Player behaviors nowadays are so atrocious, is there a solution Riot plans to make any time soon?

OatheSworn··4 votes·2,639 views

The general go-to Riot hands out for situations dealing with a toxic player is the mute function. I can't stress this enough but this is NOT a solution. It's just covering up the problem. They're still there even if you hide it and this isn't a real way of dealing with toxicity. It might handle the problem for that one game but it's not stopping them from queuing up again and repeating their offence. Some people are cool-headed but that's not everyone. Players might become angry enough to retaliate (which happens in most cases) and that just ends up with another toxic player, this time it's them bickering back-and-forth for the rest of the game. You could report them in the post-game screen but that just takes us to another problem.

The report system is terrible right now, I can't even count how many toxic players there still are in this game--even after getting reported. Most of the times it's the people that speak back getting punished, not the actual culprits. I reported 2 duo toxic players a while back and didn't receive an instant feedback report. They were seriously toxic all game, screaming at teammates every time they died, cussing them out, telling them to uninstall, calling them names, etc. all the while acting like angels in [All] chat. The enemy believed what they were saying and turned on us, our teammates were too scared to talk back much less clear up the misunderstanding because they didn't want to get punished. It started off as just 2 toxic players on one side to 4 more on the other, both cussing us out. It was an extremely stressful game, one of the worst since I started playing a few years ago and the 2 just walked off after that. What I regret the most was not leaving during champion selection. They were already calling people idiots there and had banned our picks, signalling their intentions before the game even started and it forced us to make a decision. Take the risk and trust they won't troll or leave and take the punishment, all while missing the chance to report them in the post-game screen--which leads us to another problem.

There isn't any way to deal with people like these in champion selection, if you get matched up with them, it's either quit and lose 3 LP + timer or go into game and potentially lose 20 LP. How is that fair for the normal player, why do we have to get punished for another person's toxic behavior all because we were unlucky enough to get matched up together? All the positive thinkers out there are probably saying: you shouldn't have left then or most of the people that talk about feeding and trolling in champion select don't actually do it but you weren't there. You could not have possible known if they were/weren't going to troll. Avoiding the game is the best solution, you don't have to take the risk of dealing with a negative player and -20 LP. The downside is -3 LP and the timer but most players consider that the better out in that situation. The current system is indirectly allowing these [toxic] players to escape because the normal players don't want to deal with them. It's promoting the idea that it's better to avoid the problem instead of standing up to it. When put against the options of dealing with a toxic player and -20 LP or ditching the problem altogether for -3 LP and a measly timer--the answer is obvious. The only problem with this is you also miss the time for reports and they (the toxic players) just move along to another queue. Even if I stayed and reported, I don't have much faith in the report system after the duo mentioned previously and so it becomes a cycle.

The toxic players generally escape unharmed and the normal players have to deal with it. The mute function is a weak attempt at a fix and the report system is (at least to many players) useless. This leaves us with the sole option of avoiding the problem and so the problem stays. The system isn't perfect, it can't catch all the negatives a player is dishing out and people are cunning. I'm pretty sure the system only picks out specific words or phrases but it can't cover all the possibilities which leaves loopholes. A player might say one thing that the system deems fine but the underlying intention is negative, one that the general player can understand as such. There needs to be something you can do in the champion select, it might not have to be a report but something to heads-up the system into thinking this player is generally negative and reports to this person are likely justified--which takes us to my solution.

My idea for a fix is a 'Flag' button that can be utilized during the champion selection. Flags, reports, and the Honor system can all cooperatively work to reduce toxicity and separate such players from normal players. A player can Flag another player during champion select for various reasons (mainly toxicity or threats to troll) and once a person has accumulated too many Flags, these are then compared to the player's honor level and reports they've received. If Flags, reports, and negative honor level match up, they are then removed from the 'normal' queue and passed down to the 'Flagged' queue. This would also remove the need for the [5, 10, 15, 20 minute] pre-game timers (which I think is pretty useless) because the toxic players would be passed down to an entirely separate queue. Since there are less toxic players than not, queue times for the Flagged queue would naturally take longer (an indirect punishment) and because the toxic player base is focused in one queue, the spread of toxicity is reduced. Once a player has shown significant attitude changes (shown by honor level), they will then be returned to the normal queue. This creates a system in which negative behavior pulls you from the normal queue into a separate queue with its own disadvantages but also promotes positive behavior from those in this queue because they would want to return to the normal queue.

