 1-3.

This is the most toxic game and it does the most to stop toxicity, but yet stays the most toxic game. It's not the players as the same people play DOTA, OW, HOTS and CSGO, it's the system.

And truthfully, the problem has gone on so long and is such a parasite that even being hard on the rules wouldn't change a thing for a few seasons, because everyone knows this system is a joke.

rujitra2 votes

Even though it will take time, if Riot does not fix the underlying problems, they will continue to get worse until League of Legends has a reputation like that of Omegle/ChatRoulette - nobody wants to admit they play it, and few people start playing it because the community is so horrible that nobody can stand it.

KORGtuners1 votes

We know that most negativity in game comes from a misstep, not a commitment to ruining games for people.

Riot Gromp/Simurgh

http://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/2017/01/ask-riot-banished-to-prisoners-island/

rujitra1 votes

If they claim to know this, then why do they avoid harsh punishments on people who obviously try to ruin games (such as trolls/feeders)?

EvilDustMan4 votes

{quoted}

If they claim to know this, then why do they avoid harsh punishments on people who obviously try to ruin games (such as trolls/feeders)?

They don't avoid it. Feeders can get 14 day bans for one game of intentional feeding.

rujitra1 votes

The system tells players when their recent reports have influenced a decision on punishment of a player. Either Riot has this disabled for manual bans or intentional feeding punishment, they ignore reports, or (likely) their standard for trolling is much too low.

"Can get", I agree with. However, it does not happen in practice as often as it should. Intentional feeding reports by even one player should trigger a review of the game in question, and if the player was trolling, refusing to play role, or intentionally feeding (should be expanded to include refusing to listen to team pings regarding not going in, etc), they should be immediately permanently banned. There is no reason Riot should be giving people a 2 week slap on the wrist for things as serious as that which, as Riot says, have an effect on 9 other people. There is a mute button for people who are offended by chat. There is no mute for a player's 10 deaths giving the other team a gold advantage.

KORGtuners1 votes

The age old excuse, "I was just having a bad game". Riot doesn't want to ban players just because they had a bad game.

Throw in a zero tolerance for verbal offenses policy and you end up with the current system.

Magical Player1 votes

https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/ornamental/trees/tgen/how-to-kill-a-tree-killing-trees-in-your-garden.htm

"You cannot solve problems by cutting the flowers off without uprooting the plant itself."

you actually can So i'm gonna say this its not black and white everything is grey the dark the grey the closer it is to black the lighter the grey the closer it is to white but it is all still grey

I down voted because you seem to wanted to hear someone who disagrees with you I personally don't care about up or downvotes But you're wanting black and white when reality its all so so so grey

Magical Player1 votes

[slayer-pantheon-thumbs]

Bettnachleger1 votes

In my over 5k games I had like 20 int feeder at max. But I'm pretty sure I had MUCH MUUUUUUUUUUUCH more assholes who flamed the whole game. So what's your point? Most toxic player are assholes. nothing else. They don't need some intentionally feeding people to flame other ... They just do it because ... they are assholes-

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 rujitra

the dumbest thing i've heard today
Player Behavior50 comments
58
votes
“In the real world”
Player Behavior74 comments
23
votes
User deletion of posts
Discuss the Boards32 comments
18
votes
Boards Spam
Discuss the Boards34 comments
17
votes
Player admits to board smurfing
Discuss the Boards61 comments
17
votes
League is for fun
Player Behavior28 comments
11
votes