If you can understand this, you will understand why Riot is a complete failure at player reform.

KORGtuners·Jan 25, 2017·1 votes·916 views

We know that most negativity in game comes from a misstep

Why is it then, no one gets perma-banned for making a "misstep"? Get rid of the "misstep" and most of the negativity is gone.

Under this current system, we are allowed to cause negativity. While perma-banned for being negative. You are allowed to give someone cancer. If you have cancer, you will be executed.

we owe these players frank feedback about unsportsmanlike conduct, **and a chance at **gaining some self-awareness and growing as players and part of the community

If you cure your cancer "quickly", we won't execute you. You are still allowed to give other people cancer. If you get cancer again, you will be executed immeadiately.

we shoot penalized players a reform card explaining why other players think they should be penalized, but not an idea of how to change and grow. That gap is important for us to fill.

Stop allowing people to give me cancer, and I might grow. Keep allowing people to give me cancer, and I won't grow.

There is another option. Let me live with my cancer. Don't execute me. I might grow.

33 Comments

eldurisJan 25, 20179 votes

Why is a permaban always compared to execution or death? smh...

I'm getting lost in your analogy here, but essentially what they're saying presumes that the player is reasonable, ignorant about the Instant Feedback System, and needs help understanding where they went wrong and how to improve. They're saying that there's a lack of information, specifically at the "how to improve" part.

Under this current system, we are allowed to cause negativity. While perma-banned for being negative. You are allowed to give someone cancer. If you have cancer, you will be executed.

If you cause negativity, you are being negative. Your analogy here doesn't make sense.

KORGtunersJan 25, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Why is a permaban always compared to execution or death? smh...

Permaban is the "death" of your account. Have you never heard the phrase "life time of an account"?

I'm getting lost in your analogy here, but essentially what they're saying presumes that the player is reasonable, ignorant about the Instant Feedback System, and needs help understanding where they went wrong and how to improve. They're saying that there's a lack of information, specifically at the "how to improve" part.

For starters, Riot doesn't want improvement. Riot wants a cure. Improvement is a negative person whom is gradually negative less often. Gradually improving doesn't prevent permabans. Gradually improving doesn't get your account back.

Secondly, Riot has no incentive to see players "improve". If players "improved" people at Riot lose a job and Riot loses potential revenue.

Lastly, Riot doesn't know "how to improve". They are dealing with conecpts way beyond their capacity. You honestly think Riot knows how to prevent people from getting angry?

If you cause negativity, you are being negative. Your analogy here doesn't make sense.

That is exactly my point. People playing "bad" are negative. They are never permabanned though. I know why they are not permabanned, please for the love, do not try to explain why they are not permabanned. I'll give you a new analogy.

Your brother pinches you. You say "ow". Your parents yell at you "quit whining". Your brother punches you. You say "ow". Your parents yell at you "quit whining, next time i'll spank you so you have something to whine about". You tell your parents "he keeps hurting me, I can't help it". Your parents say "two wrongs don't make a right, now stop whining".

deathgod5Jan 26, 20174 votes

ehrm no it is more: your brother drops a pencil! you scream at him. your parents get mad at you.

you can't simply compare every misstep with an intentional action, most missteps are accidental. you compare missteps to inting.

Aurelion Soul NAJan 26, 20172 votes

If I'm playing basketball and my teammate intentionally throws the ball to the other team every chance he gets. That person is probably gonna get his ass kicked, yelled at, and then blacklisted from playing on anyone else's team. But since nothing can be done about this kind of behavior in League, there is literally no point in droning on and on about it.

Unless you go in as a team of 5 expect the worst, ignore it. You wont have fun until you stop taking the game seriously. It;s a free game, just have fun. Or build a team.

Everyone who reads the OP knows it's happening, you aren't the first person to write about it. We have literally all been there. It's just something you actually have to learn how to mentally cope with, because it will always be apart of this game.

