Hey Riot Tantram

{quoted}

Aatrox [00:12:08] You're ::::in horrid for not tanking ::::::. Aatrox [00:24:20] stfu ::::er. Aatrox [00:28:07] Idk why I came to help those 2 ::::::: Morgana [00:24:31] GROUP ::::IN ::::::: Morgana [00:28:42] omg you guys suck... Morgana [00:36:50] garen get ::::in carried ::::::. Gragas [00:12:15] way to ::::in go... Gragas [00:12:24] ::::in trashcan Hecarim [00:20:26] Guys we can't get banned for trolling in a CUSTOM game.

Astericks are used to make words bold or italic, removed and replaced with semi-colons.

They may not have said much, but what they said was very negative and harassing. And all of the 6 letter words that can be caught by the language filter that I can think of are slurs. Slurs are perma ban because slurs.

Game 1 and 2 are ban worthy by themselves, game 3 in context of games 1 and 2. They were clearly harassing and being negative.

There is a difference between "Fuck it, I'm going in" and "Fuck you, go in". Some people (myself included) swear frequently in casual conversation. I don't have a problem with using fuck as an emphasis. That is not how it was being used here. Those were not nice sentences. You can replace fuck with fudge and it's still ban worthy.

You aren't even adhering to your own standard that you just established. You've said "Slurs are perma ban because slurs". Yet then you said "I don't have a problem with using fuck as an emphasis." and "you can replace fuck with fudge and it's still ban worthy". If slurs are slurs, and slurs are ban worthy because they are slurs, then the use of the word "Fuck" does not matter. It is a slur whether it is used as "Fuck it" or "Fuck you", and therefor it should always result in a ban if it is used. Meanwhile, if someone says "Fudge" that is not the word "Fuck" and thus should not ever be ban worthy, as it is not a slur. This is why your standard NEEDS TO BE WELL DEFINED AND LOGICAL, and not leave things to perception. Your standard should not falter and change on a whim. As I've pointed out repeatedly, there IS a language filter and there IS a mute button, which every player has access to at all times.

Just because you can mute someone doesn't mean you should have to. If someone is put in a situation where in order to play a game they have to mute another player, something has gone horribly wrong. The mute function is how you get through the game, it's not the solution.

This is what you do not understand. The mute button is there so that YOU as a person with agency of your own has to use if you do not want to converse with or listen to another player, when that players actions are not out of line with what is allowable in the system. The same thing applies to the language filter. YOU have agency, if YOU disable the language filter you can see what they are typing, otherwise you get a bunch of asterisks (Thanks I couldn't for the life of me remember what it was called). This is why I am using the word "Excess" so much. It means "an amount of something that is more than necessary, permitted, or desirable." So "Excessive cursing or slurring" is "an amount of cursing or slurring that is more than necessary, permitted or desirable". For that matter, the punishment should fit the crime. If you curse or slur excessively, a chat mute is more than enough of a punishment. You get 3 sentences of dialogue to type at the start of the game, gain another sentence every 4 minutes, and can only hold a maximum of 5 sentences. If you go beyond cursing or slurring excessively, such as using discriminatory insults (Race, Religion or Sex based) then it makes sense for a punishment of suspension or ban to be used. Honestly, this is a T rated game, you should assume you will see some language here. I'm all for keeping it civil and keeping sportsmanship, but most people would agree that you do NOT need to be G rated for it to be civil or keep sportsmanship. And it is the outliers of that opinion, the ones who want it to be continuously G rated, who are the loudest voices in this, but even their opinion is moot because there is no set standard or definition that currently exists.

It doesn't matter how little they say or how well they play. Harassment is harassment and shouldn't be tolerated. Especially when it's clear that it's not just an off game, but a pattern across games.

The definition of the word "harassment" is already at odds with your definition with your previous standard. Harassment is "aggressive pressure or intimidation" and under the very logic of harassment, it must interfere with your ability to play the game. This is why, again, I am using the word "EXCESS" so much. Excessive slurring or cursing can most certainly interfere with your ability to play the game just like spamming pings can interfere with your ability to play the game. While certainly harassment shouldn't be tolerated, do you think everyone who harasses other players in your definition of the word should be perma-banned? You said that you use the word "Fuck" for emphasis, well if someone reports you for this, shouldn't you be perma-banned under that same system? Or will it not apply to you? These are legitimate issues and questions that need to be asked when you are trying to use words like "harassment" or define a standard, otherwise literally anything becomes harassment as long as a person believes he has been harassed.

Not to mention the logistics of enforcing some sort of rule by which saying X amount and getting X score meant you wouldn't get punished.

It's actually really easy to enforce a rule like this. It's called "totality of the circumstances". For example, I have had matches where one of our players gets angry at another, and then proceeds to run to a tower and die a few times. Even with his feeding, we dominate the enemy team, and let's assume he's 0-4 at this point. He manages to get a few kills and before we end the game he's 3-4. Would you still say he'd been feeding? Yes, I'd look at the Totality of the Circumstances surrounding his deaths. This requires a certain amount of human interaction, no AI could handle this, but it does in fact remove the issue.

Agreed. Part of controlling your own actions is reading rules and following them or accepting the consequences for not doing so. Riot is very clear on how they expect people to act while in game.

Or in the words of Will Wheaton, "Don't be a dick."

Riot's most certainly not clear on how they expect people to act in the game. They have literally refused to have a code of conduct beyond the Summoners code, which is extremely vague and repeats itself. I mean just look at the 9 points on the Summoners Code

1 - Support Your Team 2 - Drive Constructive Feedback 3 - Facilitate Civil Discussion 4 - Enjoy Yourself, but not at Anyone Else's Expense 5 - Build Relationships 6 - Show Humility in Victory, and Grace in Defeat 7 - Be Resolute, not Indignant 8 - Leave No Newbie Behind! 9 - Lead by Example

the only points you really need are 1, 4 and 9. Points 2, 3, 5 and 6 are all different aspects of point 4 "Enjoy yourself, but not at Anyone Else's Expense" Points 7 and 8 are simply aspects of Point 9 "Lead by Example" and point 1 "Support your team" is the only single point that really stands alone. Even if we make all 9 points separate as they are, the paragraphs explaining them is nothing but a bunch of sophistry. I mean look at this paragraph about point 3:

"Facilitate Civil Discussion - As we mentioned earlier, we want you to give feedback, but being part of the community doesn't stop there. Whether you're in chat, in a game, or on the forums, there are plenty of people to meet, and plenty of topics to discuss. Whether you're discussing game balance and champion viability, trying to form a premade team, or just want to express your affection for the legendary and infamous Gentleman Cho'gath, we encourage you to share your thoughts with other players. When you choose to participate in a discussion with the rest of the playerbase, always try to be receptive to another player's point of view. If you keep an open mind, you'd be surprised what valuable information you can glean from your fellow players. Also, be mindful of how you present your point of view. If a player feels strongly on a subject, don't get caught up trying to have the last word. Just state your side and exit the conversation gracefully rather than give them the opportunity to pick a fight."

This is so general that it hurts. It spends two whole paragraphs telling you "be good" but it doesn't tell you what it thinks "being good" entails. Does it want you to be responsible? Does it entail a zero tolerance policy on foul language? Does it want you to stand up to bullies, or does it think conflict in general is bad? This is not specified. When this isn't specified, you have different opinions from different people. This is normally a good thing, except whenever the power to ban or punish other players is held by the players themselves. Those with the lowest tolerance to different opinions often end up trying to censer or destroy the other opinions. They are the most likely to use the system, and the most frequent abusers of it.

First off: I'm about 99% certain the comma is not necessary. I'm also 100% certain that such ambiguities exist in German. The point is: Natural languages have ambiguities in them. That's a fact.

Secondly: You keep arguing about who is right, and I keep telling you that who is right is irrelevant. Proving or insisting, you are talking to people in a language they don't understand. Worse even, you are talking to people in a language they misunderstand. And if you do that despite knowing that you will be misunderstood you are in idiot.

Your analogy with the grand canyon has literally nothing to do with anything I said. This isn't about whether or not the statements are true, but whether or not the words people use are "correct". You are nonstop mixing up concepts and the words used to describe these concepts.

There is the concept of a color, a specific wavelength of light. And the other side there is the word we use to convey this concept, to make others understand what concept we are thinking of. You can either choose to convey the correct concept, or use the "correct" word. But again: Words are meant to convey concepts. If you prefer to use a certain word, rather than conveying a certain concept, you are not using words for the only purpose they have.

The difference here is you trust Riot, and I don't.

No. The difference is that I can shift my point of view and actually try to understand that reply. Something you obviously cannot do if you believe in a "correct" way to interpret and understand language.

Case in point:

I can demonstrate how they are being dodged.

You cannot. Because I see the answer to the question that was asked in that post. You don't, and that's fine. But you cannot argue that the way I understand answer and question does not exist based on the way you understand them. Your way of understanding things is not the only way.

Seriously, this is delving way deeper into philosophy than I original intended, but please, for your own sake, try to see the world through other peoples' eyes some time. I've never seen anybody quite as solipsistic as you.