Boards›Player Behavior

THE VERDICT - EPISODE V

Deep Terror Nami··23 votes·1,990 views

Today we are going over the fifth set of chat logs volunteered to us. Review the logs, cast your vote, and discuss your decisions.

Ground Rules

  • Be respectful.
  • Be helpful.
  • It’s better to lift someone up than to push them down.
  • Remember, you are only voting on the volunteer’s chat.

    • Player/Teammates/Opponents

    Game 1:

    [0:17] Miss Fortune: send me the link
    [0:22] Miss Fortune: on my sei account
    [0:22] [All] Rakan: WOW I wish I could have a mirror match except draven told me "I wasn't his duo and he didn't want to give me the icon"
    [0:25] [All] Rakan: Love that shit
    [0:28] [All] Draven: lol :D
    [0:28] Miss Fortune: the grey icon one
    [0:37] [All] Darius: Who goes top
    [0:40] [All] Draven: feels bad not to have friends
    [0:42] [All] Rakan: get some friends
    [0:45] [All] Draven: lmfao
    [0:46] [All] Rakan: I mean I have them.
    [0:48] [All] Xayah: Or
    [0:49] [All] Draven: honored
    [0:50] [All] Xayah: A job
    [0:56] [All] Xayah: Either works wonders
    [0:58] [All] Rakan: This is why I hate blind pick. I'll stick to banning them in draft.
    [0:59] [All] Draven: respect to that bot <3
    [1:14] [All] Xayah: You're the worst kind of guy ;w;
    [1:27] [All] Rakan: It's ok. He'll get what he deserves.
    [1:29] [All] Rakan: <3
    [1:36] [All] Xayah: And here I was thinking you might get this pussay
    [5:11] Draven: worth she lost a bunch of cs
    [5:15] Draven: and now its pushing towards me
    [6:15] Rakan: Well alright then passive it is
    [6:27] Draven: easyy
    [6:29] Draven: life
    [6:36] [All] Draven: coming bot?
    [6:36] Miss Fortune: not much i can do about that lol
    [6:41] Rakan: Fair enough
    [6:46] Miss Fortune: so stop taking cs
    [6:49] [All] Xayah: Always coming for you bae ;)
    [6:50] Rakan: I took 3
    [6:54] Miss Fortune: idgf
    [7:02] Rakan: Yeah I'm done with blind
    [7:04] Rakan: Get more idiots
    [7:07] Miss Fortune: GOOD
    [7:14] Miss Fortune: i'm glad to see that
    [9:04] [All] Draven: props for the
    [9:07] [All] Draven: flash
    [9:18] [All] Draven: bw report our troll support
    [9:25] [All] Rakan: Oh no don't give me that
    [9:34] [All] Rakan: Pre game lobby from you and MF letting me die
    [9:40] [All] Rakan: So I returned the favor
    [9:45] [All] Draven: XD
    [9:48] [All] Xayah: I'll give you whatever bae ;)
    [10:02] Teemo: sup what u doing?
    [10:17] Rakan: Supporting another lane
    [10:31] Draven: i dont think he likes u there
    [10:56] Miss Fortune: why are you down here
    [11:03] Teemo: y he come top
    [12:59] Draven: so
    [13:04] Draven: can we please report our support
    [13:06] Draven: im doing his work
    [13:07] Draven: and mine
    [13:27] Rakan: For what exactly? Not dealing with your bullshit?
    [13:32] Draven: lol
    [13:40] Rakan: I'm happy doing my thing
    [13:48] Teemo: sup u r sharing my exp
    [13:50] Miss Fortune: i mean technically
    [13:53] Miss Fortune: you're the one at fault here
    [14:00] Rakan: Not really.
    [14:05] Teemo: sure!
    [14:09] Draven: well we reporting u anyways
    [14:10] Miss Fortune: so now you're making problems for teemo lol
    [14:15] Rakan: That's fine
    [14:18] Rakan: Report me if you want
    [14:26] Draven: amking teemo lose exp
    [14:44] Teemo: really suck
    [14:45] Rakan: Except I helped him push a tower
    [14:56] Teemo: i dont need u
    [18:07] Draven: yo graves
    [18:12] Draven: i need this
    [18:23] Graves: what
    [18:31] Graves: oh
    [18:42] Graves: i guess temoo can help u
    [20:31] Draven: worth
    [20:34] Draven: gj graves
    [23:44] Draven: stay with me
    [25:20] [All] Draven: can we trade supports lol
    [25:36] [All] Draven: can we please
    [26:35] Draven: this is over
    [26:57] [All] Rakan: Tyler1 is that you?
    [27:05] [All] Draven: he was banned
    [27:10] [All] Draven: and i doubt hell play in ur elo
    [27:12] [All] Draven: XD
    [27:15] [All] Draven: but u can dream
    [27:22] [All] Rakan: Toxic draven check
    [27:42] [All] Draven: Gg
    [27:48] [All] Xin Zhao: gg
    [27:50] [All] Rakan: gg

