GLurch (EUW)
: >Voluteers speak on behalf of Riot, and make decisions on behalf of RIot, thus they have been bestowed authority by Riot games. https://boards.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/off-topic-en/ylIIyXOA-volunteers-are-recruiting "They are not Riot Games employees, but Riot Games recognize them as extremely dedicated members of the community, and their experience and passion is taken seriously, and appreciated by Riot Games." They do not speak for Riot and they don't have any extra privileges either. >IF volunteers does not represent Riot games, then Forums are not moderated by Riot games. They are moderated by community members Yes, which is actually the case, except for some of the rare Rioters roaming around here, like Eambo. >Thus Riot games does not want to stop toxicity of communtiy at all, as they do not want to dictate community to uphold summoner's code. Thus they void on that page all they have said on public website how we should behave. They said you should behave the same you would in real life. Anything which other players could find harassing could result in a punishment as well, if many other players also see that type of behavior as harassment. >Oh yeah, htey do? Apaprenlty Riot is totally clueless on community, which is totally against any off-meta by support and jungle. They are not against people playing off-meta. They simply want people that are trying completely different strategies to communicate with their team before doing so. The famous Singed case you're probably referring to for example was a Singed Support jungling and roaming all game long, almost never visiting bot lane and basically taking the job of his Jungler. He also said he only did it to shorten queue times. Since he was reported a lot, clearly he did not communicate with his team.
> [{quoted}](name=GLurch,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=0EwExNpv,comment-id=0000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-25T11:39:24.268+0000) > > https://boards.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/off-topic-en/ylIIyXOA-volunteers-are-recruiting > "They are not Riot Games employees, but Riot Games recognize them as extremely dedicated members of the community, and their experience and passion is taken seriously, and appreciated by Riot Games." > They do not speak for Riot and they don't have any extra privileges either. > > Yes, which is actually the case, except for some of the rare Rioters roaming around here, like Eambo. > > They said you should behave the same you would in real life. Anything which other players could find harassing could result in a punishment as well, if many other players also see that type of behavior as harassment. > > They are not against people playing off-meta. They simply want people that are trying completely different strategies to communicate with their team before doing so. The famous Singed case you're probably referring to for example was a Singed Support jungling and roaming all game long, almost never visiting bot lane and basically taking the job of his Jungler. He also said he only did it to shorten queue times. Since he was reported a lot, clearly he did not communicate with his team. No, I am referring to my own ban for 1 week for trolling even if I did every time explain why I do play how I play. Several emmbers of community have stated even with my explanation I should still need acceptance of team mates, which is total violation of summoner's code. I am also referring to verbal assault I get on forum for using non- standard tactics as I do not do as my adc wants me to do. Nobody has said anything that adc has no right to flame or call me troll, as community is totally against support players being anything but slaves of adc with no rights, but only responsilbity. Forum people tell me I cannot take kills, but my K/D still defines how well I play... Do you think these kind of people are rational, sane, or should be listened? I am sorry, but you are doing your best not to see problem like all "moderate people" do to bullies. Explaining tactics does not protect me from total constant verbal assault for trolling. And RIot has punished single player doing that for me. I have no proof that Riot is doing anything to it, as they do think community behavior trumps summoner's code, and they will not try to change communtiy behavior. Thus Riot is saying: "if most of you do this, it is okay. WE do not give a shit! Give us your money!"
GLurch (EUW)
: >Forums are Riot games system. Those volunteers use Riot games authority, thus their punishments are Riot games official stance. Except that's not true. The Volunteers are no Rioters, they are just people working together with Riot of their own free will. Their stances are far from Riots official stances, as they don't even know what Riot is working on or how the system completely works. --- I don't feel like repeating myself over and over again, so I'll stop here. I don't think there's much of a point in discussing without any sources to your points, as it also seems you don't feel like reading mine. I'll just post this website here again: http://en.volu-eu.org/library.php If you read all of it, I'm sure you'll find out stuff you didn't know before.
> [{quoted}](name=GLurch,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=0EwExNpv,comment-id=00000001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-21T11:50:38.528+0000) > > Except that's not true. The Volunteers are no Rioters, they are just people working together with Riot of their own free will. Their stances are far from Riots official stances, as they don't even know what Riot is working on or how the system completely works. > --- > I don't feel like repeating myself over and over again, so I'll stop here. I don't think there's much of a point in discussing without any sources to your points, as it also seems you don't feel like reading mine. > I'll just post this website here again: http://en.volu-eu.org/library.php > If you read all of it, I'm sure you'll find out stuff you didn't know before. Voluteers speak on behalf of Riot, and make decisions on behalf of RIot, thus they have been bestowed authority by Riot games. The worst thing is they act like buffer keeping us contacting Riot games employees breaking the contract RIot has given to us as way to communicate with *Riot games represetnatives on Forums to give feedback*. Thus Riot has broken *all words they have given starting from importance of Summoner's code as reason of punishing to ways contact with them*. IF volunteers does not represent Riot games, then Forums are not moderated by Riot games. They are moderated by community members, who does not give a shit of rules and summoner's code. The volunteer behavior code: 1. Riot's philosophy Riot puts a lot of emphasis on not dictating the rules for the community. The players passively decide what type of behavior they deem acceptable through honoring or reporting players who show certain behavior. [80] It is almost impossible to post a list of rules that make it certain what behavior is punished because language and behavior standards are constantly evolving. [389] One of Riot’s goals regarding Player Behavior standards is to adapt them to real-life standards. What isn’t acceptable to say in real-life, shouldn’t be acceptable on the internet either, according to Riot. [210] Thus Riot games does not want to stop toxicity of communtiy at all, as they do not want to dictate community to uphold summoner's code. Thus they void on that page **all they have said on public website how we should behave**. 2. How it is done When the Instant Feedback System was launched, a lot of data was taken from the Old Tribunal to “teach” the system what the community previously recognized as offensive. Riot has also gathered information from social media. [80] And the emphasize is on "community recognize offensive". No transaprency. No way to prove riot made misatke. No way to know what Riot thinks community thinks offensive. Okay. I know. Community thinks support and jungle taking kills is offensive. Thus is is punishable. Great. Adc flaming support is not seen offensive, thus it is not punishable. Your link proves my whole point Riot is totally %%%%ing their own game an ddoes not give a shit. Due to cultural differences, each region decides what type of behavior they tolerate individually, which is why the system acts different in all regions. “Your mom” for example can be a silly or mean phrase in NA, while it is always considered highly offensive in Korea. [226] Riot is unsure what they will do in case players create a standard they don’t agree with. This has never been the case in the past, since the community generally does a good job judging behavior. [294] Oh yeah, htey do? Apaprenlty Riot is totally clueless on community, which is totally against any off-meta by support and jungle. 3. Acceptable Behavior Explicit language is not inherently punishable, as long as it is kept to a moderate level and not directed at any players. [423]
: > system cannot distinguish semantic information of languages. It can to some extent, but of course you are right that it's ability to do so is limited. > . And people totally abuse both honor and report system, Both systems are very hard to abuse. The report system is basically impossible to abuse since all reports are checked. So if you use reports incorrectly...so what? It won't have any negative impact. And honor is hard to abuse too since the amount of honor you get is not super relevant. So even if honor is given unfairly (and that's a big "if") it still doesn't have a lot of impact, because the honor level mostly depends on time and not being punished.
> [{quoted}](name=Humpelstilzche,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=y4GjRnnE,comment-id=000100010000,timestamp=2017-08-21T06:39:38.678+0000) > > It can to some extent, but of course you are right that it's ability to do so is limited. > > Both systems are very hard to abuse. The report system is basically impossible to abuse since all reports are checked. So if you use reports incorrectly...so what? It won't have any negative impact. > And honor is hard to abuse too since the amount of honor you get is not super relevant. So even if honor is given unfairly (and that's a big "if") it still doesn't have a lot of impact, because the honor level mostly depends on time and not being punished. I am sorry, but not a single report is checked by human, and badly built AI can be easily abused. And I can tell you **not all reports are checked as people telling me to kill myself are still playing**.
: If a yasuo on my team has a 4/8/3 KDA in over 100 games I have the right to ban his champion. If someone on my team is hovering a popular champion that might be picked by the enemy team before my team, I have the right to ban their champions. If your champs are always banned then either reconsider what you play or stop hovering.
> [{quoted}](name=S7 Jungle,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=0EwExNpv,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2017-08-16T08:59:55.180+0000) > > If a yasuo on my team has a 4/8/3 KDA in over 100 games I have the right to ban his champion. If someone on my team is hovering a popular champion that might be picked by the enemy team before my team, I have the right to ban their champions. > > If your champs are always banned then either reconsider what you play or stop hovering. I disagree with you as K/D/A has no strategical information value. It does not give you any idea why he died that often and how. It does not give you any information how he handled defending and taking objectives. Stop abusing score as tool of bullying and proof of skill in game where kills are just gold.
GLurch (EUW)
: >Down syndrome does not affect intelligence. It does though. At least if we're going by the thought that there's a possibility a person with down-syndrome could have been born without it, which depends on your belief. People with down-syndrome behave like people of younger age due to their abilities being impaired. Meaning, they are less intelligent because down-syndrome makes them impaired. If we're going by the thought that they could have been born in a normal way, they could have been more intelligent, meaning they are currently less intelligent than they could have been, basically affecting their intelligence. >Unfortunately IQ is based on assumption that IQ does not change. That has been proven false decades ago. IQ does not change, the result an IQ test gives you however does change. That's because an IQ test is supposed to resemble intelligence, but the older you get, the more likely it is to resemble your knowledge instead of your intelligence. I'll get back to that later. >And IQ is knowledge, not intelligence. See above. As I stated in my previous point, IQ is *supposed* to resemble intelligence, although it is more likely to resemble knowledge the older you get. This is because IQ is based on the thought that everyone between 85 and 115 knows as much as should be normal for their current age. The older you get, the higher is the chance that someone stopped learning stuff, while others still continue to learn, meaning their gap gets bigger not because of their intelligence, but because of their knowledge. If someone who never got taught the concept of multiplications and never had to use it before either is to suddenly use it, chances are he'll be worse than others of his age who are already accustomed to using them. This is also why the younger you are, the higher are your chances for an IQ test to be more accurate. Mainly because at a young age, most people know about the same (except some parents who think it's a great idea to have their children study 24/7 at the age of 5, but that would be a bit off-topic). >they would've been banned in minutes after my report. Thus I have numerous examples of false negatives in current system. You may know some of the following, but I'll still state everything in case you don't know: There are 4 different punishment steps for toxicity: 1. 10 Games Chat Restriction 2. 25 Games Chat Restriction 3. 14 Day Ban 4. Permanent Ban Only in rare cases of extreme toxicity often including racism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism or anything the-like, may some of these steps be skipped and an immediate 14 Day Ban or Permanent Ban be given. Even if someone is using anything of the previously stated, 1 game may not be enough for them to skip steps or for them to get punished at all. As you probably know, report feedback does not always pop up, meaning it's no save way of telling if someone was punished. Meaning, there's no way of you knowing if someone got a 10 or 25 Games Chat Restriction. >I got forum temp ban with description "you used superior real life knowledge to make others look bad. Opinions of other people matter as much as yours". Although it does state by the notifications that Riot Games gave you a punishment, this is not the case. But first, let me talk about the Volunteers. The Volunteers are players of the community who were selected by other Volunteers and given the power by Riot Games to moderate these boards. They also probably have a bit of a connection to Riot Games and thus, options normal players don't have (for example meeting Rioters, visiting events,...). Since they are normal players of the community, they do have their own opinion and everything. Here's a website they made, where they talk about themselves (they also have a "library" containing everything they could find about Riots System): http://en.volu-eu.org/about_us.php Anyways, I don't know the reason it says Riot Games punished you when it's not the case. Maybe it's just mislabeled or maybe it's because the message is a copy & paste created by Riot. However, I do think I know what they meant when punishing you: In your previous comments as well, I noticed it. You're constantly trying to point out your "superior intellect" as a reason to harass me and "make my opinion less worth". It's just unnecessary, because you're going to continue discussing anyways and harassments literally have nothing to do with discussing. I didn't point it out, because I can just ignore it. Others however may not be able to ignore it and it may make them mad, resulting in more of a "clash" instead of a discussion. In the past, I've also fallen for this sometimes, which is why I made myself the rule to either never reply at all to a comment directed at harassing me, making fun of me or making me mad or to not reply with an honest answer. >Criticism is countering opinion, not negative. Yes, I meant "negative" in terms of that criticism is not trying to point out something good, but rather something bad, thus "negative". Thanks for correcting me!
