PSA: The philosophy of self-defense does not apply to League of Legends chat

Verxint·Apr 20, 2017·27 votes·1,910 views

Why is self-defense a thing in a courtroom, anyway?

Simple: Because you don't have a choice about whether or not that guy's fist is going to hit your face. Specifically, there are no actions you can take, other than fighting back, that can prevent the imminent injury to yourself. Self-defense is valid in a courtroom because it is the only mechanism by which you can protect yourself from physical injury. The only options you have to defend yourself from harm involve inflicting harm upon another.

In League of legends, any chat messages you read, you read willfully and with full compliance. You are choosing to read them. You can choose not to read them, without having any affect on the person sending them. You can mute the person without having any effect on them. You can defend yourself from harm without inflicting harm upon another. There's no reason to engage the person as "self-defense" when you can achieve the same result with a unilateral action.

tl;dr You cannot mute a fist. You can mute chat.

49 Comments

MarshbouyApr 20, 20179 votes

Obligatory: Freedom of speech is not freedom to call someone a f%%

TyrekGoldenspearApr 20, 20176 votes

Not to mention freedom of speech was made to prevent the government from restricting criticism of it, not to let you say whatever you want in a video game.

MarshbouyApr 21, 20172 votes

exactly. What people can and can't say in a video game is vastly different

GULAG 4 UApr 20, 20176 votes

Nor wish cancer or any other vile shit you can come up with.

ahferroin7Apr 21, 20172 votes

Freedom of speech in a legal sense is freedom to call someone an offensive name. It does nothing to define any moral or ethical fallout from the action whatsoever. All it says is that you can't be prosecuted for it, not that you can't do it.

Freedom of speech also doesn't apply in League (or any other game for that matter) because it's not the government restricting your freedom to say what you want, and you have explicitly waived that right in the context of the game by agreeing to the terms of service. By agreeing to the ToS, you're agreeing to hold yourself to a standard of conduct that Riot deems acceptable.

KingnewgameplusApr 21, 20173 votes

Freedom of speech, not freedom of consequence.

Tyto MorsApr 21, 20171 votes

kinda is..... i cant decide on how you react, but i can still call you one.

YoungSirJ0eyApr 21, 20172 votes

Also, freedom of speech doesn't apply to Riot, who can censor whatever they want.

9Wly9oMl02Apr 20, 20174 votes

Hm. I think I understand your point, but the way you give it is very poorly done. Instead of focusing on "their actions don't excuse yours", you chose to go the route of "you don't have to read the messages". Which, is true, but it's pretty similar to saying "well that lady that was raped didn't have to go out and walk alone".

AirKingNeoApr 20, 20172 votes

Your argument almost made logical sense. Seriously, pretty well done except for this one problem. You failed to take human emotion and interaction into consideration. People have emotions, some pride and others anger, and trying to say, "Just mute the chat," is extremely illogical when you take the fact that people have emotions. You can't just expect people to just 'Mute the chat' because no person would just let themselves be attacked and not fight back. People defending themselves is a very natural thing; attempting to ignore this, especially in a game made for young people, makes no logical sense.

In no way do I defend the guy the guy who flames a guy because I flame him. This of course this assumes the intent to flame and not just simple rage. I sympathize with him to a point, but just that, a point. In addition, there is a huge difference between arguments and flame wars. A flame war is just people flaming each other just to anger each other or self gratification. An argument is just the clash of ideals to prove something; they bring about the truth or an understanding between people if they complete with resolution. There is a huge difference between the man who called to stupid because you said or did something stupid than the guy who told you, "Get cancer %%%got."

Eventually, you'll have to understand that people are people and will act like people. Trying to deny that people shouldn't act like people breaks all logic.

TrulyBlandApr 20, 20172 votes

You can't just expect people to just 'Mute the chat' because no person would just let themselves be attacked and not fight back.

But muting them means you are not letting yourself be attacked. If you are retaliating based on pride alone it's not self-defense; it's revenge. And guess what happens when you exact revenge on somebody that robbed you. You will get punished for your crime, because you took the law into your own hands. Is it understandable when somebody kills the rapist of their daughter? Yep. Does that make it morally okay or legal? Nope.

Nobody is arguing that it isn't understandable that people react the way they do... but understanding something is not the same as condoning it.

