Boards›Player Behavior

Why wait and punish toxicity when lighter touch could be used before it gets bad enough to punish?

HalcyonDweller·6/12/2018, 4:34:56 PM·4 votes·1,985 views

Often enough I see people become toxic just because they are super tilted and don't know when to stop playing the game.

Why can't the system give time-outs that don't actually count against the person's record? By making it not as severe, and basically not actually any sort of punishment, you widen the scope of cases it can ethically be applied to.

Suddenly when someone goes on a losing streak and starts lashing out in chat, Riot could give them a short temp ban or a chat restriction (that doesn't count against their record) before they cross lines.

At least at first glance I feel like this sort of thing would be a lot better than letting the situation escalate long enough for the player to ruin more games for others and force Riot to actually punish them.

Obviously this runs the risk of overreaching or overstepping bounds, but managed correctly I think such a system could do a lot to mitigate or stop toxicity.

What are your thoughts?

26 Comments

Unker1396/12/2018, 4:41:41 PM2 votes

Don't they do that now? 10 game chat restriction to 25 game chat restriction to 14 day ban to permanent ban.

ModThe Djinn6/12/2018, 6:21:16 PM2 votes

Personally I think all this really does is extend the amount of time it takes to detect this sort of behavior. Riot has said several times that a lot of people who get a punishment aren't punished again, so the Chat Restriction alone (a relatively minor punishment) clearly works as a first step. They've also said that the current punishments are designed around breakpoints in their data of punishments serious enough to be taken seriously, but light enough that the early ones don't feel crippling.

All this seems to do is give a few light warning slaps that seem like they wouldn't really change much. While you might catch one or two people on a bit of a tilt, I don't think the net gain of this system would be appreciable at all.

In effect, it's asking Riot to be a therapist for people who don't know when to stop, and then you get into situations like this: how many slaps on the wrist do they get? What level of toxicity in a single game earns a light slap and what earns a straight-up chat restriction? Do these restrictions still adds points to your penalty tracker running in the background? Do players come back MORE annoyed after being told to knock it off for a very short time?

I wouldn't object to a little pop-up that says something like "Hey, our system has noticed that your chat has been showing signs of frustration recently, and suggests taking a quick break" when minor toxicity is identified and the player isn't in a habit of being toxic, but I don't think anything more than that would be especially useful or productive.

I AM VBAD6/12/2018, 4:38:52 PM2 votes

meh. its funny when the tantrum throwing kids get punished

mlm olo mlm6/13/2018, 1:26:47 AM1 votes

Timing is very important for a punishment to be effective. The most effective timing is to issue punishment immediately after an offense.

Timing of punishment is not a preventive measure for people learning to exploit the system. At best, it will slow their learning. Also, games are being ruined while the system "delays" punishment.

As for tilted players; I think your best shot there is a ranked restriction system. Have people enter ranked games always on a win streak.

As for taking breaks in between long play sessions; I haven't seen any games enforce a break yet. I have seen some games show a "health warning". Basically, just a pop up that says, "You have been playing for a long time. We suggest you take a few minutes to stretch."

I AM VBAD6/12/2018, 5:49:53 PM1 votes

so your idea is to give toxic players a little warning that the system picked up on what they were saying. so they can more easily figure out how to be toxic without being detected.

genius plan. i give gold star and thumbs up. you are very clever man.

HalcyonDweller6/12/2018, 5:48:12 PM1 votes

I don't get it, was it the title?

I'm trying to have a discussion here, if you downvote and leave then you don't contribute anything and nobody gets to learn from your point of view.

Totally Not Jinx6/12/2018, 5:56:26 PM1 votes

While this may seem like a good idea on the surface, the idea of an escalation of punishment is kind of already there.

Additionally, 'soft' punishments would include the chat restrictions, while harder punishments include a suspension. The entire idea is, if someone is not lucid enough to make the decision to stop playing and push through with the tilt, there has to be a failsafe in mind for that decision. And having ahem tilted myself in games, but not achieved a penalty (yet omg) it's about consistency as well. The constantly, 1 in 2 games flamers are more likely to NEED something a little harsher to enforce the point, while giving them a chance to simmer down.

I'm sure the honour system could be reworked to accommodate chat restrictions vs. suspensions, to make it easier to reform, but I'm not 100% knowledgeable on that to know how it would change. But, even as it is, there is room to get better.

TL;DR it is kind of a good idea but where would the hard limits be at that point?