My viewpoint on player moderation

Jannahitbox·May 26, 2016·3 votes·495 views

I think the way that player moderation is done needs reworked, completely. First off, I think bans are overused. I've noticed how it works. You get a chat restrict. You get another, usually longer, Then you get a ban Then you get a perm ban And rather or not you advance to a worse punishment is based on how often you are reported for toxicity. The first thing that doesn't make sense to me is that you can report someone for toxicity, and for failing to communicate. If you've ever talked to someone about toxicity, there's a 90 percent chance they say "if you're being flamed, just mute them" But isn't muting someone refusing to communicate? It doesn't really make sense to have a report option for refusal to communicate, but giving someone the ability to mute their entire team if they want. I just noticed that that didn't really make any sense. Another thing I take issue with is how harshly toxicity is punished. Toxicity can get you a perm ban if you're toxic a couple of times within like 100 games. But you can afk and feed in multiple games with no punishment. I know punishing these things can be hard to do, but lets be honest, when you go to someone's match history and they have 3 games in a row where they have a full tear of the goddess build and 10 deaths and 2 leaves, it's pretty obvious they're intentionally feeding and afking. As for how toxicity should be punished, I'm of the viewpoint that the "good standing" period is ridiculous If you're account isn't in "Good standing" then you're at a risk for a higher form of punishment. I've noticed to be in "good standing" usually takes around, 20, 30 games on average, atleast. So basically. If I had one game where I had a bad day, and said to a team mate "stop playing terribly and being annoying" if someone was feeding 0/10 That's one Then another game where someone is flamed the entire game and they say "Shut up you're being annoying and it's getting old" Thats two And then any other similar scenario That's three This could happen over around 60-90 games And it's enough to get you banned.. That's insane. I propose a more logical way of dealing with toxic players. If someone is toxic once, give them a chat restrict for a couple of games If they're toxic again, give them another chat restrict for a couple of games. If they're toxic again, give them a chat ban, and a temporary ban from ranked ques for a couple of games The idea of banning someone from ranked ques then giving them a chat ban makes more sense, because normals aren't really competitive, and chat and communication with team mates isn't a necessity for winning and enjoying a game. I've heard other ideas such as a que for players who are toxic for a temporary amount of time, just reducing punishments, making it to where you have to play certain ques outside of ranked temporarily, and the idea of not punishing toxicity at all due to the mute button being an option. What do you guys think? Should toxicity be punished how it is now, or in a different way, or at all?

14 Comments

ZielmannMay 26, 20163 votes

But isn't muting someone refusing to communicate?

No. Pinging can sufficiently communicate anything necessary within the game, especially now that the smart pings exist. I'd argue pinging is probably the most effective means of communication in league because it's fast and usually easily noticed by allies. And even without pinging, you can 'communicate' non-verbally. Do you think your team needs to back off from something? Start falling back yourself (paired with a back ping this tends to be very effective). Should mid be pushed out? Head over there. This could also count if you're simply just following your team and being where you're needed. For example, a decent fallback option for the support is to basically just follow the carry around and go where they go.

Toxicity can get you a perm ban if you're toxic a couple of times within like 100 games. But you can afk and feed in multiple games with no punishment.

(Mostly) wrong on both accounts. You'll only jump to a permanent ban for a game or two if your behavior is extremely negative, such as substantial personal threats or excessive use of hate speech. And there are systems in place to automatically detect AFK behavior and intentional feeding, and punish accordingly. Though you're right in that these can take slightly longer to punish than somebody flaming in chat because Riot wants to be 100% certain the behavior is consistent and worthy of a punishment.

So basically. If I had one game where I had a bad day, and said to a team mate "stop playing terribly and being annoying" if someone was feeding 0/10 That's one Then another game where someone is flamed the entire game and they say "Shut up you're being annoying and it's getting old" Thats two And then any other similar scenario That's three This could happen over around 60-90 games And it's enough to get you banned.. That's insane.

I agree, that would be insane if it were accurate. But it's not.

Regarding your proposal, it sounds very similar to the old chat restriction model they had in place, which simply wasn't effective enough. They used to give chat restrictions, and them more chat restrictions, stacking them basically infinitely to where players effectively had permanent chat restrictions. But they found it didn't actually help things much. And it also made it feel like it wasn't worth the time/effort for players willing to reform to actually correct their behavior.

If toxicity were only present in ranked queues, then I could be behind the concept of a queue restriction. But that doesn't solve anything; it only pushes the dirt around. Don't let the toxic players play ranked? Normals will become a cesspool. What do you do if somebody is toxic in Normals, then? Push them off into ARAM or TT? Then what about in those queues? Push them into Co-op vs. AI?

There's a reason for the system that's in place today, and we got here based on what was seen with past iterations. When they first put a system in place (Tribunal), there were about 7 different tiers of punishments. And people didn't always move from one tier to the next. The system was also fairly slow to react (sometimes it took a month or more for a case to get through to a punishment). But they also saw that with so many tiers of punishments, they were often just keeping problem players around far longer than they should be.

With the first warning and first punishment, reform rates were pretty high. But they dropped very fast. After a couple tiers of punishments, it became extremely rare that players would actually reform. Instead, they were just able to continue causing problems until they processed through the last few punishments at which point they were ultimately permabanned anyhow. As it was, they found that almost anybody that was going to reform will have done so at or before their third punishment. Very few players who made it to a 4th punishment would ever actually reform.

And so we have the current system, based on that data. You get three chances to reform, which historically will be enough opportunity for those willing to reform to do so.

JannahitboxMay 26, 20161 votes

{quoted}

No. Pinging can sufficiently communicate anything necessary within the game, especially now that the smart pings exist. I'd argue pinging is probably the most effective means of communication in league because it's fast and usually easily noticed by allies. And even without pinging, you can 'communicate' non-verbally. Do you think your team needs to back off from something? Start falling back yourself (paired with a back ping this tends to be very effective). Should mid be pushed out? Head over there. This could also count if you're simply just following your team and being where you're needed. For example, a decent fallback option for the support is to basically just follow the carry around and go where they go. But you can afk and feed in multiple games with no punishment.

(Mostly) wrong on both accounts. You'll only jump to a permanent ban for a game or two if your behavior is extremely negative, such as substantial personal threats or excessive use of hate speech. And there are systems in place to automatically detect AFK behavior and intentional feeding, and punish accordingly. Though you're right in that these can take slightly longer to punish than somebody flaming in chat because Riot wants to be 100% certain the behavior is consistent and worthy of a punishment. If I had one game where I had a bad day, and said to a team mate "stop playing terribly and being annoying" if someone was feeding 0/10 That's one Then another game where someone is flamed the entire game and they say "Shut up you're being annoying and it's getting old" Thats two And then any other similar scenario That's three This could happen over around 60-90 games And it's enough to get you banned.. That's insane.

I agree, that would be insane if it were accurate. But it's not.

Regarding your proposal, it sounds very similar to the old chat restriction model they had in place, which simply wasn't effective enough. They used to give chat restrictions, and them more chat restrictions, stacking them basically infinitely to where players effectively had permanent chat restrictions. But they found it didn't actually help things much. And it also made it feel like it wasn't worth the time/effort for players willing to reform to actually correct their behavior.

If toxicity were only present in ranked queues, then I could be behind the concept of a queue restriction. But that doesn't solve anything; it only pushes the dirt around. Don't let the toxic players play ranked? Normals will become a cesspool. What do you do if somebody is toxic in Normals, then? Push them off into ARAM or TT? Then what about in those queues? Push them into Co-op vs. AI?

There's a reason for the system that's in place today, and we got here based on what was seen with past iterations. When they first put a system in place (Tribunal), there were about 7 different tiers of punishments. And people didn't always move from one tier to the next. The system was also fairly slow to react (sometimes it took a month or more for a case to get through to a punishment). But they also saw that with so many tiers of punishments, they were often just keeping problem players around far longer than they should be.

With the first warning and first punishment, reform rates were pretty high. But they dropped very fast. After a couple tiers of punishments, it became extremely rare that players would actually reform. Instead, they were just able to continue causing problems until they processed through the last few punishments at which point they were ultimately permabanned anyhow. As it was, they found that almost anybody that was going to reform will have done so at or before their third punishment. Very few players who made it to a 4th punishment would ever actually reform.

And so we have the current system, based on that data. You get three chances to reform, which historically will be enough opportunity for those willing to reform to do so.

I never threaten people, and as for hate speech, I don't agree with the definition of hate speech according to many, but I never even say anything that even the most loose definition could qualify as hate speech, yet i've been permed, so this simply isn't true. Pings can only do so much, and I was basically saying that having a mute button is antithetical to the idea that you have to communicate, because while pings help, if you aren't planning anything ahead, aren't talking about what you're building and what your team needs, you're going to have a bad time. As for what can get you banned in how many games, I can provide evidence of this if you'd like, you can be banned for a few toxic games in 60-90 games. Another problem is the loose definition of toxicity and the oversensitivity of the community. I've had someone report me over the most benine things, I was even reported for saying we should report an afk team mate. I've gotten punishments for saying things that barely qualify as toxicity, let alone warrant a punishment. I think most of the community needs thicker skin, and we need to decrease punishments, there's a difference between someone who's genuinely disruptive, and someone who makes one little comment that hurts someone feelings and faces a punishment due to it. As for the comment about temporarily banning them from ranked ques, I said that since normals are barely competitive, the chat ban isn't going to really matter. I seem to disagree with you on how often players even deserve a punishment, most punishments I see are given to someone who makes a slightly toxic comment, and not someone who's genuinely disrupting the game.

ZielmannMay 26, 20161 votes

{quoted}

I never threaten people, and as for hate speech, I don't agree with the definition of hate speech according to many, but I never even say anything that even the most loose definition could qualify as hate speech, yet i've been permed, so this simply isn't true. Pings can only do so much, and I was basically saying that having a mute button is antithetical to the idea that you have to communicate, because while pings help, if you aren't planning anything ahead, aren't talking about what you're building and what your team needs, you're going to have a bad time.

Seems like an argument of sufficient versus theoretically ideal, to me. Most games go by with essentially an empty chat box. Does that mean nobody was communicating? Hardly. Would it be ideal to discuss plans ahead of time and stuff like that? Sure. But that rarely happens. What's more, we're talking specifically about players who find themselves deserving of being muted. You don't mute players who are contributing strategically to the game. You don't mute players who are legitimately communicating important things in chat. You mute players who are causing problems in chat and specifically not using it for relevant communication.

As for what can get you banned in how many games, I can provide evidence of this if you'd like, you can be banned for a few toxic games in 60-90 games. Another problem is the loose definition of toxicity and the oversensitivity of the community. I've had someone report me over the most benine things, I was even reported for saying we should report an afk team mate. I've gotten punishments for saying things that barely qualify as toxicity, let alone warrant a punishment. I think most of the community needs thicker skin, and we need to decrease punishments, there's a difference between someone who's genuinely disruptive, and someone who makes one little comment that hurts someone feelings and faces a punishment due to it. As for the comment about temporarily banning them from ranked ques, I said that since normals are barely competitive, the chat ban isn't going to really matter. I seem to disagree with you on how often players even deserve a punishment, most punishments I see are given to someone who makes a slightly toxic comment, and not someone who's genuinely disrupting the game.

I have never seen a case where somebody reaches a permaban for the sorts of examples you've given. Frankly, I cannot fathom how players even reach a permaban for behavior, because it's so darn easy to not get banned in this game. It really perplexes me how people get to that point at all.

JannahitboxMay 26, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Seems like an argument of sufficient versus theoretically ideal, to me. Most games go by with essentially an empty chat box. Does that mean nobody was communicating? Hardly. Would it be ideal to discuss plans ahead of time and stuff like that? Sure. But that rarely happens. What's more, we're talking specifically about players who find themselves deserving of being muted. You don't mute players who are contributing strategically to the game. You don't mute players who are legitimately communicating important things in chat. You mute players who are causing problems in chat and specifically not using it for relevant communication.

I have never seen a case where somebody reaches a permaban for the sorts of examples you've given. Frankly, I cannot fathom how players even reach a permaban for behavior, because it's so darn easy to not get banned in this game. It really perplexes me how people get to that point at all.

Alright, I guess I can see this, this wasn't really a major part of my point for the reason that this needs reworked, I just thought it was a bit odd, thanks. As for getting perm bans, I'd be happy to show you the reform card as an example of the kind of things that can get you permed.

Kei143May 26, 20161 votes

oh we've seen enough examples of people getting permaed. Especially when they were on the last straw, and got through the punishments levels fairly recently, any little small thing can get you banned.

If you wanted to dispute anything with us, then you should post all your logs and when they sent it to you.

Eitherway, its working as intended for now and we don't need what you recommended as part of the rework.

JannahitboxMay 26, 20161 votes

{quoted}

oh we've seen enough examples of people getting permaed. Especially when they were on the last straw, and got through the punishments levels fairly recently, any little small thing can get you banned.

If you wanted to dispute anything with us, then you should post all your logs and when they sent it to you.

Eitherway, its working as intended for now and we don't need what you recommended as part of the rework.

I can post chat logs if you want.

Kei143May 26, 20161 votes

I don't think anything is going to change if you do.

We on the forums are still going to stamp you with guilty if you were permaed for toxicity by the automated system as it is rarely wrong.

scazzmanMay 26, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Seems like an argument of sufficient versus theoretically ideal, to me. Most games go by with essentially an empty chat box. Does that mean nobody was communicating? Hardly. Would it be ideal to discuss plans ahead of time and stuff like that? Sure. But that rarely happens. What's more, we're talking specifically about players who find themselves deserving of being muted. You don't mute players who are contributing strategically to the game. You don't mute players who are legitimately communicating important things in chat. You mute players who are causing problems in chat and specifically not using it for relevant communication.

I have never seen a case where somebody reaches a permaban for the sorts of examples you've given. Frankly, I cannot fathom how players even reach a permaban for behavior, because it's so darn easy to not get banned in this game. It really perplexes me how people get to that point at all.

you can get permabanned just for telling people to shut up if you do it enough

JannahitboxMay 26, 20161 votes

I want to clarify one thing, where I said "no punishment" I want to correct that, you can be punished for afking and feeding, but it usually never happens, and whenever you are it's usually a slap on the wrist compared to the punishments for toxicity.

Colgate GatorMay 26, 20161 votes

Funny, I believe they are too cautious when it comes to banning people.

JannahitboxMay 26, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=Postal Badger,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=ZgGPuzk3,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2016-05-26T14:51:20.451+0000)

Funny, I believe they are too cautious when it comes to banning people. How so?