Boards›Player Behavior

Is Riots Definition of Toxicity compatible with comon sense?

Gundrabis··5 votes·2,388 views

a lot of people didnt quite get what i was getting at so i am adding a question at the end (resembles homework?)

From a comon sense standpoint a lot of bans/chat restrictionsm might not seem justified, especially not in full context of the entire conversation (which is left out for obvious reasons because then you could argue from an actual basis of facts). But this is "FULL BEEP VIDEO GAMES" telling you that you are toxic when their definition of toxic would be saying hello in all chat. A lot of people who want you to stay sane would agree to just mute everyone BUT this doesnt fix the underlying community issue that riot is protecting the people who int and troll and flame by telling everyone with comon sense to just "look away" while the ****ds are doing drive by shootings in the alley every hour. They continuously filter out people who are not toxic and only leave the inters/passive aggressive trolls and anything beyond sanity in the system and THATS what greets you when you start playing the game. So obviously it creates an avalanche effect of more ****s joining the stream and now everyone who could have fought the idiots is gone /mute all and the trolls win. Thats what "FULL ****VIDEO GAMES" has acomplished. and NOW they dont even have a playerbase with a comon sense to rely on anymore so there are only people who are going to try EVERYTHING to win an arguement in game by getting people banned. How do you do that? Well, you just say "he should be banned becasue i feel offended" and from that point on ALL LOGIC IS DEFIED! There is no comon sense or logical argument anymore that can resolve the issue because everything is subjective and about "feelings". And riot wont/cant even argue with it anymore, they have dug too deep. They put the bar so low they cant reach it anymore.

Do you agree with the thesis that "everything can be toxic as long as someone is offended enough"? Is such a vague and contradicting basis solving the root problems of toxicity? 100 words til next monday or you get an F for FORT

edited for family friendly content

63 Comments

BlueThingamajig14 votes

riot is protecting the people who int and troll and flame

There are shortcomings of Riot's system, and Riot not banning trolls and intentional feeders in a timely manner is one of them. But please don't fall into the mistake of assuming Riot protects them. They don't. Trolling is an immediate 14-day ban when caught, while chat misbehavior offers two warnings in the form of chat restrictions. And there's a lot to dissect with regards to trolling.

In trolling: Perhaps they were in fact trolling. Congratulations! By getting into an angry rage-fest over a troll, YOU are rewarding the troll for their behavior. A troll's actions are SOLELY for the purpose of getting other people upset. Don't feed the troll. Perhaps they weren't trolling. Congratulations! Instead of playing to the best of your ability, you have chosen to piss off someone else, and make them tilted. Now your team is even less likely to win than before. And three other people on your team have to deal with this shit.

In reporting trolls: Everyone, their grandmother, and their little dog too want to have trolls banned from the game. But because of a) skill differences, b) level of play for the specific game, and c) skill with a specific champion, the actual quality of play demonstrated by a given player varies hugely from game to game.

There are a lot of reasons why someone might be having a bad game, and every time you report someone having a bad game, you make Riot's job of catching trolls harder. The signal to noise ratio in troll reports is tiny. Riot trying to find trolls might as well be a DDOS attack. It's really quite difficult to find the actual trolls, and mass-banning innocent players is a sure-fire way to drive away the playerbase.

Aneirin4 votes

Exactly. All the people saying toxicity is subject to interpretation fail to realise the same applies to trolling. It's all well and good to say trolls are ruining the game but most of the time the "troll" is just someone playing poorly or off-meta.

Ahpe1 votes

{quoted}

Exactly. All the people saying toxicity is subject to interpretation fail to realise the same applies to trolling. It's all well and good to say trolls are ruining the game but most of the time the "troll" is just someone playing poorly or off-meta.

Just because it's hard to figure out if a player is trolling or not doesn't mean it's subjective.

The argument is that toxicity is subjective since [X Statement] will offend Player A while not bothering Player B at all. But the thing is everyone can't take what they dish out being sensitive af.