    What is your VERDICT?
    POSITIVE
    NEUTRAL
    NEGATIVE
    doquizzes

    65 Comments

    Declined14 votes

    [9:25] [All] Rakan: Oh no don't give me that [9:34] [All] Rakan: Pre game lobby from you and MF letting me die [9:40] [All] Rakan: So I returned the favor

    Admission of guilt. Now while I can't know exactly what's going on, two wrongs doesn't make it right.

    GreatWhiteNorth3 votes

    I doubt it. Someone could easily mess up a play and then say something nasty.

    Blood Lyrics2 votes

    {quoted}

    I doubt it. Someone could easily mess up a play and then say something nasty.

    We're not supposed to judge on his actions, only the chat. The chat quoted there has nothing toxic whatsoever.

    Silent Gravity4 votes

    Hey Blood Lyrics. I think that the line "So I returned the favor" is toxic.

    I'm thinking of a line that means about the same thing, "I'm going to try to lose, but make it look like I'm trying." If someone said that at the beginning of the game, and then didn't follow through on the threat, but instead played their hardest, it would still hurt the team. Every death would be demoralizing, every missed CS would look like sandbagging, every unwarded brush would feel intentional, every recall would look like they're giving up map pressure, every time they stayed in lane would feel like they were not spending gold on purpose to be weaker, every roam is to give the enemy laner free farm. The jungler would avoid ganking because it would feel useless to do so. So, he's more likely to lose lane. Having a teammate work against you isn't fun.

    It is just once, but that line does bug me.

    Blood Lyrics1 votes

    [{quoted}](name=Silent Gravity,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T03:05:23.808+0000)

    Hey Blood Lyrics. I think that the line "So I returned the favor" is toxic.

    I'm thinking of a line that means about the same thing, "I'm going to try to lose, but make it look like I'm trying." If someone said that at the beginning of the game, and then didn't follow through on the threat, but instead played their hardest, it would still hurt the team. Every death would be demoralizing, every missed CS would look like sandbagging, every unwarded brush would feel intentional, every recall would look like they're giving up map pressure, every time they stayed in lane would feel like they were not spending gold on purpose to be weaker, every roam is to give the enemy laner free farm. The jungler would avoid ganking because it would feel useless to do so. So, he's more likely to lose lane. Having a teammate work against you isn't fun.

    It is just once, but that line does bug me.

    Hey, mate.

    The words themselves have no toxicity in them. He is not insulting anyone. He is not disparaging anyone. He does not use profanity or racial slurs. Sure, the intention could be negative or trolling or whatever, but we do not have any evidence to indicate that. Moreover we are supposed to be judging solely based on the words alone.

    Silent Gravity2 votes

    It feels like giving up (which is a report category), and is similar to calls to open mid, which can be considered worth reporting. Though, looking at Episode IV, I was more gentle there even though it's the same idea. Maybe I'm just being cranky, and need to go take a nap.

    Aeszarck1 votes

    [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-18T03:09:26.422+0000)

    Hey, mate.

    The words themselves have no toxicity in them. He is not insulting anyone. He is not disparaging anyone. He does not use profanity or racial slurs. Sure, the intention could be negative or trolling or whatever, but we do not have any evidence to indicate that. Moreover we are supposed to be judging solely based on the words alone.

    Negative is open to interpretation. We're not just judging toxic speech here, though that is primarily what we will see. Negative can mean anything, including giving up.

    Blood Lyrics1 votes

    {quoted}

    We're not just judging toxic speech here

    Except...

    Remember, you are only voting on the volunteer’s chat.

    Aeszarck1 votes

    [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=0001000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2017-06-19T02:43:36.192+0000)

    Except...

    You're not getting what I'm saying. If I start to talk about my (nonexistent) crippling depression all game and say how this world is meaningless, this game is meaningless, I want to kill myself, nothing matters, etc., I am going to make the whole game experience pretty sad for my teammates. I'm not being toxic to anyone, but my chat is still negative. That's why I'm not saying that we're not just judging toxic speech. There are other forms of speech that can be considered negative outside of toxicity.

