Boards›Player Behavior

Discussion on Context and Objectivity

Umbral Regent·1/3/2019, 3:40:22 PM·11 votes·6,883 views

Hello Player Behavior, today I've been struck by a decent curiosity, and have decided to start a discussion around a fairly divisive issue that frequently crops up in discussions here. It's one that, as far as I've seen, is an issue that has a clearly drawn line, and a party on either side. And, as you could doubtless guess by the title, the issue in question is about the "completeness of chat logs", but in the narrower sense, the divide between a desire for context, and an adherence to objectivity.

Regulars around the Player Behavior boards have doubtless seen the arguments occur here and there - not a week goes by that it doesn't at least once, it seems - where a player will have their logs reviewed, or withhold their logs, and argue that the chat logs provided are "incomplete" and "lacking context".

And, we've also doubtless seen - and made - the retort. The only chat/behavior that matters in regards to a punishment is that of the punished player's, and everything else is beside the point.

There can be exceptions, of course, however rare, such as cases where a gullible player was tricked into saying a zero-tolerance word or something of the like, but by and large, the argument doesn't really change. They are exceptions, after all - not the rule.

So, as one could expect, my goal is thus; I'd like to see an earnest discussion take place in regards to the issue of context vs. objectivity, with people with opinions both for and against either side invited to speak their piece here. Bear in mind, this isn't intended to holistically change the nature of typical peer review and response to calls for context, but moreover to get both sides better informed about one another.

With that in mind, I'll start this discussion by stating my side, and adding a statement from my perspective for the opposing argument.

Personally speaking, I hold my lot on the side of objectivity - I wholeheartedly believe that only the individual's chat logs should be reviewed, taken in isolation from other players' behavior. The solitary chat logs provide the cleanest, most easily observable view at a player's behavior - and misbehavior - in a given match.

And when people argue "I know my chat looks bad in isolation..." - I'm tempted to tell them that that's the point. Your chat isn't supposed to look bad, period, and being able to see your chat as being bad for its isolation from other player's behavior makes for a solid case to keep it that way - so that players can actually look at their chat objectively, and see the problems that caused them to be punished.

But, I will concede that it may potentially be helpful to view whole chat logs (other players' chat included) so as to get a better picture of how the altercations go down. It's one thing to know that a punished player flamed, but it could probably help to advise them better for future matches to find the breaking point and see just where the benign chat turns into counterflaming.

So, with that said, it's time to begin the discussion proper. For those who would favor a focus on context, please explain why, and what potential benefits looking at a whole chat log can offer; and for those who favor objectivity, likewise, explain your stance, and what benefits you can think of to reviewing behavior in isolation.

And as a challenge for both sides; try to find a fault in your own side. What downsides are there to looking at behavior in isolation, and what ill-affects could come from having the whole chatlog displayed?

And, of course, remember to stay respectful and stay on-topic. Some light diversions are fine, but I like to see a commitment to the discussion.

16 Comments

ModThe Djinn1/3/2019, 3:44:38 PM7 votes

Speaking for myself, I'd frankly like to be able to see the entire log, but I do not think it would change my opinion on the justification of a punishment in 99.9% of cases. What it would help me to do is understand the player better so I could structure a response that is more useful to them, and understand their perspective better.

Ultimately, it does come down to the simple fact that no one can make you respond, so if your response breaks the rules, you are still the only one responsible and should be held accountable. Context doesn't change your ability to simply mute and ignore a player, or your ability to defend yourself without counter-attacking. What it does do is provide a better framework for having a discussion about a specific player's situation.

My concern, however, is that providing the entire log would increase community opinion on punishments being unmerited, because a vocal portion of the community seems to be of the opinion that only the worst instigators should receive punishments, and anything said to someone who should be punished is somehow justified because "the other person was worse." To me, that's a strong incentive not to release the full logs.

Hotarµ1/3/2019, 3:54:36 PM6 votes

While it would be nice to have the ability to see entire game logs, I think our current system is more than enough. I think context matters on a moral standpoint, but we're not here to judge character, we're here to explain punishments according to the rules that have been set.

I'm sympathetic to people who have been flamed and just retaliate out of anger, but seeing that person's chat log isolated and highlighted makes it easier to explain why punishments were given and why it's never okay to fight fire with fire.

I also feel if we had the ability to see entire game logs, most posts would go from "Why did I get punished" to "Yeah, I know what I did was bad, but these people should be punished, too." and increase hostility towards the punishment system we have in place should it not function to how they want it to.

Madjack011/3/2019, 7:18:38 PM4 votes

Hmm as someone who's background lies both in justice systems and social care for criminals and victims I find this concept a bit strange. In almost every official system I know where a person is judged for their behaviour, context is taken into account. Almost every multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary philosophy in social science concedes to the point that personal responsibility and context are without any doubt two connected concepts.

That being said personal responsibility is currently the focus of most systems(though the debate around this never stopped and there are various implementations on the scale between context and individual responsibility). Context mostly serves as mitigating (or even worsening) circumstances in most justice systems.

On the note on social care and reforming behaviour however, context becomes MUCH more important since it gives real points with which both helper and criminal can work. You need something concrete after all and trying to help someone without knowing that person's context is like trying to help “insert blank personality here“. It just isn't going to work.

However, since we are just talking about a silly game and since most systems agree that personal responsibility takes priority over context, I would go with objectivity. This is not the most fair system to be honest, but when it comes to bad behaviour a lot of people can't be allowed even the slightest opportunity to blame their behaviour on others. This is similar as to why people generally respond annoyed when someone blames their team for not being able to climb. Sure your team can be to blame on occasion,but getting better is mostly a personal responsibility so it can be considered worth it to erase the concept of blaming others so the concept of focusing on yourself takes the utmost priority.

To be honest though, things like this are often done with majorities in mind while the the rare cases where people are able to correctly judge their situation are treated just like everybody else. You just have to ask yourself if that is worth it or not (not considering the morality of this; most of the time it is worth it though)

Tulare1/3/2019, 5:15:41 PM4 votes

When two kids are caught fighting at school, both get detention. It doesn't matter who started it; if you're caught throwing punches, you're in trouble. The purpose of that form of punishment is to teach the kids that fighting at school won't be tolerated. Objectivity: you were caught being toxic Context: somebody else was being toxic too

We know that a single report will trigger review of somebody's chat logs. If player A gets reported and player B does not but both were being toxic, does the review of player A's log also implicate player B and add to their behavioral record? Could it? Riot's policy generally allows one a few free passes, so it wouldn't necessarily result in simultaneous punishment. Perhaps people would be more comfortable with their punishments if they knew that the other guilty parties were definitely implicated as well.

Having said that, there nonetheless seems to be a prevailing attitude that toxicity is okay, in context. Where does this come from? We don't allow kids to fight in schools and we don't endorse adults publicly saying horrible things to one another. And that, I think, is a key reason why I strongly favor objectivity. From a recent poll I posted, the average LoL player is a young adult. A young adult. And yet we daily see arguments from people who think that schoolyard fighting is acceptable, so long as one doesn't throw the first punch. As a decidedly established adult (37), I'm glad to see Riot punishing this kind of behavior and not allowing the juvenile excuse of, "He started it".

Kei1431/3/2019, 4:18:29 PM3 votes

I am in the frame of mind that it doesn't matter whether the offender's chatlog only or the whole chatlog was provided upon punishment within the current system. ######I'm only speaking for the ML part of the system here, not the ZT system and certainly not the gullible players that repeat ZT words.#######

I believe that if people were able to see their full behavioral history for valid reports within the past 3 months or 100 games (which ever is greater), it would show that their account has been slowly accumulating toxicity points, and they would understand more that they were punished based on consistency x severity.

Now comes to the question on what should be displayed in the history in order to provide the maximum value of understanding towards what caused those logs to be considered toxic. Is it just going to be something like the Monthly Report Cards? Or is it going to show chatlogs in past games?

Assuming we showed behavioral history and it showed recent game history (past 20 games) chatlogs, I guess it will go back to the question on whether it is beneficial to show the full logs.

Seeing that players will now see that in such model they can get valid reports without getting punished and when their account is starting to be on thin ice, I think players are smart enough to understand that punishment is based on consistency x severity, and will stop the arguement of how someone else was way more toxic than them and not punished.

Thus based on that assumption, I think it will be beneficial for people to be able to see full chatlogs and see how other people triggers them.

It probably won't change how players want to be vindictive and witch hunt other players that were more toxic than them within that game, but at least more transparency would make people understand the punishment system more, and by such, hopefully have lesser of those posts regarding revenge punishment.

Wacky91/3/2019, 5:34:03 PM2 votes

I think that the atmosphere of a game is what matters, and punishment should go to the player(s) responsible for creating that atmosphere. The reason that flaming is bad is that it creates a bad atmosphere in the game. People don't have fun when they get flamed, and even the bystanders don't like it. It creates and aura of toxicity around games. Game logs should be judged based on why the game atmosphere becomes negative. There is a difference between saying "You're an asshole" to a player who is doing what he/she should and a player that is flaming everyone else nonstop. There is a difference between asking to report two players that are back and forth flaming each other and asking to report someone who is having a bad game. These are clearly different actions taken in response to different situations. In one the player is responsible for creating a negative game atmosphere, in the other they are merely succumbing to it. This doesn't mean that whoever shoots first is wrong and whoever fires back is right. It doesn't justify constant back and forth flaming for the duration of the game. But there should be some wriggle room to player actions depending on the context of the situation. It might never be morally right to insult people but sometimes it isn't a major contributor to making the game unfun for everyone else.

World peace plz1/3/2019, 4:11:30 PM2 votes

Although i would like to see why the punisht player reacted or why it was diffecult not to react. Im still from opinion that others people behavior are no excuuse for your own actions. So that i can have at least a better understanding of the why you dint mute the person. But im also afraid some players are going to point out look that player said this to this player and dint should be punisht for hes reaction. That they try to justified the punisht player actions or saying that riot should not punish players who got flamed. In the end you still broke the rules and there is no excuus. But knowing why it was so diffcult to mute instand of counter flame would gif me a better idea of y you derserved this 100% or Srr that you had this person on your team but counterflaming only make things worse and you cant flame back cause sombody els did it first.

Dr Dog1/3/2019, 5:34:11 PM2 votes

i think context matters, BUT not in the "well he started ittttttttttt" way because thats a kindergarten argument and not a good one, it mainly matters in cases like telling someone to kill themselves, but in aram as actual advice lol. anyway i think your logs should always be looked at in a vacuum as no one else has much baring on what you, yourself say. tho this is probably just my opinion honestly if someone is disconnected from the game id like it if i was able to flame them (excluding 0 tolerance things) just to kinda vent when i have an afk because they arent really seeing what im saying and if they come back they still cant look back and see it, also being a little creative ive found (on smurf/throwaway accounts) can easily get through the 0 tolerance thing, like ive seen im not able to say kys but i can easily tell someone "put a bullet through your head" or "go play frogger on the highway" and never get banned for it, so id like flaws like that looked into

The Highest Noon1/3/2019, 5:45:36 PM2 votes

See, I come from the time of the Tribunal, when we didn't see just the reported player's chat log but the entire game's chat. Back then, Riot gave the impression that they actually should consider the entire context of the situation. Who was reported, who reported them (ally or enemy), what the reporting players said in their report statement; it was all color-coded and quite easy to see if someone was just making something up or even what instigated the offense, if anything at all.

Of course Tribunal didn't actually determine whether or not that player would be punished nor the severity of it, but it did provide Riot was a means of seeing if Player opinions differed from their own regarding the punishment system.

That little preface out of the way, in my opinion context should matter in games that involve at least two seperate human beings. We are not machines. We do not do anything for no reason. That reason matters to varying degrees, whether it's the same statement made by two different for two different reasons or why someone AFKs.

I'll give some examples of what I mean:

Player A doesn't leash Player B, so Player B decides to call Player A a yellow-bellied barnacle.

Player B should be punished, because that's just petty.

Player A doesn't leash Player B after Player B kindly asks for it. Player B pings for Player A to assist them, but Player A--who's well within reach to help--instead sits at their turret, presumably AFK. Player B believes from all their prior experience and knowledge of the game that Player A has more than enough capability to dominate the team fight, but Player A instead retreats to base, allowing their team to die and lose the game. In the results screen, Player A brags about their K/DA and calls their team heavy, bad players despite spending the entire game playing for themselves and refusing to help their team. Player B has had enough and tells Player A off, saying that if they'd done more to help the team they would've easily won.

Player B should not be punished for speaking their mind regarding Player A's refusal to cooperate.

Player A tells Player B to kill themselves for making a bad play, that if Player A could they'd go to Player B and abuse their children in the worst ways possible, that if Player A saw player B walking down a street that they'd beat Player B's face in with a barbed wire-wrapped baseball bat. Player B tells Player A to fuck off and just play better next time.

Player B should not be punished for reacting negatively to completely toxic and negative instigation.

Player A is on a team where Player B is AFK after running down mid trying to 1v1 Enemy A at least 5 times in the last minute, Player C is AFK jungling, Players D and E just don't even want to play seriously anymore, yet since it's not at the 20 minute mark yet the team can't properly Surrender, let alone early Surrender vote. Player A says they'll just wait at base until they can surrender.

Player A should not be punished for being AFK. ON THE OTHER HAND, Player B should be punished for rage-quitting.

[Above scenario] but Player C assaults Player A with abuse for no longer trying. 4 Towers have fallen in almost no time at all since Player B AFKed, and Player A really does not see any point in wasting time. Player A says they refuse to play when nobody is trying to win. Player C says it's all according to strategy and that if Player A doesn't play then they'll be reported. Player A says that strategy is terrible and there's no hope when nobody cares anymore.

I know what I think, but what does anyone else think should happen with the last one? INTERACTIVE HYPOTHETICALS GOOOO

[slayer-pantheon-popcorn]

SHIN0BU1/3/2019, 8:57:42 PM2 votes

I agree with you, however if the punishment is not for anything zero tolerance(words or griefing) I feel that context is necessary. I’ve had this issue first hand where I was arguing however I wasn’t toxic, harassing, anything like that, simply having an argument in which context, in my opinion, would’ve helped my case. The idea of context is that it shows the whole story, if I see a chat log I may see only part of what happened, for example someone may have argued but only in response, making it way less deserving of punishment as long as they did not do or say anything unacceptable. I hold chat like in real life where the person who draws first blood is the aggressor.

Telephone Booth1/3/2019, 11:36:13 PM2 votes

Context is obviously very important regarding discussions and basically everything in life. There is even context in the fact that the context in your chat logs isnt important. That context is the rules of league, and in the rules of league regarding toxicity, context doesnt matter. I feel like those who make the arguement about context in their logs, just are unaware of the rules and the fact that it doesnt matter who started it. Once that is explained to them, I feel like they understand, but stick to their guns because they already made such a strongly worded post and theyre passionate about being in the right and not admitting they were wrong. But deep down, they understand.

Also, Djinn is completely right about how it would be nice to see complete logs with context. Its not important, and it probanly wouldnt change my opinion about the punishment given, but in some cases it would help me understand the player better and how to get them to understand the rules better.

GigglesO1/3/2019, 5:15:48 PM1 votes

People need to learn how to use the ? BM and we wouldn’t have this issue.

That will be my opinion on the matter.

Edit: Bring on the downvotes! You know you hate the ? BM!

Madjack011/4/2019, 1:31:02 AM1 votes

Did this thread get bombed? I'm curious as to what these downvotes are about. Is it about the opinon expressed by the OP? Do people not like threads which focus more on discussion rather than selling a point? Does it have anything to do with the OP's status as specialist?

Personally, I upvoted this thread to increase visibility of a decently written thread and thus increase the potential number of opinions that would be expressed here, but I don't understand what kind of problems people could have with this thread. I'm genuinely curious to the point that it irks me that people can downvote without commenting.