> [{quoted}](name=GLurch,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=0EwExNpv,comment-id=000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-20T20:14:41.416+0000) > > It does though. At least if we're going by the thought that there's a possibility a person with down-syndrome could have been born without it, which depends on your belief. I am sorry, but there is no proof for that. > People with down-syndrome behave like people of younger age due to their abilities being impaired. Meaning, they are less intelligent because down-syndrome makes them impaired. If we're going by the thought that they could have been born in a normal way, they could have been more intelligent, meaning they are currently less intelligent than they could have been, basically affecting their intelligence. I am sorry, but that does not make them less intelligent. You are messing intelligence with ability to learn, not ability to reason. You are messing intelligence for knowledge. The rate of learning has nothing to do with intelligence. Intelligence is ability to deduce and analyze things. Down people have lower social and maybe emotional intelligence, but they do not have lower logical IQ. And you are totally ignoring the fact that **people with down syndrome may also have other disabilities in addition to down syndrome**. > IQ does not change, the result an IQ test gives you however does change. That's because an IQ test is supposed to resemble intelligence, but the older you get, the more likely it is to resemble your knowledge instead of your intelligence. I'll get back to that later. Can you give me proof to defend your **belief of IQ**. It is belief as you are contradicting yourself. If IQ test result vary, then IQ varies. Stop acting like believer on scientific issues. If IQ is defined by that test, it does change if test results change. The definer of IQ **believed that IQ does not change**. He was proven false. Thus scientific person know that IQ does change. > As I stated in my previous point, IQ is *supposed* to resemble intelligence, although it is more likely to resemble knowledge the older you get. This is because IQ is based on the thought that everyone between 85 and 115 knows as much as should be normal for their current age. The older you get, the higher is the chance that someone stopped learning stuff, while others still continue to learn, meaning their gap gets bigger not because of their intelligence, but because of their knowledge. If someone who never got taught the concept of multiplications and never had to use it before either is to suddenly use it, chances are he'll be worse than others of his age who are already accustomed to using them. This is also why the younger you are, the higher are your chances for an IQ test to be more accurate. Mainly because at a young age, most people know about the same (except some parents who think it's a great idea to have their children study 24/7 at the age of 5, but that would be a bit off-topic). And if it is resembling of knowledge, it cannot be constant. You are contradicting yourself stating it is constant. And you are proving my case in this sentence even if you argued against it earlier. I suggest you stop that kind of behavior, as it is really rude, and makes you appear like a fool. You just proved my case IQ is not constant, but evaluates knowledge, not inherent trait of human. You proved my case why intelligence is a lie those who think they are more intelligent than others want to believe in. My psychology studying friends have said one important thing: intelligence tests can only be reliably used to find totally low intelligence people. For others, results are too unreliable for any useful information. That mean they can only be used to find out people with heavy mental disability. > There are 4 different punishment steps for toxicity: > > 1. 10 Games Chat Restriction > 2. 25 Games Chat Restriction > 3. 14 Day Ban > 4. Permanent Ban That does not change the fact there is still **only one kind of punishment and one severity of punishment**. They are just different stages of same punishment. There is no difference of severity of punishment. Not really. Riot may skip steps, but the punishment seems to be the same regardless your action. Using colorful language like sailor is as bad as insulting your team mate. There is no real severity difference. I suggest you learn to think instead of acting like a parrot without understanding but repeating. The system would be different level if: ** Assuming basic "%%%% you moron" would be 10 points towards punishment. ** Defending yourself trying to prevent team to tilt when someone start total onslaught on you, would have way lower progression. 0 to 3. ** Someone going for int. feeding shoudl be severity of 100 or more. But problem is Riot system does not have real varying severity of punishment. It ignores circumstances of events, **as it would be too difficult for artificial stupidity system emulating human stupidity, not intelligence, to recognize such things**. This is the reason why **Riot system is not justice, but vengeance tool**. > Only in rare cases of extreme toxicity often including racism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism or anything the-like, may some of these steps be skipped and an immediate 14 Day Ban or Permanent Ban be given. Even if someone is using anything of the previously stated, 1 game may not be enough for them to skip steps or for them to get punished at all. And even in those cases the several toxicity can be ignored, thus system is not consistent. The system is totally irrational, draconian, and inconsistent. Thus it is vengeance system like hired killers. > As you probably know, report feedback does not always pop up, meaning it's no save way of telling if someone was punished. Meaning, there's no way of you knowing if someone got a 10 or 25 Games Chat Restriction. I do know this, but I do disagree with **Riot false logic why it is not always seen**. That popup should happen **every single case, or the name of punished player should be given out in that popup**. At present it seems to feeble attempt to convince people "yeah, trust system works, even if we all know it does not". > Although it does state by the notifications that Riot Games gave you a punishment, this is not the case. But first, let me talk about the Volunteers. The Volunteers are players of the community who were selected by other Volunteers and given the power by Riot Games to moderate these boards. They also probably have a bit of a connection to Riot Games and thus, options normal players don't have (for example meeting Rioters, visiting events,...). Since they are normal players of the community, they do have their own opinion and everything. Here's a website they made, where they talk about themselves (they also have a "library" containing everything they could find about Riots System): http://en.volu-eu.org/about_us.php And if volunteers are chosen by volunteers, they are easily corrupted group, which can be easily taken over by trolls and malicious individuals. And as volunteers are chosen by volunteers, it is their best interest to protect other volunteers and hide abuses of power, instead of handling cases fairly. Good example for this is the way how Catholic church has handled the child abuses. They denied it to defend their own people without any intent to investigate the issue. Forums like this should never be moderated by volunteers but Riot employees, as forum is official feedback system. The fact Riot uses volunteers to do it only proves their lack of interest to alter community behavior, or have any contact with it at all. And I do understand this. The community is totally hostile, offensive, and toxic. Thus volunteers **are not doing their job as they define hostility of case depending whether the person is defending Riot or criticizing Riot. ** > Anyways, I don't know the reason it says Riot Games punished you when it's not the case. Maybe it's just mislabeled or maybe it's because the message is a copy & paste created by Riot. Forums are Riot games system. Those volunteers use Riot games authority, thus their punishments are Riot games official stance. Those volunteers have control to alter community behavior on behalf of RIot games, and there is no way to report them except to the volunteers themselves. If Riot games official forum moderators are not employees of Riot games, we have no real information of Riot games or how they want to work, but just toxic, conservative, and intolerant community giving us information how punishment system works. Riot games tell us forums is the way to communicate with RIOt. Yoru description only proves **RIOT GAMES HAVE AGAIN BROKEN THEIR WORD AND ARE LYING TO US, AS KEEPING THEIR WORD IS TOO EXPENSIVE**. > However, I do think I know what they meant when punishing you: > In your previous comments as well, I noticed it. You're constantly trying to point out your "superior intellect" as a reason to harass me and "make my opinion less worth". It's just unnecessary, because you're going to continue discussing anyways and harassments literally have nothing to do with discussing. I didn't point it out, because I can just ignore it. I am arguing with reasoning, not with opinions. **Opinions without examples and reasoning behind are not wroth anything but shit.** If you cannot tell **why your opinion is important and how it is important, it has less value than well defined opinion. Opinion that score matters is good example of this. Score contains not a single objective of the game. **It is lie people want to believe in**. > Yes, I meant "negative" in terms of that criticism is not trying to point out something good, but rather something bad, thus "negative". Thanks for correcting me! People get most insulted when you prove their basic facts they have built their false sense of superiority are not well defined. They cannot stand it they are wrong, or that there can be several truths.
: It's a bit dangerous to remove the human aspect of the behavior systems entirely. For example imagine a group of friends who flame each other in chat. But they know each other very well and they just do it for fun, because they all know it's not really serious. Insulting each other is something a lot of close friends do frequently. So if everyone is fine with this and no one actually misbehaved but only used the same words as someone who misbehaved, why should he be punished? That's why reports still matter. There has to be at least SOMEONE, an actual person, who is not fine with the behavior. In addition to that, taking away honor progress would hardly be an effective punishment, since people wouldn't even notice it.
> [{quoted}](name=Humpelstilzche,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=y4GjRnnE,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-08-20T08:54:52.669+0000) > > It's a bit dangerous to remove the human aspect of the behavior systems entirely. For example imagine a group of friends who flame each other in chat. But they know each other very well and they just do it for fun, because they all know it's not really serious. Insulting each other is something a lot of close friends do frequently. So if everyone is fine with this and no one actually misbehaved but only used the same words as someone who misbehaved, why should he be punished? You are just describing how the system works, and why Riot added "do not argue against flamers". The system cannot distinguish difference, as it is not given chat of other players. It cannot see, if some comment was quote, or reply with negation. Your argument does still stand even if only reported players are screened as false positive who is punished for just saying certain words as system cannot distinguish semantic information of languages. What if somebody not toxic uses those words, and he is reported just to punish him for taking a kill some dishonorable player wanted to take himself? **Your argument defends and proves my case, not opposes it.** > That's why reports still matter. There has to be at least SOMEONE, an actual person, who is not fine with the behavior. The problem is that people do not recall things correctly, when time to report comes. Altering memories of people is quite easy. And people totally abuse both honor and report system, and Riot does all they can to say "no, it does not happen. LALALALALALALLALALALA RHUBARB!". Most of my games current honor system honors people who are totally toxic, but have good score. Honoring supports is really really rare, as for most players there is no way support can be most honorable due totally wrong kind of expectation how support players should play. Support player being totally honorable is just seen normal support. > In addition to that, taking away honor progress would hardly be an effective punishment, since people wouldn't even notice it.
