Toxic People who make the reports

heckin low elos·Nov 14, 2015·3 votes·2,155 views

I saw this from my friends' experiences with automatic ban thing. Right now it seems like when a player is reported, only that player is looked at and not the circumstances of the game. This is a pretty bad idea.

How players "should" behave on the internet is controversial, but it would be fair to have the same morals as real life. If someone is being an asshole and trash talks you for 5 minutes, you would probably say something back if not beat the shit out of him. Unfortunately if you do that in league (say one response like "stfu") and you get reported, you will be banned and the other person won't if they didn't get reported enough.

IMO reports should be replaced with "review game for toxic" so that if you report, you can get yourself banned if you were the one who was talking shit the most / the cause of the trouble.

This would have no effect on most players who make reports on people, just the toxic ones who think everything is someone else's fault. This will reduce the amount of bullshit reports, and also will make people reflect on their own actions before condemning someone else. This is constructive and allows them to become better people. In addition, people who barely said anything will be less likely to get banned because their toxic teammates won't want to report (risking getting themselves banned) after talking shit to him.

It's natural and socially correct, the right thing to do, to not take shit from people who aren't better than you.

The victim shouldn't get expelled for fighting back just because the bully cried to the teacher louder.

31 Comments

DaenNov 14, 20155 votes

If someone is being an asshole and trash talks you for 5 minutes, you would probably say something back if not beat the shit out of him.

Let's start here. If someone is being an asshole to you and your retaliation is beating the shit out of that person, you will be arrested for felony assault and battery if the other person reports it to the police.

It's natural and socially correct, the right thing to do, to not take shit from people who aren't better than you.

This is an extremely limited worldview, especially in modernized countries like the USA. There are lots of ways to disengage from an altercation if the other person is not physically assaulting you, the easiest of which is walking away. You also have other options like trying to calm the situation with platitudes, ignoring the person, etc.

The equivalent to this in League of Legends is the mute functionality. If someone is being toxic to you, mute that person and report him/her after the game. Problem solved.

Overall, retaliation is not the same thing as showing strength. It actually takes far more willpower and strength of character to de-escalate or remove yourself from an altercation, there is no need to show you're tough by retaliating just as strongly as the aggressor.

heckin low elosNov 14, 20152 votes

That's not what happens in real life and its not how people will see you, which is petty but important and how people think regardless. Also, I didnt say beat the shit out of them, i said

(say one response like "stfu"), and you get reported

It's not me who does this for one thing, im just writing this, so dont talk to me like i do this, but people will not just back off because you think thats better

DaenNov 14, 20152 votes

[{quoted}](name=Hand Slipped,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dwULvLN6,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2015-11-14T03:50:53.740+0000)

That's not what happens in real life and its not how people will see you, which is petty but important and how people think regardless. Also, I didnt say beat the shit out of them, i said

It's absolutely what happens in real life. If you beat up a random person, he/she has completely legitimate grounds on which to get you arrested.

(say one response like "stfu"), and you get reported

Generally speaking, I'd be very surprised if saying "stfu" as the only negative thing in the game would be grounds for a valid report.

It's not me who does this for one thing, im just writing this, so dont talk to me like i do this, but people will not just back off because you think thats better

It's not what I think is better, it's what is actually better. Retaliating to toxicity with equal toxicity makes the person retaliating just as bad as the aggressor, whereas taking the high road (ignoring/muting) has no negative impact on the player at all.

BakedLotionNov 14, 20153 votes

{quoted}

Let's start here. If someone is being an asshole to you and your retaliation is beating the shit out of that person, you will be arrested for felony assault and battery if the other person reports it to the police.

This is an extremely limited worldview, especially in modernized countries like the USA. There are lots of ways to disengage from an altercation if the other person is not physically assaulting you, the easiest of which is walking away. You also have other options like trying to calm the situation with platitudes, ignoring the person, etc.

The equivalent to this in League of Legends is the mute functionality. If someone is being toxic to you, mute that person and report him/her after the game. Problem solved.

Overall, retaliation is not the same thing as showing strength. It actually takes far more willpower and strength of character to de-escalate or remove yourself from an altercation, there is no need to show you're tough by retaliating just as strongly as the aggressor.

If someone comes up to me and curses me out randomly and seems threatening I sure as hell would protect myself. Running away won't do anything if they can follow you.

DaenNov 14, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Self Defense :^) If some idiot comes to you and starts threatening you, you would just stand there and take threats?

It depends, what sort of threats are we talking? If I felt someone was legitimately threatening me with physical violence I'd report it to the police and let them handle it; I wouldn't gain anything from threatening that person back.

Edit: I see you changed your post.

If someone comes up to me and curses me out randomly and seems threatening I sure as hell would protect myself. Running away won't do anything if they can follow you.

If the person seemed threatening but wasn't physically aggressing on me, I'd try to disengage from the situation immediately rather than fighting back. Retaliation is a last resort, and since League of Legends chat logs don't pose a physical threat I'm not sure how this is relevant.

ModUlanopoNov 14, 20153 votes

It's natural and socially correct, the right thing to do, to not take shit from people who aren't better than you.

What you are describing goes by another name: totalitarianism. That's where the strong do whatever they like to the weak and it never, ever works out for the weak While you may think you are personally among the strong, you are not. That much is painfully clear from your post.

Strong people lift people up, rather than pushing them down. Strong people practice compassion, generosity and sympathy. Strong people appreciate that they are part of something larger than themselves and work to expand and strengthen that community. Strong people avoid adding to chaos and toxicity.

