I got banned for flaming an inting twitch that flamed me…

Gus Alcaraz · 2017-06-16T21:22:41.679Z

The title says it all. I was actually trying to win the game, but my adc legit kept calling me useless so I helped my other team out. He was runnning down mid by himself almost the whole game, we won the game because i was a huge frontline. Can anyone justify this? I admit I was toxic before, got punished for it. I've been playing league since season 1, and have tons of hours on this account. Riot should unban me, not like I int, I actually try to win games and climb, but there are just some people that try to push your buttons. Like inting when you're in promos, and you can't do anything about it because you're afraid that you will get punished just for saying one 'toxic' thing to them. Riot should unban the people that actually try to win and just chat restrict them indefinitely or just remove all of their chat privileges. I just wanna play the game and win some games. Chat log from perma ban game. Game 1 Gus Alcaraz: its ok Gus Alcaraz: wtf Gus Alcaraz: u fuckin suck bro Gus Alcaraz: did u not see me use it already Gus Alcaraz: stupid ass Gus Alcaraz: this guy gives up first blood Gus Alcaraz: without using sums Gus Alcaraz: tf Gus Alcaraz: is that shit Gus Alcaraz: alright bro Gus Alcaraz: i am useless Gus Alcaraz: i am not playing Gus Alcaraz: im afk Gus Alcaraz: useless naut Gus Alcaraz: haha Gus Alcaraz: remember when u gave up first blood for free Gus Alcaraz: haha Gus Alcaraz: haha Gus Alcaraz: people miss skill shots bro Gus Alcaraz: its not point and click Gus Alcaraz: this twitch haha Gus Alcaraz: u cant even 1v1 Gus Alcaraz: haha Gus Alcaraz: ur so bad bro Gus Alcaraz: i am useless naut bro Gus Alcaraz: i cant do anyhting Gus Alcaraz: why Gus Alcaraz: i am support Gus Alcaraz: dude seriously Gus Alcaraz: how do u get hit by every hook Gus Alcaraz: ur like a magnet Gus Alcaraz: haha Gus Alcaraz: i dont help this trash twitch Gus Alcaraz: not gonna build sightstone Gus Alcaraz: twtich can build that Gus Alcaraz: twitch get sightstone Gus Alcaraz: twitch is inting Gus Alcaraz: u guys probably already know that from first blood Gus Alcaraz: twitch is 0-3 Gus Alcaraz: tell him to stop Gus Alcaraz: inting to hard Gus Alcaraz: u gave up free first blood Gus Alcaraz: dude twitch is cleraly inting Gus Alcaraz: dude is like getting caught by everything Gus Alcaraz: wow Gus Alcaraz: just wow Gus Alcaraz: he just got soloed Gus Alcaraz: do u guys see who is flaming me Gus Alcaraz: u put yourself behind retard Gus Alcaraz: how Gus Alcaraz: i didnt afk Gus Alcaraz: u Gus Alcaraz: r Gus Alcaraz: trash Gus Alcaraz: u were toxic first bro lol Gus Alcaraz: pretty sure team repoirt 0-5 twitch Gus Alcaraz: twitch stop spam pinging me Gus Alcaraz: im not helping u bro Gus Alcaraz: ur toxic Gus Alcaraz: stop being toxic twitch Gus Alcaraz: 0-7 Gus Alcaraz: hahahah Gus Alcaraz: twitch doesnt want to win bro Gus Alcaraz: i keep telling u guys Gus Alcaraz: natural inter Gus Alcaraz: twitch stop inting bro Gus Alcaraz: i want to win Gus Alcaraz: i cant help u man Gus Alcaraz: if twitch didnt go 0-9 we win ez Gus Alcaraz: how am i troll bro Gus Alcaraz: u troll me so hard Gus Alcaraz: wat haha Gus Alcaraz: ur trash dude Gus Alcaraz: was twitch even playing? Gus Alcaraz: bro Gus Alcaraz: just because u died every time Gus Alcaraz: doesnt mean it was 2v1 Gus Alcaraz: ok friend Gus Alcaraz: nice Gus Alcaraz: thats what im talking about twitch Gus Alcaraz: its ok man Gus Alcaraz: we got drag so worth Gus Alcaraz: nice guys Gus Alcaraz: thats the twithc i like to see!!111 Gus Alcaraz: ggwp

XidphelJun 17, 20171 votes

No it doesn't. Partially because this isn't a courthouse and mostly because magically making it so you can't hear what someone else is saying is better self-defense than acting like a child to a child.

Blood LyricsJun 17, 20172 votes

{quoted}

No it doesn't. Partially because this isn't a courthouse and mostly because magically making it so you can't hear what someone else is saying is better self-defense than acting like a child to a child.

It would be rather nice if it were a courthouse. At least there would be the semblance of justice, if not the actual deliverance of it.

I've always been amused by the double standards in this board. I frequently see that the existence of /mute does not justify toxicity because someone has already been hurt. Just as the existence of /mute does justify not retaliating because it acts as a self-defense mechanism.

Equally common, I see that victim blaming is never justified when we say someone is receiving flame for poor play. Yet victim blaming is perfectly justified when it's retaliation against toxicity.

See? In a courthouse, we'd at least have the symbolic representation of justice.

XidphelJun 17, 20171 votes

Reports exist. Shut him up, keep playing, mute him at the end, bam. The above happens to the other player because you didn't flame.

Not always gonna be told your report got him to be punished but you're doing SOMETHING. Flaming someone who flames you is like countering a shit-thrower by throwing shit at him. No matter what happens, you're getting shit everywhere and need to leave.

VishanJun 17, 20172 votes

{quoted}

Reports exist. Shut him up, keep playing, mute him at the end, bam. The above happens to the other player because you didn't flame.

Not always gonna be told your report got him to be punished but you're doing SOMETHING. Flaming someone who flames you is like countering a shit-thrower by throwing shit at him. No matter what happens, you're getting shit everywhere and need to leave.

Again this is like when terrorist attacks happen and people just like on facebook so they feel like they are doing SOMETHING, when in reality they arent.

Gus AlcarazJun 17, 20171 votes

Thank you. I admit, I was a bit excessive, but only because this twitch was literally spam pinging and flaming me. This was a ranked game, and I'm obviously trying my best to win so when an inter is on your team, it grind my gears.. I can live with a two week suspension, even longer.. but a permaban for this? I don't believe that was the right punishment for me.

XidphelJun 17, 20171 votes

I admit, I was a bit excessive

As long as you're aware. Just an FYI:

5.1. Can I troll, flame, threaten or harass people while using the Riot Services? (No. If you do, you might get banned.) While using the Riot Services, you must comply with all laws, rules and regulations in the jurisdiction in which you reside. You must also comply with certain additional rules that govern your use of the Riot Services (the “Code of Conduct”). The Code of Conduct is not meant to be exhaustive, and we reserve the right to modify it at any time, as well as take appropriate disciplinary measures including account termination and deletion to protect the integrity and spirit of the Riot Services, regardless of whether a specific behavior is listed in the policy as inappropriate. In addition to the Code of Conduct, please review the Summoner’s Code for additional guidance on exemplary gameplay behavior.

No exceptions. I get that ignoring is looked down upon, especially since, in real life, it literally doesn't help at all. In this game, however, it works. Ping mute, chat mute, report at the end, best you can do really. There's no justice in flaming back. Especially when I read this:

I can live with a two week suspension

I might be reading it wrong but it feels like you already had that in which case, yeah. Toxicity and negativity got you through all punishment tiers. If I'm wrong then you must've flamed REALLY bad to skip through the other 3 punishment tiers.

Gus AlcarazJun 18, 20171 votes

I can live with a two week suspension because I will eventually get my account back. Like I said, this is a season 1 account, lots of skins, lots of hours put into it. I would even wait a year or two if I have to.

BakedLotionJun 17, 20172 votes

{quoted}

Reports exist. Shut him up, keep playing, mute him at the end, bam. The above happens to the other player because you didn't flame.

Not always gonna be told your report got him to be punished but you're doing SOMETHING. Flaming someone who flames you is like countering a shit-thrower by throwing shit at him. No matter what happens, you're getting shit everywhere and need to leave.

If someone insults you in real life in a non-professional environment and you just take it you're a pussy.

And if you're throwing shit at each other for whatever reason, and you don't throw shit back, this is what happens : You have shit on you The other person doesn't. Both people leave You lose.

If you threw shit back Both of you have shit on you. Both people leave You're even.

Why do you think people get bullied? Because they can't stand up for themselves. This passive attitude is the reason bullying even exists. Stop teaching kids to just stand still and get hit

XidphelJun 17, 20171 votes

Welcome to League of Legends where muting and reporting is NOT the same as the real world example.

BakedLotionJun 17, 20172 votes

{quoted}

Welcome to League of Legends where muting and reporting is NOT the same as the real world example.

Except he gave a real world example and I'm replying to it. Welcome to discussion please read before you try to be smart

XidphelJun 17, 20171 votes

At time of writing, you've only replied to me.

But still, lour non-professional example is also moot aince League is closer to a professional environment than out in the streets.

BakedLotionJun 17, 20171 votes

{quoted}

At time of writing, you've only replied to me.

But still, lour non-professional example is also moot aince League is closer to a professional environment than out in the streets.

what... You replied to my comment that was replying to someone else... I even quoted... LOOOL ok

XidphelJun 17, 20171 votes

You mean this comment?

BarkhoofJun 17, 20171 votes

Well, in your example, you're no longer the victim when you retaliate with no perception that your retaliation will "defend" yourself. In a self-defense situation, it needs to be shown that your retaliation is, in fact, justified. Take Curtis Reeves' case in Florida where his stand-your-ground self-defense was thrown out because his retaliation was completely over-the-top and unjustified. Same for lashing out for toxicity in league - your retaliations are not defending, it's more like the equivalent of joining in a bar fight.

Blood LyricsJun 17, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Well, in your example, you're no longer the victim when you retaliate with no perception that your retaliation will "defend" yourself. In a self-defense situation, it needs to be shown that your retaliation is, in fact, justified. Take Curtis Reeves' case in Florida where his stand-your-ground self-defense was thrown out because his retaliation was completely over-the-top and unjustified. Same for lashing out for toxicity in league - your retaliations are not defending, it's more like the equivalent of joining in a bar fight.

Take for instance, someone telling you to "kys". You have now suffered incredible mental anguish (at least according to half the people on this board). Is an immediate attempt to relieve that mental pain not an attempt at self-defense? Should that person have to wallow in that misery for another XYZ minutes until the match is over only to send a report that may or may not result in a notification of a punishment? There is no bar fight. Someone is damaging you mentally. A common way to relieve mental pain inflicted by another is to retaliate through words. Self-defense.

BarkhoofJun 18, 20171 votes

Is an immediate attempt to relieve that mental pain not an attempt at self-defense?

Sure, of course it's an attempt. When my 4-year-old takes my 1-year-olds toy, her immediate attempt to relieve her frustration is to hit the toy out of the older kids hand. Does that mean it's the right reaction? Or, is a better reaction a) de-escalation or b) appealing to a higher power?

And, as for your statement that a common way to relieve mental pain is to retaliate through words: please. Who taught you THAT one? Was it a mental health professional? Because if so, that person needs to have their license revoked.

Blood LyricsJun 18, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Sure, of course it's an attempt. When my 4-year-old takes my 1-year-olds toy, her immediate attempt to relieve her frustration is to hit the toy out of the older kids hand. Does that mean it's the right reaction? Or, is a better reaction a) de-escalation or b) appealing to a higher power?

And, as for your statement that a common way to relieve mental pain is to retaliate through words: please. Who taught you THAT one? Was it a mental health professional? Because if so, that person needs to have their license revoked.

Is it the right reaction? I do not know. You do not know. No being has the right to make that distinction. Right and wrong is not even for the realm of gods. God decides right and wrong? Which god? What if there is no god? Things simply just are. An immediate attempt to relieve frustration is just that - an attempt to relieve frustration as soon as possible.

As someone who majored in neurobiology (thus having a sub-speciality in neurological issues), you can alleviate a type of mental pain (in this case anger, frustration, etc) by venting said frustration on the medium that inflicted it upon you. Such is commonly seen in the 'shooting-the-messenger' sort of scenarios.

BarkhoofJun 18, 20171 votes

This is the last reply I'm going to make because once you try to get into morality and state, specifically, whether God/deities determine right and wrong, implying that moral codes DON'T come from beliefs in a deity, I know you're trolling.

Secondly, stop trying to throw out random qualifications to try to prove your point. Your sub-speciality doesn't impress because, as a neurobiologist, you know that the biology side of the research focuses mainly on the structural and, strictly, biological portion of the science. You know that cocaine can inflict damage on the substantia nigra but your realm of expertise doesn't necessarily give you more weight when thinking about programs trying to combat cocaine use in America. Psychology and psychiatry focuses on the more clinical portion of neurological symptoms. Your words might have had more weight if you had remained more ambiguous with "a major in neurological issues".

Either way, have a good day!

Blood LyricsJun 18, 20172 votes

{quoted}

This is the last reply I'm going to make because once you try to get into morality and state, specifically, whether God/deities determine right and wrong, implying that moral codes DON'T come from beliefs in a deity, I know you're trolling.

Secondly, stop trying to throw out random qualifications to try to prove your point. Your sub-speciality doesn't impress because, as a neurobiologist, you know that the biology side of the research focuses mainly on the structural and, strictly, biological portion of the science. You know that cocaine can inflict damage on the substantia nigra but your realm of expertise doesn't necessarily give you more weight when thinking about programs trying to combat cocaine use in America. Psychology and psychiatry focuses on the more clinical portion of neurological symptoms. Your words might have had more weight if you had remained more ambiguous with "a major in neurological issues".

Either way, have a good day!

If moral codes come from a belief in a deity, then which moral code should you follow? Are you a sinner because you drink alcohol? For some religions that is the case. Others argue the opposite.

The biological side tends to be the most objective. A study done using scans of the brain detecting activity in centers controlling anger has indicated that the subjects show less activity in those areas after having vented. Psychology focuses on reported feelings - and we all know just how accurate self-reporting is.

BarkhoofJun 19, 20171 votes

If you're implying that that study has been completed and that's the author's conclusion, I'd like the author and title of the paper.

Blood LyricsJun 19, 20171 votes

{quoted}

If you're implying that that study has been completed and that's the author's conclusion, I'd like the author and title of the paper.

Google it. I'd probably have to do the same, considering it's one of many papers I've read.

BarkhoofJun 19, 20171 votes

And this proves to me that you don't know what you're talking about. "One of the many papers I've read." LOL, oh dear, I'm going to guess...overambitious college student. Any researcher worth his/her weight in salt will back up any claim like this with where they got the information. Anyway, God bless.

ModPrandineJun 17, 20172 votes

[{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=PY4jKKW6,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2017-06-17T07:57:24.401+0000)

I get punishing someone who flames another while completely unprovoked, but retaliation ought to be acceptable. In a court of law, self-defense is an accepted legal argument - an argument that ought to apply to similarly relatable circumstances such as these.

Now, yes, there is such a thing as excessive self-defense, but without more information can we really judge that it was excessive?

Figured I'd argue the opposing point of view because I seriously hate how biased everyone is on this particular board.

The reason it's not acceptable is because now instead of one raging jerk your teammates now have to deal with two raging jerks instead: the original and now you as well. Not only that but the more time you spent flaming and raging in the chat the less time you're spending on playing the actual game itself. This is just like pretty much any other public place in real life where having one disruptive person is bad enough, but two is even worse. In both cases the owners of the place have every right to punish both people involved in the disruption and remove them from the premises regardless of who started it.

Also, getting into a shouting match with someone is not self-defense, as you're not in any physical danger where retaliating back/defending yourself would be acceptable. The appropriate response would be to mute them (in game)/walk away (in real life), thereby ending the conversation right then and there.

To sum it all up it's unacceptable because not only are you not in any physical danger but you're also just making the situation worse for everyone else around you, plus it just solves nothing in general. By muting them/walking away you don't add any fuel to the fire and discourage them from continuing on with the raging, and just like in real life ensures that only they get punished for poor behavior should they continue. I'm not saying that it's easy to do that all the time as it's not. However, compared to the alternative choice of becoming part of the problem and being punished alongside them it's certainly the best choice out of those two situations.

Blood LyricsJun 17, 20171 votes

{quoted}

The reason it's not acceptable is because now instead of one raging jerk your teammates now have to deal with two raging jerks instead: the original and now you as well. Not only that but the more time you spent flaming and raging in the chat the less time you're spending on playing the actual game itself. This is just like pretty much any other public place in real life where having one disruptive person is bad enough, but two is even worse. In both cases the owners of the place have every right to punish both people involved in the disruption and remove them from the premises regardless of who started it.

Also, getting into a shouting match with someone is not self-defense, as you're not in any physical danger where retaliating back/defending yourself would be acceptable. The appropriate response would be to mute them (in game)/walk away (in real life), thereby ending the conversation right then and there.

The issue I take with this is the incredible amount of double standards that are displayed by many people on this board. We argue all the time that words can be just as harmful as physical violence when defending people who get flamed but don't fight back. Yet, the moment someone chooses to retaliate with words, we stigmatize them and reprimand them while stating that it's not the equivalent of physical danger.

Sure, this is Riot's bar and Riot can choose to throw out whomever they please. But should you throw out the normally quiet guy enjoying his drink in the corner who retaliated because a loudmouth decided to throw a punch at him?

{quoted}

To sum it all up it's unacceptable because not only are you not in any physical danger but you're also just making the situation worse for everyone else around you, plus it just solves nothing in general. By muting them/walking away you don't add any fuel to the fire and discourage them from continuing on with the raging, and just like in real life ensures that only they get punished for poor behavior should they continue. I'm not saying that it's easy to do that all the time as it's not. However, compared to the alternative choice of becoming part of the problem and being punished alongside them it's certainly the best choice out of those two situations.

Again, double standards in regards to the physical danger.

My question is should they be punished alongside the instigator? X tells Y to "kys". Y responds similarly to X. According to about every warrior of morality on this board, "kys" is an utterly reprehensible thing to utter to another human being. So Y has had a statement of apparently sheer and utter cruelty thrown onto him and is now suffering mental torment that is equal to if not surpassing physical pain. Is it really so wrong for Y to seek some immediate mental relief by retaliating in kind?

I'm not a toxic player, mind you, but I'll be damned before I let you judge them with double standards without saying anything.

ModPrandineJun 18, 2017

[{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=PY4jKKW6,comment-id=0006000000020000,timestamp=2017-06-17T23:41:27.551+0000)

The issue I take with this is the incredible amount of double standards that are displayed by many people on this board. We argue all the time that words can be just as harmful as physical violence when defending people who get flamed but don't fight back. Yet, the moment someone chooses to retaliate with words, we stigmatize them and reprimand them while stating that it's not the equivalent of physical danger.

You bring up an interesting point I must admit, one I'm not really sure how to answer in all honesty there. All I can say is while words can be harmful depending on ones mental state we still shouldn't allow those who decide to retaliate when they could have just muted, reported and moved on. Again good point that for me was tricky to answer.

Sure, this is Riot's bar and Riot can 00choose to throw out whomever they please. But should you throw out the normally quiet guy enjoying his drink in the corner who retaliated because a loudmouth decided to throw a punch at him?

I'd say it depends. If they're causing enough of a disturbance then I'd say yeah.

Again, double standards in regards to the physical danger.

My question is should they be punished alongside the instigator? X tells Y to "kys". Y responds similarly to X. According to about every warrior of morality on this board, "kys" is an utterly reprehensible thing to utter to another human being. So Y has had a statement of apparently sheer and utter cruelty thrown onto him and is now suffering mental torment that is equal to if not surpassing physical pain. Is it really so wrong for Y to seek some immediate mental relief by retaliating in kind?

I'd say the more appropriate action would be to yell at the screen to vent frustrations. At least that way they can still focus on the game without wasting time using chat for less constructive purposes.

I'm not a toxic player, mind you, but I'll be damned before I let you judge them with double standards without saying anything.

I dont think I am either, and I get frutrated myself and rage at the screen to vent frustrations I have. As for double standards I cant speak for others, but for me I dont see myself as having that and think that having this discussion is a good thing as well also.

Blood LyricsJun 18, 20171 votes

{quoted}

You bring up an interesting point I must admit, one I'm not really sure how to answer in all honesty there. All I can say is while words can be harmful depending on ones mental state we still shouldn't allow those who decide to retaliate when they could have just muted, reported and moved on. Again good point that for me was tricky to answer.

I'd say the more appropriate action would be to yell at the screen to vent frustrations. At least that way they can still focus on the game without wasting time using chat for less constructive purposes.

Again, the double standards when it comes to victim blaming. It is frequently said that people who exhibit poor play are victims who do not deserve the flame that they receive. Yet, no one defends someone who retaliates after receiving flame. Sure, they are continuing the flame war, but are they not victims as well? Why do we choose to punish and stigmatize one victim but not the other?

{quoted}

I dont think I am either, and I get frutrated myself and rage at the screen to vent frustrations I have. As for double standards I cant speak for others, but for me I dont see myself as having that and think that having this discussion is a good thing as well also.

I'm not particularly singling you out in terms of the double standards. It's just a thing that is very frequent on this board. People are far too used to having little to no respect for anyone who was toxic, regardless of rhyme or reason. People are not binary. Bad and good are not mutually exclusive. You can be a good person forced to do a bad thing.

ModPrandineJun 18, 2017

[{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=PY4jKKW6,comment-id=000600000002000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T02:01:34.854+0000)

Again, the double standards when it comes to victim blaming. It is frequently said that people who exhibit poor play are victims who do not deserve the flame that they receive. Yet, no one defends someone who retaliates after receiving flame. Sure, they are continuing the flame war, but are they not victims as well? Why do we choose to punish and stigmatize one victim but not the other?

My guess is because the people who get punished for retaliating are the ones who frequently come to the boards to complain about their punishment, often with a poor attitude towards those that don't give them the Yesman answers that they're initially looking for. I don't necessarily think that most people don't agree that the initial flamer is without blame or doesn't deserve a punishment of their own, but again, it's mostly (keyword: mostly) the people punished for retaliation the ones who complain about punishments the most on these boards.

I'm not particularly singling you out in terms of the double standards. It's just a thing that is very frequent on this board. People are far too used to having little to no respect for anyone who was toxic, regardless of rhyme or reason. People are not binary. Bad and good are not mutually exclusive. You can be a good person forced to do a bad thing.

Oh I know that you're not singling me out, and I do think that you bring up some good points that aren't discussed too often here on the boards. I think it's just hard for allot of people to have a whole lot of respect for people complaining about their [often chat-related] punishments when the person in question often willingly chose to behavior poorly despite knowing that it would most likely get them in trouble. Yes a person can be a good one while being forced to do something bad, but considering that this is an online game where we have the option to mute the problem players that argument is a hard sell here honestly.

Blood LyricsJun 18, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Yes a person can be a good one while being forced to do something bad, but considering that this is an online game where we have the option to mute the problem players that argument is a hard sell here honestly.

I find it a hard sell when the option to mute problem players is used a justification to dismiss players who retaliate while simultaneously being stated as not being enough justification to allow toxicity.

e.g.

"You should mute the toxic player instead of responding back." vs. "Mute being an option doesn't mean that the harm isn't already done."

I don't necessarily think blaming a victim for taking an option that is less than perfect is something that we should be doing. Let's say there is a victim of domestic abuse for many years. In one session of abuse, the victim somehow gets the upper hand (say, the victim manages to take the abuser's only weapon). At this point, the best response for the victim is to just run away. But I really don't think we'll find many people who would blame the victim for using that weapon on the abuser.

Sure, this scenario is not as extreme (maybe, but then again, so many people have been arguing that words are just as impactful as physical violence). Yet, it still parallels very closely. Can we really say that what we're doing is so different than blaming a victim for retaliating against the abuser?

ModPrandineJun 18, 2017

[{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=PY4jKKW6,comment-id=00060000000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T13:11:07.757+0000)

I find it a hard sell when the option to mute problem players is used a justification to dismiss players who retaliate while simultaneously being stated as not being enough justification to allow toxicity.

e.g.

"You should mute the toxic player instead of responding back." vs. "Mute being an option doesn't mean that the harm isn't already done."

I don't necessarily think blaming a victim for taking an option that is less than perfect is something that we should be doing. Let's say there is a victim of domestic abuse for many years. In one session of abuse, the victim somehow gets the upper hand (say, the victim manages to take the abuser's only weapon). At this point, the best response for the victim is to just run away. But I really don't think we'll find many people who would blame the victim for using that weapon on the abuser.

Sure, this scenario is not as extreme (maybe, but then again, so many people have been arguing that words are just as impactful as physical violence). Yet, it still parallels very closely. Can we really say that what we're doing is so different than blaming a victim for retaliating against the abuser?

I think the problem here is is that in your example the victim would be justified in using the weapon because their life is in danger and it's self defense. With words however the self-defense via retaliation excuse loses allot of its weight, because there's the option to walk away and ignore them (in-game you could also just ignore them and/or mute them) instead of giving them the negative reaction that they're often looking for. The reason why the mute button does not excuse toxicity in-game is because players shouldn't need to rely on it to interact with others in a neutral or positive manner or force others to use it just so they can act however they want. Think of the mute button as a band-aid of sorts where yes it helps with the problem short-term but we still need to take actions to try to prevent that problem from happening again.

Blood LyricsJun 18, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I think the problem here is is that in your example the victim would be justified in using the weapon because their life is in danger and it's self defense. With words however the self-defense via retaliation excuse loses allot of its weight, because there's the option to walk away and ignore them (in-game you could also just ignore them and/or mute them) instead of giving them the negative reaction that they're often looking for. The reason why the mute button does not excuse toxicity in-game is because players shouldn't need to rely on it to interact with others in a neutral or positive manner or force others to use it just so they can act however they want. Think of the mute button as a band-aid of sorts where yes it helps with the problem short-term but we still need to take actions to try to prevent that problem from happening again.

That's the thing though. If the victim has the only weapon (and let's just say for the sake of this discussion that the victim has full opportunity to run away) would anyone blame them for choosing to use the weapon instead? What I'm saying is just because there may be a "better" choice available, is it so wrong for a victim to choose the other option?

With regards to the mute button, what I'm getting is that you are saying that once someone is hurt, they need to choose to just put a band-aid on it. They just have to take the pain and hope that some sort of cosmic balance (which when referring to punishments - does not always occur) takes place. They shouldn't take the guaranteed chance to vent over the possible chance of the offender being punished. Why does that seem a little lacking?

DrCyanideJun 17, 20173 votes

Self defense is the Mute button, excessive self defense is lowering yourself to their level.

You can respond in ways that won't get you punished either, but it takes you being the better man in chat.

Blood LyricsJun 17, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Self defense is the Mute button, excessive self defense is lowering yourself to their level.

You can respond in ways that won't get you punished either, but it takes you being the better man in chat.

Funnily enough, I've heard the opposite argument about self defense when we're talking about why people shouldn't be toxic. Odd...

I got banned for flaming an inting twitch that flamed me first...

69 Comments

More from Player Behavior