ExpStealer (EUNE)
: I doubt people who go that far can be reasoned with. Mute-ing them would be a far better option than to tilt both them and yourself further. And usually attempting to talk with such a person ends up in a 1 on 1 flaming, which is punishable. As for summoner names - I'm yet to see anyone asking for someone's reasons behind theirs.
> [{quoted}](name=ExpStealer,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=y4GjRnnE,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2017-08-20T09:45:42.690+0000) > > I doubt people who go that far can be reasoned with. Mute-ing them would be a far better option than to tilt both them and yourself further. And usually attempting to talk with such a person ends up in a 1 on 1 flaming, which is punishable. > > As for summoner names - I'm yet to see anyone asking for someone's reasons behind theirs. And muting does not prevent them bullying and talking rest of team to report you. Actually arguing against them **won't make it any worse, as it is already as bad as it is. It can only make it better, if you can get rest of your team snap out of rage**. I cannot understand why first flamer is just seen just like any other flamer. I cannot understand why constant campaign to attack "trolling player" to cover your own failure is seen as bad as, or even less several than, use of colorful language.
: > smallest possible punishment to the perpetrator to show he did wrong That's not entirely true. Judging by what you've written you're aware that there is a whole philosophy of why and how someone's misbehaviour should be punished. People aren't punished to just show them they've done something wrong, but also to protect others from this persons possible future misbehaviours. Riot has found quite a nice middle ground on this. Misbehaving players receive rather light punishment at the beginning, but those escalate quickly after it can be assumed, that they will not reform, even though they were reminded repeatedly that their behaviour is wrong. Now in this gaming environment the objective is to ensure each game is fun. Now if someone misbehaves it obviously shouldn't be tolerated, but scolding that person at that point isn't a simple 1 on 1 situation, but there are 3 to 8 other players involved in it. For them it's one thing to deal with a single person interrupting the game and spread an uncomfortable mood. But if you engage in an argument with the initially misbehaving player then you yourself become a second person they have to deal with, which further deteriorates the experience. Simply imagine a game where you are stuck with a toxic person who even somewhat feeds (not necessarily inting) and the three other members of your team start to flame and harass that first toxic person. You can't possibly continue to play the game in a normal way, simply because everyone on your team is busy shouting at each other, instead on focusing on the actual game. Whereas if you had only the inital toxic person to deal with you could somewhat manage to play the game. Therefor Riot demands from players to stay civil under any circumstances. Because attacking, blaming, flaming, no matter the circumstances, are never beneficial to the situation. It only worsens the experience for the players who remain calm.
> [{quoted}](name=twA Divine,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=0EwExNpv,comment-id=0001000100000000,timestamp=2017-08-18T10:47:20.981+0000) > > That's not entirely true. Judging by what you've written you're aware that there is a whole philosophy of why and how someone's misbehaviour should be punished. People aren't punished to just show them they've done something wrong, but also to protect others from this persons possible future misbehaviours. > > Riot has found quite a nice middle ground on this. Misbehaving players receive rather light punishment at the beginning, but those escalate quickly after it can be assumed, that they will not reform, even though they were reminded repeatedly that their behaviour is wrong. > > Now in this gaming environment the objective is to ensure each game is fun. Now if someone misbehaves it obviously shouldn't be tolerated, but scolding that person at that point isn't a simple 1 on 1 situation, but there are 3 to 8 other players involved in it. For them it's one thing to deal with a single person interrupting the game and spread an uncomfortable mood. But if you engage in an argument with the initially misbehaving player then you yourself become a second person they have to deal with, which further deteriorates the experience. Then why Riot does not stand on behalf of supports and start punishing every adc who tell supports what to do? If not having fun is reason for punishment, you cannot kill or win or beat enemy, as they might feel game is not fun. Thus basing things on fun is not good idea at all. > Simply imagine a game where you are stuck with a toxic person who even somewhat feeds (not necessarily inting) and the three other members of your team start to flame and harass that first toxic person. You can't possibly continue to play the game in a normal way, simply because everyone on your team is busy shouting at each other, instead on focusing on the actual game. Whereas if you had only the inital toxic person to deal with you could somewhat manage to play the game Why you could not read all I wrote? I did say the punishment should take reaction to initial flame as lesser crime. It might be pardoned, or not, depending on case. And you ignore totally the fact initial toxic person did ruin the game by starting to be toxic. Why you try to tell he has no responsibility to actions he caused, but just actions he directly caused? > Therefor Riot demands from players to stay civil under any circumstances. Because attacking, blaming, flaming, no matter the circumstances, are never beneficial to the situation. It only worsens the experience for the players who remain calm. If RIot demand that, **why only reported people are punished for being not civil**. You proved my case. The primary definer of punishment is reports. The AI is taught so badly there is no possible chat log (with all context removed) which is not toxic.
GLurch (EUW)
: >So you say your experience of ... 300 games max trumps my experience of thousands of games? Never did so. I said, my experience and the experience of my friends together leads me to believe that your believe is wrong. It could also be that we're all just REALLY lucky, but I don't believe that's true. I also acknowledge the fact that believe and fact are way different and I hope you do as well. >Do you have any idea how statistics and randomness work ? F. ex. genetic probabilities cannot be applied unless number of offspring is less than thousands. Take a hint. They will still only be statistics and statistics are not always reliable sources, especially when they are taken from the input of a person. A statistic actually requiring real input of facts is way different from a statistic requiring a person to say what they think about a certain event. In these cases, they get even more unreliable. >hard? If AI would've been properly implemented, it would get info who said what, and when. And what happened in game. I am sorry, but if Riot is "investigating" this issue year after fully automated AI with totally wrong input data and teaching data... It already does detect who says what and when, however, always detecting that would cost A LOT. Every word has to be saved, even if only temporarily. That would cost a lot of space which would cost a lot of money. Also, could you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by that their AI has totally wrong input and teaching data? >That kind of behavior is totally incompetent just like the new honor system, which RIot rolled out week after giving any details and asking opinions. Week during which Riot totally ignored all criticism, as system was implemented, and no user input could change it. Then let me ask you, what criticism did Riot not take? Everything I read so far was "Could you show us a progress bar?" which Riot countered with the explanation, that they don't want players to only be sportsmanlike because they know they're going to level up soon. >it is quite easy. You have data of their game play, and you can check IDENT of computer (including user id), and account name connecting to game. And just like properly made ai forum moderator, such investigation triggers should be done by human after AI rises a flag to check it. However, I want privacy. I'm sure this may even conflict with some laws, because there is quite a lot of information Riot isn't allowed to take from your PC. I'm sure many others would also not want Riot to basically know who you are and everything. They'd get companies asking them for the information for money in return and in the end, we'd all end up getting ads everywhere about League of Legends and scam websites. >The whole idea of "most sportsmanlike" is totally insane, honestly. It undermines whole concept of honor. If you have to be exemplary honorable to be rewarded, there is no honor. The concept of honoring a person is that you think about who you're going to give your honor to. It's an important decision and shouldn't just be something like "I'll honor everyone because why not". >You cannot be both competitive and honorable at the same time, as those traits contradict each other. How do they? I can tryhard, do my best and still write "gj" whenever my team does something good. When they fail at something, I can still help them. >The current three honors are totally proving Riot thinks community is toxic kids with no wits or social graces. Oh, I do not blame them. The forums and community has proven them that is the case since season 2, when less intelligent people joined, as 50% of people are at most as intelligent as average intelligence. If only you could define intelligence that easily. Intelligence doesn't prove if you're toxic or not either. Have you ever met a person with down-syndrome or some other disease which greatly impacts their intelligence? They are REALLY nice. On the other hand, let me give you an example of why IQ doesn't really tell you if you're more intelligent than another person: Let's say your IQ was said to be 150, because you're quite good remembering, even after seeing things just once. Another person has an IQ of 140, because he's quite good at finding solutions to problems using knowledge. In the end, he may have a lower IQ than you, but he's not less intelligent than you, he just has different traits than you. It also depends on the place you live in. Someone may be more intelligent than you, but he may not have access to as much education as you have, which means he'll always be stupid in others minds, although he's not that stupid. People also seem to often confuse intelligence with knowledge. >You will lose more games if you get toxic person on your team. It does not need to be you. This fact you state, is totally wrong. Riot ensured you are likely to win if you have toxic player by preventing countering the toxic person, or scolding him. You get flamer in your team, and you lose quite likely, like you quite likely lose if you got afker. It does not need to be you, but in the end, toxic people will only make you win more games than you usually do. There are 5 possible toxic people on the enemies team, 4 on yours. Since you are more likely to lose when someone on your team is toxic, you are also more likely to win if the enemy has someone toxic. In general, you should win more. It's also possible you have really bad luck, but judging by the amount of people I've seen on these boards stating that toxic people or trolls ruin their games, I doubt all of them have bad luck. I also don't remember Riot stating retaliation affects your winrate. I searched it up and literally found nothing. >I suggest you start studying logic if you try to use it. RIot have not studied logic, and they say "opinion is as important as fact" which is opinion of total dimwit. Fact is tested, opinion is not. Could you please tell me where to study "logic"? Sorry, I looked it up but couldn't find a school in my country teaching it. Also, when did Riot say "opinion is as important as fact"? Looked it up, couldn't find anything and it sounded lime a quote, so I'd like to know the source, as it may come in handy in the future. Besides that, I do think opinions are important. You wrote earlier Riot didn't care about criticism when it came to the honor system, right? Criticism is another form of opinion, mainly being a negative opinion. Do you want Riot to take criticism or not?
> [{quoted}](name=GLurch,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=0EwExNpv,comment-id=0000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-18T12:34:57.256+0000) > > Never did so. I said, my experience and the experience of my friends together leads me to believe that your believe is wrong. It could also be that we're all just REALLY lucky, but I don't believe that's true. I also acknowledge the fact that believe and fact are way different and I hope you do as well. I do understand that. If you did not check, I did make quick probability analysis which states that it is very unlikely to meet that few flamers you stated you have experienced, if Riot 5% stands. I know using math hurts when you cannot grasp it. If you cannot use math, do not use percentages. > They will still only be statistics and statistics are not always reliable sources, especially when they are taken from the input of a person. A statistic actually requiring real input of facts is way different from a statistic requiring a person to say what they think about a certain event. In these cases, they get even more unreliable. But your opinion contains way too small set to be sued for anything at all. You use statistics to suit your needs, but tell it should not be used when used against you. Take a hint. > It already does detect who says what and when, however, always detecting that would cost A LOT. Every word has to be saved, even if only temporarily. That would cost a lot of space which would cost a lot of money. > Also, could you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by that their AI has totally wrong input and teaching data? And that is no counter to my arguments, just excuse to ignore them. Would you please **counter my argument with argument which invalidates my argument, not saying it would cost too much**. I know properly done AI would cost too much. That is why **I told that AI Riot can make cannot work, as they cannot do it properly**. You are countering my argument saying "but your justice system would cost too much". No shit Sherlock. Justice systems are expensive, vengeance systems are cheap. Take a hint. > Then let me ask you, what criticism did Riot not take? Everything I read so far was "Could you show us a progress bar?" which Riot countered with the explanation, that they don't want players to only be sportsmanlike because they know they're going to level up soon. They ignored totally all support player wishes to have multiple honors per game. They totally ignored all points why rewarding only "most honorable" ruin whole idea of honor. Should I continue as you apparently did not read more than tiny fraction of honor posts. > The concept of honoring a person is that you think about who you're going to give your honor to. It's an important decision and shouldn't just be something like "I'll honor everyone because why not". Concept of honor requires you can honor every single honorable player. Being honorable is not competition. And my counter proof why competitions does not work: * IF competition would improve things, Americans would be the best spellers of English on the world due spelling contests. They are not, thus case proven. > How do they? I can tryhard, do my best and still write "gj" whenever my team does something good. When they fail at something, I can still help them. You do know nothing of psychological learning feedback system of humans. You have to get positive feedback for positive behavior or it is no longer positive behavior. I got numerous honors while old honor system was around, except from people who start flaming to me on start of game as I dared not to do as I was told as support has no rights. > If only you could define intelligence that easily. Intelligence doesn't prove if you're toxic or not either. Have you ever met a person with down-syndrome or some other disease which greatly impacts their intelligence? They are REALLY nice. Down syndrome does not affect intelligence. At present I think there is 5 or 7 subgroups of intelligence from social intelligence to logical intelligence. The latter is usually generally used as intelligence due IQ. Unfortunately IQ is based on assumption that IQ does not change. That has been proven false decades ago. One good example: Stephen Hawkings. He is handicapped, but one of the most intelligent person on the world. > On the other hand, let me give you an example of why IQ doesn't really tell you if you're more intelligent than another person: Because IQ evaluates skill, not characteristic. I get better result on IQ tests as I have studied math and computer science in university. IQ only evaluates logical problem solving skill. > People also seem to often confuse intelligence with knowledge. This I agree with you totally. And IQ is knowledge, not intelligence. See above. > It does not need to be you, but in the end, toxic people will only make you win more games than you usually do. There are 5 possible toxic people on the enemies team, 4 on yours. Since you are more likely to lose when someone on your team is toxic, you are also more likely to win if the enemy has someone toxic. In general, you should win more. It's also possible you have really bad luck, but judging by the amount of people I've seen on these boards stating that toxic people or trolls ruin their games, I doubt all of them have bad luck. > I also don't remember Riot stating retaliation affects your winrate. I searched it up and literally found nothing. I count toxic player on game regardless which team he is on. I do know I have really bad luck, but it does not change the fact those who are toxic towards me and give vulgar threats like forced sex with my family members, or tell me to kill myself, still continue to play after being reported. If system works as you fanboys say, they would've been banned in minutes after my report. Thus I have numerous examples of false negatives in current system. If you did not know, the reliability of system is defined by false positives and negatives, not positives and negatives. > Could you please tell me where to study "logic"? Sorry, I looked it up but couldn't find a school in my country teaching it. Logic is subset of mathematics, computer science, and philosophy. Depending on your aptitude, choosing one of those, or all of them should be suitable. Computer science uses a bit of variant of mathematical logic. Mathematics is formal logic, while philosophy is more abstract and verbal. > Also, when did Riot say "opinion is as important as fact"? Looked it up, couldn't find anything and it sounded lime a quote, so I'd like to know the source, as it may come in handy in the future. I got forum temp ban with description "you used superior real life knowledge to make others look bad. Opinions of other people matter as much as yours". All alt-right people are saying everywhere that opinions are as important as facts in real life, taking from Brexit conmen to Donald Trump to True Finns. > Besides that, I do think opinions are important. You wrote earlier Riot didn't care about criticism when it came to the honor system, right? Criticism is another form of opinion, mainly being a negative opinion. Do you want Riot to take criticism or not? Criticism is countering opinion, not negative. Most critical comments on honor system did also give alternate solution, which would have been better for honor, but less good for competitiveness. Most people think opposing opinion is negative, which is not true. But Riot has taken stance that anything opposing someone is negative, which is quite naive and uneducated approach.
: > So if you wanne rage every game about 3 comment. You will "never" get banned, or just screem in your room (like me). Its not about 3 comments, its about people remembering to report you. If you type very few lines in start or mid of the game, and never delve into a flaming discussion with them. It is hard that they will report you. It happens to me sometimes, I forget to report in the end. And that's makes me sad, then I add them as friend and flame the sh't out of them. Some times they accept my friends request, some times they don't, in which case I add them through my smurf and paste the already written flame, just so that they don't get the time to block. P.S. If only I could flame in game again, the game would so much more enjoyable.
And this is why worst flamers avoid punishment. They rally other people to report same person they are bullying, and Riot system let them go free, as primary reason for punishment is being reported, not violation of rules. Trolling reports are even emphasizing this as in trolling reports only number of reports matter, as Riot does not want to waste time investigating them.
: > It has nothing to do with justice, but vengeance tool for petty people. What is justice to you then? You can't punish someone **before** they actually do something, it always happens afterwards. This is not "Minority Report".
Justice system is one which focuses on reimbursement of victim, and smallest possible punishment to the perpetrator to show he did wrong. Justice system always takes consequences into account, and investigates the whole picture. And justice system allows victim to defend himself with equal force, and greater wrongdoing trumps lesser. Thus if one player goes intentional feeding, flaming and scolding him should not be punishable, as flaming is lesser crime than intentional feeding. Justice system evaluates things on perspective of severity.
GLurch (EUW)
: >And the fact you did experience only little toxicity is no proof it does not exist. it only proved you are lucky guy. So I guess all of my friends who were in bronze are also lucky? If I'm not the only one experiencing it this way and in fact every person I know is saying the same I do, I normally think it's no longer that I'm lucky, but rather that my luck is normal. >And tell me - how many games you played on low tier? 1000? 2000? 8000?`As my experience comes from thousands of games per season. That is statistically viable set. Mine comes from maybe 50 games. However, some of my friends spent hundreds of games in bronze and they all say the same. A statistic about this would normally be taken from multiple people and even then, it would just be a statistic. You can't really rely on statistics based on human input and see them as a viable source, because we humans are really complicated. If you ask someone how many trolls he had in his last 20 games, he may answer 10 and when you check his match history, it in fact may only be 2. I already wrote about that though. >For me Riot attitude towards honoring opponents during new honor system only proved that my out-dated information is accurate. Riot said they may bring it back, however, normally you don't really know much about what your opponents are writing, which is why they first didn't implement it. They said in their FAQ they are currently investigating methods of making it work. >I also get argued that there is not that many smurfs, but suggesting banning smurfs create huge attack on me proving my point. Smurf players are making money, and they do not want their income source endangered, as most players cannot be top streamers who can earn their living. I don't know if that's true as we have no source on it. However, how would you plan on detecting smurfs? There is no save way to do so. >Why do you think I only evaluate bad behavior on my own team ? Because you don't have the ability to read whatever the enemies are writing to each other. Of course, you know someone's not the most sportsmanlike person if he writes "gg ez", but that's about the only thing you're able to detect unsportsmanlike enemies with. >You seem to have belief only top 10% of players matter. That is blatantly apparent from your talk. You do not care how less skilled scum behave and live, as you have climbed above them. Just like rich in the world see less-rich in real world. You do not want to admit you might be up there due sheer luck. Where did you get this idea from? I was literally silver 3 last season, I am far from skilled, very far. >Honestly, I do not believe these Riot numbers, as they have not changed since season 2. Since season 2 toxicity has increased every season. You are playing in higher skill subset of community, thus your observation is flawed. Actually, the data is from 3 years ago. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/miscellaneous/l3wHwtIl-rewards-for-positive-play And how exactly does my elo influence my perspective? I'm unranked, just so you know. And actually, skill and toxicity do not correlate. You WILL lose more games if you are toxic, but if you're skilled, you can still climb like everyone else can. Best example would be Tyler1. >If 50% of players are silver or below, 5% flaming would mean you experience flaming down there 1 game out of 10 in average. With this perspective, the number 5% is way too small. Lets do the math to show how that Riot number works: >Chance to have any flamer in game would be opposite of having no flamers at all. That mean it is 1 - (1 - 0.05)^10 as there is 10 players. That is 1 - 0.5987369 which mean with 5% toxic people you have 40% chance to have flamer in your game. This proves there is flamers in lots of more games than you experience. You have just been lucky. We can't say that, mostly because we don't know how many toxic people there are in silver. We know of all the players playing on one server, no matter their elo, 5% is or was toxic. But you can't really calculate with that. Those 5% are called toxic because they have received a punishment in the past. About 91% of the players getting at least one punishment reform. The rest probably gets a permanent ban sooner or later and some of these may never create an account again. In the end, you can't do any math about how high the chance of having a toxic person in your game is, you can only speculate and assume.
> [{quoted}](name=GLurch,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=0EwExNpv,comment-id=00000001000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-17T13:06:24.671+0000) > > So I guess all of my friends who were in bronze are also lucky? If I'm not the only one experiencing it this way and in fact every person I know is saying the same I do, I normally think it's no longer that I'm lucky, but rather that my luck is normal. > Mine comes from maybe 50 games. However, some of my friends spent hundreds of games in bronze and they all say the same. A statistic about this would normally be taken from multiple people and even then, it would just be a statistic. You can't really rely on statistics based on human input and see them as a viable source, because we humans are really complicated. If you ask someone how many trolls he had in his last 20 games, he may answer 10 and when you check his match history, it in fact may only be 2. I already wrote about that though. My experience comes from thousands of games per season playing support or jungle role only. And when I get occasional mid, I see way too often either my team or enemy team start attack on support when adc makes mistake and ruin the lane. So you say your experience of ... 300 games max trumps my experience of thousands of games? Interesting. Do you have any idea how statistics and randomness work ? F. ex. genetic probabilities cannot be applied unless number of offspring is less than thousands. Take a hint. > Riot said they may bring it back, however, normally you don't really know much about what your opponents are writing, which is why they first didn't implement it. They said in their FAQ they are currently investigating methods of making it work. I wonder why investigating such issue is so hard? If AI would've been properly implemented, it would get info who said what, and when. And what happened in game. I am sorry, but if Riot is "investigating" this issue year after fully automated AI with totally wrong input data and teaching data... I would after that say you cannot trust anything company that incompetent in development and design says. That kind of behavior is totally incompetent just like the new honor system, which RIot rolled out week after giving any details and asking opinions. Week during which Riot totally ignored all criticism, as system was implemented, and no user input could change it. Company who cannot duplicate honor interface to allow honoring enemy team member too. > I don't know if that's true as we have no source on it. However, how would you plan on detecting smurfs? There is no save way to do so. it is quite easy. You have data of their game play, and you can check IDENT of computer (including user id), and account name connecting to game. And just like properly made ai forum moderator, such investigation triggers should be done by human after AI rises a flag to check it. > Because you don't have the ability to read whatever the enemies are writing to each other. Of course, you know someone's not the most sportsmanlike person if he writes "gg ez", but that's about the only thing you're able to detect unsportsmanlike enemies with. The whole idea of "most sportsmanlike" is totally insane, honestly. It undermines whole concept of honor. If you have to be exemplary honorable to be rewarded, there is no honor. From games I watch, more than 75% of games honor is just given with K/D only on bronze. Honor system does not work unless you can honor *all honorable players* as it would not reward being honorable. You cannot be both competitive and honorable at the same time, as those traits contradict each other. And you can see who is "most honorable opponent" way how he talks on all chat. I would like to get interface I can honor all players who are honorable to show them "you did good job, and was honorable". It is also absurd one reason of being "honorable" is not tilting. The current three honors are totally proving Riot thinks community is toxic kids with no wits or social graces. Oh, I do not blame them. The forums and community has proven them that is the case since season 2, when less intelligent people joined, as 50% of people are at most as intelligent as average intelligence. I have seen people saying that toxicity is okay, as this is internet and not real world. I rest my case of total lack of social wits of community. > Actually, the data is from 3 years ago. > https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/miscellaneous/l3wHwtIl-rewards-for-positive-play > And how exactly does my elo influence my perspective? I'm unranked, just so you know. And actually, skill and toxicity do not correlate. You WILL lose more games if you are toxic, but if you're skilled, you can still climb like everyone else can. Best example would be Tyler1. You will lose more games if you get toxic person on your team. It does not need to be you. This fact you state, is totally wrong. Riot ensured you are likely to win if you have toxic player by preventing countering the toxic person, or scolding him. You get flamer in your team, and you lose quite likely, like you quite likely lose if you got afker. I suggest you start studying logic if you try to use it. RIot have not studied logic, and they say "opinion is as important as fact" which is opinion of total dimwit. Fact is tested, opinion is not. > We can't say that, mostly because we don't know how many toxic people there are in silver. We know of all the players playing on one server, no matter their elo, 5% is or was toxic. But you can't really calculate with that. Those 5% are called toxic because they have received a punishment in the past. About 91% of the players getting at least one punishment reform. The rest probably gets a permanent ban sooner or later and some of these may never create an account again. > In the end, you can't do any math about how high the chance of having a toxic person in your game is, you can only speculate and assume. Honestly, I do not believe in Riot statistics at all, as they have hidden important facts - like how many reports are given, how many reports are ignored, and in their statistics there is not a single punishment for intentional feeding or afking.
: Brace your self for the hate and down-votes
> [{quoted}](name=Slice n Dice em,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=pX2hLhih,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2017-08-17T03:44:32.193+0000) > > Brace your self for the hate and down-votes Yep. COmmunity is positive, friendly, and open in criticism and new ideas.
Enjutsu (EUNE)
: They way you make this thread is pretty bad, it's unnecesserily long, are you trying to hide something? or confuse the reader with the long text? > Justice system does understand consequences, and blames initial violator of laws and rules. It does give mild punishment to those who react to violation of rules, but scales it according to the violation. Equal power is allowed. This is essential for justice system. The right to defend yourself. I think you're trying here to go for the old excuse that consequences matter, like someone else started this or that it was self defence(awnsering the flamer, but from outside perspective this is jsut spreading the toxicity. Im gonna say it like that reasons for toxicity doesnt matter. Also punishments here do start with mild ones too, unless the toxicity was quite severe. > Justice system is transparent: you can check all cases. You can check whether some case was punished or not. You can check reasons why the punishment occur. This is very important aspect of justice system. Vengeance system is not transparent. **It refuses to give reason of punishment,** but instead just bestow the punishment harshly on behalf of wronged party. Assassins and hired killers are perfect example of vengeance system. Victim has no right to defend. All matters how victims feel, not what really happened. Checking all cases is important in real life law, but not here. Because most cases are pretty much exactly the same. Still we used to have tribunal where we could judge whatever to ban that player or not and Riot did suggest we could get that back. Reason for a ban is ALWAYS GIVEN. You're repeating yourself for some reason you're bringing back assassins and the fact that victims have to defend themself, stay on topic. Also the toxic player is not the vitim, he's rule breaker, the guilty. > How we could alter the system to more positive? First, and foremost, start giving victims fair trial. If you are accused, instead of just passing the punishment, give all data to the accused party, and allow them to have chat with developers. Riot should have this all data - which should include the game events. this isnt real world, there's no need for a full on trial. > You cannot rely players on giving fair reports. Especially when community has twisted into toxic horror it is present. That is why person doing report should be investigated too. If it appears he is breaking rules worse than accused, he should be punished for it swiftly. If player gives too many false reports he loses report value. > One violation is enough is totally wrong way to go for justice. It is perfect for vengeance. All it needs you get person tilt regardless how blatantly you violate rules. This is bad. RIot also have to start count frequency as per game not per day. And check all non-reported games to see how positive player was in them. This is very important, as it would also judge positiveness not just negativeness. one violation (unless it's quite sever) won't get you punished, it takes multiple games, also it's NOT judged based games per day, but simply games in total. > The current punishment system is also bad, as there is really only one punishment - ban. The lesser steps which are permanent, and thus breaking rules bad enough mean you have nothing to lose. You lose your account anyway, thus you can go all-out violation of rules. there are 4 punishment stages, 2 chat restrictions, 14day ban and finally permament ban, if toxicity was sever you skip firt 2. If you don't fix your behavior after first punishment your next one is more sever. > The reason for public punishment is simple: it tell people justice is done. It give us information how well system works. Well you would be right, if players didnt come to boards themself to try and defend themself, but only to prove that system works. Your view is way too idealistic, this isnt real world this is a video game and we have millions of games played evry day, what you're requesting is way too slow and what we're punishing is toxic loudmouth players, not murderers or thiefs. Lastly you simply lack some knowledge how the system works in general.
> [{quoted}](name=Enjutsu,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=pX2hLhih,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2017-08-17T05:54:34.875+0000) > > They way you make this thread is pretty bad, it's unnecesserily long, are you trying to hide something? or confuse the reader with the long text? Why would long text mean anything like that? Writing complex issue with reasoning and explanations require long text. Are you so impatient and ADHD you cannot read long text? Why are you against long texts? > I think you're trying here to go for the old excuse that consequences matter, like someone else started this or that it was self defence(awnsering the flamer, but from outside perspective this is jsut spreading the toxicity. Im gonna say it like that reasons for toxicity doesnt matter. Also punishments here do start with mild ones too, unless the toxicity was quite severe. Ignoring consequences makes system vengeance system. Your only counter is "this is not real world, thus we should not do things properly!". I am sorry, but internet is subset of real world. The game players are in real world. The discussion is in real world even if the game is not. The fact more toxic person gets away with it and less toxic trying to stop him gets punished, proves that *consequences does matter and ignoring them does let really toxic but manipulative people get away with it*. > You're repeating yourself for some reason you're bringing back assassins and the fact that victims have to defend themself, stay on topic. Also the toxic player is not the vitim, he's rule breaker, the guilty. Toxic player can be victim, if someone more toxic attacks him until he breaks. Words are not just words. Words does massive damage. IT is totally insane to think bullies does no harm to their victims if they do not cause physical harm. But you are saying that toxicity should be punished, but only if it is reported. > this isnt real world, there's no need for a full on trial. I am sorry, but this argument is insane proving you are totally ignorant of human psychology. You are sitting in real world when you play. You are in real world even if you watch into fantasy game environment. If you think you are not, you are insane. > If player gives too many false reports he loses report value. And only false report is report which is not investigated by AI. > one violation (unless it's quite sever) won't get you punished, it takes multiple games, also it's NOT judged based games per day, but simply games in total. One violation is not enough? Then why I am argued that one violation is enough? And Riot games support told me after I asked of my punishment it does not matter how many games I am not reported. Give me *proof that this has changed*. Support told me it does not matter how many games you behave well. IT does not matter how many games you get reported. > there are 4 punishment stages, 2 chat restrictions, 14day ban and finally permament ban, if toxicity was sever you skip firt 2. If you don't fix your behavior after first punishment your next one is more sever. And those stages are permanent. > Well you would be right, if players didnt come to boards themself to try and defend themself, but only to prove that system works. I am sorry, but saying that system which is blatantly flawed is not flawed is like saying *emperor has clothes* and then beat the kid into pulp saying *emperor does not have clothes*. YOu are doing latter. You beat everybody daring to challenge the Riot policy. I would be glad if I could prove system works. If I would not be called troll and get attacked by adcs for "stealing his kills or minions" when I do have relic shield and I only try to last hit when I have stacks. YOu have not proved system works, but argued that system works, and anybody saying opposite is lying. System would work if those people saying to me "kill yourself" get banned. System would work if players admitting they are high elo player "helping a friend" would get banned. Op.gg - our only reliable source as Riot refuse to give it direclty - tell opposite. We have thousands of cases toxic people get away with it. > Your view is way too idealistic, this isnt real world this is a video game and we have millions of games played evry day, what you're requesting is way too slow and what we're punishing is toxic loudmouth players, not murderers or thiefs. > Lastly you simply lack some knowledge how the system works in general. You are really thinking mental attack is not severe, as it does not cause physical harm. I can assure you that there is not a single psychiatrist agreeing with you. Words does permanent harm. That harm is actually more severe than physical harm, as *you cannot prove it easily*. Your only call is "this is network game, and people should be let being totally toxic, if they can get away with it". I am sorry to tell you, but network exists in real world. It is part of real world. The things would be different for turn based game, or fiction. Fiction does not require participants actively immerse into it. I have whole time argued that AI system should handle all chat, not just reported chat, if it would be as good as Riot tell us, it should do it. There would be no false positives. But I have been told people that it would create false positives. Then how does it not cause false positives among reported people? The fact MMO community is totally toxic, bigot, and hatred speech filled, is fact. I usually spent time only on subset which is not like that. Most MMORPG are not safe for this. Worst is Counter Strike. The community teach kids that forced sex threats is normal.
GLurch (EUW)
: >Oh really? do you play at Bronze? There are players that systematically flame and insult others (homophobia, racism and death threats included), and Im totally sure those piece of garbage are reported almost everygame, and you can still see them playing for months. Flaming is quite common if you are a competitive guy, Yes, I did a few seasons ago. Everyone said the exact same back then as well, yet I rarely experienced toxic players. Maybe I'm just chosen by Riot, really lucky or that's how it actually is. Not as toxic as everyone says, which sounds reasonable when looking at humans perception: Humans are good at remembering bad events (called negativity bias), and they are also bad at clearly remembering events in the past. These effects can be demonstrated when you try remembering the last time something bad happened and the last time something good happened and when looking at how victims of for example robberies describe their robbers. Due to this, out of "I had 1 flamer in my game a week ago" could become "I had 4 flamers in my game a week ago". Note I wrote "could", meaning it won't always be the case and may actually never be, I don't know you good enough to judge that. >and I know quite a few friends of mine that already got penalized for their behavior. None of them where Bronze or Silver. I think Riot doenst even want to control the Player Behavior on lower elos, because they would have to ban 30% of the community lol I know some people who were both silver and got punished, although I believe they now climbed up to platinum, but that's not when they were punished. Anyways, I don't even know their LoL names and I honestly don't want to either, so I got no proof for that. But you can go around the "Player Behavior" subboard and look at the people there complaining to have been punished. They range from all kinds of elos. And if we're going by Riots numbers, only 5% of the community are "truly toxic", meaning they flame not just now and then or when they have a bad day and got punished for that. Judging by my experience and how rarely I think i get toxic players (I'm writing "I think" because my mind could be fooling me as well), it seems logical for me.
> [{quoted}](name=GLurch,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=0EwExNpv,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2017-08-16T12:35:05.672+0000) > > Flaming is quite common if you are a competitive guy, That you are correct. It does not make it justified. > Yes, I did a few seasons ago. Everyone said the exact same back then as well, yet I rarely experienced toxic players. Maybe I'm just chosen by Riot, really lucky or that's how it actually is. Not as toxic as everyone says, which sounds reasonable when looking at humans perception: > Humans are good at remembering bad events (called negativity bias), and they are also bad at clearly remembering events in the past. These effects can be demonstrated when you try remembering the last time something bad happened and the last time something good happened and when looking at how victims of for example robberies describe their robbers. I do also recall good games. They are only reason I am still playing. And you attack people *who want to bring back the sportsmanship*. You attack everybody daring to challenge the over-competitive community and gaming experience. And the fact you did experience only little toxicity is no proof it does not exist. it only proved you are lucky guy. This is basic of logic. And tell me - how many games you played on low tier? 1000? 2000? 8000?`As my experience comes from thousands of games per season. That is statistically viable set. And some point you never figured out - I assess game toxic *even if toxic people are on enemy team*. I am not child, thus I evaluate game as game. For me Riot attitude towards honoring opponents during new honor system only proved that my *out-dated information* is accurate. RIot is not planning to make game less toxic, but more competitive. And that makes game *more toxic, not less*. I also get argued that there is not that many smurfs, but suggesting banning smurfs create huge attack on me proving my point. Smurf players are making money, and they do not want their income source endangered, as most players cannot be top streamers who can earn their living. > Due to this, out of "I had 1 flamer in my game a week ago" could become "I had 4 flamers in my game a week ago". Note I wrote "could", meaning it won't always be the case and may actually never be, I don't know you good enough to judge that. I do have around 25% of games without flamers. Around 50% of games I have flamers ganging on me. The games with afker in either team is around 10% or more. Trust me... I do asses the game. I hate to see people of enemy team attack one of their team just for dying. Or attack support who did his best, but whom I out-skilled. Why do you think I only evaluate bad behavior on my own team ? > I know some people who were both silver and got punished, although I believe they now climbed up to platinum, but that's not when they were punished. Anyways, I don't even know their LoL names and I honestly don't want to either, so I got no proof for that. But you can go around the "Player Behavior" subboard and look at the people there complaining to have been punished. They range from all kinds of elos. You seem to have belief only top 10% of players matter. That is blatantly apparent from your talk. You do not care how *less skilled scum* behave and live, as you have climbed above them. Just like rich in the world see less-rich in real world. You do not want to admit you might be up there due sheer luck. > And if we're going by Riots numbers, only 5% of the community are "truly toxic", meaning they flame not just now and then or when they have a bad day and got punished for that. Judging by my experience and how rarely I think i get toxic players (I'm writing "I think" because my mind could be fooling me as well), it seems logical for me. Honestly, I do not believe these Riot numbers, as they have not changed since season 2. Since season 2 toxicity has increased every season. You are playing in higher skill subset of community, thus your observation is flawed. To get there you have to understand team work aspect of game. This makes games less toxic. At your skill level people quite likely tolerate more alteration to tactics. Thus your experience is not suitable for it. If 50% of players are silver or below, 5% flaming would mean you experience flaming down there 1 game out of 10 in average. With this perspective, the number 5% is way too small. Lets do the math to show how that Riot number works: Chance to have any flamer in game would be opposite of having no flamers at all. That mean it is 1 - (1 - 0.05)^10 as there is 10 players. That is 1 - 0.5987369 which mean with 5% toxic people you have 40% chance to have flamer in your game. This proves there is flamers in lots of more games than you experience. You have just been lucky.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=0EwExNpv,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-17T04:56:44.432+0000) > > Riot Games didn't tell you that your punishment is based on X reports. Riot Games told you that you got reported X times. There's a huge difference. > So again, provide evidence of it. And being reported for X times makes it based on report number, not toxicity. Toxicity determination comes *after* being reported, thus it is *secondary trait*. *Primary trait is being reported*. Stop acting like *DOnalt Trump follower* and asking evidence you know i cannot provide due total lack of transparency of Riot games system. I ask you *provide evidence that toxicity matters, and not the fact you are reported*. The fact is that totally toxic people continue playing without punishment *does prove my point and is evidence*. it proves that system is punishing you more for being reported and less for being toxic or breaking rules. > Having computer skills serves absolutely nothing. Reports are what teach the IFS what's punishable. And since "wp" isn't (or we would have a massive influx of players getting banned for it, which obviously hasn't happened so far), you would need a massive concerted effort to make it so, and Riot would catch wind of it anyway. Having computer skill actually matters a lot. Especially if those skills are hacking related. Those skills are the stuff you use to find out bugs and exploits in servers and software. It is a challenge to break Riot system, like it was challenge to make Microsoft chat AI turn into toxic Nazi few months ago. I am sorry, but you apparently have no experience or contact with malign dark side of net. It has been there for all the time net has existed. It has not gone anywhere. There is plenty of hackers telling their stories of lots of hacked accounts they use to have fun by coming to ruin games of others. And they are laughing at Riot games lack of any intention to stop them. Riot does not even try. I suggest you google. It helps. > Please, don't talk of things you have no knowledge about. "Hacking" doesn't work this way. Oh yeah. Tell me how you think it works? How you can tell I have no knowledge of it. There is two separate branches of hacking: exploit seeking, and social engineering. I have no knowledge of it by reading Bugtraq for years. Do you have read it? Do you have any programming experience the exploit seeking hacking requires?
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=0EwExNpv,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2017-08-16T08:25:33.159+0000) > > Please provide evidence. Even creationists try to argue their point by using the Bible. RIot games support told me the number of games I am not reported for does not matter. Thus it is not really frequency of reports, but sheer number. Reasoning is simple, and you have yourself agreed to it: It is solely based on weight of reports, before player is investigated. This threshold is major factor, and it is solely based on number of reports. The AI is so draconian, it quite likely think wp is insult as is gj, as grievers are very good at teaching AIs wrong. Most grievers are nerds with very good computer skills. If toxic behavior is ignored as it is not reported, the system is not based on toxicity, but reports.
: Yeah thats another thing. Always asking to report someone. Like it won't matter but they have to ask for it all the time... Like right now I played taric top again. Look at this. http://imgur.com/a/DVThP I was 3/1/0 until whole team zerged me twice. Opponent team had afk jungle and their adc finished the game with 21kills in 22 minutes. Our bot was premade but look at their scores. Vayne had souls stealer skin and was gold 2. Whole team was ranked highly and I am 25lvl. Like wtf? And someone again points out that I am taric top. Like what is so bad about taric top? I often am really well with him at top. Like I dont understand into what is this game evolving...
> [{quoted}](name=GrimoireWeìss,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=Efsh9vvV,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2017-08-16T23:01:43.218+0000) > > Yeah thats another thing. Always asking to report someone. Like it won't matter but they have to ask for it all the time... > Like right now I played taric top again. Look at this. > http://imgur.com/a/DVThP > I was 3/1/0 until whole team zerged me twice. Opponent team had afk jungle and their adc finished the game with 21kills in 22 minutes. Our bot was premade but look at their scores. Vayne had souls stealer skin and was gold 2. Whole team was ranked highly and I am 25lvl. > Like wtf? And someone again points out that I am taric top. Like what is so bad about taric top? I often am really well with him at top. Like I dont understand into what is this game evolving... Taric top insults Divine Faith of Meta. It tell your team mates that you think you can be play better they do. Sadly that is usually true, and petty losers cannot live with this. Instead they turn the game into vengeance putting the better player into his proper place - below the players who think they have rights and no responsibility.
Rioter Comments
: I want to know what words you can get punished for. I got punished for telling a flamer to shut up. Literaly thats all.
Riot focus on punishing people who dare to oppose flamers, not flamers. They are "moderate people" like Donald Trump. They see you as problem as you make others see that someone is toxic. That is making the crime visible, and thus you are cause of it. Logic? Look at Donald Trump and tell me Americans corporations have logic? Nope. Just buffoons.
: sure, but how will the system know if they were trolling on purpose or just having a rough game? I've seen so so many people calling other trolls (others or myself) when feeding, but not on purpose.
> [{quoted}](name=DarkDinomax,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=JTEBf9k5,comment-id=000100010000,timestamp=2017-08-14T07:12:33.483+0000) > > sure, but how will the system know if they were trolling on purpose or just having a rough game? I've seen so so many people calling other trolls (others or myself) when feeding, but not on purpose. THe problem is that punishment system does remove all context. Due this Riot cannot make the difference. They intentionally want to defend rules breakers requiring totally unbelievable proof, or several reports. And nothing is checked. You cannot get justice as chat of others does not matter. For RIot someone more toxic can go free if he was not reported, **and rules breakers use this combined with understanding of human psychology and memory ensuring that near end game only victim is recalled, not their flaming. That is best safeguard as humans rarely want to spend time and effort to report several, and quite usually cannot recall reason of report required in description for several people**.
: And it's okay for him to be toxic and give up on the game ? A game where they could've won ?
> [{quoted}](name=Gay Lives Matter,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=JTEBf9k5,comment-id=0001000000010000,timestamp=2017-08-14T14:10:57.217+0000) > > And it's okay for him to be toxic and give up on the game ? > > A game where they could've won ? No, that does not give this excuse, but the player whose role was stolen **did not throw the game even if he refused to take role which Shaco was given**. If he stayed on his designated role, he did his best to win. Shaco did not.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=JTEBf9k5,comment-id=00010000000100010000000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-16T14:33:58.913+0000) > > You and your choices are not the center of the universe. That's why the SC tells you to engage your teammates. And what gives my team mates same right on me? I am sorry, but you seem to think members of team are not equals, and bullies have right to overpower others. But I bet you are kid. In summoner's code all are equals. I hope Riot ban you for suggesting that Summoner's code does not hold and you do not follow it. I do tell my team mates why I do choose what I choose, as Summoner's code compel me. IT does not compel me to do as I am told.
GLT98 (EUW)
: Riot Games Behavior
Reason is simple: RIot does not keep their word. Their system is totally draconian and irrational. It is totally based on number of reports. It has nothing to do with justice, but vengeance tool for petty people. Bronze is so totally toxic, nobody there sees it is toxic, but normal behavior. And it still needs dozens of reports for system to check it. And when verbal harassment is normal, it is not reported, as it is not anything special. Adc attacking support is justified by community belief of support role having no rights but reponsibility to do what is told and take all blame for mistakes of adc. And this is usually reason why adc players choose their role - they think they have person to blame when (not if) they fail. And when support does his work well, nobody praises him. With current honor system, support cannot be exemplary honorable, as support role requirement of behavior is so honorable it is next to impossible to be honorable. And in my experience in bronze honor is given to best score, and Riot is doing **nothing to change this as they believe community cannot be wrong**.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=JTEBf9k5,comment-id=000100000001000100000000,timestamp=2017-08-15T08:23:22.488+0000) > > Point is... when you're trying to go off meta, you have to make sure everyone agrees to that. Because not everyone gets what you're trying to do, or even _knows_ how to play around off meta tactics. And even saying this would void Summoner's code totally. I am sorry, but you are **not following summoner's code at all**. You have whole time talked how community belief trumps summoner's code and how community has no need to follow nor respect summoner's code, and it is good that Riot is siding with community. I am sorry, but you are wrong. You are saying that support players deserve the way they are treated as they are supports. THey do not have right to tell others what to do, but they do have right to be do what they are told. Your total faith in Divinity of Meta is ABSURD. The Summoner's code explicitly state that I have right to choose tactics, build, champion, and spells how I see fit. It does tell I have to tell team what I am doing. **It does not state I has to get their agreement as they have right to dodge if they think they cannot play with my tactics**. Can you tell me why you think community belief that kills compared to deaths define feeding is correct? Can you tell me how community belief that support can ward at start of game as much as they did on season 2 is correct? As you are stating **belief and opinion trumps facts**. I am doing my best to win. Most adcs are not as they do not ward. Why this is not condemned? But you have whole time stated out support has no rights, but all responsibilities, and his player skill should be ignored, as community does not believe support is important role. And as you state, you believe that community cannot make mistakes, even if they blatantly support Score focused play and belief in Kills compared to Deaths defines feeding. Every single player who is not warding is breaking current META. > Going all-in with your choice can turn very poorly, and increase toxicity due to frustration for a perceived "bad game". And that does not justify toxicity at all unlike you say. You are telling me that "others have bad games, but you don't" all the time. The excuse "they had bad day/game" is really bad excuse when you do not give everyone same rights. Adc can start game flamign support for trolling if support dares not to take spells he was told to. He can attack support if support dares to touch minions regardless the game events. Thus you are saying that toxicity is okay as long it is toxicity community sees okay. That is totally hypocrite behavior.
Rioter Comments
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=JTEBf9k5,comment-id=0001000000010001,timestamp=2017-08-14T14:52:52.587+0000) > > [So it's okay for AdellaideSkyhart to steal camps from his own jungler](https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/5d9148/comprehensive_player_behavior_post_singed_support/da3eg2m/), but it's not okay for someone else to play double jungle? > > Can you at least _try_ not to be this blatantly biased? > > It's also weird how you went immediately silent the moment [I proved you that Adellaide was abusing queue timers, and not actually playing support](https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/5d9148/comprehensive_player_behavior_post_singed_support/da3ez3s/) =D Adelaine taking camp from his own jugnler where jungler was, was bad thing. This I agree with you. I am silent, because I have been busy real life due my gf and due I had to get replacement for broken fridge. The videos I saw was such that Adelaine did take other camp jugnler started and head to enemy jungle. That is normal for counter jungler start as it was on season 1. But still.. Mistakes happen. I hate it when I accidentally steal jugnle camp, but my reaction is to apologize and spent time to compensate it helping jungler on other camps.
: Support never admits their system is bad
Support NDA and contract prevents them giving anything negative of Riot games.. This is normal for hypocrite morals of America.
: 1. You gave up on the match. 2. You were using insults. 3. You were practically CRYING in the chat.
> [{quoted}](name=Gay Lives Matter,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=JTEBf9k5,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2017-08-14T03:21:23.926+0000) > > 1. You gave up on the match. > > 2. You were using insults. > > 3. You were practically CRYING in the chat. Shaco did de facto steal the role. There is **no excuse to blame jungle forced bottom for leaving bottom open**. HE has no obligation to defend bottom. HE was designated jungle.
: Not drastic. 1. You gave up on the match. 2. You were using insults. 3. You were practically CRYING in the chat. 4. You're a Yasuo main/player. 5. Point 4 is irrelevant so is point 5.
> [{quoted}](name=Gay Lives Matter,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=JTEBf9k5,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2017-08-14T03:17:08.675+0000) > > Not drastic. > > 1. You gave up on the match. > > 2. You were using insults. > > 3. You were practically CRYING in the chat. > > 4. You're a Yasuo main/player. > > 5. Point 4 is irrelevant so is point 5. And all those are moot point ignoring totally the responsiblity of greater rules and code breaker who stole his role. I am sorry, but **I do not believe in shit that you should let those who bully and break rules go free and just endure it and hope Riot does something to them. Riot does not. I have thousands of games experience Riot is not doing a shit to them**. Riot has taken normal stance to school yard bullying: It is okay, if the victim shut the %%%% up. If he does not, he is punished, as **there had to be reason for it and he should behave regardless the fact none of you would behave if same treatment victim gets**. Thus Riot is hypocrites who ignore all studies of psychology as it is easier for them to join bullying of victim than do something to the bullies.
JTF V3NOM (EUW)
: so ur saying if a supp takes 40 cs by 5 minutes and u as adc has 5 he isnt trolling?
> [{quoted}](name=JTF V3NOM,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=Vs3ff0AA,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2017-08-13T18:19:02.344+0000) > > so ur saying if a supp takes 40 cs by 5 minutes and u as adc has 5 he isnt trolling? I am saying you cannot say if he is trolling or not. It is possible adc just died a lot, thus support had to farm. Things are not as simple as you think. I have seen adc who ignore creeps and attack enemies like Rabid dogs.
ADeger34 (EUW)
: ***
And Erdogan is not tied to ISIS ? Geez. Who did you think gave ISIS all those AMerican tanks? IT was Turks. THey gave detailed strategical information to ISIS as well as hindered USA actions to withdraw. For your information, many Turks are followers of Ataturk, who was secular man. In Istanbul, women are not persecuted. But I bet it is so hard to read real facts instead of "Trump real facts":
ADeger34 (EUW)
: well but i am getting triggered by dumb kids that trivialise %%%%ing isis
> [{quoted}](name=ADeger34,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=jWNmyxwk,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2017-08-11T16:38:44.436+0000) > > well but i am getting triggered by dumb kids that trivialise %%%%ing isis How about doing some research on this subject by reading any other source than pro-Russian Russian backed alternate news sources. If you did not know, most of victims of ISIS and Islamists are ordinary people living in Middle-East or Africa. They are as pious Moslems as you are pious Christian. I am getting triggered by "smartass" kids who cannot grasp that you are blatantly lied to keep your focus on people who does steal your money, and who want your votes to get to power to abuse you as military with no rights.
ADeger34 (EUW)
: Tribunal people are just the same as any german Gutmensch
THe sad fact is that you can use the latter without any effect most of the time as reporting system is shotgun. But to your post: Hatred speech should result in permaban, like it did. We should not tolerate German NSDAP fanboys. You try to tell everybody the history of holocaust is false. It is not. Your history of Aryan supremacy is false. And if you say anything of refugees like you admit you did, you are nazi. That is bland simple truth. You are racist. You are nazi.
Viavarian (EUW)
: It's possible that the honor system analyzes your chat to see if you're being mostly positive or negative. Reports might also have some influence, but overall not much is known about how it works. > I haven't even gotten a warning about me being reported or anything. Those warnings were removed years ago, so that's not surprising.
It is more likely honor system ignores all that stuff, but every report reduce your honor points, while every honor increase it.. Riot has behaved like this for a few years, thus it fits. If everyone report you, investigation prove that they were false, you do not get lost honor points back, as you deserve loss of them. Just like you deserve loss when you get int. feeder in your team. Riot does not give anything to victims, as they had to do something or they would not be victims. The competitor logic.
Gnarcotic (EUNE)
: Stuck on honor level 2 with no penalties received (Not a rant)
Every report reduce your honor, not just punishments. I think nowadays punishments occur when your honor level drops, not other way around.
Rípley (EUW)
: You're to much Einstein for me, I guess illness isn't right term despite the fact it's classed as one under any medical directive not belonging to a 3rd world country. This was fun though Oprah, enjoy feeling offended the rest of your life for every second since someone somewhere in the world, is guaranteed to say something you don't appreciate.
Actually you are wrong. It used to be described as illness 20 years ago. Then neurology started to do things, and it was figured out spectrum of autism is way wider than it used to be thought. F. ex. Asperger syndrome (which is not illness on itself, unless severe) is now part of the spectrum of Autism.
: tbh i didn't read a similar study or anything but i know for a fact that males usually tend to bully females both when they like them and when they don't the problem is that league is a T rated game which means that it's mostly kids who still have those unstable hormones and become aggressive over nothing. it's problematic but nothing can be done in this case because of the company's audience selection. In the past year however riot realized that quality>quantity when your game is already that popular. they took some actions to fix the situation and i hope they just improve their bots to identify cancer in its early stages and eliminate it.
> [{quoted}](name=HiTMaNNNN,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=T3KsX3xK,comment-id=00030000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-11T13:06:08.633+0000) > > tbh i didn't read a similar study or anything but i know for a fact that males usually tend to bully females both when they like them and when they don't > > the problem is that league is a T rated game which means that it's mostly kids who still have those unstable hormones and become aggressive over nothing. it's problematic but nothing can be done in this case because of the company's audience selection. In the past year however riot realized that quality>quantity when your game is already that popular. they took some actions to fix the situation and i hope they just improve their bots to identify cancer in its early stages and eliminate it. This is correct. That is why we should have right to scold the flamer to show "you are doing wrong, please stop it". That is essential in teaching kids in hormonal turmoil. I do still recall mine even if I am 42.
: I would have to disagree with you on that one. Logic would dictate that this person is asking from his main account, hence making his own argument invalid for the reasons I already stated. Had he posted from a smurf, why would he not say so?
Actually Forum rules prohibit such assumption. Forum rules prohibit MMR bashing, which you just did. You use league position and level of player to attack him, instead of dealing with issue he stated out.
Rípley (EUW)
: Where is the stigma? If you aren't a flamer or a lonely meaningless existence troll set on ruining other players games just to get any kind of attention, how can you feel it applies to you? Yes it's a scientific term to describe an illness (also), it's still the most fitting describtion for the people in question, because they behave in a very specific way. Do you get super sensitive if some Joe Random nig4 from Redneck New Jersey goes on the news, and says white-boi tras? _Spelling for accuracy_
> [{quoted}](name=Rípley,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=GOOnlzVA,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2017-08-11T15:55:47.803+0000) > Yes it's a scientific term to describe an illness (also), it's still the most fitting describtion for the people in question, because they behave in a very specific way. Actually autism is not illness. It is neurological trait, but it is not illness unless is it so severe it causes too big handicap. Autistic person usually has field where he excel way better than any normal human could. Just like homosexuality is not illness, but beneficial genetic trait on population scale. And genes optimize on population level, not on individual level. Homosexuals waste way less energy trying to mate, and are valuable support personnel of population. And just like homosexual, autistic should not use as insult of individual. The person used is more trait of behavior, which was partially accurate.
: Not all autistic people flame, and not all flamers are autistic. You should be very careful with generalizations like that,or you'll end up pissing off a lot of people who don't deserve the stigma you try to give them.
I agree with you totally as autism is huge scale. And most autistic who flame does so due overwhelming emotions. That is why it is essential you can "argue against flaming" to get flamer - and other team mates - back to calm state. Usually when somebody says "no problem" or "you should say gj to enemy as he was better than you. That does not mean you were bad." Too much competition is bad for this. I am trying to get community get this, and let people try different tactics, and try to learn from it. It is better you to lose a bit if team wins a lot. Score is a lie. It is easy like like measuring everything with monetary value. And it is as flawed as measuring everything with monetary value. Autistic are quite likely way better in game due different neurological setup and reaction to stimuli. But not all, as it is very broad spectrum. I am saying autism should not be stigma. I myself feel it childish to see people who are different stigmatized. Or to see people who cannot be used for monetary gain of investors as stigmatized. We should get rid of that.
Rípley (EUW)
: Yea, true.., his question is very well masked /sarcasm I do describe them as autistic yes, because I'm not being personal at any direct individual, and as such I'm perfectly allowed to use the most fitting term for them on these boards, you can strawman it if you want to assume this is my bahvior in game, and I'll know there's 0 point replying to you again.
> [{quoted}](name=Rípley,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=GOOnlzVA,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-11T09:33:18.417+0000) > > Yea, true.., his question is very well masked /sarcasm > > I do describe them as autistic yes, because I'm not being personal at any direct individual, and as such I'm perfectly allowed to use the most fitting term for them on these boards, you can strawman it if you want to assume this is my bahvior in game, and I'll know there's 0 point replying to you again. The description of autistic is actually accurate, as these people do not understand normal behavior models, or decides not to apply them. Autism is not disorder, but different neurological hardware. This is actually newest research and psychology. Most nerds are slightly on this "autistic track".
: some people can't just respect the most basic rules of discussion and even irl they tend to attack the person and/or their looks when they can't find a better argument. it's quite sad how barely anyone can debate reasonably nowadays
> [{quoted}](name=HiTMaNNNN,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=T3KsX3xK,comment-id=000300000000000000010000,timestamp=2017-08-10T13:01:05.062+0000) > > some people can't just respect the most basic rules of discussion and even irl they tend to attack the person and/or their looks when they can't find a better argument. it's quite sad how barely anyone can debate reasonably nowadays I agree with you. I loved season 1 debriefing screen when people stayed there and talked. Talked what they thought of game. And gave tips to each other. And listened. Disagreement was not bad thing as it did not lead to attack on person. Disagreement is normal. But there was study recently that weak males become toxic when they think they are facing females. When they think they are facing men, they become meek. THis explains quite well why community is so toxic towards women.
: i'm still trying to connect what you're saying to the main topic in here which is unconventional strategies. honestly, i can't find the link. would you care to elaborate more?
I tried to find it.. I have to check my na forum alt who did permalink that post: i would be really pissed of RIot removed it. Off-meta is always unconventional strategy and tactics.
Altiverse (EUNE)
: No one ever said it's obligatory for a support to purchase a Sightstone, nor should anyone blame a support for not doing so. That being said, purchasing a Sightstone as a support *does* contribute to your team towards winning the game, probably more than anything else you'd do with the gold if you decided otherwise. The reason for that is because support champions, as opposed to most other roles, are item-independent; in other words because supports tend to get less gold than their teammates (since they're giving up farm and kills), they're less restricted by the amount of gold they get to be useful. Both their kits and their _itemization_ is designed this way - their completed items cost far less than those of other roles, thus allowing them to be effective without having as much gold as others. Sightstone is one of those items - it's built along with a gold-generating item that gives useful base stats for whichever support you're playing, while the completed item cost it relatively low. Throwing this advantage to oblivion and buying items that are less cost-efficient for you is just generally not a very good idea. Having vision is always helpful, especially in the later stages of the game. So basically, this is a lot like an off-meta pick. You should realize that you have better choices to choose from in order to have a higher chance of winning the game, but if you decide to play like this no one is allowed to blame or flame you. ["Action without Vision is a nightmare"](https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/leagueoflegends/images/9/9b/Taliyah.ward02.ogg/revision/latest?cb=20160507154356)
> [{quoted}](name=Altiverse,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=Eq4QImog,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2017-08-09T19:54:04.408+0000) > > No one ever said it's obligatory for a support to purchase a Sightstone, nor should anyone blame a support for not doing so. > I am sorry, but you have not tried that. You should try it. Try to play off-meta support such support without sighstone. You would soon see that low elo people take example from high-elo players bashing everything doing differently than high elo people. This is quite sad, as high elo mechanics does not work without high elo tactics and player skill. > That being said, purchasing a Sightstone as a support *does* contribute to your team towards winning the game, probably more than anything else you'd do with the gold if you decided otherwise. Yes, it does, but more does every team member using their warding trinkets. Many tank jungle should buy sightstone and more combat effective jungle item. > The reason for that is because support champions, as opposed to most other roles, are item-independent; in other words because supports tend to get less gold than their teammates (since they're giving up farm and kills), they're less restricted by the amount of gold they get to be useful. Almost every champion is item independent. This is something minmaxers does not get: optimum is not in maxed damage, but in more balanced setup. It is easy to believe only one variable exists, but there is no complex system with single variable ruling all. Even ADC may benefit from building off-tank (semi-tank) depending on enemy team setup. > So basically, this is a lot like an off-meta pick. You should realize that you have better choices to choose from in order to have a higher chance of winning the game, but if you decide to play like this no one is allowed to blame or flame you. I am sorry, but I doubt you can assess which champion or item is best for winning game. Win rates are not good statistically as their data set is too chaotic, and you cannot determine why team won. Usually victory comes from team work, not item setups. And to be honest, best team players are supports. And sadly usually best team work requires that adc does compromise and give stuff to others. Best chance to win is when all team members have roughly equal amount of gold. This minimizes the effect of downing one champion. This is why kill steal whining is worst kind of play and should cause ban. It is act of breaking team work. It is act of insulting team mates for working with team. It is selfish act.
angelgod4 (EUNE)
: its not a rule for supports to buy sightstone
The problem is that community still use policies based on season 2 game rules. ** There is strong belief that support is responsible for warding, and support alone. ** Warding is seen as dishonorable for adc, as it makes him "supportlike". All players should do their share of warding from trinkets. And not all supports can play with sighstone. It is good for tank builds, and it is really useful, but not mandatory.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=T3KsX3xK,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-09T15:24:24.227+0000) > > The poster I'm replying to brought up supports being flamed all the time, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. No, support is not flamed if he yields and does what he was told, and enjoy loss when - not if - adc cannot play :D You ignore the fact majority of players are in Bronze, and you seem to think misbehavior in Bronze does not mean anything, as you are not there. That actually is part of topic of off-meta strategy, thus answer to the title question of the post, and to the poll. I know it is hard to grasp discussions have different branches and multiple levels of discussion. The OP had start, and poll, which does not have anything directly to do with the case of all-tank gaming. And that all-tank gaming being punished mean that enemies can report you trolling as tool of revenge when they lose, cannot do anything, but refuse to surrender.
: such amazing reply much constructive discussion
This is normal in forum to make people ridiculous, but forum moderators do not touch it as it is defending Riot PR... The "honesty" of Riot games. I wonder why it is so hard to reply to text of people, and not to attack them in person to "win" something which was intended to be discussion.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=T3KsX3xK,comment-id=00020000000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-09T19:44:34.701+0000) > > But you got an answer to that already? > > https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/g0tMIwJ4-discussion-about-this-support-singed-incident?comment=0002 This is not discussion by developer with Riot fist. I could not at the moment find the post with Riot fist person giving testimony that all accusations on AdelaineSkyhart was false. You are linking post to players talking of this, not RIot developers. Thus you are using unreliable source of community, which I was not referring to when I said "Riot games developer said...". Thus you are countering my argument on case with Riot community feeling of event, not Riot games conclusion post of investigation. That post give people good feeling how community feel. It does also prove my point for community **tribunal is tool of revenge, not justice for community unlike you state. ** **Tribunal is used to bash supports who does not do as they are told, and people like you justify it telling themselves repeatedly that it is justice, and reason is something else than it is**. If support has to get agreement of team to play off-meta, off-meta is reason of punishment as Riot games does not do investigation on troll pick reports, but just punish you if people report you for it. Do you think that is not tool of revenge, as only reason to report off-meta is the fact you did not like it and think it is trolling even if it was effective and did work well? Trolling does not mean you make team uncomfortable. Trolling mean you are not doing your best to win. If off-meta support is trolling, then lack of warding should cause majority of other roles be banned for trolling, as they are not doing their best to win, and makes life of other players way harder.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Shiwah,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=T3KsX3xK,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2017-08-09T13:45:44.418+0000) > > Of course it's always teammates' fault, not someone's trying to circumvent queue timers, right? No, but do you have proof he did that and did not play off-meta support jungle. On season 1 that was valid option - double jungle: With current value of dragon and rift guardian, it should be valid again, if players could think anything but score. Only reason to give such high emphasize on adc is focus on score and kills. Do you have proof he did that to dodge queues? And you did not touch the subject of analyzing **why the games he was in was lost**? You assume that rest of team has right to throw the game if support does not do as he was told, but support has not right to throw game. Do you get it? You use different rules on support than other roles, by redefining "trolling" in case of support to circumvent that it is really off-meta which he was punished. If he was doing the queue time reduction, he would've gone top with singed. He did not. Did you watch any of his games? I did, when I found out of case. He was doing his best to win. YOu accuse he did not communicate with team with assumption support has to obey if he communicates. Why? Why support has to obey and other roles need not? You have never answered to this question.
Show more

Kartac Magewrigh

Level 30 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion