Boards›Player Behavior

Should people be punished for starting it?

LoafingWill·6/7/2019, 12:36:44 AM·2 votes·1,955 views

Recently I was in a game where the whole team flamed me and after a while I said screw it and engaged in "negative behavior" that resulted in a chat restriction. Over the years I've gotten a few of them and while I can't say I was never the person to start it, I feel that I usually don't initiate the flame. I submitted a ticket because I didn't feel that my behavior given the circumstances really necessitated a ban, and I wanted to see why. The in client reform card I felt didn't give me any real indication of what I did that caused the chat restriction, I even saw they highlighted lines that I had in quotes that another team mate had said about me. I attempted to submit a report asking why, under my tickets "discuss a personal suspension or restriction". The initial response was not having the ticket sent, with RIOT GAMES reasoning being: "The best way to understand your suspension is through your in-client reform card. We only reverse bans that are CLEARLY errors made by the system. We do not give second chances on accounts, or take into account who started it.: cannot be blank". I did it again under a generic "2019 question" and finally got a response.

Riot Response "I don't blame you for being confused about this restriction- it does look like you had a tough game that took a wrong turn and receiving a penalty when there were others making your game harder than it needed to be just doesn't feel good. I will be looking at the other players being negative in this game to make sure appropriate action was taken. It is normal to not usually get a notification another player was penalized though even if you submit a report that helped us take action on someone else, but I do wanna clear up the Instant Feedback System doesn't just pick 1 person and forget the rest- it looks into everyone's chat when it receives a report and issues a penalty on each account that broke the Summoner's Code.

     So with that in mind, chat restrictions are there to let you know that your account's chat behavior isn't what players want to see in League of Legends. Your chat can be seen as negative, even if it isn't directly offensive. Not using slurs or swearing doesn't mean your chat is positive or following the Code of Conduct. Look at the chat log in the reform card under the lens of "is this helping my team? Is it positive?" to understand where we're coming from. What we saw was arguing and blaming your teammates, which isn't why we have chat there for. I know for sure if the other players had been cooperative with you and at the very least just not have started acting out you wouldn't have a reason to respond to them the way you did, but someone else's actions should not determine your response. Everyone is responsible for their own actions regardless of who started it.

If others are being negative, arguing back with them won't stop them, and if anything it will make them want to behave worse! The best defense in these situations is to mute negative players using the scoreboard window or typing /mute followed by the Summoner's name in the chat box. Then report them at the end of game screen so we can track their behavior and penalize if necessary.

Don't let other negative players or trolls to trick you into being negative back! Even if it's not as bad as what they started, we don't want chat being used negatively no matter what. Following this advice, you won't be seen as a negative player and your account will bounce back from this without anymore disciplinary issues."

   With that as context, does it not seem like Riot should start caring about who started it? From my perspective I was punished, losing honor levels, and chat restricted because other players essentially wore me down until I started to be negative back. But all people should be punished? I don't understand. I won't try to say that according to the rules I wasn't or shouldn't have been punished. I do think though that Riot needs to look at how to fix this. If you start punishing whoever starts the grieving behavior and none of the others, I can't see how that won't reduce the flaming. The people who are actually toxic and want to start something instead of focusing on winning the game will be punished, and the people who are actually trying to win but eventually get brought into it don't. I understand that you're just supposed to be muting people who are toxic but then you're essentially playing the game minus however many people you mute. To others, pinging them is just as bad as engaging in talk with them and they will flame for it just like they would if you talked.

10 Comments

GatekeeperTDS6/7/2019, 1:01:55 AM7 votes

With that as context, does it not seem like Riot should start caring about who started it?

If that's what you took away from your support chat, then you missed the point of what he was trying to tell you.

Look at the chat log in the reform card under the lens of "is this helping my team? Is it positive?" to understand where we're coming from. What we saw was arguing and blaming your teammates, which isn't why we have chat there for.

This is what the support person told you. It doesn't matter who started it.

you're just supposed to be muting people who are toxic but then you're essentially playing the game minus however many people you mute.

News flash - you were playing the game minus that person anyway, because that person was more interested in banging on the keyboard than playing the game. When you retaliate, now your team is minus two people instead of one, because now you are also banging on the keyboard instead of playing.

When two people are having a pissing contest, it's the innocent bystanders who just want to go about their business who now have to wade through puddles of piss to get to their destination.

Kei1436/7/2019, 1:21:21 AM4 votes

The person who started it and the people who kept the flame going both will leave a negative mark in their accounts.

The system punishes people based on consistency x severity. If 2 players had the same amount of flame in one game, one player can get punished because they had a more consistent history of toxicity compared to the other player.

CharDeeMcDenniz6/7/2019, 1:00:10 AM3 votes

I'd suggest adding a TL:DR to increase your chances of meaningful discussion

Telephone Booth6/7/2019, 10:13:08 PM2 votes

I think the most important part that you seemed to not put too much value on, is where they said "thats not what chat is there for". Its not there for arguing. So the person starting it, and anyone arguing and contributing to the negative, game-derailing environment in chat, is getting punished accordingly.

ChaosReyn6/7/2019, 10:25:32 PM1 votes

Honestly, without granting you total exoneration, I do feel like they should skew the punishments. I don't believe eliminating them should happen. But I feel like those who degenerate people or even entire games into negativity should be held more accountable as the prime evil, so to speak. I will acknowledge that much of your argument as a valid point - those who start it shouldn't start it, and should be held accountable for starting it.

With some exceptions, of course. For example, If I started it, and you reacted, and both me and you were just being generally negative, I should earn more points on this "tension meter" than you as I was being a dick and pushed your buttons. You should still earn some for choosing to swing back instead of muting me, but I should bear the brunt of the punishment.

However, If I started it, and you responded with "the unforgivable words" (as in, "kys" and death threats, for example) then your speech is considered far more volatile and hateful, and although I would definitely eat a punishment for starting it, you should still be hit with a harsh punishment for going that far to the dark side.

The argument at that point (and the reason this would probably not ever be a thing) would be "what classifies starting it?" It's pretty classic to see this type of scenario:

"You need to group with us" - non-toxic attempt at a shotcall to try and get you to group with the rest of the team for a fight "fuck off, stop trying to fight and let me split" - toxic response/refusal of shotcall. game proceeds to degenerate in chat from this point

Would you argue the non-toxic shotcall started that? Because it technically did. Or would you argue that the toxic response to that shotcall started it? Because that was the first toxic behavior.

See where it'd be an issue to try saying "hit who started it"?

If it were so easy, it'd have been implemented by now.