Boards›Player Behavior

How to CURE toxicity in League or any other pvp game - - - My Idea.

FlamyMind··1 votes·1,343 views

Hi, this is my idea for curing flaming in PVP games. Every single game has a system to deal with toxic people, but not even one of them is perfect and doesn't help any side(community, flamer, developers).

So, this is my idea: Before I tell you the system, 3 things have to be done. -First, the "toxic player" will not get any warnings for bad behaviour. -Second, any player can report how much they want. -Third, there is no way to find how many reports you got or if other players got reported or banned.

After a "toxic player" gets a big amount of reports (the developers can pick whatever number they want, not important), this player will be matched, no matter what he picks (ranked or nomal or any other mode) with a "fake real match", in this match he will play with bots vs bots. Those bots will have credible nick names and will play credible (no matter what he picks). 1-2 bots will play bad from the start, if the "toxic player" starts flaming (on the chat OR by harrasing them in the game) the bots will respond with an excuse for playing bad "Sorry man, im tired" / "I want to practice more with this hero/champion". No matter what he will be his answer(good or bad), the bots will keep playing bad until the end of the match. Based on what he does AFTER the bots tell him their excuse, he will get a "Toxic level".

Toxic levels will be accorded by PEOPLE (it may be possible to be done by bots, but not cheap or not good enough), people who will watch this match, NOT only the chat (people can be toxic by playing in some ways, not only flaming in the chat), those levels can be from 1(low toxicity level) to 5 or 10 (high toxicity level).

After the match ends, depending on his toxic levels he may be punished. The maximum toxicity level should have as punishment 1 YEAR ban (people change, it does even worse to ban somebody forever, it would encourage them to make a new account, not to take a pause and think a little about their toxicity);The lowest toxicity level will not have any punishment.

BUT

Every single person, after they finish their match, banned or not, will have to watch a video (made for their toxicity level, by profesionals, not just an avarage Joe that says "be nice"), a video that tries to adress their problem and help them, im not an expert, but I know people can change, faster or slower. This video can't be closed and can't be skipped. You have to watch all of it to be able to play more (even if you close the game and open it again). And to be even more cautios, at a random time in the video, it will be told a KEY for a skin/item (to make them listen. And it will work 1 time{So that people dont flame just to get free items/skins}).

THE BIGGEST IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY: After this system will be put in place and after the first bans, people will know about "this tricky match", but they will not be able to know if they are in this match or not, only IF somebody says an excuse for playing bad. So, here is the catch, if somebody gets a flamer in their team, they can shut his mouth and not be at a communication disatvantage by simply saying an excuse for playing bad (true or not), that guy will be scared and will try to be nice... or just shut up and let everyone keep trying to win.

~I'd say the option to mute other players should be removed, because muting other players it's the same as having a toxic player, you still have a communication disatvantage.

(please tell me the flaws)

57 Comments

ModThe Djinn6 votes

{quoted} Those bots will have credible nick names and will play credible (no matter what he picks). 1-2 bots will play bad from the start, if the "toxic player" starts flaming (on the chat OR by harrasing them in the game) the bots will respond with an excuse for playing bad "Sorry man, im tired" / "I want to practice more with this hero/champion". No matter what he will be his answer(good or bad), the bots will keep playing bad until the end of the match. Based on what he does AFTER the bots tell him their excuse, he will get a "Toxic level".

It's really hard to design bots that can't be distinguished from real people, let along that can also chat convincingly and are immune to being detected by, say, looking up your current game on op.gg or something. That's a ton of dev effort for something that likely won't be undetectable, on the off chance that it works the way you say it will and improves behavior -- which you haven't convinced me it will.

Toxic levels will be accorded by PEOPLE (it may be possible to be done by bots, but not cheap or not good enough), people who will watch this match, NOT only the chat (people can be toxic by playing in some ways, not only flaming in the chat), those levels can be from 1(low toxicity level) to 5 or 10 (high toxicity level).

The math on this doesn't work out. If even 1% of the playerbase gets this, and each game can be viewed in 5 minutes, that's still about 2,250 hours of content each day. You can't DO that reasonably with people.

Every single person, after they finish their match, banned or not, will have to watch a video (made for their toxicity level, by profesionals, not just an avarage Joe that says "be nice"), a video that tries to adress their problem and help them, im not an expert, but I know people can change, faster or slower. This video can't be closed and can't be skipped. You have to watch all of it to be able to play more (even if you close the game and open it again). And to be even more cautios, at a random time in the video, it will be told a KEY for a skin/item (to make them listen. And it will work 1 time{So that people dont flame just to get free items/skins}).

Leave it on, AFK. Plus you just have added a reward for flaming once, which isn't really ideal.

FlamyMind1 votes

"It's really hard to design bots that can't be distinguished from real people, let along that can also chat convincingly and are immune to being detected by, say, looking up your current game on op.gg or something. That's a ton of dev effort for something that likely won't be undetectable, on the off chance that it works the way you say it will and improves behavior -- which you haven't convinced me it will."

No, it's just not cheap. Bots that could be able to copy an avarage player isn't impossible. The MAIN points that will help chaning the toxic players are the VIDEO + the uncertainty of being in a match that may get you banned at the end of it. Those factors will be HUGE compared to ANY other system, IF done right.

"The math on this doesn't work out. If even 1% of the playerbase gets this, and each game can be viewed in 5 minutes, that's still about 2,250 hours of content each day. You can't DO that reasonably with people."

I said it's cheap? No. But this would cure toxicity. So if you league or any other moba or any other pvp game would actually care about this problem, even if they will make less profit, this would be the solution.

"Leave it on, AFK. Plus you just have added a reward for flaming once, which isn't really ideal."

Again, that video MUST be watched. They can't leave it AFK if they want the key. And the time you get their attention gives you TIME to get them hooked to watch those rest of the video (forgot to mention that those videos will be made in their main language). Isn't ideal? You have to make them watch the video, it's a small price and some may flame just to get it, but here is another hook, the higher toxicity level you get, the better will be the skin/item, so if they will let's say pay a 1 month ban for a 10 euro skin... it wouldn't be that bad.

ModThe Djinn4 votes

{quoted}No, it's just not cheap. Bots that could be able to copy an avarage player isn't impossible.

It's incredibly difficult though (there are basically no real-time games out there with bots that are indistinguishable from players), and would take a lot of development budget/effort from more certain improvements. This would be a multi-million gamble that your solution would solve every problem, and I haven't seen a good argument for why this is better for the community in general than the toxicity detection system we have now.

I said it's cheap? No. But this would cure toxicity. So if you league or any other moba or any other pvp game would actually care about this problem, even if they will make less profit, this would be the solution.

It's not that it's not cheap -- it's that it's actually absurdly expensive. 2,250 hours a day is 282 full-time employees, assuming they do nothing else, not counting the necessary managers, building space, server space, computers, etc. Add to that that you really need more than one person reviewing it to be certain, and we have a recipe for impossibility.

Again, that video MUST be watched. They can't leave it AFK if they want the key.

That's an easy sacrifice to make. It's one key. Or I can simply mute League, do something else, and act when the pop-up occurs.

Isn't ideal? You have to make them watch the video...

If you really wanted to do that, make watching a behavioral video something you have to do before playing your first game. Then everyone knows how to behave, and you can punish them afterwards, because you've told them that upfront.

FlamyMind1 votes

"It's incredibly difficult though (there are basically no real-time games out there with bots that are indistinguishable from players), and would take a lot of development budget/effort from more certain improvements. This would be a multi-million gamble that your solution would solve every problem, and I haven't seen a good argument for why this is better for the community in general than the toxicity detection system we have now." + "It's not that it's not cheap -- it's that it's actually absurdly expensive. 2,250 hours a day is 282 full-time employees, assuming they do nothing else, not counting the necessary managers, building space, server space, computers, etc. Add to that that you really need more than one person reviewing it to be certain, and we have a recipe for impossibility."

Indeed, it's quite expensive, but this is the PRICE to solve the worst problem in PVP games.

"That's an easy sacrifice to make. It's one key. Or I can simply mute League, do something else, and act when the pop-up occurs." ~ You clearly didn't paid attention, that KEY will be given by audio, they can't mute it, you can just make the person say the key at a random moment (I said that), they will have to LISTEN if they want the key, you have to do that video right and hook them in to watch the rest after they key. + Ok, you dont care about the key? Dont watch the video? Don't change, get the bans over and over again and bye.

ModThe Djinn4 votes

{quoted}Indeed, it's quite expensive, but this is the PRICE to solve the worst problem in PVP games.

My point is that I haven't seen any real way this system is an improvement -- the entire bot-game just seems like a way to game the system by identifying the bots (and you can totally do that with some chat behavior or gameplay styles -- even the best current MOBA bots are awful at some of the communication and strategy League requires), and it puts the entire punishment system on the results of that one game, so if I'm someone who only counterflames and the bots aren't insulting me, I get away free.

In short, it's time consuming, expensive, doesn't have a high number of advantages over the current system, and has a number of disadvantages.

Don't change, get the bans over and over again and bye.

Right. So there really isn't a difference to how the current system works. I can still do exactly the same sort of "ignore it, move on" behavior, my added incentive to reform is a single key offered during a video, and this system costs millions more.

FlamyMind1 votes

Ok, we narrowed down the problems. Now let me light you up.

"My point is that I haven't seen any real way this system is an improvement -- the entire bot-game just seems like a way to game the system by identifying the bots (and you can totally do that with some chat behavior or gameplay styles -- even the best current MOBA bots are awful at some of the communication and strategy League requires)" ~ You can't say my idea is impossible in our world our in our immediate future, so my idea still stands, yeah, maybe noone would put that much money to develop the technology and requirements for this idea, but it's still there. And useful.

" and it puts the entire punishment system on the results of that one game, so if I'm someone who only counterflames and the bots aren't insulting me, I get away free." ~ I am a "counterflamer", got banned on this account 2 years ago for that, but this PERFECT system will solve the problems, they will eradicate the people that can't be changed. If a toxic player gets a perma ban, there is nothing left to do, makes a new account and goes again. If you get a 1 year ban, you know you will get it back in 1 year, so you dont really want to work for nothing on other accounts (since most unchangeable flamers dont play for fun, play for high ranks). They will just wait and get that ban again. So it's TOTALLY not the same thing. MATE.

"Right. So there really isn't a difference to how the current system works. I can still do exactly the same sort of "ignore it, move on" behavior, my added incentive to reform is a single key offered during a video, and this system costs millions more."

~ Again, TOTALLY not the same. As a counterflamer, not only that I will meet WAY less flamers (if the system will be done right) playing for fun and to win I will just use the "Defensive rumor" , ill just make an excuse, make that guy think he is in the fake match and make him cooperate.

Before you make those replies, think a little about my system and what IMPACT it will have besides the scenes. It would be amazing.

ModThe Djinn4 votes

{quoted}Before you make those replies, think a little about my system and what IMPACT it will have besides the scenes. It would be amazing.

I have been actively thinking about it.

You can't say my idea is impossible in our world our in our immediate future, so my idea still stands, yeah, maybe noone would put that much money to develop the technology and requirements for this idea, but it's still there. And useful.

I cannot say it's impossible. I can say it's unrealistic to the point of being effectively impossible for this use. It took until August of 2017 for a DotA bot to defeat a pro player in two our of three matches, and that was a 1v1 exhibition match that stripped a lot of the complexity from the game. This was an advanced AI with a cutting-edge team backed by Elon Musk. To make the sort of bot that you're looking at you'd also have to find a way to make it look human while doing that, and add on a highly advanced chat bot to avoid being caught by its pre-loaded conversations or inability to respond/engage in off-topic conversations or advanced strategic discussions. Could it be done, as a matter of theory? Possibly, in a few years. Could it be done in a cost-effective, reasonable fashion by a company that would be doing this as a side project while working on supporting one of the world's largest games? No.

If you get a 1 year ban, you know you will get it back in 1 year, so you dont really want to work for nothing on other accounts (since most unchangeable flamers dont play for fun, play for high ranks). They will just wait and get that ban again. So it's TOTALLY not the same thing. MATE.

Actually, I suspect most players would just cycle through a few accounts. We already see players with 40+ smurf accounts even when they don't have banned accounts, and I can't see this addressing that issue in the slightest.

~ Again, TOTALLY not the same. As a counterflamer, not only that I will meet WAY less flamers (if the system will be done right) playing for fun and to win I will just use the "Defensive rumor" , ill just make an excuse, make that guy think he is in the fake match and make him cooperate.

You won't really meet less flamers though because, as above, this isn't a significant improvement in terms of speed, reliability, or effectiveness.

Believe me, I'm all for finding ways to improve the system. But this one is an overly unrealistic, incredibly expensive proposal that would require years of development time, cutting edge technology, and hasn't been definitively shown to have a better effect other than you assuming you know how players would respond. Short of EXTENSIVE psychological studies, I can't see any company being willing to take that risk.

FlamyMind1 votes

"I cannot say it's impossible. I can say it's unrealistic to the..."

~Don't treat my idea as something that could be cost effective in any way, or they try to solve the problem with a expensive idea like mine or they half ass it like what they had before (tribunal) and what they have now. If something from my idea isnt IMPOSSIBLE, there is no point to... point it out.

"Actually, I suspect most players would just cycle through a few accounts. We already see players with 40+ smurf accounts even when they don't have banned accounts, and I can't see this addressing that issue in the slightest."

~Yeah... why do you even point it out? They aren't toxic, they just find a pleasure in smurfing and they aren't a contra argument. You can't compare them with toxic people. If somebody is toxic, there is a clear reason behind it and there is no pefect system with 0 exceptions, but those exceptions would be the possible minimum, how I said, there is a diffrence between 1 year ban and perma ban that would reduce to almost 0 the toxicity.

"You won't really meet less flamers though because, as above, this isn't a significant improvement in terms of speed, reliability, or effectiveness."

This.. made me doubt your first statement in this reply "I have been actively thinking about it.", because there is a CLEAR diffrence, but I will not rewrite everything about my system just because you aren't able to process the information.

"Believe me, I'm all for finding ways to improve the system"

Doubt this even more, this system is as good as you can get.

" this one is an overly unrealistic, incredibly expensive proposal that would require years of development time, cutting edge technology" ~ The price of the cure, everything else would be half ass and useless.

" hasn't been definitively shown to have a better effect other than you assuming you know how players would respond. "

I know how humans respond.

Ok, if you made it this far, I found a way to compare my system.

My system is the equivalent of prisons in real life. But since this is just a game, you get a "second" chance, you dont give the punishment right away, you let the person continue his life a few more days and then make the "fake test" and then you don't give him the death penalty (yeah, us is stupid) no matter what... ah never mind, im going too much into it, I know that this is pointless, you will not change your image for my system.

ModThe Djinn4 votes

{quoted}~Don't treat my idea as something that could be cost effective in any way, or they try to solve the problem with a expensive idea like mine or they half ass it like what they had before (tribunal) and what they have now. If something from my idea isnt IMPOSSIBLE, there is no point to... point it out.

Your OP asks for the flaws to be point out. If one of the flaws is that this can't be reasonably done with a realistic budget, that seems like a flaw. shrug

~Yeah... why do you even point it out? They aren't toxic, they just find a pleasure in smurfing and they aren't a contra argument. You can't compare them with toxic people. If somebody is toxic, there is a clear reason behind it and there is no pefect system with 0 exceptions, but those exceptions would be the possible minimum, how I said, there is a diffrence between 1 year ban and perma ban that would reduce to almost 0 the toxicity.

Again, not really -- my point with the number of accounts is that MANY players, both toxic and non-toxic, have multiple accounts they play on. Banning one for a year isn't going to stop someone who really wants to be toxic -- they'll just bounce between accounts with no meaningful loss other than time.

Doubt this even more, this system is as good as you can get.

And that's my queue to leave. We're not having a discussion at this point if you're asking to have flaws pointed out, but aren't willing to admit that there may be some flaws in your suggestion. Have a good day.

FlamyMind1 votes

  1. Im asking for SYSTEM flaws, in the big picture. The "reasonable price" is a DETAIL and can't be discussed with you, you may think the price big or not, but that is clearly VARIABLE here and not that important if this system actually works.

  2. This is your last pointed out flaw, that some may create accounts over and over again, this is just a small minority I may say and nobody can deal with them, unles you will be able to ban their computers (that is my answer to this problem). so yeah. this was the last flaw....

so... "We're not having a discussion at this point if you're asking to have flaws pointed out, but aren't willing to admit that there may be some flaws in your suggestion." is pretty false. but sure, whatever you ran out of things to say.

Guojonjaich5 votes

[MOD EDIT: removed the inflammatory part that is unnecessary to your argument]

This would never work, is too convoluted, too complex, takes way too many resources, and wastes everybody's time.

FlamyMind1 votes

[deleted]

Guojonjaich2 votes

I do what I can.

FlamyMind1 votes

Ah, I see, lovely community.

Umbral Regent3 votes

Okay, this is...Not great. At all. There are a whole host of flaws and issues with the idea that can be pointed out.

First off, your proposed change to the system does not actively discourage bad behavior. Giving players however long to accrue however many reports - all the while, they're ruining however many player's matches with their misbehavior - the system you propose already fails in swiftly punishing people, and it sends the message "It's okay to flame and be toxic! Just play this one obvious bot match and watch a video for a free key fragment for being toxic!"

And that is a massive problem. A punishment system which doesn't actively discourage bad behavior is a bad system, and what's worse is you even propose that the video (first time through) gives players who watch it all the way through a key - that sets up the expectation that watching through any of those videos will get them free keys, and that is an expectation of rewarding bad behavior, which equates to a terrible system.

Second, your idea is senselessly complex with too many layers on it. "Person is toxic, doesn't get punished, until they get 'sneakily' matched into a bot match where bots will make excuses for bad play whenever addressed, and if the toxic player is toxic in that match, they get reviewed and given a score that arbitrarily determines a punishment - and they get to watch a video for a free key".

Why all of that BS and fluff when the system we have is so much quicker, cleaner, and simpler? If a person is toxic and gets reported, the IFS reviews their match, and if the player broke the rules, they get punished and stripped of Honor. Quick, clean, simple, and it discourages bad behavior while also not rewarding it in the same turn.

Third, you also propose a change to the type of punishments doled out, at least in one respect, which is changing the permaban to a full year ban. The whole point of the permaban is to tell players "your behavior does not line up with our code of conduct, and since you seem determined to ignore the rules, we can't have you in our game".

The point of the permaban is to show players why they shouldn't continuously break the rules - because they can lose everything they invested into that account if they don't shape up. It's a tangible loss that gives the player a reason to follow the rules.

If that was changed to a full year ban, with the permaban stage being removed, what does that tell players? "oh, just make an alt for a year and pay nothing so i can still play and keep all my skins and stuff." In other words - you're not discouraging toxicity. Which, again; not discouraging the behavior the punishment system is meant to punish makes it a bad system.

Fourth, removing the mute feature alongside this toxicity-enabling, slow, drawn out, overly complex process, is only going to make everyone's lives worse, because without the Mute feature, they now have to deal with all the toxicity other players can offer, while the system just waits for that toxic player to accrue whatever arbitrary amount of reports.

There is zero benefit to removing the mute feature, it's a defensive tool against toxicity, and all removing it would do is cause people to suffer. Do you really want people to suffer more from toxicity? 'Cause that's the message you're sending with "remove the mute feature".

Lastly, you're hinging expectations that the community at large is going to learn of the bot matches and try to abuse the system to psyche out toxic players and keep them from being toxic. To start with, that, plain and simple, will not work. There are going to be numerous players out there who won't even hear about it, and the number of players who do hear about it and decide to abuse its existence to trick toxic players would be very, very fucking small.

Let's not forget to mention the fact that the majority of the players who find out about the fake match system will only figure it out potentially weeks after the fact, since your proposed system doesn't move to quickly punish bad behavior, and the scant few people who hear about it and decide "maybe I could use this to my advantage if I just come up with bot-sounding responses?" will probably only do so a good while after hearing about it.

In other words, you're expecting people to either be super-smart and constantly up-to-date with things and have the intent to abuse systems against toxic players (which is a really fucking bad message to send, by the way), or suffer because you let toxicity get free reign.

I would go on, because there are also issues to be brought up regarding the idea's usage of bots, but I really don't want to jump on that train. Suffice it to say, the consequences of this system you propose would be disastrous.

FlamyMind1 votes

OK, finally someone that doesn't go into details. Sadly you didn't paid enough attention to what I said.

Let's make things clear.

  1. League's system or any other system is bad and doesn't work, there are still flamers (in chat or the way they are playing) so trying to counter my system with something that is far from being perfect is not right. And yeah, my system would work better than what they have one (I will clear your missunderstandings in the next points.
  2. I didn't create a PUNISHING system to deal with toxic players (aka every single system that tries to deal with toxicity), because its stupid, I'm trying to approach the problem in a humane way and help the toxic people change faster in "nice" players.
  3. A PERMANENT ban is worst than a 1 year ban, it pushes toxic players that just ignore that blank bot messages/warnings to make a new account and go on. A 1 year ban discourages making a new account. People would do it to play the game, they will lose the seasonal rewards on their main account (if you want to see it at a punishment), but if you already spend a big part of the 1 year ban leveling up your account and getting your favourite champions back ... its pretty pointless + This could be a 6 month ban to discourage even better, BUT WHAT I REALLY WANT TO SAY ABOUT IT, there will be other ban limits, from 1-5 or 1-10 levels (days, weeks, months), mostly the people who are really really hard to change will get that 1 year ban, the others will just wait(of course, there will be cases when they will still make new accounts, ok, a minority)
  4. This video will help the toxic people psychologically, im not a profesional to tell you what this video will contain, but it will be an important point in changing the person. Im not rewarding the play, im just telling him with that audio key that the VIDEO is IMPORTANT and its not a lifeless warning.
  5. This bot match can be triggered after 10000 reports or 1 report, I would say 5 reports, this would make a big impact in the first week, heck even in the first day. And people will start talking about it.
  6. You are saying that people would not know or use this "counter" for flamers, aka telling them an excuse for playing bad. I dont know about you, but in my 4400 hours in league and dota, I saw many people who actually said why they played bad, so EVEN if they they would be the only people to use it, they would not be a minority. + Muting is a disatvantage for you and your team (I Really hope you agree with this) and it will not be needed with this "counter", people aren't stupid, they will find out about the "counter" from forums or in their matches since most of them will start whining about the non existent mute option.

Oh and I forgot to say, muting is toxicity too, you don't know that? Both in real life or games, not only that you ignore the problem and play at a disatvantage, you doesn't help at resolving the toxicity problem either. And yeah, you can ignore them and play BETTER without their toxicity, but if the enemies are AT THE SAME LEVEL of skill as you and your team, their communication will DESTROY you. I hope you know that.

You know, there is a guide on youtube for dota made by a normal guy, he said something simple in dota style. "If you have a rtrd in your team, suck his dick, keep the moral up by prasing him like a child for every single good thing he does", yeah, if you want to win, even this is better than muting. The moral of a team is as important as their skill. 7. "the system we have is so much quicker, cleaner, and simpler", I already addressed to this, but if you still think this true... sad.

Umbral Regent2 votes

My supposed "misunderstandings" have yet to be cleared. All I see is someone who seems to think that his idea is the irrefutable best option in all the world.

It isn't.

  1. League's system does work, just because there's still flamers doesn't mean that the system doesn't work. Does the real-world law system not work because there are still criminals? I think not. Beyond that, just because a system has flaws doesn't mean it's a completely broken one. Your system in particular just happens to have many more debilitating flaws than the IFS.
  2. Toxicity needs to be discouraged and punished, not encouraged and "helped". Players aren't going to reform if your system gives them no good reason to, and unless you changed something in your pitch from the time I last read it, your system only rewards and encourages toxicity.
  3. No, a one-year ban won't discourage players from making a new account. There's no point in changing the punishment tiers that already work.
  4. The video will bore and annoy the toxic players. They're not going to come to some life-changing realization in a friggin' videogame. They're going to dismiss, ignore, or let the video run all the way through without watching it, because who in their right mind comes to League to watch videos for psychological help?
  5. Alternatively, we can just skip the bot match and have a player evaluated and potentially punished after just one. That sounds nice.
  6. I'm saying they'd learn about the "bot match" slowly, and that only a scant few people would actually do what you propose and abuse the system idea against flamers. Which, again, I cannot reiterate enough; If you design for a system with the intent for people to abuse it against others, your system, and the message you're sending to players, is bad. Your design and intent will only breed more toxicity, not "cure" it.
  7. Muting can be disadvantageous, but it can also be advantageous. The real disadvantage is having some jerk spending half the game flaming more than he does playing. And, no. Muting isn't toxic. There's no way in hell you're going to prove that it is.
  8. Yes, morale is important, but there's no reason you should laud or suck up to a toxic player. You mute them and ignore them and focus on keeping up the morale of the rest of your team.
  9. Hah, no. Not sad.

All said, it's clear you're not ever going to accept any point that doesn't say "(my) idea is genius and perfect and miles better than the IFS", so, this discussion's over.

FlamyMind1 votes

Here we go. If this is your "ending", I can already disprove your last point "Hah, no. Not sad.", sad, sad indeed. Expected more.

  1. League is still considered cancerous, all pvp are cancerous, but mobas really took it to another level and even if Dota is more toxic because people can freely pass from server to server, League is still considered the definition of salt and cancer. Yeah, A system is not broken or bad just because it has some people that break it, but sadly those people are too many. If your game is still considered cancer, you cant say your system to keep the cancer down is working. Sorry mate.

  2. You clearly don't know how humans work, this is an old fashioned way of thinking mostly used in communist countries... but of course its "perfect" in a game where people come to have fun... No. But Im not here to teach you about this.

  3. From the point 2 it's to be expected that you cant imagine how a ban like this would work, I already said everything that can be said about it. So, my point still stands, 1 year ban > perma ban encourage less for creating new accounts.

  4. You clrearly didn't understood this part and this is the most important part of my system. And I see this involves more talking, because you are just old fashioned, but, I'll not continue anymore, you clearly ignore/don't try enough and it doesn't worth to bring even more to the table.

  5. And that is stupid, even if that bot match isn't the main part of my system, it has a big role in getting the trust of the toxic player, my system has the best way to judge a player.

  6. This is a feature, its not abusing the system. I just decided to not tell them directly because it would have a bigger impact to the toxic players. This is made to ruin less matches before they get into the hidden match and who knows even stopping them.

  7. I'll put a little more information at this point even if you will not care/read: Of course I can prove muting is toxic. -you ignore the problem just to not get yourself affected, the flamer may or may not stop flaming if he sees that you don't repond, he will still not play at his full potential for the rest of the match. -so you don't solve the problem to preserve your and a chance to preserve your teamates at their full potential, but in the end, the enemy team has still more potential than you, with 5 players. When you have the chance to resolve the problem, but you don't, that is harmful. He might start trolling or he might start flaming somebody else when you could just resolve the problem by talking with him. Only pathetic people think ignorance is neutral, but I couldn't expect more after point 2.

Oh and of course muting is advantageous, you preserver your potential, but is still more disadvantageous, wanted to make this clear.

  1. "morale is important, but there's no reason you should laud or suck up to a toxic player." Ha, this was great. Just great. Good job. Of course you shouldn't try to resolve the problem because it requires too much implication, better do the other easier option . Good damn job.

  2. This time adressed to you, not to your replies like the last time... yeah, sad.

Still waiting for some good points that can affect the big picture or improve it. 'til now nobody was able to beat a "bed thought"... huh.

EL HAMSTERO2 votes

lol

YerroFever1 votes

This sounds like a request to remove permabans, ie actual consequences, from the punishment system.

People are allowed to make new accounts but if you've gotten to the point where Riot permabans, you, that's Riot's way of saying "get out and stay out."

First, not giving anyone warnings as to what behavior are in violation of the TOS and then doing a 1 year ban as their only form of punishment is quite draconian. People who complain that getting permabanned after getting chat restrictions and a temp ban is Draconian, having a FIRST punishment be a 1 year ban is going to be absurd.

Giving them warnings early on is a way to try and get people to recognize their negative behavior and stop it early on so they don't get accustomed to being toxic to the point where they have affected SO many games that they have pushed people out of LOL due to toxicity, that the 1 year ban becomes meaningless because in this free to play game, they have lost a LOT of potential sources of income (ie all of the players that played with this toxic person while accuring "a big amount of reports" and left because Riot took too long to get rid of toxic players) while letting one toxic player stay in the game without any punishments. This is just economically bad for Riot. Letting people stay toxic and accrue many reports before anything is done is just the epitome of bad business. Asking the community to tolerate toxicity is the same as telling the community that toxicity is not an issue.

Second, I don't see any benefit of this bot game you suggest. Not only has this suggestion allowed a toxic player to ruin "a big amount" of games already, you don't suggest any sort of remedy except for a 1 year ban. What are the other punishment levels? You say there is 1 (low toxicity) to 10 (high toxicity) scale but only talk about a 1 year punishment. Do you want NO punishments for anyone below the 1 year temp ban level or a graduated scale of punishments?

Third, the video is easily ignored. People can go afk and let the video run. When people get reform cards, they're being informed of what their bad behavior is and it is their choice to go to the forums or open a support ticket. So I don't see why a cookie cutter video about certain types of behaviors will actually help.

Fourth, people already know that they have the option to not type anything toxic. How does your suggestion make this any more salient to a toxic person?

Fifth, removing the mute button isn't a cure for toxic chat, it is a shield from toxic chat. You don't need to chat to communicate. You can ping. So what is the point of removing the mute button? I don't like seeing players call others slurs and get flamed and I mute it because it just makes me salty towards that player and gives me less motivation to help that toxic player, which ultimately is self defeating. At least if I'm ignorant to their further toxic chat, I'm still going to keep giving it my all to make sure we win rather than try to punish the toxic person by self sabotaging my own chances of winning. I have noticed that I tend to win more of the games I mute toxic players than I do when I leave toxic players unmuted. I don't know about others, but this is a pattern I have noticed within my own games. So can you explain to me why removing mute is actually better?

FlamyMind1 votes

You failed in many ways with your reply. Let me tell you why.

'This sounds like a request to remove permabans, ie actual consequences, from the punishment system.

People are allowed to make new accounts but if you've gotten to the point where Riot permabans, you, that's Riot's way of saying "get out and stay out."" ~ Perma bans are STUPID, how I said, those ENCOURAGE the toxic players to make a new account and go on flaming. This doesn't help the community, nor the FLAMER, nor the developers. The problem is still there just "ignored".

"First, not giving anyone warnings as to what behavior are in violation of the TOS and then doing a 1 year ban as their only form of punishment is quite draconian. People who complain that getting permabanned after getting chat restrictions and a temp ban is Draconian, having a FIRST punishment be a 1 year ban is going to be absurd.

Giving them warnings early on is a way to try and get people to recognize their negative behavior and stop it early on so they don't get accustomed to being toxic to the point where they have affected SO many games that they have pushed people out of LOL due to toxicity, that the 1 year ban becomes meaningless because in this free to play game, they have lost a LOT of potential sources of income (ie all of the players that played with this toxic person while accuring "a big amount of reports" and left because Riot took too long to get rid of toxic players) while letting one toxic player stay in the game without any punishments. This is just economically bad for Riot. Letting people stay toxic and accrue many reports before anything is done is just the epitome of bad business. Asking the community to tolerate toxicity is the same as telling the community that toxicity is not an issue."

~ Mate, I clearly said the developer can pick how many REPORTS will trigger the fake match. It may be 100 reports, it may be 5. This fake match would replace the first warning that LEAGUE has right now (the 2 weeks ban) and if somebody is THAT BAD to get a level 5 toxic level that will get him banned for 1 year, he worths it. And that VIDEO at the end is the key + dont forget about what I said at the end, about how people will be scared about this 1 year ban. you can miss a lot in 1 year.

"Second, I don't see any benefit of this bot game you suggest. Not only has this suggestion allowed a toxic player to ruin "a big amount" of games already, you don't suggest any sort of remedy except for a 1 year ban. What are the other punishment levels? You say there is 1 (low toxicity) to 10 (high toxicity) scale but only talk about a 1 year punishment. Do you want NO punishments for anyone below the 1 year temp ban level or a graduated scale of punishments?"

~ The time punishments between 1 and 5 or 1 and 10 may vary, ok lets put them now, second level - 2 days, third level 1 week, fourth level 2 weeks, fifth 1 month, sixth 2 months and so on. Doesn't really matter, those aren't set on stone since nobody gives a fuck about my idea.

DID YOU READ EVERYTHING I SAID? The main points that will cure toxicity will be the VIDEO that if done right, will help people get over their toxicity and the fear of not knowing if you are in the fake match or not.

"Third, the video is easily ignored. People can go afk and let the video run. When people get reform cards, they're being informed of what their bad behavior is and it is their choice to go to the forums or open a support ticket. So I don't see why a cookie cutter video about certain types of behaviors will actually help."

~Again, can you read mate? This video will contain in the AUDIO a key, unles they are god damn rich, okey, they will not give a fuck, ignore the video, not change, but they will keep getting that 1 year ban over and over again until they change. Again, you can get it even after 5 reports (depends what you want to set)

"Fourth, people already know that they have the option to not type anything toxic. How does your suggestion make this any more salient to a toxic person?"

~Because there is no immediate punishment, if you know that at the end of the current MATCH you may get a 1 month ban, you may think twich before you flame + that god damn video may give them some thoughts to become a better person + if they cant change they will get that highest ban over and over again or the lower bans, you got the idea.

"Fifth, removing the mute button isn't a cure for toxic chat, it is a shield from toxic chat. You don't need to chat to communicate. You can ping. So what is the point of removing the mute button? I don't like seeing players call others slurs and get flamed and I mute it because it just makes me salty towards that player and gives me less motivation to help that toxic player, which ultimately is self defeating. At least if I'm ignorant to their further toxic chat, I'm still going to keep giving it my all to make sure we win rather than try to punish the toxic person by self sabotaging my own chances of winning. I have noticed that I tend to win more of the games I mute toxic players than I do when I leave toxic players unmuted. I don't know about others, but this is a pattern I have noticed within my own games. So can you explain to me why removing mute is actually better?"

~Again mate AFTER THIS SYSTEM WILL BE PUT IN PRACTICE, PEOPLE WILL BE SCARED OF THIS FAKE MATCH, SCARED OF THE BANS, your "mute" will become the "TRIGGER" aka you will make an excuse for the flamer and copy the fake match, he will be scared of the outcome and be nice or just ignore you, THAT will be your new mute. If he doesn't care, next match or who knows when he will get the fake match and done.

YerroFever1 votes

{quoted}

You failed in many ways with your reply. Let me tell you why.

'This sounds like a request to remove permabans, ie actual consequences, from the punishment system.

People are allowed to make new accounts but if you've gotten to the point where Riot permabans, you, that's Riot's way of saying "get out and stay out."" ~ Perma bans are STUPID, how I said, those ENCOURAGE the toxic players to make a new account and go on flaming. This doesn't help the community, nor the FLAMER, nor the developers. The problem is still there just "ignored".

When people purchase the license to access skins and emotes and what not, rescinding that access is their punishment. All your suggestion does is encourage players to make side accounts and rotate through their accounts while they're being punished one after another. This means there is no actual consequence. This is a free to play game. You can make as many accounts as possible, permabanned or 1 year banned. However, the permaban actually gives you a real and permanent consequence for your action. The 1 year temp ban just says "you can't look pretty for 1 year." So please further explain why one year bans are more effective?

~ Mate, I clearly said the developer can pick how many REPORTS will trigger the fake match. It may be 100 reports, it may be 5. This fake match would replace the first warning that LEAGUE has right now (the 2 weeks ban) and if somebody is THAT BAD to get a level 5 toxic level that will get him banned for 1 year, he worths it. And that VIDEO at the end is the key + dont forget about what I said at the end, about how people will be scared about this 1 year ban. you can miss a lot in 1 year.

You can create a new account during that 1 year, just like how permabanned people can make new accounts within 1 year. How is this any more effective? You just flatly state that it is more effective without any reasoning. I am asking for you to EXPLAIN why you think it is more effective, not just tell me your opinion is superior to my opinion. Please EXPLAIN through logic and reasoning why your punishment system actually works.

~ The time punishments between 1 and 5 or 1 and 10 may vary, ok lets put them now, second level - 2 days, third level 1 week, fourth level 2 weeks, fifth 1 month, sixth 2 months and so on. Doesn't really matter, those aren't set on stone since nobody gives a fuck about my idea.

DID YOU READ EVERYTHING I SAID? The main points that will cure toxicity will be the VIDEO that if done right, will help people get over their toxicity and the fear of not knowing if you are in the fake match or not.

You say "if done right" but you don't actually explain how it is done right. You just flatly say that your suggestion will work but don't actually offer any logistical analysis to it. This is what I mean by you have to EXPLAIN why your suggestion works. WHY will the video work better than the current system?

~Again, can you read mate? This video will contain in the AUDIO a key, unles they are god damn rich, okey, they will not give a fuck, ignore the video, not change, but they will keep getting that 1 year ban over and over again until they change. Again, you can get it even after 5 reports (depends what you want to set)

All they have to do is wait for the audio key and then go AFK after they get the key. So again, please EXPLAIN why the video is better than the current system. You keep just saying it is better but don't explain why a video with a key is superior to the current reform card system.

~Because there is no immediate punishment, if you know that at the end of the current MATCH you may get a 1 month ban, you may think twich before you flame + that god damn video may give them some thoughts to become a better person + if they cant change they will get that highest ban over and over again or the lower bans, you got the idea.

So now you are actually stating there is a graduated system of punishments. However, you still don't actually explain your punishment system in full because you're just adding in details as people ask about them. So again, you need to EXPLAIN you punishment model, and then compare it to the current system, and EXPLAIN why yours is superior to the other because right now, all I see is "Mine is better because I say so" and that's being repeated in this reply over and over again. Compare facts, use logic, and make a reasonable assessment. Don't just keep spouting that your system is better by repeating what you stated in the original post. Your original post lacks analysis and you keep refusing to give it.

~Again mate AFTER THIS SYSTEM WILL BE PUT IN PRACTICE, PEOPLE WILL BE SCARED OF THIS FAKE MATCH, SCARED OF THE BANS, your "mute" will become the "TRIGGER" aka you will make an excuse for the flamer and copy the fake match, he will be scared of the outcome and be nice or just ignore you, THAT will be your new mute. If he doesn't care, next match or who knows when he will get the fake match and done.

People will not be scared of bans because the 1 year ban means they don't lose anything. They can create alternate accounts and then come back to their 1 year banned accounts with no consequence. So EXPLAIN why the 1 year ban is actually a more effective deterrent than the permaban.

FlamyMind1 votes

"When people purchase the license to access skins and emotes and what not, rescinding that access is their punishment. All your suggestion does is encourage players to make side accounts and rotate through their accounts while they're being punished one after another. This means there is no actual consequence. This is a free to play game. You can make as many accounts as possible, permabanned or 1 year banned. However, the permaban actually gives you a real and permanent consequence for your action. The 1 year temp ban just says "you can't look pretty for 1 year." So please further explain why one year bans are more effective?"

Funny, just think outside the box. Or maybe you never was perma banned, like me. When you get perma banned, there is nothing else to do, if you like the game you will instantly make a new account and never buy skins again then make them over and over again (lose money and still have the flamer). If you have a 1 year ban you KNOW that in 1 year you will get your account back with all yours skins, so you aren't pushed to make a new account, you may play something else until then, think about what you've done. Because it's pointless to make a new account just to play for 1 year when in the end you will get back to your old account. + Making new accounts it's kinda shitty right now, BUT I HAD TO 2 weeks ago because I wanted to check league again(after 2 years of not playing), so what league has now + this system would be perfect.

LEAGUE's SYSTEM is a PUNISHING my system. My SYTEM is HELPING in a HUMANE way the players, not just ignore them.

.... (reading, if I Ignore some of your points they are useless or already have a response)

"You say "if done right" but you don't actually explain how it is done right. You just flatly say that your suggestion will work but don't actually offer any logistical analysis to it. This is what I mean by you have to EXPLAIN why your suggestion works. WHY will the video work better than the current system?"

~ well mate, sorry but I didn't expect much from this community (As you can see), thats why I didn't get into much detail, Im not all knowing, as I said in the video, I know people can change and there are ways to change people by words. They will have to put serious money into making those "perfect" videos that will help the players change. So we have to do with that until they actually pay me to develop this idea.

"All they have to do is wait for the audio key and then go AFK after they get the key. So again, please EXPLAIN why the video is better than the current system. You keep just saying it is better but don't explain why a video with a key is superior to the current reform card system."

~ I already answered to half of this point, again, im not a psychiatrist, it it would be that easy to make those videos... you got the point (I hope) Again, IF DONE RIGHT, those videos will GET THE PLAYERS hooked before they get the key, to watch the rest of the video. So this key will give them time to get them HOOKED.

"So now you are actually stating there is a graduated system of punishments. However, you still don't actually explain your punishment system in full because you're just adding in details as people ask about them. So again, you need to EXPLAIN you punishment model, and then compare it to the current system, and EXPLAIN why yours is superior to the other because right now, all I see is "Mine is better because I say so" and that's being repeated in this reply over and over again. Compare facts, use logic, and make a reasonable assessment. Don't just keep spouting that your system is better by repeating what you stated in the original post. Your original post lacks analysis and you keep refusing to give it."

~ There were people who were whining there is too much information AND MOST PEOPLE that pointed out flaws didn't even read with attention because there is just too much information, if I would go into details it would be pointless, whatever you would miss them (you already missed some details), OF EVERYTHING I SAID ABOUT MY SYSTEM, those punishments times, aka on the toxicity level if its 1 day or 2 days or 3 days, doesn't matter, is still a pretty low ban limit, the point is to see the system as a hole and think a little about it.

"People will not be scared of bans because the 1 year ban means they don't lose anything. They can create alternate accounts and then come back to their 1 year banned accounts with no consequence. So EXPLAIN why the 1 year ban is actually a more effective deterrent than the permaban."

~ I Partially answered to this, but let me go a little more into it. 1 year ban - not being able to play into your league(atleast for a part of that year + in the end you will play just a little, then get back to your account), not being able to get your seasonal rewards (limited time icons, skins, etc) on your main account, not being able to paly with your favourite champions for a while, etc. And again, this 1 year ban, pushes you away from creating new accounts.

YerroFever2 votes

{quoted}

Funny, just think outside the box. Or maybe you never was perma banned, like me. When you get perma banned, there is nothing else to do, if you like the game you will instantly make a new account and never buy skins again then make them over and over again (lose money and still have the flamer). If you have a 1 year ban you KNOW that in 1 year you will get your account back with all yours skins, so you aren't pushed to make a new account, you may play something else until then, think about what you've done. Because it's pointless to make a new account just to play for 1 year when in the end you will get back to your old account. + Making new accounts it's kinda shitty right now, BUT I HAD TO 2 weeks ago because I wanted to check league again(after 2 years of not playing), so what league has now + this system would be perfect.

You are correct in that I have never been permabanned. However, you still actually don't acknowledge and refute the logical fallacy you created. You need to actually explain why it is pointless rather than just claim it is pointless. I will show you why explaining is much more powerful than just stating something as fact.

You said that if someone gets permabanned, if they like the game they'll make a new account BUT you ignore the fact that people can create rotating accounts for your 1 year punishment length. You say it is pointless but why is it pointless to create a new account for a 1 year ban? If you like the game, you can create an account to play for 1 year to hold you over until you get your old account back. Why is it it illogical for someone to invest in a temp account while they wait for their 1 year ban to expire? They will have a temporary restriction on who they play and how they look, just like a permaban does, but it actually takes away from the impact because there is an infinite chance of redemption. You can make 365 accounts, one for a 1 year ban for every day of the year. 356 if you want to account for leap year. So by allowing toxic players to avoid any real consequence of loss of investment, your system only encourages people having multiple accounts and being toxic on all of them because they can keep all of their rewards spread among all of their accounts.

Again, you are just STATING that it doesn't make sense but you don't address why it does make sense to create the alt account while they wait out their 1 year ban. Now, if you respond by stating that makes no sense, you have to explain why it makes no sense and show me why your stance has a stronger base than my stance. You don't convince me by just stating your opinion is right without actually substance.

LEAGUE's SYSTEM is a PUNISHING my system. My SYTEM is HELPING in a HUMANE way the players, not just ignore them.

.... (reading, if I Ignore some of your points they are useless or already have a response)

Actually, reiterating that you solely make claims without substantiation isn't pointless. It actually shows how often you do it and thus why you are unconvincing. What you are doing here is the equivalent of saying you have the cure for cancer but have no evidence, research, studies, etc... anything to substantiate that you have a claim for cancer. So, you should think about how your claims make sense by providing well reasoned analysis.

All punishment systems are meant to help the community. The question you bring up is whether it is "humane" or not. I would disagree with your characterization in that the purpose of the system is to punish. If the purpose of the system was to punish, there would be no chat restrictions or temp bans. It would be a draconian permaban every time.

Currently, it is quite a humane system where you are given lighter punishments for lighter offenses and given chances to reform. It is humane to both the offender and the community. You are given only so many chances to stop being toxic, and then you are given a harsh punishment to show you that your behavior is unacceptable.

If you get a 1 year ban max and you have rotating accounts, there is no harsh punishment as you get to keep all of the rewards and access to content spread among your multiple accounts. This is not humane to the community as you are giving toxic people ways to be toxic on a continuous and systematic basis with no end in sight.

~ well mate, sorry but I didn't expect much from this community (As you can see), thats why I didn't get into much detail, Im not all knowing, as I said in the video, I know people can change and there are ways to change people by words. They will have to put serious money into making those "perfect" videos that will help the players change. So we have to do with that until they actually pay me to develop this idea.

Why would someone pay you for claiming you can cure cancer without some amount of evidence, research, or studies? Same thing again. You just keep making claims, thus why I am so skeptical and critical of your suggestions. You have not demonstrated thought and analysis.

Again, IF DONE RIGHT, those videos will GET THE PLAYERS hooked before they get the key, to watch the rest of the video. So this key will give them time to get them HOOKED.

Again this is the same point over and over. Claim with no substantiation, analysis, or reason. If done right, players will get hooked before they get the key. This isn't an explanation at all, it's only an unsubstantiated claim. Where is the reason and logic that explains why they will get hooked?

~ There were people who were whining there is too much information AND MOST PEOPLE that pointed out flaws didn't even read with attention because there is just too much information, if I would go into details it would be pointless, whatever you would miss them (you already missed some details), OF EVERYTHING I SAID ABOUT MY SYSTEM, those punishments times, aka on the toxicity level if its 1 day or 2 days or 3 days, doesn't matter, is still a pretty low ban limit, the point is to see the system as a hole and think a little about it.

So I'm glad you're finally further explaining your system and why you think it will work. This is what I meant by that you initially gave no reasoning and only made unsubstantiated claims.

So your claim here was that giving no early warning systems is useful but didn't explain why.

You now explained it is useful because you see that people are complaining that the reform cards have too much info in them and that the feedback on the forums doesn't seem to be helpful (at least that is what I think you are trying to say).

You now further explain that there is a lower limit of 1 day temp ban and an upper limit of a 1 year ban and that the purpose of your reform system is to be a perpetual "time out" box for those who are offenders. Based on the prior "humane" statement, I think you are trying to say that you believe that this "time out" box is more "humane," however, this still begs the question, what stops people from creating multiple rotating accounts and continuing to be toxic all the time?

(I'm going to continue this point in reply to the last point you made)

~ I Partially answered to this, but let me go a little more into it. 1 year ban - not being able to play into your league(atleast for a part of that year + in the end you will play just a little, then get back to your account), not being able to get your seasonal rewards (limited time icons, skins, etc) on your main account, not being able to paly with your favourite champions for a while, etc. And again, this 1 year ban, pushes you away from creating new accounts.

So unfortunately here, the way you word things shows that you concede certain parts. The fact that you address a "main account" shows that you are expecting people to create rotating accounts, which means there really is no lasting punishment. You will have access to all the content just spread among several accounts. I argue this is an ineffective mode of punishment because it doesn't actually serve the purpose of specifically deterring toxic behavior in that person, nor does it serve the purpose of generally deterring toxic behavior in the community.

You contradicted yourself here and you basically proved yourself wrong by a slip of your tongue or fingers in this case. You keep claiming people won't create new accounts but you still state "main account" which is an admission that people will have alt accounts. So which is it? People have one account and will come back after a year or people will have a "main account" and alts to play in the mean time?

Having a perpetual time out system does not give me the impression that anyone has to take the system seriously. In fact, it gives me the impression that people can call the system a joke because there is no consequence to their actions, only an inconvenience. This doesn't deter anyone from being toxic because they know they can have their main account back within 1 year.

If you have a permaban, then it is an actual consequence and a strong one at that. It will deter you from being toxic on a new account, and it will deter others from being toxic because they saw you lose so much.

FlamyMind1 votes

Im done with replying to the exact parts, so I hope you will be able to make the connections.

  1. You have to realize that this isn't a discussion at a table in league's headquarters, I just presented this idea as simple as I could with the most important points. I don't intend to sell this idea to league, I just want to show there is an answer to this problem, even if it's not cheap nor easy at this time to create. You are asking for too many details that can be answered by me or you if you make a search or are things that can be answered by profestionals(then how I know some things are possible? Because I have a general Idea about them, but I can't go into detail). So yeah, you asked too much and ignored the big parts. I already saw what I wanted, this idea will not go anywhere on this forum, Im talking with you because I enjoy it.

  2. I consider toxic smurfs a minority and they is a simple way to "Beat" them ... but its just easy to say, hard to do, aka ban their pcs... until that would be possible (I hadly believe it myself) they will just remain a minority. And I consider them a minority because mostly people are toxic with one account. And huh, let me copy paste something: "1 year ban - not being able to play into your league(atleast for a part of that year + in the end you will play just a little, then get back to your account), not being able to get your seasonal rewards (limited time icons, skins, etc) on your main account, not being able to paly with your favourite champions for a while, etc. And again, this 1 year ban, pushes you away from creating new accounts." So my point still stands, this is still something to care about + you tried to much, smurfs have a "main account", I was talking about them and saying what they still miss if they play on a new account. Not talking about players in general(even if they lose the same thing).

  3. I don't consider league or any other system humane because they don't actually help the problem, they may think that, but thats just false. I got all my warnings in the first year when I started playing league, I got banned after 2 years without any warning for counterflaming, there was no human interaction with that tribunal, they just saw my curses said by me and done. There is no point in saying my example because this system wouldn't let me get even 1 warning since it will reduce the number of flamers considerably, it would give the power to make the flamer shut up. The humane parts in my system is the limited maximum ban; Humans analyzing the whole match, not just a little part of it like the tribunal or whats now; getting a video that actually helps the person get better faster. What I got from the perma ban from the tribunal? Nothing, just lost money. No impact on me. Actually it made me play only dota, that was nice.

  4. Huh, I think I missed some things, too tired to reread everything... tommorow Ill try to answer the rest.

YerroFever1 votes

{quoted}

Im done with replying to the exact parts, so I hope you will be able to make the connections.

1 You have to realize that this isn't a discussion at a table in league's headquarters, I just presented this idea as simple as I could with the most important points. I don't intend to sell this idea to league, I just want to show there is an answer to this problem, even if it's not cheap nor easy at this time to create. You are asking for too many details that can be answered by me or you if you make a search or are things that can be answered by profestionals(then how I know some things are possible? Because I have a general Idea about them, but I can't go into detail). So yeah, you asked too much and ignored the big parts. I already saw what I wanted, this idea will not go anywhere on this forum, Im talking with you because I enjoy it.

I'm not against alternative forms of punishment. I actually enjoy hearing new ideas because if we didn't hear new ideas, we wouldn't become better as a whole. The reason why I'm nit picking every detail is because if you can't convince me that your idea is better, how in the world will it convince Riot? Ultimately that's your goal right? You want your permabanned account back? I know I'm being a pain but I'm asking for the dialogue and asking for you to explain things because if you can show me the benefit, that means you can show the forum the benefit, which ultimately helps you in the end to get your point across.

2 I consider toxic smurfs a minority and they is a simple way to "Beat" them ... but its just easy to say, hard to do, aka ban their pcs... until that would be possible (I hadly believe it myself) they will just remain a minority. And I consider them a minority because mostly people are toxic with one account. And huh, let me copy paste something: "1 year ban - not being able to play into your league(atleast for a part of that year + in the end you will play just a little, then get back to your account), not being able to get your seasonal rewards (limited time icons, skins, etc) on your main account, not being able to paly with your favourite champions for a while, etc. And again, this 1 year ban, pushes you away from creating new accounts." So my point still stands, this is still something to care about + you tried to much, smurfs have a "main account", I was talking about them and saying what they still miss if they play on a new account. Not talking about players in general(even if they lose the same thing).

I think we're at a fundamental disagreement here in that our views of what we view as effective deterrence.

I understand that you feel like not having access to content for a year and not being able to earn it on a main account for that year is an effective deterrent, but I don't see it as a deterrent but just another method of obtaining everything across multiple accounts at an inconvenience and not as a deterrent.

We just disagree on our interpretation of how the average reasonable player views things.

This isn't something I think we'll be able to debate because neither of us have any sort of data to point to except our own personal reasoning.

3 I don't consider league or any other system humane because they don't actually help the problem, they may think that, but thats just false. I got all my warnings in the first year when I started playing league, I got banned after 2 years without any warning for counterflaming, there was no human interaction with that tribunal, they just saw my curses said by me and done. There is no point in saying my example because this system wouldn't let me get even 1 warning since it will reduce the number of flamers considerably, it would give the power to make the flamer shut up. The humane parts in my system is the limited maximum ban; Humans analyzing the whole match, not just a little part of it like the tribunal or whats now; getting a video that actually helps the person get better faster. What I got from the perma ban from the tribunal? Nothing, just lost money. No impact on me. Actually it made me play only dota, that was nice.

So you got your warnings in year 1 and then in year 2 you got permabanned. It looks like your permaban was 2 years ago on 9/7/2016 (US date format) or 7/9/2016 (Int. date format). I was around for the start and end of the Tribunal and the Tribunal ended in 2014. You got warned under the tail end of the tribunal system/probably mostly the new system and then got permabanned in the new system.

I think you are only looking at the humane aspect from the offenders point of view. I am looking at it in a grand view including the other players of LOL.

The impacts of the lower warnings are for your benefit. This is your chance to reform and stay in the community.

The permaban is for the community's benefit. This is Riot stating that overall it is better for the community that you are not a part of it.

4 Huh, I think I missed some things, too tired to reread everything... tommorow Ill try to answer the rest.

This is partially answered previously in that we have the disagreement in how we view how effective of a deterrent a 1 year ban is compared to the permaban (see point 2) and it basically looks like we have a fundamental disagreement on effectiveness.

FlamyMind1 votes

"I'm not against alternative forms of punishment. I actually enjoy hearing new ideas because if we didn't hear new ideas, we wouldn't become better as a whole. The reason why I'm nit picking every detail is because if you can't convince me that your idea is better, how in the world will it convince Riot? Ultimately that's your goal right? You want your permabanned account back? I know I'm being a pain but I'm asking for the dialogue and asking for you to explain things because if you can show me the benefit, that means you can show the forum the benefit, which ultimately helps you in the end to get your point across."

No mate, 2 nights ago, while I was trying to fall alseep I thought of this and said why not... and I wrote it down on a notepad. Since my friends didn't give 2 shits about it I tried to put it here first since dota doesn't have a forum like League. Next I will try reddit.

That perma ban made me play dota more and I realized how better it is. I got over my lost money... so yeah, I just posted this "for fun".

So don't make me go into details... it's not that fun.

"I think we're at a fundamental disagreement here in that our views of what we view as effective deterrence.

I understand that you feel like not having access to content for a year and not being able to earn it on a main account for that year is an effective deterrent, but I don't see it as a deterrent but just another method of obtaining everything across multiple accounts at an inconvenience and not as a deterrent.

We just disagree on our interpretation of how the average reasonable player views things.

This isn't something I think we'll be able to debate because neither of us have any sort of data to point to except our own personal reasoning."

Yeap. Let's leave it at that.

"So you got your warnings in year 1 and then in year 2 you got permabanned."

Started in the summer of 2013. Got 1-2 warnings/bans then + in 2014. Got my perma ban in 2016 after a 14 day ban.

"I think you are only looking at the humane aspect from the offenders point of view. I am looking at it in a grand view including the other players of LOL."

Yeah because thats the only way to solve toxicity, to actually care about the toxic players not just trow them away, that doesn't work. 2 weeks ago I made a new account to try league again, first day I played a few matches, I was surprised, no flamers. Second and third day... my dream crushed, everything was like before. Day forth, after all those matches with flamers I started to think the punishments are "as easy as before" so I cursed in counterflaming in 1 match, got 14 day ban and uninstalled... the thing is, the system is easly triggered by curses, but the "passive agressive" players don't really trigger it. And you can easly flame without curses.

If there would be THAT easy, to just trow away the flamers, sure, but no.

YerroFever1 votes

{quoted} "I think you are only looking at the humane aspect from the offenders point of view. I am looking at it in a grand view including the other players of LOL."

Yeah because thats the only way to solve toxicity, to actually care about the toxic players not just trow them away, that doesn't work. 2 weeks ago I made a new account to try league again, first day I played a few matches, I was surprised, no flamers. Second and third day... my dream crushed, everything was like before. Day forth, after all those matches with flamers I started to think the punishments are "as easy as before" so I cursed in counterflaming in 1 match, got 14 day ban and uninstalled... the thing is, the system is easly triggered by curses, but the "passive agressive" players don't really trigger it. And you can easly flame without curses.

If there would be THAT easy, to just trow away the flamers, sure, but no.

Everything else is a mutually agreed upon thing so I'm not going to address them. I am going to address this portion though

The link below is from the old days regarding the tribunal and how it started and an analysis of player behavior:

http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2411284

I find this portion quite interesting based on the statement that you think solving toxicity involves treating toxic players with compassion and giving them more chances to reform.

**Why can’t you give permanent banned players a second chance? You will receive a better player. ** Actually, this is the unfortunate problem. Allowing permanently banned players another chance is an extremely damaging cost. Do you know what the success rate of the Level 20 Challenge was? 5%. Do you know that for each person, they clearly outlined the toxic behaviors and had 1 on 1 conversations with the players to try to improve their behavior? These are players that were hand-picked by Player Support staff because they felt the pleas from these players were genuine. The success rate was still 5%.

Do you know how many games on average these players played? 100 games / month. When a permanently banned player fails to reform, they are creating miserable experiences for hundreds, maybe thousands of players a month. That's not a cheap cost or a low risk and we cannot consciously justify that, for the sake of the rest of our players.

Riot tried treating them like people. Treating them like people only showed a 5% reform rate. If you read earlier in the thread, you'll see that they have gotten multiple chances prior to their permaban as the permaban isn't the first and only punishment.

I've seen many chat logs and passive aggressive chat does trigger it, and so does sarcasm. You'll see players desperately disagree with the forums that their chat isn't passive aggressive, but then when the player explains the situation, the forum almost unanimously agrees that it is passive aggressive or sarcastic.

FlamyMind1 votes

FOR: "Why can’t you give permanent banned players a second chance? You will receive a better player. Actually, this is the unfortunate problem. Allowing permanently banned players another chance is an extremely damaging cost. Do you know what the success rate of the Level 20 Challenge was? 5%. Do you know that for each person, they clearly outlined the toxic behaviors and had 1 on 1 conversations with the players to try to improve their behavior? These are players that were hand-picked by Player Support staff because they felt the pleas from these players were genuine. The success rate was still 5%.

Do you know how many games on average these players played? 100 games / month. When a permanently banned player fails to reform, they are creating miserable experiences for hundreds, maybe thousands of players a month. That's not a cheap cost or a low risk and we cannot consciously justify that, for the sake of the rest of our players."

(I would love to know the details of this experiment, aka how many people joined it, from what countries, after how much time after their ban)

  1. This experiment took place in an already broken system.
  2. This system doesn't help anyone, it's not like they tried to solve their toxicity before this chance, they just wanted to see if they can hold toxic behaviour to take their account back.
  3. The candidates for this experiment made an obvious result before the test began "surprise surprise, somebody who already got over the warnings and bans with flamings... will still flame after a period of time when nothing else influences them".
  4. They called this... bs experiment "Reforming" REFORMING while it DOES 0 CHANGES TO THOSE PEOPLE AND THE SYSTEM. This experiment doesn't change anything in their mentality, just that they have "one more chance" in a toxic game, mate.. this is a joke, a bad joke, and people use this joke as an argument.
  5. "Riot tried treating them like people. Treating them like people only showed a 5% reform rate." No, they just wanted another CHEAP way to get people back or "BE NICE" while doing nothing.

What they thought: The warnings and little bans are inefective, surely after they see how shit live is without their account and they money gone they will keep their mouth shut. Or they magically thought people become nicer after a DOOR is shut in their faces? A joke. I can talk more over it if you still have thing to say.

Yeah, the best part from everything they said about tribunal:

"We know that there is a small percentage of players that will never change their attitudes, and will always be toxic in every single game they play. The Tribunal is designed to remove these players from the game and will continue to ban them aggressively until they stop playing League of Legends.

However, there is also a percentage of players that currently behave poorly, but with the Reform Cards from the Tribunal will learn what they need to change to avoid being punished by the Tribunal. In NA and EU, up to 50% of players that are punished actually change their behaviors because of the Reform Cards and are not punished again. I am hopeful that the Taiwan community can show even bigger improvement and together make even bigger changes in the Taiwan community."

More specific, the first paragraph. "WE KNOW there is a small percentage of PLAYERS that will NEVER CHANGE THEIR ATTITUDES"... thats a good joke. They should have said those people are too hard to change for a cheap system like ours and don't worth our funds... but hey. Good thing those people already left their make on the community. League still holding the second place on the most toxic games list.

I bet a part of the same people who worked on this made the new "lovely" system that still does nothing.

If "I've seen many chat logs and passive aggressive chat does trigger it, and so does sarcasm. You'll see players desperately disagree with the forums that their chat isn't passive aggressive, but then when the player explains the situation, the forum almost unanimously agrees that it is passive aggressive or sarcastic." Then damn, I was just unlucky to get alteast 1 person like them every single match after the first few clean matches.

YerroFever1 votes

{quoted}

(I would love to know the details of this experiment, aka how many people joined it, from what countries, after how much time after their ban)

That would be nice to know. Ask Riot and maybe they'll give you the data?

1 . This experiment took place in an already broken system.

Your first point is solely based on the premise that permabans don't work so this point is actually null. It means nothing because you're presuming your system works. This is a fundamental disagreement that we are not going to get over based on how you debate things. You won't yield the possibility that your premise might be incorrect because it is the sole basis of your whole opinion.

2 . This system doesn't help anyone, it's not like they tried to solve their toxicity before this chance, they just wanted to see if they can hold toxic behaviour to take their account back.

You're doing it again where all you are doing is claiming things without explaining it. Explain how Riot wasn't trying to solve toxicity. Because all you're doing is just spinning a conspiracy theory. You have claims but no substance to back up what you say.

Currently based on what you have said, there are temp bans ranging from 1 day to 364 days. On the 365 day ban, you get the videos that address the types of behaviors you did that got you banned and then you have to enter a key to show that you watched the videos.

How is your system better? Again, if you can't explain why videos about behavior is BETTER than 1 on 1 personalized consultations on a person's specific behavior, then you're not showing any critical thought.

3 . The candidates for this experiment made an obvious result before the test began "surprise surprise, somebody who already got over the warnings and bans with flamings... will still flame after a period of time when nothing else influences them".

