Hypocritical Banning

ActualJohnStamos·Jul 1, 2017·1 votes·691 views

Riot, can you explain something to me. Why do I get banned for comments I say to people, when all they do is flame me all game long, say I'm the reason we lost, say that I'm bad, say that I should uninstall? Do I not deserve to reply to them with harsh words since all they do is ruin the game by flaming me? Why do they not get banned for what they say? Also, why do people get banned more easily for just saying rude things, instead of for giving up and not trying? I've lost so many games to douche bags that just give up because it's too hard to win, they think someone on the team is too bad and we can't win with that person on our team, and all the other reasons for giving up. That is just a waste of my time and I lose LP due to their lack of care. People should get banned way quicker for not trying than for saying rude things. Please explain clearly your banning system.

23 Comments

AeroWaffleJul 1, 20174 votes

The person that flamed you didn't ban you, Riot did. And only based on your own behavior.

Each person is responsible for their own behavior. If someone is being an asshole, report them. Their behavior will be judged in their own case based on their own record.

Riot is more likely to catch someone being rude than they are to catch someone subtly intentionally throwing the game. Being rude is a lot easier to detect because the only difference between intentionally feeding and regular feeding is the intent. And Riot doesn't want to ban people for UN-intentionally feeding. Being an ass in chat is easy to spot and hold a person responsible for. It's extremely hard to accidentally be an asshole to someone.

ActualJohnStamosJul 1, 20171 votes

I didn't say the person that flamed me banned me.

AeroWaffleJul 1, 20172 votes

You claimed it was hypocritical. Riot didn't flame you, so I assumed you meant the person in the game.

WarmanreaperJul 1, 20171 votes

No he means, the person flamed him, so he flamed the person, but they banned him even tho he didnt start it or make it happen. I can see this view clearly.. alot of pro players and streamers are banned cause of this, Back in the day the pro player Dunkey, was banned for flaming a nunu that intentionally fed in a platinum Ranked game. Clearly intentional feed, but riot decided to ban him even tho there was reasoning for the flame.

ActualJohnStamosJul 1, 20171 votes

Exactly, Warmanreaper understands perfectly!

AeroWaffleJul 1, 20172 votes

Riot holds the stance that flaming is never the appropriate response, as the best it can be hoped to accomplish is make a bad situation worse. Flaming someone is not going to stop them from intentionally feeding. In all likelihood, if you mistake someone as intentionally feeding or throwing (when they were just having a really bad game), you might just push them to intentionally feed for real.

If they were intentionally feeding already, flaming them is unlikely to stop them. It's more likely to encourage them since the goal is to ruin your game.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

ActualJohnStamosJul 1, 20171 votes

Your hypothetical situation is not relevant, though.

AeroWaffleJul 1, 20171 votes

How so? There are plenty of salty league players out there that will claim someone is intentionally feeding and start flaming them if the score looks bad enough or if they make a lot of mistakes.

ActualJohnStamosJul 1, 20171 votes

Because that is not what happened to me. What happened to me is that I was playing my best in the jungle, but the rest of my teammates flamed me, said I was bad, and said I shouldn't jungle anymore and that I should uninstall the game. Because of their constant flaming, I decided to respond to them harshly. I got banned for this, which doesn't seem right since all 4 other players on my team starting the flaming. And when I mean that people give up, I literally mean the times when people specifically say, "I'm done, fuck this, I don't to try anymore because of this jungler" or whatever the reason. I'm not talking about a situation where a person is just bad and fed because they're bad.

AeroWaffleJul 1, 20171 votes

I replied to someone else's comment in that post. My reply is relevant to what I replied to (I'm always in discussion view). I already addressed your OP here;

{quoted}

The person that flamed you didn't ban you, Riot did. And only based on your own behavior.

Each person is responsible for their own behavior. If someone is being an asshole, report them. Their behavior will be judged in their own case based on their own record.

Riot is more likely to catch someone being rude than they are to catch someone subtly intentionally throwing the game. Being rude is a lot easier to detect because the only difference between intentionally feeding and regular feeding is the intent. And Riot doesn't want to ban people for UN-intentionally feeding. Being an ass in chat is easy to spot and hold a person responsible for. It's extremely hard to accidentally be an asshole to someone.

archerno1Jul 1, 20171 votes

{quoted}

No he means, the person flamed him, so he flamed the person, but they banned him even tho he didnt start it or make it happen. I can see this view clearly.. alot of pro players and streamers are banned cause of this, Back in the day the pro player Dunkey, was banned for flaming a nunu that intentionally fed in a platinum Ranked game. Clearly intentional feed, but riot decided to ban him even tho there was reasoning for the flame.

No. Dunkey flamed Malphite. And he didnt just "flame". he went full ape shit on him. And why do u call Dunkey "pro player"? He was low plat player and he expected he wont get punished for shit he did because he "promoted League on his channel"

WarmanreaperJul 2, 20171 votes

He expected he wouldnt get banned because he roasted a tard that literally intentionally fed in low plat. Wonder why hes low plat? maybe people int?

Airbane98Jul 5, 20171 votes

dont assume his gender! hes an apache attack helicopter like the rest of us! cant you respect our race :(

ModThe DjinnJul 1, 20173 votes

I think my favorite PB-related analogy of the movie theater is apt here.

Imagine you buy tickets to see a movie. You and everyone else plan to sit and quietly enjoy the film. Then some asshole -- we'll call him Bruce -- decides he doesn't like your face and that he needs to let you know. Bruce begins to scream at you across the aisles, disrupting everyone's viewing experience.

There are two options at this point.

#1: You quietly talk to a manager, or let someone else talk to a manager, and Bruce gets kicked out of the theater. You return to watching your movie.

#2: You decide you've had it with Bruce, and begin screaming back at him. Someone else reports both of you to the manager for causing a disturbance, and you both get kicked out. It doesn't matter that ultimately Bruce started it -- you've been a disruption as well, and are facing the consequences of said action.

In short, the self-defense argument doesn't hold water (since there's no threat to you, and you can simply mute him and remove the attack in the first place), and the "I deserve to respond" doesn't work since all that does is mean there are now two toxic players instead of one. Don't be Bruce.

ActualJohnStamosJul 5, 20171 votes

However, what I did is wait until the last 2 minutes of the game, or in your scenario the last 2 minutes of the movie, and then I started yelling at him after he spent the whole movie yelling at me.

ModThe DjinnJul 5, 20171 votes

{quoted}

However, what I did is wait until the last 2 minutes of the game, or in your scenario the last 2 minutes of the movie, and then I started yelling at him after he spent the whole movie yelling at me.

That's still two minutes of yelling more than was needed. Sure, he was yelling MORE, but you're both still going to get kicked out of a theater with a "no yelling" policy. Especially since you had the option to get the manager to remove him -- you could have muted him and reported him when he started making a scene.

ChermorgJul 1, 20172 votes

ActualJohnStamos, can you explain something to me. (that should be a question mark since it is an interrogative clause, but -shrugs-) Why do you not use the mute button, when all others do is flame you all game long, say you're the reason you lost, say that you're bad, say that you should uninstall?

No, you do not deserve to reply to them with harsh words. If that's what floats your boat, write in a journal. Not in a game to strangers on the internet.

Mute, move on, report.

ActualJohnStamosJul 1, 20171 votes

So they get away with ganging up on me, flaming me, but I say 2 sentences back and I get banned? You honestly think they are not to blame for anything?

ChermorgJul 1, 20172 votes

Nah, you say things back to them, you risk getting banned.

However, if you do the mature thing and mute, move on, and report, they'll be the ones here complaining about their bans!

SavageConcordiaJul 1, 20171 votes

Well you seem to lack the fundamental understanding of how this system is intended. When you see someone flame, you mute them then report them, they get banned, you don't. Done.

Your problem is that you engage them, they report you and then everyone gets banned. They are trolls, they don't give a fuck about bans, you aren't a troll, you care about your account. You feed the trolls, you lose. You ignore the trolls, you win.

hshtagniemehrcduJul 1, 20172 votes

{quoted}

So they get away with ganging up on me, flaming me, but I say 2 sentences back and I get banned?

Wrong. First, you do not get a ban for two sentences. In general, you need to flame in a lot of games to ever see a chat restriction. So, unless you dont flame regularly and unless you dont use hatespeech, you dont ever get a ban.

2nd, if they flame just as often and as hard as you, they will receive a ban just like you. You dont know their behaviour history, so you cannot judge if a penalty woudl be justified. You just want revenge.

Riot isn't picking at you, you just flamed much more then the average player and got a ban as a consequence.