Pavle2001 (EUW)
: Couldn't have said it better. I've been a loyal player for 7+ years. And I've lost my main account a year ago because I've been playing with soo many trolls/inters and I've lost my temper _**TWICE**_. (don't bother commenting ''you don't know their intentions'' since I am not another 10IQ re-tard to not know these simple things). I assume the white knights will come and tell me that I don't know who's **intentionally** loosing games so I will give them some examples. A person that is following you in the jungle trying to take your camps, a person auto attacking enemies or simulating a fight and leaves them to finish him, a person who went to another lane to take creeps/xp and force fights and dying like it was an accident (**don't think this is your casual normal games, in ranked the story is completely different**) , a person who is not using anything to help you out in fights (when he can), a person who just moving around the map mindlessly doing NOTHING for minutes after you took red/blue buff (because he thought its his). If you think these examples are over-exaggerated or 1/50 games then you are delusional or just never played ranked seriously. These people will never appear in normals since they know that nobody gives a %%%% about winning there. The people actually do such things and never get punished, its not 1/50 games but more like 1/5 games. All of these examples are **NOT ** in your typical normal/bronze/silver (or even gold) games. So the majority of the league boards CANNOT RELATE. These trolls appear mostly in plat+ and they are all smart enough to not make the trolling/inting obvious. The current system can only punish the absolute idiots that make it obvious. But once you call them re-tards or whatever insult you throw at them you are the one getting punished. And don't come with that ''Just move to the next game'' , ''Its just a game'' , ''Nobody deserves to be insulted'' , ''Doesn't make you any better than him'' kind of bullshit since I've heard it all and its beyond ridiculous to say such thing to a more competitive player. Like someone can stay calm and friendly in 20-40 min game while being constantly provoked. Not to mention how often this happens... .
Honestly can't tell sometimes if trolling or very stupid. But I mean when you see your support has like 6 vision score @ 30 min and still 2 warding items, that's a bit ridiculous and vision is kinda important if you wanna win. Now Riot would like everyone to shut up because telling the 6 vision score support how ridiculous their performance is, makes them "feel bad" and that's toxic and" toxic players lose games and are everything thats wrong with the game". I don't buy that shit. Actually I've seen worse, literally 0 vision score at 20 min and when you ask them to ward they start spamming wards in your base. So maybe they were trolling from the beginning or they were bad and then they started trolling because they can't handle the feedback they get. Imagine playing support and not using wards... I can't, I just don't understand, it's such a simple thing, you just do it automatically. I watched Neace stream yesterday and he was basically hardstuck in gold II or something because players were so ridiculously bad and simply didn't know how to win. Then he switched account because his MMR got wrecked after a long loss streak and it wasn't worth the time. This is where the game is at. And it's not like the game is broken, the players are broken. lmao
: New lvl of reporting trolls/inters/griefers
They are not gonna do that. So much easier to have an unreliable automated system and just pretend that it's good. The truth is you can easily troll your team mates in ways that are undetectable, like intentionally not helping them in obvious situations, completely ignoring pings etc. You don't get punished but in return if whoever you trolled is asking whats wrong with you or criticizing you, you can give them the report for passive aggressive whatever and be like "haha this guy is so toxic /all report player for flaming the whole game. The system is heavily in favor of behavior that really ruins games on the level of actual gameplay, but the punishments for chat are way over the top. I guess it's also a political or PR thing because Riot wants show how good they are at fighting "toxicity". They are afraid of the media, that likes to pick on certain topics and blow them out of proportion so they would rather take this completely hypocritical stance instead of just making the game better. Monitoring the chat is easy too, but to think that you can completely fix trolling is delusional. So the question is, do we really want trolls to have tools to get players that care banned and basically screw them twice? I don't think it improves the game, it just makes everything even more frustrating. It's really crazy how I can't tell the support that he should ward or upgrade his items to even have wards without them immediately turning on me for "flaming". To be honest you can play like a complete degenerate and create your own world where everyone else is wrong and you are always right. Doesn't matter that you ruin games, your behavior is honorable.
: The Client is killing my PC
Rito pls stop putting spyware into the client, it has become too obvious.
: People still think winrate means how strong a champion is....
It kinda does. If not explain how a champion that has a low winrate can be strong at the same time?
Wen294 (EUW)
: Well Gragas' E never made any sense to me. Especially when you see him in URF and some fatty carrying a huge ass barrel comes sliding by at stupidly high speed.
It makes no sense but it's funny.
IzzŸ (EUW)
: PANTHEON - he's like a spartan warrior, right? He wasn't meant to be an assassin and I'd love to see him with more of a skirmisher-style kit than a one-shot or bust lane bully with zero counterplay either for him or his opponents.
Pantheon needs a full rework into a complete phalanx of 300 warriors that form a cohesive unit to block top lane. Q Spear throw W Push! E Taunt R Hero mode (1 soldier breaks out and goes into slow motion free style mode to kill everything)
Infernape (EUW)
: {{champion:86}} Hyped up in Lore to be this big courageous champion but in reality plays like a freaking coward.
{{champion:14}} "COWARDS!" (ults back to own base)
: Kits you Thematically disagree with
Soraka over time got turned into a support vampire. She pretty much enables any duo to play like Vlad. I know this was Riots attempt to deal with complaints about "uninteractive" supports, however who actually likes playing against a support that pokes you down and gets rewarded with increased sustains for 2 players? I rarely play against Soraka because I pick Soraka myself, but I imagine it's even worse than just having somebody sit in the backline and only heal. Thematically it's also a bit weird that Soraka is so aggressive.
: I love League of Legends Boards. It Feels so refreshing
What do you mean? "Different opinions"? Is that a thing? I think people tend to agree on the title and then they lose themselves in details they never thought about, then they just give up and start a new thread with similar title. Eventually it's like "everyone is saying it so it has to be true, right?".
Busty Demon (EUNE)
: Thank you riot for mute option.
Maybe he needed help from the jungler to get towers? I guess that's toxic if you expect anything from your team in a team game. What happened to playing around strong team mates? > I needed to farm and secure objectives. Then do that together with your mid laner. > dude you are fed and won your lane, what do you want?? Teamwork to win the game, plain and simple. There really are some special junglers out there jeez. > Rages. Inted. Flamed. I don't really buy that tbh. The fact that you opened this thread shows me that you had something to prove.
ShacoOrTaco (EUNE)
: Black ops? That's so rasistic call it Afro-American ops.
: Luck has a part of playing support. You never know whether you'll be having ADC main or autofill carry. I recommend learning at least one carry support (I use Bard or Lux), so you have something to pick if the assigned carry goes around asking for swap or clearly says they're autofilled.
If your ADC is already bad and you pick Lux this could doom your match even more.
VIT Laati (EUNE)
: If you want to climb as a support in yolo-Q without a duo, don't bother with champions like Janna, Soraka or Sona. Those require your main carries to be decent, and do the actual damage. Play something like Fiddlesticks instead. He has carry potential, while also providing valuable CC.
If you you wanna carry as Fiddlestick, don't waste the support slot and go jungle or something.
: Is it viable to climb as support?
Sometimes you are at the mercy of your team mates decisions and abilities, but I think every role has their own unique way to get screwed by their team. As support you sometimes need a lot of patience...almost indifference. Sometimes no matter how bad your team plays, the enemy team manages to be even worse when you didn't expect it.
: I really dont like Nexus Blitz
Same, but luckily I don't have to play it. xD
Cryptidian (EUNE)
: Does anyone else often lose track of the new in-game cursor during fights?
