Boards›Player Behavior

Rules Change Suggestion

My Body For Sale·6/19/2019, 8:58:00 PM·2 votes·2,295 views

Please change the ruling on player punishment

I'm not suggesting to remove it complete because how else will those who intentionally ruin games be punished? I ask to revise it.

Being permanent banned over language isn't worth losing player base or potential business. While permanent bans can be constructive in player base, making it more fun for others or a nicer community, it also has its cons as well.

I was permanent banned on my account I've had since season 1, spent well over $3,000 USD, and invested a huge chunk of my free time into the account over the last 9 seasons. I don't feel I deserve the ban entirely as of those games I was flagged for (7/20 of my last matches), over half of them I was trolled and acted out in anger over it. But each support member I spoke to all said I was banned for toxic language, and I understand it but I disagree with how harsh the punishment is.

But I believe bans should be revised, harsher or lighter, that's where the devs can decide, but I think the reporting system works, but it's flaw is everything points to a permanent account ban in the end. I believe there should be 2 sorts of bans: Chat bans and "Other" bans. I believe this should be a change due to the fact that with all the pings that have been, and are being implemented, players can communicate just fine using those.

"Chat bans" should go down a line of the following: 1st warning: 10 games of chat restriction/limited messages 2nd warning: 20 games of chat restriction/limited messages 3rd warning: 2 week suspension of chat restriction (no messaging from your account) |AND/OR| 2 week account suspension 4th warning: Permanent chat ban, no longer able to send messages |AND| x amount of time account suspension, maybe a month? Two? Three? A year?

"Other bans" should go down a line of the following: 1st warning: 5x of 10 minute queue restrictions 2nd warning: 10x of 20 minute queue restrictions 3rd warning: 2 week suspension of account 4th warning: Permanent ban of account

I suggest chat bans be fully restrained to chat related issues, including champ select, in-game, and post game. Whispers (private messaging) that make others feel threatened/uncomfortable/enough to make a player report the person should also be included in chat/account punishments, as harassment shouldn't be allowed anywhere.

And I suggest "other bans" include things such as intentionally feeding, cheating, leaving too many games, etc.

Please mind that this isn't the exact ruling of how it should be, but simply a blueprint. I believe people saying things like "go kys/die/etc." should receive harsher punishments once the logs are reviewed as that's not a joking matter. I represent this idea for those, such as myself, who curse at teammates/players when there isn't a need.

I believe in doing this, more players will want to stick around and enjoy your game more often, and I believe it will improve business for the company with more players and more purchases to be made.

Please consider the following action as you've punished players in the same way such as VideoGameDunkey and Tyler1 (although a big part of his punishment was his inting) and doing that is only going to cause player base loss, as you pushed away your former biggest content promoter and nearly forced away your most famous twitch streamer.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Please post any comments/suggestions you have!

35 Comments

ModThe Djinn6/19/2019, 9:15:25 PM8 votes

Riot tried longer chat-specific bans and restrictions in the past. The outcome was that an unacceptably large percentage of those players who received this punishment went on to continue to troll their teammates in other, harder to detect ways. Because of this, they switched to the current system we have.

Hotarµ6/19/2019, 9:21:29 PM5 votes

Being permanent banned over language isn't worth losing player base or potential business. While permanent bans can be constructive in player base, making it more fun for others or a nicer community, it also has its cons as well.

And to most, those pros outweigh the cons.

Allowing toxic players to run rampant destroys the new player experience (even further than it already is as League is a F2P game) and community interactions. The current system was voted on by the community, the automated system we have now was created with the Tribunal's rulings as a guide.

Besides, I think it reinforces the idea that we should treat other people with respect and not harass them over small mistakes.

I was permanent banned on my account I've had since season 1, spent well over $3,000 USD, and invested a huge chunk of my free time into the account over the last 9 seasons. I don't feel I deserve the ban entirely as of those games I was flagged for (7/20 of my last matches), over half of them I was trolled and acted out in anger over it. But each support member I spoke to all said I was banned for toxic language, and I understand it but I disagree with how harsh the punishment is.

If you were permanently banned for toxic language, that means you disregarded multiple punishments in the form of a 10-game chat restriction, a 25-game chat restriction, and a 14-day gameplay suspension.

Whether you disagree with the rules or not, you were given multiple chances to reform and warned frequently about what would happen if you continued to behave the way you did.

"Chat bans" should go down a line of the following: 1st warning: 10 games of chat restriction/limited messages 2nd warning: 20 games of chat restriction/limited messages 3rd warning: 2 week suspension of chat restriction (no messaging from your account) |AND/OR| 2 week account suspension 4th warning: Permanent chat ban, no longer able to send messages |AND| x amount of time account suspension, maybe a month? Two? Three? A year?

Permanent chat suspensions have been done before and have already been proven to not work. They led to players griefing other areas of the game through intentionally feeding, AFKing, or other means.

Here's Riot WookieCookie with the official answer:

"The observed behavior of those which were banned was that they used what little chat they had in game to harass and berate others. In other cases they decided to feed or play against their own team in order to "prove a point."

Here's a Board post by another user highlighting the article in question and discussing it.

I suggest chat bans be fully restrained to chat related issues, including champ select, in-game, and post game. Whispers (private messaging) that make others feel threatened/uncomfortable/enough to make a player report the person should also be included in chat/account punishments, as harassment shouldn't be allowed anywhere.

And I suggest "other bans" include things such as intentionally feeding, cheating, leaving too many games, etc.

That... is already how the system works. There are two separate ladders, one for gameplay related offenses and another for chat related offenses. A player who receives a 14-day ban for intentionally feeding will not be permanently suspended if their next punishment is chat related and vice versa.

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but the way you described it sounds exactly like the system we have now.

I believe people saying things like "go kys/die/etc." should receive harsher punishments once the logs are reviewed as that's not a joking matter.

The system already treats that language more strictly.

It's called "zero-tolerance language" (or zero-tolerance phrases) and using any of those keywords automatically results in an immediate 14-day ban, skipping over the two previous punishment tiers of a 10-game chat restriction and 25-game chat restriction.

Basically, saying any racist, homophobic, or discriminatory slur (in addition to inciting self-harm) puts your account on it's last legs.

Telephone Booth6/19/2019, 9:48:57 PM2 votes

They tried perma chat bans, and people just resorted to trolling to retaliate. Theyve decided that the cost of losing toxic players actually is worth it. A lot of people have quit this game due to toxicity, and the potential loss of profit from that outweighs the potential loss of profit of losing toxic players.

R107 Games6/19/2019, 9:54:36 PM2 votes

Yep; chat restrictions only for chat related offenses and bans for gameplay related offenses is an improvement over the current system

GatekeeperTDS6/20/2019, 12:25:26 AM2 votes

Being permanent banned over language isn't worth losing player base or potential business

Yes it is. The cost of finding ways to accommodate those who are intent on ruining games is very, very, high. Every time someone screams about how shit this community is, how toxic it is, it's because a certain segment of the playerbase can't just play a video game for fun - they have to flame, berate, and belittle their teammates for every mistake made, every perceived slight, every time someone doesn't do exactly what that person expected to happen in any given scenario.

Get out of the game if you can't behave, because you're ruining it for the rest of us who want to play for fun and who can get along with others.

This "give them a longer chat ban" garbage has been thrown around for years, now. Know what? People who are intent on ruining games will find ways to ruin the game whether they can chat or not. Know why? Because they lack self control and don't care about what happens to others.

Again, get the hell out of the game if you can't behave.

zPOOPz6/20/2019, 2:11:08 AM2 votes

Just no. People who cannot chat will inevitably find other ways to "communicate" their displeasure such as trolling, inting, afk-ing. We've already been down this perma chat restriction non-sense. We know what will happen. And the last time Rito tried this, it was a scaling chat RESTRICTION to basically infinite. People troll instead even though they are still allowed some messages at certain point in time. Perma chat BAN would make it even worse. We don't need to go down this road again. If you cannot stop flaming after 3 (1 if ZT) punishment, perma chat ban will just make you "flame" in other much worse ways.

Besides, why should every single team you'll play with be punished with a teammate who cannot is not allowed to even type a simple "yes" or "no" to "can you first pick Aatrox?" or a teammate who is not allowed to even answer the simple question of "does mid have summ?" (if you pinged your opposing laner summ, is that a yes or no? Are we going to have to go with Morse Code because you can no longer chat?) Why should 4 innocence people be punished with a handicapped teammate?

Why should playerbase suffer an increase in trolling, griefing, inting, afk-ing due to perma chat ban? It's not a hypothetical question. Rito has done it. Rito knows exactly that will happen.

Sarutobi6/19/2019, 9:29:37 PM1 votes

I do get what you are saying, but sadly Riot had already tried lessening the punishment with just chat restrictions. Because of this, changing the way chat restrictions works and either only punishing people with chat restrictions, or giving them more chances to get away with it sadly just isn't going to work.

With that said, if your plan was to go live, I don't see how it would work. So basically there are two different types of punishment people can get? So what happens if someone gets punished in the other category, but then does something against the chat punishment category?Do they go up in the punishment, or basically go down because now they are punished for chat?

Not only that your other punishment makes no sense in the fact of severity, especially when you put things like cheating (i assume you mean things like hacking/botting) and intentionally feeding in that same category. What exactly will having a larger queue time going to do towards people who break the rules like this? Those types of severe cases should always result in an automatic 2 week ban/permanent punishment especially with how long it takes to actually confirm it!

All in all it doesn't seem like you understand Riot's way of punishing people. They don't want to people to come back when they have been permanently ban. This is why we have 3 chances. Its the right amount that shows people they shouldn't be breaking the rules. And that's the main point. You aren't suppose to be breaking the rules. Giving people more and more chances just makes them do it more because their mentality will be that getting punished isn't that big of a deal when it should be.

Polaris I6/19/2019, 9:27:58 PM1 votes

$3,000??

PlsTouchMeGently6/20/2019, 4:39:56 PM1 votes

I just want to say that I’ve read through all the comments and replies, and while I generally disagree with OP’s points, I do want to applaud him for being civil and actually discussing things with commenters. He doesn’t simply state something and say that’s how it is with no room for discussion like most ppl who post here. Good on you, OP. I also wish you the best on a new account.