Boards›Player Behavior

The Psychology of the Chat Restriction System

420StackDCane··2 votes·2,060 views

PLEASE READ THE REVISED POST: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/7tujicYE-the-psychology-of-the-chat-restriction-system-new

THERE I WILL CONFRONT THE COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS AND ARGUMENTS.

This community has been asking for numerous chat restriction system reforms so I need an opinion on this formal email I sent to Riot Support. In short, I am a professional in the law enforcement / justice system and I am viewing the chat restriction system solely on moral, legal, and psychological grounds. I am NOT viewing this on grounds of Riot's Summoner Code, Terms of Agreement, or any RIOT-SPECIFIC RULES. This game reaches millions of players so I would value an opinion of a fellow psychologist on the matter. This is because I can evidently see this chat restriction system and the tendency to punish victims of crime (trolling in game, intentional feeding) is being mirrored in the real world (my encounters of domestic abuse and sexual assault victims). Punishing victims for reacting to crimes, whether virtual or physical, promotes victim blaming & shaming. Due to the large influence Riot has on its player base and its players' psychology, I am very concerned this type of victim punishment correlated to victim blaming will affect my real-world work. One cannot deny that psychologies and behaviors in virtual communities are mirrored in the real world where legal and psychological frameworks apply. Riot does not seem to adhere to these frameworks. I personally do not care about my chat restriction but rather the psychologies of the immense player base it holds. One cannot deny that virtual communities do not affect real life, evident by cyberbullying and suicide statistics. I compare real life crimes (assaults, abuse, burglary) to in game-trolling and jungle stealing. Albeit the disparity of intensity of damages done to an individual, they both have direct impact to the human body/game performance, and the victim is involuntary in both scenarios. Thus, due to the involuntary nature, the victim should not be punished if he/she reacts only verbally and does not reciprocate the exact offense.

End Suggestion: It goes a long way if Riot can implement chat restriction cases not in a vacuum but where each player’s chat logs and in game actions are considered, especially when a punishment is on the line. Issuing a punishment to a victim where the instigator’s actions are not considered is unheard of in the real legal world so why do this in online communities? If this continues, it will only promote victim blaming & shaming where the victim feels embarrassed that they reacted to an immoral behavior, even if their reaction pales in comparison to the initial offense. If you suppress one’s reaction to immoral behavior by punishing them, they will psychologically change to be immune to the initial immoral behavior/action. This is reflected by the psychology of numerous sexual assault & domestic violence victims where they become immune to the crimes done upon them.

The following is the attached email. Again, please facilitate this discussion outside of Riot’s rules, TOS, etc. but rather with the knowledge that actions/punishments in an online community can affect one’s psychological foundation and thus result in real world consequences. What are your thoughts?

(Start)

Hi, I have a question regarding my recent chat restriction based off of only one game's chat logs. I believe there needs to be a reform to the chat restriction system to include an account of everyone's chat activity to account for toxic behavior as well as in game actions to justify a chat restriction to someone or eventually an account suspension. In the match chat in question, Annie, our midlaner, called everyone "retards" after not receiving a countergank. My first lines of chat before the conflict started was a typo as well, where I typed "ff" instead of "ofc". After Annie's verbal abuse, she proceeded to follow me while I was jungling and attempting to steal my camps while leaving her mid lane empty. I proceeded to say "wtf are u doing" and "go back to lane". Sion, our support told me to stop talking and that I was going to get reported as well. On post game chat, I was mad at Sion for his intent to report me. This was because I had become a victim of intentional trolling and toxicity from Annie, calling people retards and stealing jungle camps, so I became toxic during post game. Sion believed I had no right to respond to such an offense/crime so I directed my rage at him. Feel free to review the chat logs in question.