3TWarriorApr 21, 20171 votes

morality is also subjective to the person and only expressed in general to the public.

take a look at terrorists...most of them actually believe what they are doing is just and appropriate

like vandalizing and destroying national artifacts that are irreplaceable, looting archaeology sites to pay for weapons, paying people to loot archaeology sites for the above,

morality and ethics are created by the populace at large and used to suppress animal urges of brutality

the problem is that riot owns the "land" on which the players argue and it is deemed against their rules to participate in "toxic" acts

though more manual reviews are probably necessary than they currently employ

TrulyBlandApr 21, 20171 votes

Of course morality is subjective, but there are quite a few concepts that are embraced by most western cultures. The "monopoly on violence" being one of these concepts, which more or less directly implies that taking the law in your own hand (in other words acting without legitimization by the state) and exacting revenge on somebody is against the law.

Obviously getting from this concept to Riot's approach as a private company to punish verbal retaliation requires quite a few extra steps in reasoning, but it aims in a similar direction.

All that said, the main point of my post wasn't to say what is or isn't moral, but mainly to provide a very clear example of something that can be understood and acknowledged as a human reaction without condoning it. In other words: Just because people believe verbal retaliation to not be acceptable behaviour does not mean they do not understand it; which makes the point that "people will act like people" moot.

3TWarriorApr 21, 20171 votes

well, most people apply the logic from biblical verse "do unto others as you would have done to you" in such a situation

my point is, however, that there is little purpose to sugar coating roughly 50% of the population's dialogue and nurtured tendencies to respond in kind to attacks against them

it's sort of like how our population is being taught to rely on the police or other public officials for everything. Of course the police are trained to handle situations ethically and with minimal force, yet we all have witnessed that the Police are human as much as the common bystander

the phrase "sheeple" comes to mind.

I do agree that people are not free to insult others as they please, but I also know that most people of the populace have not been properly taught to refrain from using force to end a situation

TrulyBlandApr 21, 20171 votes

As human as the people that the justice system consists of may be, they still have likely a more neutral viewpoint than the victim of the crime or people who are close to the victim.

It seems pretty weird to quote a Tarantino movie on such a subject, but I feel like this line pretty much nails it: "The man who pulls the lever that breaks your neck will be a dispassionate man. And that dispassion is the very essence of justice. For justice delivered without dispassion is always in danger of not being justice."

I especially like the universality of the quote... It doesn't only apply to vigilantism, but also to biased judges or police brutality. If you want to solve the conundrum of morality with a strict set of rules (i.e. laws), I feel like this is a pretty good guideline to have.

DessemApr 20, 20173 votes

Your argument almost made logical sense. Seriously, pretty well done except for this one problem. You failed to take human emotion and interaction into consideration.

Want to point out that "logical" and "emotion" are often at odds with each other. There's nothing logical about retaliating to flaming, as from a logical point of view it's unproductive.

AirKingNeoApr 21, 20171 votes

There is very much logic to emotions. Denying so is denying emotion.

EDIT: You'd also be denying why we have a thing called Motive for crimes, especially murder.

6SfoolApr 21, 20172 votes

So in life we're not allowed to call people out for being an asshole? They weren't physically hurting anyone.

Warlord ScrapApr 20, 20171 votes

Not to play devils advocate but that assumes people only flame in retaliation for written flame and not for int feeding, trolling or ping/mastery spam. In every except a flame war you have no options other than let them continue and keep your mouth shut. you cant mute their pings or emotes and you cant stop trolls. If you leave the game your punished so you must waste time finishing out the game.

VerxintApr 20, 20172 votes

The self-defense argument usually comes up in flame wars. I'm not talking about all flaming and trolling in the game. However, a frequent complaint made by people on this particular board is that they have the right to defend themselves from what someone else is saying. Almost every time this comes up it's because someone said something mean to them and they feel obligated to respond in the name of defense. I'm specifically addressing why defense is a not a valid reason to engage someone who is flaming you.

Warlord ScrapApr 20, 20171 votes

People use it as a defense for flaming trolls and inters to. You never stated you were only arguing against flame wars.

VerxintApr 20, 20172 votes

I do say in the title "the philosophy of self-defense does not apply to league of legends chat".

Admittedly, this is not very clear. But inting and trolling happen outside of the chat box. My post concerns what happens inside the chat box.

I will totally agree that trolls and inters present a more difficult situation. However, they do present a much easier situation to determine who deserves punishment. But my point is - is flaming the troll or inter going to defend you, or is it giving them exactly what they want?

Warlord ScrapApr 20, 20171 votes

Yea but the way you present yourself i took it as anytime someone get banned for flaming and the use self defense.

While true on giving trolls and inters exactly what they want maybe riot should bring back tribunal and add trolling and inting to it. The tribunal for a little while seemed to work really well because people will always find a way to bypass a computer its an inevitable outcome. Also if they added the feature of everyone who reported a player get a notification it would increase trust in the current system. This would make more people bend to the rules.

VerxintApr 20, 20171 votes

Yeah like I said it's not clear, but that was my intention.

I can't say much on the tribunal, but I do wonder with the number of cases the system must handle on a daily basis, would there be enough people doing the tribunal to cover them? Also, even with a tribunal, people will find some way to undermine that system. They'll use vague chat messages, or do one thing in game and say another. I believe this was one of the problems with the tribunal - someone could troll and then deny it in chat and the person doing the review doesn't know what to believe.

Having feedback for all bans you assist in, instead of only when you were the most recent report, would definitely be more useful. I also think people should be able to see their report weight - some feedback for when people know their reports aren't valid. I think a lot of people report trivial situations as a way to vent, not understanding that it weakens their future reports, then get upset when they actually have something report-worthy and the system won't take them as seriously. Boy who cried wolf, etc. One way or another, more clarity in the punishment system would no doubt go a long way.

Warlord ScrapApr 20, 20172 votes

tbh i believe the report weight isnt true anymore with an automated system that support page was written in the tribuanal days. And for the tribunal we could always watch gameplay/ see scores is the top laner at 0/11 with less than 20 cs at 20 mins over multiples games having a bad game or inting. If he really is having that many bad games maybe forcing him to relevel might not be a bad thing. As for seeing your report weight idc either way i personally dont think it adds something but then again i dont think report weight exists anymore. and there will always be people to do the tribunal espically if they make a summoner icon reward for a large amount of correct judgements

Telephone BoothApr 20, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Not to play devils advocate but that assumes people only flame in retaliation for written flame and not for int feeding, trolling or ping/mastery spam. In every except a flame war you have no options other than let them continue and keep your mouth shut. you cant mute their pings or emotes and you cant stop trolls. If you leave the game your punished so you must waste time finishing out the game.

Yes but flaming someone also isn't preventing them from inting or trolling or ping spamming.

IsedelicaApr 20, 20171 votes

and be not conformed to this world but be ye transformed by the renewing of the mind and what is right and just before GOD

I do not conform so I am not under the governments laws plus there occult in nature so why listen to them in the first place lol

VerxintApr 20, 20171 votes

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but if you don't follow the rules, you should accept the punishment. If your religious views tell you not to follow the rules, then go for it. But I doubt the Lord Himself is going to intervene on your behalf.

IsedelicaApr 20, 20171 votes

[deleted]

MarshbouyApr 20, 20171 votes

TBH i hope i never have to deal with you in real life.

IsedelicaApr 20, 20171 votes

{quoted}

TBH i hope i never have to deal with you in real life.

trust me you would not want to im all in run it down mid lol

TyrekGoldenspearApr 20, 20172 votes

You are misinterpreting that scripture my friend.

IsedelicaApr 20, 20171 votes

{quoted}

You are misinterpreting that scripture my friend.

explain it then

TyrekGoldenspearApr 20, 20175 votes

Simple.

First of all, the entire verse is Romans 12:2 (NIV)

"Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

Another translation (NLT) is

"Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect."

This has nothing to do with laws or purposely disobeying said laws. This has to do with copying unbiblical and immoral practices that the world finds acceptable, such as having children out of wedlock or telling "white lies".

If you want a verse that refers to government authority and laws, consult the very next chapter, Romans 13 1-3.

Right here if you don't want to pick up a Bible and check yourself.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2) Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3) For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

God tells you to respect and submit to the authority put over you, and that if you do what is right anyway, you have no worries about breaking any laws save for those that encourage behavior that is clearly wrong, like if a law was passed to make stealing legal. Note that respect to authority doesn't mean to follow them blindly; it means to give them due respect for their position. If a fascist government enacted laws that are immoral this passage does not give you permission to follow them, as an extreme example.

TL;DR, do what is right and you won't have to worry about following every law, because laws are meant to give people boundaries in which to function in a semblance of "rightness." So do what's right and you'll already be in the boundary and it will be like the laws don't apply to you BECAUSE they aren't needed to govern your behavior.

IsedelicaApr 20, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Simple.

First of all, the entire verse is Romans 12:2 (NIV)

"Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

Another translation (NLT) is

"Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect."

This has nothing to do with laws or purposely disobeying said laws. This has to do with copying unbiblical and immoral practices that the world finds acceptable, such as having children out of wedlock or telling "white lies".

If you want a verse that refers to government authority and laws, consult the very next chapter, Romans 13 1-3.

Right here if you don't want to pick up a Bible and check yourself.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2) Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3) For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

God tells you to respect and submit to the authority put over you, and that if you do what is right anyway, you have no worries about breaking any laws save for those that encourage behavior that is clearly wrong, like if a law was passed to make stealing legal. Note that respect to authority doesn't mean to follow them blindly; it means to give them due respect for their position. If a fascist government enacted laws that are immoral this passage does not give you permission to follow them, as an extreme example.

TL;DR, do what is right and you won't have to worry about following every law, because laws are meant to give people boundaries in which to function in a semblance of "rightness." So do what's right and you'll already be in the boundary and it will be like the laws don't apply to you BECAUSE they aren't needed to govern your behavior.

sorry bro KJV only lets take that in context

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

conform comply with rules, standards, or laws

so do not conform to the rules standards and laws of this world but only to the word of GOD

Proverbs 29:2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn

does this look like everyone is living a happy free life http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160922064226-17-charlotte-protests-0921-super-169.jpg

Romans 13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS

ARE THE RULERS OF THIS WORLD GOOD PEOPLE?

1 Peter 2:13-17 and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

THE GOVERNMENT DOES A TON OF EVIL THINGS HUMAN SACRIFICE INCLUDED

so if you are a good person and you work for the government i will put you under the same judgement as the bad ones if they ever try to do anything to me or my family

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth

SO IS THE GOVERNMENT CORRUPT AND IS THAT THE TRUTH?

Tin of sardinesApr 21, 20172 votes

.... I think you forgot the part about being discrete. in simple words: be different, but no call attention to yourself.

Aloexx RatfootApr 23, 20171 votes

And this is why more and more people are fed up with religion. Some fool will always twist it to "mean" whatever they want it too.

IsedelicaApr 23, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Aloexx Ratfoot,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=UE9gGi2j,comment-id=000100010000000000000001,timestamp=2017-04-23T14:27:55.593+0000)

And this is why more and more people are fed up with religion. Some fool will always twist it to "mean" whatever they want it too.

no I take it literally that's the difference I DO NOT MAKE IT SAY WHAT I WANT I just take it literally

and if you hate religion and GOD good luck bro people are starting to come to the conclusion the government is lying about everything school

TheHappyReaperzApr 20, 20172 votes

If you don't want to conform to the laws of the government, that's fine. However, conforming to the government is not a choice, its a contract within society. Like I said, you are free not to obey, however, in doing so you forfeit all rights and liberties earned as a citizen of a government. You can do that, if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it.

IsedelicaApr 20, 20171 votes

{quoted}

If you don't want to conform to the laws of the government, that's fine. However, conforming to the government is not a choice, its a contract within society. Like I said, you are free not to obey, however, in doing so you forfeit all rights and liberties earned as a citizen of a government. You can do that, if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it.

im officially free and I mean literally im bound by nothing but the word of GOD the last thing the government would want to do would be to come for me lol I understand what they do so them coming for me would be asking for death with all the crazy stuff there doing I WILL HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE
just as much as I hold myself accountable

eazymakaveli3Apr 20, 20171 votes

come on. words dont hurt unless ur a pvssy.

KartagiaApr 21, 20172 votes

And can I get scientific data proving your Dudeims right? I can tell you words do hurt. They hurt a lot. And their can cause permanent damage even to men. Internal injuries are not apparent.

eazymakaveli3Apr 21, 20171 votes

words dont hurt when its on the internet.

Master VemiraApr 20, 20171 votes

it's a logical fallacy, the game does not allow you to go into every game with chat instantly muted and disabled by choice from the get go, so NO, you are not given a choice to NOT read the chat, as most "toxic" players would GLADLY just disable chat completely, so special sjw snowflakes can troll without repercussions. "it's just a game" so let us willfully opt out of chat completely

MarshbouyApr 20, 20171 votes

Step 1: Load into game Step 2: type /mute all Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit

DeathBot666Apr 21, 20171 votes

You cannot mute a fist.

I mute this fist...

#With a BIGGER fist.

NeameanApr 21, 20171 votes

Kassadin I tried to muting a fist once. Boy, did I regret that.

SalsonApr 21, 20171 votes

It should be ban worthy yes, but to be fair some people (me included) don't report retaliation flame. And no matter what you say if u don't get reported you wont get banned.