Driaven (EUW)
: Chat isnt meant for Edating
What is it meant for then? If the first response to every problem is "just mute all and you'll be fine", why is there chat in the first place?
: You cant open its not korean server. You have to be like "never surrender we got this its only 3-40 in kills we can come back". Add the general negativity and insulting, deserved.
If 4 of us want to open, why can't we open? I don't see the logic. And I don't really know what you mean with korean server. > Add the general negativity and insulting, deserved. It's not like I flamed the whole game. I said two insults in one game and zero in the other. Does that really mean I'm making the game unbearable for everyone involved? For me it's normal to get mad because of someone who kept spamming all game and someone else who trolled (both of them getting out with no punishment). Is it not normal for you? I don't see the logic or the justice in punishing that.
Get Juk3d (EUNE)
: why do you even try to chat ? just /mute all or at least mute the people trolling or flaming and focus on your own game. I know you might lose anyway but at least the only thing you lose is LP, not your mental health as well
Muting all sucks for me because sometimes there are people who are actually nice, funny or make good calls in the chat. I should have muted the toxic guys, you are right on that part. But the problem is being punished for only saying %%%% you to people who are genuinely toxic/trolling? I didn't think Riot was punishing mild offenses like these and honestly I can't imagine why they did it in this case because I really don't see what's that bad in these chat logs... It's probably just that they reported me for saying that and now when the system detects "%%%%" it automatically restricts? Because it sure wasn't this way until last year, I would sometimes say %%%% you to someone who deserved it in seasons 1-7 and I was never punished until last September. Riot's just way more strict now and I don't really see why or if it changed anything.
Rioter Comments
: Banning people for being a@@holes with the habit of insult people instead than just mute them forever and ever is good, because if there is the chance that i may get people who DOES NOT insult others and got the habit of being a@@holes for an entire game, by all means i want to maximize this chance by getting rid of flamers. This is why i personally always report people for flaming when they indeed ends up flaming, whatever i mute them or not. The fact that banned flamers may buy an account and start over with their flaming is nowhere something that should discourage to ban them. Quite the opposite: i'm more than fine with the idea that flamers got to spend good bucks to buy another account only to be eventually banned again shortly after. It's called karma :D.
It seems that it's just not gonna happen. Flamers will always be there. Well, unless Riot bans 90% of all players. Especially when they can start a new account anyway.
: > [{quoted}](name=vikinator,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=mmNf0P81,comment-id=,timestamp=2017-09-20T19:49:56.196+0000) > > I just don't find the logic of getting banned from playing caused by using chat. Perhaps it is because of young kids who play the game (like they don't know every bad word there is and more). I want to point out something different here ... it remains a fact that there is not a single team sport which allows you to sincerely lash out against your OWN teammates or the opponents, without repercussions. Start hitting/cursing/spitting someone in a soccer pitch. What happens .?. You get a red card and then punished/banned for many games, by the federation. Start hitting/cursing/spitting someone in a basketball court. What happens .?. You get out of the game and then punished/banned for many games, by the federation. Start hitting/cursing/spitting someone in a tennis court. What happens .?. You get out of the game and then punished/banned for many games, by the federation. Even in a full contact sport liky Rugby, you'd get punished for starting an actual fight (there is enough hitting in the game and within the rules, so why bother .?. :p ) Greater people and athletes than the normal people we are have been brought down from their lofty perches and had they careers ended or tarnished because of their bad behaviour and you mean to tell me that you "just don't find the logic of getting banned" .?. I have seen this "opinion" in the boards a lot and I always wondered if the people that express it have ever played or even WATCHED a team sport in their lives ... everywhere in the world you can find that logic at work ... **everywhere.**
Have you ever been on a soccer match played by amateurs (the worse players, the better)? You should try it sometimes and see if there's any punishment for offensive language/fouls on purpose. The equivalent of league isn't olympics, it's kids playing in their backyard. Maybe on an actual field if you get to gold or higher. Second thing is, internet =\= real world. I don't think I've played a single game other than league that would have to implement a system like this. It's just natural to swear more over the internet because it's impersonal. And it will always be so, no matter how much Rito will repress it.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
How do you vote through reports? It only gives the tools to say what happened, not to judge what happenned.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
I'm saying you might ban people who won't troll as well. So it's better to wait if they will actually start to troll instead of banning them straight away.