I would like to appeal this specific restriction which resulted from only one game. If a victim of trolling and verbal abuse responds back in a toxic manner, I cannot see how that is unjustified because it is simply a response to an immoral action that should be intolerable in any virtual or real community. For example, if someone has committed a crime in the real world, a victim is never punished solely on their verbally intense reactions but only if they physically react with the intent of retribution. If the victim does not react in any form, it psychologically affects them resulting in them gradually accepting such violating behavior to be acceptable overtime. I draw from my knowledge in my degree in criminal justice and my career in law enforcement. In this scenario, I responded only verbally and not physically, for example by not trolling nor feeding, so if these concepts are mirrored in the real world, I would remain legally safe.

I do not wish to use my qualifications as a justification but I am asking for a reconsideration of this chat restriction. Being blamed by Sion for being the victim of a crime and being punished for how the victim reacts to the initial offense does not reflect correct moral nor legal proceedings in the real world. Verbal rejections to illegal physical behavior, in this scenario, trolling in game, is how many people deal with illegal behavior. In the real world legal system, this is absolutely justified as long as the victim does not react physically. I understand that you are a private company, but you still influence the psychology of its players by issuing penalties to people only verbally reacting to illegal physical behavior. I love this game and have financially contributed to your development but virtual and real-world communities should mirror each other in terms of moral and legal frameworks. Teaching children who play this game that they are not allowed to react solely on verbal grounds to unjust behavior is illogical. I am constantly surrounded by this mindset in my career and the common results are numerous victims becoming accustomed to domestic abuse and sexual crimes who have not come forth to report. I do not care much about my personal chat restriction but I am concerned with the fact that this game is reaching millions of players and thus affecting their psychology of how to respond to illegal and immoral behavior. I am afraid that this will affect my personal career and the law enforcement/justice system if such victim blaming is mirrored in virtual communities.

(End)

75 Comments

Chermorg8 votes

People who commit crimes are not excused IRL just because someone committed a crime against them first unless and only in the limited circumstance they had a legitimate fear for their life/property and reacted only with reasonable action.

There's problems with trying to translate that to League:

  1. There is no fear for your life/property in League. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to "fight back" or commit any violation of the Terms of Use/Summoner's Code as committing those violations does not protect you from the other "criminals" in any way.

  2. Fighting back with toxic chat, which affects your whole team, is hardly a reasonable action given that there is a report feature which you've seen first hand will punish those who are toxic.

420StackDCane2 votes

I think you missed my argument. The victims of illegal physical behavior (trolling, inting) or in the real world are only reacting verbally. In my case, I react to inting by being toxic. I am not however committing a physical type of crime and only verbally reacting. Verbal reactions to a physical crime should not be punished. And sure Riot has its own "legal" system and terms of agreement but my point of argument is that can directly affect my line of work as a police sergeant because it affects the psychology of its players and thus victims and clients I deal with. Policing online behavior should be closely mirror real life behavior.

420StackDCane1 votes

Direct counterpoints to your two bullet points:

  1. Yes, there is no fear of loss of life/property but there is fear of psychological change. I'm sure you are aware of gamer rage but it is different when an innocent victim who doesn't initiate the crime is being punished for reacting to it. Like I said, I do not care anything about the League's Summoner's Code or their Terms of Agreements but rather its effects on its players and into the real world.

  2. So do I not fight back? Does this not follow correct psychological order? Reacting to offensive behavior is natural. If not done, victims become accustomed to the crime and become immune to its damaging effects. In my work, this is mirrored by domestic abuse and sexual assault victims.

KazaJhodo1 votes

[deleted]

redniwediS6 votes

Having thick enough skin to ignore people isn't "bending over and taking it". Having a temper tantrum when someone says mean things to you isn't "standing up for yourself".

If being able to handle a situation like an actual adult is "drinking the koolaid" I hope they make more, because there's a lot of people who need to be drinking it.

420StackDCane1 votes

Handling situations like an actual adult? Then let's transfer this situation to the real world if you want an actual adult response. If you were assaulted and responded "f you" to the assaulter, should you be punished? You were physically affected by the crime. Similarly, I was affected by him trying to troll and steal jungle camps I was fighting. Real adults report problems that cross from verbal to physical threats and consequences. They usually do not report just verbal threats (unless it's verging on physical consquences). Riot thinks that being the victim of trolling (or assault in the real world) is a crime and should be punished.