Jo0o4 votes

It really is, though. OP is claiming that aggressively farming side lanes can be considered "inting" in his response below yours. Trusting the average player with objectively identifying trolls is never going to work.

Ahpe1 votes

{quoted}

It really is, though. OP is claiming that aggressively farming side lanes can be considered "inting" in his response below yours. Trusting the average player with objectively identifying trolls is never going to work.

huh

Jo0o2 votes

I'm possibly misinterpreting OP's point about farming side lanes below.

But as somebody who has split-pushed during a losing game and been accused of "trolling" for doing so, I simply wanted to express that I have zero faith in an objective determination of trolling.

Ahpe3 votes

{quoted}

I'm possibly misinterpreting OP's point about farming side lanes below.

But as somebody who has split-pushed during a losing game and been accused of "trolling" for doing so, I simply wanted to express that I have zero faith in an objective determination of trolling.

Uh yeah I agree with you lol?

Jo0o3 votes

Oh word.

I should pass out, I'm clearly too tired to follow this thread.

Gundrabis2 votes

{quoted}

Uh yeah I agree with you lol?

Splitting = hitting towers, Sitting in a bush on the other side of the map when the game ends = trolling I feel that a lot of people dont have the game knowledge to see whats intented and whats just silver. How do I even make this clear? Its like when a Formula 1 driver is trying to tell you he rammed your car, that you parked on the street, With that old rusty pickup on accident because he confused gas and break after you banged his gf last week. You know he knows better than that, but you cant 100% proove he didnt do it by mistake.... but you both know.

And thats the buty of trolling.

Gundrabis1 votes

{quoted}

There are shortcomings of Riot's system, and Riot not banning trolls and intentional feeders in a timely manner is one of them. But please don't fall into the mistake of assuming Riot protects them. They don't. Trolling is an immediate 14-day ban when caught, while chat misbehavior offers two warnings in the form of chat restrictions. And there's a lot to dissect with regards to trolling.

In trolling: Perhaps they were in fact trolling. Congratulations! By getting into an angry rage-fest over a troll, YOU are rewarding the troll for their behavior. A troll's actions are SOLELY for the purpose of getting other people upset. Don't feed the troll. Perhaps they weren't trolling. Congratulations! Instead of playing to the best of your ability, you have chosen to piss off someone else, and make them tilted. Now your team is even less likely to win than before. And three other people on your team have to deal with this shit.

In reporting trolls: Everyone, their grandmother, and their little dog too want to have trolls banned from the game. But because of a) skill differences, b) level of play for the specific game, and c) skill with a specific champion, the actual quality of play demonstrated by a given player varies hugely from game to game.

There are a lot of reasons why someone might be having a bad game, and every time you report someone having a bad game, you make Riot's job of catching trolls harder. The signal to noise ratio in troll reports is tiny. Riot trying to find trolls might as well be a DDOS attack. It's really quite difficult to find the actual trolls, and mass-banning innocent players is a sure-fire way to drive away the playerbase.

Its not about wether it is a punishable offense, its wether or not it GETS punished. And if riot cant distinguish between banther and flame in chat how are they gonna do it with "bad games/ inting". Especially when you are not planning on getting caught inting you WILL NOT. Inting can be as much as draining your teams recources entirely by farming all the sidelanes and recalling, maybe getting caught 1-2 times but good players wont make the effort to catch 1 guy when they could take baron 4v5. Making sure your team will loose and making sure you look good while they look bad is so easy to pull off. Ever wanted your teams jungler to look bad? pick nunu, keep him level 1 until he goes off farming your own teams lanes. Your entire team will be PISSED at the guy no at you. How are you ever gonna detect that kind of tactical trolling? And you are expected to take all that shit like a saint while loosing lp. You literally have to be jesus or /mute all and most people chose /mute all. Its bad practice both now and in the lorng term. It dicourages player interaction to the point where people could be afraid to even talk to people anymore. It breeds animosty in the community and blocks all pathways of resolving it permanently. So FORGIVE me for calling out riot, for saying that their dfinition of toxicity is bad.