414 (EUW)
: Riot have made this game for children. Where if you say anything to anyone, you get banned. Riot don't like mean words, prob cos our boy Mark was bullied in school. Yours sincerely, A 3x0.006%er
What a brilliant %%%%ig analysis, give this man a reward. You might be just about right tho.
BooDenny2 (EUNE)
: How the heck do you get banned? On EUNE we flame, wish others cancer, having sex with others mums and yet we havent been banned yet and still happily play this game. No sarcasm or irony included. Are u guys on EUW much easier to get tilted?
I didn't even get tilted, just used the word %%% a few times, told my team to rape the fat %%%got instead of, uhm, punish him for overextending during splitpush (I'm not very keen on exact terminology :D ) and used caps lock maybe two times. Oh, and said FITE ME in all chat after making a sick play and getting a double kill with thresh in late game before winning the game. Yeah, I had a lot of energy that evening and and needed to let it out. In what seemed to me a rather positive way - joking, even if it's rather dark/offensive humour. I regret nothing, my conscience if crystal clear.
Estti379 (EUW)
: Sooo, yeah, where should I start? >< I'm pretty sure this will become a very long answer, so bear with me =P __________ First, since I see this being said a lot in this topic, I'll share a little secret: The automated system doesn't punish people simply because they use vulgar language. You can use vulgar words, profanity and swears without having to be afraid of being punished. You have just to be afraid of what is accompanying the swears. In the end, it is fine to say: "OMG, thresh, you are f'cking amazing!" Yet, saying "OMG, thresh, you are f'cking bad!!!!" isn't fine at all. And the reason for it isn't the "f'cking". >While it’s true that the system punishes toxicity, it actually doesn’t punish profanity -- not even vulgar words that belong to the in-game culture [305, 548] -- but it concentrates on both common and culture-related malicious or insulting phrases [259, 305, 353]. According to Riot, thanks to it there was a drastic reduction of racist, homophobic and sexist remarks, accompanied by a rise of common profanity, such as “%%%%” or “shit” [304]. > [>source<](http://en.volu-eu.org/pbkb_general_user_view.php?art=7) (as a side note, use the site in the link above to learn more about the tribunal system. I always go there get my sources^^) _____________ >Why is there a ban for using chat the wrong way in the first place? Just a little info: for the longest time, riot had as motto to never permanently ban players just for toxic behaviour. In the early years, the only possible punishment were bans who would grow longer with each punishment a player would get. Permabans for toxic behaviour came just when the first iteration of an automated system was implemented, the one which came with the chat restrictions and ranked restrictions (those aren't a thing anymore). During that time, you could get a ban only for severe toxicity (racism, sexism, homophobia, ect). Getting punished 2 or 3 times for severe toxicity would earn you a permaban. (sorry for being a bit vague with some points, but it was a long time ago, and I actually never really learned all details about that system) Mild toxicity would never, in any case, give you a ban, even for someone who is repeatedly mildly toxic. You would get instead just ever increasing chat restrictions. The biggest I have ever seen was 4k games chat restriction in a screen cap. (As a side note, at that time it was actually possible to get punished for both mild and severe toxicity in the very same game, because both of those kinds of toxicity were handled by 2 different systems. Thus, getting a ban and a chatrestriction form the very same match was a possibility) Ok, now I start to address you question. Not kidding, everything above was just filler and story time! During those times where you could earn ever increasing chat restrictions, riot noticed few things: 1) Players who got hit by a chat restrictions would fall in two categories. One of them were players who would get one chat restriction, play through it without earning a new one, then most likely would keep playing without getting a new restriction any time soon. In other words, they would reform. The other category is of players who would get chat restrictions over and over again. The system was build in such a way that it would perform a "toxicity check" slightly before a player had played every and each chat restricted matches he had. A player who was still a bit too toxic, even with only a few lines that they could write each match, would get a bit more restricted matches on top of those that he needed still to clear. So, yeah, those are the kind of players who wouldn't reform at all. And anyway, they would loose nothing if they kept being toxic, so they had no incentive to start behaving. I mean, just look at the example of the player with 4k chat restrictions. Why would he need to start behaving? 2) A chat restriction doesn't prevent you from typing. It just limits the number of lines you are allowed to type. And you get a new line every other minute or so (I don't know the specifics). Riot noticed something else, even more so from players who racked up hundreds and thousands of chat restrictions. Once a player would run out of lines to type, they would sometimes resort to other actions to vent their frustration. Trolling, inting or afking, for example. In other words, riot learned that short chat restrictions were very effective, long chat restrictions were almost useless, maybe even detrimental. And that people who were unaffected by chat restrictions(who didn't reform), were very unlikely to reform by any other means mostly because of lack of incentive. The thing is, chat restrictions are designed in such a way to help people reform, that was it's main focus. It puts players in the dilemma "Should I use my only line to insult a teammate or to share tactical/strategic information with my team?" Depending on what they choose, it can have positive or negative effects on their match. And that was what riot wants to show players with chat restrictions. It is true that it limits the output of toxicity of a player who loses control, but that is just a welcomed side-effect, by far not the main purpose of the limited chat lines. (If they wanted to limit the toxicty of a player that way, they would have just muted him completely) In the end, with data that they had gathered from previous tribunals systems, they knew a few things about what kind of effects the length of a ban would have on a player. (a 3 day ban had almost no effect on players, while, in comparison, a 1 week ban would have the most effect on making a player being less toxic, a 2 week ban would land somewhere in between). In the end, riot decided to go with the current 4 tier punishment system: - 10 games chat restriction - 25 games chat restriction - 14 days ban - Permaban The vast majority of people stop being toxic at last after their 14 day ban. I think that the numbers are something like this: only 5% of the whole playerbase ever gets any kind of punishment for toxic behaviour. Of those 5%, just a little fraction again, 5-10%, actually ends up with a permaban. let's not forget that the system is very lenient with mild toxicity. Yes, you can be punished for being a little a-hole, but you need to be toxic in quite a percentage of your recent matches to even get the first chat restriction. The further you are in the punishement tier, the smaller that percentage has to be. When a player is over it's 14 day ban, then the system becomes very trigger happy. _________ I'm telling you this mostly to **warn you**: when you can play again, beware of what you write in chat. Just very few matches with mild toxicity is needed for you to get a permaban!! _________ But even so, the current system, at least, in my opinion, is in a good balance of fairness and effectiveness. It is by far the best riot has had. And i think that they gave up on further improving the current system, because it would cost lots of manpower and resources for little return. Instead, they are focusing more on something they had already promised when the first automated system was in place: rewarding people for being neutral/positive players. And thus, create a new incentive for toxic players to reform. You see this in the whole thing about hectech chests + loot, the honor 2.0 and even in smaller things, like the pilot in the BR server "[Yordle Camp Event](https://boards.eune.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/off-topic-en/pe6jhHEn-yordle-camp)" ____________ I think this whole thing answers the question of why even mild toxicity leads to bans. But for your specific case, you know why you got a 14 day ban right away and skipped the restrictions. As you read up there, it isn't something new. For the longest time, riot reacted heavily onto "sexism, racism, homophobia, ect" in the game. I can't tell if they act this way because of "ideology". But I do know that lots of people ask, require or at least accept that riot cracks down hard on people engaging with that kind of behaviour. Again, not sure, but I think that the majority of the playerbase expects that from riot. One can argue about how it is too harsh to punish people for that kind of severe toxicity while it is only their first and only offense. But let's not forget that there is the 14 day buffer. In those regards, I find riot pretty fair, as in, it gives everyone at least one chance to %%%% up before they start using the big guns. But for severe toxicity, they really just give one, and only one chance =P As for the fact of being punished for just a joke. Sure, it might come off as a joke for you, and maybe for some of your teammates. But for some people, only reading/hearing it, is already enough to "trigger" them and let them go full "SJW" (even though, them themselves not having any kind of emotional attachment to that word, they get just triggered because they think they have to protect the LGBT community, or something like that >.>). In the end, the only thing riot does, is giving people a warning, tells them it's their last chance and that they should just avoid using some specific words/insults in the future. If riot planned to simply get rid of any kind of "sexist, racist, homophobe filth", there wouldn't be such a thing as a "14 day ban buffer" and a "oh, you got permabanned? It's fine, you are still allowed to start anew with a brand new account!" ^^'
Wow, you sure know your shit. The only thing I can even come close to opposing to is that a 14-day ban is just a buffer. It does feel more like one of the big guns. Especially after being as innocent as a LoL player can be for 7 years. That would deserve a tweak in the system. Except from that, I'm impressed. You made lots of things way clearer to me. Thank you.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
And who voted in this? I might have missed it but I haven't been asked for any opinion. If it was a slightly faster way through the 2 chat restrictions leading to a ban, I would be ok with it. If it's a ban caused by a single game, it seems unjust.