AeroWaffle5 votes

Trolling isn't physically affecting you either. And as far as analogies go, you're not being arrested when you're hit with a punishment by Riot. Riot is telling you that unless you comply with their rules they'll escort you off the premises as is their right.

If two people are loudly arguing in a restaurant they'll likely get kicked out for disturbing other customers no matter who started the argument.

420StackDCane1 votes

The fact that I'm being punished for being a victim is my argument. Loudly arguing in a restaurant means each side is being verbally abusive. I'm talking about assaults where one side exacts physical damages and the other only verbal. In this scenario, trolling DIRECTLY affects gameplay while flaming does not directly do so. I am equating trolling with assaults in the real world because they both DIRECTLY affect your gameplay and physical performance whereas flaming or cursing will only affect your mind state.

AeroWaffle4 votes

The fact that I'm being punished for being a victim is my argument.

Once again, you're not. If you're punished for retaliating with your own poor behavior you're being punished for that. You're not being punished for being the target of someone else's poor behavior.

I'm talking about assaults where one side exacts physical damages

Once again, trolling is not physically affecting you. Both trolling and verbal abuse is poor behavior using the videogame as a medium to make the other person's experience less enjoyable. Both are against the rules. Riot does punish trolling more harshly (2week ban for first offense, perma ban afterwards) compared to poor chat behavior (several chat restrictions before reaching the 2 week ban). But Riot is more able to consistently detect and catch poor chat behavior.

420StackDCane1 votes

Please stop taking this in a nutshell. I'm talking about real world implications of victim blaming. In the real world, legal cases are not decided in rooms where prosecutors and defendants are in separate rooms. The fact that I'm being punished for my retaliation to unjust behavior perpetrated on me is my entire argument. That does not follow real life legal nor moral precedence. If we can agree on this, the virtual communities should do the same because online behavior affects real life behavior, which is very apparent in cyber-bullying and its associated suicide statistics. I don't want to hear the word Riot or their nitty gritty details of duration of bans in this argument. Please talk about victim blaming in the realms of online communities and its real life consequences.

redniwediS3 votes

Victim blaming is a terrible thing, both IRL and online, but you being punished for behaving as poorly as the other guy is not victim blaming.

It's fine to discuss victim blaming, but make sure you're actually applying it properly. You are being blamed for your own actions, not for the actions of the other guy, which is the key component you're missing. You didn't cause his actions, just as his actions didn't cause your own. You both decided to do what you did and could have decided not to.

420StackDCane1 votes

Punishing victims of online trolling promotes victim blaming/shaming. I was a victim of online trolling. Much like in the real world, punishing victims of crime promote psychological damage. Can we see the parallel now?

redniwediS5 votes

Victim blaming requires an actual attempt to blame the victim for what the attacker did. The attacker victim blames when he says "I only flamed him because..." and proceeds to list actions that did not cause him to act in the way he did.

Riot punishes you because of what you actually did. They look at your behavior and judge you on it and it alone. They don't blame you for the actions of another person, they blame you for your own actions.

You're not using the legal definition of victim blaming here, you're using it as a buzzword.

If you want to equate this to IRL terms you're essentially using victim blaming as a defense in a case of disturbing the peace. Look into the implications of that one if you would.

AeroWaffle3 votes

Please stop taking this in a nutshell. I'm talking about real world implications of victim blaming.

Stop ignoring what has actually happened. If you're going to say, "I'm being punished for being a victim", I'm going to point out that you're not and why you're not.

In the real world, legal cases...

In the real world Riot has the right to restrict access to the account if it breaks the rules. Your entire argument relies on endless analogies and incomplete or skewed parallels. When I point out why it doesn't apply you tell me to ignore how it actually works and instead to treat the system as if it was something else.

I'm done.

420StackDCane1 votes

Like I said, I'm speaking about online communities as a whole and not Riot's specific rights, their power to restrict accounts etc. In this scenario, I am the victim of online trolling and I choose to respond. I am being punished because the case is decided in a vacuum without the instigator's actions in consideration. Riot codes, much like court laws, can change. They are not set in stone which is why I even started this thread. They can freely choose NOT to restrict accounts who are simply victims if they choose to review cases where both players' actions & speech are reviewed. Is this not a good proposition? Is reviewing both sides of a case too hard when a punishment is on the line?

Unker1393 votes

{quoted}

Please stop taking this in a nutshell. I'm talking about real world implications of victim blaming. In the real world, legal cases are not decided in rooms where prosecutors and defendants are in separate rooms. The fact that I'm being punished for my retaliation to unjust behavior perpetrated on me is my entire argument. That does not follow real life legal nor moral precedence. If we can agree on this, the virtual communities should do the same because online behavior affects real life behavior, which is very apparent in cyber-bullying and its associated suicide statistics. I don't want to hear the word Riot or their nitty gritty details of duration of bans in this argument. Please talk about victim blaming in the realms of online communities and its real life consequences.

You are being punished for your retaliation, period.

You are right that the annie should get a punishment....

However, using your logic, annie was a vicitim of trolling because you didn't counter gank....(from Annie's perspective) and therefore anything she said or did was just a reaponse to your unjust behavior.

So who is right?

420StackDCane1 votes

Ganking directly affects one's "lane" correct? Because I did not gank, then it means I didn't affect her. However, she started to directly affect my "lane" when she started the jungle stealing. Thus, I believe Annie is the instigator.

Unker1391 votes

{quoted}

Ganking directly affects one's "lane" correct? Because I did not gank, then it means I didn't affect her. However, she started to directly affect my "lane" when she started the jungle stealing. Thus, I believe Annie is the instigator.

You might be right, but it is still "you believe". I'm sure annie believes she died because you your action (or lack of). In her eyes you are the instigator and she is the victim.

If riot did actually review your game and determined that annie did not troll, would it change what you believe? If she was, would it change hers? No matter what, someone was unjustly punished and everyone else in the game was a victim of both of you.

420StackDCane1 votes

Inaction and conscious action are two things. My "inaction" to gank should never instigate rage. Someone's action to switch lanes and actively steal jungle is conscious action. Thus, rage due to somoene's conscious action is allowed. When the chat logs are read, you will see that I only asked Annie to go back to lane. Sion told me to stop harassing her and only then was I toxic to Sion who seemed to support Annie's actions. I hope riot will review the in game actions but to go through so much effort is ridiculous. Reviewing actions needs to be part of the system in the first place.

Unker1391 votes

{quoted}

Inaction and conscious action are two things. My "inaction" to gank should never instigate rage. Someone's action to switch lanes and actively steal jungle is conscious action. Thus, rage due to somoene's conscious action is allowed. When the chat logs are read, you will see that I only asked Annie to go back to lane. Sion told me to stop harassing her and only then was I toxic to Sion who seemed to support Annie's actions. I hope riot will review the in game actions but to go through so much effort is ridiculous. Reviewing actions needs to be part of the system in the first place.

So you were toxic to sion as well and just for verbal. Then maybe you were a victim of Annie's, but sion was a victim of you..if I'm understanding this. So the action of one person justifies everyone being toxic to each other?

420StackDCane1 votes

If you were being condemned for verbally reacting to an immoral action, would you not feel that person was a supporter of the crime? In this scenario, if Sion threatens to report me but not Annie, it means that Sion supports Annie's side. Again, the whole argument is that I don't care how toxic I am. If an offense on an entirely higher scale than pure verbal is committed against me involuntarily, I have a right to verbally react. It is a natural psychological effect mirrored in the real world in domestic abuse victims. I encourage you to read police studies on domestic abuse. These two crimes are different in scale of damages but are similar in that in both, victims are involuntary and victims choose to respond verbally and do not match initial crime (aka revenge abuse, etc.).

Please read the first two paragraphs of this revised post and I hope it makes sense: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/7tujicYE-the-psychology-of-the-chat-restriction-system-new

redniwediS2 votes

Assaulted how? If someone yells at me I'm going to ignore them. I don't need to listen to them, so I won't. It does physically effect me on a technical level, but it does not impede me or harm me in any legitimate way. I won't retaliate because it's a useless action that escalates a situation that we should have grown out of by now.

If someone physically attacks me I will defend myself, because that's where the line should be. I'm not some thin skinned millennial who gets triggered by a few words, and I'm not going to consider someone who never learned respect an "attacker". If someone actually physically assaults me I will defend myself to the extent I see fit, but my skin is thick enough to weather insults.

Riot does not view the victim of trolling as a crime, they view flaming as disturbing the peace, which is the closest IRL analog to what you guys are talking about here. When it comes to disturbing the peace it really doesn't matter who started it, all that matters is whether or not it's happening and all parties involved will be asked/forced to stop.

420StackDCane1 votes

I failed to parallel assaults and online trolls. Albeit a huge difference in magnitude of damages, the underlying concepts are the same. An involuntary victim to an assault is legally justified in verbal assaulting the instigator much like an an involuntary victim to online trolling and jungle stealing (directly affecting one's online performance) is justified in verbally assaulting the instigator. Sure, it does absolutely nothing to resolve the issue but the victim is justified in both. I REALLY don't care what Riot personally views what as a crime. I DON'T care about their specific rules. The fact that they are punishing both parties EQUALLY promotes victim blaming/shaming even though the victim's reaction was nowhere near the magnitude of the instigator's initial actions. This is never done in the IRL or real legal world but somehow done so in online communities as a whole.

redniwediS1 votes

The first problem here is that you're equating someone being physically assaulted, and then responding with verbal assault to League. In League both cases of assault are verbal, and therefore are of equal consequence. It's not two different levels of crime, they are the same. The simple fact that one came first is not enough to make one punishable and the other acceptable, they are the same crime and so they get the same result.

The second problem is you keep talking about victim blaming where no victim is being blamed. You're using that term incorrectly and that is tearing your argument apart. IRL the term is used to describe situations where rape victims were said to be "asking for it", and this simply does not translate to your argument in any reasonable manner.

You and the other guy committed the same crime. You both deserve the same punishment. If you actually want to talk about victim blaming in online communities I'm all for it, but until you drop the buzzword and recognize that you earned your punishment just as much as the other guy earned his you won't be able to have a real discussion.

Face the truth of your own actions. You verbally harassed another person, and he did not do something that would allow such a response. You overreacted, and now you're paying the price. You were the victim of his anger as much as he was the victim of your own.

usul12024 votes

Unlike (some) retaliation in real life, you flaming Annie, or really anyone Counter-flaming, will not help the situation. It does nothing to deter the original flaming, it won't stop trolling, it won't stop Inting, and it can quite possibly make it worse. If nothing else, it makes your team have to deal with 2 flamers. Hence, riot will punish it equally.

420StackDCane1 votes

I agree entirely that counter flaming is not productive and does not stop trolling. Thus punishing the initiator is correct but why the victim at all? Especially if the victim kept his/her response on verbal grounds and did not match the crime of trolling (or in physical realm, assault, etc.). Stop thinking in terms of teams, riot, and gaming. I'm talking about real life scenarios where legal frameworks are the rules to operate under. Because undoubtedly, when virtual communities promote victim blaming, the psychology of someone changes and affects their real life. Cyber bullying has its effects too you know.

usul12021 votes

Nowhere in my response is anything about teams or riot, and little of it is about games. My entire response can be boiled down to: your actions are not self defense, instead you are actively making the situation worse. Once you start flaming someone you are no longer a victim, and are now causing your own 'crime', and thus receive your own punishment.

If flaming a troll made it stop, I honestly think riot would consider your point. Instead, it does makes the situation worse since you're directly breaking internet rule #1: don't feed the trolls.

To take it completely out of gaming, let's say you're getting mugged. You can: unfortunately deal with it, then report it to the higher authorities (riot in this case. Also assuming you're not carrying or anything that would allow you to completely safely diffuse the situation). Or the other option, you can start shouting racial slurs at the mugger. Or just yelling obsceneties them in general. It's a ridiculous, non-productive idea. Since it makes the situation worse (and there's an exceptional number of people with idiotic definitions of trolling that would use it as an excuse to flame) riot punishes.

420StackDCane1 votes

Ok, in this scenario I start shouting racial slurs or getting being verbally abusive at the mugger. This is how I chose to psychologically reject the mugger. I will not be however legally punished for doing so. If you translate to League of Legends, I choose to verbally assault an individual actively steal my jungle camps (trolling) and directly ruining my performance. I suddenly will be punished for being mad at something done to me? I never said yelling is productive or makes the situation better. I am stating that this yelling or being mad is a normal coping mechanism and a reaction by the victim. Penalizing or shunning the victim for having such a reaction will only make them afraid of reacting at all in the future. Thus, I connect small penalties such as a chat restriction to real world consequences where someone is afraid to report a sexual crime in fear of shaming/blaming. This is where I arrive at the concept of victim shaming. Is there a fault in any of my logic?

usul12021 votes

You absolutely would be punished for that in many areas, at least where I live. A dude recently got a legitimate sentence for teaching his dog to do the nazi salute. You're no longer a victim, you're a second aggressor.

If hate speech isn't illegal in your area, then change the hate speech out with some other offense that is illegal, but less bad than assault. What you're doing (flaming) is against the rules, and there's no system that will come up in league where you can justify it.

Quinzley1 votes

{quoted}

You absolutely would be punished for that in many areas, at least where I live. A dude recently got a legitimate sentence for teaching his dog to do the nazi salute. You're no longer a victim, you're a second aggressor.

If hate speech isn't illegal in your area, then change the hate speech out with some other offense that is illegal, but less bad than assault. What you're doing (flaming) is against the rules, and there's no system that will come up in league where you can justify it.

Got jail time for teaching your dog how to do a stupid trick? Thats bullshit. You're definetly talking about England. I always get a good laugh from Englands laws and police.

Imperial Pandaa4 votes

So, I'm just going to be completely blunt with my opinion. This, while thought out, is stupid as fuck.

Being toxic in response to:

Verbal toxicity: Congrats, you decided to sling words back at someone being toxic. Both parties can be punished for this. The real world equivalent would be a shouting match in a restaurant. Both parties will probably get chucked out. If someone wants to defend themselves, fucking mute the toxic player. The real world equivalent to that? Ignoring the dumbass. In both situations you can report it to the establishment.

Gameplay toxicity: Not only does the team have to deal with someone who MAY be a troll/inter, but now they also have to deal with someone being toxic. You want to mirror that to domestic abuse and sexual assault? Okay, then lets make this dark. What does verbally yelling at the perps do during the action? Remember, it is during and not after if we are mirroring. What does it do? It most likely excites them. It gives them a reaction that they get off on. They realize they hold the power when you them those reactions. So what is the best course of action? Get away asap and report it.

420StackDCane1 votes

I do not disagree that yelling at the perps does absolutely nothing. What I argue is that yelling back or taking action is a natural psychological response to anything immoral whether virtual or real world and should not be punished. If online communities shun and punish victims of gameplay trolling who react solely verbally, they will psychologically change. Likewise, if real communities shun and punish rape & domestic abuse victims who react solely verbally, they will psychologically change. I strongly encourage you to read police studies regarding domestic abuse and the victims' behavioral patterns.

These two offenses vary greatly in scale of damages but the underlying concepts remain. In both scenarios, someone is hurt physically or directly (via game performance) while the victim responds ONLY verbally. Your first paragraph about a shouting match in a restaurant is where both offenses are ONLY verbal, so the comparison cannot be made. There's a lot of ambiguity in my this initial post and a lot of confusion so please check out the new post's introduction where I attempt to confront the arguments all of you have brought up. Thanks for your opinion.

https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/7tujicYE-the-psychology-of-the-chat-restriction-system-new

Imperial Pandaa1 votes

Did you forget what you typed in the beginning? It is exactly why i included the restaurant example.

If a victim of trolling and #verbal abuse# responds back in a toxic manner, I cannot see how that is unjustified because it is simply a response to an immoral action that should be intolerable in any virtual or real community.

420StackDCane1 votes

I have revised that. "If a victim of trolling or intentional jungle trolling" to match exactly match my scenario. In game, my verbal response to Annie was not solely based on verbal abuse but an offense of a greater scale than verbal. In this case, intentional jungle stealing and trolling. Now please go back to the greater argument at hand.

KazaJhodo3 votes

This is a really good post. Well thought out and explained.

The comparison between the verbal/physical, verbal/feeding is solid.

Riot basically doesn't react to trolling/feeding, toxic play. They only seem to care about toxic chat. You simply can't defend yourself, and this is exactly why the community is toxic in the first place. Its created.

There are massive problems, we're told that there are not, and if we take the only recourse we have- WE get punished. Which means league is mute all, watch them feed, go play a different game.

Overall, I love the post from a seeming professional. You never know on the internet, but your opinions were on point. I've arrived at the same conclusion from my own seasons of experience and thousands of games.

420StackDCane1 votes

Ok thank you so much. I was worried of all these downvotes. I'm afraid they can't parallel between online behavior and real world psychological changes. This is the only game I know of where there are punishments and bans to toxic behavior, even if its self defense, so I needed to say this.

Imperial Pandaa8 votes

? Multiple online games have various punishment systems for toxic behavior.

420StackDCane1 votes

Ok, sorry multiple communities do punishment systems. This does not affect my argument at all in that virtual communities affect psychologies in the real world. I can attest. And I'm sure you've heard of suicides from cyber bullying. Victim blaming plays a role in cyber bullying, and these communities make it worse.

Imperial Pandaa5 votes

Victim blaming is going "she was raped for wearing revealing clothing".

The difference is a fine line. The victim of the rape, didn't have a choice in their reaction per se.

In a game, you have the choice to be toxic back or to report to the proper authority after the game.

You want to speak about online bullying and suicide? How many people are you prepared to excuse for telling a troll/inter/bad player to "kys"? How many fucking people are you prepared to defend for actually telling somebody to "kill their fucking selves" over a god damn game? Because here is the thing. You don't get to have a line of "acceptable" toxicity to someone you #think# is trolling. You either allow it or you don't.

Because consider this too. How many innocent player who are actually just having a bad game will get abused for free by this system you seem to want?

Imperial Pandaa4 votes

Except we have posts about people being banned for toxic gameplay too? Albeit more slowly than we would like.

CiphonW3 votes

Firstly I'd like to say thanks for bringing this issue up, and I'm happy to give my thoughts on it. I'm of course open to hearing your response and appreciate the level of professionalism you've written this thread up with. You bring up a point which I think is worth discussing, so here's my response:

Trolling and inting in League of Legends are not physical crimes and cannot be paralleled as such. At worst case when they happen, you have a bad game where you are able to report the players afterwards. Trying to parallel the psychological effects of complicity in domestic abuse and violence with the effects of being exposed to an internet troll in a video game is a big leap and frankly an insult to anyone who has experienced those crimes. In the real world, when your fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property are being threatened because you are the victim of a targeted attack, it makes sense that you'd want to say whatever you have to to scare off the attacker and ensure your safety. In an online game however, there is no physical threat to you or your safety. A feeder or troll ruins the game experience, but that's the extent of their power. Thus in the real world, victims may (unfortunately) have a motivation to be complicit in the crime for their own safety and avoid reporting incidences to authorities, which I absolutely agree is an issue of psychological wellbeing as well as physical. In league of legends however, you are actively encouraged by Riot to report wrongdoers, and they ultimately have no ability to threaten your life or safety if you do report them. Thus, there's no motivation to be complicit in the system other than some personal choice not to report someone.

Now I understand why wanting to react by being toxic is tempting, however in a virtual environment it's absolutely ineffective at de-escalating the situation. Whereas in real life words may be a deterrent to an attacker, they act as fuel to anyone who's already trolling in a game and will only increase the severity of the negative game atmosphere. This no doubt effects the other players in the game as well, ESPECIALLY if they become exposed to unsolicited hate speech which you seem to think makes no difference.

KazaJhodo1 votes

The down votes on this crack me up. You guys seriously lack perception. No wonder this community is toxic and fucked up. NA brains.

AeroWaffle4 votes

Insulting people is not the best way to make people believe you are interested in any sort of reasonable discussion.

420StackDCane1 votes

[deleted]

AeroWaffle3 votes

The entire confrontation is not physical, so your analogy doesn't hold up.

Victim blaming implies that Riot is punishing you for being a victim which is not true. You will never be punished by the behavioral system for being trolled. You are punished by the behavioral system if you retaliate with your own poor behavior. The behavioral system judges each person on their own behavior.

420StackDCane1 votes

(Original)

I agree entirely that counter flaming is not productive and does not stop trolling. Thus punishing the initiator is correct but why the victim at all? Especially if the victim kept his/her response on verbal grounds and did not match the crime of trolling (or in physical realm, assault, etc.). Stop thinking in terms of teams, riot, and gaming. I'm talking about real life scenarios where legal frameworks are the rules to operate under. Because undoubtedly, when virtual communities promote victim blaming, the psychology of someone changes and affects their real life. Cyber bullying has its effects too you know.

(Response)

Ok I understand but what I'm saying is that Riot should NOT judge each person's behavior on their own. This is never the case in the real world. Legal cases are never considered "individually". In that case, defendants and prosecutors will not be in the same room. Sure this confrontation is not physical but I'm drawing a parallel between trolling/stealing camps as the virtual equivalent of assaults. I am also matching flaming with vulgar responses from a victim. If you were assaulted and cursed the assaulter out, you would not be punished. However, if you were be trolled and you flamed, you WILL be punished? Please do not talk in terms of Riot's current behavior system. Please discuss in real world implications.

AeroWaffle4 votes

Stop thinking in terms of teams, riot, and gaming. I'm talking about real life scenarios where legal frameworks are the rules to operate under.

No. This is a game and Riot has their own legal frameworks with rules that they operate under. You can't just superimpose a different set of rules and expect those rules to be followed over the rules that actually exist in the situation that is actually happening.

Ok I understand but what I'm saying is that Riot should NOT judge each person's behavior on their own. This is never the case in the real world.

It does still happen in the real world. If someone wrongs you in a way that is punishable by the law, and in retaliation you then wrong them in a way that is also against the law, both parties can be held accountable for their respective actions.

Unker1392 votes

{quoted}

How you react to a crime does not change the legal decision, as long as your reaction stays verbal and is not physical. For example, to say "f*** you" to someone who just assaulted you in the real world will not get you fined/imprisoned. However, in this game or other virtual communities, saying "f*** you" to a feeder or troll will get you punished. Thus Riot promotes victim blaming and WILL affect your psychology offline.

The problem is that then there is always a justification for toxic behavior. Say f you to a feeder or troll being justified because they initiated the conflict is making an assumption that everyone understands what that is. If I think 3 deaths in a game is feeding, then once you hit 3 deaths I can say anything i want to you because you are feeding and I'm now the victim...as long as I keep it verbal only.

The same for "defending" myself. If I can defend myself from "toxic" chat by being toxic, what happens when I am wrong. The initiator wasn't actually toxic and I just said a bunch of things I wouldn't have if i were not defending myself....except now I'm the initiator.

Finally, what about the teammate that has to put up with it? Do you think he cares who started it? His game was ruined by both.

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