Is this considered griefing/inting?

TittiesRUs·Mar 17, 2017·2 votes·3,660 views

So I played a game as Lucian (don't judge) and I had a naut support who, after we got ganked and died, he got pissed off at me. So what he did when we got back to lane is he went afk under tower just spamming his taunt, and even saying in all chat "go get lucian." So obviously for most of the laning phase I couldn't do much. He just sat there spamming taunt, often times he would just leave lane and go into another lane, and when I was actually able to get cs, he would try to steal cs from me, obvious too. He even built Rod of Ages as a support naut. So is this griefing or inting? Or is this not actually reportable?

EDIT: Damn, I saw your comments. I guess he's not going to get punished then -_-

18 Comments

Telephone BoothMar 17, 20175 votes

Yeah that's griefing. No one can say for sure whether they will punished or not. I just hope you didn't flame him for it. Usually when someone starts trolling me on bottom lane, I say nothing about it and continue playing normally. They see that I'm not giving them the salt they desire and usually start playing for real again after a few minutes. Hell, usually it's the rest of my team that starts flaming him and I just think to myself; God dammit, just stfu, trolls want the attention. If you don't give them attention, they give up on trolling and start playing again. This also saves you from any negative attention from Riot when they do look at the match in question.

TittiesRUsMar 17, 20172 votes

So bottom line is nothing is going to happen. Great. Thanks riot, my report meant nothing.

rujitraMar 18, 20171 votes

Yes, basically. Riot will not punish someone for this kind of behavior based on one game, regardless if they say they will or not. It is evident they care more about reviewing chat-logs in 60 seconds with CTRL-F than they do about watching an entire 40 minute game to determine if someone was trolling like this.

BlackFluxMar 17, 20172 votes

well,he isn't FEEDING,but griefing...definitely. you made a small mistake and now he was rather focused on ruining your game

VelocirapturedMar 17, 20172 votes

If logs of the game were actually watched, people like this might actually be banned. but since Riot is Lazy AF and leaves it up to a automated system, chances are nothing will hapen. Ever since I got to Plat I've had feeders every other match, 0/11/0 Swain, 0/13 Sona, and I look at their match history and they just keep playing, AS IF MY REPORT MEANT NOTHING.

AnomanderMar 17, 20172 votes

Yes he could be banned for it. IF they did a manual review.

TittiesRUsMar 17, 20172 votes

But they don't soooooo

rujitraMar 18, 20171 votes

The comment "But they don't" is accurate - Riot spends more time doing chat-log reviews (which they can use CTRL-F and quickly find something punish-worthy) than they do actually manually reviewing the entire set of circumstances regarding a game.

Manual review to Riot means a human sits there and types bad words into CTRL-F until they find one directed at another player, then hits the punish button. Regardless of how accurate that statement is, it's not 100% false and thus there's a systemic problem with Riot's stance on player behavior in games.

AnomanderMar 18, 20172 votes

The comment "But they don't" is accurate - Riot spends more time doing chat-log reviews (which they can use CTRL-F and quickly find something punish-worthy) than they do actually manually reviewing the entire set of circumstances regarding a game.

WOW I didn't know you worked for riot support......

Do you have any clue at all about how quality checks are done? I have worked for companies doing manual audits. Most employees actually do a bit more the CTRL-F............

The fact that they do any manual audits is proof that the statement is subjectively false.

People get manually audited by riot all the time. Didn't you read about support singe and nunu???? Both were manual reviews.

rujitraMar 18, 20172 votes

Considering you don't work for Riot support either, your comment regarding "other companies" is irrelevant.

The phrase "manual audit" could mean anything from a team of 5 people sitting down, watching every game of the last 10, and then making a determination (at best) to one person looking at chat logs and making a decision in 10 seconds (at worst). Based on the number of times I've gotten a "your reports helped punish someone" after I report a troll/intentional feeder, vs the times I've gotten one after I report someone being toxic, vs the times I don't get one at all after reporting someone, it seems that their "manual audit" consists more heavily of looking at logs (chat, buy, kills, etc) than it does looking at entire games.

Support nunu and singed were both triggered by very specific play conditions and styles. In these instances, Riot was able to use log-searching (for a player who was assigned/chose support, took nunu as a champion, took smite, and followed a certain build path, smite usage, etc) and if it met a threshold a manual review could be done. This does not work for many types of trolling.

Most trolling isn't the obvious kind that can be found by a computer (buying 6 boots, buying 3 tears, etc). Much of the trolling/refusal to play role is much more subtle - Last hitting minions "accidentally" but repeatedly through the whole game as your ADC has asked you to please stop; a full health teammate refusing to block caitlin's ult repeatedly, etc. These are not visible to a computer. There is no way a log file (chat, buy, otherwise) would show this type of trolling. Thus, manual review of these reports should be conducted every time, not just when specific conditions (such as support nunu/singed) are met.

AnomanderMar 18, 20171 votes

Based on the number of times I've gotten a "your reports helped punish someone" after I report a troll/intentional feeder, vs the times I've gotten one after I report someone being toxic, vs the times I don't get one at all after reporting someone, it seems that their "manual audit" consists more heavily of looking at logs (chat, buy, kills, etc) than it does looking at entire games.

You will only ever get this message for a automated punishment and will NEVER be informed of a manual audit.

Support nunu and singed were both triggered by very specific play conditions and styles. In these instances, Riot was able to use log-searching (for a player who was assigned/chose support, took nunu as a champion, took smite, and followed a certain build path, smite usage, etc) and if it met a threshold a manual review could be done. This does not work for many types of trolling.

Actually in the Nunu case it was flagged for manual review because it received a very high report rate with nothing the automated report system could find justifying the reports(confirmed by riot that they had a report rate well over 50%) and because they received such a high report rate without punishment it flagged the account for a manual audit.

Manual audits are done when they system shows someone consistently getting reported but not punished. Asking for Riot to manually audit every single report of trolling is beyond stupid and a waste of resources as most severe cases of trolling (inting) can be caught by automated systems. They also tweek the automated system toward a more lenient stance to limit false positives.

No one wants trolls in their game. I would love to see more resources devoted to this. However Riot actually does a pretty good job of it considering the MILLIONS of players and the very limited scope of true trolling.

rujitraMar 18, 20171 votes

I am not talking about specific cases of support nunu/singed. I am talking about the "manual audits" that are triggered by these playstyles in players who have not been publicized as much as the original. Furthermore, considering there are 800+ upvotes on the original support nunu post, and 500+ downvotes on the Riot response, do you think that maybe it's possible that Riot is not always right?

I think where we differ in view is what is "severe" trolling. What you consider "severe" (obvious) trolling, that which can be caught by automated systems, is the least severe type of trolling because it is obvious and can be nipped quickly. The severe trolling is that which is so subtle so as to avoid automated review. There is no reason this type of trolling (which is more prevalent than I think you believe) should be allowed to go on until it gets a "high report rate". Many players avoid reporting just because they hit "play again" as soon as it comes up. Many players don't want to take the time to report. Requiring a "high report rate" of subtle trolling before it gets reviewed is the exact reason there is so much subtle trolling (what you seem to consider less severe for some reason) now. This ruins games for many many players before it's nipped because it takes many many games before the report rate gets high enough (if ever) to trigger a review.

Automated systems are great for the obvious things, but the less obvious things need manual reviews, and not after 100s of reports, but after a few, so that it can be ended before it ruins games. If half of players report in each game of subtle trolling, it will affect 100 players before 50 report. And that assumes the rate is 50%, which it most likely isn't.

AnomanderMar 18, 20171 votes

Furthermore, considering there are 800+ upvotes on the original support nunu post, and 500+ downvotes on the Riot response, do you think that maybe it's possible that Riot is not always right?

I never said they are always right. I even happen to think the nunu ban was not appropriate.

My point and this whole discussion is about if they do manual audits. They do perform manual audits.

Alot fo what people consider "subtle trolling" is nothing more then play style/choice difference. Just because people play differently doesn't make them trolls. It just makes them different then the majority of players.

I play Leona bot lane alot. I don't play her as a support. I play her as a kill lane. My duo and I go things like Pantheon Leona. This is a very brutal kill lane. People think I am trolling. I am not trolling. I am playing to win off meta. I am playing a different play style then others.

Unless it is a blatant form of trolling (inting, buying only boots, all tears, afk walking around map, ect) it is almost impossible to prove intent. The difference between a troll and a difference in playstyle/choice is literally only intent. If you can't beyond a reasonable doubt prove intent then it should err on the side of caution.

TittiesRUsMar 19, 20171 votes

The support singed and the support nunu only got banned because they recieved so many bogus reports. And they HAVE to keep their mouth shut in game because if they say anything, you can bet your ass they will be banned immediately. Unfortunately, Riot is the same as any other company. They treat you and their customers like complete shit and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

AnomanderMar 19, 20171 votes

I have always found that you get what you give.

If a customer support agent treats you like shit it is probably because you started with a shitty attitude.

If you act like a asshole people will treat you like a asshole.

If you choose to remain ignorant about how a system works then you will always be ignorant.

If you don't like how a company treats its customers don't use that company. Speak with your wallet and your time. That is how the market system works.

Azure HamsterMar 17, 20172 votes

Keep reporting. It builds a case over time. Many offenses aren't punished on first offense.

Caitlyn

rujitraMar 18, 20171 votes

Many offenses should be punished on first offense that aren't: intentional feeding, trolling, refusal to play autofilled role, etc.

leona4lyfeMar 18, 20172 votes

http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/miscellaneous/eMcgl3Ef-gaslighting

Read this. He's GASLIGHTING you til you get mad at him. He's a sociopath. You'll do poorly in lane and you'll be the one who gets in trouble even though there is nothing in chat logs. He is still the one to set you up for failure by refusal to help. I also find there is no way to punish people for SABOTAGE. SABOTAGE needs to be a punishable offence but there is no way to prove it. Unless they admit it in chat.