This is just an idea, it's likely not perfect and won't be implemented into the game by Riot but it's just an attempt at a better solution. You can feel free to agree/disagree and point out advantages/disadvantages of why/why not this will/won't work. Also sorry for long post. It seriously wasn't meant to be this long, it just all started coming out.

32 Comments

Imperial Pandaa7 votes

So you want to make a prisoners island, which Riot has already spoken against having?

OatheSworn1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Imperial Pandaa,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=a6R8ALga,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-06-20T22:54:50.113+0000)

So you want to make a prisoners island, which Riot has already spoken against having?

If that's what you consider it as then yes, a 'prisoner island'. The difference and advantage though, is the 'prisoners' have option of leaving and whether they do or don't is completely up to them and in their power. This will prevent them from blaming a number of things like teammates or Riot because the sole reason they are in this 'prisoner island' is because of toxicity, not play.

P.S. You read extremely fast haha. I barely put this super long post up and you already have a reply in the bag.

Imperial Pandaa1 votes

I usually read things in two waves, as weird as that sounds. First time I read for the gist, not as detailed, and post initial thoughts. Second read is for more detail in case I missed or misunderstood something. Depending if op has replied, I may edit. If replied I reply and address anything they bring up.

I don't believe with "prisoner island" the guests are stuck there forever, but consider why some of them are there to begin with. You claim in the initial that it is the people who speak back and not the initiator (which I respectfully disagree that the initiator is not punished). If we work with that, then sure everything is hunkie dory, but some of those initiators probably managed to fall in too. You are mixing the two together potentially which would make leaving nearly impossible depending on how it measures 'staying clean'.

I agree to an extent that the mute function is not meant to be a fix all solution. It is just supposed to a quick fix for that game. The idea goes "I mute so I don't have to deal with you. I report so no one else has to deal with you." The IFS can use some improvement, but that is also true of pretty much any system in the world. Yes, more feedback would be nice from the system; but to make sure people don't learn ways to skirt around. If you haven't seen the topic, there was an idea about "Monthly Report Cards" which gave more feedback without really adding more detail. It may say "You reported 572 people last month, we determined that x number of the reports were valid." maybe even including "You were reported 7 times. Consider muting instead of arguing."

Always remember that chat punishments do start with chat restrictions, 2 of them; then progress to a 14 day ban, then perm. Yes some banned may just make a new account and start over, but the same could happen with this separate queue. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.

In a recent post, someone was talking about a vote kick in champ select to deal with obvious toxic players. Between the back and forth with this player, an idea came up. I'll probably just quote it for simplicity.

[{quoted}](name=Imperial Pandaa,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=VnQkNvT2,comment-id=00030001000000000000,timestamp=2018-06-15T15:45:46.231+0000)

So, I believe if you want a kick solution; then you need to have the lobby disbanded. To avoid abuse, I would suggest following ideas/protocols:

.1. It breaks the queue up, but holds onto the lobby chat for 3 minutes.

.2. Players who voted to kick must submit a brief report on why the did so. (e.g. "Player was toxic" "threatened to troll" "asked because something came up" etc)

.2a. If player fails to submit report in allotted time (the 3 minute hold) then that player will be subject to dodge penalties.

.2b. Kicked player will be able to reenter queue pending the report review (in case was a false kick)

.2c. Once reports are filed, pre game chat will be reviewed. (appropriate punishment will be applied or credited to the account. Including leaverbuster/dodge penalties)

.3. Small matchmaking tweak to make sure you don't queue with the same someone you recently kicked for 5 minutes. (leave this unknown to player base).

.4. If the reports and kick are determined to be false, all players who voted to kick will be subject to the dodge penalties.

Sadly, this just means people will wait until after game starts to reveal whatever.

OatheSworn1 votes

I don't believe with "prisoner island" the guests are stuck there forever, but consider why some of them are there to begin with. You claim in the initial that it is the people who speak back and not the initiator (which I respectfully disagree that the initiator is not punished). If we work with that, then sure everything is hunkie dory, but some of those initiators probably managed to fall in too. You are mixing the two together potentially which would make leaving nearly impossible depending on how it measures 'staying clean'.