You don't get anywhere yelling at people for it, you don;t get anywhere yelling at people who make a mistake. Because they don't listen anyway, and it just results in you pissing off everyone else, and getting yourself banned.

The community does need to stop with this down-voting crap. It's also pointless. Take the time to emphasize with players who come here to vent. It is a forum, they do have the right to come here and complain. You don;t have to agree with people, but you definitely don't have to be snarky, and harsh to people who don't understand the politics of league.

Downvoting and copypasting the same old rhetoric at people doesn't work. It makes them more angry. I know because I was in the same situation as OP.

deathgod5Jan 26, 20173 votes

We know that most negativity in game comes from "a misstep"

He said misstep not feeder or inter. If he had said that he wanted to have a better anti intentional feed system I would have agreed with him. He just wants to punish people for making mistakes, which is something I disagree with.

Aurelion Soul NAJan 26, 20171 votes

He put it in quotes meaning he doesn't believe they were making a miss-step, the OP believes it was something entirely different,.

Like when he says "death" of he account. He doesn't mean literal death.. English 101.

deathgod5Jan 26, 20171 votes

read the post please, I put it in quotes to show what i was talking about. he doesn't have it in quotes.

Aurelion Soul NAJan 27, 20171 votes

Yes he does "Why is it then, no one gets perma-banned for making a "misstep"? Get rid of the "misstep" and most of the negativity is gone."
This is NA Servers forums not EUW go to your own forums that deal with your servers issues.
You're reply still was NEITHER CONSTRUCTIVE, or USEFUL in any way. Which is the point and issue that I brought up.

If you don't have anything based in fact to contribute to topic then don't respond to it. [slayer-jinx-wink]

deathgod5Jan 27, 20172 votes

1 NO HE FUCKING DOES NOT He takes an original quote without context. He uses them later on, thats true but his entire post is based around this quote:

We know that most negativity in game comes from a misstep

a quote in which it was used non sarcastically.

2: No, the Na forums are generally bigger and more active, that is why I use those, We have the same server rules so discussion is still valid here.

3: in one of your post you took my metaphor out of context, in the next you point at my quote and say that he puts quotes around misstep. Then in desperation to be right you pick another part of his post and say that there are quotes on it there. Then you call me non constructive. you are a hypocrite.

Aurelion Soul NAJan 27, 20171 votes

The Forum is placed in PLAYER BEHAVIOR AND MODERATION on the NA SERVER. You don't play on this server therefor you do not know anything about the behavior of the players on it.

This person is here to vent, as opposed to venting in GAME which is perfectly acceptable, and is the right place to do so.

He can come here to complain, that's why Forums exist.

KORGtunersJan 27, 20171 votes

I understand your point.

However, your point doesn't matter relative to league.

Whether the pencil was dropped intentionally or accidentally, they will not be punished. The person that screams will always be punished.

The problem is; whether the pencil was dropped intentionally or accidentally, the screamer will always scream.

The sneaky shit Riot pulls off: if a screamer doesn't type, they will claim reform. Even though that screamer is screaming in real life, throwing things, hitting pillows, etc. Riot will still claim reform simply because the chat log is clean.

He just wants to punish people for making mistakes, which is something I disagree with.

What I want: No account bans for any chat related offense.

deathgod5Jan 27, 20171 votes

Personally I am a fan of perma muting salty players, not perma banning. But, apperantly that increased the number of intentional feeders. No punishment is not an option tho, a majority of players don't like toxic players and toxicity is not obligated to play.

eldurisJan 26, 20174 votes

Oh, I understand now. You're saying players who play bad are "giving you cancer" and you think it's unfair that you get punished for something you think other people cause. Luckily, Riot thinks you should be held accountable for the things you say or do and not what other people say or do. So, while your analogy makes more sense now, it's still flawed in that you are assuming no responsibility for your own actions.

Does it suck that there are intentional feeders in the game that ruin the experience for everyone? Does it suck that there are people that don't take the game as seriously as you? Sure, I'll agree to that. But that doesn't give you the right to turn around and do the same thing to them without being punished yourself. If you want this kind of action to be punishment worthy, you can't then turn around and complain when you get punished. Everybody thinks rules are great until you have to abide by them.

