: Simply put, when you get back after many years, you're supposed to play normal draft to pick up the game again and train a little bit. At this point, you're just hurting your account and other people by playing ranked
> [{quoted}](name=Doom emissary,realm=EUW,application-id=00edEA0o,discussion-id=giBAfmyK,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-04-09T13:25:26.999+0000) > > Simply put, when you get back after many years, you're supposed to play normal draft to pick up the game again and train a little bit. > > At this point, you're just hurting your account and other people by playing ranked Roger that boss.
Rioter Comments
Guesty105 (EUW)
: For the mother of god please help
Literally cannot win games sounds a bit over the top where as your w/l from past 15 games is 7W 8L I wish I could say the same about my w/l.
Maluber (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Kinbatshi,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=EiNnph6j,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-01-24T19:43:31.735+0000) > > even if i failed to secure my self they could at least send me a warning so i could do any thing to secure my self. And how would they know it's not you playing on your account? Like I said, it falls onto you to keep your account safe.
> [{quoted}](name=Maluber,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=EiNnph6j,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2018-01-24T19:46:56.634+0000) > > And how would they know it's not you playing on your account? Like I said, it falls onto you to keep your account safe. The same way as account sharing is detected? Legit player for years gets hacked for - some reason - this might happen in so many different ways by so many different situations. Unless you are paranoid as fu*k it is impossible to guarantee that no one gets hold of your creds. It feels absolutely ridiculous to see these "customers" instantly turned down by stating it's your fault go make a new account and buy everything again. Ofc if you have a 1234 password - the fault is yours. But it is still no way acceptable for customer service to treat each and every of the banned player with the same template "your fault" messages. Sure ToS states this is exactly what Riot can do and they will, they also have the right to do it, but it still doesn't mean people should stand it. And it kinda does tell something about the Co. in question by how they treat their customers.
: > Yes but here on the boards - you cannot question anything and if you do there is a patallion of people with "But Riot says..!" > > This is a perfect example that what Riot says is not always the absolut truth - some healthy thinking can be done individually as well. You can question everything! But you seem a bit surprised that here are people with a different opinion and also can support it. >Indeed, write support because, as I mentioned above, in the boards Riot statements are the Alpha and Omega with nothing in between. Yup. After all even Riot admits, that there is room for mistakes. >Oh it's not the first, there was an unjustified banwave to perfectly legit players at some point, these were ofc reverted asap, but that just gives you an idea that the system is capable for errors. Yes? So? What is your point? Of course there are errors. But they get fixed. >So I should not inform other players that there is a problem in the system - because how bad would that be for the image of everyone who blindly supports this game/system/company, no, I should write a support ticket. Ahh, now we get to the core. That is what it's all about.
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=EysO8MhX,comment-id=0003000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T20:48:46.213+0000) > > You can question everything! But you seem a bit surprised that here are people with a different opinion and also can support it. > > Yup. After all even Riot admits, that there is room for mistakes. > > Yes? So? What is your point? Of course there are errors. But they get fixed. > > Ahh, now we get to the core. That is what it's all about. I was a bit frustrated, sorry about that. It simply is frustrating to try to discuss with people with non-native language and it feels that anything I try to point comes out so unclear or something that no one is even understanding what I try to say. So maybe it is simply better to stop this here and now to avoid further outbursts.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=00010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-01-11T19:31:59.267+0000) > > It's not possible. The IFS is "act now or never", not "6 months later". > I guess the bans which come late come from some other system then, that would make sense. > The ones who manage to get punished are, in fact, incapable of self-reflection. This is interesting information, I might just have indulge myself on learning more about this. Thank you for your time and gl hf.
: >So there is a timeframe - 3 months is fine but year is ridiculous. Point is even then it would be fine, if we want to be consequent. But it never ever has gotten that far. So no need to discuss that.
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=0001000000020000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T20:14:50.935+0000) > > Point is even then it would be fine, if we want to be consequent. But it never ever has gotten that far. So no need to discuss that. Well, I guess there is no point to discuss anything further. Thanks for the insights and gl hf.
: >This thread was about that yes - this discussion here, not. The discussion here as well. You tried to bring in another case though. >Well it is quite convenient to be able to conclude a discussion which you alone deem finished. Because I don't discuss something where both parties are unsure about what a third party said. >No matter what the timeframe? Don't try to make this ridiculous. we're not talking about a year.
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=00010000000200000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T19:55:46.941+0000) > > The discussion here as well. You tried to bring in another case though. > > Because I don't discuss something where both parties are unsure about what a third party said. > > Don't try to make this ridiculous. we're not talking about a year. So there is a timeframe - 3 months is fine but year is ridiculous.
: >I just wonder, what else might not be 100% as they say. Or what other kind of errors there could be. But well, it probably isn't our players issue to question these kinds of questions. Of course you can. That's why there is a Support Team. >Nothing would have happened to this case unless this player had not made two threads here on the boards - and the usual response to every one of these kind of threads is "nothing can be done to them from the boards - use ingame report" There is a Support Team. Write a ticket if you think something is not going the way it should. >Well apparently Board threads HAVE a chance to make something happen and well, how well did the ingame reporting function? Are you trying to say just because the automated system failed once it always does? This simply showed what has been known all the time. There can be mistakes. That's why there is a Support Team.
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=EysO8MhX,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T18:53:05.182+0000) > > Of course you can. That's why there is a Support Team. > Yes but here on the boards - you cannot question anything and if you do there is a patallion of people with "But Riot says..!" This is a perfect example that what Riot says is not always the absolut truth - some healthy thinking can be done individually as well. > There is a Support Team. Write a ticket if you think something is not going the way it should. > Indeed, write support because, as I mentioned above, in the boards Riot statements are the Alpha and Omega with nothing in between. > Are you trying to say just because the automated system failed once it always does? This simply showed what has been known all the time. There can be mistakes. That's why there is a Support Team. Oh it's not the first, there was an unjustified banwave to perfectly legit players at some point, these were ofc reverted asap, but that just gives you an idea that the system is capable for errors. Now there has been wrong chat logs sent around. And then there is this extreme case of hatespeech, which was correctly reported ingame and luckily screencapped by the OP, yet still slipped right through the system which makes little mistakes. And since the system is working on based on parameters something in that anti-semitistic phrase was not considered in this system. The system simply cannot "overlook" one log because it was tired or something. It is an error that can be abused until it is fixed. So I should not inform other players that there is a problem in the system - because how bad would that be for the image of everyone who blindly supports this game/system/company, no, I should write a support ticket.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=0001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T19:11:54.670+0000) > > You are, however, assuming that the "model citizen" gets justifiably reported... and in that case, he would be punished for his most recent misbehaviour, rather than past ones. He gets justifiably reported before becoming a model citizen and receives the ban from instant feedback system six months later. It seems to be a trend here on the boards that either you are a well behaving player or then you're toxic scumbag who has to be punished back to the "good side". No one is able to reflect on his own actions without a punishment of sorts. Is that so?
: >Either one of us is clearly misunderstanding what the purpose of reforming is. It is not about punishing people [...] Not only, but punishing is a part of it. Players don't get punished for every minor slip after all. So if it gets to the point where they've actually earned a punishment, then they have to receive it, even if it sometimes takes a while. That's also simply fair towards the players that receive their punishment almost immediately. Also refer the example I gave. It should make things clear. >I have never said you could be banned twice for same game, not in any point of this. I never said you did. Simply stating what this discussion and thread initially was about, before you brought up a case where someone got punished for a long ago game. That's why I said earlier: "But in the case you were referring to the player hasn't already been punished for the game of which Riot gave him eventually the correct chatlogs. So that case doesn't apply here." >Do not work with maybes. Ahhh, I expected you'd say that. Exactly because I don't work with "maybes" I concluded: "[...] there is no use in further talking about the potential meaning." >Now help another guy out to understand why the only way to make people behave is to punish them? I didn't say that's the only way. Rewards are quite effective as well. I'm only saying, that if you've come so far to earn a punishment, then you also have to receive it.
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=000100000002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T18:46:05.154+0000) > > Not only, but punishing is a part of it. Players don't get punished for every minor slip after all. So if it gets to the point where they've actually earned a punishment, then they have to receive it, even if it sometimes takes a while. That's also simply fair towards the players that receive their punishment almost immediately. > > Also refer the example I gave. It should make things clear. > > I never said you did. Simply stating what this discussion and thread initially was about, before you brought up a case where someone got punished for a long ago game. That's why I said earlier: > This thread was about that yes - this discussion here, not. It did get out of hands yes, but my original point to that Smerk comment was that apparently the punishment system does not just as he stated it would - meaning that after the last report which leads to a ban, the player receives the punishment and after that cannot be banned again for said infraction. The ban might not come immediately after the game where the player was reported - it might take whole 3 months to be issued. And this fact was the part which I feel to be simply wrong. > "But in the case you were referring to the player hasn't already been punished for the game of which Riot gave him eventually the correct chatlogs. So that case doesn't apply here." > > Ahhh, I expected you'd say that. Exactly because I don't work with "maybes" I concluded: > "[...] there is no use in further talking about the potential meaning." > Well it is quite convenient to be able to conclude a discussion which you alone deem finished. > I didn't say that's the only way. Rewards are quite effective as well. I'm only saying, that if you've come so far to earn a punishment, then you also have to receive it. No matter what the timeframe? Okay, a player makes an infraction and gets reported - corrects his behavior, plays a season gets rewards - then suddenly BOOM "here is a ban for you for your actions one year ago - Yours Truly Instant Feedback System". This has got to feel justified by the punished player.
: > [{quoted}](name=Eambo,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=EysO8MhX,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-01-11T13:32:35.478+0000) > > Hey injector47, > > No systems are perfect - ours included. While we catch a large amount of abuse cases, some slip through the net - like this one. Others are sometimes unjustly too harsh. These are usually pretty edge case thankfully, and we have processes to review and catch these via Player Support.
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=EysO8MhX,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T18:28:36.552+0000) > > So the system makes errors and Riots statements are not 100% accurate and reliable. I just wonder, what else might not be 100% as they say. Or what other kind of errors there could be. But well, it probably isn't our players issue to question these kinds of questions. Nothing would have happened to this case unless this player had not made two threads here on the boards - and the usual response to every one of these kind of threads is "nothing can be done to them from the boards - use ingame report" Well apparently Board threads HAVE a chance to make something happen and well, how well did the ingame reporting function?
: >5 days ago i met a troll [...] he was never punished [...] What? Give it some time.
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=EysO8MhX,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-01-11T13:42:20.900+0000) > > What? Give it some time. "Players who are found to be causing a negative game experience are then punished within 15 minutes of the games end." - https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/207489286-Instant-Feedback-System-FAQ-#h1q2 How much more time? EDIT: And for further" but but buts" https://m.imgur.com/a/vB42G by the OP in to another thread. I feel pretty confident to say that this should've been instant atleast 14 day ban. Maybe even permaban for that kinda is the definition of hatespeech, not just one slur by impulse but a wall of spammed text.
