Don't DO =/= Don't SAY

The Ecdysiast··1 votes·337 views

You probably agree that the worst detriments to the community are those players who do one or all of the following:

  • Rage Quit (leave because they are doing poorly or don't like the match-up)
  • Intentionally Feed (hand kills to the enemy because they're doing poorly or don't like the match-up but don't want to get automatically leaver-busted)
  • Cheat (use scripts or other third party software in order to give themselves an unfair advantage)

These are the worst offenses because, try as you might, there is nothing you can do to fix the situation when someone does these things. And because there is nothing players can do when another player does any of those three things, it is-- and should be-- left up to Riot to ban said players from playing the game.

However, there's another reason players get banned for which no punishment should be enacted by Riot: casual gaming speech. What inexperienced gamers may refer to as "toxicity." Whether a player is being toxic is completely subjective, and made even more so by the lack of a voice chat in this game. Knowing this, Riot implemented one simple function that completely removes the subjectively perceived toxicity without any effect on gameplay whatsoever-- the mute button. It takes a grand total of 1.5 seconds to hold TAB and press the little speaker icon next to someone's name, or the little "!" icon if you feel they're incorrectly using pings.

Yet still, Riot will ban players for using their chat function in a way that another person disagrees with, even if said player was the biggest contributor to the team's victory. This isn't right or fair to either party. The one who speaks should not be punished simply because someone else disagrees with them, and the one who disagrees should not be rewarded for refusing to use the mute function.

For now though, Riot takes the stance that the feelings of those most prone to having their feelings hurt are justice. Maybe eventually they'll realize that a competitive, team-based game such as this will always create negative feelings when allies mess up and switch their stance. Or just outright remove the chat function, like they did for the public chatrooms years ago.

It must feel really nice, knowing you can basically steal and burn upwards of hundreds of dollars worth of content from another player just because they said something you don't like. Think about how you'd feel if someone hacked into your account and changed the password next time you're a little upset that someone pointed out the fact you're building Sunfire Cape against Rumble.

18 Comments

ModThe Djinn7 votes

{quoted}...casual gaming speech. What inexperienced gamers may refer to as "toxicity."

I've been gaming seriously for nearly twenty years. That doesn't mean I'm happy with (or have to put up with) people using hate speech against me, insulting/abusing me during my leisure time, or telling me to harm myself. It's far from a matter of "experience."

Whether a player is being toxic is completely subjective, and made even more so by the lack of a voice chat in this game.

Not really. Toxicity is insulting/harassing/hate speech/abusing someone without the buy-in of every team member.

The one who speaks should not be punished simply because someone else disagrees with them, and the one who disagrees should not be rewarded for refusing to use the mute function.

You're misunderstanding the reason for the mute button. It is included as a shield against toxicity with the understanding that Riot's community will never be PERFECT, and thus innocent players should have a way to avoid abuse. It is NOT included to ENABLE toxicity by making the default be harassing, abusive behavior with the only escape being the mute button. The fact that it technically can do either is immaterial to the intended goal.

If you do not want to be a part of the community Riot is trying to build, there are many other games out there where you can abuse other players to your heart's desire. That inclination of yours, however, does not mean that Riot is somehow wrong in deciding to go another direction -- merely that their direction may not suit your personal tastes or habits.

Modi2 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=wzA3vAH2,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-10-10T03:25:09.965+0000) Not really. Toxicity is insulting/harassing/hate speech/abusing someone without the buy-in of every team member.

Should probably also say "(including the member being harassed)" so premade 4s don't think of that as a license to be assholes.

ModThe Djinn2 votes

{quoted}

Should probably also say "(including the member being harassed)" so premade 4s don't think of that as a license to be assholes.

I feel that's included in "every," but yes. This is accurate.

The Ecdysiast1 votes

Whether you choose to believe it or not, you being offended is completely subjective. The majority of people are tough enough to handle anonymous trolls on the internet.

And no, I'm not under the impression that it is present to enable "toxicity." It is there so that those too weak to handle the community, the community that they willingly enter understanding, as even you just admitted, that they will encounter online interactions not rated by the ESRB.

Riot is wrong on this, and hopefully they will address it just as they previously removed the "lack of skill" report. You're under the false impression that just because the wrong way is the way it is now, that's the way it's always going to be.