This is going to be the same for people who get punished under your system as well. People who ignore 1 day bans, 2 day bans, 3 day bans, etc... for their lesser punishments and then get escalated to a 1 y ear ban, they're going to be the SAME EXACT PEOPLE as the ones who ignored all of the previous warnings in Riot's test.

Explain to me how your system is different than what Riot tried?

4 . They called this... bs experiment "Reforming" REFORMING while it DOES 0 CHANGES TO THOSE PEOPLE AND THE SYSTEM. This experiment doesn't change anything in their mentality, just that they have "one more chance" in a toxic game, mate.. this is a joke, a bad joke, and people use this joke as an argument.

How is it a joke? They gave them 1 on 1 consultations and gave feedback on their specific infractions and suggestions on how to not be toxic and then gave them a test 20 levels to see if they could be positive players for 20 levels.

Explain why this methodology is invalid compared to your punishment model.

5 . No, they just wanted another CHEAP way to get people back or "BE NICE" while doing nothing.

What they thought: The warnings and little bans are inefective, surely after they see how shit live is without their account and they money gone they will keep their mouth shut. Or they magically thought people become nicer after a DOOR is shut in their faces? A joke. I can talk more over it if you still have thing to say.

From my perspective, Riot put more effort into trying to reform players than you outlined in your description of your punishment model.

Based on what you said, the only reason you believe your system works better is because you think it will work better despite admitting that temp bans don't work and also more personalized information about a ban doesn't work.

Even when Riot offered to let people have their accounts back IF they reformed(which is the same as making their permaban into a temp ban)... it had a 5% success rate.

These were the two points of your reform: Temp bans work and permaban's don't and personalized reform information through videos with some passkey.

Unfortunately, it sounds like you didn't really read through all of the post to see the details but it wasn't just one chance, it was 20 levels worth of chances and 95% of the toxic players stayed toxic. This is basically the same thing of giving them 20 levels worth of games before giving them another 1 year temp ban. But you actually conceded in point 2 that smaller punishments don't work.

After seeing you admit your whole system doesn't work, I really can't see anything useful coming out of anything further because they tried your system and it failed but you're saying your particular system is different when in actuality, your own description of your system was already tried in the previous tribunal.

More specific, the first paragraph. "WE KNOW there is a small percentage of PLAYERS that will NEVER CHANGE THEIR ATTITUDES"... thats a good joke. They should have said those people are too hard to change for a cheap system like ours and don't worth our funds... but hey. Good thing those people already left their make on the community. League still holding the second place on the most toxic games list.

The system you described in a previous post of having temp bans scaling on the severity, was already used. A more personalized system of reform was tried and failed. You admitted that both Riot's attempt failed.

The only thing you can claim is that "they didn't do it right" which is basically quoting you from a previous reply.

If you can't suggest how to do it right, you really have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

This idea should just be put to rest because you're suggesting something that has already been done, but don't suggest any ways to improve it but claim it works better than the current system when you actually have conceded it wouldn't.

I bet a part of the same people who worked on this made the new "lovely" system that still does nothing.

If "I've seen many chat logs and passive aggressive chat does trigger it, and so does sarcasm. You'll see players desperately disagree with the forums that their chat isn't passive aggressive, but then when the player explains the situation, the forum almost unanimously agrees that it is passive aggressive or sarcastic." Then damn, I was just unlucky to get alteast 1 person like them every single match after the first few clean matches.

In my personal experience, 1-29 are a lot worse than 30+. I have a smurf I play with my new friend and the games are significantly more toxic than my 30+ on my normal account.

I am guessing that it's because the 1-29 accounts are new, bots, or permabanned toxic players starting over after a permaban.

Based on personal experience in trying to help my friend learn how to play league using a smurf account, I believe Riot's statements that 95% of toxic players remained toxic and only 5% reformed.

FlamyMind1 votes

After you answered to my 5 points, I see that you keep thinking my "bans" are VERY important to my system. No. They just help it (aka give time to people to change) and keep away the people who can't be changed by THE SYSTEM.

------>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To clear something important, my bans actually help them because they come with that video and those bans are accorded more corectly <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<------------

I put them in a "safe place" (the fake match) where they cant excuse their toxicity on bad behaviour of bad players, the whole match being watched by paid people who would actually lose something if they abuse their power, not like in the old tribunal. After that they get a video that is the MAIN part of helping the players recover, THATS WHY I GAVE SO MUCH ATENTION TO IT, if this doesn't work, there is nothing else to do. That video is the main part, dont ask me anything about it, but I know it can be made.

Their system is around BANS and WARNINGS, THE BANS are ignored until the punishment, they didn't make anything special about them TO DRAW attention or what they contain. They are empty and pointless. Yeah, im toxic, good to know, now let me continue. The bans, same thing, let me wait a few days then go back to my account and flame more. I said THOSE things don't help the player become a "Better person". The permanent ban just shuts a door in your face, yeah, it may have the impact to change the player in better, to not lose things anymore, but in most cases, punishments like this just anger the play without doing anything, even making them worse. Unlike my system, I dont give them empty warnings and then shut the door after doing NOTHING to improve their behaviour.

Ok then, let's talk about that "joke" again. The experiment took place in an already broken system and TOXIC game*. Their system with their empty bans and warnings don't improve the player, only perma ban has a little a chance to change the player (and you can see in their experiment, it doesn't work, only for 5% or less, we don't know how many got banned after a few months). ----->>> this experiment doesn't show it doesn't worth to help toxic players, it shows how bad and useless is their punishment system.

"They gave them 1 on 1 consultations and gave feedback on their specific infractions and suggestions on how to not be toxic and then gave them a test 20 levels to see if they could be positive players for 20 levels." 1 on 1 consulations, that would make me think it was a small number of people, if it would have larger, then they would have had shitty consultations, done by proffesionals? Because this video may be like their 1 on 1 consultations, but done way better with more money put in it since is the main point of the system, but until you come with more details about this, it's a joke for me, like my system is a joke for you without details. If they actually did consultations (they sound bad from your description) maybe they actually tried something, but only if it was on a pretty large scale and with GOOD consultations.

Oh and funny how they say the flamers interacted with many people and done worse(for the community) just because THEY wanted the test to be longer, not to end at the first flaming. And if they refer to toxic people outside the game, thats just stupid.

YerroFever1 votes

{quoted}

After you answered to my 5 points, I see that you keep thinking my "bans" are VERY important to my system. No. They just help it (aka give time to people to change) and keep away the people who can't be changed by THE SYSTEM.

How are they kept away? They're free to play alts until their main gets unbanned.

Are you saying that your 1 year permaban is actually irrelevant to your suggestion?

------>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To clear something important, my bans actually help them because they come with that video and those bans are accorded more corectly <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<------------

I put them in a "safe place" (the fake match) where they cant excuse their toxicity on bad behaviour of bad players, the whole match being watched by paid people who would actually lose something if they abuse their power, not like in the old tribunal. After that they get a video that is the MAIN part of helping the players recover, THATS WHY I GAVE SO MUCH ATENTION TO IT, if this doesn't work, there is nothing else to do. That video is the main part, dont ask me anything about it, but I know it can be made.

I am guessing you haven't lurked on the forums enough to know that player support has reviewed replays of games. Tantram himself has stated he's done it and he's even pointed out very specific instances in certain games that he's watched and called people out on the forums and smited them with descriptions of what happened in those matches.

Their system is around BANS and WARNINGS, THE BANS are ignored until the punishment, they didn't make anything special about them TO DRAW attention or what they contain. They are empty and pointless. Yeah, im toxic, good to know, now let me continue. The bans, same thing, let me wait a few days then go back to my account and flame more. I said THOSE things don't help the player become a "Better person". The permanent ban just shuts a door in your face, yeah, it may have the impact to change the player in better, to not lose things anymore, but in most cases, punishments like this just anger the play without doing anything, even making them worse. Unlike my system, I dont give them empty warnings and then shut the door after doing NOTHING to improve their behaviour.

To my recollection, pre-tribunal punishments were doled out without explanations. You would just get a notice that you have been chat restricted.

Tribunal punishments came with links to your tribunal card (the one where we as the tribunal members had to read before voting punish or do not punish) which did contain the chat logs of those games.

Post tribunal, the reform card still comes with the text of matches but only up to 3 of the most recent ones that triggered the punishment.

If you failed to check your email and read why you got punished, then that's really a criticism about the mode of disseminating information and not that the tribunal punishments were "empty" as you say.

Ok then, let's talk about that "joke" again. The experiment took place in an already broken system and TOXIC game*. Their system with their empty bans and warnings don't improve the player, only perma ban has a little a chance to change the player (and you can see in their experiment, it doesn't work, only for 5% or less, we don't know how many got banned after a few months). ----->>> this experiment doesn't show it doesn't worth to help toxic players, it shows how bad and useless is their punishment system.

Again, the punishments given by the tribunal had the tribunal links that showed you the cards which the tribunal members (I was one of them and I went through cases every day I could) and so you could see what I saw when I voted to punish.

Calling it empty sounds like you're talking about punishments with no information, which is an information dissemination problem.

1 on 1 consulations, that would make me think it was a small number of people, if it would have larger, then they would have had shitty consultations, done by proffesionals? Because this video may be like their 1 on 1 consultations, but done way better with more money put in it since is the main point of the system, but until you come with more details about this, it's a joke for me, like my system is a joke for you without details. If they actually did consultations (they sound bad from your description) maybe they actually tried something, but only if it was on a pretty large scale and with GOOD consultations.

Oh and funny how they say the flamers interacted with many people and done worse(for the community) just because THEY wanted the test to be longer, not to end at the first flaming. And if they refer to toxic people outside the game, thats just stupid.

You are also presuming the pool size, which neither of us know at the moment, and neither of us know the credentials of the people in their player behavior specialists roles.

You are creating new requirements as this conversation is going along. Are you requiring someone with specific professional credentials be the ones who create your videos?

You keep talking about how they want cheap things or didn't put enough money into it... Why is it that your requirement is that Riot must dump more money into R&D? Riot is still a for profit company and they have to use their money efficiently. They don't have an unlimited amount of money to just dump into a specific aspect of the game if that aspect doesn't return money.

What is best for the community is to prevent people from becoming toxic so that they don't have to be permabanned, so this is what they spend their money on now.

They tried to sink money into rehabilitating hyper toxic players but they found that it had a 5% return. Would you spend $100 on something you only get $5 worth of benefit from? Wouldn't you spend $100 on something you get something closer to $100 worth of benefit from?

FlamyMind1 votes

Lovely.

You made a great missunderstanding(funny because I WAS SO DAMN CLEAR) , by "empty" warnings and punishments I don't mean the lack of information that comes with them, im saying those are just lifeless/cold texts that ASK to be ignored and don't do anything helpful.

"You are creating new requirements as this conversation is going along. Are you requiring someone with specific professional credentials be the ones who create your videos?", of course? That was pretty obvious. I would not pay a guy on the street to tell them "be nice".

"You keep talking about how they want cheap things or didn't put enough money into it" Im just stating the reality, all their systems and experiments were CHEAP, saying that they ARENT CHEAP is hipocritic. OF COURSE they would not invenst more money to do the job right, they are a company.

"They tried to sink money into rehabilitating hyper toxic players but they found that it had a 5% return. Would you spend $100 on something you only get $5 worth of benefit from? Wouldn't you spend $100 on something you get something closer to $100 worth of benefit from?"

This starts to be boring, doing something cheap in an already cheap system would result, logic, a cheap benefit. So they should make a better system then maybe that cheap "thing" would have a better benefit.

YerroFever1 votes

{quoted}

Lovely.

You made a great missunderstanding(funny because I WAS SO DAMN CLEAR) , by "empty" warnings and punishments I don't mean the lack of information that comes with them, im saying those are just lifeless/cold texts that ASK to be ignored and don't do anything helpful.

Actually you weren't clear. What you believe to be clear isn't... and it's pretty apparent based on reading other comments and your replies. Maybe you need to work on clarity of expression and drop some of your snarky attitude?

So calling something empty is the same thing as asking to be ignored? This may be a lost in translation thing between EUNE and NA, but empty typically means devoid of substance or lacking the ability to follow through in NA when it comes to describing words. Like an empty apology is one where it actually isn't an apology and is just words with no substance behind it or an empty threat where there's no ability to follow through with that threat.

"You are creating new requirements as this conversation is going along. Are you requiring someone with specific professional credentials be the ones who create your videos?", of course? That was pretty obvious. I would not pay a guy on the street to tell them "be nice".

So now you are trying to ask Riot to go into the therapy field. This isn't a gaming company's job. It is YOUR job as a human being to seek out therapy YOURSELF to improve yourself. Why is it a gaming company's duty to take on the mental well being of the general population? Just because you consume their product, doesn't mean they owe you any duty or obligation outside of that product itself.

Toxicity doesn't come from the game itself. LOL doesn't require you to be toxic to win. Toxicity comes from the player's inability to handle a situation in a pro social way. The PLAYER is at fault for being toxic, not Riot.

"You keep talking about how they want cheap things or didn't put enough money into it" Im just stating the reality, all their systems and experiments were CHEAP, saying that they ARENT CHEAP is hipocritic. OF COURSE they would not invenst more money to do the job right, they are a company.

This is just an absurd statement. How is saying a company isn't cheap hypocritical? There are companies that invest money properly into their products and companies that cut corners. Not all companies cut corners.

You subjectively believe they are cutting corners because you make tons of assumptions on what happened in the past. You are making snap judgments because of your personal stake in this rather than trying to look at it from an objective point of view.

"They tried to sink money into rehabilitating hyper toxic players but they found that it had a 5% return. Would you spend $100 on something you only get $5 worth of benefit from? Wouldn't you spend $100 on something you get something closer to $100 worth of benefit from?"

This starts to be boring, doing something cheap in an already cheap system would result, logic, a cheap benefit. So they should make a better system then maybe that cheap "thing" would have a better benefit.

There is no more benefit from actually trying to have a discussion with you as you don't use logic or reasoning in anything you are saying anymore. All you do is make assumptions and then state your opinion as if it were fact.

I've wasted time and energy trying to get a dialogue with critical thought on what a possible new solution was but you aren't open to actually having to critically think.

You just want to kick and scream that their system is broken and pound the table and state your system is better without any logic or reasoning.

RallerenP1 votes

A couple of points (& TL;DR at the bottom)

  • Bots arent convincing.

After a "toxic player" gets a big amount of reports (the developers can pick whatever number they want, not important), this player will be matched, no matter what he picks (ranked or nomal or any other mode) with a "fake real match", in this match he will play with bots vs bots. Those bots will have credible nick names and will play credible (no matter what he picks). 1-2 bots will play bad from the start, if the "toxic player" starts flaming (on the chat OR by harrasing them in the game) the bots will respond with an excuse for playing bad "Sorry man, im tired" / "I want to practice more with this hero/champion". No matter what he will be his answer(good or bad), the bots will keep playing bad until the end of the match. Based on what he does AFTER the bots tell him their excuse, he will get a "Toxic level".

Good luck creating an AI that is convincing enough to fool a human.

Let's start with chat: For this to be convincing enough to work the AI would have to understand and process (to a limit) natural language. It's not something you 'just' program. You might know about the Turing test. It's a test for AI to see how convincing it is. All it has to do is hold a conversation with a human without the human figuring out it's an AI. To this day not a single AI has ever passed the turing test (more sources at the bottom of the link.)

Though it could be feasible due to the not-so-chatty nature of league to work well enough but it would still take up alot of resources that could be spent elsewhere.

The real problem is gameplay: You would have to make an AI that can realistically simulate all elo's or the player would know what's up. Again this is something you don't just program. Making an AI that can do that would take YEARS and millions of dollars of research to do, and even then it might not be possible with the technology we currently have.

  • Having people review reports is ridiculous

Toxic levels will be accorded by PEOPLE (it may be possible to be done by bots, but not cheap or not good enough), people who will watch this match, NOT only the chat (people can be toxic by playing in some ways, not only flaming in the chat), those levels can be from 1(low toxicity level) to 5 or 10 (high toxicity level).

We once had a system called the tribunal, and this was the idea behind it:

Since the developers wouldn't be able to keep up with the growing community (and growing amount of reports to review), they had to do something. The solution was having the community vote on punishing a player, or not punishing a players. They were able to see the full chat logs from the games of the player being reviewed. On paper this is a great idea.

In reality: Not so much.

As the tribunal grew older the amount of players participating in it fell, and those left just pressed the punish button without actually reviewing anything. Meanwhile the amount of reports grew and it could take months to get a person punished.

Riot shut down the tribunal and released the IFS instead. The IFS took data from the tribunal, Riot, and it continues taking data from the reports being made right now. It's all fed into an algorithm which proved to be really great. It had 2 major advantages: It was really fast, it was consistent (It doesn't have biases like humans do.)

  • People don't change

After the match ends, depending on his toxic levels he may be punished. The maximum toxicity level should have as punishment 1 YEAR ban (people change, it does even worse to ban somebody forever, it would encourage them to make a new account, not to take a pause and think a little about their toxicity);The lowest toxicity level will not have any punishment.

Statistically, people don't change. There was a experiment Riot where if you could get a new account to level 20 without getting sent to tribunal, you would get your account back. It had a 95% failure rate. People went back to ruin games.

If you'd truly changed you'd know exactly why you deserve to have the permabanned account stay like that. If you can't see it, then you havent actually changed for the sake of being nicer. You changed to try and gain something from it.

  • People don't change (part 2)

Every single person, after they finish their match, banned or not, will have to watch a video (made for their toxicity level, by profesionals, not just an avarage Joe that says "be nice"), a video that tries to adress their problem and help them, im not an expert, but I know people can change, faster or slower. This video can't be closed and can't be skipped. You have to watch all of it to be able to play more (even if you close the game and open it again). And to be even more cautios, at a random time in the video, it will be told a KEY for a skin/item (to make them listen. And it will work 1 time{So that people dont flame just to get free items/skins}).

If the punishments didn't get people to not flame, nothing will. They wont care WHO tells them to be nice. People can change, but they have to do it themselves.

Also don't reward players for flaming. If anything they key should be for avoiding having all their accounts instantly permabanned. (Still only works one time.)

  • Bots arent convincing - the sequel

THE BIGGEST IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY: After this system will be put in place and after the first bans, people will know about "this tricky match", but they will not be able to know if they are in this match or not, only IF somebody says an excuse for playing bad. So, here is the catch, if somebody gets a flamer in their team, they can shut his mouth and not be at a communication disatvantage by simply saying an excuse for playing bad (true or not), that guy will be scared and will try to be nice... or just shut up and let everyone keep trying to win.

So if the bots should work they need to have natural language processing (something that doesn't really work with the current technology).

Otherwise the real players trying to trick toxic people will have to be completely silent, and not make any plays only a human would.

  • SILENCE!

~I'd say the option to mute other players should be removed, because muting other players it's the same as having a toxic player, you still have a communication disatvantage.

I'm not putting anyone at a disadvantage by muting them, and if even I i were it'd their own fault.

I can still see their pings.

  • The long awaited summary and TL;DR

This system is waaaaaay to complex to ever work.

The problem isn't that toxic people aren't scared of the punishments, it's that they think they'll never recieve one, or they don't care.

This wouldn't be a solution for that.

FlamyMind1 votes

Damn, finally somebody that tries to point out my flaws. But still not enough. Let me tell you why. But FIRST, some information about me: I played from season 3 until season 6, then got banned for counterflaming(funny how they have the nerve to counter counterflamers because they arent able to ban the flamers themselves, but thats other discussion, please dont answer to this part), I know about the tribunal, I know about the experiment with "make a new account to level 20".... I know that somebody new wouldn't know, so thats that.

"Good luck creating an AI that is convincing enough to fool a human." You answered yourself ----> "Though it could be feasible due to the not-so-chatty nature of league to work well enough but it would still take up alot of resources that could be spent elsewhere."

And of course, if it's not possible to create that ai (I REALLY doubt it in a few years), hire humans, WAY MORE EXPENSIVE, of course, but this is my answer.

"Having people review reports is ridiculous" There is a diffrence between HIRED PEOPLE and avarage joes that could get you banned because they have a bad day. those people would earn their status by being nice, they would have nothing to lose if they would abuse the system. So my answer? Hire PROFFESIONALS make CLEAR rules about it and let the player check for himself the results. Tribunal was worse because they checked only YOUR CHAT, not the game, not the whole chat, while playing vs shitty people, my system would be better because it would be in a safe "place" where you have no excuses for flaming.

"People don't change" You did a VERY BOLD and STUPID statement. People DO change, guess why we put people in prison and not a bullet in their head? Because that, because we can repair them and make them useful for society again. And ill not even respond to your examples and try to counter them, its just too stupid to argue over, people change, sane people know that.

"If the punishments didn't get people to not flame, nothing will. They wont care WHO tells them to be nice. People can change, but they have to do it themselves." ~ You clearly don't know about how humans work, don't think in a GAME perspective, there is a real world too.

"Also don't reward players for flaming. If anything they key should be for avoiding having all their accounts instantly permabanned. (Still only works one time.)" ~ I have to go over this again... or not... let me find one of my answers....----> "Funny, just think outside the box. Or maybe you never was perma banned, like me. When you get perma banned, there is nothing else to do, if you like the game you will instantly make a new account and never buy skins again then make them over and over again (lose money and still have the flamer). If you have a 1 year ban you KNOW that in 1 year you will get your account back with all yours skins, so you aren't pushed to make a new account, you may play something else until then, think about what you've done. Because it's pointless to make a new account just to play for 1 year when in the end you will get back to your old account. + Making new accounts it's kinda shitty right now, BUT I HAD TO 2 weeks ago because I wanted to check league again(after 2 years of not playing), so what league has now + this system would be perfect.

LEAGUE's SYSTEM is a PUNISHING my system. My SYTEM is HELPING in a HUMANE way the players, not just ignore them."

"I'm not putting anyone at a disadvantage by muting them, and if even I i were it'd their own fault.

I can still see their pings." ~ Oh right? Are you sure? I just have only 2600 hours in league and 1900 hours in dota, both having mute. both having pings.

If 2 teams are on the same level, one having communication and the other one having only people muted... THE ONE WITH COMMUNICATION IS... how to put it words... out the charts... communication affects your moral(moral is as important as SKILL, trust me), pings consume time, there are some things that cant be put into pings, people ignore pings, people may not understand them or what you tried to say, people may not give a fuck about your pings if you muted them... and the list goes on. So you put at the disadvante YOU and YOUR TEAM, so not muting that person is helping YOURSELF first, if you want to win, unles you are a god and can carry them, but in my example you cant because the enemies are as good as you.

"This system is waaaaaay to complex to ever work.

The problem isn't that toxic people aren't scared of the punishments, it's that they think they'll never recieve one, or they don't care.

This wouldn't be a solution for that."

~ funny, you even point out something that makes my system better than any other present system "they think they'll never recieve one", where this makes a big part of my system.

And yeah, my system still stands. But you can try more.

RallerenP4 votes

And of course, if it's not possible to create that ai (I REALLY doubt it in a few years), hire humans, WAY MORE EXPENSIVE, of course, but this is my answer.

I honestly though that the entire "fake match" step was unessecary. It's by design setup to be biased. Why not just skip the step and let the replace the fake game with real games?

Even if it was a necessary step of your idea, it would be a huge waste of money. Why not use the money to improve the current system. (I'll get into more of that later.

"Having people review reports is ridiculous" There is a diffrence between HIRED PEOPLE and avarage joes that could get you banned because they have a bad day. those people would earn their status by being nice, they would have nothing to lose if they would abuse the system. So my answer? Hire PROFFESIONALS make CLEAR rules about it and let the player check for himself the results. I didn't say it was ridiculous because of the risk of unfair bans, it's ridiculous because of the manpower needed to do it.

There are thousands of reports to go through and verify every day, across all servers. You CAN'T actually do it by hand.

You don't graps the concept of money really. Riot has a budget too, and trying to implement your system you blow that budget out of the water.

Tribunal was worse because they checked only YOUR CHAT, not the game, not the whole chat, while playing vs shitty people, my system would be better because it would be in a safe "place" where you have no excuses for flaming.

Tribunal gave you access to the entire match. You could see ALL of chat. And I don't care how bad the players you are playing with are, there are never any excuses to flame.

The context of a game matter little to me, what matter is the behaviour of the individual i'm 'reviewing'.

"People don't change" You did a VERY BOLD and STUPID statement.

It sure is a bold and stupid statement. But it's true. It's a statistical fact.

Even so, later down I admitted that people can change. Just ignore my 'labels' they were more of a way to structure my comment, not a something to be taken 100% seriously. It was a mistake on my part.

People DO change, guess why we put people in prison and not a bullet in their head? Because that, because we can repair them and make them useful for society again.

Interesting point. About 68% of prisoners get rearrested withing three years, and 76% within 5..

And ill not even respond to your examples and try to counter them, its just too stupid to argue over, people change, sane people know that.

I can't fathom what response there would be to a fact. People like to win discussions, ESPECIALLY when it's about something they're emotionally attached to. When I see the "I won't even bother responding because it's too dumb" it's usually because people don't know what to say, but still wont give up the point.

"If the punishments didn't get people to not flame, nothing will. They wont care WHO tells them to be nice. People can change, but they have to do it themselves." ~ You clearly don't know about how humans work, don't think in a GAME perspective, there is a real world too.

I know exactly how humans work.

A huge personality change from toxic to friendly will only ever be achieved the person in question wants it themselves.

You can't force it with a video. You can't force it with a skin.

I have to go over this again... or not... let me find one of my answers....----> "Funny, just think outside the box. Or maybe you never was perma banned, like me. When you get perma banned, there is nothing else to do, if you like the game you will instantly make a new account and never buy skins again then make them over and over again (lose money and still have the flamer). If you have a 1 year ban you KNOW that in 1 year you will get your account back with all yours skins, so you aren't pushed to make a new account, you may play something else until then, think about what you've done.

That's not what'll happen though. When people recieve 14-day ban they already start playing on smurfs, keeping their flame up. Same will happen for a 1-year ban.

Because it's pointless to make a new account just to play for 1 year when in the end you will get back to your old account.

It's really not. Trust me, people will make smurfs in the 1 year. Them not doing so would be astonishing. It would be an insane phenomena.

  • Making new accounts it's kinda shitty right now, BUT I HAD TO 2 weeks ago because I wanted to check league again(after 2 years of not playing), so what league has now + this system would be perfect.

Multiple people have already told you why this system is horrible. You don't listen because you are too emotionally attached to it.

None of your arguments so far have been based on facts, but on assumptions drawn from anecdotal evidence

LEAGUE's SYSTEM is a PUNISHING my system. My SYTEM is HELPING in a HUMANE way the players, not just ignore them."

But Riot isn't your parents. Riot isn't your psychologist. Riot shouldn't have to spend a ludicrous amount of resources just so that you know to not flame people. I believe in a sort of karma (not a spiritual or paranormal kind, but on a human level). You were a dick to other players, potentionally driving them away from purchasing from Riot. In turn Riot was a dick to you, intentionally trying to keep you from away from the game so that they can fill in the imbalance you caused.

I say this with fear of sounding cynical: Toxic players don't deserve all these things you want to give them. They don't deserve help.

"I'm not putting anyone at a disadvantage by muting them, and if even I i were it'd their own fault.

(I made a line because this is gonna get fun)

I can still see their pings." ~ Oh right? Are you sure? I just have only 2600 hours in league and 1900 hours in dota, both having mute. both having pings.

If 2 teams are on the same level, one having communication and the other one having only people muted... THE ONE WITH COMMUNICATION IS... how to put it words... out the charts... communication affects your moral(moral is as important as SKILL, trust me),

You know what else affects my moral? A dickhead yelling at my for a tiny misstep.

pings consume time,

So pinging: "Help", by pressing 'G', dragging your mouse to the side and releasing 'G' takes MORE time than: pressing enter, typing: help me at baron" and pressing enter again?

I think your 2600 hours in league has confused you.

there are some things that cant be put into pings,

Sure, there are a few things you can't ping. But the advantage of strategizing with chat is HEAVILY OUTWEIGHED by the disadvantage of having some dickhead tell us all how bad we are, and demoralize the entire team.

people ignore pings,

So the loud sound from the pings, along with flashing colors on your screen will be ignored, but the small tiny 'click' sound and relatively neutral color scheme of the chat will be understood perfectly?

people may not understand them or what you tried to say,

What

people may not give a fuck about your pings if you muted them...

Game

and the list goes on.

Are

So you put at the disadvante YOU and YOUR TEAM, so not muting that person is helping YOURSELF first, if you want to win,

You

unles you are a god and can carry them, but in my example you cant because the enemies are as good as you.

Playing?

It's DEFINENTLY not League. None of what you wrote below the line I made has made ANY sense.

~ funny, you even point out something that makes my system better than any other present system "they think they'll never recieve one", where this makes a big part of my system.

What part of your system will make players think they'll be punished, moreso than the current one.

If ANYTHING your system will INCREASE the amount of toxicity beacuse it'll be incredibly slow, riddled with human bias, and unecessarily complex.

And yeah, my system still stands. But you can try more.

From the looks of this thread your system has been crippled, pushed to the ground, beat to death with a hammer and poured over with cement.

Unless you actually make some valid points (and read the ones I made properly (something you didn't do last time)), I won't bother responding anymore.

FlamyMind1 votes

OKI DOKI, let's continue.

Don't worry, I read everything you say, since I enjoy doing it and thats why im here.

  1. Want to make something clear, 2 nights ago I had this thought while trying to fall asleep, don't think I tried weeks and weeks to find a way to solve league's toxicity when I don't even play it anymore. I just woke up the next day and found it interesting... wrote it in a notepad then posted it here since DOTA doesn't have a forum as good as this one. After im done here I will go on reddit. Don't worry, Im not trying to get anything from it nor to help anyone, I just find it very interesting and fun to talk over it. Thats why im here and I dont care if "people would destroy it", but sadly nobody was able to do that. 2.I really really want to go over this first even if skip some things, but MATE, really? "ping baron and say .... , you ain't playing league?" You assume many things with that. After you ignore that flamer, saying nothing to him, he cant ignore you too? He can't just continue flaming? He can't just DO THE OPPOSITE of what you are saying because he sees you as a problem? You can still talk with others, yeah, but your pings for him are almost meaningless UNLESS HE CALMS DOWN and thats higly unlikely if you just ignore the problem. Don't worry, I know what ping can do, but they are too limited and you will still miss a link, unles you actually make that guy feel good, NO in game mechanic could help you in that match.

"Are

So you put at the disadvante YOU and YOUR TEAM, so not muting that person is helping YOURSELF first, if you want to win,

You

unles you are a god and can carry them, but in my example you cant because the enemies are as good as you.

Playing?

It's DEFINENTLY not League. None of what you wrote below the line I made has made ANY sense."

What? If you don't know, mobas are team based games(yeah, league too). TEAM VS TEAM, if BOTH TEAMS are 50-50 on skill and tactics and picks, the one that has 100% communication & moral, wins. Your team, with 70% communication and even less moral if you got affected by that flamer too, so 2 persons affected even a little, will lose. I wonder if i can put it in a more simple way than this...

"But Riot isn't your parents. Riot isn't your psychologist. Riot shouldn't have to spend a ludicrous amount of resources just so that you know to not flame people. I believe in a sort of karma (not a spiritual or paranormal kind, but on a human level). You were a dick to other players, potentionally driving them away from purchasing from Riot. In turn Riot was a dick to you, intentionally trying to keep you from away from the game so that they can fill in the imbalance you caused."

~ Mate, this system will solve toxicity, this is the only way to actually solve the toxicity, not just trow it away while a big part of it comes back and creates even more. Of course riot will not do this, they make enough money already to actually care, but im just saying, if a game wants to resolve the problem, they can do it.

"Multiple people have already told you why this system is horrible. ", yeah, just because I wasn't able to provide details or because it's not cheap or because some technology is accesible. But nobody could say ANY of the big parts of the system would not work in the way I want, they couldnt prove that.

  1. About the tribunal, I actually got the ban while the new system was in place. And yeah, banning counterflamers that are triggered by flamers that passed your AMAZING punishment system shows a little hyprocrisy, but I don't want to go into that. So let me go to the LAST big point you made.

  2. "Interesting point. About 68% of prisoners get rearrested withing three years, and 76% within 5..", lovely article... oh wait, US. Maybe you didn't saw my other replies, but in one of them I was using US's justice system as a bad example. Sorry, their justice system sucks(and many other things, but im not here to talk about US), so don't expect more from their jails. Please check other developed countries from europe and asia and heck even canada.

RallerenP1 votes

Want to make something clear, 2 nights ago I had this thought while trying to fall asleep, don't think I tried weeks and weeks to find a way to solve league's toxicity when I don't even play it anymore.

Alot on this thread has months, if not yeards, of experience with the punishment system. They are EXTREMELY active and know alot more on the system and why it works than you do.

It's almost insulting to them that you provide so poor argumentation that is only based on emotions, not facts. In most peoples minds you lost this discussion already. That you have the audacity to claim that your idea is still standing is insane.

I'll short it down for you: This system is impossible. It would have to use up too many resources and feature technology that doesn't even exist yet.

The fact that you only spent a single night coming up with this idea should be indication that it will probably not solve the 'toxicity problem' of League.

Maybe you didn't saw my other replies, but in one of them I was using US's justice system as a bad example. Sorry, their justice system sucks(and many other things, but im not here to talk about US), so don't expect more from their jails. Please check other developed countries from europe and asia and heck even canada.

Sure thing. In canada around 53% of inmates go back to prison withing 1 year

You didn't really have any other arguments not already debunked by either me or someone else.

FlamyMind1 votes

Woah buddy, you clearly ignored a lot of stuff to make your "last word".

  1. This really grinds my gears.

"Arrested Within 2 Years Number Parolees 210 82 39% Direct Discharges 213 144 68% Total 423 226 53%"

You clearly proved that im wrong... with 423 people... and even 50% would have been PERFECT for a far from perfect system but still better than what US has right now.

Now lets move on.

  1. This really really grinds my gears. After I said I do this for the sake of enjoying it, you still say " you provide so poor argumentation that is only based on emotions" while my system, in the big picture, has no plot holes, only if you go into detail. There is no poor argumentation there. And what based on emotions? I just say what I thought of, I still want to see HOLES in the big picture not "oh, uhh, prove me your video can change the people or your system is bad" or "oh no, its too expensive" or "oh no, the ai is impossible to make", no, those aren't holes and I already said it's god damn pointless to talk about them if im here FOR FUN, not to give a god presentation. And of course, I see only bright minds that responded to my post... indeed... the best of them even got removed for language... amazing.

  2. "This system is impossible. It would have to use up too many resources and feature technology that doesn't even exist yet." And after all this time, while im trying to say something, that this is just a "project for fun". But let's just go with it. "expensive" is relative... since I didn't mate this to put in practice, I would say is still possible if it costs less than 20% of the GWP (gross world product, if you dont know :*) and I wouldn't consider something impossible if the technology required for it have a base in the existing technology. Because I can't prove its possible but you cant say its impossible, since the start already exists. So yeah... even if we go this way, its not "impossible".

"The fact that you only spent a single night coming up with this idea should be indication that it will probably not solve the 'toxicity problem' of League.", no it doesn't solve the toxicity problem ONLY for league, this system can be applied to all PVP games and solve the toxicity in the PVP gaming community. And it's god damn amazing.

Bettnachleger2 votes

Pls, use the fucking quote function. Your replies are pretty hard to read. Just put a ">" before the text you want to quote. (or use the quote button)

FlamyMind1 votes

Oh thank you kind sir, pretty late... but it's nice to know that people actually read my replies before downvoting them.

PresBushDid7111 votes

Just a thought... do you really need bots? There were a number of people that did the tribunal. Couldn't you have real players on riot provided accounts? So toxic person would get put in a game with 9 people around ish their lvl.. and 1 or 2 people on his team would be picked to be the bait.

FlamyMind1 votes

OF course, but people already said about my idea that its so expensive. This would add even more workforce and money. Now depends on numbers, if its easier to develop those "smart bots" or just hire people.

PresBushDid7111 votes

{quoted}

OF course, but people already said about my idea that its so expensive. This would add even more workforce and money. Now depends on numbers, if its easier to develop those "smart bots" or just hire people.

The tribunal was voluntary, the reward was cleaning up the community. So other then system development there wouldn't be a cost of paying players.

FlamyMind1 votes

And again, thats bad. You have to HIRE people for a good job. Those Joes don't lose anything if they abuse the system and cant be easly detected if they are abusive.

2 years ago, when I got banned for counterflaming, I got banned by the lovely tribunal. Trust me, you can't have those kids/teens (I doubt adults with jobs had time for that and even if they did, they didnt had enough time to do it right) deal with those matters.

PresBushDid7112 votes

{quoted}

And again, thats bad. You have to HIRE people for a good job. Those Joes don't lose anything if they abuse the system and cant be easly detected if they are abusive.

2 years ago, when I got banned for counterflaming, I got banned by the lovely tribunal. Trust me, you can't have those kids/teens (I doubt adults with jobs had time for that and even if they did, they didnt had enough time to do it right) deal with those matters.

.... I did the tribunal.. I am an adult with a job. It was something to pass the time between matches.

I mean I know it is off topic, but counter flaming is still flaming.. and is not allowed.

This isn't coming from someone in an ivory tower either, I have been and am currently being punished. I think the difference in myself and most is that I am fully aware that my words are leading to a chat restriction.

FlamyMind1 votes

"It was something to pass the time between matches." ~ you are punishing people... to pass time, between matches and you expect me to say you were doing that job right?

"I mean I know it is off topic, but counter flaming is still flaming.. and is not allowed" ~ Counterflaming is the result of flaming, being allowed in league doesn't mean it's right to be punished.

Bettnachleger4 votes

2 years ago, when I got banned for counterflaming, I got banned by the lovely tribunal.

The tribunal is down for like 4 years right now. And counterflaming is still flaming ...

More from Player Behavior

The indefinite banning of Tyler1
Player Behavior4,799 comments
2,942
votes
14 day ban because playing Nunu Support with Smite is "stealing other people's roles"...?
Player Behavior1,525 comments
1,086
votes
Riot should add monthly status cards
Player Behavior241 comments
843
votes
Reminder that we haven't gotten our Summoner report cards yet :/
Player Behavior145 comments
619
votes
I'm not "triggered" by you throwing insults.
Player Behavior361 comments
548
votes
Black Alistar, King Rammus!!!!
Player Behavior462 comments
503
votes