As a parting thought, let me try to ground your analogy in reality.

Your brother pinches you. You say "fuck you". Your parents yell at you to cut it out. Your brother punches you. You say "fuck you, you piece of shit". Your parents yell at you to stop fighting. You tell your parents "if he didn't punch me I wouldn't curse". Your parents say "if you both don't cut it out, we're turning this car around right now".

KORGtunersJan 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Oh, I understand now. You're saying players who play bad are "giving you cancer" and you think it's unfair that you get punished for something you think other people cause.

I don't think they caused it. I know they caused it. So does Riot.

Luckily, Riot thinks you should be held accountable for the things you say or **do **and not what other people say or do.

Players that "misstep" are not held responsible for their actions.

Does it suck that there are intentional feeders in the game that ruin the experience for everyone? Does it suck that there are people that don't take the game as seriously as you? Sure, I'll agree to that. But that doesn't give you the right to turn around and do the same thing to them without being punished yourself.

They don't get punished at all. Only the people that call them out get punished. You can certainly do the same things to them as they do to you, Without punishment. All you have to do is not say anything in chat.

If you want this kind of action to be punishment worthy, you can't then turn around and complain when you get punished.

Fine I won't complain when they get punished. Except they will never get punished. Your argument is absolute shit.

As a parting thought, let me try to ground your analogy in reality.

No, your fucking analogy is shit.

Your parents say "if you both don't cut it out, we're turning this car around right now".

That is your key mistake. Riot is not addressing both parties. They are only addressing the vocal ones. They literally ignore the brother that is hitting you.

You know that the current system is bull shit. You just subconciously fixed Riots faults.

eldurisJan 26, 20173 votes

{quoted} That is your key mistake. Riot is not addressing both parties. They are only addressing the vocal ones. They literally ignore the brother that is hitting you.

Not true. If they're doing it intentionally, absolutely they get punished. Take a look around the boards and you'll find that to be the case. If they're truly having a bad game, or just not playing to your standards, well, there's no way to objectively calculate that. Honestly. And even if there was, I don't think a lot of people would want to play if there was a chance they'd be banned for doing poorly. Everyone has bad games, even professional players that play 16 hours a day to keep in form for tournaments. You shouldn't lose your account just because you got dominated in lane one game. That makes no sense.

KORGtunersJan 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Not true. If they're doing it intentionally, absolutely they get punished.

If they are doing it intentionally, it isn't a misstep.

You shouldn't lose your account just because you got dominated in lane one game. That makes no sense.

It's ok to lose your account for pointing out they are playing bad though? I accept "extreme verbal abuse" will probably never be tolerated. I do not accept people losing their accounts for saying "you are so bad".

Aurelion Soul NAJan 27, 20171 votes

There is no point in arguing man.. You are right, but nothing can be done about it.. thats the truth.

KORGtunersJan 27, 20171 votes

Often times, my discussions here are relavant to life outside of the game.

Afterall, player behavior is the same thing as human psychology.

Riot may be close minded with their beliefs; other people may yet be undecided.

ModPrandineJan 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Permaban is the "death" of your account. Have you never heard the phrase "life time of an account"?

For starters, Riot doesn't want improvement. Riot wants a cure. Improvement is a negative person whom is gradually negative less often. Gradually improving doesn't prevent permabans. Gradually improving doesn't get your account back.

Secondly, Riot has no incentive to see players "improve". If players "improved" people at Riot lose a job and Riot loses potential revenue.

Yes Riot wants to make money, but if they didn't care then they wouldn't:

Bring back Legacy skins or Winter Summoner's Rift upon fan request. Implement a behavioral system to promote neutral/positive behavior and discourage negative behavior. Allow for up to 3 refunds per account. Hold contests for Riot Points and additional loot. Give good behaving people mystery skins/icons. Allow good behaving players access to Hextech Crafting to get Champions and Skins easier.

I could go on but basically just because Riot doesn't cater to you and other disgruntled players doesn't mean that they don't care about the community.

If Riot truly wanted to make more money then they wouldn't ban people in the first place. As it stands toxic players just drive business away, so it's actually in Riot's benefit to remove the players who don't want to reform. If the toxic players make new accounts, that's their choice, but they'll quickly find that behaving in the same way that got their older accounts permabanned will result in the same thing happening again. Think of it this way: the more time one spends raging and flaming at someone the less time that they're spending actually playing the game itself. Kei143 made a post that talks a little about it and it goes as followed:

When Riot permabans someone, their philosophy is "the chances of this guy reforming isn't a whole lot, we'd rather not have him in the game". Thus in their eyes, they have already written off the toxic player as a paying client.

From a business standpoint, do they want to remove the toxic guy who has spent $500 but is causing a negative environment for 4-9 other players in every game? Those non-toxics are also spending $500 and probably will spend more, promote the game more when they are enjoying the game AND they won't cause a negative environment.

I personally think it is a fine argument to protect the ones that are paying money and aren't toxic rather than protecting the ones that may pay the same amount but are toxic.

Lastly, Riot doesn't know "how to improve". They are dealing with conecpts way beyond their capacity. You honestly think Riot knows how to prevent people from getting angry?

Riot's job is not to prevent people from getting angry, it's to encourage players to choose different outlets to express their anger in other than through chat or gameplay. This is why under normal circumstances players who frequently misbehave are given chat restrictions first and only given bans if they continue to act up in the same way that got them in trouble in the first place.

P.S. If you were hoping to get different responses by posting the same exact thread again but just under a different title then you're out of luck.

KORGtunersJan 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Yes Riot wants to make money, but if they didn't care then they wouldn't:

Your reading comprehension sucks. I never said Riot doesn't care.

I could go on but basically just because Riot doesn't cater to you and other disgruntled players doesn't mean that they don't care about the community.

Sorry bud, but disgruntled players are part of the community. Riot only caters to the "good" players.

If Riot truly **wanted to make more money then they wouldn't ban people **in the first place.

As it stands toxic players just drive business away, so it's actually in Riot's benefit to remove the players who don't want to reform.

Literally contradicted yourself in back to back sentences.

Riot's job is not to prevent people from getting angry, it's to encourage players to choose different outlets to express their anger in other than through chat or gameplay.

That is horrible. You think people should take their frustrations from a video game, out on the real world. I'm pretty much done talking to you. You have made zero progress.

ModPrandineJan 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Your reading comprehension sucks. I never said Riot doesn't care.

I admit that that probably wasn't the best way to start the sentence so for that I apologize.

Sorry bud, but disgruntled players are part of the community. Riot only caters to the "good" players.

What I meant by disgruntled players is players who have a "my way or the highway" type of mentality and are unwilling to compromise one way or the other: basically the players who are only satisfied if they have everything handed to them on a silver platter. These are who Riot tries to avoid catering to.

Literally contradicted yourself in back to back sentences.

Yeah, looking at it now I can see how that would be a contradiction. My mistake.

That is horrible. You think people should take their frustrations from a video game, out on the real world. I'm pretty much done talking to you. You have made zero progress.

In this case yes, through avenues that help them calm down faster that doesn't involve creating a negative experience for their in-game teammates. There are plenty of ways one could use to help calm down irl while still in the middle of a game: squeezing a stress ball, punching a pillow or a desk/wall mounted punching bag, crunching a water bottle/can, etc. None of these involve taking the anger out on teammates and are arguably more healthy ways of doing so as well.

KORGtunersJan 26, 20171 votes

In this case yes, through avenues that help them calm down faster that doesn't involve creating a negative experience for their in-game teammates.

You need to expand that to fit reality. People shouldn't hit their spouses because of a video game.

