LeaverBuster should NAME users...

YesImBuff·Mar 12, 2019·0 votes·2,657 views

{quoted}

The real issue is that of anonimity vs transparency. If you're joining my queue in a draft-pick match but you dodged the last 4 games and waited the compulsory 5-minute-minimum between queues I think that I; as your potential teammate should be made aware of that.

If you're gonna pick-and-chose, in my opinion blind-pick was made exactly for you in that nobody but you can ultimately influence what role, champion, etc. you play. {quoted}

WHY NOT name players who are determined by** LeaverBuster** to be 'habitual' dodgers/AFKers?

What do you think...? Who or; what circumstances should be considered "habitual" when we talk about people who leave queue?

51 Comments

HotarµMar 12, 20197 votes

I don't like this idea. People make mistakes and there are legitimate reasons to dodge.

Negatively branding someone for a mistake, poor choice, or reasonable dodge isn't right.

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

{quoted}

I don't like this idea. People make mistakes and there are legitimate reasons to dodge.

Negatively branding someone for a mistake, poor choice, or reasonable dodge isn't right.

{quoted}

Ftfy

So now its a sin to dodge support and jungle ?

Habitual is the word of the day, folks. Do you habitually get dodge-worthy queues? 3+ times in a row?

Lets think a little bit...

HotarµMar 12, 20196 votes

"there are legitimate reasons to dodge."

I don't think you're using the word habitually properly. Habitually usually means something that is done out of habit or on occasion. Meaning if someone plays 10 ranked games in one day and has to dodge 3 of them due to trolls, that would include them in your suggestion, which is a bad idea for the reasons I listed above.

I think you mean to say consecutively which means they do it without fail multiple times in a row. Meaning if someone AFKs, dodges, or intentionally feeds 10 games in a row, they would have a black mark on their account, which is better, but still not something I agree with.

Lets think a little bit...

Let's clarify a little bit better and not be so condescending, huh?

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

I'd love to soothe your bruised ego but the OP remains unanswered. What was the OP, again?

HotarµMar 12, 20195 votes

lmao what

You're the one who misspoke and was condescending towards others even when they answered your question directly? But sure, my ego is the one that's bruised.

[sg-miss-fortune]

Reread my original response if you want your answer, I'm done here.

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

{quoted}

lmao what

You're the one who misspoke and was condescending towards others even when they answered your question directly? But sure, my ego is the one that's bruised.

[sg-miss-fortune]

Reread my original response if you want your answer, I'm done here.

Your problem has an easy fix. Answer the OP and I'll have something to address other than your decision to be irrelevant.

WHY NOT name players who are determined by LeaverBuster to be 'habitual' dodgers/AFKers?

insomniacjezzMar 12, 20194 votes

Because it serves no purpose besides creating unnecessary negativity.

Edit: What would be a positive outcome of enacting this? What would the player base gain?

YesImBuffMar 12, 2019

The negativity exists whether my 'suggestion' in the op is carried out or not. I am failing to acknowledge a legitimate reason why [for example] I should not be able to know that you(your username) have dodged a lot of queues in recent draft-pick games.

insomniacjezzMar 12, 20194 votes

What would you do with that information? Dodge? And if you happened to get another player in your next queue, dodge again? How long until you get marked yourself? And how then can you know that other people who earned the status didn’t just do the same thing you did? It becomes useless knowledge quickly.

As it stands now, there is -no- added negativity for those who dodged beyond what Riot already has in the game; no one is any the wiser of a person’s LPQ status. Your suggestion would only potentially add toxicity to the pregame chat with people calling out or otherwise shaming people who have dodged. Nothing good comes out of this idea.

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

If I click the Accept button when a match is available I hold myself accountable to be there for champion select, for the whole game and so on....

You must think I am suggesting a change for you. I am suggesting a change for US. specifically matches that are draft-picked, such as ranked. Is that clear?

insomniacjezzMar 12, 20194 votes

So if you don’t plan on dodging upon seeing someone who has been marked by your system, again I ask, what do you hope to gain by having this information? How would it change your experience, for better or worse? What would you do differently? What do you hope people would do differently with the information?

rujitraMar 12, 20192 votes

You keep complaining about little not answering your questions, but in fact they are answering them and you're the one trying to play logic games and refuse to answer questions.

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

Your argument concerns only semantics, which frankly isn't relevant at this point. It is up to people other than you or myself who is determined a "habitual" ____. Your nonspecific disagreement serves no purpose other than to enable others to be dismissive rather than inquisitive.

Umbral RegentMar 12, 20196 votes

LeaverBuster should NAME users...