Savrak (EUW)
: Or you could simply stop using extremely offensive language entirely.
I am not justifying it, I am just saying offensive language should be treated the same no matter what the exact words are. #equalityforoffensiveness
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
How was this proven, if I may ask? If someone trolls after being chat restricted, then it's time to ban them, not before they did anything wrong gameplay-wise. Banning becaus you might turn out to be a troll doesn't seem very fair as well...
: > [{quoted}](name=Ahasveros5,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=mmNf0P81,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-09-20T21:31:16.120+0000) > Rito&#x27;s little flame detection system should also have a severity factor. I think there is a giant diffrence between calling someone a noob or wishing someone cancer. But I can imagine that is hard to implement/costs a lot of money to automate Jesus.... the system allready does this. You dont get any bans for a 'noob' here and there. You get a ban for it when u showed severe toxicity over tha last dozent of games. And there are harsher punishments for harsher stuff. Racial, homophobic or cancer flames get the big 'uns. The system is pretty mild tbh. I flame on my main pretty often. Not the cancer stuff. But im passive aggressive like shit. And i have never been banned. I also have mates who do the occasional 'slit your wrists' or 'die in a fire'. No bans. Nada. And you know why? The do it _sonetimes_.
That's why it felt really unjust to be banned for being homophobic when I could use any other word and probably get to be free/just restricted. Is it really so much better to call someone a %%%%%%ed autistic kid instead whose whole family should die instead of a %%%?
Sètsuna (EUW)
: Just to have that said. You don't get punished for a game if you didn't actually get reported. So somebody didn't like what you wrote. So banter with guys you don't actually know usually is recieved wrongfully. So yes your point is fair. Disconnecting toxic people from the chat would solve the flaming issue to some extent. But you see, the players that flame aren't what you call professionals in anger management or mentally stable. So by disabling chat for them riot would make them look for other ways to be toxic. For example pingspam or going even further to trolling/feeding etc. And most people that do flame would also go feed or troll because they are so mad. While this system isn't perfect it surely prevents flame and trolls in a very good way right now and doesn't have any negative effects on the behaviour of players. It is by no means perfect but it is good.
I know I got reported, but how am I supposed to know what someone will receive as a joke and what will offend him? I would be stuck saying nothing and never meeting someone in League because we had the same sense of humor. Of course, if the people who got restricted int or troll, they should get banned. But that's what I meant - be punished for ruining the game by being banned from the game and be punished for abusing chat by being banned from the chat. It makes more sense to me. About the pings... There is a mute button for them as well and it actually works because you won't get tilted by being pinged only a few times before the mute. Does it really prevent flame? I think more than half of my games still get hard flamers. Yes, it is rare to, for example, someone add you after game only to tell you to go kill yourself, but it is still far from being a friendly environment in most games.
Fang (EUNE)
: The only reason that I think an instant ban over a chat restriction is okay / fair, is when people think they can say whatever they want in the duration of 1 game without it being punished whatsoever, or rather, that they expect something milder to happen. I had so many players go ''yadayada nothing is gonna happen because I only troll / flame once every 100 games'' -- and then there's nothing more satisfying than getting report feedback on something like that, solely because of the cocky attitude that player had. Pretty sure it's not just 1 word let along 1 line of chat that triggers it though. Beyond that, a permanent chat restriction doesn't sound like an awful solution to me, but Riot wasn't very fond of it, don't recall the reasoning. Players ought to take responsibility for themselves when it comes down to it, but if the options are to remove a player permanently from the game vs disabling the chat function for that account permanently instead (in the case that toxicity in chat is the only issue), then the latter doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
I haven't thought about that. But if it's really one game in a hundred, I would be ok with no punishment. Even if someone is really being annoying, it's just 1% of the time. I feel like permanent anything is too strict, because... you step over the line twice and get banned for life? That is too much for me. Everyone loses their temper sometimes. Restricting chat for a certain amount of games seems enough. Even if it's someone who would always be toxic, they get to be toxic for maybe 3 games and then have 100 games without chat - which seems like an ok ratio for me. And in reality, there are flamers in about half of the games anyway.