There are plenty of ways one could use to help calm down irl while still in the middle of a game: squeezing a stress ball, punching a pillow or a desk/wall mounted punching bag, crunching a water bottle/can, etc. None of these involve taking the anger out on teammates and are arguably more healthy ways of doing so as well.

Let's just disagree then. You will never convince me doing physical harm is healthier than verbally harming a stranger over the internet. Especially, when that stranger can ignore every single word with the mute button.

ModPrandineJan 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

You need to expand that to fit reality. People shouldn't hit their spouses because of a video game.

I agree that they shouldn't, hence why I included examples that don't involve taking anger out on others.

Let's just disagree then. You will never convince me doing physical harm is healthier than verbally harming a stranger over the internet. Especially, when that stranger can ignore every single word with the mute button.

It's not, and I do agree about using the mute button when the need arises, but just because there's a mute button doesn't mean that the person being verbally abusive should get off scott free.

TrulyBlandJan 26, 20172 votes

Because a misstep by definition is not intentional, and it's really tricky to punish unintentional behaviour.

But even if it was punishable, it would not actually solve the problem. There will still be missteps regardless of whether they are allowed or not. I mean, toxic behaviour isn't allowed and it seems to still be around.

Riot cannot protect you from everything. Eventually one of the evil missteppers will misstep, and those that are punished currently will react the same punishable way as they did before.

Since you used a horrible analogy, I'll use a horrible analogy myself: If I kill everybody that happens to accidentally step on my foot, would you put me in jail for my disproportionate and illegal reaction or would you make it illegal to unintentionally step on other peoples' feet?

KORGtunersJan 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Because a misstep by definition is not intentional, and it's really tricky to punish unintentional behaviour.

Both parts are wrong. I'm pretty sure you just don't know how to say what you are thinking.

But even if it was punishable, it would not actually solve the problem. There will still be missteps regardless of whether they are allowed or not. I mean, toxic behaviour isn't allowed and it seems to still be around.

Imagine that. The cause is still around so the effect is still around.

Riot cannot protect you from everything. Eventually one of the evil missteppers will misstep, and those that are punished currently will react the same punishable way as they did before.

Imagine that. The cause is still around so the effect is still around.

Since you used a horrible analogy, I'll use a horrible analogy myself:

I used 2 analogies.

If I kill everybody that happens to accidentally step on my foot, would you put me in jail for my disproportionate and illegal reaction or would you make it illegal to unintentionally step on other peoples' feet?

Oh you poor thing. Why are you asking me questions about your own analogy? You don't even give me all the options. I smell a trap.

TrulyBlandJan 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Both parts are wrong. I'm pretty sure you just don't know how to say what you are thinking.

What definition of "misstep" are you using then? Because the one I'm using is absolutely by definition unintentional. If you are talking about intentional "missteps" then the entire discussion changes dramatically. Maybe next time you make a thread, make it clear to others what the hell you are talking about. That might help.

And it is tricky to punish unintentional behaviour, at least with the idea of reforming people in mind. You could make biting your own tongue punishable by death and people would still bite their own tongue. For one: If somebody does a mistake while being absent minded, then it doesn't matter if you punished them before. There is no conscious choice being made, and thus the punishment is also not consciously considered.

As far as subconscious decision go, there already is a negative consequence for these actions, so if that would work people would already stop doing mistakes; or at least do a lot less of them. The reason it doesn't work is similar: There's no conscious choice being made, thus no conscious choice is responsible for the mistake. It's also likely that the exact actions are not even clear to the person in question; human memory is fragile as hell. And without a clear decision or behaviour that can be recalled, the mind obviously can also not find a clear link between that decision and the punishment, completely nullifying the "learning effect" of such a punishment.

Imagine that. The cause is still around so the effect is still around.

Imagine that. The cause is still around so the effect is still around.

You're really good at ignoring the point: The cause will always be around.

I used 2 analogies.

Nope. You use the same analogy twice.

Oh you poor thing. Why are you asking me questions about your own analogy? You don't even give me all the options. I smell a trap.