: > [{quoted}](name=Coreil,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=000800000000000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T15:07:06.125+0000) > > probbably i wouldn't. i want a free chat, it's more stuff way more fun. > Okay, thanks for the input! > well internet ur talking about is pointed 2 aid, not compete. I'd say StarCraft 2, PUBG and multiple MMO reddits are about a competitive gaming, but the atmosphere in these is mostly positive. However I do see why it is easier to slip to negative side when competition is added in to equation. But this just shows that "the internet" isn't negative as a whole.
> [{quoted}](name=Coreil,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=00080000000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T15:33:07.102+0000) > > rts you basicaly 1v1 no team, soo yeah there's that. > pubg , yeeeah only couse u kinda are on ur own and dont usualy depend from others and > still teh are.. 'CHINA NUMBER 1', what about CS:GO that closer ,dota,dota 2. > JOIN THE DARK SIDE! > > internet is netral . AND it has everything and doesn't care about anyones emotion . There is official competitive ladder 4v4 matches in SC. There is team matchmaking in PUBG. CS:GO is a pretty bad place also. Don't know about dotas. You cannot claim that "internet users don't csre about anyones emotions" as a fact - it is merely your own subjective opinion based on your experiences which do not apply to everyone.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=00010000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T15:44:51.370+0000) > > For all we know, that guy could be a case of punishment coming later than intended. But that's also why it's best not to speculate about that case: we miss crucial info. > > This Op's question is: can I be punished for games prior to my latest punishment? The answer is: no. Or at least, it's not supposed to happen. There is no argument about the OPs question. I just wanted to disagree with Smerks statement based on the said thread - without creating a thread about it. If we drop the case where I am referring to and take a hypothetical new case of a similar situation where a player who insults his teammates, somehow slips through the system unpunished - changes his ways before a punishment and starts to behave as a model member of the community - how does punishing him months later serve as reformatory action anymore? In my opinion it doesn't, it serves as "justice" for those who he has wronged again and the current system can't really take this option in to account that someone "reforms" on his own without punishment.
: >If the player has corrected his behaviour between this old infraction and the time of the ban it does feel unjustified to receive a ban for something which you are not doing anymore [...] So if I harass someone the street. Threaten them. Break the law (rules)! But the police takes a few days or weeks until they catch me, I shouldn't be punished because I haven't committed any further crimes in the meantime. >Maybe this player... I don't work with "maybes". >It was 14 day ban - and the logs from that old game weren't instant 14-day ban material. So I'd say there has been warnings/chat restrictions or something before which would escalate a mediocre flaming to 14 days. Right? Still this is about getting rightfully punished ONCE. The degree of the punishment doesn't matter right now. You won't get punished TWICE for the same game. >I understood [Smerk's comment] as "only fresh cases can lead to new punishments" [...] Maybe you misunderstood him. Maybe I misunderstood him. Since we can't say for sure there is no use in further talking about the potential meaning.
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=0001000000020000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T15:15:53.060+0000) > > So if I harass someone the street. Threaten them. Break the law (rules)! But the police takes a few days or weeks until they catch me, I shouldn't be punished because I haven't committed any further crimes in the meantime. > Either one of us is clearly misunderstanding what the purpose of reforming is. It is not about punishing people and getting them to change their behaviour, it is about getting people to change their behaviour - if a player has worked on bettering his behaviour and then gets hit by a ban for something he had worked on to get rid of, how does it support him in reforming? Punishing a currently well behaving player for his previous actions inot about reforming anymore - it is about punishing him for the sake of punishment and to satiate those who he has erred against. If the purpose of whole reform mission is to make the player base behave then this punishment is logically unnecessary - the player has simply changed his ways without a punishment - I don't see why this concept is so hard to get? That some people might start to behave without a punishment and in these cases it is stupid to slap a ban to this sort of player. > I don't work with "maybes". > Then don't. > Still this is about getting rightfully punished ONCE. The degree of the punishment doesn't matter right now. You won't get punished TWICE for the same game. > I have never said you could be banned twice for same game, not in any point of this. > Maybe you misunderstood him. Maybe I misunderstood him. Since we can't say for sure there is no use in further talking about the potential meaning. Do not work with maybes. I guess I missunderstood him, you didn't. Now we can say for sure that your understanding skills are superior in this case. Now help another guy out to understand why the only way to make people behave is to punish them?
Coreil (EUW)
: probbably i wouldn't. i want a free chat, it's more stuff way more fun. well internet ur talking about is pointed 2 aid, not compete.
> [{quoted}](name=Coreil,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=000800000000000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T15:07:06.125+0000) > > probbably i wouldn't. i want a free chat, it's more stuff way more fun. > Okay, thanks for the input! > well internet ur talking about is pointed 2 aid, not compete. I'd say StarCraft 2, PUBG and multiple MMO reddits are about a competitive gaming, but the atmosphere in these is mostly positive. However I do see why it is easier to slip to negative side when competition is added in to equation. But this just shows that "the internet" isn't negative as a whole.
: >Yes, and these shouldn't result in to bans way after the infraction. Why shouldn't they? That doesn't seem logical. >Yes, this post is about what you said, however I originally questionned another commenters statement which was in contradiction to thread where my point was based on and this discussion went on from there. I'm aware of that. But in the case you were referring to the player hasn't already been punished for the game of which Riot gave him eventually the correct chatlogs. So that case doesn't apply here. Also Smerk said: "[...] no you won't be banned _again_ for that old game". So I assume he was talking about how you can't be punished twice for the same "crime".
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=00010000000200000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T14:34:45.849+0000) > > Why shouldn't they? That doesn't seem logical. > If the player has corrected his behaviour between this old infraction and the time of the ban it does feel unjustified to receive a ban for something which you are not doing anymore - while the people issuing these bans are promoting their will to reform people. So self initiated reform is basically non-existent in the eyes of Riot and their system. Maybe this player was reported in this old game and he received a warning message about the report and fixed his behaviour. Is this old game then removed from the pool of toxic instances for which he can be banned in the future? At the moment it doesn't seem so. > I'm aware of that. But in the case you were referring to the player hasn't already been punished for the game of which Riot gave him eventually the correct chatlogs. So that case doesn't apply here. > It was 14 day ban - and the logs from that old game weren't instant 14-day ban material. So I'd say there has been warnings/chat restrictions or something before which would escalate a mediocre flaming to 14 days. Right? > Also Smerk said: "[...] no you won't be banned _again_ for that old game". So I assume he was talking about how you can't be punished twice for the same "crime". He also said that the system would go through the game where player has been reported and if something worth punishment is found it will be evaluated according to players behaviour history and correct punishment is carried out - I understood that as "only fresh cases can lead to new punishments" Answering to the OPs question that "no, you can't be banned twice for same infraction" but if the thread I am talking about is true - then the "fresh case" can be very old aswell.
Coreil (EUW)
: no flame will never bother me! as long as i have mute . no report and bullshit is needed rly.. besides this kind of server is the actual internet, it's just here we have this crap rito police.
> [{quoted}](name=Coreil,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=0008000000000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T14:18:21.167+0000) > > no flame will never bother me! as long as i have mute . no report and bullshit is needed rly.. So you wouldn't come back to "regular servers"? > besides this kind of server is the actual internet, it's just here we have this crap rito police. Well, this kind of depends on where in the internet you visit and interact with other people. There is healthy discussions, multiple gaming reddits which I follow are non-negative, same goes for car mechanic forums, there people are friendly and helpful and there basically isn't even any reason to be negative towards anyone. So you shouldn't generalize the whole internet as being "toxic". And Riot isn't "policying" according to their own will, they are acting according to the general opinion of the playerbase - which at the moment is that negativity isn't welcomed and it should be punished. I am kind of the same mind that you - in that negativity and flame doesn't affect me, however I can also understand that it probably will affect many others and these people, just as we, have a right to their opinion - and just as our opinion should be respected, so should theirs.
: >So how did the guy get punished for 3 month old game? If what you say is correct. First off, sometimes punishments get lost in the system and handed out way later than they initially should've been. Those are simply the flaws in an imperfect system. Secondly, this post is about how you can't get punished twice for the same "crime".
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=000100000002,timestamp=2018-01-11T14:05:07.564+0000) > > First off, sometimes punishments get lost in the system and handed out way later than they initially should've been. Those are simply the flaws in an imperfect system. > Yes, and these shouldn't result in to bans way after the infraction. > Secondly, this post is about how you can't get punished twice for the same "crime". Yes, this post is about what you said, however I originally questionned another commenters statement which was in contradiction to thread where my point was based on and this discussion went on from there.
Coreil (EUW)
: well diferent views , i dont consider flame bannable, i find it quite absurd. besided why u reffer as good server and bad server... i see it more , a free server and a regime server. i mean you will never convince me that wishing cancer or %%% over net is a serious offence , it may not be polite , it's like the firend who allways swear he can get anyoning , but it s not to put in jail 4 life...
> [{quoted}](name=Coreil,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=00080000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T13:56:06.651+0000) > > well diferent views , i dont consider flame bannable, i find it quite absurd. > besided why u reffer as good server and bad server... i see it more , a free server and a regime server. > i mean you will never convince me that wishing cancer or %%% over net is a serious offence , it may not be polite , it's like the firend who allways swear he can get anyoning , but it s not to put in jail 4 life... I don't even try to convince you that it would be a serious offense. It is totally up to you to think as you like to think. What I tried to find out was simply that if you would be put in to this kind of server that I depicted, would you like to play there? And if you wouldn't, to what extent would you be willing to go to play on the regular servers. That is all I wanted to know. It appears you'd like to try this sort of server, but if the games where as horrible as they most likely would be you would make a new account and play on the regular servers instead - and your opinion about the flaming/negativity and it being bannable would not change. Correct?
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T13:12:28.448+0000) > > I think you are mixing up the concept of "reform" and how "reform" applies to the instant feedback system. They're not the same thing. Reform, for the IFS, applies *only* if you got punished and it means that you scale down in punishment levels. > > The player won't be banned for things he got banned already for. > In this case it would seem that he was not banned or punished by these things provided in old logs. But I still don't get what would justify so much delayed punishment without any "fresher" infractions. For where the whole discussion started from was a statement that the system reviews the game where player got reported on and if it finds something worth a punishment, punishment is handed out, whereas in the case I am talking about, it seems something didn't go according to this statement - if everything is true what the OP of said thread claims. > See, this is why you cannot trust a single viewpoint. To my memory, there is nothing in that thread that indicates that OP's chat log provided by the support are from before his 14 days ban. Yeah, well now that I rechecked the pictures added there is no timestamps visible. So it can be questionable to trust these or not - however this doesn't negate the whole issue, I'd say these are serious claims against a system many regard "flawless" and until these are proven to be false accusations, it's a matter of faith which side to trust.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=0001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T12:26:09.542+0000) > > Reform from the punishment system only happens after you've been punished... If you have never been punished, and stop misbehaving all the same, there's nothing to reform from. So until the system punishes someone - this someone cannot be labeled as poorly behaving player? Well, I sort of get the idea behind this to be honest, but then again I don't know this kind of thinking feels sort of "naive" if that is the correct word to describe it. > Besides, saying that you're reformed after three months from the last punishment is misleading, since you cannot know if your punishment level has gone down. Get that "three months" thing out of your head. An average is not an absolute indicator. > Back in time like 3-4 years ago, during the final season of Tribunal probably - I was really, really toxic - not hate speech toxic, but the insult spamming whitty comment throwing self-proclaimed "bestest player of dem all" kind of toxic low silver player. I never got even a warning from the system and what finally did reform me was an example of the competitve benefits of positive behaviour, set by a friend of mine. I wrote a lengthy post about that process a few years back. Now the change in me happened pretty quickly - from toxic a-hole to positive member of the community took about a week tops. Now should I've been banned months after the last infringment I made - I would've been pissed off. I think anyone would've. Now this player in question actually received just the 14-day ban for this "3 month situation" so he has most likely been warned/punished before. I mean isn't there the pop up that says you've been reported a lot lately? What about if this player has gotten this warning and stopped behaving bad but still gets banned for what he did in the past - I wouldn't call this to be reform-supportive action. The three month stuff is there only because in this, the "correct logs" were from a three month old game - if they were from one year old game, I'd speak of a year old logs. > Which case are we talking about? I have something looking like that in mind, but no timespan was given by neither OP nor the support worker. This is the "update on my unfair ban thread" iirc. Where the player was automatically sent logs which were deemed to be wrong, he contacted support and received logs from an old game to justify the recent ban. Portuguese/spanish language is involved and most I can understand is translated by the OP so there is room for fooling us - but my problem lies with Riot justifying recent bans with old games, while simultaneously "trying" to reform players.
Coreil (EUW)
: i wouldn't put mindless rage, trolling and feeding in XvX games where some afk, others feed and rest rage, on same level as flame. there should still be leaver buster reports for intetional feeds. now you consider all feeders are like that all or nothing, but no most people will have game that send you to %%%% yourself band ur mom , and thats fine internet allways was like that all way whatever they want... well i would definitely want to try,....besides who doesnt have multiple accounts these days. riot will never accept tho, their policy if that of a dumb teacher. trying to reform is a joke, it's people caring less about the game, or they find other ways for instance trolls, i've had way more afk ers in the new seazons than before. i find all this war on flame and i dont mean trols afk spamers (and you can mute the last one) and , eventualy most ranked players would end up there, youd have normal and ranked server...{{sticker:sg-jinx}}
> [{quoted}](name=Coreil,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=000800000000000000010000,timestamp=2018-01-11T07:40:06.190+0000) > > i wouldn't put mindless rage, trolling and feeding in XvX games where some afk, others feed and rest rage, on same level as flame. > there should still be leaver buster reports for intetional feeds. > now you consider all feeders are like that all or nothing, but no most people will have game that send you to %%%% yourself band ur mom , and thats fine internet allways was like that all way whatever they want... well i would definitely want to try,....besides who doesnt have multiple accounts these days. > riot will never accept tho, their policy if that of a dumb teacher. trying to reform is a joke, it's people caring less about the game, or they find other ways for instance trolls, i've had way more afk ers in the new seazons than before. > > i find all this war on flame and i dont mean trols afk spamers (and you can mute the last one) > > and , eventualy most ranked players would end up there, youd have normal and ranked server...{{sticker:sg-jinx}} But on this Island, only the worst of the worst flamers and toxic people would play - only those who have behaved worthy of a permaban. So there would not be "just flamers" there would be only hc flamers. There would not be leaverbusters or feederbusters - this would be a literal Hell to play in by design. To put a clear contrast between "good" servers and the "bad" servers. This would be so that the people who end up here get an idea as to why flaming isn't okay and why it should be bannable. I believe that those who get the idea why it isn't okay and why it should be banned have a higher chance to change their behaviour than the simply permabanned people who create another account. Then again those who don't get the idea and like to have freedom to flame can stay there on the Island and flame away as much as they want.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T12:05:16.920+0000) > > It's not correct. Three months is an *average*. It can take less, or longer, depending on the individual's attitude. Okay, so, if this guy flamed three months ago but has behaved well after that, doesn't that mean he has reformed? I'd say he _has_ until his next instance of poor behaviour - which as I understood in this case has not happened. For some reason the ban hammer landed on him - he got sent logs which were deemed wrong - and the next offense support found was from three months ago? I would get the flamed three months ago and flamed now = ban I don't get the flamed three months ago, reformed, didn't flame again = ban for what he did three months ago
DravenIsOut (EUNE)
: That guy did not take the punishment for that game, OP did. Therefore he will not be banned.
> [{quoted}](name=DravenIsOut,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=000100000001,timestamp=2018-01-11T07:43:57.668+0000) > > That guy did not take the punishment for that game, OP did. Therefore he will not be banned. So the system noticed, three months later, that "oh snap, this dude should've been banned - better now than never" - no matter how well the said player had behaved and how much effort he had put in to reforming.
Smerk (EUW)
: That is different situation. Bans are rarely handed out for one game, but every single valid report is saved and you will be punished once you'll get enough of them to warrant that punishment, that process can take months if you only show mild toxicity. Ban when you get a ban all that history is cleared and you need to start being toxic again to get next punishment
> [{quoted}](name=Smerk,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2018-01-11T03:20:20.760+0000) > > That is different situation. Bans are rarely handed out for one game, but every single valid report is saved and you will be punished once you'll get enough of them to warrant that punishment, that process can take months if you only show mild toxicity. Ban when you get a ban all that history is cleared and you need to start being toxic again to get next punishment So what is the time window for reforming? As it stands considering the situation in question - if you have behaved for the last 3 months you might still get banned for your previous infractions. Is this correct? Logically this player in question should've received a log from the game where he was most recently banned and which led to the ban triggering - or was that the log which a Rioter said to be a wrong log? Why wouldn't support give him the correct log on the second try?
Coreil (EUW)
: "flaming and cursing, homophobia, racial slurs all actually have an impact on peoples real lives" HAAA what are you instable emptional puppy , well sorry but then i suppose internet in it self should be off for you, no toxic filter will save you! besides you think i care how anyone feels , guess what NO! like most people on net ,unless ur a SJW. so yeah in the island atlest there would be free speach without all this bullshit ban flame, omg this, he said that, i cant take this, this is toxic ,blah blah.... when you allways have mute. so if there would be a serv like that idd flame on purpose to get there. atlest chat would be true there not . the sarcastic GG or meaningless gg you get each game... this teary on creating a sportmanship fun envoyerment is a big fat joke. (all SJW fault). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA
> [{quoted}](name=Coreil,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=0008000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-10T12:43:16.268+0000) > > "flaming and cursing, homophobia, racial slurs all actually have an impact on peoples real lives" HAAA what are you instable emptional puppy , well sorry but then i suppose internet in it self should be off for you, no toxic filter will save you! > besides you think i care how anyone feels , guess what NO! like most people on net ,unless ur a SJW. > > so yeah in the island atlest there would be free speach without all this bullshit ban flame, omg this, he said that, i cant take this, this is toxic ,blah blah.... when you allways have mute. > so if there would be a serv like that idd flame on purpose to get there. atlest chat would be true there not . the sarcastic GG or meaningless gg you get each game... > this teary on creating a sportmanship fun envoyerment is a big fat joke. > (all SJW fault). > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA Free speech exists on the regular servers just as it would exist on The Island. The difference is that on the regular servers there are consequences to your speech, however on the Island therr would not be. But lets assume that there would be an Island as I have depicted here - you say you would actually want to go there just to speak your mind without a fear for ban. Now let's think about the following things: 1) You do understand that the Island which I suggest is a "one way ticket" once your account gets there IT WILL STAY THERE. 2) Instead of people simply "speaking the truth" there would be players RAGING "the truth" - there would be players writing novels in the chat about the truth - there would be players who follow you the whole game while speaking the truth. Players who never leave the base to preach about the truth. And this would not be just one game here and there, it would be pretty much every game. So, these things in mind, how long and how many matches do you think it would take for you to get sick and tired of the 24/7 mindless rage, trolling and feeding in XvX games where some afk, others feed and rest rage? After this amount of matches, would you be ready to play "proper" games even if the chat has to be bit cleaner?
: Guys i need your opinion
Imo, stats don't win games. Arguing about who has better stats won't win the game either - the team that plays better together _usually_ wins games. Your team apparently didn't play well together since the blaming and flaming went on during the game. The part that a negative k/d player is accusing a positive k/d player of "feeding" is a tell tale sign for a player who has given up and is now searching for the player who is the most easily irritated and to whom this player can proceed to bash to relieve his frustration. Apparently you responded to his accusations in a way which suited this players needs. He was looking for a target and he found you. If you personally feel that you are not the reason for the loss, don't bother your mind with trying to make sure who the culprit was - there is no point, you know when you done %%%ked up or when it isn't you who is to blame. I think there is a saying that goes like "Lion does not concern himself with the opinion of the sheep" or something like that. So next time this sort of accusing happens - just reply "ok" and let them steam off alone muted or not, that is up to you. Oh and simply not responding anything to flamers is actually pretty hilarious.
Smerk (EUW)
: When someone reports you in a game only that one game is checked. So, no you won't be banned again for that old game
> [{quoted}](name=Smerk,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LJVzRYLK,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-01-10T21:59:53.190+0000) > > When someone reports you in a game only that one game is checked. So, no you won't be banned again for that old game There is a thread on the boards about a player who got banned - got sent the wrong logs - support sent him logs from a 3 month old game as the correct logs. There is pictures and everything including rioter comments. So how did the guy get punished for 3 month old game? If what you say is correct.
: Academic survey on player behavior (~10 min.) + Lottery (win up to 60€ worth of RP!)
Filled it in. Few feedback points that came up. Some typos/confusing grammar (ressoures for example, I figured it meant resources, but then again there isn't that much "resources" in the game to begin with) The one "pick one statement" - page had no "never" answer - almost never was the closest but this again would imply that e.g. no one "never" loses the control of their emotions in a game. How do I "share what I have with my teammates" during a game? What other "activities" there are in which I could help my teammates during a game? It was also quite funky that the opening title states that people get upset in the majority of league of legends matches. Overall some parts of the query felt a bit repetitive - pretty much the same question asked in a different way - stuff like that. The 1-7 scale for swear words was also a bit mystical, I mean who evaluates their usage of impulsic swear words on a 7 step scale. I think a simple yes/no would've sufficed - but I am not the one doing research so maybe you have plan for that scale. But otherwise seemed pretty solid - hope you get your answers.
: >Probably, that is all up to faith in the end. Do you believe Riot to give statements which are brutally honest according to Data? Data might state that there is thousands of permabanned accounts, do they state "last year 9000 accounts were permabanned", no, they state it so that it suits their needs. That is the whole point why the data is closed in the first place. So that the public cannot see the gruel sides of it and raw numbers. You are insinuating that Riot has malicious intent. If their data showed that there is a more viable method for tackling a toxic playerbase, why shouldn't they use it. Thing is you claim that more people will reform with your idea of Prisoners Island, when you simply don't have basis for that assumption. For all we know permanent bans could be reforming more players than your proposition. So your point isn't valid. >No, it doesn't, but these experiments were done years ago and they have, hopefully, acted based on it. And where is the results, after multiple years? That permanently banned people are very unlikely to reform and it's not worth implementing a system, that gives them a second chance (a thing, which many banned players beg for). >Pretty much everything is assumption at this point. Without proper experimenting it is just as wrong to assume that the current system is better. It's not inherently wrong to assume, if it's done evaluations and you don't always have to do experiments to refute an idea. They've given the Prisoners Island idea extensive thought (see the link). Also the current system is a major improvement to the previous ones. So Riot has been and is working on the problem! You simply won't get a perfect solution. > Ofc if you take only small amount of accounts and put them into the exact same MM parameters as in regular servers it will be BAD. But if you would tune those parameters to suit the amount of players it would be possible. You can't match people of potentionally highly different skill levels. Also if you want to attempt to sustain acceptable queue times every banned person had to be on this one Prisoner Island, which definitely will result in latency and other issues. So overall, also because of technical issues, it simply isn't feasible. > Permabanned players would end up here and as they state there "It runs counter to our values of reform" - how does permabanning not run counter to this value then? > > They have always shut the issue down with the reform argument and due to this every discussion opened about the issue is being nearly lynched down by the people who abide to Riots word - making the whole topic taboo'ish. Because they believe that Prisoners Island is not a viable method to reform people, thus running counter to their values. They don't want people to stay toxic, but in a different place of their game. They either want them to reform, or leave for good. It's not "lynched". People simply aren't viably addressing the most prominent issues with Prisoners Island and always try to raise the same arguments, so they always get confronted by the same counter arguments. It's not fair to call that lynching. >Essentially they just state "too little amount of players, nothing we can do" even though there might be who knows how much players and they could do it. It simply doesn't fit their agenda, hence they refuse to even try it. Because there are too little players and there is nothing they can do. You seem to be in refusal. Just because you doesn't accept their statements doesn't mean they are not right, especially when they have the numbers. You are repeatedly insinuating Riot has some hidden agenda, that's why they don't show any numbers. Like some evil corporation. Why would they do that? What do they gain from not implementing an allegedly "better" system? >How much exactly is worst of the worst? That defines pretty much the whole queue argument. 100 players = we can forget the whole idea and live happily ever after. 10000 players = it can be done. They once stated that 0.006% of the active account base gets banned. That's an old number though. But again, even if there barely were enough numbers to populate a single Prisoners Island, it will then probably fail because of other issues (latency, different playtimes between regions, skill gap, etc.). >If you think about it the way that before their last chance they'd be given a 14 day glimpse of toxic hell, they might try harder to reform. Why would they? It could have the contrary effect as well. But with 14 days without playing they are given time to cool off and reflect on themselves, instead of diving into the next match head first.
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=0006000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-09T16:12:42.357+0000) > > You are insinuating that Riot has malicious intent. If their data showed that there is a more viable method for tackling a toxic playerbase, why shouldn't they use it. > I do not mean to insinuate anything. But the sad truth is - big companies who do not open their data to the public will use that data to further their business. If the data contains something unpleasant for the companys public image - it will not be published and the statements done addressing these isues are done minimalistically and vaguely. > Thing is you claim that more people will reform with your idea of Prisoners Island, when you simply don't have basis for that assumption. For all we know permanent bans could be reforming more players than your proposition. So your point isn't valid. > I do not claim - I am not here waving my "research" saying this IS better or people WILL reform - all I am saying is - with one extra option, THEY **_MIGHT_** > That permanently banned people are very unlikely to reform and it's not worth implementing a system, that gives them a second chance (a thing, which many banned players beg for). > Exactly, they are very unlikely to reform - so why do we force them in to a situation where they have to a) lose everything b) start all over and c) spread more and more vile toxicity among the regular players. Just during this discussion there is a new PB thread about a guy who has not even reached lvl 30 yet, but gotten already four accounts permanently banned - FOUR! And all of these among the below lvl 30 people - "new players". > It's not inherently wrong to assume, if it's done evaluations and you don't always have to do experiments to refute an idea. They've given the Prisoners Island idea extensive thought (see the link). Also the current system is a major improvement to the previous ones. So Riot has been and is working on the problem! You simply won't get a perfect solution. > No, we won't get a perfect solution. But what has Riot done after the afk/leaver buster? Reworked Honor? How did that affect environment? Why people are not saying "after the Honor rework the game felt alot cleaner". > > You can't match people of potentionally highly different skill levels. Also if you want to attempt to sustain acceptable queue times every banned person had to be on this one Prisoner Island, which definitely will result in latency and other issues. So overall, also because of technical issues, it simply isn't feasible. > > Because they believe that Prisoners Island is not a viable method to reform people, thus running counter to their values. They don't want people to stay toxic, but in a different place of their game. They either want them to reform, or leave for good. > > It's not "lynched". People simply aren't viably addressing the most prominent issues with Prisoners Island and always try to raise the same arguments, so they always get confronted by the same counter arguments. It's not fair to call that lynching. > > Because there are too little players and there is nothing they can do. You seem to be in refusal. Just because you doesn't accept their statements doesn't mean they are not right, especially when they have the numbers. > > You are repeatedly insinuating Riot has some hidden agenda, that's why they don't show any numbers. Like some evil corporation. Why would they do that? What do they gain from not implementing an allegedly "better" system? > I do not insinuate - Major brands such as Riot Gaming, Intel, Apple, Samsung etc. will NOT make a statement which hurts their brand. It is simple business. Who would play LoL if Riot would give out following statement "League of Legends playerbase has 600.000 people who behave worthy of a ban"? Would you? > They once stated that 0.006% of the active account base gets banned. That's an old number though. But again, even if there barely were enough numbers to populate a single Prisoners Island, it will then probably fail because of other issues (latency, different playtimes between regions, skill gap, etc.). > Now we get to the funky part which hopefully explains why I am sceptic about these "Brand imago friendly numbers" pulled and molded from closed data. So they give us an itsybitsy tiny number 0.006% - Ha, only that amount gets banned, I guess League isn't that toxic as it feels. But there is no context for this itsybitsy tiny number. Where do we compare it to? They have the number there in their Data. They know it to the smallest decimal. Should they just announce the number of punished players? Well that number gets big quite fast. So maybe instead of giving a hard number we put it out the other way - without context, we end up with a beautifully small number of 0.006% - now this is marketing. So, let's find out how many active players there are. Google "Lol amount of players" first hit - (https://dotesports.com/league-of-legends/news/league-of-legends-number-of-players-14488) "The most recent statistic on the userbase in League comes from an Interview with Riot Games executives, Marc Merrill and Brandon Beck, in September 2016 by Polygon. Merrill and Beck revealed that **100 million users played the game every month.**" Are you sure you want to find out how much that itsy bitsy tiny cute number from _official announcement_ really is? In a ball park estimate. 100.000.000 x 0.006 = 600.000 players. Six hundred THOUSAND players who behave worthy of a ban. This took even me as surprise. This is why I don't trust official statements without real numbers. > Why would they? It could have the contrary effect as well. But with 14 days without playing they are given time to cool off and reflect on themselves, instead of diving into the next match head first. That could happen as well, yes. But why my opinion is now of lesser value? To the added bonus now that we are talking numbers - Up until 2016 the active player base has grown steadily with approx 33% annual growth. However after 100 mil. point it has dipped for 19 million according to this site (https://%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%/blog/players-2017) EDIT: This seems to get censored for some reason - anyway it is the second hit from google with the same key words as the first site. So 19 million people, or more, have stopped playing because there have still been new players coming to game aswell. Could a cleaner environment keep these people still playing? Or have they banned 19 million players?
Èclair (EUNE)
: > So according to Riot I am not a representative of RG and I do not speak of their behalf. All my posts reflect my opinion only. > Prisoners Island is a no-no because it would offer a poor experience for poorly behaving players. No. It'd only waste the resources that could be used to implement features that can be utilized in better way - to improve experience for all players whereas "Prisoner Island" would only make this game playable for these players who would be excluded from the former group. Unless you want to argue for more harsh punishments but it's another can of worms. > What kind of an experience exactly does a permanent ban offer? Is poor experience better than no experience? Or the other way around? Players who are punished are punished on a basis of broken agreement between them and RG. Said agreement states that players who break it can be prohibited from recieving any future services from RG. This is something we all signed while creating our accounts. You already agreeded to that. And I do think that any company should have a right to refuse their services to anyone and I don't see a problem with League's ToU. > Then again how about the regular players experience who gets matched with a returning permaban players rage? Just as a permanent ban does not prevent you from creating another account the system you suggest won't prevent them from doing just that either. Not to mention _(well I already mentioned that in my previous post but anyway)_ that this would come only if sacrifices are made to ensure the very existence of said server. Both solutions are going to imact regular player's experience either way but in the instance of current system developers provide the means of combating the toxicity with both mute option and the report system so yes, I already took this into consideration while making my mind and I am aware of fact that certain things gain better visibility from highground so I would gladly give up my spot on that high horse if it wasn't just hypothetical and completely fictional.