: I think not, but it seems the majority of league does. So yeah gotta deal with it. I think the system is kinda crooked. Situation 1: muting everybody at the start of the game. To prevent flame at all, one should /mute all. Apart from raising the question: "Why does the chat even exist ?" It also prevents you from seeing any flame at all. So you won't report anyone, because you experienced no flame, so no players get punished because they don't get reported. In this case they can just keep flaming without being punished. Situation 2: Not muting at the start of the game. In this case you witnessed actual flame, so you report the flamer. But this also signifcantly raises the chance of you as a player tilting/flaming back/getting pissed etcetera. Soo then it is too late, not only are you punishable, you are also much more likely to lose the game. Ofcourse you can still /mute all after the first flame starts, but it still might be too late. Rito's little flame detection system should also have a severity factor. I think there is a giant diffrence between calling someone a noob or wishing someone cancer. But I can imagine that is hard to implement/costs a lot of money to automate this process. Personally, I don't mind getting flamed, nor flaming in general. I think it's part of the "internet culture" if you can call it that. Now that i think of it, I don't even encounter that much toxicity these days. This doesn't mean i never tilt btw, but whenever I tilt it's most likely because i'm bummed out by my own misplays, or people trying way too hard to make other players tilt... *Looks Angrily at mastery 7 emote on a yasuo * So in short; No I don't think a ban is justified, but it depends on the severity of the flame. I don't think automating this process was a good call, but i understand the decision. Cheers
Is there any data to support that the majority does? I mean no distrust but I have never seen that claim before. You are right that it's a flaw in the system that when you mute everyone you can't report bad behaviour. I also agree with you that implementing a more precise system could be difficult/costly. But I don't think Riot has so few resources they couldn't actually take a closer look onto the context and make the system better. From what I've read it looks at phrases that get people reported most and punishes you based on those. So perhaps if you find really creative ways to insult someone you are just free to go even if you are flaming 24/7? :D I think automating the system was ok, but the limit is set... weirdly. Maybe it is partially because there are lots of young children playing the game and Riot doesn't want people to be vulgar to them. Like they don't know all the bad words since age 7. Or maybe Riot just doesn't like that people flame in league WAY MORE than in other games because you are dependant on your team a lot. But if it's the game that sets the ground for bad behaviour, why punish the people playing it? Thank you for the answer.
Savrak (EUW)
: As I understand it, the system would not look at the chat log from that game unless someone reported you. Evidently someone in the game took offence to your use of the word or the conversation in general, reported you and subsequently the system checked the logs and applied the mandatory punishment. Also, it may be based on other games as well, not just the chat log you are sent with the notification. As far as their system is concerned, it doesn't matter if you were typing in jest, the system won't be able to tell that. All it cares about is that it received a report, it needs to check the chat log and then apply any specified punishment depending on what it finds. Can you just mute the flamer? Yes, you can but it is nicer not to have it in the first place.
I know that someone took offence and I understand the punishment, even though it was a joke to me and (some) of my teammates. I just think the severity is too high, because: - Flaming is a part of the game (maybe even a part of videogames in general) and acting like the punishment system works is... kind of an idealization I think. There will always be flamers because the game is often frustrating to play. Unless chat gets deleted completely/everyone mutes everyone. - I doubt the system would even punish me if I used any other insulting word except %%%, which also doesn't really seem fair. Is it really better behaviour if I call somone a %%%%%%, %%%% or an autist instead? - Imho banning should be used for game aspects (afk, troll, int, cheating) and chat restriction should be used for communication aspects (flame, harassment, hate speech). It seems to make more sense because if a player who flames a lot is taken away from the chat, he is just a "normal" player. You are right that muting is mostly done when it's already too late so it wasn't much of a point from me.
: I don't see any chatlogs so it's justified 99% of the time.
I didn't include chat logs because I didn't want to discuss my case, but rather the general approach to bans. I don't really mind playing on a different account for 14 days, but I really don't like unjust systems. And banning without warning is a little too harsh imho, since there can be smaller steps that can be taken. Edit: And generally it seems stupid to ban people just because they talk shit when you can restrict chat instead. Their wrongdoing is in chat, not in gameplay.
Rioter Comments

vikinator

Level 65 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion