Accidental Courtesy: Daryl Davis, Race & America

KORGtuners·Mar 23, 2017·4 votes·411 views

The thread title is a documentary movie.

The movie shows Daryl reforming some of the most toxic people by using the power of compassion.

The movie is a testament to the buddhist teaching: "Love alone from hatred releases." And the christian teaching: "Love thy enemy".

Do you have Ideas on how Riot can use compassion to reform toxic players?

Edit: Daryl says, "How can you hate me, if you don't even know me?". I think it is very important that people understand that is a "two-way street". Toxic people have reasons they are toxic. Try to get to know why they are toxic before you hate them.

17 Comments

ModThe DjinnMar 23, 20172 votes

{quoted}Edit: Daryl says, "How can you hate me, if you don't even know me?". I think it is very important that people understand that is a "two-way street". Toxic people have reasons they are toxic. Try to get to know why they are toxic before you hate them.

I agree with the sentiment, definitely. Heck, that's part of the reason that I hang out on this board and try to help anyone who wants a legitimate conversation about why their actions might be hurting others, or why they've been punished and how they can avoid it in the future.

The problem with this comes from the scope. League has an ENORMOUS playerbase. If we assume that the boards are correct and the percentage of toxic players is higher than Riot says it is (we'll say 5%, so 1 in every 2 games has a toxic player, which is, I believe, far too high a number), that's about 3.5 million players. There's not time to be able to address each one's unique reasons and find a unique solution that will help them find a way to play without toxicity, although I'd love it if there were. Even if that number is off by a factor of 10 that's still 350,000 players, compared to Riot's Community and Player Behavior teams. It's just untenable.

Riot has attempted to be compassionate in giving many people multiple chances with their escalating ban system, but I understand not everyone feels that way about it. To improve on that you'd need to design a largely automated system that is, somehow, compassionate and able to help players with multiple reasons for their toxicity, and be able to identify those who legitimately want to improve vs. those who don't give a damn. I'm just not sure that's POSSIBLE, although I'd be interested to hear your ideas.

Upvoted your OP for discussion, btw. I'm interested to see where the conversation goes.

KORGtunersMar 23, 20172 votes

There's not time to be able to address each one's unique reasons and find a unique solution that will help them find a way to play without toxicity, although I'd love it if there were.

I agree, there is a lack of time. At what threshold would the effort be worthwhile? In my opinion, it is not about the raw numbers. Every person reformed is a success story and worth the effort.

I feel this way because life can be a domino effect. One reformed person plays hundreds of games. That one person possibly directly effects thoussands of people. Those thousands of people directly effect tens of thousands of people. That one reformed person could theoretically be indirectly effecting tens of thousands of people.

ModThe DjinnMar 23, 20171 votes

{quoted}I agree, there is a lack of time. At what threshold would the effort be worthwhile? In my opinion, it is not about the raw numbers. Every person reformed is a success story and worth the effort.

Part of the issue then is unfairness. Why does one person get the effort but not another? How much money, to a business like Riot, is a single reform worth, assuming, say, a 50% success rate (to pick a number at random)? How many employees are needed to make that work, and how can you assume they're consistent, and trained in the right techniques?

For that matter, could that money be better spent rewarding players who are NOT problematic instead of putting time and money into those who have made the community worse?

We have to consider the practicality side as well, unfortunately. Whatever system is proposed can't be a 1-on-1 sort of thing, since that's simply going to be far too expensive in terms of manpower and far too enormous in terms of effort (and language comprehension) required.

I feel this way because life can be a domino effect. One reformed person plays hundreds of games. That one person possibly directly effects thousands of people. Those thousands of people directly effect tens of thousands of people. That one reformed person could theoretically be indirectly effecting tens of thousands of people.

I absolutely agree. I don't have a follow-up point, but didn't want to simply ignore this part of your post. I'd say it's more important if we knew the number of banned players who go around and simply make new accounts without changing their behavior, as if they DON'T then this ceases to be a problem once they are banned.

KORGtunersMar 23, 20171 votes

How much money, to a business like Riot, is a single reform worth

I don't have the numbers, but I would wager reformed people are a lose of money. You can only purchase things once. Ban a player and now they can purchase things again.

For that matter, could that money be better spent rewarding players who are NOT problematic instead of putting time and money into those who have made the community worse?

In what way would that be better? Make nice people nicer? I think the goal is to encourage toxic people to be nice by bribing them.

Whatever system is proposed can't be a 1-on-1 sort of thing, since that's simply going to be far too expensive in terms of manpower and far too enormous in terms of effort (and language comprehension) required.

I disagree, based on the domino theory. A very small team could have a large impact based on the ripple effect. One person effects many throughout their play time. The problem is, it is very hard to prove a domino effect.

Just thinking out loud, what if this "compassion system" is opt in? I would think that would help with the time problem. Theoretically, only people that are interested in reform would opt in to participate.

Part of the issue then is unfairness. Why does one person get the effort but not another?

I think "first come first serve" would have to be applied.

It may not be an efficient system based on number of cases worked. However, I compare it to world hunger. Most people will not be able to end world hunger, that doesn't mean they shouldn't help where they are able. Feeding one hungry person is better than feeding none.

ModThe DjinnMar 23, 20171 votes

{quoted}I don't have the numbers, but I would wager reformed people are a lose of money. You can only purchase things once. Ban a player and now they can purchase things again.

I meant more in terms of the cost of creating and maintaining such a system, and of hiring people to assist in the reform process. That's expensive stuff.

In what way would that be better? Make nice people nicer? I think the goal is to encourage toxic people to be nice by bribing them.

"Rewarding" can be as simple as "putting that money into improving the game." I don't think we should be bribing toxic players to NOT be toxic by giving them stuff other players may not have access to. Good behavior bribes across the board? Sure. But we're getting those in A: Hextech Chests, and B: the revised Honor system that's been talked about and should be coming fairly soon.

I disagree, based on the domino theory. A very small team could have a large impact based on the ripple effect. One person effects many throughout their play time. The problem is, it is very hard to prove a domino effect.

It's less about that, and more about the fact that, if you have a system like this, it can't play favorites, or only be accessible to a small number of people. Which means the team has to be big enough to handle that volume.

Just thinking out loud, what if this "compassion system" is opt in? I would think that would help with the time problem. Theoretically, only people that are interested in reform would opt in to participate.

A better solution, but still one I'm not sure is worth the cost.

See, Riot isn't a therapy company, and shouldn't have to play therapist. It doesn't HAVE to have to reach in on a case-by-case basis to help in making players non-toxic, although I'd be open to something that lets players prove they've reformed if it proves reliable and decreases net toxicity across the board.

At its core, those players are toxic. Possibly for a variety of reasons, sure...but those reasons aren't Riot's to solve, and shouldn't HAVE to be. Riot's responsibility is to maintain a good game environment, but it isn't (and shouldn't be) to somehow fix every person that doesn't fit that.

Now, I could see something like a small survey when you are punished or chat restricted that helps you find out what aspects of the game cause you to be toxic, and then offers suggestions (or tailors in-game tips) to help you overcome those things. Something that reminds you that you can mute other players, or reminds you to double-check things you type in chat, for example.

But I think it's entirely untenable to expect Riot to field a department focused on guiding individual toxic players through a step-by-step program with bribes offered to help them improve their behavior.

KORGtunersMar 24, 20171 votes

the revised Honor system that's been talked about and should be coming fairly soon.

I asked Riot Tantram about this revised honor system. They didn't want to talk about it at all. Sorry, kind of off topic.

It's less about that, and more about the fact that, if you have a system like this, it can't play favorites, or only be accessible to a small number of people.

Why not? First come first serve solves the favorites problem. The system, by nature, will always only be accessible to a small number of people. Riot tells us .06% of the player base gets banned.

See, Riot isn't a therapy company, and shouldn't have to play therapist.

Yet, Riot hired a psychologist. Human beings shouldn't go hungry, thirsty, and homeless. That doesn't mean they don't.

At its core, those players are toxic. Possibly for a variety of reasons, sure...but those reasons aren't Riot's to solve, and shouldn't HAVE to be.

Well then Riot is in a tough spot. They want people to behave a certain way, but are unwilling to put in the effort to bring about said behavior.

Riot's responsibility is to maintain a good game environment, but it isn't (and shouldn't be) to somehow fix every person that doesn't fit that.

This is a subjective situation. Riot defines a "good game environment". Pointing out the problem without trying to fix it is useless.

