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.