I encourage you to choose strength.

M1CH43LNov 14, 20152 votes

I agree with you that circumstances should be taken into consideration--and Riot used to feel the same way once upon the time. When the Tribunal was around players could see the entire in-game chat log and make a judgment call. Riot has since scrapped this idea and gone with a faulty automated punishment system. Think of it like a drone that flies above your head in every game waiting for you to screw up.

It's pretty disgusting that this company thinks this is an ethical idea rather than a human rights violation.

DaenNov 14, 20152 votes

{quoted}

I agree with you that circumstances should be taken into consideration--and Riot used to feel the same way once upon the time. When the Tribunal was around players could see the entire in-game chat log and make a judgment call. Riot has since scrapped this idea and gone with a faulty automated punishment system. Think of it like a drone that flies above your head in every game waiting for you to screw up.

Realistically speaking, I have yet to see an example of a player being wrongfully addressed by the punishment systems Riot currently has in place. Every single example I've seen over the past two years (other than one particularly weird one where the guy was insulting himself) has been pretty clearly against what the majority of the community appreciates.

It's pretty disgusting that this company thinks this is an ethical idea rather than a human rights violation.

Riot's player behavior systems have nothing to do with ethics or human rights. Riot Games is a private corporation and can set standards for their community any way they choose (within law), just like any other private entity. If I own a shop and want to deny or limit service to aggressive customers, it is well within my rights to do so; the same applies to Riot.

heckin low elosNov 14, 20152 votes

Hey businesses have to listen to consumers, since riot isn't a monopoly in video games. And they clearly stated they do care about this stuff. Yes they CAN do that but they publicly stated they aren't. Also im only writiing this cuz this happened a lot to people i know

DaenNov 14, 20152 votes

[{quoted}](name=Hand Slipped,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dwULvLN6,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2015-11-14T03:56:34.947+0000)

Hey businesses have to listen to consumers, since riot isn't a monopoly in video games. And they clearly stated they do care about this stuff. Yes they CAN do that but they publicly stated they aren't. Also im only writiing this cuz this happened a lot to people i know

Businesses only have to listen to consumers to the extent that it helps facilitate their monetary gains and public image, there is no legal obligation to do so. I'm also not sure what you're referring to with the following; care to elaborate?

Yes they CAN do that but they publicly stated they aren't. Also im only writiing this cuz this happened a lot to people i know

M1CH43LNov 14, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Realistically speaking, I have yet to see an example of a player being wrongfully addressed by the punishment systems Riot currently has in place. Every single example I've seen over the past two years (other than one particularly weird one where the guy was insulting himself) has been pretty clearly against what the majority of the community appreciates.

Riot's player behavior systems have nothing to do with ethics or human rights. Riot Games is a private corporation and can set standards for their community any way they choose (within law), just like any other private entity. If I own a shop and want to deny or limite service to aggressive customers, it is well within my rights to do so.

Obviously Riot can do whatever they want, but just because they can do something doesn't mean they should do something. Not all of us agree with the approach or direction Riot is taking with their company in regards to player behavior.

The idea of "wrongfully addressed" is a matter of opinion. If a person starts cussing out a player who is actively trolling him I find that to be OKAY. You likely do not. That doesn't mean that you are right and I'm wrong. It just means that you agree with the liberal minds who head the Riot Games player behavior division. Personally, I don't think there needs to be any sort of behavior system in place whatsoever. I grew up on games like Diablo and the original Starcraft, where trash talking was part of the experience. I don't want my game experience to be like real life. I play games to escape real life. I like the anonymity and saying what I really feel inside to people who make me angry.

Riot's behavior system does have to do with ethics. Ethics is universal. It's moral philosophy. It's considered widely unethical, for instance, to punish someone twice for the same crime. Yet Riot has chosen to ignore this and take ranked rewards away from people who have already received a punishment in the form of a suspension. Further, many of these people have actually worked towards reform and are by all accounts "reformed", meaning now-innocent of any transgressions, yet Riot is still punishing them. Essentially they are punishing good people. This also shows that Riot lacks empathy and compassion--traits that are widely believed to be universally "good".

Your example is flawed by the way because it doesn't take context into account. If I come into your shop and start berating you and other customers, then yes, I shouldn't be allowed in. I'm causing chaos for no reason and harming your business. If on the other hand I SEE someone trashing your shop and start cussing them out and telling them to get out of there, then would you still call the cops on me for being "aggressive", or would you thank me for defending the integrity of your shop?

It's easy to use a broad example with no specifics to prove a point.

Considering your "majority". The majority is not always right. This has been a common trend throughout history. Majority is just what's popular, not what is right. That's why there needs to be people who actually consider every angle and actually think about things rather than just side with the popular notion at the time. The fact that slavery is no longer permissible shows that what society views as right changes over time.

DaenNov 14, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Obviously Riot can do whatever they want, but just because they can do something doesn't mean they should do something. Not all of us agree with the approach or direction Riot is taking with their company in regards to player behavior.

100% agreed.

The idea of "wrongfully addressed" is a matter of opinion. If a person starts cussing out a player who is actively trolling him I find that to be OKAY. You likely do not. That doesn't mean that you are right and I'm wrong. It just means that you agree with the liberal minds who head the Riot Games player behavior division.

It actually means that I agree with the majority of the community on what constitutes verbal abuse/negativity. The behavioral systems in place are in large part modeled on the old Tribunal and patterns in how players use reports, not just Riot's personal views on how the community should be handled.

Personally, I don't think there needs to be any sort of behavior system in place whatsoever. I grew up on games like Diablo and the original Starcraft, where trash talking was part of the experience. I don't want my game experience to be like real life. I play games to escape real life. I like the anonymity and saying what I really feel inside to people who make me angry.

You and I will have to agree to disagree here. I never find it acceptable for players to outright flame one another or otherwise put each other down (e.g. "you're such fucking trash, go uninstall"), though general trash talk (e.g. "rekt ;)") is something I'm fine with.

Riot's behavior system does have to do with ethics. Ethics is universal. It's moral philosophy. It's considered widely unethical, for instance, to punish someone twice for the same crime. Yet Riot has chosen to ignore this and take ranked rewards away from people who have already received a punishment in the form of a suspension. Further, many of these people have actually worked towards reform and are by all accounts "reformed", meaning now-innocent of any transgressions, yet Riot is still punishing them. Essentially they are punishing good people. This also shows that Riot lacks empathy and compassion--traits that are widely believed to be universally "good".

To be fair, Riot set a precedent for removing ranked rewards last year; it was kind of to be expected. That being said, I agree with you in that Riot really should have set that expectation at the beginning of the season rather than tacking it on at the end, I think that was a pretty major oversight on their part.

Your example is flawed by the way because it doesn't take context into account. If I come into your shop and start berating you and other customers, then yes, I shouldn't be allowed in. I'm causing chaos for no reason and harming your business. If on the other hand I SEE someone trashing your shop and start cussing them out and telling them to get out of there, then would you still call the cops on me for being "aggressive", or would you thank me for defending the integrity of your shop?

Your example here isn't necessarily a parallel, because you are essentially attempting to assist my business. A more appropriate example would be as such:

One person is berating one of my customers, shouting at him and telling him to leave. That customer starts shouting back at the first person, saying similar things. As the owner of the shop, it's in my best interest to kick both of them out of my store, because quite frankly it doesn't matter who started yelling now that both of them are doing it, and I don't want their attitudes rubbing off on my other customers.

Considering your "majority". The majority is not always right. This has been a common trend throughout history. Majority is just what's popular, not what is right. That's why there needs to be people who actually consider every angle and actually think about things rather than just side with the popular notion at the time. The fact that slavery is no longer permissible shows that what society views as right changes over time.

Did you just compare slavery to Riot's player behavior policy?

Overall, while I agree the majority is not always right, the comparison isn't applicable. Slavery is a very clear human rights violation, where certain people are being treated differently than others based on unrelated factors (race), whereas Riot's player behavior systems hold everyone to the same standards.

M1CH43LNov 14, 20151 votes

{quoted}

100% agreed.

It actually means that I agree with the majority of the community on what constitutes verbal abuse/negativity. The behavioral systems in place are in large part modeled on the old Tribunal and patterns in how players use reports, not just Riot's personal views on how the community should be handled.

You and I will have to agree to disagree here. I never find it acceptable for players to outright flame one another or otherwise put each other down (e.g. "you're such fucking trash, go uninstall"), though general trash talk (e.g. "rekt ;)") is something I'm fine with.

To be fair, Riot set a precedent for removing ranked rewards last year; it was kind of to be expected. That being said, I agree with you in that Riot really should have set that expectation at the beginning of the season rather than tacking it on at the end, I think that was a pretty major oversight on their part.

Your example here isn't necessarily a parallel, because you are essentially attempting to assist my business. A more appropriate example would be as such:

One person is berating one of my customers, shouting at him and telling him to leave. That customer starts shouting back at the first person, saying similar things. As the owner of the shop, it's in my best interest to kick both of them out of my store, because quite frankly it doesn't matter who started yelling now that both of them are doing it, and I don't want their attitudes rubbing off on my other customers.

Did you just compare slavery to Riot's player behavior policy?

Overall, while I agree the majority is not always right, the comparison isn't applicable. Slavery is a very clear human rights violation, where certain people are being treated differently than others based on unrelated factors (race), whereas Riot's player behavior systems hold everyone to the same standards.

I'm not savvy enough with this thing to reply to each part the way you did. But here it goes.

To start, I consider "rekt" as unsportsmanlike as "you're trash". It's saying the same thing in my opinion and I report people for it. But I still don't believe a report system is necessary. I only use it because it's there and if the community likes it so much, then I'm going to use it on said community so they can see how evil it really is. As a Rioter explained to me, basically anything you say can be construed as negative and can be reported upon. So anything you say is at your own risk. Basically, if you talk, you're taking a risk that you'll get reported. You're taking a risk that you'll be reprimanded for it too.

Second, in terms of Riot's ranked-rewards policy, that was before this new automated system came into effect, and I don't believe very many players even knew about the policy. In August, once the automated system went live, Riot didn't even know what their policy would be or who would/wouldn't be getting rewards (I know because I spoke with a Rioter about this. They had no answers; it was still in internal debate).

Thirdly, What's missing from your example is the "troll" aspect. A troll is someone who is harming your business, which is why in my analogy the individual is trashing your business; because I think most would agree that a troll ruins the game for everyone on a fundamental (and un-mutable) level. So yes, if I cuss out a troll, i'm cussing out someone who is ruining Riot's game. I shouldn't be punished for that.

Yes, I did compare Riot's behavior policy to Slavery. They are attempting to control their players. The two are a lot more closely related than you may care to admit. Further, in your assessment of Slavery, you're speaking from a present-day perspective. It wasn't always a "very clear human right violation". You could also argue that Riot's system doesn't hold everyone to the same standards. What do I mean by that? There seems to be two clearly distinct mindsets regarding this behavior system as I'm sure you're noticing from just this thread alone. There are the people who believe that you should only say polite things in chat and the people who believe that you should be allowed to say some not-so-polite things in chat. Those are two different mindsets of people. It may not be a difference as obvious as race, but it is a legitimate difference. Riot could just as easily cater to the opposing viewpoint. However, as you said, they are catering to a 'majority' viewpoint.

Pretend that Slavery itself is the behavior system. I'm saying I don't think there should be Slavery. Riot is saying they think there should be slavery; and anyone who is of "race x" (toxic) should become a product of the slavery system. The main difference between the behavior system and actual slavery is that with slavery you couldn't alter your race to escape it, whereas you CAN alter your behavior to escape the behavior system; you're just essentially changing who you are to do so. You're conforming to the opinion of the majority just to play a video game. My guess is that most people who choose to go this route don't agree with it, they just really like playing the game. But make no mistake, they're being discriminated against.

DaenNov 14, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I'm not savvy enough with this thing to reply to each part the way you did. But here it goes.

No worries! In the future, you can just copy paste people's comments and stick a > before it, like so:

> other person's comment

As a Rioter explained to me, basically anything you say can be construed as negative and can be reported upon. So anything you say is at your own risk. Basically, if you talk, you're taking a risk that you'll get reported. You're taking a risk that you'll be reprimanded for it too.

While this is technically true, it never happens in practice. I talk constantly in every game I play, even going so far as to get frustrated with how things are going, and I've never even been warned by any of the systems in place.

Basically, what I'm getting at here is that there is a pretty clear line between general communication/frustration and toxicity. General rule: if what someone is saying is deliberately intended to demean or otherwise harm the mental state of another player, it's probably reportable.

You could also argue that Riot's system doesn't hold everyone to the same standards. What do I mean by that? There seems to be two clearly distinct mindsets regarding this behavior system as I'm sure you're noticing from just this thread alone. There are the people who believe that you should only say polite things in chat and the people who believe that you should be allowed to say some not-so-polite things in chat. Those are two different mindsets of people. It may not be a difference as obvious as race, but it is a legitimate difference. Riot could just as easily cater to the opposing viewpoint. However, as you said, they are catering to a 'majority' viewpoint.

For a system designed to ensure that the majority of your community enjoys the experience, it's generally safe to cater to the majority viewpoint.

Pretend that Slavery itself is the behavior system. I'm saying I don't think there should be Slavery. Riot is saying they think there should be slavery; and anyone who is of "race x" (toxic) should become a product of the slavery system. The main difference between the behavior system and actual slavery is that with slavery you couldn't alter your race to escape it, whereas you CAN alter your behavior to escape the behavior system; you're just essentially changing who you are to do so. You're conforming to the opinion of the majority just to play a video game. My guess is that most people who choose to go this route don't agree with it, they just really like playing the game. But make no mistake, they're being discriminated against.

Would you say that an angry customer is being discriminated against when he or she is asked to leave a private establishment, after multiple complaints from other patrons?

I think you're blurring the lines between discrimination and discretion, here; it is in no way discriminatory for a company to set up rules by which it expects customers to abide.

ModUlanopoNov 14, 20152 votes

{quoted}

Yes, I did compare Riot's behavior policy to Slavery. They are attempting to control their players. The two are a lot more closely related than you may care to admit. Further, in your assessment of Slavery, you're speaking from a present-day perspective. It wasn't always a "very clear human right violation". You could also argue that Riot's system doesn't hold everyone to the same standards. What do I mean by that? There seems to be two clearly distinct mindsets regarding this behavior system as I'm sure you're noticing from just this thread alone. There are the people who believe that you should only say polite things in chat and the people who believe that you should be allowed to say some not-so-polite things in chat. Those are two different mindsets of people. It may not be a difference as obvious as race, but it is a legitimate difference. Riot could just as easily cater to the opposing viewpoint. However, as you said, they are catering to a 'majority' viewpoint.

Ugh. This is such a mess.

First off, this is very much an apples and freight trains kind of comparison. Not being able to play a video game is in no way related to the systematic enslavement of a people. It just isn't and it damages both your reputation and your argument when you make that comparison.

Second, this argument does you no good because we're no longer talking about League. We're now talking about slavery and a lot of people are just going to tune out the discussion. You don't want that.

My advice to you is that, every time you are attempted to reference Nazis, Hitler, Rosa Parks, slavery or anything like that, don't. Find another way to express your ideas and you will generally be more successful.

Pretend that Slavery itself is the behavior system. I'm saying I don't think there should be Slavery. Riot is saying they think there should be slavery; and anyone who is of "race x" (toxic) should become a product of the slavery system. The main difference between the behavior system and actual slavery is that with slavery you couldn't alter your race to escape it, whereas you CAN alter your behavior to escape the behavior system; you're just essentially changing who you are to do so. You're conforming to the opinion of the majority just to play a video game. My guess is that most people who choose to go this route don't agree with it, they just really like playing the game. But make no mistake, they're being discriminated against.

Emphasis mine.

I'm going to stop you right there because that's a pretty ridiculous straw man. If you want to understand slavery, I would recommend the writings of Ta-Nehisi Coates, specifically "The Case for Reparations", but "Between the World and Me" is also an amazing read.

What you are missing here is that League is an entirely voluntary activity. Riot makes money when lots of people play. Riot loses money when jerks drive off other players. It's as simple as that. Riot doesn't want to force you into anything and they really don't want to put you in chains and force you to work the fields, so stop with that argument. What they do want is for you to play nice and, if you can't do that, they want you to leave. That they give you an opportunity to choose to get along is merely a kindness on their part.

M1CH43LNov 14, 20151 votes

Ugh. This is such a mess.

First off, this is very much an apples and freight trains kind of comparison. Not being able to play a video game is in no way related to the systematic enslavement of a people. It just isn't and it damages both your reputation and your argument when you make that comparison.

Second, this argument does you no good because we're no longer talking about League. We're now talking about slavery and a lot of people are just going to tune out the discussion. You don't want that.

My advice to you is that, every time you are attempted to reference Nazis, Hitler, Rosa Parks, slavery or anything like that, don't. Find another way to express your ideas and you will generally be more successful.

I like how you make statements as though they are inherent absolutes. They're not. However you feel about what I've written is how you feel about it. You don't speak for all of mankind. I also don't appreciate the obnoxious judgments and obviously condescending attitude towards me. I expected more from a "senior arbiter", whatever that is.

My advice to you is to stop giving advice. You're nobody. A drop of water in an ocean. A spec of sand. You're also the one who actually derailed the topic, not me. At least I was still talking about league in my analogy. You're no longer talking about league. You're talking about the way I argue and giving me "tips". How's that for the pot calling the kettle?

Emphasis mine.

I'm going to stop you right there because that's a pretty ridiculous straw man. If you want to understand slavery, I would recommend the writings of Ta-Nehisi Coates, specifically "The Case for Reparations", but "Between the World and Me" is also an amazing read.

What you are missing here is that League is an entirely voluntary activity. Riot makes money when lots of people play. Riot loses money when jerks drive off other players. It's as simple as that. Riot doesn't want to force you into anything and they really don't want to put you in chains and force you to work the fields, so stop with that argument. What they do want is for you to play nice and, if you can't do that, they want you to leave. That they give you an opportunity to choose to get along is merely a kindness on their part.

Riot also loses money when it treats players unfairly, particularly reformed players, by taking away their rewards. Riot also loses money when it punishes players who respond negatively to trolls. The trolls are enough reason to quit playing this game; but being punished for going off on them is just adding salt to the wound. I'm not sure you understand that there are types of personalities. Some people are more passionate about things than others; some people have a thicker skin than others; some people get offended much more quickly than others. The common thread that unites us is empathy. I feel that Riot is greatly lacking in this department, choosing solely to only understand one particular mindset of people and disregarding the pleas of the others.

Riot does NOT make money when lots of people play, by the way. This game is free to play. Riot makes money when the right people play. The people who like to buy things they don't need just because they're shiny and because they enjoy the game as a whole. At the moment Riot can afford to be flippant with its customers, because they have so many. They think they are too big to fail. That's why they expect players to deal with things that aren't fair. Like playing with trolls and afk's, and not understanding that people get frustrated from time to time. Taking away ranked rewards from reformed players, and basing individual skill level on the outcome of a team. Just lots of unfair things; and the only reason people stick around and deal with it is because the game is fun. Don't be fooled that this is a kind company. It's a business. Nothing that they do is kind. It's all marketing.

By the way, the original reason I brought up Slavery was not actually to compare this game to it, although I have since acknowledged that there are similarities (which you obviously do not agree with); the reason I brought up Slavery was as an example of how the views of the 'majority' change over time. Right now the 'majority' is in favor of a behavior system and in punishing people for almost everything. Doesn't mean they're right, and it doesn't mean this will be the 'majority' view in the future, or in future games.

ModUlanopoNov 14, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I like how you make statements as though they are inherent absolutes. They're not. However you feel about what I've written is how you feel about it. You don't speak for all of mankind. I also don't appreciate the obnoxious judgments and obviously condescending attitude towards me. I expected more from a "senior arbiter", whatever that is.

I speak confidently as someone who has spent much of his lifetime learning and practicing rhetoric. I'm a "senior arbiter" - which you could go to the sticky at the top of the board to learn about, by the way - because this is something I'm interested in and good at.

As for "obnoxious judgments and obviously condescending attitude", I don't think you're bad or stupid. I think you're wrong and the whole purpose of a space for public discussion is to discuss, which sounds like a tautology, but is not. It sounds as though you feel you should be able to make your arguments and pronouncements unchallenged, which is directly contrary to what Player Behavior & Moderation is all about.

My advice to you is to stop giving advice. You're nobody. A drop of water in an ocean. A spec of sand.

By that standard no one could ever give advice. We are all equally meaningless when measured against the cosmos. This is irrelevant, of course, because the truth is that some people are more qualified to speak in certain areas. This happens to be squarely in my wheelhouse and directly in my mandate as an Arbiter.

You're also the one who actually derailed the topic, not me. At least I was still talking about league in my analogy. You're no longer talking about league. You're talking about the way I argue and giving me "tips". How's that for the pot calling the kettle?

There's a thing in debate called a "Gish Gallop", which normally refers to throwing up all sorts of semi-related topics to chew up the opponent's time responding to them. In this case, however, what you're doing is forcing people to discuss a somewhat complex idea (Does Riot need behavior systems and how does it feel to be subject to those systems - a perfectly valid debate to be having, by the way) in the context of a much larger and more sensitive subject - slavery.

Yikes. That's really hard for most people to do even where the concepts are relatively similar, which in this case they are not.

There's also a concept in cognitive behavioral therapy that's relevant here. I've heard a number of names, but I tend to refer to it as a "detached scan." It's where people become overloaded when being asked to make too many emotional judgments at the same time. They "detach" from one train of thought to consider something else and lose their place.

I will admit that this happened to me when you added slavery to the mix. I frowned, cocked my head and was no longer thinking about behavioral systems. It was a textbook example of concept detachment.

The common thread that unites us is empathy. I feel that Riot is greatly lacking in this department, choosing solely to only understand one particular mindset of people and disregarding the pleas of the others.

Whereas I feel exactly the opposite. It would be authoritarian and unsympathetic of Riot to have hard, explicit rules about behavior. Instead, you can say and do whatever you want as long as you know and respect the line the community has drawn. I have said some pretty awful things to people in-game and I get away with it because I know and respect the line.

I have, for example, said to someone, "If I could go back in time, I would hand your mother the coat hanger", yet I have never even come close to being punished.

At the end of the day, Riot punishes people for things that the community does not tolerate. The community has made it clear that they do not tolerate any of the forms of toxicity you mention.

Riot does NOT make money when lots of people play, by the way. This game is free to play. Riot makes money when the right people play. The people who like to buy things they don't need just because they're shiny and because they enjoy the game as a whole. At the moment Riot can afford to be flippant with its customers, because they have so many. They think they are too big to fail. That's why they expect players to deal with things that aren't fair. Like playing with trolls and afk's, and not understanding that people get frustrated from time to time. Taking away ranked rewards from reformed players, and basing individual skill level on the outcome of a team. Just lots of unfair things; and the only reason people stick around and deal with it is because the game is fun. Don't be fooled that this is a kind company. It's a business. Nothing that they do is kind. It's all marketing.

Riot does not expect people to put up with people who AFK or leave. LeaverBuster (which handles both) has been around longer than Tribunal and is wicked sensitive, something I know from personal experience. Further, they added a new system this year to detect intentional feeding. People get hit by those systems all the time and they get punished just like those who abuse the chat system - including the loss of ranked rewards.

By the way, the original reason I brought up Slavery was not actually to compare this game to it, although I have since acknowledged that there are similarities (which you obviously do not agree with); the reason I brought up Slavery was as an example of how the views of the 'majority' change over time. ** Right now the 'majority' is in favor of a behavior system and in punishing people for almost everything. Doesn't mean they're right, and it doesn't mean this will be the 'majority' view in the future, or in future games.**

Historically, the price of admission to (or staying within) a culture has been abiding by the rules of that culture, which means that there isn't anything shocking here. Further, figuring out how to get along is the very essence of civilization, so this is hardly surprising. I don't see the community adopting your "right to be a jerk in chat" stance, however.

As for other times and other games, I feel that they can fend for themselves.

ModUlanopoNov 14, 20152 votes

Your example is flawed by the way because it doesn't take context into account. If I come into your shop and start berating you and other customers, then yes, I shouldn't be allowed in. I'm causing chaos for no reason and harming your business. If on the other hand I SEE someone trashing your shop and start cussing them out and telling them to get out of there, then would you still call the cops on me for being "aggressive", or would you thank me for defending the integrity of your shop?

This is a terrible example. You aren't defending or improving anything by being toxic in chat. You are making it worse for the people who aren't involved in your little spat.

As you're talking about values, you should keep in mind that the League community has always been exceptionally clear on not caring about the source of the toxicity, It doesn't matter who started it; they just want it to end.

M1CH43LNov 14, 20151 votes

{quoted}

This is a terrible example. You aren't defending or improving anything by being toxic in chat. You are making it worse for the people who aren't involved in your little spat.

As you're talking about values, you should keep in mind that the League community has always been exceptionally clear on not caring about the source of the toxicity, It doesn't matter who started it; they just want it to end.

Spat? A troll ruins the game for everyone in a way that isn't ignorable in the way that toxic chat is. If someone is trolling and I flame them anyone who is irritated by it can mute me. What they can't do is get the troll to stop trolling or the afk to stop afking or the feeder to stop feeding. These are the people who actually RUIN a game. By ruin i mean, make it impossible to play the game to its fullest competitive extent; who make it impossible to win.

The league community also cares about trolls, does it not? Does the league community like having their games ruined over and over again? Also, as I've mentioned before, the majority isn't always right. There are parts of the league community that don't agree with total political correctness in a video game.

ModUlanopoNov 14, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Spat? A troll ruins the game for everyone in a way that isn't ignorable in the way that toxic chat is.

That's a matter of opinion. A toxic player damages morale and contributes to losses in a way that is just as damaging as "trolling".

If someone is trolling and I flame them anyone who is irritated by it can mute me. What they can't do is get the troll to stop trolling or the afk to stop afking or the feeder to stop feeding. These are the people who actually RUIN a game. By ruin i mean, make it impossible to play the game to its fullest competitive extent; who make it impossible to win.

Again, that's a matter of opinion. What you perceive as feeding may simply be a bad game. Regardless, adding fuel to the fire doesn't improve your chances of winning. Now, before you try to argue otherwise, there's math that says this. "Aggressive coaching" or venting makes you lose. People know this, which is why the community has always been very firm that it's not okay to add to toxicity.

The league community also cares about trolls, does it not? Does the league community like having their games ruined over and over again?

We can have both. In fact, we demand both.

Also, as I've mentioned before, the majority isn't always right. There are parts of the league community that don't agree with total political correctness in a video game.

No one's asking you to be politically correct. They're just asking you not to be a jerk. Is that really so hard to accommodate?

LegendaryLemurNov 14, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Hand Slipped,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=dwULvLN6,comment-id=,timestamp=2015-11-14T03:22:24.940+0000)

How players "should" behave on the internet is controversial, but it would be fair to have the same morals as real life.

That's reasonable

If someone is being an asshole and trash talks you for 5 minutes, you would probably say something back if not beat the shit out of him.

Maybe if you're in international waters, or even just out in the street, this is not entirely unreasonable. But if you are inside of any institution, say a school, grocery store, church, library, really just about anywhere, this kind of retaliatory behavior is unacceptable and would most likely end up in both of you getting kicked out. Why should league of legends be any different?

The correct response in league, as in any societal establishment, is to inform those in charge of the misconduct, not to take matters into your own hands. Heck, in league you even have a mute button -- much easier than dealing with harassment in the real world.

M1CH43LNov 14, 20151 votes

No worries! In the future, you can just copy paste people's comments and stick a > before it, like so:

Thanks.

While this is technically true, it never happens in practice. I talk constantly in every game I play, even going so far as to get frustrated with how things are going, and I've never even been warned by any of the systems in place.

Basically, what I'm getting at here is that there is a pretty clear line between general communication/frustration and toxicity. General rule: if what someone is saying is deliberately intended to demean or otherwise harm the mental state of another player, it's probably reportable.

I'm not convinced that it doesn't happen in practice because I know nothing about what actually does happen in practice. Riot is not transparent with their methods or the way their systems work and I honestly don't trust them. I think they are corrupt and aren't above doing unethical things to their players. In the past unethical behavior has been alluded to between specific Rioters and specific players but I won't bring up things from years ago, because I honestly wasn't involved and don't have all of the facts. I only know what was presented on various forums. I will say that a company whose Terms of Service state that they can terminate your account for any reason or no reason doesn't get any awards in my book. They can basically do or say whatever they want and you just have to accept that.

As for "deliberately intended to demean", you don't think "rekt" qualifies? What was their intention exactly? To give their opponent a confidence boost?

For a system designed to ensure that the majority of your community enjoys the experience, it's generally safe to cater to the majority viewpoint.

I agree. However, is the majority spending the most money on the game? Or is it the "toxic" 1%ers? I would be attempting to cater to whichever group spent the most money, but I wouldn't completely throw any other contributing groups under the bus either. I'm guessing that Riot knows what they're doing in this regard but it's difficult for me to believe that the 'majority' spend that much more than this very aggressive minority. The reason? Because aggression = passion. Passionate people usually immerse themselves into things. The passionate people also make up the majority of higher-tier players (which is still a minority of players over all) I would imagine. I don't know how you could get that high of rank in this game without caring too much about the outcomes of each game. The only thing I can think of in regards to the so-called "toxic" players not contributing much monetarily is that they realize their propensity for being banned and refuse to spend money on the game; instead creating new accounts more often. In this case, Riot is losing out by setting such severe punishments for these players.

Would you say that an angry customer is being discriminated against when he or she is asked to leave a private establishment, after multiple complaints from other patrons?

I think you're blurring the lines between discrimination and discretion, here; it is in no way discriminatory for a company to set up rules by which it expects customers to abide.

The main difference between your real-world analogy and this game is that customers in an establishment can't mute the offending patrons who are annoying them. Their only recourse IS to inform the staff of the establishment and have the offending parties removed. In League you can just mute, and BINGO, no more annoyances.

As for Riot setting up rules--that's the problem. They haven't really set any. Most people don't actually know what they really can or cannot say other than extremes. I see forum posts regarding this all the time. "Can I get banned for saying this" , "I just got banned and I don't know why" , "I can't believe I got chat restricted, all I did was say this". It's a common type of post and it's been this way for years. Riot remains ambiguous because it's easier to control people that way.

In the case of recent events, Riot actually changed the game on its rules, so to speak, in implementing this automated system. Imagine going into an establishment for years and conducting yourself in exactly the same manner over the course of those years. Sometimes you were loud and obnoxious, but most of the time you were pleasant and/or kept to yourself. Either way, the owner only had to tell you to knock it off one time in all the years you'd been going to the establishment. One day, seemingly overnight, you go into the bar and it's one of your off-days. You get into an argument with another patron in the same manner as you've done in the past. It's still not something that happens very often, but it happened this day. Instead of letting it slide, like has been the case for years, the owner all of a sudden gets his goons to throw you out on the street and tells you not to come back for a month. After the month you wander back into the establishment and proceed to be on your best behavior. You're on your best behavior for two months when out of the blue the owner comes by and tells you that they're revoking your membership status. You're no longer allowed in on Friday or Saturday nights and you no longer get 2 pints for the price of one. Seems to come out of nowhere, right? Doesn't really seem fair, right? You argue that you respect the establishment and really thought it wasn't a big deal those times that you were too boisterous/obnoxious, because the owner never really said anything. The owner informs you that he's a Nazi and wants only to drink the sweet juice of your tears. You cry in disbelief and agony. (Welcome to Riot Games).

So while I'm all for a company setting up rules and things to benefit said company, I think there are right and wrong ways to go about it; and right and wrong ways of enforcing those rules. In my opinion, Riot has largely been choosing the wrong ways, particularly as of late.

EvilDustManNov 14, 20151 votes

{quoted}

The owner informs you that he's a Nazi and wants only to drink the sweet juice of your tears. You cry in disbelief and agony. (Welcome to Riot Games).

BINGO! I GOT BINGO!

BIIIINGOOOOO!

M1CH43LNov 14, 20151 votes

That's a matter of opinion. A toxic player damages morale and contributes to losses in a way that is just as damaging as "trolling".

Except you can mute a toxic player and leave your poor morale undamaged. You can't mute the damage that a troll can do.

Again, that's a matter of opinion. What you perceive as feeding may simply be a bad game. Regardless, adding fuel to the fire doesn't improve your chances of winning. Now, before you try to argue otherwise, there's math that says this. "Aggressive coaching" or venting makes you lose. People know this, which is why the community has always been very firm that it's not okay to add to toxicity.

If you have no proof to back up your statements, then you have no proof. What you're saying is a matter of opinion. Do you think the coaches of professional sports teams don't yell at their players? Do you think Lebron doesn't yell at fellow players who perform poorly? I've seen him. I've seen things like this go on, and there's more at stake here than just a simple victory. There's a lot of money involved. I think these guys know what works and what doesn't. I'm also not entirely sure that "adding fuel to the fire" doesn't improve your chances of winning. How do you know that? How would anyone know that? If even one time in the history of a sport "adding fuel to the fire" (berating your teammates) was the reason for your win, then it could in fact improve your chances of winning. But we all know that this argument isn't about winning, it's about what the 'majority' wants, regardless of outcome.

When I said feeding, by the way, I gave you the wrong impression. I don't mean someone dies once or twice and you completely go off on them. But if someone dies 5 times, or 8 times, or 10 times, particularly after giving them instructions on what to do in order to not die, and they don't listen, then yeah, I think they deserve some salt. They are effectively ruining the game even if their mindset wasn't out to ruin the game in the same way that a troll's was. They still are actively contributing to a loss for your team. Even in real life, if you instruct your teammate not to keep trying for 3's because he sucks at 3's and he doesn't listen and ONLY goes for 3's, essentially costing you the game, you have a right to be angry, and it would be letting that person off too easy to just sweep your anger under the rug. People need to understand that their performance effects other players, particularly if they're unwilling to listen to advice and just continue on stubbornly.

No one's asking you to be politically correct. They're just asking you not to be a jerk. Is that really so hard to accommodate?

"Jerk" is a very ambiguous word. What makes someone a jerk? If a player on your team purposefully dies to the enemy mid-laner over and over in order to get them fed and ensure that your team loses are they being a jerk? If you cuss at them are you being a jerk?

If a jungler starts an argument with you because you're taking jungle minions every so often, because it's difficult for you to farm in your lane, is that jungler being a jerk? Are you being a jerk if you continue to take jungle minions? Are you a jerk for arguing back with him? Are you both jerks if you start cussing at each other?

What exactly is a jerk? You act like it's as simple as black and white, but it's not. I know what the term "jerk" has become, though. As the community sees it, anyone who says anything 'negative' in chat, regardless of circumstances, is a jerk. That's pretty strict, and I feel that the community at large who feels this way are actually jerks themselves. They lack empathy and understanding.

LocaButtNov 14, 20151 votes

The proper action would be to mute and report. Certainly not the most gratifying, but adding to toxicity with more toxicity = what?

EvilDustManNov 14, 20151 votes

I'd report the coat hanger line, I don't really feel comfortable taking that from someone I don't know, even in jest.

Metalhead7Nov 14, 20151 votes

If you play the game right but still losing this means you where a victim of a rager who has turned against you and will do anything to see you Permanent banned.

Recommendations:

Go to Customer support on riot games
report you're situation along with you're summoner information 3.Remember the Summoner who is mostly the rager against you and warn riot that this guy is trying to Perma Banned you
Avoid Ranked games for a while until riot puts you under a protect system to detect massive reports used against you
Every game you play and at first thing you notice a rager against you write his summoner name and report it to riot DO NOT USE THE REPORT SYSTEM waste of time.

Follow this to prevent a permanent banned but act quickly, This is nothing more than a plan the league of legends High Elo community implemented Under riot's nose its called taking out the trash Method, the community is so tired of Unranked and Bronze players they will do anything out of Pure revenge.

EvilDustManNov 14, 20151 votes

{quoted}

This is nothing more than a plan the league of legends High Elo community implemented Under riot's nose its called taking out the trash Method, the community is so tired of Unranked and Bronze players they will do anything out of Pure revenge.

Uh...huh.

RaistlinNov 14, 20151 votes

If you are for example a happy camper, feeding the enemy team, trolling your team, but telling jokes, and being charismatic or funny, you could actually make your teammates get banned for trashtalking towards you on /all chat, this game is just too good in aspect of toxicity, its like a drama show.

The system doesnt check if feeding was intentionall, or not(based for example on damage dealt towards other enemies or items in inventory) it also doesnt check who started the verbal abuse first nor who did it the most.

Its a counter, you win over more ,call it "Votes" and your adversary, gets banned :)

Dig it? Simply say will honor you for reporting "name" player, and he is gone in most cases.

The core problem is that average playerbase ranges from 8-16 years old and maturity is in decline on some servers more than others. Second thing is that report system is rigorous but it doesnt have any finesse, just more open to exploitation xD