Boards›Player Behavior

Permamute rather than permaban

Golden Crow·6/4/2016, 5:08:33 AM·6 votes·1,448 views

Before someone brings it up, I've never been banned or punished in anyway.

If someone is being mean in chat, they should be permamuted. Ban people from playing the game if they are feeding. Ban people from talking if they are using chat inappropriately. I don't get why this is so difficult to understand. Why are people being permanently ban from the game because of their chat toxicity? This makes no sense as the punishment does not fit the crime.

I agree, people should be punished for what they did, but punish them in a way that actually makes sense.

Why should people be permabanned frrom the game, rather than permamuted because of what they say in chat? No one ever brings up a good counter-argument. The people here just downvote it. Think about it, it really doesn't make sense.

When you play the game, there are people who are rude here and there and they tell you that you're bad. Sometimes it gets annoying so I (sometimes) mute them. All of us have played this game. Many people are rude but they still want to win the game and climb. Think about it. People call you bad because they want better teammates, therefore they want to win the game. It's not nice when it turns into harassment and they should get punished for that, but with a permamute, not a ban.

Bans -> gameplay issues Mute -> chat related issues

This simple point has been brought up by everyone, yet I feel as though I have to repeat this point because, though simple, I don't understand why it's still so difficult for many people to grasp.

EDIT: FAQ (I will add something here if I feel as though I may/have repeated it.)

**(1) This is just giving people extra chances/letting them off the hook. ** No. Inappropriate actions should be punished. This is about giving the appropriate type of punishment.

If someone intentionally feeds, they should not be punished with a mute, they should be punished with a ban. Their crime has nothing to do with chat, therefore it does not make sense to punish them with a mute. Nothing controversial here. I think most people will agree with this.

Reapply the same logic. If someone is being toxic in chat, they should not be punished with a ban, they should be punished with a mute. Rudeness in chat is a chat-related issue, while feeding is a gameplay-related issue.

(2) Either: 'These muters will just turn into feeders. Ban them.' or 'Permamute will only increase the amount of feeders.' This is a slippery slope and punishing someone for a crime that they did not ocmmit.

If someone is feeding, they should be banned for feeding. If someone muted is feeding, they should be banned for feeding.

If someone is not feeding, they should not be banned for feeding. If someone muted is not feeding, they should not be banned for feeding.

Notes: 06/04 EDIT:

  • Made it look nicer
  • Added FAQ on repeated arguments

44 Comments

GaleWinUnleashed6/4/2016, 5:45:56 AM5 votes

Problem is that we'd like punished players to reform if at all possible. Being permanently muted instead of banned is a problem for players that do actually manage to reform at some point after their punishment, because they're left with a frustrating choice; either start a new account and abandon whatever content they'd previously unlocked in order to access chat again, or continue to play on a muted account with their skins and have minimal impact on a good portion of the strategic part of the game.

Permabanning at least removes that choice, leaving a very clear path to take for players that wish to continue playing LoL once they've reformed. It is also an extremely clear indication (to most people) that they've stepped firmly over the line and need to make a drastic change if they don't want it to happen again.

Edit: And if you consider the business side of things, permamuted players that start a new account to keep chatting would be much less likely to buy RP when they can still access the content on their muted account if they want.

BeatzBoyFTW6/4/2016, 5:12:40 AM4 votes

Permamuting will only improve Intentional Feeding, since this is a troller's/rager's last resort since they can't express their frustration for their feeding teammates.

SmokedAlmonds6/4/2016, 5:23:43 AM2 votes

No thanks, I don't want them taking slots in my games from people I want to play with.

Golden Crow6/30/2016, 7:06:53 PM1 votes

I see the downvotes slowly increasing, but does anyone actually have an argument to offer? What I see are people acting emotionally and missing the whole point, and just wants to punish people who are being mean to them as harsh as possible. That is nonsensical. Punishments should fit the crime. I've said in every single reply that mutes are for chat issues, and bans are for gameplay issues. Not a single one who even had the courage to reply even tries to address this point and I'd have to keep repeating it while also taking down their other arguments. Please don't act irrationally just because you do not like these people. I do not like them either. It does not mean that they should not be punished in a way that actually make sense, and in a way that is fair.

If any of you, we end up playing together, you wil notice that I'm not mean. Not only because I think it's pointless, but also because my role requires it. As a support main, I need the complete trust of the team, and that means I have to be completely unbiased. I cannot do anything by myself. I cannot kill anyone by myself. I'm gonna take a huge leap of faith here and say that you are not all support mains (statistically some of you will be). If someone is being toxic to you, you can just ignore them and you can just do your own thing, like split pushing. Me, I cannot do things like that by myself. I still have to heal them. In teamfights, you can just do your own thing and focus the adc. Me, I have to knock that Renekton out of their face without even so much as a thank you, and maybe something mean will even be said. So, grow up. If I can put my personal emotions aside and think through this rationally, then so can you.

Dehitay6/4/2016, 2:27:58 PM1 votes

I am utterly amazed at the number of downvotes and disagreements this idea has gotten. It's completely sensible and the arguements against it are so weird to me. They generally seem to fall into 2 categories.

  1. If you permamute them, then they'll just start trolling/feeding. While this is a very real problem, the major portion of this problem is that trolling/feeding isn't punished nearly to the extent that toxic chat is. Honestly, think about it, if Riot actually had a valid system for punishing trolls and feeders, then a permamute is just the first step to a permaban for these kinds of jerks. What's worse is the valid system is entirely possible and Riot just constantly neglects to implement it. If op.gg (a third party site with nowhere near the funding of Riot) can record your games for you, then Riot definitely can. Then you can submit video evidence of trolling/feeding along with reports. Now I don't expect Riot to sit through every report, but they have a system that makes that unnecessary. The tribunal, which they also constantly neglect.

  2. If you permamute them, then they have to choose between using their own account and not being able to talk vs starting a new account, while permabanning removes the problem of this choice. I cannot even begin to fathom how having a choice between those 2 options is an actual problem. Especially considering if you got to the point of being permabanned (which I assume would be the same point as being permamuted) via the 4 phase system, then you're not really the type of person to reform. Getting a new account would likely just bring you in as toxic as ever. Using an account where your primary form of offense is impossible seems to be the superior option.

Astôlfo6/4/2016, 4:34:05 PM1 votes

lmao no This implies toxic players should be able to keep playing. Hell no. They don't deserve to play the game anymore if they behave like that.

They spent 39489328490238490 dollars? Congratu-fucking-lations for them, they're still an asshole and still deserve a ban.

Case closed.

Agent20906/4/2016, 11:16:59 PM1 votes

"The severity of the punishment should fit the crime."

That's a sentence I'm seeing you say a lot in this thread. Except, in this case, it is not you who decides how severe the crime or the punishment is. This is someone else's house, and they've let you in.

I let you into my house and you mouth off, I don't put tape over your mouth, I kick you out of my house. You play by my rules in my house.

This is Riot's house. If they decide that being toxic in chat is enough to ban someone from the game, you either agree and play their game or you don't hit "Accept" on patch day and you don't play their game.

This is not some government run game where the people decide the rules. This is a private organization that has their own rules. They can be as lenient as they want or as strict as they want. "Fairness" does not apply.