The logistically appropriate approach would be to ask, "Why not?".

Frankly, I'm with Voldymort. The better question would be to ask "why", not "why not".

But regardless, here's why not; because naming users under Low Priority Queue confers no genuine benefit to anyone for knowing that they're in LPQ, while simultaneously inhibiting those LPQ players from reforming. Because, as you said in response to zPOOPz asking what you would do if you saw an LPQ player in Champ Select;

Dodge the one time and come back later. You do know what "dodging" is, right?

This response to an LPQ player does not make the problem better; in fact, it exacerbates and perpetuates the problem that you're trying to tackle. And in dodging a match due to even one player under LPQ, you are becoming a part of the problem. It's pretty awful hypocritical that it's okay for you to dodge a match because of one player in LPQ while you absolutely abhor someone who's serving out their sentence for the same.

Add to that the fact that a person in LPQ has to play 5 consecutive matches without leaving a game to get out of LPQ - how are they going to go about doing that if every time they queue up, they can't get into a match because everyone sees they have LPQ and dodges?

At the end of the day, all having LPQ players named would do is tell you that x player is serving out their LPQ. It doesn't tell you why they have LPQ, it doesn't tell you anything about their likelihood of dodging the match or otherwise leaving - there's zero useful information given, and nothing good can come from having punished players publicly shamed like that.

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

Low priority queue is a related yet separate issue. Though I have no doubt that some LPQ players participate in this "dodging behaviour" they are the outliers and not the focus of the the population that is being referenced here. LPQ is by far and large composed of players who leave/AFK from games.

The issue here is that LeaverBuster; as it currently stands is unable to discriminate between people who leave [draft pick] games because they are unhappy with how they think things will turn out and those that leave the aforementioned game type because of technical issues. Odds are mathematically in our favor as players that any 2 games in a draft pick will be starkly different in terms of outcome/team composition/team attitude /etc.

The reason is as clear as day: people know that they can get away with a certain amount of queue-dodging behavior. LeaverBuster is extremely lenient in that regard. How can we fix this?

Umbral RegentMar 12, 20194 votes

people know that they can get away with a certain amount of queue-dodging behavior. LeaverBuster is extremely lenient in that regard. How can we fix this?

Well, I can tell you right now that publicly shaming everyone with a LeaverBuster penalty and leaving judgement in the hands of the players isn't even close to a viable solution.

If your problem is that LeaverBuster does not hold separate/distinct punishments for queue dodgers, AFK's, leavers, etc., then there's no real viable solution to that problem short of individualizing the punishment per behavioral case - but then that would consequently increase leniency, as each behavior would be treated differently and subject to its own punishment path.

If your problem is that LeaverBuster handles punishments with an inclination towards leniency (which is necessary, since there are situations that can't be accounted for), then you'd have to make a compelling case (particularly involving actual data, which would doubtless be hard to find) that the vast majority of leaves, dodges, AFKs, and so on are done voluntarily and with malicious intent, that Riot would have reason to make the LeaverBuster system stricter.

And if your problem is that players know (somehow) how many games they can "get away with" due to LeaverBuster's leniency, then you have to figure out how they're getting said information (if at all) and how to counteract that.

And, again, I have to reiterate; of these problems, none of them would be solved by making it known if a player has a LeaverBuster/LPQ penalty.

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

There is no wall of shame. There is not public backlash against individuals who dodge any queue(s) as I am imagining it.

If you hit accept for a match but 1, or 2 or 4-out-of the 10 people [# is arbitrary] decline there is no foul done in other players getting to see your username(s)...

If I want to avoid "Umbral Regent" because he left his last 2 queues in the middle of champion select I should be able to know that before I enter aforementioned champion select; in fact I should be able to avoid queuing with you in this hypothetical circumstance just based upon the fact that you demonstrated a tendency to leave queues... so many people are of like mind to you that frankly it is tiring for many of us to sift through the 'dodgers'. This is especially the case during certain times of night/day, depending on timezone....

Am I not making sense or do you have a guilty conscience? The freedom of information does not necessitate nor require that people be treated differently. That is what YOU might do if my idea were enacted but anything beyond that is speculation on your part.

No harm done in that regard but gosh darn it, own it.

VoldymortMar 12, 20193 votes

but anything beyond that is fabrication and speculation on your part.

you mean... as opposed to what you're doing in the above comment?

your self awareness seems to be lacking, dude

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

Deflection. Let's stay on topic and if there is nothing further to contribute to the OP then just abstain.

VoldymortMar 12, 20195 votes

Deflection. Let's stay on topic and if there is nothing further to contribute to the OP then just abstain.

you're such a hypocrite that it's not even funny...

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

Sorry, your thirst for conflict will be found elsewhere. Without contributing to the discussion this will be your last volitional post.

VoldymortMar 12, 20194 votes

i'm not the one making bold statements and then dodging when clarification is demanded. There is no discussion to be had with you.

Umbral RegentMar 12, 20192 votes

If you hit accept for a match but 1, or 2 or 4-out-of the 10 people [# is arbitrary] decline there is no foul done in other players getting to see your username(s)...

So then, by extension, if you dodge a queue because of seeing someone else having dodged a queue (again, as you've illustrated in your response to zPOOPz), then you would also have that mark on you. No harm done, no?

...so many people are of like mind to you that frankly it is tiring for many of us to sift through the 'dodgers'. This is especially the case during certain times of night/day, depending on timezone....

Am I not making sense or do you have a guilty conscience?

These pointed statements are giving me the feeling that this isn't a figurative statement so much as it is an insinuation and ad-hominem.

And all it's looking like at this point is that your suggestion only serves to give validation to your own arbitrary decision to avoid playing with people. If you don't want to wind up queued up with someone who might've recently dodged a game, for whatever reason they may've had, just play with a premade.

If someone's going to dodge, they're going to dodge. You dodging first isn't going to change it, and it sure as hell isn't going to dramatically decrease your likelihood of running into another dodger. As I've stated before;

...it exacerbates and perpetuates the problem that you're trying to tackle. And in dodging a match due to even one player under LPQ, you are becoming a part of the problem.

If you're just going to dodge when you see that someone else has recently dodged a match, you're just becoming a part of the problem; you make yourself no better than the person you bailed on.

The freedom of information does not necessitate nor require that people be treated differently.

So, if there's no reason to treat them differently, then why mark them differently from any other player?

That is what YOU might do if my idea were enacted...

Aaaaaand now you're deflecting and putting words in my mouth. There's nothing more to be discussed here, as clearly, you're not going to accept input or opinions from anyone else.

End of discussion.

General MattyMar 12, 20195 votes

Just gets people verbally attacked

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

No, it doesn't. Riot lets people choose to accept or deny friend requests; by extension this limits PMs. Unfortunately this argument is invalid.

Inkling CommandoMar 12, 20195 votes

oh yeah good idea. that way you can get the rest of the team to insult them and make fun of them and make them feel even worse about themselves. yeah no. that won't ever happen. good day sir.

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

It saddens me that you would treat someone that way just because they leave queues early. It would be easier if we could just avoid those people and not make them feel bad.. wouldn't you agree?

;)

zPOOPzMar 12, 20194 votes

And what would you do when you see one in champ select? Dodge yourself and get branded or flame the shit out of the guy to get him to dodge?

YesImBuffMar 12, 2019

Dodge the one time and come back later. You do know what "dodging" is, right?

RallerenPMar 12, 20193 votes

Yeah, but why even dodge?

If you stay, then the 'habitual dodger' is either going to stay, or not. There's still a chance to get in-game.

But you'd rather not go in-game? Your dodging will be just as annoying as the 'habitual dodger' dodging. You're just deciding that, no matter what, you wont go in-game with someone known to dodge que?

VoldymortMar 12, 20193 votes

The logistically appropriate approach would be to ask, "Why?".

Ftfy

Hmm. Personally it would make me think twice about who i queue with. Everybody knows that it's a 5 minute temp-ban/low-priority queue for someone who dodges. I feel that this has gone on long enough whereas to enact a named player-list of habitual dodgers/AFKers, etc.

So now its a sin to dodge Teemo support and jungle Karthus ?

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

Take a moment to think about how your leaving queue effects others. Sucks when you're ready and 1+ others decide they are not, huh?

Well multiply that by a factor of at least 3. This is an epidemic.

VoldymortMar 12, 20195 votes

some people would rather waste their time to queue again rather than lose 17 lp because of a trollpick

if you'd rather play on "to see what happens", knock yourself out!

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

"let them eat cake", as the queen would say.

The real issue is that of anonimity vs transparency. If you're joining my queue in a draft-pick match but you dodged the last 4 games and waited the compulsory 5-minute-minimum between queues I think that I; as your potential teammate should be made aware of that.

If you're gonna pick-and-chose, in my opinion blind-pick was made exactly for you in that nobody but you can ultimately influence what role, champion, etc. you play.

VoldymortMar 12, 20194 votes

If you're joining my queue in a draft-pick match but you dodged the last 4 games and waited the compulsory 5-minute-minimum between queues I think that I; as your potential teammate should be made aware of that.

again... why?

what does that tell you and what are you able to do with that information? are you going to dodge too in response to what you believe someone is like because of a few dodges that could have any number of reasons behind them?