Do I have to give you all the options? Can't you think for yourself? That's also why I'm asking you questions, btw, to make you think. I will admit though, judging from your replies that approach has obviously not worked.

KORGtunersJan 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Maybe next time you make a thread, make it clear to others what the hell you are talking about. That might help.

Or you could stay out of discussions you can not follow.

And it is tricky to punish unintentional behaviour, at least with the idea of reforming people in mind.

You conveniently added that bolded part in there. It is still wrong. It is not at all tricky to_ punish_. What is tricky is distinquishing between intentional and unintentional.

For one: If somebody does a mistake while being absent minded, then it doesn't matter if you punished them before. There is no conscious choice being made, and thus the punishment is also not consciously considered.

The exact same thing happens with angry people. Allow me to paraphrase Richard Pryor: "For those people that claim they never cuss; let me slam your hand in my car door."

As far as subconscious decision go, there already is a negative consequence for these actions, so if that would work people would already stop doing mistakes; or at least do a lot less of them. The reason it doesn't work is similar: There's no conscious choice being made, thus no conscious choice is responsible for the mistake. It's also likely that the exact actions are not even clear to the person in question; human memory is fragile as hell. And without a clear decision or behaviour that can be recalled, the mind obviously can also not find a clear link between that decision and the punishment, completely nullifying the "learning effect" of such a punishment.

The exact same thing happens with angry people. This is exactly why punishing verbal abuse that occurs after a misstep is not effective.

There is even a popular phrase based on this idea: "I'm sorry for the things I said while I was angry".

You're really good at ignoring the point: The cause will always be around.

That is the point. The cause will aways be around. The effect will always be around. That is what cause and effect is. No matter how often you punish the effect, it will always follow the cause.

Do I have to give you all the options?

It is considered polite to do so.

Can't you think for yourself?

I can. That is how I knew you didn't give me all the options.

That's also why I'm asking you questions, btw, to make you think.

You want me to think like you. I won't.

midnight oil24Jan 25, 20171 votes

If you could be permabanned for a misstep, that would make them lose most of their players.

Snowman ArcJan 27, 20171 votes

All*. Even the best players have missteped at least once. Otherwise, the player who hasn't would be paid tons of money to be in some pro team, and said pro team would be beating everyone, making more money.

EvilDustManJan 26, 20171 votes

Both the cause and the toxicity are being banned? I don't know what you are whining about.

KORGtunersJan 27, 20171 votes

It's not, and I do agree about using the mute button when the need arises, but just because there's a mute button doesn't mean that the person being verbally abusive should get off scott free.

They are never "getting off scott free".

The punishment of "losing the ability to communicate" will always coincide with the mute button. Everyone loses something, but some lose more than others.

The beauty of the mute button though; it is a self punishment. People only punish themselves when they want to.

The person that is doing the muting typically loses out the most. The counter, is when the person doing the muting is more "wanted" than the person they are muting. Only by this way will the person being muted be losing.

A bit off topic, just thought I would share why the mute button is the best system in the game at the moment.

Sorry Prandine, it seems I messed up the reply system.

ModPrandineJan 27, 2017

{quoted}

They are never "getting off scott free".

The punishment of "losing the ability to communicate" will always coincide with the mute button. Everyone loses something, but some lose more than others.

The beauty of the mute button though; it is a self punishment. People only punish themselves when they want to.

The person that is doing the muting typically loses out the most. The counter, is when the person doing the muting is more "wanted" than the person they are muting. Only by this way will the person being muted be losing.

A bit off topic, just thought I would share why the mute button is the best system in the game at the moment.

Sorry Prandine, it seems I messed up the reply system.

No worries, the forums can be finicky when it comes to editing posts. Anyways, that's a very interesting take on the mute button I have to admit. I've also heard the argument made that if the person you're muting has just been verbally abusive/a Negative Nancy the whole game then chances are that they're not gonna have much to say in terms of being helpful to the game at hand. I'm glad that we were able to have this conversation even though it did get off to a rocky start ;).