    Blood Lyrics1 votes

    {quoted}

    You're not getting what I'm saying. If I start to talk about my (nonexistent) crippling depression all game and say how this world is meaningless, this game is meaningless, I want to kill myself, nothing matters, etc., I am going to make the whole game experience pretty sad for my teammates. I'm not being toxic to anyone, but my chat is still negative. That's why I'm not saying that we're not just judging toxic speech. There are other forms of speech that can be considered negative outside of toxicity.

    If being negative and giving up is punishable, practically everyone who has surrendered a game needs to be punished. Hell, people who say "I don't think this match is winnable" in chat need to be punished. We cannot punish being negative about your circumstances. You're down 0-10 in kills and throw a surrender vote, should be you punished? Your ADC is 0-5 and 30 cs at 15 minutes. You decide to go "supporting another lane". Is that negative and requiring of punishment? And again, we do not know this guy's circumstances.

    Aeszarck1 votes

    [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=000100000000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T02:57:08.396+0000)

    If being negative and giving up is punishable, practically everyone who has surrendered a game needs to be punished. Hell, people who say "I don't think this match is winnable" in chat need to be punished. We cannot punish being negative about your circumstances. You're down 0-10 in kills and throw a surrender vote, should be you punished? Your ADC is 0-5 and 30 cs at 15 minutes. You decide to go "supporting another lane". Is that negative and requiring of punishment? And again, we do not know this guy's circumstances.

    You're attacking a straw man and then going off on a tangent. I am going to reply to your post as an aside, but this discussion is not about the aside I wrote. This discussion we two are having is about THE VERDICT and THE VERDICT's definition of negativity. ######Aside: Being negative is punishable. If you aren't especially obnoxious about it and you don't be negative on a regular basis, you'll never be punished. If the only negative line you say is "I don't think this match is winnable" then you're NEVER GOING TO GET PUNISHED. The system will punish excessive negativity. If you write that line constantly in one match and you do that over multiple matches (especially if you write it early on), you have a chance of being punished because you are discouraging your teammates. Still, you're probably not going to be punished because that's not very bad negativity. If you were more blatant about it, for example, "you morons made this game unwinnable", then you're much more likely to be punished. Surrender votes are not punishable. They're not chat related. Supporting another person's lane is not chat related and also not punishable.

    ##Now the part I want you to focus on. AS I SAID BEFORE, "Negativity is open to interpretation." THE VERDICT is looking to see how the community judges the chat, positive, negative, or neutral. Obviously, the community is going to view toxic speech as negative. However, if some player's log got put up and it was full of stuff like "i was thinking about what a terrible piece of s***** I was today" and "I'm dead again, what a surprise, no point in even fighting back" and "this game is so pointless, i am not even trying anymore" and "after this game i think i will hurt myself" "sona maybe you should hurt yourself too, life is so pointless" and more stuff along those lines, I think it would be voted negative. My point is that negativity in THE VERDICT is not just toxicity, but you're implying otherwise with your statement "The words have no toxicity in them."

    If you read a discouraging log from a severely depressed player that talked about giving up from the very beginning, both giving up the game and giving up in life, would you really vote neutral or positive?

    Blood Lyrics1 votes

    {quoted}

    You're attacking a straw man and then going off on a tangent.

    Uhm... okay? What tangent? I gave an example to support my argument.

    The system will punish excessive negativity. If you write that line constantly in one match and you do that over multiple matches (especially if you write it early on), you have a chance of being punished because you are discouraging your teammates. If you were more blatant about it, for example, "you morons made this game unwinnable", then you're much more likely to be punished.

    Show me where you've seen excessive negativity? The guy wrote about 20 lines of text and the majority of it is harmless. I'll go line by line later if you really want to.

    If you read a discouraging log from a severely depressed player that talked about giving up from the very beginning, both giving up the game and giving up in life, would you really vote neutral or positive?

    Okay, where in the heck did you find this guy being severely depressed and talking about giving up the game from the start? Nowhere in this chatlog does the Rakan state that he has given up. He does state that he's done with blind pick, but hey, is that really negative or just someone expressing that he dislikes the game type? He seems to be a guy who got trolled and is taking it as well as most people would be in his situation.

    Aeszarck1 votes

    [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=00010000000000000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T03:40:26.541+0000)

    Uhm... okay? What tangent? I gave an example to support my argument.

    The tangent is the surrender vote and the supporting another lane thing. Neither of those are chat related so that's a tangent. That's minorly negative behavior, we're judging negative chat. (And for the record, that behavior is so minor that it will not get anyone punished.)

    Show me where you've seen excessive negativity? The guy wrote about 20 lines of text and the majority of it is harmless. I'll go line by line later if you really want to.

    I'm not talking to you about the OP. I am talking to you about the system of THE VERDICT. There's a reason why I haven't mentioned the volunteer in our conversation.

    Okay, where in the heck did you find this guy being severely depressed and talking about giving up the game from the start? Nowhere in this chatlog does the Rakan state that he has given up. He does state that he's done with blind pick, but hey, is that really negative or just someone expressing that he dislikes the game type? He seems to be a guy who got trolled and is taking it as well as most people would be in his situation.

    I thought I made it clear that was part of my example, but I guess the paragraph break made it unclear. That last paragraph is a hypothetical. If you saw a severely discouraged player's chat log, the imaginary chat log that I gave sample lines of, how would you vote if there was no toxicity whatsoever? You were arguing before that there was no toxicity in the volunteer's lines. What I am saying is that toxicity should not be the only thing you should vote negative on.

    Blood Lyrics1 votes

    {quoted}

    The tangent is the surrender vote and the supporting another lane thing. Neither of those are chat related so that's a tangent.

    Okay, fine. You can call the surrender vote a bad example, not a tangent. The "supporting another lane" was taken directly from the volunteer's chat. It's chat related.

    I'm not talking to you about the OP. I am talking to you about the system of THE VERDICT. There's a reason why I haven't mentioned the volunteer in our conversation.

    Okay? Well I was staying on topic and like you said "not going off on a tangent" by talking about the volunteer's chat.

    That last paragraph is a hypothetical. If you saw a severely discouraged player's chat log, the imaginary chat log that I gave sample lines of, how would you vote if there was no toxicity whatsoever? You were arguing before that there was no toxicity in the volunteer's lines. What I am saying is that toxicity should not be the only thing you should vote negative on.

    The issue is, that we are voting on this volunteer's chat. Plenty of people include negativity in toxicity (if you want, I can link you to some other person's response that says those exact words). The rakan here was not toxic. He was barely, if at all, considered negative. The guy just got trolled (apparently) and his chat log is clean of insults (unless you really want to argue "get more idiots") and full of effectively neutral things such as "I'm happy doing my thing".

    Aeszarck1 votes

    [{quoted}](name=Blood Lyrics,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dXBYBpFN,comment-id=0001000000000000000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-06-19T04:04:38.892+0000)

    Okay, fine. You can call the surrender vote a bad example, not a tangent. The "supporting another lane" was taken directly from the volunteer's chat. It's chat related.

    Okay? Well I was staying on topic and like you said "not going off on a tangent" by talking about the volunteer's chat.

    The issue is, that we are voting on this volunteer's chat. Plenty of people include negativity in toxicity (if you want, I can link you to some other person's response that says those exact words). The rakan here was not toxic. He was barely, if at all, considered negative. The guy just got trolled (apparently) and his chat log is clean of insults (unless you really want to argue "get more idiots") and full of effectively neutral things such as "I'm happy doing my thing".

    My end goal was to bring your answer back to Rakan once you answered my question that I asked twice, but you're not answering it.

    If you read a discouraging log from a severely depressed player that talked about giving up from the very beginning, both giving up the game and giving up in life, would you really vote neutral or positive?

    |

    If you saw a severely discouraged player's chat log, the imaginary chat log that I gave sample lines of, how would you vote if there was no toxicity whatsoever?

    AMYS GRAVE2 votes

    When the chat admits to intentionally assisting the enemy team by letting a teammate die, then the actions admitted to are the context of the chat logs. I would punish.

    Blood Lyrics2 votes

    {quoted}

    When the chat admits to intentionally assisting the enemy team by letting a teammate die, then the actions admitted to are the context of the chat logs. I would punish.

    The chat admits to returning a favor (unspecified). He states that he was trolled in the pre-game lobby and then two of his teammates apparently left him to die intentionally. He then states that whatever action that occurred and that we do not know about was his manner of returning the favor. For all we know, he saw the two of them in a 2v5 and chose not to sacrifice his life for one of theirs. Is that intentionally assisting the enemy? Not sacrificing your life for someone else's?

    AMYS GRAVE2 votes

    For all we know, he saw the two of them in a 2v5 and chose not to sacrifice his life for one of theirs. Is that intentionally assisting the enemy?

    There are two options really. Either there was a situation where he could have helped but chose not to out of spite (seems likely given the chat log) - punish, or there was a bad fight which he watched happen and decided that taunting his team in all chat for dying was the correct response - punish.

    He is not insulting anyone. He is not disparaging anyone.

    Also, yes he is. Right here.

    [7:02] Rakan: Yeah I'm done with blind [7:04] Rakan: Get more idiots

    He called them idiots.

    Blood Lyrics1 votes

    {quoted}

    There are two options really. Either there was a situation where he could have helped but chose not to out of spite (seems likely given the chat log) - punish, or there was a bad fight which he watched happen and decided that taunting his team in all chat for dying was the correct response - punish.

    Also, yes he is. Right here.

    He called them idiots.

    Seriously? You can choose not to help in a fight if you believe that you're going to have to die for it. Unless you mean to say that any support who chooses not to sacrifice himself for his ADC needs to be punished? Yeah - fine - he taunted his team. You've never wrote "lul that flash" or anything to that effect before?

    "Get more idiots" as far as I can tell is a nonsensical statement that involves the word idiots but isn't specifically directed at anyone. That's about as toxic as "get less idiots", both of which I still have no idea what they are supposed to mean. Or do we punish every time we catch a single less than optimal word in speech regardless of what it actually means?

    AMYS GRAVE1 votes

    Seriously? You can choose not to help in a fight if you believe that you're going to have to die for it.

    That's fine, but the unnecessary taunting afterwards is unnecessary and still toxic.

    You've never wrote "lul that flash" or anything to that effect before?

    that's not even close to what he said....

    [9:34] [All] Rakan: Pre game lobby from you and MF letting me die [9:40] [All] Rakan: So I returned the favor

    "Get more idiots" as far as I can tell is a nonsensical statement that involves the word idiots but isn't specifically directed at anyone.

    Is English not your native language? In the context he is indirectly calling his teammates idiots.

    Blood Lyrics1 votes

    {quoted}

    That's fine, but the unnecessary taunting afterwards is unnecessary and still toxic.

    that's not even close to what he said....

    [9:34] [All] Rakan: Pre game lobby from you and MF letting me die [9:40] [All] Rakan: So I returned the favor

    Is English not your native language? In the context he is indirectly calling his teammates idiots.

    "So I returned the favor" is worse than "lul that flash"? "They made me suffer, so I chose not to sacrifice myself for them" is worse than "you made a really bad flash"?

    Again, because English is my native language, I am unsure of what "Get more idiots" means. I mean, I don't know about you, but I am fairly certain I have not heard or used the particular phrasing in my day to life. We can speculate on meaning, but in the end, it's just speculation.

    AMYS GRAVE1 votes

    "So I returned the favor" is worse than "lul that flash"?

    In context, absolutely.

    "They made me suffer, so I chose not to sacrifice myself for them" is worse than "you made a really bad flash"?

    You're begging the question my misrepresenting the meanings of the two phrases. I could present them as "you picked a stupid fight so i'm going to call you out for it" vs. "your flash made me laugh". That's not a logical way to frame the problem.

    Again, because English is my native language, I am unsure of what "Get more idiots" means.

    [7:02] Rakan: Yeah I'm done with blind [7:04] Rakan: Get more idiots

    He feels like he gets more idiots in blind pick, exemplified by his teammates this game.

    A more grammatically correct sentence might have been "I'm done with blind pick games because I get more idiots in my games", which isn't something that a person would say unless they felt it was true in the game they were currently playing.

    Blood Lyrics1 votes

    {quoted}

    In context, absolutely.

    Except, we are interpreting their intentions. We do not know. You cannot know, unless this was your chat.

    You're begging the question my misrepresenting the meanings of the two phrases. I could present them as "you picked a stupid fight so i'm going to call you out for it" vs. "your flash made me laugh". That's not a logical way to frame the problem.

    Exactly. It's a choice of representation. How do we know which representation is correct? We don't. Therefore, we can only judge the words themselves, not the connotation behind them.

    [7:02] Rakan: Yeah I'm done with blind [7:04] Rakan: Get more idiots

    He feels like he gets more idiots in blind pick, exemplified by his teammates this game. A more grammatically correct sentence might have been "I'm done with blind pick games because I get more idiots in my games", which isn't something that a person would say unless they felt it was true in the game they were currently playing.

    Even going off of that interpretation (and that is only one interpretation), can you really say that he is insulting any particular person or persons? Is there a specific target? I can say that I feel like I've met more idiots in my life recently, but does that mean I am referring to anyone in particular? Is it even negative to say that "I feel like I have met more idiots in blind pick than in other game types?" Is that not a quantitative expression of experiences?

    AMYS GRAVE1 votes

    Except, we are interpreting their intentions. We do not know. You cannot know, unless this was your chat.

    If the best argument you have is that words don't mean what they say then you have effectively conceded. We can not continue the conversation unless you admit that the words that were said have context and meaning behind them.

    Exactly. It's a choice of representation. How do we know which representation is correct? We don't. Therefore, we can only judge the words themselves, not the connotation behind them.

    Funny, you judged the representation of my words just fine, its almost like words can be interpreted and convey meaning.

    ModPeriscope11 votes

    I opted for negative. He's griefing in all chat, and he's insulting teammates (idiots). He doesn't communicate anything positive.

    As for his actions, the team, particularly Teemo, has indicated that he is making their game experience negative. Edit: are we judging his actions as told by others in game?

    Blood Lyrics4 votes

    {quoted}

    I opted for negative. He's griefing in all chat, and he's insulting teammates (idiots). He doesn't communicate anything positive.

    As for his actions, the team, particularly Teemo, has indicated that he is making their game experience negative. Edit: are we judging his actions as told by others in game?

    Considering we're told to vote only about the volunteer's chat, this guy has done next to nothing worthy of punishment. At worst he said "get more idiots" which I haven't the slightest idea what that should mean. Well, unless I suppose someone really hates being compared to Tyler1 (lol). If this guy deserved a ban on the basis of these chat logs alone, then I have deserved a ban, and, hell, the vast majority of the playerbase has deserved a ban.

    ModPeriscope1 votes

    You brought up some valid points. He doesn't say anything that is absurdly negative, but I felt like all of his logs either went neutral or negative. I respect your opinion, but I still disagree.

    I think you're right that we're supposed to vote on the volunteer's chat, only. The three of us, the Arbiter, you, and I have "only" in a different spot in the same (sorta kinda) sentence, but each time the word modifies a different verb, adjective, or noun. If you're peeved by grammar Nazis, pour some quick lime in your eyes....or just look away.

    Arbiter: Remember, you are only voting on the volunteer’s chat.

    only vote, don't do anything else

    Blood Lyrics: ...to vote only about the volunteer's chat

    vote, but just the volunteer's and no one else's chat

    Periscope: ...the volunteer's chat, only

    vote on the volunteer's chat, and nothing else the volunteer does. Personally I think this structure is right, but I didn't write the original sentence.

    ArbiterOfTruth2 votes

    If we're supposed to vote based solely on the volunteer's chat shouldn't we get only the volunteer's chat?

    ModAcademy Kayn4 votes

    Then we get things out of context.

    ArbiterOfTruth1 votes

    Edit: I feel foolish and reread the op. I understand now. We vote on the volunteer's chat and use the entire chat log to make our judgement.

    ModWuks5 votes

    Voted! I think people are going to be a bit split between two of the options; I don't want to bias it so I won't share my thoughts just yet. I look forward to seeing what you guys think!

    mangosawrus1 votes

    I think it's very interesting to see what people are posting in the comments section on this episode-V of THE VERDICT. It looks like many people here (including one arbiter) admit to having difficulty in following one of the ground rules that says:

    • Remember, you are only voting on the volunteers chat.

    I myself felt two different ways of voting based on whether i was:

    1. making a judgement based on everything in the entire chat conversation and the likely in game actions of the volunteer as indicated in the chat. or
    2. making a judgement based solely on the VOLUNTEER'S chat and nothing else. (which to do this i had to go back and re-read things and make a special effort to focus only on the text of the VOLUNTEER'S chat.)

    Seeing as how that particular bulletpoint of the ground rules is going to have the biggest effect on the outcome of the voting results, i think that this part of the instructions at the top of the page should be in big bold capital letters to make it a little harder for people to ignore that rule even if they are just quickly skimming over the instructions instead of reading that section carefully.

    And though it does help to add some context to the situation, showing the text of all the other players chat, does not seem to help people make an entirely fair/unbiased judgement if our instructions here are going to remain as:

    • Remember, you are only voting on the volunteers chat.

    Perhaps it would be helpful if we had the option to hide the chat of the other players to help us focus ONLY on JUST the volunteers chat. .

    Aeszarck1 votes

    {quoted}

    I think it's very interesting to see what people are posting in the comments section on this episode-V of THE VERDICT. It looks like many people here (including one arbiter) admit to having difficulty in following one of the ground rules that says:

    • Remember, you are only voting on the volunteers chat.

    I myself felt two different ways of voting based on whether i was:

    1. making a judgement based on everything in the entire chat conversation and the likely in game actions of the volunteer as indicated in the chat. or
    2. making a judgement based solely on the VOLUNTEER'S chat and nothing else. (which to do this i had to go back and re-read things and make a special effort to focus only on the text of the VOLUNTEER'S chat.)

    Seeing as how that particular bulletpoint of the ground rules is going to have the biggest effect on the outcome of the voting results, i think that this part of the instructions at the top of the page should be in big bold capital letters to make it a little harder for people to ignore that rule even if they are just quickly skimming over the instructions instead of reading that section carefully.

    And though it does help to add some context to the situation, showing the text of all the other players chat, does not seem to help people make an entirely fair/unbiased judgement if our instructions here are going to remain as:

    • Remember, you are only voting on the volunteers chat.

    Perhaps it would be helpful if we had the option to hide the chat of the other players to help us focus ONLY on JUST the volunteers chat. .

    THE VERDICT is a community experiment where the Arbiters are trying to find what the community views as positive, negative, and neutral, it seems like. The community already sees tons of logs from punished players with only their chat. This is a test to see the community's reaction when additional context is supplied. In many cases, punished players say "Well, this one guy was toxic to me first if you just look at the chat logs from the whole game. I was just defending myself." With THE VERDICT, now we have the full chat logs, and I think the Arbiters want to see how the community reacts with this additional information.

    Hello I am Bird5 votes

    If we're going on chat itself, I suppose it's technically neutral. But there's obviously something deeper going on here that I'm going to give him a negative for. He outright admitted to letting his team mates die and not help the team, and continued to be in Teemo's lane even when Teemo said he didn't want him there.

    ModPrandine5 votes

    I voted negative. Reason being is that even though we're only supposed to judge the volunteers chat, given the situation as a whole he really didn't do much of anything to help make the situation better, and really you can't help but not take into account the whole situation here when reviewing this case. He's mostly just whining and complaining about Draven and MFs behavior in the champion select lobby and using that as an excuse to behave poorly himself. Now while I'm not excusing his teammates behavior, I feel that there were better ways to handle the situation than how he did, but you know, hindsight and all that.

    Morgan le Fey4 votes

    I've been in this support's shoes. When you main support, you run into a lot of rather awful individuals playing ADC. Roaming all game is standard practice for dealing with them, but do not stay in someone else's lane if they don't want you there. XP drain kills.

    More than that, though, there's no need to spread your misery. While it's best to be positive in the face of adversity, it's rather understandable not to be, but that does not excuse negativity. The chat itself is passive-aggressive at best, and is outright hostile at times. Aside from just general toxicity making the game worse, Rakan actively sabotaged his team's morale. He continued to engaged in personal sniping and arguments, disrupting communications, and generally focusing so hard on whatever happened pre-game that he lost the actual game over it. This was all p. negative for sure, and destructively so.

    Discipline issues aside, he didn't even do anything but shoot himself in the foot. Unsurprisingly, his toxicity turned his teammates against him. He could've had a chance to find supporters among them (or even among the enemies!), and as a bloc they could've taken a pretty firm stance that what Draven did was trolling. Instead, he acted like a butt and directed the focus of most of the hostility in the game on himself.

    Galacius4 votes

    Alrighty,

    So this was my game that I played and I was the Rakan. If I remember correctly it was when Xayah and Rakan first came out and if you played a game with both of them on your team - you got an icon. I wanted sup, I called it, and I picked Rakan. Draven hovered over xayah and MF was his duo. He ended up telling me I wasn't his duo so he wouldn't give me the icon (pre game). I was tilted in not going to lie, because I thought that was a jerk thing to do.

    In-game, I laned with MF and she was decent. She didn't feed and she tried now that I look back at it. However, I wanted to be aggressive because I felt I could make plays. We had 75% hp and the enemy bot around a quarter. I go in and MF backs off. I ended up dying and well you see the rest. I go support teemo thinking bot is lost so I'll go help my team out. We push his tower and down it. And the rest I don't remember much. We ended up winning the match and I moved on since then.

    OceanicEyes3 votes

    Yeah I personally wouldn't call Rakan positive by any means, but I'm not sure if he's entirely negative. Sure he left his ADC to support another lane, but that wasn't to troll or to hinder the game. I'd give him neutral, with a lean towards negative.

    Silent Gravity6 votes

    [9:40] [All] Rakan: So I returned the favor Through most of the game, it was low level argumentation, but here, I think isn't acceptable. Not only did he choose an action that hurt his team, he also publicly rubbed their noses in it.

    I've had games where I've had to repeatedly tell myself, "Act like you're alone in the lane." Some jg gank into death repeatedly (while you're at 15% hp 6% mana), and following up only leads to giving more kills. Some ADC charge forward into death and trying to save them leads to death. Some ADC sit back passively and don't follow up on really good engages, so you choose to not chase to avoid death. Sometimes you can't count on your team. Sometimes they don't listen to danger or mia pings. So, in situations like that it can look like I'm leaving someone to die, but it comes after seeing that our tactics don't match, so I look to focus on what I know that I can do, as if I were solo.

    Calling them out doesn't help anything, but is understandable. Retaliating is trolling.

    But as I write this, I go back to read the OP, over and over. Each time it feels more understandable. Each time it feels less worthy of being punished.

    OceanicEyes2 votes

    Yeah 100% agreed on how the retaliation is unacceptable. Perhaps I should have decided upon negative leaning towards neutral rather than neutral leaning towards negative.

    GreatWhiteNorth2 votes

    You don't know that he retaliated. People will just type anything.

    Silent Gravity2 votes

    That's also a good point.

    DrCyanide3 votes

    Really hard to say what's going on from just this log. Seems like people are a bit miffed at each other, but also taking it reasonably well all things considered.

    It feels like the Volunteer is the one who doesn't want to be there, and their team would be just as happy if they were off in another queue.

    General Esdeath 3 votes

    Going for neutral, he's tilted after MF yelled at him for 3 cs

    ModAcademy Kayn3 votes

    I've seen this type of situation before, and it's not a "Poor support" one. The support is trying to victimize himself, and disregard any of his own actions with the excuse of "The abusive Adc". The Tyler1 comment sets it in stone too. Negative.

    Automated Riven2 votes

    This one was really hard. I ended up voting negative even though it truly appears that rakan is being targeted by his premade (at least duo) from champ select all the way throughout the game. Now it feels really bad to be in rakans shoes but he is actively contributing to a negative environment by arguing with his teammates and seemingly seeking revenge by allowing them to die.

    Doodlzzz1 votes

    I cnat find episodes 3 and 4 rip send help

    Deep Terror Nami2 votes

    If you were checking my profile for them, it's because Ulanopo usually does this but he's unavailable. You can find his profile here; http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/player/NA/Ulanopo

    Supreme Senpai691 votes

    Report all of them, lol

    SecondAirbane1 votes

    negative

    also can i volunteer some of my chatlogs? i was asleep when the recruitment area was created

    More from Player Behavior

    The indefinite banning of Tyler1
    Player Behavior4,799 comments
    2,942
    votes
    14 day ban because playing Nunu Support with Smite is "stealing other people's roles"...?
    Player Behavior1,525 comments
    1,086
    votes
    Riot should add monthly status cards
    Player Behavior241 comments
    843
    votes
    Reminder that we haven't gotten our Summoner report cards yet :/
    Player Behavior145 comments
    619
    votes
    I'm not "triggered" by you throwing insults.
    Player Behavior361 comments
    548
    votes
    Black Alistar, King Rammus!!!!
    Player Behavior462 comments
    503
    votes

    More by Deep Terror Nami

    When you want some alone time with your significant other, but you've got a kid
    Memes & Games45 comments
    296
    votes
    @Riot: I'd like to donate all my RP
    Memes & Games127 comments
    263
    votes
    It's my birthday; upvote to get me PBE and Alpha client access
    Memes & Games85 comments
    230
    votes
    How the discussion over Mastery 6/7 implementation went.
    Memes & Games61 comments
    214
    votes
    Tibbers! How about have Annie toss the bear, so there's chance to react?
    Gameplay182 comments
    204
    votes
    Hey guys, just wanted to let you know I've stopped playing League
    Memes & Games71 comments
    201
    votes