> [{quoted}](name=MadEclair,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=000700000000,timestamp=2018-01-09T16:01:43.648+0000) > > I am not a representative of RG and I do not speak of their behalf. All my posts reflect my opinion only. > > No. It'd only waste the resources that could be used to implement features that can be utilized in better way - to improve experience for all players whereas "Prisoner Island" would only make this game playable for these players who would be excluded from the former group. Unless you want to argue for more harsh punishments but it's another can of worms. > > Players who are punished are punished on a basis of broken agreement between them and RG. Said agreement states that players who break it can be prohibited from recieving any future services from RG. This is something we all signed while creating our accounts. You already agreeded to that. > And I do think that any company should have a right to refuse their services to anyone and I don't see a problem with League's ToU. > > Just as a permanent ban does not prevent you from creating another account the system you suggest won't prevent them from doing just that either. Not to mention _(well I already mentioned that in my previous post but anyway)_ that this would come only if sacrifices are made to ensure the very existence of said server. Both solutions are going to imact regular player's experience either way but in the instance of current system developers provide the means of combating the toxicity with both mute option and the report system so yes, I already took this into consideration while making my mind and I am aware of fact that certain things gain better visibility from highground so I would gladly give up my spot on that high horse if it wasn't just hypothetical and completely fictional. Apparently I replied to wrong person. My bad.
Èclair (EUNE)
: > What I was expecting was a common concensus from PB users that progress had been made - it turns out it has not been made and this saddens me and made me think would it be time to try the Island Except that there was a huge progress between tribunal and instant feedback system - players are punished instantly as oppose to the huge waiting time for any punishments made by tribunal. Examples of hate speech are also treated harsher than ever - ranging from temporary ban to permanent one wich wasn't a thing few seasons ago or at least I can't recall situation where somebody was banned just for using one bad word _(and this is not an overexcitation - you do get banned even for single instance of a word being linked to hate speech being used) _. Also, the core principle of both systems is the same - playerbase dedices wich behaviour is punishment worthy via either tribunal or report system so it is the will of majority we're speaking against in this instance and not pre-determined set of actions that RG itself deems bad. > As I said, I have been against that idea before, but now I am pretty much in "anything goes" state of mind where anything that would improve the situation is welcome. And I don't think it would improve anything on the same time being quite expensive to implement and because of that risky. > Permanent bans impact player base just as much as these relocations would. That's why I said it might vary depending on whether you want to argue if the system should be harsher towards toxic players that aren't deemed toxic enough to be banned by current standard. And I kinda get that vibe from your post - I don't think that every toxic player you encounter was already banned. I actually think they are small minority as having your account locked would discourage many from playing the game. And from my personal experience not every report triggers any kind of response and I heard lot of complaints of that - that the toxic players reported are still playing despite being pretty toxic in the eyes of person posting the complaint.
> [{quoted}](name=MadEclair,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=000700010000,timestamp=2018-01-09T16:18:49.651+0000) > > Except that there was a huge progress between tribunal and instant feedback system - players are punished instantly as oppose to the huge waiting time for any punishments made by tribunal. Examples of hate speech are also treated harsher than ever - ranging from temporary ban to permanent one wich wasn't a thing few seasons ago or at least I can't recall situation where somebody was banned just for using one bad word _(and this is not an overexcitation - you do get banned even for single instance of a word being linked to hate speech being used) _. Also, the core principle of both systems is the same - playerbase dedices wich behaviour is punishment worthy via either tribunal or report system so it is the will of majority we're speaking against in this instance and not pre-determined set of actions that RG itself deems bad. > I played through tribunal era and half a year in to current system. However the progress I wished for would have been between today and 1,5 years ago. In this time the situation has been in a stand still, as far as I know. > And I don't think it would improve anything on the same time being quite expensive to implement and because of that risky. > It could be expensive, but should it work it might pay itself back. > That's why I said it might vary depending on whether you want to argue if the system should be harsher towards toxic players that aren't deemed toxic enough to be banned by current standard. I think current system is brilliant - except the permabanned people who return to the game just to keep flaming. And this is what Prisoners Island MIGHT reduce. > And I kinda get that vibe from your post - I don't think that every toxic player you encounter was already banned. I actually think they are small minority as having your account locked would discourage many from playing the game. And from my personal experience not every report triggers any kind of response and I heard lot of complaints of that - that the toxic players reported are still playing despite being pretty toxic in the eyes of person posting the complaint. Uhmm, what vibe? I do not wish for every instance of frustration to be labeled as toxic instantly and transferred to Island, no. Emotions belong to the competitve game but those who continuously fail to control these emotions need to be dealt with.
Vsec Exile (EUNE)
: I do not think reform mission should be given up. However, I do think, that after reaching permanent ban phase, prisoners island should be a possible given alternative. Problem is, long queue times would be the first problem. So people would still make new accounts instead, just for quicker games. (or if community is in majority toxic, then the sportsmanlikes would be punished with high queue times instead. However, a "don't match me with formerly restricted players" tickbox would have same effect, but wouldn't be so hazardous on queue times. But since every human has a breaking point, "haahaa riot system doesn't work" type of opinion would start to spread because 1 guy slipped once in like 6 or 7 months.
> [{quoted}](name=Vsec Exile,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=0002000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-01-09T15:49:24.382+0000) > > I do not think reform mission should be given up. However, I do think, that after reaching permanent ban phase, prisoners island should be a possible given alternative. > Problem is, long queue times would be the first problem. So people would still make new accounts instead, just for quicker games. (or if community is in majority toxic, then the sportsmanlikes would be punished with high queue times instead. > Reform mission wouldn't be given up. Only the ultimate punishment would be changed. Long queue times are an issue but the severity of the issue can only be estimated with solid numbers from Riot, which they do not give. If there would be so much toxic players that removing them impacts regular matchmaking all Riots claims of fractious amounts would be false. > However, a "don't match me with formerly restricted players" tickbox would have same effect, but wouldn't be so hazardous on queue times It would be even more hazardous if all the punishments fall under this tick - Island would contain the worst offenders, this tick as I understand it would contain the chat banned aswell. Meaning more players away from queues.
Èclair (EUNE)
: > However, now that I have started to think about returning to the game after about 2 year hiatus, only to find out that the community reform hasn't actually been that effective which I, and probably many others aswell, hoped it to be. You didn't hope for the community reform. What you did hope for was a holy grail that'll magically heal the wounds and prevent aging. But it won't happen simply because your expectations have no root in reality. Let's face it - you cannot have a game of a highly competitive nature and expect community to behave. Actually, you can hardly have any social platform with no signs of toxic behaviour, whether it be just regular social platform _(like Twatter or Facebook)_, a chat room _(VRChat or Chatroulette)_ or just a normal game that allows player to player interactions - you'll always have people calling each other twats, %%%%s, %%%s and all other names in all languages of the world despite having clear ToS that prohibit this kind of behaviour or even moderators that manually review each reported message. That's why developers often give you means to fight against this type of people in a form of one simple mute button. Its effectiveness ranges from different types of platforms but you're still allowed to mute any feedback you don't like. This doesn't mean that I approve toxicity. On top of giving players mute button every game should be equipped with working report system that'll allow developers to ban the most toxic individuals and while I don't think that our system isn't as strict as I would like, I accept the fact that its judgement is heavily based on the players feedback. > Which side of the coin do you believe in, Companys side or the Users side? None. I listen to both and compare their experiences with my own observations. I don't have to blindly follow one side or another. > My original opinion was that the environment wasn't for me even though I liked the game, now that I asked around couple years later, I get an example average opinion from the Users which states, it still isn't a very clean environment. Well, let me tell you a story. I was really into PB few years ago and I was also very active on boards and we even had a small community of people before the era of discord. In that time I read and responded to most of the forum posts in PB section. I noticed few individuals that were speaking against toxicity and how it affects their enjoyment of League. Since I already had most of the active boards users on my friendlist I used to invite them each time I wanted to play casual game. Strangely enough the person who posted myriad of threads complaining about toxicity started flaming and throwing temper tantrums due to fact that we were losing lanes and couldn't help him with counter-jungling enemy. So I started looking into people who were vocal in the matter of toxicity. Turns out large chunk of them are filled with passive-aggressive type of toxicity, some of them were just straight toxic and unpleasant to play with. While I don't think that you yourself are toxic, I would be carefull in assumption that vocal part of the community would really want to have this problem resolved by RG. They might say that many times but the reality of their actions might be a bit different from the story they tell. > Has Riot succeeded in reforming the player base then? I'd say no, they have not. And they'll never will. It's an endless circle of finding the culprit and giving them appropriate punishment for their offences. > With all this in mind, I have actually started to ponder on, would The Prisoners Island server really be that bad of an idea? Dota2 has very similar system to that and it's still hell of a toxic game even for regular players. > What would happen if permabans were replaced by instant permanent server change to Prisoners Island? [...] But how would a Prisoners Island server for toxic players be non-helpful for the non toxic community? To put it simply - wasted resources. Instead of making another server designed for people who aren't playing by the rules you could make a regular server for example, like trial server for Africa. Also, depending on your view what qualifies as a toxic player worthly of being forcefully relocated this might have an impact on the playerbase or invest into other things like larger balance team. A banned player uses no additional resources and do not require any services.
> [{quoted}](name=MadEclair,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2018-01-09T15:05:52.838+0000) > > You didn't hope for the community reform. What you did hope for was a holy grail that'll magically heal the wounds and prevent aging. But it won't happen simply because your expectations have no root in reality. > Let's face it - you cannot have a game of a highly competitive nature and expect community to behave. Actually, you can hardly have any social platform with no signs of toxic behaviour, whether it be just regular social platform _(like Twatter or Facebook)_, a chat room _(VRChat or Chatroulette)_ or just a normal game that allows player to player interactions - you'll always have people calling each other twats, %%%%s, %%%s and all other names in all languages of the world despite having clear ToS that prohibit this kind of behaviour or even moderators that manually review each reported message. That's why developers often give you means to fight against this type of people in a form of one simple mute button. Its effectiveness ranges from different types of platforms but you're still allowed to mute any feedback you don't like. > This doesn't mean that I approve toxicity. On top of giving players mute button every game should be equipped with working report system that'll allow developers to ban the most toxic individuals and while I don't think that our system isn't as strict as I would like, I accept the fact that its judgement is heavily based on the players feedback. > > None. I listen to both and compare their experiences with my own observations. I don't have to blindly follow one side or another. > > Well, let me tell you a story. > I was really into PB few years ago and I was also very active on boards and we even had a small community of people before the era of discord. In that time I read and responded to most of the forum posts in PB section. I noticed few individuals that were speaking against toxicity and how it affects their enjoyment of League. Since I already had most of the active boards users on my friendlist I used to invite them each time I wanted to play casual game. Strangely enough the person who posted myriad of threads complaining about toxicity started flaming and throwing temper tantrums due to fact that we were losing lanes and couldn't help him with counter-jungling enemy. So I started looking into people who were vocal in the matter of toxicity. Turns out large chunk of them are filled with passive-aggressive type of toxicity, some of them were just straight toxic and unpleasant to play with. > While I don't think that you yourself are toxic, I would be carefull in assumption that vocal part of the community would really want to have this problem resolved by RG. They might say that many times but the reality of their actions might be a bit different from the story they tell. > > And they'll never will. It's an endless circle of finding the culprit and giving them appropriate punishment for their offences. > Yes, I do agree that there will never be a perfect environment in any competitive game. And to be honest that was not what I was expecting from LoL either. What I was expecting was a common concensus from PB users that progress had been made - it turns out it has not been made and this saddens me and made me think would it be time to try the Island. As I said, I have been against that idea before, but now I am pretty much in "anything goes" state of mind where anything that would improve the situation is welcome. > Dota2 has very similar system to that and it's still hell of a toxic game even for regular players. > I have to educate myself on this Dota2 system. > To put it simply - wasted resources. > Instead of making another server designed for people who aren't playing by the rules you could make a regular server for example, like trial server for Africa. Also, depending on your view what qualifies as a toxic player worthly of being forcefully relocated this might have an impact on the playerbase or invest into other things like larger balance team. > A banned player uses no additional resources and do not require any services. Permanent bans impact player base just as much as these relocations would.
Èclair (EUNE)
: > However, now that I have started to think about returning to the game after about 2 year hiatus, only to find out that the community reform hasn't actually been that effective which I, and probably many others aswell, hoped it to be. You didn't hope for the community reform. What you did hope for was a holy grail that'll magically heal the wounds and prevent aging. But it won't happen simply because your expectations have no root in reality. Let's face it - you cannot have a game of a highly competitive nature and expect community to behave. Actually, you can hardly have any social platform with no signs of toxic behaviour, whether it be just regular social platform _(like Twatter or Facebook)_, a chat room _(VRChat or Chatroulette)_ or just a normal game that allows player to player interactions - you'll always have people calling each other twats, %%%%s, %%%s and all other names in all languages of the world despite having clear ToS that prohibit this kind of behaviour or even moderators that manually review each reported message. That's why developers often give you means to fight against this type of people in a form of one simple mute button. Its effectiveness ranges from different types of platforms but you're still allowed to mute any feedback you don't like. This doesn't mean that I approve toxicity. On top of giving players mute button every game should be equipped with working report system that'll allow developers to ban the most toxic individuals and while I don't think that our system isn't as strict as I would like, I accept the fact that its judgement is heavily based on the players feedback. > Which side of the coin do you believe in, Companys side or the Users side? None. I listen to both and compare their experiences with my own observations. I don't have to blindly follow one side or another. > My original opinion was that the environment wasn't for me even though I liked the game, now that I asked around couple years later, I get an example average opinion from the Users which states, it still isn't a very clean environment. Well, let me tell you a story. I was really into PB few years ago and I was also very active on boards and we even had a small community of people before the era of discord. In that time I read and responded to most of the forum posts in PB section. I noticed few individuals that were speaking against toxicity and how it affects their enjoyment of League. Since I already had most of the active boards users on my friendlist I used to invite them each time I wanted to play casual game. Strangely enough the person who posted myriad of threads complaining about toxicity started flaming and throwing temper tantrums due to fact that we were losing lanes and couldn't help him with counter-jungling enemy. So I started looking into people who were vocal in the matter of toxicity. Turns out large chunk of them are filled with passive-aggressive type of toxicity, some of them were just straight toxic and unpleasant to play with. While I don't think that you yourself are toxic, I would be carefull in assumption that vocal part of the community would really want to have this problem resolved by RG. They might say that many times but the reality of their actions might be a bit different from the story they tell. > Has Riot succeeded in reforming the player base then? I'd say no, they have not. And they'll never will. It's an endless circle of finding the culprit and giving them appropriate punishment for their offences. > With all this in mind, I have actually started to ponder on, would The Prisoners Island server really be that bad of an idea? Dota2 has very similar system to that and it's still hell of a toxic game even for regular players. > What would happen if permabans were replaced by instant permanent server change to Prisoners Island? [...] But how would a Prisoners Island server for toxic players be non-helpful for the non toxic community? To put it simply - wasted resources. Instead of making another server designed for people who aren't playing by the rules you could make a regular server for example, like trial server for Africa. Also, depending on your view what qualifies as a toxic player worthly of being forcefully relocated this might have an impact on the playerbase or invest into other things like larger balance team. A banned player uses no additional resources and do not require any services.
>It’d be emotionally satisfying to say they deserve it, but it’s squarely against our values of putting player experience first.> This is from that statement. So according to Riot, Prisoners Island is a no-no because it would offer a poor experience for poorly behaving players. What kind of an experience exactly does a permanent ban offer? Is poor experience better than no experience? Or the other way around? Then again how about the regular players experience who gets matched with a returning permaban players rage? Is that a factor that has been taken in to account when giving this, pretty high horsey imo, statement?
: >Retaliatory players hopefully understand that retaliating isn't fine before the permaban/Island phase. And well, what if the player who spread the negativity would be playing on the Island instead of a regular server? > >There is no question about if toxic environment makes more toxic people, it does. But the point is that even some toxic players might get enough of it, grow tired of it [...] That brings me back to my initial point about the purpose of this server of keeping the toxic people away from the nice part of the community. But just as you said now as well, in a toxic environment people are unlikely to reform. The amount of people who reform, because they "get enough of it" might be just the same as the amount of people who reform after they got permanently banned. So why go the extra steps of creating a server, when you can achieve the same reformation rate by banning? >Well until they publish this data, everything is debatable. But Riot has the data, so they are probably acting on it already. >The experiment you mention was done years ago, unless there is a newer one I am not aware of. So? That doesn't mean its value and results decreased in worth over time. >I think if [...] ONLY the permaban is switched to Island - there is the exactly same if not better chance for reform [...] That's an assumption with no valid basis. >Since Riot is investing in to experiments - why not experiment with this in a smaller scale? Because again, queue times. That experiment would be almost impossible to do. >Yet all they have done is address this issue as a taboo not to be discussed about and provided some vague psychological theory on what could happen. Where have they said it's a taboo? They created an official response regarding that topic. Source: https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/2017/01/ask-riot-banished-to-prisoners-island/ Also you call it a vague psychological theory. What exactly does make the theory vague? >Yes, you can make a chat filter, but it isn't machine learning capable. Also if you make it to only catch certain phrases it is easily played around. My point was, that I can immediately come up with an already quite effective way to tackle chat abuse (by flagging certain phrases), but there is no apparent good way to handle the queue time problem. >The first solution that comes to mind to ease up the queues is to reduce the amount of divisions according to the number of players in the said league. Does it actually significantly decrease the queue time though? Again, only the worst of the worst end up on Prisoners Island, so it's extremely sparsely populated. I didn't even think about ranked ladder, but expected only one queue type on that server to begin with. Even with just one queue type there would be barely enough numbers to sustain acceptable queue times. >Simple experiment with this could be made by putting 14-day ban and permaban players to a different queue where they would be just matched against other punished players. Now you also want to put players on the island, who "only" have been banned for 14 days? That contradicts your whole purpose of Prisoners Island and would be extremely unfair to those players. **So a big NO!** Such an experiment should never be done, if it involves players who are eligible to play the game normally.
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=00060000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-09T14:31:54.708+0000) > > That brings me back to my initial point about the purpose of this server of keeping the toxic people away from the nice part of the community. But just as you said now as well, in a toxic environment people are unlikely to reform. The amount of people who reform, because they "get enough of it" might be just the same as the amount of people who reform after they got permanently banned. So why go the extra steps of creating a server, when you can achieve the same reformation rate by banning? > For the chance of some of the un-reformable players to stay playing there instead of creating another-soon-to-be-banned account and maybe take a few regular players out of the game aswell. > But Riot has the data, so they are probably acting on it already. > Probably, that is all up to faith in the end. Do you believe Riot to give statements which are brutally honest according to Data? Data might state that there is thousands of permabanned accounts, do they state "last year 9000 accounts were permabanned", no, they state it so that it suits their needs. That is the whole point why the data is closed in the first place. So that the public cannot see the gruel sides of it and raw numbers. > So? That doesn't mean its value and results decreased in worth over time. > No, it doesn't, but these experiments were done years ago and they have, hopefully, acted based on it. And where is the results, after multiple years? > That's an assumption with no valid basis. > Pretty much everything is assumption at this point. Without proper experimenting it is just as wrong to assume that the current system is better. > Because again, queue times. That experiment would be almost impossible to do. > Without publishing the raw number of permabanned accounts - we cannot know what the queues would be like. Ofc if you take only small amount of accounts and put them into the exact same MM parameters as in regular servers it will be BAD. But if you would tune those parameters to suit the amount of players it would be possible. They constantly tune the MM anyway to correspond with the playerbase size, right? So it can be done and it has been done. > Where have they said it's a taboo? They created an official response regarding that topic. > That statement has multiple things which aren't in line with my suggestion, first of all - not every player who steps out of line should be put here, players must be given a chance to reform. Permabanned players would end up here and as they state there "It runs counter to our values of reform" - how does permabanning not run counter to this value then? They have always shut the issue down with the reform argument and due to this every discussion opened about the issue is being nearly lynched down by the people who abide to Riots word - making the whole topic taboo'ish. > Source: https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/2017/01/ask-riot-banished-to-prisoners-island/ > > Also you call it a vague psychological theory. What exactly does make the theory vague? > It has not been tested in LoL environment, it has been interpreted from different settings and decided it will not work here, without testing. Based on queue times which they refuse to address directly by giving solid numbers and reasons as to why the times couldn't be helped. Essentially they just state "too little amount of players, nothing we can do" even though there might be who knows how much players and they could do it. It simply doesn't fit their agenda, hence they refuse to even try it. > My point was, that I can immediately come up with an already quite effective way to tackle chat abuse (by flagging certain phrases), but there is no apparent good way to handle the queue time problem. > > Does it actually significantly decrease the queue time though? Again, only the worst of the worst end up on Prisoners Island, so it's extremely sparsely populated. I didn't even think about ranked ladder, but expected only one queue type on that server to begin with. Even with just one queue type there would be barely enough numbers to sustain acceptable queue times. > How much exactly is worst of the worst? That defines pretty much the whole queue argument. 100 players = we can forget the whole idea and live happily ever after. 10000 players = it can be done. > Now you also want to put players on the island, who "only" have been banned for 14 days? That contradicts your whole purpose of Prisoners Island and would be extremely unfair to those players. > > **So a big NO!** Such an experiment should never be done, if it involves players who are eligible to play the game normally. I meant to experiment it, instead of not being able to play for 14 days they would be able to play with other toxic players. 14 day people are already on their last chance and uneligible to play for 14 days. If you think about it the way that before their last chance they'd be given a 14 day glimpse of toxic hell, they might try harder to reform.
: >However I also feel that if the player is not "robbed" of his account he will be more willing to reflect on his actions. Why should be a convict (player on Prisoners Island) more inclined to reflect on their behaviour, than a player who got punished hard by getting their account banned? There is no real basis for that. On contrary, if you look for example at board entries many players complain about getting punished for retaliatory behaviour. They were nice players in the beginning, but got flamed and took that as a justification to flame back. So it appears that a toxic environment is likely to make people more toxic, and not decrease it. >To cleanse the community would be an investment [...] Riot is already making A LOT of investments in that aspect. They create new systems, raise a lot of data and analyse it and even make experiments (for example, when they gave a selected number of banned players the chance to redeem their account). Prisoners Island just doesn't seem feasible to them. >Queue times is a problem I do aknowledge, a solution to this should be figured out before doing Prisoners Island but I am pretty sure that figuring that out is easier than creating a machine learning capable punishment bot which goes through thousands of chat logs every hour and rarely give a false positive. Actually I beg to differ. Even I, with no extensive knowledge, can come up with a quick way to scan for chat abuse (by creating a bot who searches for certain key phrases), but I don't have a viable suggestion to tackle the queue time problem, and you can't just assume that there must be one and that it's "easier than creating a machine learning capable punishment bot". Until that is solved, Prisoners Island will never be a thing.
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=000600000000,timestamp=2018-01-09T13:06:22.559+0000) > > Why should be a convict (player on Prisoners Island) more inclined to reflect on their behaviour, than a player who got punished hard by getting their account banned? There is no real basis for that. On contrary, if you look for example at board entries many players complain about getting punished for retaliatory behaviour. They were nice players in the beginning, but got flamed and took that as a justification to flame back. So it appears that a toxic environment is likely to make people more toxic, and not decrease it. > First of all these convicts wouldn't be enraged by losing a lot of money and time. Instead of raging about that they could approach things in a more calm and civilized manner. They wouldn't need to create a new account to keep on playing. Everything would remain the same - only now they are among other negative people. So the thing they would notice first is the degradation of environment. For some it might come as a shock which might open eyes. To some it might be a non-factor and these are the players who should remain on a server such as this. Retaliatory players hopefully understand that retaliating isn't fine before the permaban/Island phase. And well, what if the player who spread the negativity would be playing on the Island instead of a regular server? There is no question about if toxic environment makes more toxic people, it does. But the point is that even some toxic players might get enough of it, grow tired of it and think "it was actually quite nice when there wasn't flamers in every game" and these people just might reform. Permaban isn't doing this - it juust forces those players to start over in their rage fueled anger and grind back to lvl 30 and burn more money to same stuff they already had - this is not reforming anyone. > Riot is already making A LOT of investments in that aspect. They create new systems, raise a lot of data and analyse it and even make experiments (for example, when they gave a selected number of banned players the chance to redeem their account). Prisoners Island just doesn't seem feasible to them. > Well until they publish this data, everything is debatable. The experiment you mention was done years ago, unless there is a newer one I am not aware of. The investment done to current punishment system was done years ago. They have not been effective enough. The Prisoners Island has not been feasible for them due to them wanting to reform the players. I think that if the current system would be kept as it is and ONLY the permaban is switched to Island - there is the exactly same if not better chance for reform with the added bonus that the permabanned player stays out of regular matches. Since Riot is investing in to experiments - why not experiment with this in a smaller scale? Then publish those results? I think this would bring the closure to this discussion once and for all. Yet all they have done is address this issue as a taboo not to be discussed about and provided some vague psychological theory on what could happen. > Actually I beg to differ. Even I, with no extensive knowledge, can come up with a quick way to scan for chat abuse (by creating a bot who searches for certain key phrases), but I don't have a viable suggestion to tackle the queue time problem, and you can't just assume that there must be one and that it's "easier than creating a machine learning capable punishment bot". Until that is solved, Prisoners Island will never be a thing. Yes, you can make a chat filter, but it isn't machine learning capable. Also if you make it to only catch certain phrases it is easily played around. The first solution that comes to mind to ease up the queues is to reduce the amount of divisions according to the number of players in the said league. Thus Gold V's and Gold I's might be matched in to same matches, generating more possible matches and shortening queues. The queue shortening is pretty much number crunching in MM parameters and making the ranked ladder more dynamic - these are afterall punished players - they do not need as good MM as regulars have - this could also be used as a reforming point - start behaving and you can play with a good MM again. Simple experiment with this could be made by putting 14-day ban and permaban players to a different queue where they would be just matched against other punished players. This wouldn't require a dedicated server and Riot could just decide what amount of players they would use in this experiment.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=jvbP3NrM,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-09T11:37:13.997+0000) > > Before the thread was modified, he named and shamed a player. No matter the offense, naming and shaming on the boards is forbidden -- one of the reasons is that no one can verify the claims, and no one can do anything about the offender. Pretty sure he responded to the "chatlog?" part with the same sassy style as Shukran did to the OP when he clearly didn't even read the post, just noticed name and shame, made a witty comment about it and then simply assumed op was questioning his own ban.
: Tell me how can you not understand it? If you have just a little bit of logical thinking you can figure out that if you lost 1v1 2 times already, you shouldn't keep fighting? Ofc if it isn't your first games in league or you are bronze 5. People do this shit in silver and gold aswell. It is pretty annoying. Dying over and over again going 0/10 and the fed enemy laner just destroys our whole team.
> [{quoted}](name=LielaisDix2k,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=vmZTgPoA,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2018-01-09T12:19:22.095+0000) > > Tell me how can you not understand it? If you have just a little bit of logical thinking you can figure out that if you lost 1v1 2 times already, you shouldn't keep fighting? Ofc if it isn't your first games in league or you are bronze 5. People do this shit in silver and gold aswell. It is pretty annoying. Dying over and over again going 0/10 and the fed enemy laner just destroys our whole team. The point wasn't about 0/10 people in the first place. It was about, let's say 1/4 people called for "inting", which in most cases is not "inting" but because there is no "bad player" button anymore the closest thing to report for is intentional feeding.
: I've read some of the comments and appreciate that you stay polite and calm. Props for that. Now, could prisoners island be a viable thing? First, it depends on what is your intent with such a server. Some here seem to believe that you try to reform toxic players with this proposition. I personally believe it to be unlikely and if you think otherwise maybe you can provide some basis for that. You could also intend to keep toxic players away from the nice players, while still providing them an environment to play in. This is, I believe, your biggest point. Those toxic players, now on their own server, perhaps are less inclined to create new accounts and thus won't spread their toxicity amongst nice players anymore. Let them be toxic there, and the others nice here. But how likely is that to work out, especially because there are two major points against your whole proposition... First, who is going to pay for the prisoner island server(s)? They definitely result in additional cost for Riot, so not very desirable for a company, especially since their hoped for effect isn't guaranteed. Secondly, queue times! Currently only the worst of the worst are permanently banned and although board entries makes it seem otherwise this happens extremely rarely. So the queue times on such a sparsely populated server would be huge, which probably will result in many of the "convicts" creating new accounts again, so they don't have to wait so long for a match anymore.
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2018-01-09T12:02:15.871+0000) > > I've read some of the comments and appreciate that you stay polite and calm. Props for that. > > Now, could prisoners island be a viable thing? First, it depends on what is your intent with such a server. Some here seem to believe that you try to reform toxic players with this proposition. I personally believe it to be unlikely and if you think otherwise maybe you can provide some basis for that. > I feel that permaban and Prisoners Island are both "last straw" solutions as someone mentioned. However I also feel that if the player is not "robbed" of his account he will be more willing to reflect on his actions. Especially if he is still able to play with the account with the difference that you play in matches where there are other flamers. This might get "hard to reform" people thinking about their actions more. And when the player reaches the point where he himself is willing to give up his account and create a new one to get back among the regular players - I think some reforming has been done, this player willingly left his "money" and made another account to play with none flaming people. There is also people who openly admit that they are fine with flame and flaming should be a part of the game, I feel these persons should experience what it is like to play in matches where there is only flamers - it might turn some heads aswell. Permanent ban simply "robbs" the player of his account which he has sinked time and money on and leaves him with nothing. It just generates anger. > You could also intend to keep toxic players away from the nice players, while still providing them an environment to play in. This is, I believe, your biggest point. Those toxic players, now on their own server, perhaps are less inclined to create new accounts and thus won't spread their toxicity amongst nice players anymore. Let them be toxic there, and the others nice here. But how likely is that to work out, especially because there are two major points against your whole proposition... > > First, who is going to pay for the prisoner island server(s)? They definitely result in additional cost for Riot, so not very desirable for a company, especially since their hoped for effect isn't guaranteed. > Unless a miracle happens - there will be no change for the better which would be free for Riot. To cleanse the community would be an investment, not throwing away money. What do you think would happen if word would start to go around the internet saying that LoL is now actually pretty non-toxic because all the asshats have been put to Prison? I would like to come back to the game, I am also sure that many others would do the same. And for an investment they would get the option to possibly keep ALL paying customers instead of losing regular players fed up with toxic or losing permabanned people who don't want to buy everything back. > Secondly, queue times! Currently only the worst of the worst are permanently banned and although board entries makes it seem otherwise this happens extremely rarely. So the queue times on such a sparsely populated server would be huge, which probably will result in many of the "convicts" creating new accounts again, so they don't have to wait so long for a match anymore. Queue times is a problem I do aknowledge, a solution to this should be figured out before doing Prisoners Island but I am pretty sure that figuring that out is easier than creating a machine learning capable punishment bot which goes through thousands of chat logs every hour and rarely give a false positive.
ˉˉIˉˉ (EUW)
: The "inting" problem and how to fix it
I thought the intentional feeding was already automated.
Rismosch (EUW)
: Ayyy. Finally Riot manages to create satisfactory queuetimes and you want to kill it again. Wonderful.
> [{quoted}](name=Rismosch,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-01-09T09:50:46.118+0000) > > Ayyy. Finally Riot manages to create satisfactory queuetimes and you want to kill it again. Wonderful. How would this mess up queues any more than permabans? Is current queue system relying on the fact that permabanned players come back?
: >So instead of flamers driving regular customers away (like me) now i'm getting it... you don't actually care what happens to the flamers or wether they get better or worse at reforming. you just want them to go away so you don't have to deal with them any more hence this entire post well unlike you, riot does care! and that is not going to change no matter how much you whine about it. {{sticker:slayer-jinx-catface}} >Or which do we regular players hold more important? Community getting better or the satisfaction to know that a flamer has now lost it all in a permaban? I am starting to think the latter is the more important at this moment. nice try but you left the cat out of the bag with the previous statement
> [{quoted}](name=The Cream Reaper,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=0002000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-09T09:51:11.429+0000) > > now i'm getting it... > > you don't actually care what happens to the flamers or wether they get better or worse at reforming. you just want them to go away so you don't have to deal with them any more > > hence this entire post Exactly, I really don't care what happens to the flamers who fail to reform before the permaban. Permabanned people already "go away", currently their options are so limited that they tend to come back though. Prisoners Island could possibly help with this issue. > > well unlike you, riot does care! and that is not going to change no matter how much you whine about it. > > {{sticker:slayer-jinx-catface}} > > nice try but you left the cat out of the bag with the previous statement I really couldn't give a damn if a permabanned player gets to keep his stuff or not - as long as he isn't coming back with another account to continue his behavior. Current system isn't stopping them coming back. And for some people, it does seem more important that the flamers lose it all, instead of them staying away.
Aezander (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=I LoserSupreme I,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=0002000000000000000000000000000000010000,timestamp=2018-01-09T00:32:29.069+0000) > > There is nothing in this paragraph that is new to me. The point was exactly that - permabans are not for reforming - neither is the Prisoners Island. I am trying to suggest changing the un-reforming permaban to an un-reforming Prisoners Island. > > Now let's take this shop analogy. > > At the moment - Riots shop is a one floor shop. All the customers are browsing in this floor. Poorly behaving players gets warned and eventually removed from the store completely to not harm the shop, income or other customers. Some of the removed customers will leave and never come back and some will just turn around and come back in again - they are granted a new chance to behave some do and some don't. > > With Prisoners Island - Riots shop is a TWO floor shop and initially every new customer enters the first floor. Poorly behaving players gets warned and eventually they will be escorted to a lower level of the shop, which is identical to the first floor, in this floor they will not harm the shop, income or other customers. This second floor however has only poorly behaving customers in it so the going might get a bit rough, but these people are still allowed to shop, in fact increasing the income. Some of these customers will leave and never come back, some might leave and turn right back in to the first floor, this time they might behave or they won't (however they need to leave their shopping basket downstairs and get a new one from the first floor) and some might actually stay there with the rest of the same kind folk. > > So exactly why would the Prisoners Island situation be worse than the current? That is what I am trying to find out here. So wait. You want a company to spent money to establish a separate server for flamers (the Prisoner's Island), when that will have practically the same consequences as Permabans have in a F2P game ? ... You are effectively asking a company to throw away money to build a castle in the sand ? O_o
> [{quoted}](name=Aezander,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=00020000000000000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-01-09T04:59:29.618+0000) > > So wait. You want a company to spent money to establish a separate server for flamers (the Prisoner's Island), when that will have practically the same consequences as Permabans have in a F2P game ? ... You are effectively asking a company to throw away money to build a castle in the sand ? O_o The company is using money all the time anyway. Riot is a multimiliion dollar profit seeking company. Just because their game is free to play does not mean they are not using money for it. I could imagine the current punishment system costing quite a hefty price aswell when it was designed (they actually hired a dedicated team to work on this iirc) and it has not lived up to expectations. If you ask an average lol player what is the single largest problem in lol - what would he answer? I think we know the answer to this, and it is not "bad balance" in most cases. The answer to this question is a major income point for companies - problems in games tend to steer paying customers away, can we agree on that? So instead of flamers driving regular customers away (like me) or permabanned flamers to leave the game completely, there is an alternative, which for some reason is a big no-no to even think about. There is no free solution to this problem. Unless people magically start to behave - which is pretty much the same as a miracle at this point, an investment is needed. Or which do we regular players hold more important? Community getting better or the satisfaction to know that a flamer has now lost it all in a permaban? I am starting to think the latter is the more important at this moment.
: they only need to get bored once a handful of them probably wont even bother and no the queue times simply cant be solved small servers had draft pick limited to peak play times only this server would be dramatically smaller than even those then comes ping issues because the only potential fix is to shove all permabans into one server I just can't see any benefit to creating a tiny server with huge queue times to give them yet another thing to complain about while infact theres nothing wrong with the permaban why replace it when the replacement has sooo much potential to be worse? This is my final say on the matter I strongly disagree with the fact its a good idea in almost every aspect because theres legit problems that are impossible to solve in a decent manner on top of the fact permabans come after 3 other punishments seriously if you can't learn by that point you probably need some serious anger management
> [{quoted}](name=TormentedSalad,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=0004000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-09T01:34:49.728+0000) > > they only need to get bored once a handful of them probably wont even bother and no the queue times simply cant be solved small servers had draft pick limited to peak play times only this server would be dramatically smaller than even those then comes ping issues because the only potential fix is to shove all permabans into one server > > I just can't see any benefit to creating a tiny server with huge queue times to give them yet another thing to complain about while infact theres nothing wrong with the permaban why replace it when the replacement has sooo much potential to be worse? > > > This is my final say on the matter I strongly disagree with the fact its a good idea in almost every aspect because theres legit problems that are impossible to solve in a decent manner on top of the fact permabans come after 3 other punishments seriously if you can't learn by that point you probably need some serious anger management I guess we will leave it at here then. Thanks for your time and insights. Gl hf.
: Why would they ditch all their stuff and make new accounts because the server would be very small creating long queues for games causing them to get bored %%%%% then go make new accounts to rejoin our server without a hint of change and that cycle would be the same now consider draft pick would have to add even more time to that none of them would ever agree dodges even longer queue times xD This prisoner island server would become a hell hole so bad you may aswell have been permabanned anyway because you'd barely get a game even then it would literally be one team stomps the other because people are too busy %%%%%ing at eachother to find a solution Edit: Im not sure how riot would ever get queue times short for them and even then why are people like that worth so much effort?
> [{quoted}](name=TormentedSalad,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=00040000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-09T00:51:12.719+0000) > > Why would they ditch all their stuff and make new accounts because the server would be very small creating long queues for games causing them to get bored %%%%% then go make new accounts to rejoin our server without a hint of change and that cycle would be the same now consider draft pick would have to add even more time to that none of them would ever agree dodges even longer queue times xD > Well at the moment they don't get bored in Prisoners Island - they just do new accounts immediately and carry on where they left. I don't see why that is any better. > This prisoner island server would become a hell hole so bad you may aswell have been permabanned anyway because you'd barely get a game even then it would literally be one team stomps the other because people are too busy %%%%%ing at eachother to find a solution > > Edit: Im not sure how riot would ever get queue times short for them and even then why are people like that worth so much effort? It would be a hell hole by design - people put in there might reflect on their previous actions. Why are they worth that much effort? For them to not come back without a hint of change. If the queues could be solved - there wouldn't be need for them to create new accounts and come flame regular servers - after spending enough time with other flamers they could actually want to play with regular folks again, without flaming them this time. Taking their own medicine so to speak.
: ok so heres the deal > I personally have no idea how big of a deal it would be to make a small server and some sort of A small server like this would have insane queue times this would cause them to make new accounts and continue to ruin games on our server there would be more %%%%%ing about crap. > This is simply an old idea which I feel should be revisited - again - due to, as you said, at this rate playerbase isn't probably going to reform. I never said they wouldn't reform some of them will some of them will continue to smash their heads into permabans until they give up because they lack the self control to communicate with other people correctly. After everything there would still be people "flaming" (god if I don't hate that term) in our games because some of us occasionally lose our shit I won't claim to be perfect
> [{quoted}](name=TormentedSalad,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=000400000000,timestamp=2018-01-09T00:23:09.932+0000) > > ok so heres the deal > > A small server like this would have insane queue times this would cause them to make new accounts and continue to ruin games on our server there would be more %%%%%ing about crap. > Now we are on a level of how to execute this sort of system. Not discussing "should it be done" but "how it could be done". Let's play for a while and think that it could be done somehow, so that the queues wouldn't be a problem, should a system like this be given a chance? Or why it shouldn't? > I never said they wouldn't reform some of them will some of them will continue to smash their heads into permabans until they give up because they lack the self control to communicate with other people correctly. > Exactly this, but instead of going around the cycle of ban-new acc-ban - how about server change? If the options are 1) ditch all the skins/champs/elo and create a new account to be able to flame regular people or 2) keep using your original account but play among flamers like the player himself - which would you think these players choose? > After everything there would still be people "flaming" (god if I don't hate that term) in our games because some of us occasionally lose our shit I won't claim to be perfect Yes, flaming cannot be eradicated completely. And this goes on for both, the current system and the Island system.
Aezander (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=I LoserSupreme I,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=00020000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-01-08T23:27:14.840+0000) > > They have had their chances to reform, multiple ones aswell. How is permabanning helping them reform? Some will get worse, that is granted, but some might actually grow tired of the constant flame and blame and actually think their actions through. And to be honest, there is no saying what the percentage of reformed players would be from Prisoners Island situation compared to Permabans since that is not open data to public. It is all estimation until some solid numbers are presented and either one of us might be closer to the truth. It doesn't. Permaban, by design, is not about reform. It's about saying to the player "*You know what? We don't want your behaviour in our game any more. You had your chances, your warnings; you did not heed them. Please leave this game.*" Permaban is not about reform, was never about reform. Perma ban is the last straw solution. It's you, the "customer", getting the boot from the shop, because your behaviour is messing with the rest of the "customer" and in extent harming the shop by harming the ambience **and** the profits/income.
> [{quoted}](name=Aezander,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=AA9Acs5q,comment-id=000200000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2018-01-08T23:56:49.459+0000) > > It doesn't. Permaban, by design, is not about reform. It's about saying to the player "*You know what? We don't want your behaviour in our game any more. You had your chances, your warnings; you did not heed them. Please leave this game.*" > There is nothing in this paragraph that is new to me. The point was exactly that - permabans are not for reforming - neither is the Prisoners Island. I am trying to suggest changing the un-reforming permaban to an un-reforming Prisoners Island. > Permaban is not about reform, was never about reform. Perma ban is the last straw solution. It's you, the "customer", getting the boot from the shop, because your behaviour is messing with the rest of the "customer" and in extent harming the shop by harming the ambience **and** the profits/income. Now let's take this shop analogy. At the moment - Riots shop is a one floor shop. All the customers are browsing in this floor. Poorly behaving players gets warned and eventually removed from the store completely to not harm the shop, income or other customers. Some of the removed customers will leave and never come back and some will just turn around and come back in again - they are granted a new chance to behave some do and some don't. With Prisoners Island - Riots shop is a TWO floor shop and initially every new customer enters the first floor. Poorly behaving players gets warned and eventually they will be escorted to a lower level of the shop, which is identical to the first floor, in this floor they will not harm the shop, income or other customers. This second floor however has only poorly behaving customers in it so the going might get a bit rough, but these people are still allowed to shop, in fact increasing the income. Some of these customers will leave and never come back, some might leave and turn right back in to the first floor, this time they might behave or they won't (however they need to leave their shopping basket downstairs and get a new one from the first floor) and some might actually stay there with the rest of the same kind folk. So exactly why would the Prisoners Island situation be worse than the current? That is what I am trying to find out here.
Show more

I LoserSupreme I

Level 32 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion