Potential Revamp To League Report Systems

Commit Regicide··2 votes·380 views

Hello all, I'd tell you about my time with league, but that would only seem minuscule in comparison to the thirteen years of hardcore gaming I've done with MMORPGs and other things where report systems where players can have someone of a certain behavior category punished and with league; 'reformed'.

Lets take a look at the word reformed and what it means... improved, changed, reshaped; however, none of those words imply good change.

Now, although some might wish potentially all toxic people just stop playing this game or get 'reformed' as this forum-culture calls it, what isn't being taken into account though is that - banning most people isn't going to 'dampen' their toxicity, it's going to evolve into something worse - and to top it off, the game loses some of what was and still is a decently sized portion of the population that plays this game. Some of us may not want to admit it, others are in denial, and some will never see it - the point is though, don't ban these guys.

Reforming them is just going to make them more conniving than before in most cases. You learn in life that in many cases, it's best to have the person want it for themselves rather than to have an unoriginal thought be the seed that grows, and the best thing to keep in mind when having a strong plant is foundation.

Instead? Create a reform tag system in which anyone deemed toxic is tagged. They enter a status where players before matches and champ select can have a setting that enables the automatic mute towards players seen as toxic (sort of like the censor enable/disable). If the toxic player wants this to no longer be the case, then they must be honored simply through their game play for the tag to be removed.

As a hard punishment, until their reform card reputation is improved - the 4 strike punishment system that's already in place will essentially be the same ruling if they continue to get strikes, but instead of a perma-ban, a perma-mute unless its to talk to other players perma-muted like themselves. The toxic player can earn these extra strikes by breaking their probation. Probation will be; after the tag is removed, the player will have to completely reform before being able to suffer another bad case review. If the review turns out poorly, then a strike is tacked on and they are re-tagged and on the road to reform or being perma-muted to non toxic and non perma-mute players.

The plus side to this is; besides riot maintaining and potentially earning back players, the exclusivity and distinguishing features of being non-'toxic' vs 'toxic' will be felt more impactfully and consistently rather than logging into their account to see they've been perma-banned over words and never playing the game again.

What others don't see is that the non 'toxic' 'insta-report' category of players in this game often don't care that the word was said, rather that the person gets punished out of spite for potentially the same thing happening to them. This goes back to what I said earlier about the toxicity evolving into something worse.

Lately the world is becoming oversatturated with these cults of personality and I think recognizing that now before later can keep this game going longer than it will and potentially change the face of gaming world-wide as the staff for this game and the people playing it move on to other things.

Call it cheesy, but I'm not new around the block, and sometimes you gotta be the change in the world that you want to see and outside of all that... Ezreal ???

26 Comments

Kei1432 votes

According to Riot, they see that most players get a chat ban never get one again.

Those that continue being toxic (even mildly toxic) either don't understand what they are doing wrong or just as you said, "don't care".

Mizuki Zahra2 votes

"more violets i say less violence"

but ya mobas are generally more toxic than mmos unless raids are included then its all toxic, fps are also toxic, anything that allows you to communicate through the internet without knowing the other person is a means to be toxic.

"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

people don't show their true colors until they have something to hide behind.

archerno12 votes

You wrote wall of text to suggest perma mute instead of perma ban. It was tried in the past. It caused more problems. Its not gonna happen again. Perma ban must remain.

Commit Regicide1 votes

And when was this?

archerno11 votes

[{quoted}](name=Commit Regicide,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=oLYVwIqA,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2017-10-06T17:15:24.380+0000)

And when was this?

During Season 4 i believe. Maybe early 5.

Commit Regicide1 votes

{quoted}

During Season 4 i believe. Maybe early 5.

Strange, don't recall that. I've been here since 2012 and from what I remember, s4 and s5 were 2013+

Nik Nikerson2 votes

Just in case a Rioter doesn't bother showing up to confirm, that guy is pretty much right. They tried out ever increasing lengths of being muted, that, while never actually being permanent, were so long they may as well have been (Does really it matter if you were sentenced to life or just the next 200 years?). I'm not sure of the dates.

Riot Tantram has written about it before if you are so inclined to go looking for it.

Commit Regicide1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Nik Nikerson,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=oLYVwIqA,comment-id=00040000000000000000,timestamp=2017-10-06T17:47:27.046+0000)

Just in case a Rioter doesn't bother showing up to confirm, that guy is pretty much right. They tried out ever increasing lengths of being muted, that, while never actually being permanent, were so long they may as well have been (Does really it matter if you were sentenced to life or just the next 200 years?). I'm not sure of the dates.

Riot Tantram has written about it before if you are so inclined to go looking for it.

"Does it really matter" I addressed that with stating that the muted would feel desire to reform because then they wouldn't be able to conduct strats or type things out that might make the people they play with perform better if they were muted. See? A person's intent can only be conveyed so much through pings and if a person is confined to never being able to talk to non toxic people and only being able to play/talk amongst themselves, look at what happens when you take away the drugs from a group of druggies that have nothing in common. They'll look at themselves, look at each other, and wonder what the hell they're doing. Then, they'll either change as a person or never play the game again rather than coming back on all these new accounts trying to ignore the inevitable.

Nik Nikerson3 votes

And your stance is based on a fallacious assumption that the innate desire to play at peak performance will change these people. But if that was the case, most of them wouldn't spend their time fighting in game to begin with.

Commit Regicide1 votes

And you assume that simply all people who wish to say 'mean' things are 'jerks' who wish to be jerks just because it makes them feel better rather than to just say it because it alleviates internal stress simply because emotionally imbalanced.

See, I can make a fallacious assumption too.

The point though is, eventually those who aren't interested in reform can end up in low priority matches forever never to be seen again by those who most likely won't end up there. See my other reply about the 0.00006% number that I think, although fabricated, will trap these truly toxic and run it down mid players in a low priority hell.

Nik Nikerson1 votes

And you assume that simply all people who wish to say 'mean' things are 'jerks'

No I don't.

See, I can make a fallacious assumption too.

Yeah. I know. That's why I said:

your stance is based on a fallacious assumption

I pointed that out to begin with.

The point though is, eventually those who aren't interested in reform can end up in low priority matches forever never to be seen again by those who most likely won't end up there.

I don't know that it's a terrible idea, but here are the problems I see:

  1. If a player ends up buried so deep in a low priority queue that they will never see the light of day, they'll probably just start a new account. Much like they do now. So it's kind of a wash in that respect. Not really any different of an outcome in that case. Now I could be wrong, and the numbers could work out better than I expect, but it's at least a possibility.

  2. I don't know if the benefits of what you're suggesting outweigh the cost to Riot to implement and maintain such a program. Particularly if punished players are just as likely to abandon their accounts and start new ones anyway.

ModPeriscope1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Riot Tantram,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=wsObUaFj,comment-id=00010001000000000000,timestamp=2017-09-27T02:50:40.483+0000)

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?

ModPeriscope1 votes

They had tried it before the instant feedback system we currently use was implemented.

Timethief491 votes

Showing others who is toxic by automatically muting them is Bad in multiple ways. For once it hinders Communication. Also it Shows people who might get easily triggered. And people Love triggering others. I also can't See what you mean with "getting honored through their gameplay". That's Not what the honor System is for. The current system is imo pretty good. The perma Ban isnt to "dampen" their toxicity Like you say. It's a way of showing them the door. They showed No signs of improvement and Riot doesn't want them in the Community. An about loosing a decently sized Portion. If i remember it's like 0,0006% and if they are , sorry but, too stupid to See their mistakes and get permabanned, i won't Cry a Tear for them.

Commit Regicide1 votes

Throughout my post I talk about the evolution of toxicity as well as the cult of personality - with things like Skype, or Discord, players are allowed to 'band together' and become more of a friend to one-another than they would if communicating purely through text. Sure this isn't always the case, but often more than not, it is. That said, when someone joins a game, there's usually 1 or 2 premade entities (if not more) in the match, and Discord is usually what they're using to talk to one another, not everyone realizes this when talking to each other and end up falling prey to the treachery of baiters.

I don't know what it's like in EUW so I can't speak for your experience, but over here in NA servers, maybe 4/5 games have some form of toxicity whether it be in casuals, elo hell, or finally escaped Gold/bronze divisions. The only thing is, usually everyone is of the same social conditioning so conversation never really evolves until a new type of 'troll' takes off somewhere and begins to build traction in the minds of the masses.

As for you quoting my 'dampen', keep in mind at what point in the conversation and what part of the punishment I used the word 'dampen'. At the early stages of the 4th strike system, not the very end. No, the perma-ban is to not show them the door, it's to show them how serious they are on banning your account and how they tolerate certain behavior which changes over time. Should you decide to leave, you already knew where the door was the entire time.

And when I say 'changes over time', eventually a company comes to realize what the 'maturity' of its most common player pop is, and what they prefer to see in a game, and once they figure that out, they pander to those guys like hell because - well, it's easy. What I'm saying is, they can still pander to those guys and still make money off of the crowd that the main crowd doesn't like while still keeping this game going.

Referencing your 'cited' percentage, on NA servers, no way is that accurate. Sure it might be that way when equated across the 67 million plus people to have ever played this game, but the real population is smaller now, and when you centralize it to certain geographical locations, the number changes. Imagine that.

As far as your comment about hindering communication, so does banning players and chat restricting them but you support the current system. You're contradicting yourself. And yes people love triggering others, but those players don't get banned, and they support the current system because it allows them to further spite people by getting them potentially banned, and thus hinders communication because people are afraid to feel themselves because some other group of people will report them for doing so.

As for the honor system and game play, there are honor types, tilt-proof/chill, teamwork, loved playing with this person - teamwork, or skill is what I'm referring to. I can play a game and not say a single thing and get 4 honors for teamwork. That's to show that whether toxic or not, people can still recognize this persons skill or aptitude somewhat.

Eventually that person will get tired of chat restrictions and will want to improve over time rather than be perma-banned and walk away with contempt for the community.

I can go on and keep pointing this stuff out...

Nik Nikerson1 votes

Eventually that person will get tired of chat restrictions and will want to improve over time

... Or they resort to more disruptive forms of trolling that don't involve chat.

See, you're operating under the assumption that everyone has an innate desire to improve. Some people do. But those people generally won't reach the level of a perma-ban to begin with. Those are the players that will listen and reform.

But if you read the boards, you will quickly realize that there are a large number of players that will not take responsibility for their actions. They blame everyone else for their choices. They give you every excuse why it's not their fault. Those people aren't changing. No matter how long you mute them. No matter how many chances you give them. They are either too immature to change, or they just flat out don't want to change.

Some people are just always going to be jerks. No matter what you do, or say, or how many chances you give them, they just want to lash out at other people. Because some people WANT to be jerks. And giving them more chances is just more chances for them to be a jerk. So what do you do about those people?

Commit Regicide1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Nik Nikerson,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=oLYVwIqA,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2017-10-06T18:14:30.943+0000)

... Or they resort to more disruptive forms of trolling that don't involve chat.

See, you're operating under the assumption that everyone has an innate desire to improve. Some people do. But those people generally won't reach the level of a perma-ban to begin with. Those are the players that will listen and reform.

But if you read the boards, you will quickly realize that there are a large number of players that will not take responsibility for their actions. They blame everyone else for their choices. They give you every excuse why it's not their fault. Those people aren't changing. No matter how long you mute them. No matter how many chances you give them. They are either too immature to change, or they just flat out don't want to change.

Some people are just always going to be jerks. No matter what you do, or say, or how many chances you give them, they just want to lash out at other people. Because some people WANT to be jerks. And giving them more chances is just more chances for them to be a jerk. So what do you do about those people?

Again, if you simply read from front to back what my original post holds, you'd see that I addressed this: don't ban them because of the things they say, ban them if they 'magically start doing bad', or better yet, put them in low priority matches for the rest of their days - IE: Only playing against people who are in the same caliber of personality as them.

If the game's community is really so low on 'toxic' players down to the percentage of 0.00006% or whatever the fabricated and inflated number is, could you imagine being in low-prios for that queue? Most of those people just jump straight to a new account - imagine having to wait what could be forever to ever play with anyone ever again.

Nik Nikerson2 votes

Most of those people just jump straight to a new account - imagine having to wait what could be forever to ever play with anyone ever again.

So how is this any different then just banning them? What does it accomplish that just banning them doesn't? It the end result is the same, why dedicate more time and effort getting there?

scazzman1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Nik Nikerson,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=oLYVwIqA,comment-id=00020000000000000000,timestamp=2017-10-06T19:20:41.410+0000)

So how is this any different then just banning them? What does it accomplish that just banning them doesn't? It the end result is the same, why dedicate more time and effort getting there?

well you would have less toxic smurfs.

Nik Nikerson1 votes

But how many? If people just end up creating new smurfs anyway once they get stuck in low priority purgatory, are you really changing anything in a significantly different way?

scazzman1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Nik Nikerson,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=oLYVwIqA,comment-id=0002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-10-06T20:24:13.358+0000)

But how many? If people just end up creating new smurfs anyway once they get stuck in low priority purgatory, are you really changing anything in a significantly different way?

well. i would venture to guess fewer then if they were simply permabanned. imo either

A. riot has permabans for show. rather then because they actually do anything. B. the real reason riot does permabans is because in low level games. they need a steady supply of new accounts so new players can actually get into games

ModPeriscope1 votes

the game loses some of what was and still is a decently sized portion of the population that plays this game.

Otherwise, new players would not want to join a game where toxicity knows no bounds. Thus, not banning toxic players leads to a decrease in new players.

Instead? Create a reform tag system

No. Players should be given a clean slate, treated just as any other player were to be treated. You're introducing bias with the tag, and players would be more likely to be treated differently, likely negatively. Here, you're going against your idea of the player becoming less toxic on his own, since he's being directed to behave a certain way.

What others don't see is that the non 'toxic' 'insta-report' category of players in this game often don't care that the word was said

Outside of hate speech and suicide, you're generally not penalized for 1 word. You're penalized based on severity and frequency of adverse actions.

Commit Regicide1 votes

{quoted}

Otherwise, new players would not want to join a game where toxicity knows no bounds. Thus, not banning toxic players leads to a decrease in new players.

"No bounds"? Are you reading selectively? I wrote in that you can have these types of players muted before you even get into champ select. Of course it knows bounds, whether or not you choose to set those parameters would be up to you if my change was implemented.

No. Players should be given a clean slate, treated just as any other player were to be treated. You're introducing bias with the tag, and players would be more likely to be treated differently, likely negatively. Here, you're going against your idea of the player becoming less toxic on his own, since he's being directed to behave a certain way.

A clean slate? Because by changing their name they're magically a different person? Because when they go through the process, they don't have any contempt for the community? Because they really feel the desire to suck up to these rules and ego trippers? You ever see how crazy a dog who know's what a steak tastes like when it's being dangled in front of them? Same concept with the chat rule I suggested.

Outside of hate speech and suicide, you're generally not penalized for 1 word. You're penalized based on severity and frequency of adverse actions.

ModPeriscope1 votes

Can you fix what you wrote vs what I wrote? Thx. I mostly don't want what you're saying to be misconstrued as quoting me.

Commit Regicide1 votes

fixed, sry

ModPeriscope1 votes

Gotcha. What I mean by clean slate referred to putting a tag on toxic players. I had assumed you meant placing a visible tag other players could see.

If that were the case, then other players would be biased towards this punished/toxic player, treating him differently.

More from Player Behavior