No I can see the cursor fine, I just sometimes lose my champion in the visual pollution during fights. xD
: mate helping with a scuttle or dragon... should i even comment on this? a top has more presence, he can roam and kill on mid, he can TP and kill bot then also take drake. mid can go top, can go bot, do herald. jungler can go to THREE lanes and do objectives. an adc can only be of some assistance and has to WAIT for someone to take initiative like i said adc mostly come into play after 14ish minutes when lanephase end or a tower is taken. if you dont understand these things then pls dont comment. p.s i see you're silver, ill stop here.
As ADC you can try to ping and hope that somebody reacts. xD
: Yes yes, whatever. Let's just say you are right for the sake of peace. I think I didn't even disagree with you on this. I just talked about Riot, not this university-gender-thingy. Still not AT ALL related to topic at hand. Stay on topic please.
I would love to stay on topic but you keep dodging without fitting counter arguments. So we just broadened the perspective a little bit in hopes you would actually realize what I am saying, but nvm. Stay in your bubble.
: > It is justifiable the same way as kicking someone from university or work because of what he says or type on social medias. A more fitting analogy would be a university kicking a student for harassing other students during lectures. Riot doesn't give a shit what you do outside of the game (like social media). But if you mistreat other people IN THE GAME, you get excluded from the game if you refuse to stop. With the rest I fully agree.
Yes like Lindsay Shepherd the teaching assistant at Wilfried Laurier University who** dared** to show a clip from TVOntario about free speech as part of a debate to happen in class. She was then accused of being transphobic and creating a toxic environment because she exposed the student to this dangerous different opinion. That is what Diversity and Equity stands for in Canada, which is the equivalent to Diversity and Inlcusion in the USA. That story shows you what you are running into. Is that what you want to happen everywhere? https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lindsay+shepherd Really good social standard.
: Well... yeah, that's... at least somewhat true, in that it would make sense for people who have been in chat like that, to be able to come back when they think they... won't be likely to do the same thing again?
Or you could ban people for manipulating gameplay when they actually do manipulate it. Riot should focus on finding players who really sabotage games instead of playing language police.
: > Obviously there are a lot of players who get banned for chatting Please call things as they are. They don't get banned just for chatting. They get banned for being toxic, for harassing other people, for being jerks to other people. Not just chatting. > but they still like to play this game Probably, but they also lack manners, respect or self control. It doesn't matter how much they like to play the game, it's about their behavior problem. And those players who manage to get a permaban for how they treat others in chat are somewhat special. And this "special" characteristic, whatever it is exactly, seems to also prevent them from improving their behavior on the long run. That was the result of Riots experiment. That's simply a fact, it's what this experiment showed. The exact reasons of course are probably complicated and different depending on the person. But the connection between "behaves bad enough to get a permaban" and "Is unable to improve" is definitly strong and definitely exist, no matter what exactly the reason for this connection is. The empirical evidence for this is extremely clear. > They are way too good at policing chat Too good? Would you prefer them to be bad at it, banning innocents and letting guilty players get away? That's not what you mean, right? The difference between how Riot punishes chat violations and inting has absolutely nothing to do with priorities. The reason for the difference is very simple: One is much easier to prove than the other. If someone flames, there is rock solid evidence, the chat. Either he flamed or he didn't, there is no wiggle room for discussion or interpretation, no insecurity, no doubt. The evidence is right there. If someone ints, it's much more complicated. Unless the inter is stupid enough to admit it, there is no evidence. Intention only exists in that persons head, so without the ability to read someones mind you have no evidence. At the very best you can be reasonable sure, but you can't really be ACTUALLY sure. And since you don't want players to be banned for just having a bad game (since that would mean EVERYBODY would get banned at some point), you have to be very sure. And that is simply difficult, due to the lack of clear evidence. THAT is the difference between chat violations and inting. It has absolutely nothing to do with Riots priorities. One problem is just way harder (or even impossible) to solve than the other. > It's almost like Riot wants the players to feel oppressed by restricting their ability to be honest in chat If "being honest" is a euphemism for "being a jerk", then yes, that's what they want to reduce. Try being "honest" in the same way in real life (to stranger, not your friends!). You will end up in either a hospital or a prison pretty quickly. > Because people are jerks all the time That's not a reason. 100% of all people die, however that's not a reason to just give up on medicine and trying to prevent people from dying. Same logic. You mix up how things ARE and how they SHOULD be. > you don't want them to become even worse jerks, but that is what Riot has achieved, It backfired. That is simply incorrect. Riots system is pretty effective in reducing toxic behavior, most people actually reform. Not only was this researched by multiple independent scientists outside of Riot, but this was also super clearly visible when Riot opened new servers without PB systems (TR, KR) and how much this changed when those systems launched. > In our society you actually have the right to say a lot of bad things about people. Sort of, yeah. Insulting and harassment however are still punishable crimes in almost all countries, even if plenty of people believe otherwise. Those laws actually exist and are enforced. > So how is Riot leading our culture when they ban us for saying "you are an idiot if you facecheck that brush" for example. Like I said: Riot is not leading anything. They are providing the tools, that's all. Thats why, for example, cursing is completely fine in League, because the vast majority of players does not have a problem with it. > In Germany where I live for example there are not even different words for this. There are no words, that's right, but there are expressions for it: Biologisches Geschlecht and soziales Geschlecht. Also this isn't exactly a good argument. I mean, 100 years ago the word "quantum physics" didn't exist either, but that changes absolutely nothing about the undeniable quality of the concept. > Redefining gamers is one of the points. Please read the article that comes from Riot's PR itself... and read it very carefully Neither the word "redefine" nor the word "gamer" even appear in the article. They are talking about changing their own culture, the company culture. > the system that was set up is flawed You keep saying that, but you don't actually point out WHY it's flawed. You not liking it because it's bad for people who behave like you is not argument. That's not a flaw, that is your personal opinion.
> Riots system is pretty effective in reducing toxic behavior, most people actually reform. Really how would you know that? Because they no longer use the chat? But then do they not use the chat because they want to or because they are afraid to get banned? Does that really mean they changed? They are still frustrated and this has an effect on gameplay and PR. > You keep saying that, but you don't actually point out WHY it's flawed. if you also think that 1+1 is still 1 than I don't why I am even talking to you. You make really bad comparisons and refuse to follow my reasoning only to say "you didn't say". > There are no words, that's right, but there are expressions for it: Biologisches Geschlecht and soziales Geschlecht. > Also this isn't exactly a good argument. I mean, 100 years ago the word "quantum physics" didn't exist either, but that changes absolutely nothing about the undeniable quality of the concept. No good argument? I guess you consider it a good argument when people shame you for not respecting somebodies totally imagined identity. But when actual biology and psychology tells you this is complete bullshit and provides counter-evidence and evidence for what actually is true. What is your answer then? You don't get to define stuff without empirical evidence and write it into a law like they did in Canada. You really support that? it's insanity. There are no laws about quantum physics theories that affect society. Your comparisons are just crazy. Jeez.
: You got banned on an account that you had spent $2500 on? Did I misread something or is that actually true? Also, I think it... would maybe be almost reasonable to unban people like you, but then the issue is that I think Riot has it so that, no matter the circumstances, permanent bans are permanent bans (when applied with proper reason)
> Also, I think it... would maybe be almost reasonable to unban people like you. That is a nice double standard. It would be perfectly reasonable to not ban people from the game because of chat, even from an economic perspective, if you ban somebody who spend $2000 that player would probably think about never giving you money again.
: Funny how all banned account always have like 2000€ worth of skins and stuff. I find it kinda unbeliavable that many people would spend that much on a free to play video game. Whether you spent 0€ to 1000000€, it doesn't matter, ban is a ban. You had your warnings, should've listened to them. Just because you're young doesn't mean you'll get out of jail card.
I don't think there are a lot of 1st world countries where you could get into jail because you call somebody bad words. So "jail" comparisons are completely misplaced, Riot is a company not your parents.
Mcgalakar (EUNE)
: >It's just a big fail. Banning somebody from the game, just for chat and not gameplay is inherently wrong anyway. It's not justifiable. It is justifiable the same way as kicking someone from university or work because of what he says or type on social medias. People need to understand that they have no special privileges to act in the way that is socially unaccepted just because they feel anonymous on Internet. Not to mentioning, there is almost no difference between flamers and trolls in the long run. Both behaviours lead to losing the games.
> It is justifiable the same way as kicking someone from university or work because of what he says or type on social medias. No it's not justifiable. Daniel Z Klein wanted to become a martyr of the social justice warriors who also claim that the society is oppressed by white men. That's his narrative. He acted intentionally. And now he can say "look I am the living proof of oppression". "All players are toxic and sexist and i got bullied by them blah blah blah" Just think about that for a while. The system that was set up by riot and their "social media policies" actually allow him to get fired because of freaking mob rule. Ingame it's the same. You get fired for mob rules. it's clearly not a good standard. Because mobs can be incited. By press like Kotaku....or social media.... OR people who only come into the game to troll (aka activists)
: > Sounds more like they gave this "chance" only to players who literally want to behave like rabid animals. Well...yeah...it was given to players who managed to get a permaban. So obviously it was the kind of player who behave, as you describe it, "like rabid animals". > Somebody like OP here, would always reach level 20, if they tried, EASILY. Assuming that everything he said is true, yes. And it's easy to judge this AFTERWARDS. But predicting that someone will reform is pretty much impossible, since everyone is able to fake regret and the will to improve. > That's a big shift. Why? Care to elaborate? > Banning somebody from the game, just for chat and not gameplay is inherently wrong anyway. It's not justifiable. Again: Why? Why would you NOT be punished for being a jerk to other people? You are punished for that EVERYWHERE, why would Leauge (or games in general) be the exception? > This is not science, science clearly says that there are 2 genders, "non-binary" is a political leftist and authoritarian statement. You confuse gender and sex. And even then it's not entirely correct. Gender is a complex topic and there are plenty of different opinions about it, some of them (on both sides) definitely unreasonable. But claiming that science says there are only 2 genders is just factually wrong. Also please keep in mind that this discussion is NOT AT ALL about this topic. Not even a little. Please do not derail this discussion by switching the topic entirely. If you want to discuss gender and Riots stance on it, do that in a discussion that is actually about that topic or create your own. > They don't get to define gamers They don't actually do that. They don't shape the community as they want it to be, they shape the community as THE COMMUNITY wants. Riot never specified actual rules for behavior. Try looking for them, they don't exist. All there is is the summoners code, which is extremely vague. The actual rules about what is okay and what isn't are defined by the community via crowdsourcing (basically big data analysis of reporting behavior). So no, Riot is not redefining gamers or engineering the community. They just provide tools for the community to govern themselves and set their own standards and rules.
> Well...yeah...it was given to players who managed to get a permaban. So obviously it was the kind of player who behave, as you describe it, "like rabid animals". No please don't twist my words. Obviously there are a lot of players who get banned for chatting but they still like to play this game and there are only extremely few players that only play the game to be pure trolls and to ruin games. If you deny that we won't have a discussion, because that's very dishonest and disrespectful towards those players who are out there. > That's a big shift. I already explained it but ok, so again, Riot is giving wrong incentives, they restrict chat and don't focus enough on gameplay. They are way too good at policing chat and there are way too many cases of actual inters who come into a game with the sole intention to ruin it, that go unpunished. This has an undeniable effect at player behaviour and even the mood in general and you can see that just by looking at the results. Where do you see users giving positive feedback? Point me to it, because I don't see it. It's almost like Riot wants the players to feel oppressed by restricting their ability to be honest in chat and being more lenient on the gameplay side where you can actually completely manipulate a game and still go unpunished. Chatting doesn't immediately ruin a game. But direct action or inaction of your champion does. > Again: Why? Why would you NOT be punished for being a jerk to other people? You are punished for that EVERYWHERE, why would Leauge (or games in general) be the exception? Because people are jerks all the time and you don't want them to become even worse jerks, but that is what Riot has achieved, It backfired. Are you gonna say they do this on purpose? That would be scandalous to say the least. In our society you actually have the right to say a lot of bad things about people. I can walk up to somebody and say, I think you behave like an idiot if you cross a road with a red light. You don't get arrested for that. So how is Riot leading our culture when they ban us for saying "you are an idiot if you facecheck that brush" for example. Because this is what they claim, to by "stewards of culture". What kind of culture is that supposed to be? > You confuse gender and sex. No I don't, there are still countries where social science is not ideological corrupt and pushing agendas by changing whole definitions. In Germany where I live for example there are not even different words for this. But if I translate into english I suddenly have 2 choices. And this is because there was never a need to have 2 different words. The empirical science is absolutely clear on that. Sex and Gender are not independent. Gender is not a social construct, that's just an ideology that gets pushed and its only based on theories rather than validated scientific knowledge. > They don't actually do that. Riot stated in the D&I statement what they are going to do. Redefining gamers is one of the points. Please read the article that comes from Riot's PR itself... and read it very carefully: https://www.riotgames.com/en/work-with-us/diversity-and-inclusion > The actual rules about what is okay and what isn't are defined by the community via crowdsourcing (basically big data analysis of reporting behavior). Again no it is not, because the system that was set up is flawed and the community can only have influence within the parameters of what counts as offense and gets punished and what does not count as offense or does not get punished consistently enough.
: > I read that some people after 4 years got their account unbanned. You read wrong. Riot is extremely consistent on this, permanent bans are actually permanent and they are only lifted if the ban was an actual mistake. But if you got rightfully permabanned for toxicity, the account is gone forever. Just a bit of additional context, since these topics usually come up when there is a discussion about lifting a permaban: a) There was an experiment in the past when Riot unbanned permanently banned players if they managed to level an account to lvl 20 without getting banned again. This chance was only given to people who seemed genuinely sorry and where Riot was sure they would be able to improve. Almost 100% of them failed this challenge, which lead to the conclusion that apparently those people who manage to get a permaban are unable to improve. That's why Riot doesn't lift permabans. Right now this experiment is repeated in NA with slightly different parameters (not publicly known). However it's NA only and it's already closed, Riot is evaluating the experiment right now and probably for many more months. It's likely that the outcome will be similar to last time, so don't get your hopes up. It's mostly "for science" and it's extremely unlikely that there will ever be a process to unban permanently banned accounts. b) People tend to bring up Tyler1 when discussing this topic. Please be aware that Tyler1s permabans were NOT lifted. Tyler1 had an ID ban, which means that he was banned as a person and was not allowed to play on or create any account in League. THAT ban was lifted, his account bans were not lifted. Account bans are not lifted for anyone.
> There was an experiment in the past when Riot unbanned permanently banned players if they managed to level an account to lvl 20 without getting banned again. This chance was only given to people who seemed genuinely sorry and where Riot was sure they would be able to improve. > Almost 100% of them failed this challenge, which lead to the conclusion that apparently those people who manage to get a permaban are unable to improve. That doesn't make sense at all. It's not plausible. Sounds more like they gave this "chance" only to players who literally want to behave like rabid animals. Somebody like OP here, would always reach level 20, if they tried, EASILY. But that's not really the problem, the system giving wrong incentives and rewards is a problem. It actually enforced too agreeable behaviour with rewards while punishing people who tend to be vocal if they disagree. That's a big shift. And the result is what we have now. Everyone suddenly thinks that something is wrong with the game, they are frustratedand say "lol became so much worse", but they can't really put it into words for a variety of individual reasons. It's just a big fail. Banning somebody from the game, just for chat and not gameplay is inherently wrong anyway. It's not justifiable. It's not Riots job to parent players and the fact that they are taking a stand for non-binary gender is actually unbeleivable. This is not science, science clearly says that there are 2 genders, "non-binary" is a political leftist and authoritarian statement. How did this happen? Also redefine "gamers" or "merit" for the purpose of their work? They don't get to define gamers, the gamers are whoever want to play the game. These are actually first signs of cultural engineering. Every important job description at Riot games now says something like "you'll not only exemplify our cultural pillars, but also be adept at imparting them on others" This isn't just some weirdness of wording, make no mistake.
Zanador (EUNE)
: Oh, i'm nowhere close to the SJW ideology. I rely on logic alone, and i don't really bother with emotions or feelings other than keeping them in mind because i don't gain anything by upsetting everyone. You are closer to the SJWs than i am from my point of view. And no, people don't have to be positive all the time. They don't have to pretend that it is a happy go lucky sunshine game and nobody messed up and we are all friends. But you are expected to be either neutral or silent. In 9+ years and 9000+ matches i have met more than enough people i would not want to ever meet, but i never wrote anything to them. It writing would not benefit me. Even without a punishment system i would gain absolutely nothing by answering to someone in game or flaming them. Again, you say it is hard not to be toxic, even tho the range of acceptable interactions is just as wide as the not accepted ones. Why do you think that eventually everyone will be toxic at one point?
> You are closer to the SJWs than i am from my point of view. They don't want you to speak. I do. Here and in the game.
Daishar (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=FixHealsRemoveGW,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=AAzLk3FT,comment-id=000400000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-09T18:55:07.691+0000) > > No wait. actually it was my bad that I even made the mistake to reply to this because you jumped in on a comment that I made towards somebody else....should have looked at your name. lol > > So yea that was your comment. > The freakin one liner. > I stand behind what I said. You are too lazy to try and differentiate clearly, so I don't think we can find common ground and I am not gonna waste time. You really have some mental issues buddy. Even when I said sorry you are still atacking me for no reason. You are just a %%%% thats alI i can say after reading your commnets. For you, only your opinion is important and you made this post just to argue with people.
48kg (EUW)
: > I find it so interesting that out of most of the people who reply to this, one with 16 bans actually comes up with an elaborate opinion. A lot of this comes from the fact that people actually have no idea what you get banned for nowadays. When a person that hasn't been punished before sees that I have 16 permabans, he is going to think that I'm some psychopath that spends most of my gameplay threatening people and directly namecalling them, a guy who has an int list and what not. This is not the case. I kid you not that there aren't even swear words in my ban texts. I'm not talking directly shit to anyone, I'm just someone who cares about the game and gets frustrated a lot easier than others. Yes, I call out mistakes and I'm negative towards the game. Yes, I do understand that I ruin the competitive environment in some cases and I might not be fun to play with when I have the ability to express myself **but I care and I'm trying to win unlike others, and this is why I want my chat be taken away, not my ability to play the game** Remove the ability to play from people who aren't interested in playing, remove the ability to chat from people who aren't interested in being friendly with strangers no matter what goes on in the game.
> Remove the ability to play from people who aren't interested in playing, remove the ability to chat from people who aren't interested in being friendly with strangers no matter what goes on in the game. Yes I agree. But there still is this weird shift of behaviour in the game. Players are hyperagreeable and overly nice and sometimes too silent and passive but when you talk to them and disagree with something they suddenly freak out completely. This is a really interesting read on this topic: https://lifehacker.com/the-problem-with-being-too-agreeable-1791893359 This is actual psychology. If the instant punishment system makes people too agreeable to a point where it's disingenuous this has negative results on players. > researchers suggested that the overly agreeable players made everyone else feel bad about themselves. Second everyone else also viewed the agreeable players as “**rule-breaker**s" It is also said that being too agreeable is: > actually a narcissistic need: I even want people to like me when I don’t like or care about them. > We agree to call a truce when we’re still hurt. We agree with opinions we don’t believe. > It’s obvious to see how this becomes a problem. You get so used to pleasing the people around you that after a while, you hardly remember what pleases you. This is why too-agreeable people are also frequently INDECISIVE. > You get **stressed and anxious** So isn't that precisely the problems that are in the game right now? Indecisive, stressed out, anxious, people accusing each other of not playing by the rules. You know what, you are actually doing the right thing by calling out mistakes and being negative sometimes. Just the problem is that the chat restrictions+honor made some people disingenuous bootlickers to say it bluntly. You see them as disingenuous, indecisive and you obviously don't like that because it's a competitive game. (so do i btw) You get frustrated because you are punished for that. And the "honor farming" players they actually get stressed out too. This whole system is giving a complete unhealthy spin on player behaviour. The players who don't want to get punished put themselves under pressure and it doesn't work out well. The players who don't accept this (too agreeable and overly nice) behaviour, they also get pressured by the threat of punishment and by the weird behaviour of their team and them being indecisive. I would consider myself as not agreeable, before I agree you need to convince me and overly nice players really piss me off, because I also think it's not honest and indecisive players also piss me off because I want a team game. So from my point of view the evidence is there, that this system is completely wrong and not justified.
Daishar (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=FixHealsRemoveGW,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=AAzLk3FT,comment-id=0004000000010000,timestamp=2018-09-09T15:24:37.530+0000) > > I never said you were disrespecting, that was another comment from somebody else. Just a one liner. xD > Stop being offended. I wasn't talking about you. > > With my first sentence I actually meant that you understand the issues better than somebody who never got banned. Sorry, it was my bad then.
No wait. actually it was my bad that I even made the mistake to reply to this because you jumped in on a comment that I made towards somebody else....should have looked at your name. lol So yea that was your comment. The freakin one liner. I stand behind what I said. You are too lazy to try and differentiate clearly, so I don't think we can find common ground and I am not gonna waste time.
Zanador (EUNE)
: You draw the spectrum up with normal behavior being in the middle. You are afraid of punishment because it all seems to you like a big balancing act on a wire, where it is easy to misstep once and fall to either side. But i see two completely different kind of behavior type. One is toxic, ranging from mild to severe and the other is normal, ranging from neutral to positive. If you stay on the normal kind, no matter what you say, you won't be punished. But once you start using the toxic options, you put yourself into a risk. This is why i wish that newer players had the opportunity to try the Old Tribunal too. It showed us a lot about how the system works and how people thought about toxicity. There were very few cases we couldn't handle, and the vast majority had no doubt involved. If a case was toxic, 200 people voted to punish it with maybe one or two vote for pardon. Non-toxic cases were the exact opposite: 200 votes to pardon vs 1-2 punish votes. It is not a thin line, and a huge majority knows the difference. If you have any question on what is acceptable and what is not, feel free to ask me or the whole boards, because these can be separated very well.
I think it's naive to think that players will always be positive. That is never gonna happen and I just told you why. We are not bots programmed to behave perfectly in chat and also play well. And this idea of always being postitive is actually hitting territory where you are just dishonest, with yourself and others. Like you blame yourself without being convinced that it was your fault and you apologize for nothing or you make compliments when nobody really deserves them.... just out of a habbit. SJW's pretend to be like that, normal players don't, it's not good behaviour and it will eventually result in even worse outbursts of bad behaviour or depression. Look at Daniel Z Klein... we can learn from his behaviour, that really seemed over the top and hypocritical.
Kalvix (EUW)
: Do they ban people from chatting? as if people are toxic it could be helpful if they do hidden-bans on chat so people think they can chat but nobody else sees it.
No look: We need punishments for pure insults, threats and all that shit that is really extreme, the maximum punishment there should be a very long ban from the chat. No doubt about that. We need no punishments for players who are impolite in chat but also using logic to talk about the game, a lot of flamers are still using reason, they just add offensive phrases to make their words seem more heavy when they are in a bad mood or angry. You can mute them if you want but don't treat them like extreme toxic elements, it's really not a good idea. We also need to promote constructive attitudes and get players more informed about game mechanics to reduce behaviour like lack of communication, playing too carelessly against better knowledge. Because they might be polite but it still hinders the game so, just promote teamwork and competitive spirit. Do not punish. We need to punish players who clearly just sabotage and do not try to play the game seriously. The maximum punishment there is banning from the game completely. No doubt about that It's all about ruling out the things that you really don't want to be promoted. And not ruling out things that should be promoted. That is the key. If you attack players that are behaving kinda bad but also have potential.... you just piss them off completely. That's not gonna work. You can't exclude them because then they are out of reach and you can't influence them positively anymore.... except they will still come back.
Zanador (EUNE)
: >Why is that bad for the game? Yes, for several reasons: First, how quickly do you think the average player can type in a detailed plan and a reasoning why the other player's plan is bad? I don't know about you, but to write well formed plans down, i need time, and flaming is never decided by who can say something bigger than the other. This leads to two: how often do you win games with 2 AFKs on your team? Personally my stats would be 1 in every 200, and usually the enemy needs to have 3 AFKs for us to win. If two players stop to flame each other, they are not just flaming, they are trolling as well, since they are not actively trying to help the team, but rather focus on their petty personal objectives. And third: if you think one of your teammates is following a strategy that will not work in that particular match and you have the time to tell him this, then you are free to do so right now. You can disagree with your teammates and you can tell them what you think is the correct plan. You just can't flame. Btw i agree with you. Toxicity is a spectrum. There is a vast difference between cussing someone's mother and open racism or intentional feeding. But i don't think that any part of that spectrum is acceptable at all. Channel your efforts constructively, because flaming does not help the team, and within a match there is rarely enough time to discuss complex issues anyway. Do it on the boards or after the match if you both want to keep the conversation going, but in game, keep is short and sportsmanlike. After all, there are 3 other play members of your team who might need the chat or pings to communicate with each other. No need to be selfish.
> But i don't think that any part of that spectrum is acceptable at all. Really? what about the reasonable part of the spectrum? There has to be some tolerance or otherwise we would only allow the very middle into the game, which are basically perfect players who play perfectly and behave perfecty. This simply can't work. We are not bots.
Daishar (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=FixHealsRemoveGW,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=AAzLk3FT,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2018-09-09T13:23:04.139+0000) > > I find it so interesting that out of most of the people who reply to this, one with 16 bans actually comes up with an elaborate opinion. > > I see it like this, players disagree on gameplay, sometimes they do so with a more challenging attitude. Like they literally challenge a team member in chat to explain and defend themselves. They do this because they put a lot of thought into their games. > > It's like the disappointment when you want the game to work, you want to work with your team and it just doesn't... well what are you gonna do? You address the issues that you see openly. > > This is just normal. > > And if you get offended you should have the strengths to ignore being offended and just come up with counter arguments. > > Sou see there is such a huge difference between > > 1. "why did you not attack you bloody idiot" > > 2. "you are an idiot" > > And players nowadays are so busy being offended by anything that they don't notice this anymore. > The 1. is somebody who cares about the game, the 2. is somebody who absolutely doesn't. > > So we are constantly judging people who really put a lot of effort into their games the same way as players who are not even real players. > And we don't just hand out chat restrictions based on this, no we treat them like "toxic" > What is toxic? It's just some stupid lable, which btw is used by SJW's quite a lot. > If they wanted to invade this game, well then they are already there. > They are the players who do not put any effort whatsoever into their gameplay and ALSO don't communicate but they will always put the toxic lable on you, if you care about the game and dare to "offend them" with challenging idas. > > And then the system rewards this behaviour, there is just no incentive to really play well and work WITH your team. > > And the comments here that are so simplistic with lack of thought: > > They are like not even reading...what the hell. I clearly deconstructed toxicity into a bad attitude that can manifest as any behaviour or gameplay action/inaction. There is huge variety and we should be really careful how much we ban and who we listen to. > > Anyone who replies to this saying > > They just didn't get it. Not even gonna bother to make another long reply because they don't even appreciate it if I take this time to express my opinion, zero respect. > > A competitive game is not one of those > > SAFE SPACES > > that would be suited for people who for example demand safe spaces for their identity or the identity of others that they claim to speak for. > (does that ring a bell) > > The real world also is not a safe space in terms of ideas. We wouldn't even use computers if we would only concern ourselves with protecting ideas by creating isolated environments. No, we would be a bunch of tribes, throwing rocks, maybe an occasional spear. You assumed a lot of things just from one comment. I don't know how I was disrespectful while just giving my opinion. If you want to talk about it I can too write long comments stating my full idea about the topic but the thing is that I don't care enough. And no, I was not trying to be rude, mean or argue with you.
I never said you were disrespecting, that was another comment from somebody else. Just a one liner. xD Stop being offended. I wasn't talking about you. With my first sentence I actually meant that you understand the issues better than somebody who never got banned.
Zanador (EUNE)
: >Because in short I also think that toxic chat is for the most part an indicator for and a result of toxic gameplay, chat is used to vent but also to exchange ideas and you can restrict communication and make people afraid of using the chat, but then the gameplay is still toxic and all the negativity and the conflicts will manifest somewhere else, for example as even worse gameplay or hatred towards Riot... troll pings, soft inting, tilting. If toxic game play would be the main cause, i might agree with you on this part, but my experience tells me that most of the time flaming starts when two players follow two different strategies. Both of their idea can work, both of them want to win, they just can't agree on which one to choose because they don't think that the other's plan is good. My, admittedly anecdotal experience tells me that toxic gameplay (ie. trolling, feeding) usually follows flaming, not the other way around. More research on this topic might be interesting. And people shouldn't be afraid to use the chat. The reports don't matter at all if you didn't flame or troll too, so it doesn't matter if your teammates thought you did. >The chat should remain free and only extreme offenses should be punished, because the chat is not the source and you can't fix anything by doctoring around on the surface. I'll give you the same task i did to everyone else so far who shared this point of view with you: League is currently a 12+ rated game. If Riot didn't even attempt to regulate the chat aside from the extreme cases, then they would need to increase the rating to maybe 16+, but most like 18+ (or even 21+ in the USA). While this would not be bad for the players who remain, but Riot also wants to make money. Your job is to show them that they would make more money from this change. Please notify me when you have your data ready. >What I also find interesting is that players indirectly report themselves, [...] To a certain degree, this is correct. But the IFS used the data Riot collected from the old Tribunal, and we, the players who were there to use it, ran it on a very low tolerance policy. So right now, to change the base line drastically, you'd need 100 million players to quickly agree on the matter. For better or for worse, you are stuck with the boundaries that we set earlier. And depending on what exactly you meant by "basically everyone has the potential to be toxic to some extent" i either agree with you or completely disagree. Yes, everyone can write something punishable, and as a consequence everyone can be punished even after a single game. But i've played this game for more than 9 years now, and 20+ of my friends played between 3 to 7 years and none of us ever got even a chat restriction. Players are not in danger of being unjustly punished. >Who the hell had this idea that the players could all become morally superior white knights who never say anything that could offend another person? To me this is delusional... unrealistic AND the exact opposite happened. Just for Laughs, here is a comic from the [early days of the Old Tribunal.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/484/135/6a9.jpg) I still laugh when i read it. :D And yes, it is unrealistic to never say anything that can offend another person. And it would be completely stupid to expect that from people. However the objective is to not be toxic, and not to not be offensive. It might seem like a play on words, but there is an important difference. For example: When one of your teammates just narrow-sightedly runs into the enemy ambush alone, instead of saying "you F idiot" or "that was F stupid", you can also say "well, i've seen better results from you before" or "that didn't go as you planned". The player in question might get offended by any of these four, but the later two was not toxic, so you won't get punished. As an alternate option, you can also ignore the one who died and try to communicate with the rest of the team instead, like "now we will need to def against a push, please come back to the base" and you will not only not be punished, but you will be a positive influence. >So yea, player frustration is a huge factor here and I think restricting chat actually increases frustration as opposed to helping reduce it for a player who genuinely cares about the game. Chat restriction is designed to be frustrating for the one who is restricted. It is a punishment after all, and it is meant to be annoying. >I also think that most players would actually care about the game but they are often associated with people that don't, because it's part of the blame games, and then the real stereotype trolls, they are a really small minority who get more praise than they deserve in terms of their contribution to the problem. It is getting a little bit late, but i honestly don't understand this part. Sorry. --------------------------------------- >And if you think I am wrong answer this: How do you feel if you want to tell or ask a team mate something and you get told that you are toxic or muted/reported for doing so? >Did this never happen to you? I feel absolutely nothing. I've told my point, he rejected it, so i move on. This is just an obstacle along the way. I don't see a reason to feel anything more than i would feel when i saw a Triforce on the enemy Jax. I include both of these in my plans on how to win and feelings are not involved. Happened to me me in more matches than what the average player has played.
> flaming starts when two players follow two different strategies Why is that bad for the game? You know what happens when two players follow two different strategies and get into a heated debate and then they both get chat restricted or banned afterward? They are just angry as %%%%. You can bet on that, but they will not stop trying to play. The way I see it toxicity is like a spectrum. You have 2 extreme sides of **unreasonable** behaviour: 1. pure insults in chat 2. playing bad intentionally Riot tried too hard to fight **purely offensive** chat but also ended up fighting chat that is **not purely offensive**. So we get into the part of the spectrum where players are **reasonable to a certain extent** and we punish them really hard, as if they were part of the extremes. In this spectrum there should be huge spaces between * the middle which would be a small spectrum of acceptable behaviour ( reaching from playing kinda bad but being polite or being kinda aggressive in chat and try harding) . . . . . . * and the 2 extremes Riot reduced this huge space to a line and attempted to cross the line on one side when they started punishing the tiny part in the middle. But on the other hand they still struggle to punish the extreme of playing bad intentionally and they also give honor to players who are kinda bad but being polite in the middle. The result is: Everything shifts toward the extreme of playing bad intentionally, because overall the system that was established to regulate player behaviour tends to favor this extreme. So what I would suggest is, we should never touch the middle part of the spectrum where players still show signs of reason, because this does serious damage.
Daishar (EUW)
: Giving more freedom to toxicity won't make it better.
Based on what I argued the toxicity was just shifted towards the gameplay side and flaming Riot outside of the game. So yea you have absolutely no reason to make this comment. It clearly doesn't work to say that toxicity is chat and that we have to restrict it. It made the gameplay worse and what is more important, chat that you can mute or gameplay? it's not that complicated, really. There were just some additional aspects worth pointing out and for some reason people can't grasp long posts....
: Because people are just flaming every single game? Lol players are just a giant pile of accumulate garbage
Nolex (EUNE)
: toxicity is not a number 1 problem in league of legends for the million times. People sucks in game knowlage. Thats the number 1 issue that creates toxicity. If adc cant farm- its tilting, if top dies 5 times in 10 minutes- its tilting. If our jungler dont have hands or minimap ON - its tilting. If enemy mid roam 5 times botlane and our mid is lost in time and space- its tilting. I hope u get my point.
Yes I agree and imo these habbits that you decribe get rewarded if you are really good at being offended by anything your team tells you. We literally reward bad attitudes and casual players who don't give a shit about the game. What is a bigger offense in a competitive game? Playing shitty and feeling offended when you get heated feedback? Or tryharding and giving heated feedback?
Cypherous (EUW)
: > You need to define toxicity and what it means to be a toxic player if you want to argue against anything I said.... because you are throwing everything in one pot, as if there were no individual players. Stop labeling everything as toxic, it really doesn't help. I already did "Disagreeing with a player isn't toxic, abusing them and belittling them however is", its a pretty straightforward definition, you don't need a PHD in rocket science to use common sense to define what is or isn't toxic, there will never be hard definitions because that would allow people to skirt the rules > At least we can agree on the SJW part, but then you probably just hate it because you think that's cool, you don't really understand why it's a problem. So I can agree with that statement but not with the reasoning because there is none on your side. Hardly, its trying to find anything and everything as toxicregardless of what it is, as i said, disagreeing with someone isn't toxic, suggesting someone stop doing x or start doing x isn't toxic, anything said to simply try to make the player upset is toxic, it really is that simple, its why the IFS doesn't punish people for these things, there are people who are going to get upset at the smallest little thing, we can't do anything about them sadly > Your whole approach to the issue is actually too negative, you just imply toxicity in everyone without really making clear who that would be. > So that is a problem. I imply toxicity in anyone creating a hostile or toxic environment with the goal of trying to belittle them or abuse them, its pretty easy to tell the difference > I said only trying to fight chat toxicity is not helping and I also said that the chat is not the source. So how do you plan on combating chat toxicity without punishing people for it and without letting them freely abuse people like they already are? because they aren't going to stop just because you ask them to nicely > Well then I already told you why I think it doesn't so... why don't you address my arguments? All you did was try to say there was a "source" which we already know, its players, you haven't said why punishing players doesn't prevent toxicity, its not down to me to prove that it does but on you to prove that it doesn't, which you can't actually do, most banned players take the hint and don't bother to come back, the repeat offenders usually end up getting themselves banned again quickly, people who end up continuing to escalate risk ending up in tyler1 territory and end up risking an ID ban, which means their accounts are immediately permabanned when they are discovered and linked to the ID banned player, although these bans are extremely rare > I also talked about toxic gameplay which I defined as troll pings, soft inting (griefing). > Why not talk about that? Whats to talk about, griefing is already against the rules and reportable, not sure what point there is in discussing something that is literally already against the rules to begin with, its not even a grey area, not sure how you define "troll pings" because you can just mute that players pings if you really feel like it, the game already rate limits the number of pings you can do, not sure if the IFS considers pings made but it probably could be made to and excessive pings could be added to the trigger list, again its not really something you can prevent without heavy handed automated systems to disable a users pings during a match > That actually confirms almost everything I said. Last i checked laughing outside of the game is hardly toxic and confirms absolutely nothing, if they broke a rule i make a mental note to report them, i mean, why wouldn't i report a rule breaker exactly? its like me not reporting a crime, if he doesn't actually break a rule he won't get reported, but if he does then i am going to make a mental note to do it, its actually fairly rare that i have to actually report someone, and its usually for verbal abuse and sometimes inappropriate names or club tags, fairly cut and dry stuff > You say that here, but ingame what I see, tells another story. Well its not toxic to disagree, however it does depend on HOW you're disagreeing "I think baron was a bad call" is different to "You %%%%tards why the %%%% did you %%%%ing do baron" Obviously different people are going to have different "opinions" on the matter and there are going to be snowflakes who think everyone has to agree with them and that having ANY other opinion is clearly toxic, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what they think aslong as sane people are in control of what actually gets punished, the number of false reports that get thrown around is pretty pointless when the system just straight up disregards them if it doesn't find any actual toxic behaviour > So overall you actually completely took everything I said out of context AND you interpreted it wrong AND we are not even clear on the definitions AND you ignored a lot of arguments even my conclusion AND my very first claim that was the basis. I'm not seeing what you think i ignored, toxic behaviour should be punished, the source is players and riot cannot force players to stop being toxic, those players either take the hints from their punishments, which a lot do, or they continue down the track and end up banned at which point they make a rage thread here and either stop playing or they make a smurf and end up banned again, there is no reliable way to prevent that cycle, the only person who can stop a toxic player from being toxic is that player, nothing you, me or riot does is going to change that one simple fact, i don't see you providing nay groundbreaking option that is going to somehow defeat the human element in all of this > Reading competence comes to mind. And understanding the problem you're trying to discuss also helps a lot, trust me, i've seen near enough every possible suggestion, riot has tried and tested multiple different punishment systems including permanent chat restrictions, a ban from ranked until x normal matches were played, they explained why prisoners island was a terrible idea, so unless you actually have a "new" idea to bring to the table that might actually work there isn't much more to discuss
> you don't need a PHD in rocket science to use common sense to define what is or isn't toxic I think you would need that if you can't even see when you are toxic yourself. Refusing communication, putting no effort into your games and labling others as toxic and getting them banned is also toxicity. So when somebody tells you "you are a noob when you don't itemize against heals" Is that toxic or disagreeing? Is there an intention to win and work with the team or is it just trying to offend? > So how do you plan on combating chat toxicity without punishing people for it and without letting them freely abuse people like they already are? because they aren't going to stop just because you ask them to nicely > Simple, only punish when what they are saying has only the intention to offend, so you don't risk enraging players that actually care about the game. if you have a strong personality and you stand up for something, be it politely or not so politely, you will not change your view just because somebody tells you to stfu. You would only listen to reason that has the potential to convince you. And then on the other hand we actually have to promote positive gameplay, getting players informed, so they can judge their games better. You can't do that by restricting their freedom to speak. And the results we have now, clearly proves that. Trolling games with negative gameplay action and inactions are a way bigger problem and create an environment that is way more toxic. Refusing to communicate is a problem.
Kalvix (EUW)
: Nah they need to do more honestly, wanted to make a new account to get a fresh start in ranked now I know what I'm doing and my god it's a wonder anybody keeps playing... all I've seen is IDIOT!! NOOB WHAT THE F*** YOU DOING!!! GO GET CANCER YOU NOOB!! and other such stuff, along with smurfs expecting new players to know exactly what to do and if they don't screaming abuse at them. It's utter utter hell and I wouldn't be surprised if what kills the game eventually is that it gets no new players as nobody can stand the toxic community. Thats why a mate I tried to get playing stopped, he said "I'd rather play something where people don't tell me I should kill myself every 5 minutes".
You really can't do more to the chat, it's already really harsh, you can mute, you get restricted, you get perma banned from the game. The fact that so many people still think it's not solving toxicity, that for me is proof that it's the completely wrong approach. You have the result you know the actions that were taken, now it's time to evaluate the actions based on the result. The result is SHIT. It's wrong to try and improve the game by restricting chat. The evidence is clear.
Ceberuz (EUW)
: The solution to most toxicity is rather straight forward, players should have the option to disable chat entirely through the client.., as in once you tick the option, you can't type in chat and you can't revieve anything in chat. This is something both toxic and non-toxic players can use, which would significantly improve the environment for both parties, I for one find it ridiculous that Riot keeps making these bandaid implementation like having to mute a player manually all the time.
So you really don't want to communicate and you want the game to become even worse in terms of gameplay. OK. Maybe you also didn't read my post. Great idea man. > This is something both toxic and non-toxic players can use, which would significantly improve the environment for both parties, I for one find it ridiculous that Riot keeps making these bandaid implementation like having to mute a player manually all the time. How is it a **SINGIFICANT** **improvement to completely disable chat**, when you can already mute everyone and get chat restricted and perma banned for chat activities? What the hell? How is that even remotely logical?
48kg (EUW)
: As a guy with 16 permabans, well yeah, banning won't fix anything. It's not even threatening to me anymore, when I tilt and start typing in a passive aggressive manner I already know that I will be punished, this won't stop me. 16 bans haven't stopped me, why would the next one? There are people that have genuinely been scared of losing an account and stopping toxicity/communication after their 2 week ban or after 1 of their accounts gets banned. But does it change the person? Is that person suddenly reformed now? Hell no. Is there a good chance that he will tilt again at one point? Hell yes. Been an advocate for this for a long time but since people that haven't been punished just can't agree with me, it doesnt matter, but I'll say it again. Replace permabans with extended chat restrictions. Why? When you get permabanned, what happens? Chances are, you are pissed off, you haven't changed and you continue being toxic. The ban might just be fuel to the fire, although it's pretty lame, this happens. Even if it isn't, sooner or later you will start being toxic again. After all, you only need 3 punishments and the 4th will be permaban already. Also the stuff you get banned for nowadays is ridiculous, after 16 bans I still have hard time figuring out what the system bans you for because you legit don't have to swear, you don't have to namecall, you don't have to threaten, you don't have to directly flame anyone. Passive aggressive speech and negative attitude towards THE GAME is enough to get you punished. This is not normal. But, what if you get chat banned for longer of periods of time? Simply put, less toxicity. People who tilt and start talking in a passive aggressive manner, they don't actually want to do that. They are not going to switch accounts because they can't chat, they might even be glad it's gone. All of this is fueled by inters who know that the system can't detect their wrongdoings while anyone who calls them out for it, WILL be detected by the system. People bait others into getting punished because of how easy it is, the system is a complete joke. tl;dr - Riot can't change anyone's nature, they should take away the ability to talk instead of forcing people onto another name where they continue to be toxic anyway, in some cases toxic on purpose because of the ban. You can't ban someone and expect them to change like poof you are suddenly untiltable.
I find it so interesting that out of most of the people who reply to this, one with 16 bans actually comes up with an elaborate opinion. > Chances are, you are pissed off, you haven't changed and you continue being toxic. The ban might just be fuel to the fire I see it like this, players disagree on gameplay, sometimes they do so with a more challenging attitude. Like they literally challenge a team member in chat to explain and defend themselves. They do this because they put a lot of thought into their games. It's like the disappointment when you want the game to work, you want to work with your team and it just doesn't... well what are you gonna do? You address the issues that you see openly. This is just normal. And if you get offended you should have the strengths to ignore being offended and just come up with counter arguments. So you see there is such a huge difference between 1. "why did you not attack you bloody idiot" 2. "you are an idiot" And players nowadays are so busy being offended by anything that they don't notice this anymore. The 1. is somebody who cares about the game, the 2. is somebody who absolutely doesn't. So we are constantly judging people who really put a lot of effort into their games the same way as players who are not even real players. And we don't just hand out chat restrictions based on this, no we treat them like "toxic" What is toxic? It's just some stupid lable, which btw is used by SJW's quite a lot. If they wanted to invade this game, well then they are already there. They are the players who do not put any effort whatsoever into their gameplay and ALSO don't communicate but they will always put the toxic lable on you, if you care about the game and dare to "offend them" with challenging idas. And then the system rewards this behaviour, there is just no incentive to really play well and work WITH your team. And the comments here that are so simplistic with lack of thought: > Giving more freedom to toxicity won't make it better. They are like not even reading...what the hell. I clearly deconstructed toxicity into a bad attitude that can manifest as any behaviour or gameplay action/inaction. There is huge variety and we should be really careful how much we ban and who we listen to. Anyone who replies to this saying > Giving more freedom to toxicity won't make it better. They just didn't get it. Not even gonna bother to make another long reply because they don't even appreciate it if I take this time to express my opinion, zero respect. A competitive game is not one of those SAFE SPACES that would be suited for people who for example demand safe spaces for their identity or the identity of others that they claim to speak for. (does that ring a bell) The real world also is not a safe space in terms of ideas. We wouldn't even use computers if we would only concern ourselves with protecting ideas by creating isolated environments. No, we would be a bunch of tribes, throwing rocks, maybe an occasional spear.
: I dont want to discuss about all the topics you brought up. But if you defer to insults I wont just let that slide. Which is the actual reason there is no proper discussion on these boards: because ppl take things too personally, are too negative towards how other try to politely conduct themselves and their opinions and thoughts and because they are in need of attention apparently. Congratulations, you got mine for a few posts.
You brought up something, I wanted to discuss it THOROUGHLY, because if you don't do that, you just miss important factors... why don't you understand that? I didn't insult you, I said you are trolling, because you distract from them the conversation with twisted phrases and you reply but you are not even interested in discussion. Now please stop the empty talk.
: Not sure how your reactions are supposed to make me discuss with you as you supposedly want. But its good that you do, it shows it would be a waste of time because you apparently lack the manners to just accept a NO.
If you don't want to discuss don't reply. You are just trolling, literally trolling. Jeez dude
Cypherous (EUW)
: > The chat should remain free and only extreme offenses should be punished, because the chat is not the source and you can't fix anything by doctoring around on the surface. Thats some pretty dumb logic, how would not punishing toxicity even remotely help remove toxicity lol The "source" is toxic players, and riot cannot fix the human element, they are not god > There is even this notion in the game that developed over time, that just disagreeing with somebody is "toxic". I think this is extremely unhealthy... I mean literally unhealthy on an emotional level and also extremely unreasonable. Disagreeing with a player isn't toxic, abusing them and belittling them however is > What I also find interesting is that players indirectly report themselves, because we have this toxic report calling culture, where basically everyone has the potential to be toxic to some extent and they end up reporting each other. Report calling is punishable and riot deems it witch hunting and thereby harassment, feel free to report it > Afaik the instant punishment system also learns based on what players consider toxic i.e. what they report. So there is this ironic aspect that the players slowly expel themselves from the game, by setting the bar for banning people lower and lower. Its not really learning as much as you think, yes it will learn in the sense that it will start to detect things like deliberate spelling errors to try and bypass it, but it still has standards it adheres to its not running wild and slowly being turned in to an SJW > How do you feel if you want to tell or ask a team mate something and you get told that you are toxic or muted/reported for doing so? Unless i am actually flaming them or being abusive i just laugh at them and make a mental note to report them later if they don't start acting like human beings
You need to define toxicity and what it means to be a toxic player if you want to argue against anything I said.... because you are throwing everything in one pot, as if there were no individual players. Stop labeling everything as toxic, it really doesn't help. At least we can agree on the SJW part, but then you probably just hate it because you think that's cool, you don't really understand why it's a problem. So I can agree with that statement but not with the reasoning because there is none on your side. Your whole approach to the issue is actually too negative, you just imply toxicity in everyone without really making clear who that would be. So that is a problem. My approach was, it's not about what **does not** help, it's about what **does** and I explained that. You didn't address it. > Thats some pretty dumb logic, how would not punishing toxicity even remotely help remove toxicity lol You are actually using very inaccurate wording here and I didn't say that. I never said not fighting toxicity in general would remove it. I said only trying to fight chat toxicity is not helping and I also said that the chat is not the source. You want to say it helps to fight toxicity to restrict chat? Prove it! Well then I already told you why I think it doesn't so... why don't you address my arguments? I also talked about toxic gameplay which I defined as troll pings, soft inting (griefing). Why not talk about that? > Unless i am actually flaming them or being abusive i just laugh at them and make a mental note to report them later if they don't start acting like human beings That actually confirms almost everything I said. > Disagreeing with a player isn't toxic You say that here, but ingame what I see, tells another story. So overall you actually completely took everything I said out of context AND you interpreted it wrong AND we are not even clear on the definitions AND you ignored a lot of arguments even my **conclusion** AND my very first claim that was the basis. And you downvoted me apparently, before I even could reply. I don't know what to think about that.... Reading competence comes to mind.
: I do not want to comment on points that I never meant to raise with my original post, nor talk about. That you choose to widen the topic this much is not my responsibility. I guess you felt the need to talk about it more widely as with how passionately you get about it, and be my guest to do so, but you are at the wrong adress with me. Especially because I do agree with a lot of what you said.
Such nonsense, you are just making a complicated excuse for why you don't want to talk about anything outside of your opinion. You defined the topic as only your opinion, well sorry but this doesn't work. So long.... Consider renaming yourself into Stahlvorgehirn or Stahlvordeinemmund Whatever you prefer. {{sticker:slayer-jinx-wink}}
: No, I didnt say that. I said what I said and meant with it. When adressing Riot as a company, do not forget it is a business first.
Can you not differentiate between what you said and what I concluded so we can actually discuss? You see this is why nobody wants to think too much on the boards, because of reactions like yours. At least appreciate the time I took to talk to you and process what I said to make a reply. This must be Riots perspective when they post something like patch notes and nobody even reads it properly. You wanna talk but you are not even taking that basic responsibility to read what others say.
Rioter Comments
Gebba (EUW)
: No, pretty much none of the European countries are 3rd world countries. I meant the culture in League resembles it.
There isn't a real culture. culture: * the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society. Peoples have their own culture, the players don't really make a people or society in the game, we don't even interact much beyond spam pinging and telling each other that we are "toxic" and reported/muted and this is so interesting, because there was a time when people were not afraid to use the chat to disagree with somebody... but now it's honestly dead and this is the result of riots instant punishment. Did it solve toxicity? I don't think so. The same attitudes are still there and actually got worse, because the only "culture" we have is labeling others as toxic/muted/report worthy and I am not talking about pure insults, I mean communication about the game. I made a post about this somewhere. I think it got almost no replies on NA because of all the spam about pax and Daniel Klein and all that. I can't even find it now. lol PS: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/bgfOGFnx-why-i-consider-riots-attempt-to-fight-toxicity-a-failure-please-discuss
: > [{quoted}](name=Eambo,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=Yl18rlZP,comment-id=00040001,timestamp=2018-09-08T01:17:21.684+0000) > > There are definitely missteps and mistakes, but we appreciate constructive feedback (especially with good reasoning, as well as potential solutions), as it helps us get an idea of player sentiment as well as what they see as wrong, and what they'd like to see. We know we can't please everyone, but a collective amount of feedback is super useful to us ^_^ As I said several times in several boards: Why Riot Games cannot respond to constructive feedback? Constructive feedback is very useful for Riot? Riot not even writes a „thank you“ that a player spends lot of effort and work to improve Riot/LoL. For me, it‘s not a problem that Riot made missteps and mistakes. But the mistake has to be very, very big (and the feedback from the community very, very loud -> and mostly not constructive) that Riot writes a statement with a „sorry“. Normally, words like „thank you“ and „sorry“ are easy to tell; but not for Riot.
Constructive feedback gets drowned in nonsense on NA boards. EUW as far as I know is too fragmented by languages and the seperate boards seem to have low population. So Rioters don't really appear to get anything from here. They just stay on NA and post there, except like I said, constructive feedback really lost its meaning for the NA players. They probably would think it's constructive to say that we should remove item X because it "frustrates" them. Radical solution without reasoning, that is the pattern.
Show more

FixHealsRemoveGW

Level 95 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion