Toxicity is reactionary

Incognonymous·Sep 27, 2017·4 votes·733 views

Want to address toxicity? Address the root problems that inspires someone to say something toxic. I would wager that the VAST majority of people punished for toxic behavior are not inherently toxic-- they have to be egged on in the first place. Those circumstances should not only be extenuating factors, but their causes should be the focus as a strategy to reduce toxicity.

Riot focuses on punishing sore losers-- it should instead focus on ungraceful victors.

For an example:

-Poor matchmaking -Intentional feeding -BM -Smurfs

Are my triggers. If you're a diamond playing silvers, and you flash your mastery after "outplaying" someone I WILL say something. Because you're a piece of human shit who happened to get lucky and is now taking advantage of an unfortunate situation to stroke your ego.

50 Comments

Colgate GatorSep 27, 20175 votes

I mean, I can't really sympathize with you, I've been playing this game for years and I've yet to be punished once, so...Even with all the BMing, inters, trolls, etc, it really seems that the decision to be toxic falls completely on the players themselves.

Basically, it's a you problem.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Postal Badger,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=qE7kb773,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2017-09-27T18:39:09.267+0000)

I mean, I can't really sympathize with you, I've been playing this game for years and I've yet to be punished once, so...Even with all the BMing, inters, trolls, etc, it really seems that the decision to be toxic falls completely on the players themselves.

Basically, it's a you problem.

Ah, so you're a coward.

No need to say anything more. I'm sure your ancestors are proud of you.

ChermorgSep 27, 20176 votes

I don't see how that makes them a coward? Let's not resort to name calling - if you don't have a response to the points they brought up, just don't respond.

For the record, they're right. The decision to be toxic is solely on the person being toxic. If they lack self control, it does not suddenly absolve them of responsibility for their actions.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I don't see how that makes them a coward? Let's not resort to name calling - if you don't have a response to the points they brought up, just don't respond.

For the record, they're right. The decision to be toxic is solely on the person being toxic. If they lack self control, it does not suddenly absolve them of responsibility for their actions.

The cowardice stems from NOT expressing an point.... how exactly do I respond to their points?

EDIT: Okay, this was not in reference to my post about driveby downvotes, but the guy just letting others insult him. I understand, my mistake.

They aren't right, and they are cowards. They let others walk all over them and insult them, under the presumption that you, Riot, will handle it. The problem is, you don't.

IcyPepperSep 27, 20173 votes

it really seems that the decision to be toxic falls completely on the players themselves.

That seems like a point that opposes the one you've posed.

Try responding to that.

EvilDustManSep 27, 20172 votes

{quoted}

They aren't right, and they are cowards. They let others walk all over them and insult them, under the presumption that you, Riot, will handle it. The problem is, you don't.

But that is handling the problem. Talking back only escalates the problem. You aren't going to make them stop by flaming back.

If a dog barks at you and you yell back, the dog barks louder. That's how the internet works. Mute, report, let them get punished for their own troubles and move on.

It doesn't make you a coward, it makes you level headed and in control, which I was taught is the more manly thing.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

But that is handling the problem. Talking back only escalates the problem. You aren't going to make them stop by flaming back.

If a dog barks at you and you yell back, the dog barks louder. That's how the internet works. Mute, report, let them get punished for their own troubles and move on.

It doesn't make you a coward, it makes you level headed and in control, which I was taught is the more manly thing.

Handling the problem stems from Riot not handling the problem-- the point of this thread.

EvilDustManSep 27, 20172 votes

{quoted}

Handling the problem stems from Riot not handling the problem-- the point of this thread.

Intentional feeding is getting an upgrade, BM is punishable, smurfs are only a problem if they feed to stay in a rank, in which case, see one. Poor matchmaking, half of it is probably you and you need to chill out.

AngrychickénSep 27, 20171 votes

So not getting banned for a stupid reason is being a coward?

Okkkkay?

I guess?

ModPeriscopeSep 27, 20174 votes

I mean, no one's being toxic to you right now, but

you're a piece of human shit

was just kinda thrown out there. All toxicity should be punished, not just the ones that suit* your style of toxicity.

You're basically advocating for League to go back to Kindergarten, where students thought "he started it" actually meant something.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I mean, no one's being toxic to you right now, but

was just kinda thrown out there. All toxicity should be punished, not just the ones that suite your style of toxicity.

You're basically advocating for League to go back to Kindergarten, where students thought "he started it" actually meant something.

I actually did specify the trigger to that, so yes, as I said. Reactionary.

"He started" DOES MEAN SOMETHING IT IS LITERALLY LEGALLY BINDING IN ALL THE FIRST WORLD

Riot is a private entity and free to legislate as they will, still, if someone robs my house and pulls a knife on me in my own house I am legally protected when I reduce their head into a fine red mist, and there is precisely 0 judges in the US who would rule against me.

Regardless, consider it a warning. If someone says something inflammatory, I will wish them death in front of their parents. I will wish them an angry mob that drags them out of their house and beats them until they piss blood. You can't not expect a response. It's not a threat-- I don't care enough to do anything one way or another, still-- if these toxic fucks start shit, I don't think it's unreasonable for me not to tell them I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

TrulyBlandSep 27, 20172 votes

"He started" DOES MEAN SOMETHING IT IS LITERALLY LEGALLY BINDING IN ALL THE FIRST WORLD

No. No it doesn't. "He posed a physical threat to my or other peoples' well being" means something. And in most countries even in such situations of actual self defence there are laws against disproportionate reactions.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

No. No it doesn't. "He poses a physical threat to my or other peoples' well being" means something. And in most countries even in such situations of actual self defence there are laws against disproportionate reactions.

True enough, but there are no analogies for a purely speech interface.

There's no such thing as a disproportionate reaction when a person's rights are violated, against the violator of those rights. Which is why I wrote my analogy the way I did. I'm not going to go the robber's house and rape his wife, obviously, but he forfeited his life.

TrulyBlandSep 27, 20172 votes

True enough, but there are no analogies for a purely speech interface.

Yes. Because it's not necessary to retaliate in these cases. There are no analogies because it's an entirely different subject.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Yes. Because it's not necessary to retaliate in these cases. There are no analogies because it's an entirely different subject.

You don't have to respond in real life either-- I meant simply that you couldn't commit a physical action through the internet.

I think we've all wanted to punch someone through the screen.

TrulyBlandSep 27, 20172 votes

{quoted}

You don't have to respond in real life either

If you don't have to respond in real life it's not self defence. I know US law is a bit more lenient when it comes to self defence but in most countries (to my knowledge) you can only claim self defence if you did not see a viable non-violent choice.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

If you don't have to respond in real life it's not self defence. I know US law is a bit more lenient when it comes to self defence but in most countries (to my knowledge) you can only claim self defence if you did not see a viable non-violent choice.

I don't HAVE to respond to someone trying to murder me. What the fuck is your point?

PresBushDid711Sep 27, 20172 votes

{quoted}

I don't HAVE to respond to someone trying to murder me. What the fuck is your point?

False equivalency

Please restate point.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

False equivalency

Please restate point.

It's not a false equivalency. You implied I had to act if my rights were being violated. I do not. I could simply die. Please restate. Feel free to google more logical fallacies if you want.

PresBushDid711Sep 27, 20172 votes

{quoted}

It's not a false equivalency. You implied I had to act if my rights were being violated. I do not. I could simply die. Please restate. Feel free to google more logical fallacies if you want.

... I didn't imply that, nor did I have to Google logical fallacies.

Right to life and right to rage on someone for flashing flair (did have to Google spelling for that) are not equivalent.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

... I didn't imply that, nor did I have to Google logical fallacies.

Right to life and right to rage on someone for flashing flair (did have to Google spelling for that) are not equivalent.

That's not why it's false equivalency. It's false equivalency because unalienable rights are equivalent. We were comparing robberies to murders, not in game shit, which as I said, has no analogy besides "action:reaction" which isn't false equivalency, but derivative at best.

TrulyBlandSep 27, 20172 votes

{quoted}

I don't HAVE to respond to someone trying to murder me. What the fuck is your point?

That's a semantic argument and you know it.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

That's a semantic argument and you know it.

It isn't. Action doesn't always demand reaction.

The entire point of this thread is that addressing action will cease reactions, regardless.

TrulyBlandSep 27, 20173 votes

The entire point of this thread is that addressing action will cease reactions, regardless.

Oh, really now? Then what was the point of saying the following:

"He started" DOES MEAN SOMETHING IT IS LITERALLY LEGALLY BINDING IN ALL THE FIRST WORLD

Riot is a private entity and free to legislate as they will, still, if someone robs my house and pulls a knife on me in my own house I am legally protected when I reduce their head into a fine red mist, and there is precisely 0 judges in the US who would rule against me.

This is not about addressing actions and ceasing reactions in the process, this is you justifying reactions. You didn't say "If police were to stop robbers they wouldn't have to deal with me killing robbers", you said "I am legally protected when I reduce their head into a fine red mist."

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Oh, really now? Then what was the point of saying the following:

This is not about addressing actions and ceasing reactions in the process, this is you justifying reactions. You didn't say "If police were to stop robbers they wouldn't have to deal with me killing robbers", you said "I am legally protected when I reduce their head into a fine red mist."

It is justified. I simply had options, as everyone else does, to not respond and be victimized.

TrulyBlandSep 27, 20172 votes

{quoted}

It is justified. I simply had options, as everyone else does, to not respond and be victimized.

Which is precisely the point: If you have that option and you "being victimized" is not you being physically harmed then it is not justified. Moreso: If you are victimized either way and there is no physical harm it is especially not justified because at that point it is essentially vengeance/vigilantism.

Once again, there is no analogy that accurately fits reactionary toxicity because your analogy of how laws work very expressively does not apply to it.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Which is precisely the point: If you have that option and you "being victimized" is not you being physically harmed then it is not justified.

This thread is purely about initiated vs. initiator. Physicality as a dimension doesn't exist in this interface. That doesn't mean the response isn't justified.

TrulyBlandSep 27, 20172 votes

{quoted}

This thread is purely about initiated vs. initiator. Physicality as a dimension doesn't exist in this interface. That doesn't mean the response isn't justified.

Stop flip-flopping around. Either you are going to stick to your analogy or not. And if you stick to your analogy then you admit that under the VERY SAME RULES of your analogy, reactionary toxicity is not justified.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Stop flip-flopping around. Either you are going to stick to your analogy or not. And if you stick to your analogy then you admit that under the VERY SAME RULES of your analogy, reactionary toxicity is not justified.

Justification is identical in both sides of the analogy. If someone acts, you react. That IS the analogy.

TrulyBlandSep 27, 20172 votes

{quoted}

Justification is identical in both sides of the analogy. If someone acts, you react. That IS the analogy.

Your analogy is how the law works... but for the law neither all actions nor all reactions are equal. Your analogy itself contradicts the purpose of your analogy.

Or to put it differently: There's no need for an analogy to begin with, because you can ultimately look at what the law says about this particular question: And since you there is no risk of physical harm and what you are doing does not help your situation the law says: Your reaction is not justified just because it is a reaction.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Your analogy is how the law works... but for the law neither all actions nor all reactions are equal. Your analogy itself contradicts the purpose of your analogy.

Or to put it differently: There's no need for an analogy to begin with, because you can ultimately look at what the law says about this particular question: And since you there is no risk of physical harm and what you are doing does not help your situation the law says: Your reaction is not justified just because it is a reaction.

...they are though, as I said. Unalienable rights are equivalent. If someone is violating them, there is nothing against that person you can't not do to make them stop.

In the case you cite, the law is written to punish both action and reaction. Not only is that not true in the real world, we all know that isn't true in Riot's case-- it IS response that gets punished here.

TrulyBlandSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

...they are though, as I said. Unalienable rights are equivalent. If someone is violating them, there is nothing against that person you can't not do to make them stop.

In the case you cite, the law is written to punish both action and reaction. Not only is that not true in the real world, we all know that isn't true in Riot's case-- it IS response that gets punished here.

Disproportionate response is punishable. Going with a violent option when non-violent solutions are available is punishable. Choosing violence that does nothing to stop the infringement of your rights is punishable.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that is how the real world works.

Edit: Also, your "unalienable rights" to my knowledge do not include the right to not have a noob, flamer or feeder in your team.

ModPeriscopeSep 27, 20172 votes

I will wish them death in front of their parent

And you'll be banned for it. You should expect this response from Riot games if you behave that way in game. I mean, I'm having a conversation with you, and you're needlessly cursing. I play the same game you do and deal with the same people you do. Harassing them back just adds to the problems everyone has to deal with in game. Your teammates had to deal with 1 toxic player, and you start up with your jargon; now, they deal with 2 toxic players.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

And you'll be banned for it. You should expect this response from Riot games if you behave that way in game. I mean, I'm having a conversation with you, and you're needlessly cursing. I play the same game you do and deal with the same people you do. Harassing them back just adds to the problems everyone has to deal with in game. Your teammates had to deal with 1 toxic player, and you start up with your jargon; now, they deal with 2 toxic players.

Yet here I am.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20172 votes

[deleted]

ScuffleboardSep 27, 20171 votes

Bad day?

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Bad day?

Bad past 4 seasons. I've played this game for a long time, I guess that's why it's like the parable of the frog in the pot. As the water begins to heat, he acclimates, not realizing he will soon be boiled.

No more. Riot is hacking at the branches. Nothing will ever change.

EvilDustManSep 27, 20172 votes

{quoted}

you are too much of a cowardly scumfuck to express them.

No, the problem is you, you need to dial it way back.

yesnobananaSep 27, 20172 votes

You can consider everything in-game reactionry. I agree that you stated important problems, but if anyone has a bad game that dosn't give you the premission to flame him.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

You can consider everything in-game reactionry. I agree that you stated important problems, but if anyone has a bad game that dosn't give you the premission to flame him.

I meant more from an intentional feeding standpoint. Everyone has bad games. How you react matters though-- running it down mid and/or AFKing in spawn is not constructive. Everyone who's played this game has encountered it though. Regardless, there is a difference between being incited to toxicity and just being toxic.

Friendly RamSep 27, 20172 votes

nah toxic people generally are pricks right out of the gate. less then 20% of people get tilted and start being toxic in my games.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Friendly Ram,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=qE7kb773,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2017-09-27T18:26:33.198+0000)

nah toxic people generally are pricks right out of the gate. less then 20% of people get tilted and start being toxic in my games.

Not my experience, after playing since 2011. Granted, those people should be punished.

PresBushDid711Sep 27, 20172 votes

My guess is the reason people are just downvorting and moving on is that you are looking for validation, not debate.

Likewise, if your "genetic line" goes into a rampage over words on a screen, I am not sure our genetic line has much to fear.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

My guess is the reason people are just downvorting and moving on is that you are looking for validation, not debate.

Likewise, if your "genetic line" goes into a rampage over words on a screen, I am not sure our genetic line has much to fear.

Player behavior is an echo chamber for Riot's failed policies. I don't care one way or another, I just couldn't resist the opportunity to call out their cowardice.

PresBushDid711Sep 27, 20173 votes

{quoted}

Player behavior is an echo chamber for Riot's failed policies. I don't care one way or another, I just couldn't resist the opportunity to call out their cowardice.

... you don't care? You posted... and seem pretty tilted.

Likewise, I wouldn't say "failed" policies, i've noticed you still have posted no logs, so I would assume they didn't fail here.

I am not sure I have ever looked at one raving lunatic yelling at another raving lunatic and thought, "That seems right, they aren't cowards for sure!". Normally it makes me wonder how they are able to function on a daily bases.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

... you don't care? You posted... and seem pretty tilted.

Likewise, I wouldn't say "failed" policies, i've noticed you still have posted no logs, so I would assume they didn't fail here.

I am not sure I have ever looked at one raving lunatic yelling at another raving lunatic and thought, "That's seem right, they aren't cowards for sure!". Normally it makes me wonder how they are able to function on a daily bases.

I'm always critical of Riot. It's not tilt, it's counterculture. Someone has to balance out all the dickriding.

I probably deserved the chat ban, just like the past half dozen, not that it stops me. This thread was observatory-- I'm not the first one to act, ever, and from what I've seen the most toxic individuals typically are pushed into it too. My point was, perhaps the issues that feed toxicity are worth more from a regulatory standpoint than people who are actually toxic in the first place.

At the very least, they would would make the game better, without argument. Who doesn't want better matchmaking, that's kind of obvious.

PresBushDid711Sep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I'm always critical of Riot. It's not tilt, it's counterculture. Someone has to balance out all the dickriding.

I probably deserved the chat ban, just like the past half dozen, not that it stops me. This thread was observatory-- I'm not the first one to act, ever, and from what I've seen the most toxic individuals typically are pushed into it too. My point was, perhaps the issues that feed toxicity are worth more from a regulatory standpoint than people who are actually toxic in the first place.

At the very least, they would would make the game better, without argument. Who doesn't want better matchmaking, that's kind of obvious.

Aye, I can't really comment on the matchmaking. I get the impression it isn't the grandest, but I'm not very good at the game and get matched with others not very good. So I don't really have experience with that.

I do agree that they could do a much better job at getting rid of trolls, and I think they are working on that (long overdue).

PinkSaltSep 27, 20171 votes

alright I get your point, the "ezzzzzzz" texts when losing a trade or game entirely does piss everyone off. I would label to situations as passive-aggressive. If a couple of curse words can get someone ban but being overly passive aggressive is a-ok. Reminds me of children egging on each other to hit one another then run to their parents crying and claiming they "just got hit"......... pathetic.

IncognonymousSep 27, 20171 votes

{quoted}

alright I get your point, the "ezzzzzzz" texts when losing a trade or game entirely does piss everyone off. I would label to situations as passive-aggressive. If a couple of curse words can get someone ban but being overly passive aggressive is a-ok. Reminds me of children egging on each other to hit one another then run to their parents crying and claiming they "just got hit"......... pathetic.

Precisely. There's no cause for it, and unfortunately, no punishment despite it LITERALLY being inflammatory. Meanwhile, if you reply in any sort of capacity? 10 game chat ban.