The Use of Words in Video Games

Inject The Memes·2/25/2018, 6:51:44 AM·1 votes·758 views

Why should an account where you spend money on get banned in a video game where people regularly flame you. I dont know if anyone else notices this but the last couple seasons have been incredibly toxic. Banning people doesnt work obviously, so why not keep the limited in game chat? That seems to help with people who are toxic, not a perma ban. In fact, why not have every account have a limited speech in games? You dont need to type that much, why give the people the opportunity to abuse the chat function? Makes no sense to me but keep having your bots ban accounts, ill just keep making new accounts and being toxic! :)

30 Comments

ModPeriscope2/25/2018, 7:00:23 AM4 votes

I don't think League should make allowances for players that want to keep making games negative. There's got to be some change on your end. If chat restrictions and a 2-week ban don't force you to improve somewhat, then I don't see why you should get to keep playing on your account with all your skins and icons and whatnot. That's not fair to others that don't exhibit that behavior.

Sona Ping2/25/2018, 8:51:09 AM3 votes

" Why should an account where you spend money on get banned in a video game" Because if you choose to violate and terminate an agreement, it does not do anything for you anymore. Right?

"a video game where people regularly flame you." Other people's conduct is their business. It has no relevance on whether you uphold your end of an agreement. And that's a good thing, you wouldn't want someone else's actions, another player's choices getting your account restricted or banned, right?

" I dont know if anyone else notices this but the last couple seasons have been incredibly toxic. Banning people doesnt work obviously, so why not keep the limited in game chat?" Because that worked even less.

"You dont need to type that much, why give the people the opportunity to abuse the chat function?" Like the second item, it doesn't make sense to punish you for what someone else typed.

"Bans in a game where you can spend money are not fair unless you are negatively impacting gameplay. " I could write out that it does but I'll let someone else take this question...

[{quoted}](name=Inject The Memes,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=k031kEMg,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-02-25T07:06:06.549+0000)

Boo hoo, lifes not fair.

Well, that's a bit much. But he has a point. "Fair" is not defined as "Me getting what I want". If you choose to get yourself thrown out of a waterpark, you can't complain that you don't get to use your pass anymore.

Umbral Regent2/25/2018, 6:59:12 AM3 votes

Banning people doesnt work obviously, so why not keep the limited in game chat?

If people get banned for abusing the in-game chat, then they've likely worked their way through at least three prior punishments - a 10-game Chat Restriction, a 25-game Chat Restriction, and a 14-day ban.

With that being the case - chat restricting people doesn't work, obviously. Hence, employing bans when people don't seem to be getting the picture from their chat restrictions.

If people are toxic and flaming others, they'll get punished. If they get punished for it too many times, they're likely to suffer a permanent ban. It doesn't matter if others were toxic to them - they have to conduct themselves appropriately. Besides - if others are flaming them, they can mute the flamer(s) and report them post-game.

Beyond all that, though, it'd be a horrible idea to restrict all forms of chat to the same level of a chat restriction - if you're not allowed to say hardly anything between five minute intervals (don't quote me on that, never been chat restricted), then what'd be the point in a chat feature, anyways?

And, before anyone starts - no. Getting rid of the chat entirely isn't an option either. Just because a fair handful of people abuse the chat doesn't mean it should be done away with.

AraMoOse2/25/2018, 12:38:51 PM1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Inject The Memes,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=k031kEMg,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-02-25T06:51:44.334+0000)

Why should an account where you spend money on get banned in a video game where people regularly flame you. I dont know if anyone else notices this but the last couple seasons have been incredibly toxic. Banning people doesnt work obviously, so why not keep the limited in game chat? That seems to help with people who are toxic, not a perma ban. In fact, why not have every account have a limited speech in games? You dont need to type that much, why give the people the opportunity to abuse the chat function? Makes no sense to me but keep having your bots ban accounts, ill just keep making new accounts and being toxic! :)

And we'll keep reporting those accounts and not giving a shit about your teenage angst crisis until you grow up. Sounds like we have a deal.

ModPrandine7/18/2018, 5:45:55 PM1 votes

From Riot Tantram:

It really breaks down into two categories.

1.) Helping players reform 2.) Shielding others from the behavior, at a cost.

We used to issue chat restrictions that essentially scaled indefinitely.

We were able to determine that after a certain point the penalty no longer helped with reform. The 10-game and 25-game counts for chat restrictions are based on data that they were both light enough, and felt strict enough to encourage people to understand their behavior is unacceptable in game and change it.

We also saw that the players in this 'large restriction' category defaulted to gameplay altering means of harassing their team. It caused an increase in feeding and trolling.

The sample size of this population and time frame is huge. Essentially the time spanning from the introduction of chat restrictions to the introduction of IFS.

So my question for you is, would you rather have more feeders and less negative chat?

If someone isn't gonna behave properly despite being given multiple chances to do so then why shouldn't they be removed from the game?

Also, it's not stealing when 1) spending money is optional, and 2) Riot gives people multiple chances to improve their behavior before upholding their TOS and permabanning them. To quote Kei143:

When Riot permabans someone, their philosophy is "the chances of this guy reforming isn't a whole lot, we'd rather not have him in the game". Thus in their eyes, they have already written off the toxic player as a paying client.

From a business standpoint, do they want to remove the toxic guy who has spent $500 but is causing a negative environment for 4-9 other players in every game? Those non-toxics are also spending $500 and probably will spend more, promote the game more when they are enjoying the game AND they won't cause a negative environment.

I personally think it is a fine argument to protect the ones that are paying money and aren't toxic rather than protecting the ones that may pay the same amount but are toxic.

RookPusher7/18/2018, 5:46:42 PM1 votes

I HAVE MONEY AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE ABOVE CONSEQUENCES. EAT THE POOR.

Quiet Dude7/18/2018, 6:02:56 PM1 votes

Now it makes sense why this dude exploded on the boards today. He probably made this topic when he got his 2 week ban, recently he must have gotten the big ol’ perma ban.

RIP

thefourtysn2/25/2018, 7:00:50 AM1 votes

You're in low elo so get use to it.

Pandeonor2/25/2018, 11:45:32 AM1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Inject The Memes,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=k031kEMg,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-02-25T06:51:44.334+0000)

Why should an account where you spend money on get banned in a video game where people regularly flame you.

Because flamers are a type of humans noone likes and wich are just bad for society. That they spent money to the game is not a viable excuse to allow them to blame and flame others.

That´s it.