In case you missed it, I said most of the times, not always. There are times where the initiator is punished but in my experience, they seem to go free more often than not. I am not mixing the two together, they both can end up in the Flagged queue depending on their actions taken during game. Even if I don't have much faith in the report system, I do know that it won't send out false punishments--meaning false reports have no power. If the person retaliating starts displaying negative behavior, that is reason for them to be placed in Flagged queue, if not then no. By staying clean, I meant that the player displaying positive actions throughout the game and for this reason it can correspond with their honor level up to a certain extent and by certain extent I mean the honors for Stayed Cool (Tilt-proof, chill) and GG <3 (Team player, friendly). The honor for Great Shotcalling will not contribute in this case because that is for play, not for attitude displayed.

I agree to an extent that the mute function is not meant to be a fix all solution.

You stated to what extent you agreed with, but did not elaborate on what you did not so I can't provide a counter-argument.

Always remember that chat punishments do start with chat restrictions, 2 of them; then progress to a 14 day ban, then perm. Yes some banned may just make a new account and start over, but the same could happen with this separate queue. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.

I do know this, but my point on the entire Flagging system and queue is to help players to realize I am in the danger zone, this is my last chance at reform before more extreme punishments. It's just supposed to serve as an extra step, the last one, before permabans are sentenced. Most players don't realize how close they are to perma's (after reading several permabanned player's boards posts) even after a 14-day ban and this is to serve as their final warning. From the Flagged queue it's either fix it or you're out. The people who don't have much ties to their accounts won't hesitate to start anew but for those that have been playing for a while, starting fresh is daunting--especially if you've spent IRL cash on the game, no refunds are provided as stated in the Terms of Use.

As for the 'Vote Kick', it is nice but not operable. It may sound good as an idea but it cannot function because the time it would take to resolve the problem all the while verifying the truths of the situation would prove to take too long. There is only so much a system can do and this level of deducting would require human intervention. Riot simply does not have the time nor staff to fill in for every problem in every server. Wait times for staff would exceed what you'd think and by then, most people would honestly not care or would have forgotten. Good idea on paper but not quite usable in real play.

Imperial Pandaa1 votes

My worry is still about mixing them. Perhaps I also missed some limit to the flagging. Perhaps in my daze I am missing something that is preventing me to simply flag everyone in the pre game lobby and only reporting those necessary in post game. Which if there isn't anything, why flag additionally?

I do realize it is only a rough idea of a system, but ironing out details helps everyone understand certain aspects.

As for the mute, I agree it is a bandaid solution that may need applied every game. So I guess my reasoning is it works, but something more than a bandaid is needed.

Curious, why put this after the 14 day ban? I believe the 14 day should be the final step before perm simply because in the reform card it lets you know "Hey! Next one is a perm!" I feel it would be best as your first. Then continue to chat restriction while in that queue, then ban. On a whole, I'm still uncertain about a prisoner island, but that is how I would arrange the punishment order.

Oh, I know the kick thing is not a feasible solution, but it was a nifty little idea. Between the Kicking and a Separate punishment queue, I will risk bias and go with the kick which could be automated as long as you kept it to verbal things (champ select toxicity, threats to troll/int).

OatheSworn1 votes

My worry is still about mixing them. Perhaps I also missed some limit to the flagging. Perhaps in my daze I am missing something that is preventing me to simply flag everyone in the pre game lobby and only reporting those necessary in post game. Which if there isn't anything, why flag additionally?

As I've stated in the original post, flagging is something that players can use during champion select. There is nothing more frustrating then having to get punished for another person's behavior. Flagging would allow you to mark the person before you leave the lobby, it will help future reports to becoming more potent, eventually remove them from normal queue, and at the very least, provide the flagger (who was forced to leave lobby to avoid the whole situation) a feeling that they did something right. That they didn't just leave and let the person get away.

I do realize it is only a rough idea of a system, but ironing out details helps everyone understand certain aspects.

Unfortunately, this is the best I can do at the moment. No one but Riot completely understands the whole system and I'm no exception. This is just an idea structured around my experience which means there are most likely errors. This was never meant to be actually implemented into the game, I wish it was, but the whole purpose was to show Riot the problems and wanting for something to be done.

Curious, why put this after the 14 day ban? I believe the 14 day should be the final step before perm simply because in the reform card it lets you know "Hey! Next one is a perm!" I feel it would be best as your first. Then continue to chat restriction while in that queue, then ban. On a whole, I'm still uncertain about a prisoner island, but that is how I would arrange the punishment order.

I've come to notice that many people still don't seem to be aware of how close they are to the edge of the cliff. A 14-day ban was not enough for them because after, they would relog and their behavior may have changed for a while, but since the 14-day ban is a sentence, punishment, and finish, there are no lasting effects of the ban. The only thing that would stay with the player is the memory but because nothing else has changed, they seem to end up returning to their original ways after [ X ] amount of days. Also, sorry for confusing you in my last post but I was certain you would have read this on the original post--permabans was just an example for just one of the last step punishments. You don't get placed into Flag queue only after the 14-day ban, it can happen prior due to extensive toxicity. The flagged queue's purpose is to pick out the toxic players and put them in a spot where it will show them repeatedly that they are/can be in line for the last step punishments. If they continue to face the disadvantages of the Flagged queue, they will at the very least, keep their act together until they rejoin everyone in the normal queue. It's to try to create a habit of normal players in a toxic player by watching over each of their games while in Flagged queue.

I'm not quite sure I explained that right but the basic idea is that Flagged queue will span a period of time during play. Bans prevent you from playing and so while they can change a player's behavior for an [ X ] amount of days, it doesn't help create a habit of positivity in a player. Of course, there are people who can completely change their behavior after a ban but this is just a measure for people that can't. If you use my parent/child example again, it's like a parent teaching them what they did wrong while trying to create a good habit in the child.

Kei1433 votes

You know ... the actual functionality of the system isn't that bad once you understand how the system works.

What's bad is that it gives crappy feedback and makes you FEEL that the system doesn't work.

MadSeer2 votes

The prisoners island in this context would be 100% legitimate. DOTA 2 already has had a system like that for leavers (possibly other griefers too I don't remember). Just feels like leaving toxic players that won't change their behaviour to play with like minded players is the only thing to do at this point.

Karunamon1 votes

And it works fine. Riot's logic on this is garbage.

IcyPepper1 votes

How does it work fine? o.O

I thought Riot's logic was fine, so why isn't it? What's the major flaw here? If a player can't behave over a prolonged period of time, they get a perma. What's the point of a prisoner's island?

OatheSworn1 votes

{quoted}

How does it work fine? o.O

I thought Riot's logic was fine, so why isn't it? What's the major flaw here? If a player can't behave over a prolonged period of time, they get a perma. What's the point of a prisoner's island?

Read the first 4 paragraphs and the title please. It's long I know, but I'd rather not retype.

Karunamon1 votes

If the overly toxic are still playing, but just playing with other toxic people, they're not in regular games with regular people making them miserable. There is no such thing as a perma. There is a revolving door that you can't carry your stuff through. If they get a perma, they just buy a new account for cheaper than a skin and get back to it.

If permabans actually stopped people from playing, or if steps were taken to prevent those players from coming back, or if something harder-to-evade was placed in front of ranked like a cell number, this would be a different case.

Sadly, Riot worships at the altar of queue times. There are so many ways this game could be made better for **most ** players but Riot refuses to do any of them because they might increase matchmaking times.

IcyPepper1 votes

Just feels like leaving toxic players that won't change their behaviour to play with like minded players is the only thing to do at this point.

If they're at that point, isn't that when they get permabanned?

AJStarhiker2 votes

While I wouldn't mind being able to flag a player to remind myself to report them (i.e. an icon next to the mute button), the report system already tags players for review.

As far as your segregated queue...no. Putting toxic players with toxic players would not solve the problem. Not to mention Riot has said they will not use a Prisoners' Island system. Putting toxic players together will only further normalize those behaviors, since they'll see everyone around them doing the same thing.

Long queue times are already used for LeaverBuster and queue dodging. I suspect if Riot thought it would help, they would used queue timers for other forms of punishment. It's along the lines of making the punishment fit the crime. If you waste other people's time by leaving or going afk, then you can waste your own time waiting to get into a few games. If you can't be trusted to use chat responsibly, your ability to use that system will be restricted. If you ruin other people's experience, then you lose benefits every player gets for, at minimum, neutral behavior.

As far as muting only 'covering' the problem... think of it like an impenetrable forcefield. It doesn't matter how many verbal daggers are thrown at you, you will be protected. After the game, a report tags that player for review.

I think the problem a lot of players have is the system is not instantanious. A lot of punishable behaviors require a pattern to reach the punishment threshhold. Patterns require multiple examples. And unfortunately, getting those patterns means most reports won't result in feedback for the people making them. And that's where the impression Riot doesn't punish comes from.