I'd expect someone from EUW to side with a censoring of speech, but it brings a tear to my eye to see a fellow NA player go against personal freedoms in favor of stealing from children.

ModThe Djinn4 votes

{quoted}And no, I'm not under the impression that it is present to enable "toxicity." It is there so that those too weak to handle the community, the community that they willingly enter understanding, as even you just admitted, that they will encounter online interactions not rated by the ESRB.

Do note that when you join the community you agree to the Summoner's Code, and, in doing so, agree to treat other players politely and with respect. If you do not wish to be a part of the community you can find one of many other games.

People willingly enter the community with the knowledge that those are the community expectations. If they do not match your desires, there are, again, other places you can go.

I'd expect someone from EUW to side with a censoring of speech, but it brings a tear to my eye to see a fellow NA player go against personal freedoms in favor of stealing from children.

I'm all for freedom of speech, which you still have on League. It is, importantly, not the same as freedom from the consequences of your speech. Go shout insults at the staff of your local Starbucks and see how quickly you are legally (and rightly) kicked out. The same is true in a movie theater, whoch is under no obligation to refund you your ticket. And, yes, a virtual private space is no different.

No legal action on Riot's part denies you of your right to say what you want. All they deny you is the use of their platform, which is not a right. The purchases you make are in the distinct knowledge that they are tied to that platform access, which you agree to each time you make a purchase.

The Ecdysiast1 votes

Do note that the Summoner's code is far too vague to use as a guideline for what can and can't be said. Which is unfortunate for all players, as they can never know when they've gone too far.

And you just completely falsified the meaning of free speech. Freedom of speech is specifically freedom from the consequences.

With what you falsely think is free speech, the only way someone can take it away is by literally gagging you.

There is no shouting in this game. There is no voice chat in this game. There is no in-person contact in this game. This game is not a store in public. So no, a virtual, private, anonymous space is in no way similar to any real-life establishment. If I quietly tell my Starbucks cashier that her hair looks stupid, yes I'm a jerk, but she'll still be the one to get fired if she spits in my drink.

The agreement they have you click every patch is with their complete knowledge that you will not read the agreement, and if you do, you are most likely unable to understand most of it. To ban people from playing because they used the chat system, instead of simply banning them from using the chat system, is wrong.

I'm all for a permanent CHAT ban in place of a permanent ban from play. But as of now, the punishment does not fit the perceived offense.

ModThe Djinn2 votes

{quoted}And you just completely falsified the meaning of free speech. Freedom of speech is specifically freedom from the consequences.

Specifically legal, specifically government consequences. Go shout slurs in a Starbucks and you WILL be kicked out.

There is no shouting in this game. There is no voice chat in this game. There is no in-person contact in this game. This game is not a store in public. So no, a virtual, private, anonymous space is in no way similar to any real-life establishment.

Legally it is, and that has been held up repeatedly in the past by ither organizations who ban people for their content. You don't get a free pass to abuse people on Riot's "property" just because it's text-based.

LukeTheSheppy1 votes

I don't think he understands that "freedom of speech" in the Constitution only protects you from Congress passing a law to abridge said freedom of speech. Private entities can still dictate rules within their own legally protected area of jurisdiction (whether it be a business's property, the forums of a group, or someone's home) granted that they do not contradict laws set forth by the government (because God knows someone will argue that they can murder someone in their own home with that).

A private business asking you to leave the premises due to you breaking contract with them, whether written or unwritten; engaging in less-than-desirable actions, which can include disturbing the peace, loitering, or toxicity in this case; or for some other reason; is in the right and legally allowed to remove you from the premises.

Don't believe me? Go ahead, file a civil rights suit against Riot Games. Assuming you get past arbitration and find a lawyer willing to take your case (20 bucks on him asking for payment up front), the contract you signed with Riot every patch and subsequently breached will be more than enough for the judge to rule in favor of the defendant, Riot Games LLC.

Jo0o5 votes

"Gaming speech", as you put it, doesn't have the rep for negative comments due to that being a requirement for competitive video games. It has that reputation because immature and cowardly individuals feel empowered to say hateful shit from behind a keyboard that they wouldn't dare say in the real world.

Your teammate built a sunfire cape vs. a Rumble? Sorry to hear that. Maybe try pointing out their error to them in a constructed manner, rather than making it your mission to make them suffer for their transgression. Effective communication in League doesn't require flaming, and I utterly reject your insinuation that it's somehow helpful. I sincerely hope you don't think that hammering somebody with slurs somehow makes them better teammates.

Chermorg1 votes

[deleted]

The Ecdysiast1 votes

And what, dare I ask, did I specifically state as casual gaming speech for you to be able to come to the conclusion that what I include encompasses personal threats? Where is this "long list" you claim exists?

Flaming is, by and large, casual for competitive games. You may be used to the sheltered communities of PvE games-- which I don't look down on you for-- but those types of games harbor good vibes and friendliness by their very nature, while competitive PvP games harbor negativity by theirs.

For example, veteran players in MMORPGs often go out of their way to help newbies and are seen as good people for doing so. Veteran players of MOBAs who make smurf accounts to help new friends climb in the ranks or simply to stomp on other new players, are complete jerks because the act of benefiting their one friend is a detriment to the experience of every single enemy they encounter (and possibly those allies who learn nothing from getting carried).

Imperial Pandaa1 votes

{quoted}

For example, veteran players in MMORPGs often go out of their way to help newbies and are seen as good people for doing so. Veteran players of MOBAs who make smurf accounts to help new friends climb in the ranks or simply to stomp on other new players, are complete jerks because the act of benefiting their one friend is a detriment to the experience of every single enemy they encounter (and possibly those allies who learn nothing from getting carried).

This is both true and false in my experience. It varies from player to player as with everything else. When I help a newbie in a MMORPG i guide and direct them, maybe give a single item for a future level. Alternatively I have had veteran players basically spoon feed me gear, items, or vast sums of cash for nothing. Sounds great, but why am I playing an rpg if everything is handed to me by a vet without me learning a single thing?

In term of MOBA it isn't a problem if the smurfing person tries to "dumb" down their play to be about the same level as everyone else. Stomps aren't fun for anyone except the stomper.

The Ecdysiast1 votes

Well, it really depends on the game. I'm more than happy to accept gear if the thing I'm missing out on is hours of pointless grinding because the game devs are assholes who think artificially increasing time played by making everything a random fucking drop is good design. Like in Warframe, where I simply needed a staple mod and the enemy that dropped it was few and far between on certain maps.

Conversely, I had a buddy of mine who was the gem guy for our three-man squad in Diablo III, but when I tried to play alone I had to completely learn the gem system. Though with that case, I still got to learn and play the game. I'm sure with most rpgs you still have to learn basics even if you're given some high gear for your level.

For mobas though, I can't agree that that happens much. Even when they "dumb down" their play, they know some advanced aspects that they do subconsciously. And most are jerks who will say in chat, "lol I'm not even trying," when an enemy gets mad at them for smurfing.

Imperial Pandaa1 votes

Fair points. I was more referring less to dropping something that is commonly needed but more game breaking, like back when people had the modded shields/weapons on Borderlands. Yeah we didn't have to use it but why wouldn't we.

Fair.

Thank you for listening to my side. I appreciate it.

The Ecdysiast1 votes

Aaah, yeah. That's why I just don't play Borderlands online.

Nik Nikerson1 votes

I much prefer a rage-quitter to someone that's just going to fight with everyone on the team and act like a dick. I may lose with a rage quitter, but I'm probably going to lose with the other person as well, and at least the rage quitter gets the game over with more quickly and quietly.

The Ecdysiast1 votes

Then you're very odd, since all of you can mute that player and hope your lack of response pushes their focus back onto the game. It's almost impossible to win given someone leaves, but it's quite possible to win if you ignore the flamer.

Nik Nikerson1 votes

It's just priorities. Winning is nice, but it's not my top priority, and if I'm going to be stuck in a bad game, I'd rather it be over quicker. And yes, while there's a chance that ignoring the person being a dick will turn stuff around, most of the time it doesn't. People that start raging in chat are usually tilted to hell, and aren't likely to be playing well anyway.

More from Player Behavior

More by The Ecdysiast