First off, no discussion is ever going to be valid if you cannot accept the responses people give you. If you're not willing to hear anything, then you're just calling every discussion invalid when it actually isn't.
"Muting toxic players causes there to be less team communication"
Well , would you rather have a flamer flame you 24/7 or him to be quiet? He won't have any useful conversation anyways AMIRITE ??
This, I see both ways on. Yes, you're right in that muting is a necessity here. But the point of that response about muting causing less team communication is more about the flamers themselves ruining team communication than the act of muting. We shouldn't have to mute someone. We should be able to keep an open line of communication with people, but flamers just so happen to ruin that.
"Riot doesn't want toxic players in there game"
Well, aren't you a smart economics major, you really think a company doesn't want money!
First, condescending and belittling remarks like this only further serve to invalidate discussion, since you clearly can't seem to provide a good argument without resorting to such insults.
Second; Riot has stated in the past that they don't want toxic players in their game, and they don't want those toxic players' money. Imagine this; in one match, you have one toxic player and four non-toxic players. They've all recently spent five-hundred dollars, and each plans to spend more in the future.
The toxic player would drive away those non-toxics, and consequently lose Riot whatever money they were planning to spend in the future.
Riot loses more if they keep toxics than if they kick them out. You don't need to be an economics major to know that people being toxic, yelling at others, and being all-around assholes is bad for business.
Besides, the League playerbase is millions-strong. Surely to god, losing toxic players isn't gonna put a dent in their income.
"Toxicity makes you lose games"
You don't even play ranked, looking at you Molt, toxicity has no effects on winning\losing. It's 100% about skill
Dunno who Molt is, but your comment to them is completely undeserved. But, since playing Ranked is a requirement for a valid opinion on this matter...
Hi, I'm Umbral Regent, Gold V/Silver III/Silver I of 2017, Gold V/N/A/Silver II of 2018. I have an opinion to the contrary of yours.
Whether you like it or not, toxicity does increase the likelihood of losing a match. You can think it's 100% about skill, but it isn't. It's 70% about skill, 20% about team cohesion, and 10% morale.
Toxicity, obviously, breaks down team cohesion. If you have any number of flamers more than zero, you're going to have people who don't want to deal with that flamer. And if you have two flamers...Congrats. Half of your team doesn't want to work together with the other half. Having to mute toxic players breaks team cohesion further (because, again, those players shouldn't be toxic and require muting in the first place), and there's really no coming back once a flame war has started.
On top of that, the skill bit about winning Ranked? Yeah, toxicity saps that, too. Flamers play worse because they're focusing more on flaming than playing the game, and everyone around them plays worse because of that last 10% - morale - going down.
So, unless you can somehow make toxicity not damage morale, team cohesion, or focus...Yeah, toxicity'll lose you more games than it'll win you.