It's not that people aren't getting punished, it's that the feedback is so minimal as to feel like nothing is happening.

OatheSworn1 votes

Putting toxic players together will only further normalize those behaviors, since they'll see everyone around them doing the same thing.

Of course, some people might start to think toxicity is normal in Flagged queue but Flagged queue was never meant to be the go-to end-all punishment. If continued negative behavior is displayed even after being placed in Flagged queue, that is where the more serious punishments come to hand like banning. The purpose of Flagged queue is to separate the toxic from normal players and group them together in the hopes that they become aware of what they were doing to the community. No one likes to be trolled, they'd rather do the trolling. Same as bullying, people would rather bully than be bullied and so with that knowledge, they could start the process in fixing themselves. I've noticed and come across many permaban posts on boards where they all want a second chance and if given so, they would change. I think the reason many people don't realize how toxic they are is because there is no change in environment. That is why the permaban hits so suddenly, and the people who were toxic but weren't expecting to be perma'd are so quick to want to change but by then, it's already too late. Separate queue would set them apart and put in their minds I am are now in the danger zone, this is my last chance for reform.

Long queue times are already used for LeaverBuster and queue dodging. I suspect if Riot thought it would help, they would used queue timers for other forms of punishment. It's along the lines of making the punishment fit the crime. If you waste other people's time by leaving or going afk, then you can waste your own time waiting to get into a few games. If you can't be trusted to use chat responsibly, your ability to use that system will be restricted. If you ruin other people's experience, then you lose benefits every player gets for, at minimum, neutral behavior.

I would have agreed with this, but it still doesn't cover everything. You receive pre-game timers because you either declined too many queues, dodged in champion select, AFK'd or quit during game. There is no process for people with spotty internet. I used to live in an area where the internet would shut off randomly at times spanning from a few seconds to a few minutes. The problem was gone after I moved but during that time, I received several queue timers because of things that were out of my control. Many people would say:_ then don't play League_ but that's easier said than done. I've been stuck on League for about 4 years now and dropping it because of connection issues that occur randomly isn't something I can do/want to do. I know and sympathize with people when they say they have timers because of internet because I've been there. The Flagged queue can help pick out these individual issues because it covers toxicity and that only.

As far as muting only 'covering' the problem... think of it like an impenetrable forcefield. It doesn't matter how many verbal daggers are thrown at you, you will be protected. After the game, a report tags that player for review.

There are people that are happy with muting but others don't for a variety of reasons such as: they like to hear what a teammate might say, they are too hot-headed to mute, they'd like to fight their case instead of ignoring it, etc. I've come across lots of posts like mine where they say muting isn't an option for them and that is why Flagged queue covers toxicity only. People can blame them for retaliating because they didn't mute but if this person wasn't normally a toxic player until provoked enough, shouldn't Riot at least try to accommodate them by putting measures down to prevent these on-the-edge players from become toxic? They should be doing as much as they can to improve the player base instead of just leaving it up to them. If you think of Riot as the parent, and the players as the children, would you see any parent letting a child walk the edge of a cliff because there is a small fence? If the children fall, would it be right to blame the children for stepping over the fence instead of utilizing it? Shouldn't the parent have done more, like walking between the cliff and child or not letting the child remotely close to the edge? My point is, I want Riot to do more than just leaving it up to the players to mute or not. Don't get me wrong, muting is a great function, but the problem is its strength relies on the player, its only able if its used and some people are too prideful or hot-headed to click it--which is why I consider it weak.

iMutedYouAll2 votes

im silver and its literlly toxic trols every 2 games in this rank. if i could remov them from my games id literally do anything. Freaking upvoted

ºKurisu Makiseº1 votes

I wish I had your well thought out post in my own.. maybe such knowledge would have helped my case. But I find comfort in the fact I'm not alone in my endeavors with the prevalent bullying in this game.. [sg-poppy]

KODAK BLÄCK1 votes

rito game hlep me the team ate word hurt my eyes and feeling i want to drink bleech GG

Mike Teavee1 votes

I've received 3 chat restrictions in 2 weeks (been playing 6-8+ years and never received restrictions prior). One was for getting mad at a guy that was inting and calling him a "%%%%". I believe that restriction was warranted, as I let me annoyance prevail. However, these last two have simply been me responding to a player who has been flaming me over and over. The 2nd restriction, the only time I acknowledged the other player was to say "Stop talking shit and just play, man." I received a 10 game restriction. Last night, I had the final straw. I got flamed all game, called a "brainless cooch", "trash", "your life has no value", and countless other insults from an AP Miss Fortune support. All because I said, "Dude, just auto attack" because he went into a fight, used E and R and literally just walked out. He reported me post-game and because I engaged in his flaming by mocking him, the worst thing I said being, "Nothing you say means anything," I received a 25 game restriction. I uninstalled last night and don't plan on playing again

Mike Teavee2 votes

Also, I spoke with Riot support about the 2nd restriction and was told that any engagement in toxic behavior of another player can lead to punishment on your account as well, as it's negative behavior. His solution to this issue was to mute the player and keep playing. The 40 games you played prior where you received countless honors are instantly negated by telling a toxic player to quit, or if you end up giving in and arguing (even if you don't say anything directly abusive). After 3 consecutive restrictions, I decided this game was not even worth being a part of. Not to mention the chat restriction feature's coding is glitched, only allowing 3 messages the entire game without replenishing them.

Aneirin4 votes

So you talked to support and chose to ignore their advice...

OatheSworn1 votes

{quoted}

So you talked to support and chose to ignore their advice...

Unfortunately I never got around to take this to Player Support. Afterall, it was this incident that left me feeling shaky about the report system. I reported the duo and trusted the system would do it's thing, I waited a day and then I was expecting the feedback report but none came. Back then I played at least 10-15 games/day and by the time I decided that nothing was happening, the game was gone. If there is a way to pinpoint a game from 2 months ago I'd really appreciate it. The toxic duo in that game was a Brand and Vladimir--I was playing Katarina.

Chermorg2 votes

How do you know they weren't punished? The feedback report is not always sent, precisely so you can't do this sort of "witch hunting" behavior of trying to find out if someone specific was punished.

OatheSworn1 votes

{quoted}

How do you know they weren't punished? The feedback report is not always sent, precisely so you can't do this sort of "witch hunting" behavior of trying to find out if someone specific was punished.

I assumed that they weren't because no feedback report was sent but if what you are saying is right, then I was wrong. However, I do wish that a feedback report be sent every time a report is justified because if not, it spreads the idea of reports being useless even further. The feedback report never specifies who was reported so I don't think witch hunting would be a problem.

AJStarhiker1 votes

{quoted}

I assumed that they weren't because no feedback report was sent but if what you are saying is right, then I was wrong. However, I do wish that a feedback report be sent every time a report is justified because if not, it spreads the idea of reports being useless even further. The feedback report never specifies who was reported so I don't think witch hunting would be a problem.

My thought is actually that players get feedback for the past 5-10 reports made. It would increase the IFS visibility, and I doubt most players would remember reporting past that.

OatheSworn1 votes

{quoted}

My thought is actually that players get feedback for the past 5-10 reports made. It would increase the IFS visibility, and I doubt most players would remember reporting past that.

Unless it sticks...like this one. I still remember it even though it's been give or take 3 months. That's how toxic they were.

Chermorg1 votes

The issue is that this is the internet, and even with the reports the way they are now, witch hunting is already a problem.

Karunamon1 votes

Yes, witch hunting like "I don't want to play with this toxic person".

The horror.

Aneirin1 votes

Think there's been some confusion sorry, my comment wasn't directed at you. [slayer-jinx-catface]

OatheSworn1 votes

{quoted}

Think there's been some confusion sorry, my comment wasn't directed at you. [slayer-jinx-catface]

[sg-kiko] .... I'm a bloody idiot.

Aneirin1 votes

[sg-ahri-2]

Mike Teavee1 votes

Yeah, it was directed at me. In which you're just nit-picking and pulling anything you can just to disagree with me. A game shouldn't be indicative on muting your own team. It shouldn't be my job as a player to ignore the community and my own team in order to play a team game. Riot should take more effective steps to stop this sort of behavior from getting through in the first place. So yes, after the 10th+ game of getting flamed for the absolute smallest reason, I did engage in banter. God forbid we forget about the handful of games prior where I received at least 2 honors per game for being friendly and a team player. I can't wait to read your response in which you will pick apart this post and still point the finger at me, not a failed system.[zombie-brand-clap]

More from Player Behavior

More by OatheSworn