Boards›Player Behavior

A serious and simple solution to toxicity and trolling WITHOUT dependence on tribunal or banning

Muahahahha··1 votes·1,780 views

Here is the idea: At the end of each game and before a player may join another, they simply place those they played with in one of three groups. "Liked, Neutral, Disliked" Obviously a network graph is formed, and the re-queuing would be biased to form groups with unbroken chains of "Liked" association chains, but really more biased against "Disliked" association chain segments. The network graph would not need to be permanent, just based off the most recent played games as a small data addition to the already existing game overview.

As a clear consequence, non-trolls will be prioritized in queue, and what better toxicity consequence than a longer wait time? Even a longer wait time for a less toxic game is more desirable than a shorter wait time for a toxic game

The obvious solution to the toxicity is a reputation model like the one suggested here, and a portion of it is already implemented (poorly) with the player commendations The idea is based off the interaction of social dynamic situations with semi permanent reputations. The idea is simple, and is not mutually exclusive with the tribunal or banning, and can work in-tandem with them to reduce the effect of toxicity and trolls

Because tbh the current word filter instant ban nonsense is being exploited by the actual toxic players. Words are not actions, especially when the actual actions are ignored by the current system. When you have a troll or insta-lock who then proceeded to feed, or afk, or or ip farm, people will be frustrated by them. People should not be banned for calling a spade a spade.

Edit1: everyone seems to have interpreted this as a harsher black and white after event scenario, when i was trying to suggest a gradient proactive effect

Current system: abused by trolls through accrued reports resulting in hard bans Suggestion: a short term memory "I liked this" identification, simply prioritizing more liked in queue (not excluding unliked permanently)

68 Comments

AeroWaffle4 votes

Because tbh the current word filter instant ban nonsense is being exploited by the actual toxic players.

And this wouldn't be? Trolls would also use this system as well.

With the current automatic system, not a single thing that another player says or does can influence if you recieve a punishment. The most that other players can do is make it so the system looks at your behavior (by reporting you), not which way it judges it.

It's completely your behavior that determines if the system assigns a punishment.

Words are not actions,

Someone else already replied to that argument;

{quoted}

Typing is an action. Writing is an action. Both of those actions are used in judging a person's behavior.

Muahahahha1 votes

No behavior is in a vacuum, so it cannot look at your behavior in a vacuum and make an accurate judgement

also writing and speaking are no where near the level of action necessary to justify the current consequences

AeroWaffle2 votes

No behavior is in a vacuum so it cannot look at your behavior in a vacuum and make an accurate judgement

The solution is not to ignore all poor behavior.

also writing and speaking are no where near the level of action necessary to justify the current consequences

That's an opinion. Riot disagrees. I do as well.

I'm frankly tired of how anonymity has formed the internet standard of behavior that it is today. People are acting like assholes and believing that they're entitled to do so without any consequences.

And as far as consequences go, being banned from an online video game is not a harsh consequence.

Muahahahha1 votes

The solution is not to ignore all poor behavior.

i never suggested that in fact my suggestion was not mutually exclusive with the current system

That's an opinion. Riot disagrees.

Riot does not care, they neither agree or disagree

either way you as a consumer should not be carrying water for them

AeroWaffle1 votes

{quoted} Riot does not care, they neither agree or disagree

either way you as a consumer should not be carrying water for them

They do care, they are the ones who governs what is ultimately punishable or not in their game.

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/legal/termsofuse#code-conduct

You must also comply with certain additional rules that govern your use of the Riot Services (the “Code of Conduct”). The Code of Conduct is not meant to be exhaustive, and we reserve the right to modify it at any time, as well as take appropriate disciplinary measures including account termination and deletion to protect the integrity and spirit of the Riot Services, regardless of whether a specific behavior is listed in the policy as inappropriate. In addition to the Code of Conduct, please review the Summoner’s Code for additional guidance on exemplary gameplay behavior.

http://gameinfo.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/game-info/get-started/summoners-code/

Muahahahha1 votes

Covering their ass legally is not equivalent to caring about toxicity in-game

AeroWaffle1 votes

They literally ban players for poor behavior. If all they were doing was covering their asses they wouldn't be banning people for poor behavior since there's no actual law that says they must.

They chose their stance on poor behavior and has devoted quite a bit of time on various behavioral policing systems. That's a lot of time and money for something they don't care about.

Muahahahha1 votes

Its to cover their ass legally in civil court not criminal court, and you know it

Think about the silly "muh feelings" legal environment People can get sued for words irl, Riot is just covering their ass

AeroWaffle1 votes

Riot can, at a much lower cost, cover their asses legally by saying,

"We are not responsible for anything said by players unaffiliated with Riot using the in-game chat system. Players are free to opt out of chat by muting everyone."

Instead, they've chosen the much harder and expensive job of implementing and tuning report systems for behavioral problems.

Muahahahha1 votes

No the authoritarian word sensors chose that. Riot and every business is fighting that infection right now.

AeroWaffle1 votes

No, I don't think you understand.

Companies like Riot care about the behavior in their game, because it's better for the game (and thus, the company). Most people don't want to play a game where someone throws a temper tantrum over a damn video game.

Minimizing the amount of poor behavior in the game is better for the overall enjoyment of the game, which results in more players, which results in more money for the company.

ModUlanopo4 votes

Riot does not care, they neither agree or disagree

They very much care, which is clearly evidenced by the money and effort put into the behavior systems.

Muahahahha1 votes

So... none? their current systems are spaghetti code programmed by Shakespeare's infinite chimps

AeroWaffle1 votes

Do you have access to the code?

ModUlanopo3 votes

The evidence to the contrary being all the players who come crying about their ban. The effectiveness of the cose is demonstrated by the results.

http://i.imgur.com/gRLVgTa.jpg[/img]

Muahahahha1 votes

so are you saying that if it wasn't working no one would cry about their ban?

you sound like the communists talking about the success of USSR "of course people are suffering, they deserve it"

any system can inflict punishment, but that doesn't mean they are just

you sir are suffering from confirmation bias

AeroWaffle2 votes

The people who come to the boards arguing against their ban are able to post their chat logs so that the community can also give their opinion.

Sure, some people judge if the ban was deserved or not before the chat logs are given, but many posters wait to give their opinion on the ban until after the logs pop up.

And I can easily say plenty of people complain about their ban when I believe their chat logs show that their punishment was deserved.

ModUlanopo3 votes

you sir are suffering from confirmation bias

Rather the opposite. The argument is thus:

**You: **Riot doesn't care! **Me: **Their behavior demonstrates otherwise. Effort is a byproduct of caring. **You: **If they cared, they would write real code! **Me: **If the code was as crappy as you suggest, how does it produce the desired output?

Now, discussing the legitimacy of the output as compared between the perspectives of you and Riot is an entirely separate discussion. I would argue a reverse selection bias: Riot's behavior is the byproduct of a process that eliminates systems that do not meet their needs. Therefore, the system must meet their needs in some fashion.

Regardless, would you like to admit your use of a non-sequitur constitutes a concession on your part that "Riot doesn't care"?

Sarutobi2 votes

I mean this just seems like a glorified blocking system which just is too easily abused. You played too well, well of course im going to like you so you can be on my team again. Oh this one game you got outplayed? well ill dislike you because i never want to play with you again. Thats basically what is going to happen. People are only going to use this to screw up the whole system to try and always make the best outcome for them. While it would be nice, we dont live in a perfect world. This would basically mean Supports (and possibly junglers) would be placed in such a high/long queue because (at least for most people) Supports should be the ones to sacrifice themselves to save the team. Whereas if you dont Gank, or Gank right as a jungler people will basically put them on a blacklist when they could have been a reason why they didnt gank, or the gank failed.

So why punish people like this? Ill agree this could work for the most obvious, but what will you do to combat people who abuse it, or use it for the wrong reasons?

Muahahahha1 votes

Thats what already happens with the current ban system, i was just suggesting less harsh methods

The current consequences are to harsh for the way its exploited now

P.S. I'm a support main, and if a support doesn't sacrifice for the team they are bad, and i can guarantee that if a jg doesn't gank your loss is almost certain

Sarutobi1 votes

{quoted}

Thats what already happens with the current ban system, i was just suggesting less harsh methods

The current consequences are to harsh for the way its exploited now

P.S. I'm a support main, and if a support doesn't sacrifice for the team they are bad, and i can guarantee that if a jg doesn't gank your loss is almost certain

Mate, i main support as well, but i would never sacrifice myself for a useless cause. Mostly when i know we are going to die, so me trying to save them only for me to get killed as well just ruins the whole game. And for Junglers, it isnt so much that they arent ganking, but maybe there is another lane who needed more help, or that the ganking failed one time. Again why punished those people over one game?

Imperial Pandaa3 votes

How exactly is it exploited? Because people can't realize, "Oh, this guy is x. I should just finish the game and report him." is better than, "OMG Y is such (Insert toxicity/name calling) is (insert whatever they are doing [i.e feeding,boosted, racist, or troll]). GG x9 afk."

I don't need to repeat anything that they said to me or anyone else. A simple, "Wow... I'm going to mute and focus on playing. Bye." Will do until the end game screen where I can report. I know what they are saying or doing is wrong and just need to do what is best for me.

In your system, it doesn't sound like there is any false report prevention. I may be reading that wrong though.

It also sounds kind of similar to Prisoner Island, which Riot has already said no to at this time.

Tearin True1 votes

It doesn't work that way.

Currently if a person is reported then that causes a review. My assumption is first it is reviewed by a computer program that looks for certain things that are easy for a computer to find and then to a person that reviews the gameplay.

Muahahahha1 votes

It doesn't work that way.

you don't get reviewed for every report, report's count accrue and then the bot looks for any reason to ban from all chatlogs in the game

the tribunal report isn't even available

my one ban was from 2 games with instalock off meta who broke dibs and single handedly fed the enemy team, and i called them out on it when they refused to ff after the opponents had double our kills because of them

ModUlanopo3 votes

you don't get reviewed for every report

With the implementation of the IFS, this is no longer true. 1 report = 1 review. Every time.

Muahahahha1 votes

No my one ban was for two separate games over 2 different days, and the ban wasn't even implemented until a few games later

ModUlanopo1 votes

That doesn't disprove anything. 1 report = 1 review is very much not the same thing as 1 report = 1 ban. Reports don't accumulate to trigger a review, but reviews demonstrating toxicity do accumulate to trigger a ban.

Muahahahha1 votes

That's my original point The reports accrue One way, without forgiveness, and the result is not commensurate with the actions

you just disagreed with me by supporting my point

i may not have the terms you want to use, but the concept of multiple (tenuous) reports accruing into a ban is unchanged

AeroWaffle1 votes

I think you missed that Ulanopo is saying.

He said

reviews demonstrating toxicity do accumulate to trigger a ban.

Reports alone will never ban someone. Their behavior must be poor enough once a review is triggered for a punishment to be issued. A ton of reports with no poor behavior results in absolutely nothing.

Muahahahha1 votes

I'm sorry but the presence of words "the bot will react to" is so high even in non-toxic games, that you are likely to trigger the ban, even if you picked random games, from on-toxic games, on non-toxic players

With trolls reporting people eclipsing the real reports, the likely hood that actual toxic people are banned by the system, approaches zero

ModUlanopo2 votes

You're mixing up reports and reviews, which may or not reveal toxicity, with the toxicity itself. I know, for example, that I'm reported in about 1 game in 40 (~2.5%) which is about average for a League player.

All of those reports trigger a review, but Riot uses an Intensity x Frequency system to determine bans. As there is little to no toxicity in my reviews and I'm infrequently toxic, I never accumulate enough "strikes" to catch a ban.

Remember that ~60% of the toxicity in League comes from people who aren't routinely toxic. Reports against them register, but fade away after time.

Soulhavok2 votes

I actually like your idea but to implement would be tricky. Most are reasons people have pointed out.

  1. The overwatch case. This can be solved but removing your dislike option altogether. That would stop the good players being punished and exploited.

  2. Asking people to "like" you. Now your getting into a area everyone is going to complain about. You would have to find a way to handle that exploit and I don't have a suggestion.

  3. The honor system is basically what you are encouraging which is good but the loop holes are annoying people at the moment.

But your idea is a good one just needs to be worked out so only a small number complain about it. Someone is always going to complain.

Muahahahha1 votes

seriously the shortest distance along a relation map kinda needs the negative association to make distance meaningful

and its still just a heuristic so even people who have the overwatch effect would still get into games, but they have to realize that playing against what is effectively an aimbot hitscan is not fun for the opponent when the maps do not take it into account

Soulhavok2 votes

Ok the overwatch issue wasn't about the widow maker. It was about a certain player who was amazing at the game so I'll use lol as the example.

If I and everyone dislike "faker" with your system and enough dislikes he would be given a low priority queue and my chances in that tier would be less likely I'll play against him. Now you are doing a witch hunt and only because he is a fantastic player. That's the issue. So by not having the dislike option would get rid of that ever occurring.

This Is Your Dad1 votes

People don't like me even when I'm 20/0 because I'm not a very likable guy. I vote no.

Muahahahha1 votes

I doubt you are less liked than a troll or a feeder if you are not flaming them intentionally

Spareatick1 votes

what about people who play off meta? They would be put in the dislike group by many of their teammates and would end up with long wait times alongside the trolls.

Muahahahha1 votes

When i see an off meta that doesn't feed then i will have sympathy for them in this concept

should you always have sympathy for people who play off meta?

Its about how often it occurs, and how often do people play off meta, and how often do they not face-roll, when they are off meta?

its a soft distancing technique opposed to the CURRENT hard ban, how are people missing this central idea?

Spareatick1 votes

I'm not missing the central idea. The current system doesn't hard ban people who play off meta. It doesn't even punish them for playing off meta. The system you are proposing would punish people for playing off meta because there are a lot of people who would blame the person who went off meta for anything that goes wrong in the game which would lead them to put them in the disliked category regardless of how they did. Riot is against punishing people for going off meta so any system that replaces or distances itself from the old system needs to not punish people for going off meta.

Muahahahha1 votes

having 2 relations per teammate would make a graph, not place them in 2 categories. graphs and maps are not linear necessarily, and this is very unlikely to produce a linear catagory.

sure off-meta would be dis-sncentivized subtly, but its a insignificant pressure to the disincentive from being toxic

besides, going off meta has a cost

Spareatick1 votes

That may be something that you are okay with, but riot does not want to discourage people from going off meta. Your idea isn't bad, and I can see it's benefits, but if you want it to be something riot would seriously consider there needs to be a way that it won't negatively affect people who go off meta, or people who are simply unskilled at the game.

Muahahahha1 votes

{quoted}

if you want it to be something riot would seriously consider there needs to be a way that it won't negatively affect people who go off meta, or people who are simply unskilled at the game.

ok, but this is an issue of magnitude

one or two "dislikes" in my idea for off meta would have the less consequence as 2 reports in the current system for off meta

and don't say people don't report that, because they just find a different excuse in the report

also my idea disassociated itself from reasons, because the whole point is to distance two players, because that's what you would do regardless of who is at fault

Spareatick2 votes

{quoted}

ok, but this is an issue of magnitude

one or two "dislikes" in my idea for off meta would have the less consequence as 2 reports in the current system for off meta

and don't say people don't report that, because they just find a different excuse in the report

also my idea disassociated itself from reasons, because the whole point is to distance two players, because that's what you would do regardless of who is at fault

It wouldn't be one or two reports, people would put people in the dislike category all the time for going off meta. I'm definitely not going to say people don't report for that because they do, all the time. The difference is with the current system those reports do not lead to any sort of punishment or distancing of the off meta player. I get that your idea disassociates itself from reasons but that doesn't work. You can't just separate everyone who doesn't get along in this game. It can't work like that.

Muahahahha1 votes

with the current system those reports do not lead to any sort of punishment or distancing of the off meta player.

every report adds to the heuristic of the instant judge

I get that your idea disassociates itself from reasons but that doesn't work. You can't just separate everyone who doesn't get along in this game. It can't work like that.

i am not suggesting a perfect system in a perfect world, just better than it is right now, and right now they literaly only consider in game chat with no context. How is that better than my suggestion? their fucking bot is literally just a word filter, prompted by petty reports

word filters are not good for judging player behavior

other players are, even if they will attempt to exploit it, you think they don't exploit the bot?

my suggestion removes the word filter bot, and focuses it on data that will get a closer heuristic than a word filter, and does not depend on BANNING to work

Spareatick1 votes

{quoted}

every report adds to the heuristic of the instant judge

i am not suggesting a perfect system in a perfect world, just better than it is right now, and right now they literaly only consider in game chat with no context. How is that better than my suggestion? their fucking bot is literally just a word filter, prompted by petty reports

word filters are not good for judging player behavior

other players are, even if they will attempt to exploit it, you think they don't exploit the bot?

my suggestion removes the word filter bot, and focuses it on data that will get a closer heuristic than a word filter, and does not depend on BANNING to work

I understand that you would be okay with the repercussions of this system, and I'm not even saying whether it's better or worse than the current system. I'm explaining to you that this is not something riot will consider as it is, and I'm explaining to you one of the reasons they won't. If you want this to be a serious suggestion as your title suggests you need to be open to the idea of figuring out how to tweak it to fit into what riot wants. Putting your foot down and saying this system is better and that's that will only assure that this suggestion stays in this post.

Muahahahha1 votes

I understand your statement. I don't think its perfect, just better. (and even if you don't think its better by itself, it would certainly make the current system better as an ignore-able addition)

All systems punish someone it probably shouldn't, but my system would punish "off meta" less than the current one

I don't mean to seem antagonistic, you haven't actually suggested a specific tweak to improve it for your specific case, just that tweaks are necessary, which i admit, and which i am fully open to btw

Spareatick1 votes

{quoted}

I understand your statement. I don't think its perfect, just better. (and even if you don't think its better by itself, it would certainly make the current system better as an ignore-able addition)

All systems punish someone it probably shouldn't, but my system would punish "off meta" less than the current one

I don't mean to seem antagonistic, you haven't actually suggested a specific tweak to improve it for your specific case, just that tweaks are necessary, which i admit, and which i am fully open to btw

Hey no worries, I don't mean to come off antagonistic either. Unfortunately I haven't suggested a specific tweak because I don't have one. I don't know how to change this system to make it into something riot would consider implementing. Why do you think this system would punish off meta players less than the current one? That simply isn't true

Muahahahha1 votes

Why do you think this system would punish off meta players less than the current one?

a short-term-memory distributed analysis based subtle queue prioritization is by definition less punishing than a cumulative report system that auto bans by word filter

queue prioritization is much less harsh than a cumulative ban

my suggestion does not even use or prevent bans

Spareatick2 votes

{quoted}

a short-term-memory distributed analysis based subtle queue prioritization is by definition less punishing than a cumulative report system that auto bans by word filter

queue prioritization is much less harsh than a cumulative ban

my suggestion does not even use or prevent bans

I didn't ask which system has harsher punishments though. I asked why you thought your system would punish off meta players less. The current system doesn't ban people who play off meta picks. Your system would give them a longer queue time.

Muahahahha1 votes

because a ban is a worse effect than an negligable time difference, and to be honest the time length would be unnoticeable if at all

i mean you don't even need the time penalty, that was just a throwaway comment

it was less about the time difference and more about disassociating players with longer valid paths along the generated association map

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 Muahahahha

Yasuo: Seriously Riot?
Gameplay24 comments
3
votes