The Penalty System Is Too Sensitive to False Reports

{quoted}

I am not assuming he is lashing out or responding because it doesn't matter. He typed. That's what matters. I don't care if he typed in response, in retaliation, in lashing out, etc.

The thing is, he doesn't need to explain that they lost lane. I can guarantee you they knew they lost lane, and by saying "3 losing lanes" it makes it look like he's trying to blame everyone but himself for the loss.

Chat is not for discussing the past, it's for strategy for winning the game from now into the future. This punishment was justified.

So you're saying that any response which is not positive is somehow toxic? You're not allowed to acknowledge reality even in defense when harassed? If it rains, you have to say nothing or say it's sunny. Just WHAT would it take for someone to NOT be considered toxic by that definition? If someone tells another player "you're the only reason we're losing" and the other player says "I didn't play great but you're 0 5" that's toxic too now? Everyone has to capitulate and either ignore or accept all statements no matter whether they're valid or justified? That's not how it works or at least not how it should work. You have a right to respond. You just don't have a right to say "you're awful and an idiot" etc. I know we're talking about a video game but think about defamation suits. It's not OK for someone to lie about another person/company.

It's besides the point whether you think the response is useful or not. First of all, who are you to judge that? Maybe some players need to be brought back to reality. Secondly, it's an unreasonable standard to claim that only "useful" chat is allowed. You see people all the time type "oops, I thought I'd get him". Useless statement! Better punish them! Did you just type "gj"? Another useless statement. This is a social game and very little of the chat is objectively useful. A statement not being useful in your opinion is not justification for any punishment.

It matters greatly. There's nothing wrong with pointing out why people lost lane or that you did. People don't learn from mistakes if they never know the mistakes they made.

Also there's nothing wrong with blaming others if they are at fault.

{quoted}

I don't care why he's saying it - there's no reason to say it. It's childish, immature, and rude, especially if it's in retaliation.

There is no innocence to prove here. OP was toxic, OP flamed.

The difference between this and real life where there's a "self defense" claim? In League, you have a button that will literally remove the other person from your chat for the rest of the game.

Someone says "this shit jungler's still not ganking", you respond "/mute @champname". You are free to explain why you didn't gank as long as you are nice about it. Things like "you're losing lane" and "can't 1v1" and similar are not ok. Things such as "I couldn't gank because you were on their tower and I can't dive them" are okay.

Facts such as "you're 0/3" are unnecessary. There is no reason to point it out. They are playing their dang character and know how many times they've died. If you're saying "you're 0/3" because they pointed out your score, you're just perpetuating their negativity and you're complacent in it as well.

OP did not flame so hit him with the "unnecessary facts" argument and call it flame! You, the arbiter of truth and justice don't like these facts and so they are unnecessary. God forbid anything unnecessary is ever said in a game of League. This game itself is SO NECESSARY. You have no idea why those statements were made and what the context was. I know it's hard but try to imagine that the OP isn't just rambling "you lost lane" to himself with a straightjacket on while staring at the walls. There are other players in the game and they talk too.

Don't act like the OP was just tallying up his team's scores for fun or bringing people to task for losing lane like it's his mission in life. I'm pretty sure OP isn't just rattling off unpleasant facts unless he's being singled out and blamed or berated. In that case, it is COMPLETELY 100% fair play, relevant and justified to point out realities some people don't want to see. You're not allowed to create your own reality at the expense of others. A person who is harassing others because they are failing their own lane does not have a special right to be insulated from any comments about his own performance.

Hypocrisy isn't OK and pointing out hypocrisy with facts is not flame. Grow up and stop being a dictator. The mute button exists but that doesn't mean people are immune to being called out for hypocritical comments. If you lose your lane 1v1 as an early game champion and die several times, you better believe it's not OK to talk shit to your jungler. If you harass the "trash jungler" and the jungler says you lost 1v1 and fed your lane, you asked for it (and that's just sticking to the facts and putting it mildly). It takes a lot of hypocrisy to berate others with no constructive criticism when you yourself performed terribly. If you're going to fling shit, expect to get dirty or better yet, don't do it at all.

Also, if someone is losing lane horribly and whining all game, it's a valid reason not to gank. Such players tend to have higher rates of afking too. It may not only be a waste of time and resources but may even be a double kill for the enemy laner. Plus, it makes you extremely vulnerable to counterganks. if I'm spam pinged by our 0 5 laner to go and help him top while Dragon is up and bot's under pressure, I will tell him that he lost too hard for ganking to be a good idea. He might not like it but that's the truth and I tell him so that he's reasonable and doesn't force me to mute his pings.

{quoted}

I don't care why he's saying it - there's no reason to say it. It's childish, immature, and rude, especially if it's in retaliation.

There is no innocence to prove here. OP was toxic, OP flamed.

The difference between this and real life where there's a "self defense" claim? In League, you have a button that will literally remove the other person from your chat for the rest of the game.

Someone says "this shit jungler's still not ganking", you respond "/mute @champname". You are free to explain why you didn't gank as long as you are nice about it. Things like "you're losing lane" and "can't 1v1" and similar are not ok. Things such as "I couldn't gank because you were on their tower and I can't dive them" are okay.

Facts such as "you're 0/3" are unnecessary. There is no reason to point it out. They are playing their dang character and know how many times they've died. If you're saying "you're 0/3" because they pointed out your score, you're just perpetuating their negativity and you're complacent in it as well.

What world do you live in where context has no relevance? It's certainly not ours. I wonder if you consider a person who has a heart attack and crashes a car into a kid equally at fault as a drunk driver doing the same. What about a Good Samaritan who gives an assailant a black eye compared to the assailant giving an old lady a black eye? What about if someone in League says "you're the worst I've ever seen" and the other replies "I'm actually ranked considerably higher than you and that's the only objective metric for skill."? What if instead, he says "You've lost lane and are 0 3. I'm even in my lane. Worry about your own game." Is that a "toxic" fact too?

Both of these responses can be considered "unnecessary" just like virtually everything anyone ever says in life besides "I'm thirsty," "hungry," or "dying". The notion of a fact having an emotional coloring is nuts to me. Stating a fact or holding a dissenting opinion is NOT synonymous with berating someone no matter how hard you try to twist it that way. Labelling something doesn't make it so. Berating involves an unfair and personal attack. The idea that you're not allowed to use facts to support a defensive contrary position is not only preposterous to me but that way of thinking actually repulses me.

You're basically saying that no one can ever be called out on anything because it's "unnecessary" and doesn't make the other person feel good. By that line of reasoning, I guess even fact checking itself shouldn't exist because it may make people spreading lies feel bad about themselves. No one should ever confront anyone when harassed unfairly and when lies are being spread because that might make the perpetrator feel bad (who cares about the victim right?). All hypocrisy should be allowed to exist unchecked till it engulfs the world inside and out. We should all just be quiet and pretend that every statement is equally valid, worthy of respect and justified. This is some hocus pocus that I can't wrap my mind around. It's antithetical to the values of truth and honesty. I consider that core above someone's feelings in nearly all cases and very necessary for its own sake. Humans don't make progress by hiding from unpleasant realities.

OP was toxic, OP flamed.

What flame? What toxicity? Do understand that just because you don't like what someone says doesn't make them toxic. If I tell you should have ulted me, that's not toxic. If I tell you to kill yourself, that's toxic.

[{quoted}](name=i am alyra,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=wA80fh7k,comment-id=000100020001,timestamp=2017-07-05T13:03:57.454+0000)

@zecastor friend try to seperate yourself from your assumptions and notice how there is not "he shot first" when it comes to toxicity. as chermorg says in a following post, it is actually a harder blow to lash back than it is to lash first. for a time I'd actually successfully not be toxic, like a week half a year ago, I get a good week about once a month of zero toxicity and I feel proud of myself xD it's hard. but that week I was trying something new- i was trying to be helfpul, I wanted to get honored for "helpful" I wanted to see if it was possible. and what I learned from that week - is that if you say something earnestly, with polite words, and which is strategically important for the game - but also you post it in response to someone being negative or having died or having made a bad dragon call - it doesn't matter they take it with negativity. they are brewing in their own disappointment, and when they see your chat they feel that dissappointment coming from you too. So if someone has been toxic, honestly the best thing to do is to agree with them blindly, or to apologize, or often to just say nothing. perhaps mute them if you see that you're starting to tilt.

defensive toxicity is more dangerous that initiating toxicity.

This isn't about "he did it first"/retaliation arguments. People are characterizing disagreeing with someone toxic as inherently toxic. I feel like I'm on an isolated island of crazy people or talking to aliens about the basics of society and ethics. The level of unreasonableness in the group think blows my mind! If the next thing you guys told me was that you like to cut off a piece of your toe every year and cook it for desert, it would not be any more surprising than these claims.

The idea that you have to "mute," "agree blindly," or "apologize" when another player has a bad and unjustified reaction is humiliating as well as offensive to my sensibilities. If you value truth, honesty and ethics, that isn't acceptable. I don't even care what Riot's rules are on this because if they oppose this, it doesn't make it any less ridiculous (though I sincerely hope they aren't that nuts).

You're not a doormat. Have a backbone for both yourself and the world. Don't be the uninvolved spectator afraid to offend while Hitler does his thing. :D I'm not advocating lashing out or retaliating but you have every right to use explanations and facts even if they're not necessarily helping the game and may be inconvenient for some. It doesn't mean you will use this option every time but you certainly can't be blamed for doing so. Truth and other moral values far transcend your video game.

Player 1 0 5 score: "you keep feeding them and are terrible" Player 2 0 2 score: "you fed your lane too so why are you so focused on me?"

This isn't toxic by any intelligent standard which doesn't border on absurdity and thought control. Are you really saying facts are off limits now? What is this now, the Trump White House? A response like that is very justified and makes total sense. Player 2's response is extremely natural and LOGICAL. Player 1 is making an aggressive demeaning statement and is in no position to do so. You have every right to point out that irrationality and ask him to focus more on himself.

I don't think the people who claim this is toxic are grounded. Even with the oversensitivity and drama meters cranked up to 11, this is not toxic. Let me out of the loony bin please!

BTW: He had no other logs and had a good honor standing so it seems cheap to just say "oh but I know you must have been toxic in other games even though we have zero evidence!!!"! If those other reports leading to punishment are like this and this was considered bad enough to be presented as the sole incriminating "evidence," I don't think there's much credibility to that claim.

Riot needs to take a long hard look at their systems. It's far more acceptable for 100 toxic players get away with it than for one innocent player to get punished. There's no level of acceptable "collateral" damage when you have no appeal process in place and rule with an iron grip. Support exists but everything I've read about this over the years tells me they'll never side with the punished player. Even in cases where Riot later admitted that the punished player was the victim and did not deserve his punishment according to the ToS (off-meta Singed support with success all the way up in Platinum ELO), support just blamed the person every time and said the reports were correct. Riot actually had to change their stance to justify that. Now, if you want to play something wildly off-meta and not risk a ban threat, you have to get your team to agree first. Good luck with that.

{quoted}

If a guy breaks into your home and you break into his home to get back at him, you're still breaking and entering which is illegal. It doesn't matter who started it, you don't respond to fire by throwing more fuel on it. You just mute them and report them at the end of the game, that's how it works in games. It's not about "tolerating bullshit", it's about being a mature human being and not resorting to name calling and aggressive behaviour because someone else used mean words in a video game. People who act like that aren't worth your time, just mute them.

This was never about that. That analogy is totally out of place. Not one person argued in favor of retaliation. If the OP suggested that since someone talked shit to him, he's now allowed to, we'd be having a different discussion. This also isn't about the theoretically optimal response is for defusing the situation. "Player did not defuse the situation optimally when being harassed." is not a report option and nor is it a responsibility. Moreover, people with self-respect will rarely take that option because it indirectly accepts unfair characterizations. If someone tells you, "I saw you lick the shit in the toilet.", you are likely to say "I definitely did not do that." even though it's actually an escalation by the definition people use in this thread. After all, you're indirectly calling that person a liar and they'll likely respond with something like "I swear I saw you. Are you calling me a liar?" to protect their reputation. It's an endless cycle. A de-escalating response would be more like "Don't worry about it." or simply saying nothing. I doubt many people are willing to take this route.

There was no retaliation in the OP's post. The idea argued against, which I find untenable is that someone cannot use facts or explanations to defend himself against an unreasonable assertion. Using a fact to counter someone's argumentation by saying it's internally inconsistent isn't "retaliation" even if you don't like the truth. If you tell someone "this idiot feeder is why we're losing" and they respond with "you died twice in a lane without jungle interference, stfu" that's perfectly fine in my book as long as it's true. If someone dies several times in a solo lane without jungle pressure, they have no business blaming others for the state of the game since it means they're also not performing up to par. That's called an incoherent statement. Even if the "idiot feeder" is removed, the consequence "we wouldn't be losing anymore" isn't guaranteed since the one who uttered the original statement died multiple times solo (creating a negative imbalance in the game). That's not retaliation. That's just common sense and logical thinking applied.

{quoted}

So first off, I think this chat is toxic. I think there is something wrong with constantly berating your teammates, especially coupled with not accepting any blame, and not attempting to come up with a winning plan. This person was harassing Renekton, and when that wasn't enough, he went to bard, then onto other teammates.

Context would be nice with chat logs, as it does help to elucidate why someone started typing toxic chat, but others' logs do not help elucidate if the player's chat was toxic. Further, if that person is to not incur further penalties, then he needs to focus on what he said and what was wrong. He's not constantly interacting with that same "Renekton" from the game in his next game.

How often to people ask questions that intentionally elicit toxic chat responses? Even still, there's leniency built into the system. No one's getting punished for saying "fatass" once in a game.

I don't see any harassment at all and there's really not much said about either considering the game was probably 20-30 minutes. First of all, it looks like Renekton and Bard are harassing him if anything and the OP just explained the situation in the game. He's behind. Every lane is behind. He can't be everywhere. Renekton has unreasonable expectations and is blaming him for the game despite losing his own lane 1v1. I don't see the problem with any of these statements. Is he not allowed to respond to them at all? It's very clear from the chat that the OP is just replying to others with how he sees the game. He's trying to play the game and being raged at. Let's look at the Renekton statements for example.

ToddlerPacifier: renekton you lost lane without interference stfu

It's obvious that the OP is responding to Renekton. He isn't just saying "you suck and lost lane." The Renekton must have been whining and raging at this stage or he wouldn't be asked to be quiet.

ToddlerPacifier: renekton is super toxic

I don't think calling someone toxic is against any rule and it definitely sounds like he's whining a lot. No one is told to shut up without talking. I know you're not allowed to ask for reports or threaten reports but that's different.

ToddlerPacifier: Renekton, you fed your own lane ToddlerPacifier: who are you to talk?

Again, it's clear that Renekton is raging at someone for being terrible at the game and so he is presented with his own performance in the game (pertinent given his statements) and asked what gives him this idea that he has the authority to talk down to others. It's not hard to piece together some context if you try.

ToddlerPacifier: look to yourself renekton

Yet again, it appears that Renekton is blaming others and the OP just told him to focus on his own play. There aren't many comments on Renekton and I see no harassment in any of these statements. They also appear to be in response to him rather than aggressive.

As far as him harassing Bard. It definitely seems like the opposite is the case. Let's put the Bard statements together:

ToddlerPacifier: mundo is weak early ToddlerPacifier: I got baited by bard

It's unclear if the OP died or not and whether or not he was harassed for it but the previous statement of "mundo is weak early" suggests a need to justify why something didn't go according to plan. This suggests that his team expressed displeasure and probably blamed him. Saying he got baited is pretty neutral to me but leans on the negative. However, I don't consider a negative opinion justification for any punishment by itself. In fact, the negative report option is abused frequently. It's meant for players who are unreasonably negative about the game and have given up, not just someone with a negative opinion. For example, "ff at 15, this team sucks" when it's 2-6 is negative attitude. "We can't win fights" is negative but not necessarily bad attitude. It's more a realization and could be due to gold, levels, comp. etc. suggesting other strategies.

ToddlerPacifier: should I NOT follow up on a Bard ult.?

This clarifies the chat above and suggests he was berated for dying trying to follow up on a Bard ult.

ToddlerPacifier: why can't you be as useful as the Lulu Bard? ToddlerPacifier: you had ult., you could have saved me

This does qualify as negative/frustrated but the other lines do suggest that he was invaded without proper warding or signaling and died next to his teammates while Bard still had abilities up. It's not an unreasonable statement if Bard really made no effort to save him.

The only other line about Bard is here:

ToddlerPacifier: actually I'm not at all, but Bard has been harassing me for 10 minutes straight

OP mentioned Bard has been harassing him for a long time. A statement like this does NOT qualify as harassment and may be completely true if we were to see Bard's chat. It's unclear what the "I'm not at all" refers to but it's probably something like "Mundo's tilted." To claim that the OP harassed Bard based on these lines is overly dramatic and not supported by anything I read. There is barely anything even said.

If these responses are considered unreasonable in the context provided, I don't know what reasonable is and I certainly don't want to be normal if it involves considering this chat log toxic. It's not even retaliatory. Retaliatory would be along the lines of "you're an idiot" when being called an idiot. If someone says "the game is all your fault" and he lost lane 1v1, that's just pointing out the discrepancy in the statement. It's not what qualifies as retaliation. It seems that many on this forum are actively hostile to victims of toxicity. The attitude appears to be: "If they get punished, it must mean it's correct and so let's find out how we can justify that outcome." It's a destructive attitude which doesn't encourage objectivity or discussion.

{quoted}

Okay, let's take a closer look at that scenario, namely let me ask two questions: How likely is this scenario going to occur multiple times within a relatively short timeframe (both in days and games)? and If everybody knew that you were joking and you had such a brilliant chemistry, why did somebody from your own team report you?

It's true that in individual cases context might matter. But I don't buy it that even a single person has been punished for something that was innocent within the context. Most of the time when people try to use the context as an excuse it's by pointing fingers at the others while saying "But he started it!"

A friendly fun game with people bantering while being 15-4 quickly becomes serious and people start to lash out as throws happen (especially if the game is actually lost). How often it happens depends on many factors including the players you're with, the way the game goes, etc.

Even if these problems occur infrequently, they still DO happen and it's not alright to have no realistic outlet for a fair trial as well as zero transparency for the process. The other thing is, even if you aren't directly punished due to situations like this, they can raise your "toxicity level" artificially and lead to punishments if you're just a little bit out of line. Note, it is OK to sometimes be out of line and the system won't punish you unless it's a grave offense. It's assumed people can have bad days etc. However, in such cases those protections disappear. It's as if you play baseball with the 3-strike policy replaced by a single throw while everyone else still gets 3. The threshold becomes much smaller so you're not treated the same as everyone else by the system.