They arent protecting trolls actively and openly saying its good. Their actions EMPOWER trolls even if they dont admit it. So much as standing up to them empowers them. There is no good way of facing them despite going NEXT. That doesnt solve the problem and even you can see that.

Aneirin7 votes

Inting can be as much as draining your teams recources entirely by farming all the sidelanes and recalling

That's not inting. Stop watering the word down.

The Highest Noon1 votes

{quoted}

That's not inting. Stop watering the word down.

Correction: That's not "Intentional feeding." That IS, however, intentionally causing detriment to your team.

Aneirin3 votes

intentionally causing detriment to your team.

We already have a term for that, griefing/assisting the enemy team. We're already at the point where people claiming inting don't get taken seriously because most of the time they mean someone split pushed or died to a gank.

The Highest Noon2 votes

{quoted}

griefing/assisting the enemy team

I don't think Riot considers farming lanes as griefing, though.

That's true about the inting lol and "feeding" too.

Gundrabis1 votes

{quoted}

We already have a term for that, griefing/assisting the enemy team. We're already at the point where people claiming inting don't get taken seriously because most of the time they mean someone split pushed or died to a gank.

I literally mean draining your team of any recource and then chilling in base with the gold, i had a vladimir do that to me. noone could 1v1 him becasue its a strong champ with a bunch of items but the enemy team just seged mid and we lost while he was chilling laughing his ass off.

FOR JUSTICE1 votes

Thats defined and is reportable as going afk.

Gundrabis2 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=o9UL4Gr1,comment-id=0001000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-02T02:14:00.706+0000)

Correction: That's not "Intentional feeding." That IS, however, intentionally causing detriment to your team.

its trolling, same outcome, game is lost.

The Highest Noon1 votes

{quoted}

its trolling, same outcome, game is lost.

Ye lol though I'm sure it's winnable, just frustrating for those being jipped of their farm. Solo Carries really ruin the game, even if they do carry. It's a team game. There are many movies and shows about selfish competitors learning how to play with the team.

Gundrabis1 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Highest Noon,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=o9UL4Gr1,comment-id=000100010000000000010000,timestamp=2018-08-02T03:36:38.525+0000)

Ye lol though I'm sure it's winnable, just frustrating for those being jipped of their farm. Solo Carries really ruin the game, even if they do carry. It's a team game. There are many movies and shows about selfish competitors learning how to play with the team.

its hypothetical jesus christ read the title, that was way too drawn out of an examplle becasue people didnt undersand what i mean by hard- or softinting, tiltplay, grief, troll or sabotage.

Jo0o5 votes

You're allowed to curse on these fucking boards and in the fucking game. Adding a bunch of asterisks to your post is unnecessary, and just screws up the formatting.

To be frank, without specific examples of folks being banned for arbitrary reasons, I see no merit to your argument. Please share links to individuals with positive or even neutral chat logs being punished because somebody else was offended.

Gundrabis1 votes

{quoted}

You're allowed to curse on these fucking boards and in the fucking game. Adding a bunch of asterisks to your post is unnecessary, and just screws up the formatting.

To be frank, without specific examples of folks being banned for arbitrary reasons, I see no merit to your argument. Please share links to individuals with positive or even neutral chat logs being punished because somebody else was offended.

Seeing as my previous post was taken down because of the word "retard" i dont get the feeling.

3 links: https://imgur.com/a/L9bNtGz https://imgur.com/a/pFE30jf https://imgur.com/a/1CVrLEp

Jo0o5 votes

"Retard" isn't a curse word, it's a needlessly antagonistic word that disparages individuals with mental problems for the sake of a cheap insult. Very different than simply saying "fuck". Your third link there specifically refers to "retard" as a pejorative word that shouldn't be used. There's a better way to express yourself than that.

ModUlanopo5 votes

It depends on what you mean by common sense. I get the feeling that you're firmly in the "anything but playing poorly is okay by me" camp, which is an opinion you're allowed to have just as long as you remember it's entirely subjective and not shared by much of the League community.

From a practical standpoint, Riot is fully justified in defining as toxic anything that drives away customers, seeing as they're a business and all.

Ahpe3 votes

Many players are just anti-social and can't handle having a conversation without getting frustrated

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/leagueoflegends/images/5/5f/Maybe_Next_Time_Emote.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/90?cb=20180224183508

The Highest Noon1 votes

Yes, and no. Disclaimer: I did not read anything except the title of this post and the last sentence.

I say no because Zero Tolerance is how Riot's punishment system functions, and that has no place in a modern society. Circumstances matter, and if you're going to punish someone for self-defense then you're just creating an environment full of powerless victims.

I say yes because they do not take into account subjective opinions of what is and isn't toxic; they have an objective, concrete idea of what is punishable and what isn't. Just because I'm offended by something doesn't mean Riot will punish you for it.

Jo0o7 votes

I have to strongly disagree with your interpretation of what does or does not make sense in modern society. Self defense is all well and good, but it's nonsense when applied to a video game. Shooting somebody who's trying to stab you is one thing, calling somebody a slew of racial slurs because they taxed your lane is very different. Incorporating the right to "self defense" only works if the community has a firm understanding of what justifies it. Since that's unrealistic in League, it's less justifiable self defense and more vigilante justice. Vigilante justice, incidentally, is also widely agreed to not have a place in modern society.

The concept of "don't feed the troll" has existed at least as long as I, a 27-year-old gamer, have been using the internet. It's a universal truth of how to survive in this subsection of society. Ignoring that to allow folks to engage in toxic behavior based on their individual interpretation of trolling would be detrimental to this community on multiple fronts.

The Highest Noon1 votes

Shooting someone who tried to stab you is not justifiable under self-defense. You should brush up on your understanding of law and justice, or at the very least pay attention to 2017-18 police brutality reports.

Racism is in no way a justifiable reaction to someone taking a few minions. Again, brush up on your understanding of things. "Don't feed the troll" has nothing to do with reaction to toxicity, because trolling is the minority of what's considered "toxic."

Jo0o3 votes

I'm using vague hypothetical for the sake of discussion, you don't need to nitpick them. While I disagreed with your point, I made an effort to convey that disagreement in a respectful fashion without personally attacking you. You're welcome to respond in kind, but if you'd rather score cheap points with lines like "brush up on your understanding of things", don't expect a reply.

The Highest Noon1 votes

{quoted}

but if you'd rather score cheap points with lines like "brush up on your understanding of things", don't expect a reply.

But you're arguing against Self-Defense using hypotheticals that aren't supported by Self-Defense and 1:100 comparisons. Sorry that your own words lead to condescending assumptions.

Jo0o3 votes

I'll make a mental note that you'd rather attack somebody's word choice than actually engage in a productive discussion with them. Good day.

The Highest Noon1 votes

{quoted}

I'll make a mental note that you'd rather attack somebody's word choice than actually engage in a productive discussion with them. Good day.

Except, I'm not attacking your word choice. Your entire set of statements is incorrect. I'm sorry you feel offended because I said you're wrong.

Jo0o5 votes

I thought that the difference between "shooting" and "stabbing" was clearly not the purpose of my initial response. I'll rephrase if it helps: In a vague case of mortal danger, responding with equal force to defend yourself would be considered justifiable by many. However, I see no reasonable comparison to make in video games. As you said, racism is not a justifiable reaction to taking a few minions (which was the point of my hypothetical in the first place), but some would call it "self defense" within the context of League, along the lines of "They were trolling me, so I defended myself by flaming them". If you need an example of such logic, I'm sure I could find several links from these boards.

Are you satisfied with the factual basis of my position to the point where you can address my point of view?

Gundrabis1 votes

{quoted}

I thought that the difference between "shooting" and "stabbing" was clearly not the purpose of my initial response. I'll rephrase if it helps: In a vague case of mortal danger, responding with equal force to defend yourself would be considered justifiable by many. However, I see no reasonable comparison to make in video games. As you said, racism is not a justifiable reaction to taking a few minions (which was the point of my hypothetical in the first place), but some would call it "self defense" within the context of League, along the lines of "They were trolling me, so I defended myself by flaming them". If you need an example of such logic, I'm sure I could find several links from these boards.

Are you satisfied with the factual basis of my position to the point where you can address my point of view?

How do you respond to trolling on a level that is sabotaging the game so that you cant win anymore no matter how hard you try? how do I respond to that with equal force? It also causes huge amounts of stress having to hold in your anger while trying to win(which is the ideal that riot wants us to be). But in reality you either stop caring or flame back. Because anything else is not acceptable for me in a game where i am supposed to have fun.

Jo0o6 votes

You don't respond. You can care all you want, just don't respond. Trolls do what they do to get you to react negatively. You ruin their day by remaining silent. Hell, sometimes they even stop trolling when they realize they aren't getting the reaction that they wanted out of it.

It sucks when you're getting trolled, but shit happens in MOBAs. Mute, report, and move on with your life. When you flame the trolls, the trolls win, in this game and many, many others.

Gundrabis1 votes

{quoted}

You don't respond. You can care all you want, just don't respond. Trolls do what they do to get you to react negatively. You ruin their day by remaining silent. Hell, sometimes they even stop trolling when they realize they aren't getting the reaction that they wanted out of it.

It sucks when you're getting trolled, but shit happens in MOBAs. Mute, report, and move on with your life. When you flame the trolls, the trolls win, in this game and many, many others.

Ok then who is giving me back my lp?

Jo0o5 votes

The inevitability that, over time, an equal number of trolls will ruin your opponents' games as your games. More, if you consider that the enemy team consists of five randoms while yours is only four, assuming you yourself never troll.

Gundrabis1 votes

{quoted}

The inevitability that, over time, an equal number of trolls will ruin your opponents' games as your games. More, if you consider that the enemy team consists of five randoms while yours is only four, assuming you yourself never troll.

You have really taken in riots logic to a T. Just let the trolls to their thing, look away. After we are getting fucked equally. What the trolls are doing isnt right and riot should do a better job at putting systems in place that will punish them accordingly. Because I think this is the root cause of toxicity. Its bad to just fix the leaks and use chat as scapegoat to keep up the Illusion of control.There is so much wrong with the punishment system itsarguably hard where to start.

But for example the system reviews remakes as afk, but in reality its just a dodge thats 3 minutes longer and the one who dodged looses full lp. Sometimes people just opt into a remake casue they forgot to take smite or forgot to swap with someone who picked a champ. basicly the game is fucked and no fun. But RIOT would say to that: "instead of just one guy taking the brunt, beeing the nice guy and taking the lp loss, you should play the game out and everyone should lose lp." Because the system marks you for the leaverbuster for triggering the remake. That actively enforces toxicity. Ofc the same thing goes for bugsplashes that riot themselfves has to answer for in reality.

All of those things feel poorly thought out, unfair and lazy.

Jo0o3 votes

Ignoring trolls is standard for all internet interactions, not just League. Surely you wouldn't disagree with that.

Gundrabis1 votes

{quoted}

Ignoring trolls is standard for all internet interactions, not just League. Surely you wouldn't disagree with that.

I disagree. Riot should not ignore the trolls like they have been doing for far too long.

P4ppino1 votes

No, they shouldn't, but you should, if your account is worth anything to you.

The Highest Noon1 votes

{quoted}

Are you satisfied with the factual basis of my position to the point where you can address my point of view?

Yes, because now it actually makes sense...somewhat. You're still missing the mark by a smidge but I'll ignore that because you bring up something important in all that. Trolling isn't a singular activity. You can troll in many ways, such as flaming, taking farm, pushign lane, leeching exp, not assisting someone when you can, refusing to help someone, among many other things that players in League do on a daily basis.

In terms of "self defense," even in the judicial system there's a strict guideline as to what's entirely defensible with Self-Defense. If someone attacks you with a knife, then turns to escape but you pick up the knife and attack and kill them with it, you will be prosecuted and charged with murder. The concept of self-defense actually depends on the fact that you're being attacked. If you're no longer being attacked, it's no longer defense but is aggression. A more apt example would be about burglers. You cannot legally attack a burgler who's trying to leave your property. Doing so constitutes as murder, not self-defense. Another idea is like your example of gun vs knife. Using a gun against someone with a knife only works as self-defense under very specific circumstances, the most obvious being immediate danger. If someone is like twenty feet away with a knife in their hand and you shoot and kill them, that's not self-defense. They're not even within range to harm you. There are many ways to threaten someone's life, and just because they're threatening your life doesn't give you justification to take theirs. Self-defense in the real world has MANY factors that most everyday people don't know of.

In terms of League, self-defense would have just as many determining circumstances. My last example in the above paragraph is basically what you were saying about flaming someone who's toxic. It all depends on the circumstances. If someone is constantly blaming you for their mistakes, their deaths, their lost farm, whatever, it's not only justifiable but it's expected in an everyday scenario for you to lose your cool and insult them for not taking responsibility. That is, again, a justifiable circumstance. I personally am able to ignore a lot of flaming, but at some point I'll go from ignoring to just pissed off. It's a common, human reaction. What isn't common, however, is racial slurs against someone who makes a mistake. And that's something I've seen. I've seen someone call someone else "a raging fggt" who should go die" just because the one being insulted banned the one insulting them's champion. Was it trolling? I don't remember. For argument's sake I'll say yes, but I do not believe that type of flaming is justifiable. If they had said something like "you blind idiot" I'd be more accepting of their talk, but that's just me. Some people would get mad about that, too.

I'm sure I had something else to say but I lost my train of thought. I'll just end it all by saying circumstances matter, and Riot needs to start looking at these case by case.

Silent Gravity2 votes

Shooting someone who is threatening to stab you certainly is justifiable under self-defense.

You just need to be under threat of greater bodily harm to allow defense. There are not different levels of dead for when someone punches you to death or when someone runs you over with a tank.

You seem to be confusing the public's reaction to circumstances with the legalities.

The Highest Noon1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Silent Gravity,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=o9UL4Gr1,comment-id=0004000000000001,timestamp=2018-08-02T04:10:32.470+0000)

Shooting someone who is threatening to stab you certainly is justifiable under self-defense.

No the hell it's not. I think you're confusing "threatening to stab you" with "attacking you with a knife."

Or maybe you imply that those are the same thing lol

Silent Gravity2 votes

For the state of Michigan:

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

I suppose there are different opinions on what "imminent" means, but if someone is threatening to harm me with a knife, that seems imminent to me, and to established case law.

Just to be VERY clear. Anytime that it is legal for you to throw a punch at someone, it is legal to shoot them. There are not different levels of dead.

The Highest Noon1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Silent Gravity,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=o9UL4Gr1,comment-id=000400000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-08-02T06:44:40.118+0000)

"imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm"

Those are the key points. Mind you, 20 feet away is not "imminent" at all. The concept of "imminence" implies an active assault, and unless you're making the implications that I said, threats are in no way assault lol

Silent Gravity2 votes

An assault requires two things. A threat and the capability to carry out that threat.

Taking an action to try to carry out that threat is aggravated assault.

Succeeding in carrying out the threat is battery.

I really like that you specified 20 feet. That is well within the Teuller Rule's recommended range for opening fire on a knife wielding assailant. It's even set, by law, in several jurisdictions at 30 feet.

Threatening someone with a knife is assault.

Entering within 30 feet after making that threat is aggravated assault, because closing the distance is taking an action towards carrying out the threat.

It is well within the laws governing self defense to open fire at that time.

There are not different levels of dead.

The Highest Noon1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Silent Gravity,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=o9UL4Gr1,comment-id=00040000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-08-02T10:34:47.922+0000)

An assault requires two things. A threat and the capability to carry out that threat.

Taking an action to try to carry out that threat is aggravated assault.

Succeeding in carrying out the threat is battery.

I really like that you specified 20 feet. That is well within the Teuller Rule's recommended range for opening fire on a knife wielding assailant. It's even set, by law, in several jurisdictions at 30 feet.

Threatening someone with a knife is assault.

Entering within 30 feet after making that threat is aggravated assault, because closing the distance is taking an action towards carrying out the threat.

It is well within the laws governing self defense to open fire at that time.

There are not different levels of dead.

Huh. That's odd all-around. I never knew that you could be assaulted without actually being touched. Sounds like nonsense to me.

Gundrabis1 votes

{quoted}

I have to strongly disagree with your interpretation of what does or does not make sense in modern society. Self defense is all well and good, but it's nonsense when applied to a video game. Shooting somebody who's trying to stab you is one thing, calling somebody a slew of racial slurs because they taxed your lane is very different. Incorporating the right to "self defense" only works if the community has a firm understanding of what justifies it. Since that's unrealistic in League, it's less justifiable self defense and more vigilante justice. Vigilante justice, incidentally, is also widely agreed to not have a place in modern society.

The concept of "don't feed the troll" has existed at least as long as I, a 27-year-old gamer, have been using the internet. It's a universal truth of how to survive in this subsection of society. Ignoring that to allow folks to engage in toxic behavior based on their individual interpretation of trolling would be detrimental to this community on multiple fronts.

Thats why we are talking about apropriate action. Even telling the guy to buzz off and stop taxing could be considered toxic harrassment becasue you are telling him how to play the game in an unapropriate manner. You see where this leads? Dont feed the trolls would mean, let them int your lane and just move on to next game. You cant stop them from playing bad. You cant stop your jungler from doing a stupid gank. You cant follow, he will blame you and say "if you followd it was easy kill". Exept you know it wasnt and your wave crashed into tower was worth way more than just the 300g. Your lane is still fucked, but dont argue or you would be toxic. That lvl 3 gank into a masiv creep wave is the most realistic and most frequent situation where you see bad decisions resulting in a 1v2 doubblekill.

Jo0o4 votes

I'd agree with your point if I'd ever seen somebody punished for saying "Buzz off, stop taxing".

Edit for clarity because I feel a bit hypocritical leaving it at that when I'm obviously annoyed having my own word choice picked apart above: I absolutely 100% agree with your sentiment. However, I think you're arguing against a practice that, simply put, doesn't happen. As a semi-regular on these boards, I virtually never see a punishment for a chat log where somebody wasn't clearly being disruptive to the flow of the game, often by a wide margin. I agree with you that nobody should be banned for "buzz off", but that's already the case, so I'm not seeing the problem.

Gundrabis1 votes

{quoted}

I'd agree with your point if I'd ever seen somebody punished for saying "Buzz off, stop taxing".

Edit for clarity because I feel a bit hypocritical leaving it at that when I'm obviously annoyed having my own word choice picked apart above: I absolutely 100% agree with your sentiment. However, I think you're arguing against a practice that, simply put, doesn't happen. As a semi-regular on these boards, I virtually never see a punishment for a chat log where somebody wasn't clearly being disruptive to the flow of the game, often by a wide margin. I agree with you that nobody should be banned for "buzz off", but that's already the case, so I'm not seeing the problem.

Jesus christ, people flame because there is no time to argue or because things are in deep shit and its too late to be nice. Its about wether its an apropreate response or not. Or becasue there is no basis to argue, if you pinged the gank off but he still comes, dies and flames you then its just too late to use reason. Whatever you say is gonna have the oposite effect. If he feels betrayed by you he will come tax some more to get his lead back. If you then tell him to fuck off its flame? Yeah it is. Is it understandable? yeah it is. Would i ban the guy for flame? NO! I would ban the bad jungler who comes taxing casue he´s mad. AGAIN! You cant mute trolling. But trolling is rarely banned. Tahts the problem!

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 Gundrabis

Client Crashes instantly when trying to start the game
General Discussion0 comments
2
votes
Client Crashes instantly when trying to start the game
Report a Bug0 comments
1
votes
Level Bot Solution
Player Behavior3 comments
1
votes