But I think it's entirely untenable to expect Riot to field a department focused on guiding individual toxic players through a step-by-step program with bribes offered to help them improve their behavior.

Bribe is not the word I would use. There will always be a reward associated with reform (they don't get banned anymore).

` I feel like we are straying off topic a little. Forget about responsibility. The documentary shows us that empathy is a valuable tool in reforming toxic people. I had a thought, though it is probably not practical.

Imagine, reporting someone for verbal harassment. After that game, all parties involved are entered into a moderated chat session. With the help of the moderator, all involved parties review what happened in that game. Everyone gets to share their opinions/perspective. Once all the facts are reviewed, the moderator can offer advice on how to better handle the situation. (Not practical, but we have to start somewhere.)

Magical PlayerMar 24, 20171 votes

Whose going to pay for this?

ModThe DjinnMar 24, 20171 votes

{quoted}Why not? First come first serve solves the favorites problem. The system, by nature, will always only be accessible to a small number of people. Riot tells us .06% of the player base gets banned.

That percentage gets banned, yes. But the system would need to be available to anyone considered toxic.

As to why first-come, first-served isn't a good solution? Backlogs. They'd build up, and you'd get a situation where no one can get the help they need when they need it. It's GREAT for the people in the front of the queue, but not all situations will be once-and-done -- these things take time and effort if you want to create real change. Not just a half hour discussion.

Yet, Riot hired a psychologist.

Because they care, yes. But you'll notice he wasn't working on talking to individual players, but rather attempting to build systemic approaches to tackling player behavior on an enormous scale.

Well then Riot is in a tough spot. They want people to behave a certain way, but are unwilling to put in the effort to bring about said behavior.

I think this is unfair -- they're putting in effort, just not on a micro scale. The scale they're working on is rather enormous, and they're putting a LOT of effort into it. Have you seen the GDC talks about the behavioral changes seen after the introduction of loading screen messages, for example? Mass audience psychology is a thing that Riot is definitely working on, and I imagine we'll see some of that in the new Honor system whenever they reveal it.

Bribe is not the word I would use. There will always be a reward associated with reform (they don't get banned anymore).

Out of curiosity, why do you think that current reward (not being banned) is insufficient to cause people to seek out change on their own through non-Riot means? If that's enough of a reward it should be enough motivation to improve, yes? Sort of playing Devil's Advocate here -- but I think it's an important point to bring up.

Imagine, reporting someone for verbal harassment. After that game, all parties involved are entered into a moderated chat session. With the help of the moderator, all involved parties review what happened in that game. Everyone gets to share their opinions/perspective. Once all the facts are reviewed, the moderator can offer advice on how to better handle the situation. (Not practical, but we have to start somewhere.)

So this is potentially REALLY detrimental to someone exposed to a harassing player for a 30 minute game -- putting them right back in a session with said individual. It also means you need to immediately parse reports for validity, and then have a moderator handy. So definitely not practical.

I think if we want to suggest practical things, we need to find a way to make it independent of outside help: it needs to be approachable and effective yet not manpower or money intensive, and it needs to be something the toxic player can take initiative on him/herself. I think saying that if you're NOT willing to do that than you're not welcome to keep playing the game (personal circumstances notwithstanding) is fine. Empathy is good, but if the other person isn't willing to see something is wrong than I'm not sure we'll have a basis for a system. Such a system also needs to work as well at 3am as it does at 1pm, across the globe, and it needs to be scalable to any number of affected players.

I think this means we need to step away from one-on-one mediated sessions -- it's simply not practical, even though it's probably a good solution for a single individual. The time, manpower, money, and infrastructure necessary to manage that (as well as legal rules on therapy, which do exist) are likely to make that impossible.

KORGtunersMar 24, 20171 votes

That percentage gets banned, yes. But the system would need to be available to anyone considered toxic.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. Though I am still on the fence.

As to why first-come, first-served isn't a good solution? Backlogs.

I'm not overly concerned with backlog (maybe I should be though). My current thinking is quality over quantity.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that current reward (not being banned) is insufficient to cause people to seek out change on their own through non-Riot means?

There can be many reasons. I think a big reason is most toxic people don't feel they are being unreasonable. I see it all the time in this forum, "they did this; so I told them off". Most toxic people probably feel their behavior is justified.

I think a lot of people are also used to being allowed to vent their frustrations. If memory serves me, League is the only game I have ever played that bans people for offensive chat. In my case, that is over 20 years of habits that must be altered.

Basically, I think people are more focused on the moment than the future. People are much more concerned with the game they are currently in than the possibilty of future games.

So this is potentially REALLY detrimental to someone exposed to a harassing player for a 30 minute game -- putting them right back in a session with said individual.

That is why the moderator would be so important. However, I think this (if handled properly) could be a positive experience for everyone. Ideally, it's not a chat where people are spamming insults. More like, "OK, you clearly got upset here. What caused you to be upset at that moment?" All that said, I'm not very pleased with the idea. I think it is helpful to the brainstorming process though.

Sometimes it helps to approach from a different angle. I'm reminded of a trial system. There is the plaintiff and the defendant. Each side gets to present their case. I think this is an important aspect that is lacking in the current League system.

Nik NikersonMar 24, 20171 votes

In your hypothetical situation, what do you do when someone doesn't care about others? I mean they literally don't care about the harm they can potentially cause, or are happy that they have caused a negative experience for another? How do you handle those individuals?

Magical PlayerMar 23, 20172 votes

I feel this way because life can be a domino effect. One reformed person plays hundreds of games. That one person possibly directly effects thoussands of people. Those thousands of people directly effect tens of thousands of people. That one reformed person could theoretically be indirectly effecting tens of thousands of people.

And by simply getting rid of them riot is directly affecting thousands of players

One ban could theoretically be indirectly effecting tens of thousands of plays who won't have to suffer and turn toxic because of this 1 BAN

A domino effect occurs where 1 less toxic person can't turn others toxic and wow less toxic players

KORGtunersMar 23, 20171 votes

And by simply getting rid of them riot is directly affecting thousands of players

They aren't getting rid of anyone. Accounts are free and infinite. Bans effect new players more than anyone. Bans subject new players to toxic people they should never have been subjected to in the first place.

ModUlanopoMar 24, 20171 votes

Try to get to know why they are toxic before you hate them.

Why do you assume Riot and the player base "hates" toxic people? Most people just don't want to play with them. Just like someone who doesn't like beets would prefer not to be served a plateful of beets.

Also, why is it always the expectation with you that the toxic player bears no responsibility for their behavior? You're continually arguing that toxic people will become less toxic if only everyone else would stop being so mean to them. Why do you think the burden belongs on those who aren't breaking the rules?

The movie is a testament to the buddhist teaching: "Love alone from hatred releases."

I feel you're trying to muddle the argument by mixing personal philosophies with social mores. A community has rules, else it's not a community (that's more than a slick tautology, by the way).

KORGtunersMar 24, 20171 votes

Why do you assume Riot and the player base "hates" toxic people?

The word hate was used because it was used in the quote of Daryl. Use whatever word you want. The point is to have empathy before you judge.

Also, why is it always the expectation with you that the toxic player bears no responsibility for their behavior?

I'm not in perfect control of my thoughts or actions at every waking moment. I suspect very view people are. I challenge you to sitting meditation for 24 hours straight. To prove to yourself that you are in perfect control of your thoughts and actions at every waking moment.

You're continually arguing that toxic people will become less toxic if only everyone else would stop being so mean to them.

Nice people can become mean when people are mean to them. Why would you expect toxic people to be different?

Why do you think the burden belongs on those who aren't breaking the rules?

It is like a math problem. You start at zero/neutral. If you add positivity your numbers become positive. If you add negativity your numbers become negative.

There is more. You start with a negative. If you add positivity your numbers may become positive or neutral. If you add negativity your numbers become more negative.

Lastly, you start with a positive. If you add positivity your numbers become more positive. If you add negativity your numbers may become neutral or negative.

It is in this way that being positive towards EVERYONE/situation is important.

Nik NikersonMar 24, 20172 votes

I'm not in perfect control of my thoughts or actions at every waking moment.

Being responsible for something is not the same as controlling it.

Nik NikersonMar 24, 20171 votes

Racism is generally a position taken from ignorance. They don't understand what's wrong with their beliefs. They aren't being racist just for the lols. Education and interaction can solve this.

An internet troll that does something just to irritate other people isn't operating from ignorance. They know what is wrong with what they are doing, and are still making that choice. They understand they are ruining a game for 9 other people. What are you going to educated them on that they are not already aware of?