Boards›Player Behavior

Riot, your punishment system is counterproductive, and here's why.

TheWizardM·6/6/2018, 9:10:27 PM·2 votes·1,390 views

(For those who have read my recent comments on the board, this is basically summing those points up in a post rather than a comment, as so far my posts have said half the story and my comments the rest, which isn't really useful for bringing a point across)

It is vague. It is vague as to why you're getting punished, it doesn't provide a warning when you break the rules in a way that is not severe enough for a punishment. This vagueness results in the system being perceived as random - after all, this is exactly the same way rng works on a pc. A pc never actually generates a random number (or at least, most pcs don't. Some pcs, mostly those used for either scientific purposes or in some cases game servers use hardware rng), instead, it follows a pattern that is hard to track, and conceals this pattern to the end user. A system that is percieved as rng has the exact same impact on a user as actual rng. Combine that with harsh punishments and no visible strike system, and you got League's punishment system.

Now you may be wondering why it matters if the punishment system can be percieved as rng by those punished? After all, it still punishes those who break the rules, right? Yes, it still punishes those who break the rules, but the point of a punishment system is not to punish, it is to prevent repetition, and this is where League's system fails. It gives little feedback as to why a person got punished specifically. It often provides 1-3 chat logs, leaving the player to figure out where they actually went wrong. Some players will think "hey, I got punished, but he said some of the same stuff, but he didn't!" and conclude that it's random. This will either make them more toxic, as, to them, it feels like it doesn't affect the risk of getting punished whatsoever, or, combined with the harsh punishments, it makes them fear chatting altogether, as who knows what might trigger the system!

Here's a few examples of systems that, as far as I can tell, work better:

  1. Three strike system (or any other number). In a three strike system, players won't feel cheated when they get their first warning, and they get another chance afterwards in case they didn't fully udnerstand what triggered the first warning.
  2. Scalable punishment system (where the punishment scales with severity, not with wheter you got punished before). Even if when you get punished might feel random, the severity will not. Over time players will conclude that yes, being more toxic does result in worse punishments, which in turn makes them less likely to be toxic in the future.
  3. Visible point system. In this system, each infraction gives a set amount of points, rather than a game as a whole causing a punishment, reaching a set amount of points does. This makes it easier for players to figure out what not to do, and removes any feeling of randomness.

All three of these systems have some visible leeway, which can be abused to some extend, but up to a limit, which, in my opinion, is better than what we currently have.

47 Comments

ModThe Djinn6/6/2018, 9:15:49 PM8 votes

We effectively have your second proposed system, because more serious behavior will get you an escalated punishment. The only difference is that currently repeat behavior without Improvement will increase your punishment. It will do so predictably and reliably, unless your behavior is severe enough to warrant an escalation.

The reason it does this is that taking the proposal exactly as you made it there would result in a lot of low-grade toxicity that will never be removed from the community because it will simply keep getting chat restrictions.

Zombie Gerbil6/6/2018, 9:22:17 PM7 votes

The system itself is fine. The reason why it's not all that understood is due to players who are trying to bend the rules or find the loophole without getting a penalty. The majority of toxic players on the internet dislike the fact that they can't understand the system, because they don't want to give up the freedom of insulting players and saying what they want without facing the consequences. Because they're so used to the safeguard the internet itself provides for them. The system is best at being vague and being unknown for the benefit for the community who doesn't play this game insulting every single member of the player base.

You also have to realize how many players play this game. The reason why the number of punishments is so high is that we're getting a lot of players every day who disregards the Terms of Use they agreed to before they download the game. They see other players insulting them and saying what they want, and then they believe they can say or do the same thing. And since riot doesn't really always let players know when other players are penalized, they tend to believe they're in the safe too.

Just don't be an asshole. You're either part of the game or part of the problem. Be part of the game and you have nothing to worry about.

KZ Engel6/6/2018, 9:20:10 PM2 votes

"here's why" threads are just as cringe-inducing as "let's talk about" threads jesus christ

AeroWaffle6/6/2018, 9:20:48 PM2 votes

At the end of the day some people will refuse to see their own behavior as the problem. The system only gives you your chat logs when you're punished, making it clear that only your chat logs matter. You have support and these boards to post your logs so that you can get answers from other players. But none of that can force a player to recognize themselves as the problem.

Removing the punishment for repeat offenders comes with the problem that some jerks will just constantly act like a jerk, knowing that they'll have no more than a chat restriction. If you have no intention of behaving it's time to harsher punishments because obviously the previous ones wasn't a clear enough message for the player.

If you make a visible point system it starts giving trolls the power to behave poorly in ways that the system didn't detect. You also encourage the idea that acting like a jerk is okay so long as you're low on the point value. People will see that they're low and decide that they're safe to behave like an asshole for a game.

Jamaree6/6/2018, 9:17:26 PM2 votes

It is vague on purpose, it has to be, the moment they let down set rules people will go out of their way to be destructive as possible while staying within the rules. Just don’t be a dick and you are fine.

We already have a three strikes system, that is why the punishment slowly ramps up to permanent ban rather then start there.

They won’t make it scale because hen players will just keep doing that low tier stuff still being toxic but never being truly punished. Like let’s say I stole from a store and every time I got punished my only punishment was an hour in the mall security room and that was it, why would I stop stealing?

Then toxic players are just going to dance on that line of being toxic then.

Or people could stop flaming each other, that works too.

Kei1436/6/2018, 9:31:07 PM1 votes

If Riot were to add visibility to the system that shows the toxicity score that increases and decays, I would want the syatem to show decay to be super slow and the increase to be accelerated for the toxics that try to game the system. As in the ones that are toxic, then don't say anything for a bunch of games and then go back to toxic again once the decay has settled.

But that's just a change in the mathematical formula. The visibility part is the thing of main concern, and it needs to be clear that Riot doesn't take it easy on people that try to game the system.

TheWizardM6/6/2018, 9:40:38 PM1 votes

I got this strange feeling very few people read the entirety of my post.

Umbral Regent6/6/2018, 9:40:38 PM1 votes

It is vague. It is vague as to why you're getting punished, it doesn't provide a warning when you break the rules in a way that is not severe enough for a punishment.

I don't think it's vague at all about why a player gets punished. It shows the chat log(s) that resulted in the punishment, the only way it could be seen as vague is if the player themselves couldn't piece together the problem or look at their chat critically.

98% of the time, the why of a punishment is abundantly clear. Whether it comes down to attitude throughout a match or direct statements to belittle or attack another player, the IFS provides ample reason for the punishments it delivers.

Granted, one could argue that it could be much clearer about the punishments (highlighting strings of text that lend themselves to the punishment), but all said, it can't be said that the IFS is vague. It's more that people have a hard time understanding what they're doing wrong.

(human nature is a hell of a thing.)

As for warnings - I'm not sure where I stand on that. It could certainly benefit players to know when their behavior is starting to teeter into punishment territory, but at the same time, warnings would have to be delivered pretty much exactly like punishments are - showing recent chat logs to indicate misbehavior.

Otherwise, the warnings themselves would be considered "vague", and disregarded because there's no indication that they're actually misbehaving. And if the warnings were delivered as chat logs, that would inevitably cause confusion as well, as inevitably, there will be people misconstruing the warnings as actual punishments.

At the end of the day, players should be expected to know what's within acceptable bounds. I don't think there's really a place for warnings when there's a standard of sportsmanship in play.

Some players will think "hey, I got punished, but he said some of the same stuff, but he didn't!" and conclude that it's random.

I've never seen someone conclude that the IFS is random due to them getting punished for chat similar to another player. I've seen people argue that it's "Rito favoritism/double-standards" etc., or trying to rationalize that "they should be punished if I got punished" (ignoring the fact that the players very likely already have been punished), and they try to deflect their punishment as system bias more than actual error on their part.

Three strike system (or any other number). In a three strike system, players won't feel cheated when they get their first warning, and they get another chance afterwards in case they didn't fully udnerstand what triggered the first warning.

If people have a hard time understanding what they did wrong when they get punished for it, how exactly are they expected to understand the issue when they're not punished, when they're given chance after chance after chance, to look over their chat and see what's getting them punished warned in the first place?

Scalable punishment system (where the punishment scales with severity, not with wheter you got punished before). Even if when you get punished might feel random, the severity will not. Over time players will conclude that yes, being more toxic does result in worse punishments, which in turn makes them less likely to be toxic in the future.

The issue with this is that it reads as much, much more lenient to repeat offenders than the current system. If someone's consistently negative, but only getting minor punishments, I doubt it'd register that being more toxic will get them worse punishments - because they're only warranting the lower tier of punishment, and have no reason to expect anything more severe.

And, where do you draw the line with this? Three low-tier CR's, then start giving higher punishments? Eventually, the tolerance for "lighter" negativity will just decrease, and we'll be left with a drawn-out version of the current IFS. At that point - what is the point of punishments scaling based on severity? You either have a limit on infractions, or you have people who are perpetually suffering lighter punishments with no reason to improve and no reason to expect things to get worse.

Visible point system. In this system, each infraction gives a set amount of points, rather than a game as a whole causing a punishment, reaching a set amount of points does. This makes it easier for players to figure out what not to do, and removes any feeling of randomness.

While this isn't a thing yet as far as I know, I do know that someone (I think it was Kei143? One of the PB regulars, anyway. 90% sure it's Kei.) explains the IFS as being a point-system in nature. Which, it does make sense - continuous lighter infractions will build up points to a cap and result in a punishment, and certain behaviors (zero tolerance) rack up points over the cap and result in escalations, etc.

The issue, though, with a point system (or general details of how punishments are delivered) being visible is that people will abuse that information to try and game the system and avoid punishment, rather than actually try to follow the rules and not have to dance around punishable behavior or play a game of meters and point values.

HalcyonDweller6/6/2018, 10:01:59 PM1 votes

The system isn't consistent with telling us when a player we report gets punished. We often have no way of knowing what Riot did with them. So comparing oneself to the other player is pointless and silly. It's not random if they get punished, it's only random if you are told that they get punished.

We aren't entitled to know what happens to the player we reported. Riot doesn't owe it to us to tell us exactly what happens to them. Not only would that violate player privacy, it would be pointless anyways because we should only try to change our own in-game behavior, not the in-game behavior of others.