If you're gonna pick-and-chose, in my opinion blind-pick was made exactly for you in that nobody but you can ultimately influence what role, champion, etc. you play.

i haven't adressed personal pick prefferences as an issue but the "nobody but you can ultimately influence what role, champion, etc. you play." rule is equally available in ranked and normal draft.

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

The goal long-term would ultimately be to lessen AFKers/Leavers/Elo Farmers from happening in the games we play. In the short-term it makes the entry into actual matches more rapid and it makes the quality of our team(s) more consistent because if I know who is most likely to dodge a match during champion select, or decline a match in-queue then I can 'choose' the kind of player i end up with. More specifically, i can avoid the players that are most likely to delay actually getting into a game and increase the odds that the players I do end up teaming with will stick around for the entirety of the match.

If I see you do this[leave games in-queue/champ select] often maybe I right-click your summoner profile and block you, or avoid queuing with you(a secondary suggestion that I have, but ultimately it would be riot's decision how to handle it). What's wrong with that?

VoldymortMar 12, 20194 votes

in other words you're under the impression that the people who have dodged the previous 1 or more games are more likely to dodge the one you encounter them in than the ones who haven't done it yet

that's stupid

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

I think that the people who dodge games over and over again to suit their needs (i.e., Habitual dodgers) can be identified by fellow players. For that reason we as players should be able to pick and choose who ends up in our queue pool either based on what riot considers 'dodging too much' or by individual users choosing to block other players that have been identified as 'dodgers'.

You are entitled to think what you want about my _SUGGESTION _, but remember that I am not even suggesting how many dodges people should get without penalty, what conditions make a player a 'dodger' or what those penalties should be, etc...

Reading comprehension! Context clues! Holy cow.

VoldymortMar 12, 20192 votes

the people who dodge games over and over again to suit their needs (i.e., Habitual dodgers)

i don't understand why you'd think that anyone would enjoy sitting in the client watching the dodge timer go down to 0 as well as watch the low priority queue timer excede 5 minutes over and over just so they can do it again

that's a pretty weird fetish to have...

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

You took the time to bold the cathartic word in your message but you couldn't take the fraction of that time to make your post relevant? Either stop or get back on topic. This thread was created to host opinions and discussions thereof. Be a part of this or leave.

VoldymortMar 12, 20192 votes

You took the time to bold the cathartic words in your message but you couldn't take the fraction of that time to to make your post relevant?

Deflection (in can do it too)

please save the red herrings for someone else and explain your position!

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

-6 Says that public opinion does not want to discuss the issue. @ time of this post. We can each be part of the problem or part of the solution; the fact that this 'habit' or norm exists among both ranked and casual players is infallible.

E-Sports cant be relevant without regulation, Riot.

VoldymortMar 12, 20194 votes

-6 Says that public opinion does not want to discuss the issue

actually what is says is that 6(now 8) people think you are wrong and some of them have already explained why that is despite your refusal to "get it"

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=opinion

VoldymortMar 12, 20195 votes

[sg-lux-2]

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

I am asking for opinions and not the 'right' or 'wrong' answer. Can't be any more clear than that!

VoldymortMar 12, 20194 votes

and opinions were presented but you dismissed them because they didn't vibe with your preexisting belief of how things work

you don't want opinions. what you want is confirmation bias

YesImBuffMar 12, 20191 votes

+bump

Reworded OP, quoted pertinent message.

If you feel like you need to defend your position/opinion then you are probably done sharing. Keep the conflict in your PMs and express it through up/downvotes.

Thanks

Umbral RegentMar 12, 20193 votes

Just a heads-up, bumping your discussion like you're doing here is against the Boards Universal Rules.

Spamming or Trolling No spamming or trolling. Some common examples of these behaviors are listed below.

Posting content not related to the discussion.

Posting a discussion or comment repeatedly, or across multiple sub-boards.

Posting designed to bait conversation or falsify content.

Posting designed to spoil things (movies, shows, books, etc.) for other players

Posting repetitive non-constructive or low-effort content.

Bumping of discussions while adding no meaningful content.

Excessive emoji / icon spam.

Necromancy of old discussions.

And, yes, before you argue; stating that you've edited your OP is not a meaningful addition, nor is dismissing people for defending their position opinion - especially when you yourself have been defending your own position/opinion in your responses to people.

YesImBuffMar 12, 20192 votes

No argument to be made on my part, that was my fault.

I'll own that. I'd rather lead by example since I am not a board moderator; thank you for bringing that unintentional transgression to my attention....