Alternative Punishment for Players Permabanned for Chat Logs

rtbf23602824·5/21/2018, 7:41:02 AM·3 votes·1,393 views

Instead of permanently banning an account on which a person--who cares about winning--spent a great deal of time and money, why doesn't Riot just institute a permanent chat ban. For those players whose chat logs were the only reason they were punished, why does it make sense to permanently ban their accounts when a permanent chat ban would solve the problem. These players are not griefing, they are not inting, and they are not going afk. They are perhaps spewing inhuman, degrading, and unacceptable language in chat. Taking away their chat privileges would totally solve the problem. If Riot's employees were reasonable and capable of logical thought they would institute this fix and create a punishment that fits the "crime."

11 Comments

Arisha the Dark5/21/2018, 7:56:49 AM14 votes

You know, adding 2 options to your poll that both support your idea does not make your idea more legitimate. It actually reduces it's value, showing that you don't care about other people opinions and just want to force your opinion on others.

About actual idea. Riot already tried it. They concluded that players who are toxic in chat are usually toxic in chat because they want to vent their frustration. Because of that, if those players get permanent chat ban, many of them start venting their frustration in other ways, for example by inting or trolling. Even if they didn't do that before.

Jamaree5/21/2018, 8:09:23 AM12 votes

They tried that, it failed since said players just came up with different ways to be toxic.

Also, please get that "trying to win" bullshit out of here, if you were actually trying to win, you wouldn't be flaming in the first place.

ModPrandine5/21/2018, 6:04:33 PM5 votes

From Riot Tantram:

It really breaks down into two categories.

1.) Helping players reform 2.) Shielding others from the behavior, at a cost.

We used to issue chat restrictions that essentially scaled indefinitely.

We were able to determine that after a certain point the penalty no longer helped with reform. The 10-game and 25-game counts for chat restrictions are based on data that they were both light enough, and felt strict enough to encourage people to understand their behavior is unacceptable in game and change it.

We also saw that the players in this 'large restriction' category defaulted to gameplay altering means of harassing their team. It caused an increase in feeding and trolling.

The sample size of this population and time frame is huge. Essentially the time spanning from the introduction of chat restrictions to the introduction of IFS.

So my question for you is, would you rather have more feeders and less negative chat?

If someone isn't gonna interact with others in a mature and respectful manner despite getting multiple chances to do so then why shouldn't they be removed from the community?

P.S. In the future I would highly suggest refraining from making biased polls. When your only poll choices are ones agreeing with you then it just sends the message that you're not actually looking for a discussion, you just want to hear Yesman answers only, which is a very poor way of receiving feedback on stuff.