Hahrimazd (EUW)
: Veto means: _the power or right to prohibit or reject a proposed or intended act (especially the power of a chief executive to reject a bill passed by the legislature)_ Since everyone is equal in this game (unless this somehow isn't the case, if so, then point out how we know who's above who and on what it's based) A majority, also called a simple majority to distinguish it from similar terms, is the greater part, or more than half, of the total. It is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements. For example, if a group consists of 20 individuals, a majority would be 11 or more individuals, while having 10 or fewer individuals would not constitute a majority. "Majority" can be used to specify the voting requirement, as in a "majority vote", which means more than half of the votes cast. This one is going to be very sweet by the way :) _While we all carry a diverse set of individual ambitions and expectations into a game of League of Legends, once we hit the Field we're a part of a team. For better or worse, our fates are intertwined with that of our teammates. Once the game gets into full swing, you have to make a choice between being a positive force for your team, or contributing to your own demise. Being a good team player begins at champion select. Be open minded when considering the needs of your team. If you're the last one to pick, try to fill a niche in your team that hasn't already been filled. If everyone's picked and something stands out as a deficiency in your team composition, try asking for another player to fill the gap, or change roles to embrace that responsibility yourself. Remember, that by taking on a role you don't normally play, you'll learn more about unfamiliar champions and increase your own skill level. Once you get in game, try to keep an open line of communication. Warn your teammates if someone is missing from your lane, or if something is placing them in immediate danger. If they're not paying attention to chat you can always try pinging the map. Just remember that one ping is enough! Also, remember that you have to be there to contribute, so don't leave the game or go AFK! Encourage players who are having trouble, and congratulate those who are playing well. And most of all, if you're having a bad game don't take it out on your team!_ let me zoom in: _so don't leave the game or go AFK! Encourage players who are having trouble, _ As I mentioned, I do not go afk and I don't leave the game. I just don't play as well anymore, because I have GIVEN UP, because you are WASTING MY TIME. This one is also very nice: _Enjoy Yourself, but not at Anyone Else's Expense_ What are you doing when you decide to keep the majority hostage? Enjoying yourself, but at the majority their expense. What I don't read in the summoner's code however, is that they all of the sudden become a god and get to __Enjoy Yourself, but not at Anyone Else's Expense__. Reading up on the summoner's code, I read no where that somehow you get a veto vote. So this is something pulled out of your butt. Unless you can provide concrete evidence that somehow people have more rights in a game then I have, I will conclude you have been providing false information for your own good this whole time, thus, rendering your 'valid points' (what we all know wasn't even remotely close to valid) very much invalid. This one is also very nice to read upon: _**CODE OF CONDUCT**_ _5.1. Can I troll, flame, threaten or harass people while using the Riot Services? _ (keep in mind, I am not trolling, flaming, threatening or harassing anyone when I: _stop resisting to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority._) While using the Riot Services, you must comply with all laws, rules and regulations in the jurisdiction in which you reside. You must also comply with certain additional rules that govern your use of the Riot Services (the “Code of Conduct”). The Code of Conduct is not meant to be exhaustive, and we reserve the right to modify it at any time, as well as take appropriate disciplinary measures including account termination and deletion to protect the integrity and spirit of the Riot Services, regardless of whether a specific behavior is listed in the policy as inappropriate. In addition to the Code of Conduct, please review the Summoner’s Code for additional guidance on exemplary gameplay behavior. The following are examples of behavior that warrant disciplinary measures: i. Impersonating any person, business or entity, including an employee of Riot Games, or communicating in any way that makes it appear that the communication originates from Riot Games; ii. Posting identifying information about yourself or other players to the Website or within the Game; iii. Harassing, stalking or threatening other players while using the Riot Services; iv. Removing, altering or concealing any copyright, trademark, patent or other proprietary rights notice of Riot Games contained in the Website, the Game and/or the Software. You also may not transmit content that violates or infringes the rights of others, including patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, publicity, personal rights or other rights; v. Transmitting or communicating any content which, in the sole and exclusive discretion of Riot Games, is deemed offensive, including language that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, or racially, ethically, or otherwise objectionable; vi. Transmitting or facilitating the transmission of any content that contains a virus, corrupted data, trojan horse, bot keystroke logger, worm, time bomb, cancelbot or other computer programming routines that are intended to and/or actually damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept or mine, scrape or expropriate any system, data or personal information; vii. Spamming chat, whether for personal or commercial purposes, by disrupting the flow of conversation with repeated postings; viii. Participating in any action which, in the sole and exclusive judgment of Riot Games, defrauds any other user of the Game, including by scamming or social engineering; ix. Using any unauthorized third party programs, including mods, hacks, cheats, scripts, bots, trainers and automation programs that interact with the Software in any way, for any purpose, including any unauthorized third party programs that intercept, emulate, or redirect any communication between the Software and Riot Games and any unauthorized third party programs that collect information about the Game by reading areas of memory used by the Software to store information; x. Accessing or attempting to access areas of the Game or Game servers that have not been made available to the public; xi. Selecting a Summoner name that is falsely indicative of an association with Riot Games, contains personally identifying information, or that is offensive, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable. You may not use a misspelling or an alternative spelling to circumvent this restriction on Summoner name choices. Riot Games may modify any name which, in the sole and exclusive judgment of Riot Games, violates this provision, without notification to you, and may take further disciplinary measures, including account termination for repeated violations; xii. Logging out or exiting the Game during live game-play. Riot Games’ automated Leaverbuster® system tracks this data over time and issues a temporary ban when a user is determine to have left mid-game too many times. The length of the temporary ban will increase over time if a particular account continues to leave live game play; xiii. Playing on another person’s account to “boost” that account’s status or rank; or xiv. Inducing or encouraging others to violate this Code of Conduct or the terms of this Agreement. Nowhere do I read about your veto vote, which I (going by your words) 'agreed on'. Or as people would say in chess: Check mate.
Ok I give up. I'm not going to let you hang here, hence my reply. Good luck.
Hahrimazd (EUW)
: Veto means: _the power or right to prohibit or reject a proposed or intended act (especially the power of a chief executive to reject a bill passed by the legislature)_ Since everyone is equal in this game (unless this somehow isn't the case, if so, then point out how we know who's above who and on what it's based) A majority, also called a simple majority to distinguish it from similar terms, is the greater part, or more than half, of the total. It is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements. For example, if a group consists of 20 individuals, a majority would be 11 or more individuals, while having 10 or fewer individuals would not constitute a majority. "Majority" can be used to specify the voting requirement, as in a "majority vote", which means more than half of the votes cast. This one is going to be very sweet by the way :) _While we all carry a diverse set of individual ambitions and expectations into a game of League of Legends, once we hit the Field we're a part of a team. For better or worse, our fates are intertwined with that of our teammates. Once the game gets into full swing, you have to make a choice between being a positive force for your team, or contributing to your own demise. Being a good team player begins at champion select. Be open minded when considering the needs of your team. If you're the last one to pick, try to fill a niche in your team that hasn't already been filled. If everyone's picked and something stands out as a deficiency in your team composition, try asking for another player to fill the gap, or change roles to embrace that responsibility yourself. Remember, that by taking on a role you don't normally play, you'll learn more about unfamiliar champions and increase your own skill level. Once you get in game, try to keep an open line of communication. Warn your teammates if someone is missing from your lane, or if something is placing them in immediate danger. If they're not paying attention to chat you can always try pinging the map. Just remember that one ping is enough! Also, remember that you have to be there to contribute, so don't leave the game or go AFK! Encourage players who are having trouble, and congratulate those who are playing well. And most of all, if you're having a bad game don't take it out on your team!_ let me zoom in: _so don't leave the game or go AFK! Encourage players who are having trouble, _ As I mentioned, I do not go afk and I don't leave the game. I just don't play as well anymore, because I have GIVEN UP, because you are WASTING MY TIME. This one is also very nice: _Enjoy Yourself, but not at Anyone Else's Expense_ What are you doing when you decide to keep the majority hostage? Enjoying yourself, but at the majority their expense. What I don't read in the summoner's code however, is that they all of the sudden become a god and get to __Enjoy Yourself, but not at Anyone Else's Expense__. Reading up on the summoner's code, I read no where that somehow you get a veto vote. So this is something pulled out of your butt. Unless you can provide concrete evidence that somehow people have more rights in a game then I have, I will conclude you have been providing false information for your own good this whole time, thus, rendering your 'valid points' (what we all know wasn't even remotely close to valid) very much invalid. This one is also very nice to read upon: _**CODE OF CONDUCT**_ _5.1. Can I troll, flame, threaten or harass people while using the Riot Services? _ (keep in mind, I am not trolling, flaming, threatening or harassing anyone when I: _stop resisting to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority._) While using the Riot Services, you must comply with all laws, rules and regulations in the jurisdiction in which you reside. You must also comply with certain additional rules that govern your use of the Riot Services (the “Code of Conduct”). The Code of Conduct is not meant to be exhaustive, and we reserve the right to modify it at any time, as well as take appropriate disciplinary measures including account termination and deletion to protect the integrity and spirit of the Riot Services, regardless of whether a specific behavior is listed in the policy as inappropriate. In addition to the Code of Conduct, please review the Summoner’s Code for additional guidance on exemplary gameplay behavior. The following are examples of behavior that warrant disciplinary measures: i. Impersonating any person, business or entity, including an employee of Riot Games, or communicating in any way that makes it appear that the communication originates from Riot Games; ii. Posting identifying information about yourself or other players to the Website or within the Game; iii. Harassing, stalking or threatening other players while using the Riot Services; iv. Removing, altering or concealing any copyright, trademark, patent or other proprietary rights notice of Riot Games contained in the Website, the Game and/or the Software. You also may not transmit content that violates or infringes the rights of others, including patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, publicity, personal rights or other rights; v. Transmitting or communicating any content which, in the sole and exclusive discretion of Riot Games, is deemed offensive, including language that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, or racially, ethically, or otherwise objectionable; vi. Transmitting or facilitating the transmission of any content that contains a virus, corrupted data, trojan horse, bot keystroke logger, worm, time bomb, cancelbot or other computer programming routines that are intended to and/or actually damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept or mine, scrape or expropriate any system, data or personal information; vii. Spamming chat, whether for personal or commercial purposes, by disrupting the flow of conversation with repeated postings; viii. Participating in any action which, in the sole and exclusive judgment of Riot Games, defrauds any other user of the Game, including by scamming or social engineering; ix. Using any unauthorized third party programs, including mods, hacks, cheats, scripts, bots, trainers and automation programs that interact with the Software in any way, for any purpose, including any unauthorized third party programs that intercept, emulate, or redirect any communication between the Software and Riot Games and any unauthorized third party programs that collect information about the Game by reading areas of memory used by the Software to store information; x. Accessing or attempting to access areas of the Game or Game servers that have not been made available to the public; xi. Selecting a Summoner name that is falsely indicative of an association with Riot Games, contains personally identifying information, or that is offensive, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable. You may not use a misspelling or an alternative spelling to circumvent this restriction on Summoner name choices. Riot Games may modify any name which, in the sole and exclusive judgment of Riot Games, violates this provision, without notification to you, and may take further disciplinary measures, including account termination for repeated violations; xii. Logging out or exiting the Game during live game-play. Riot Games’ automated Leaverbuster® system tracks this data over time and issues a temporary ban when a user is determine to have left mid-game too many times. The length of the temporary ban will increase over time if a particular account continues to leave live game play; xiii. Playing on another person’s account to “boost” that account’s status or rank; or xiv. Inducing or encouraging others to violate this Code of Conduct or the terms of this Agreement. Nowhere do I read about your veto vote, which I (going by your words) 'agreed on'. Or as people would say in chess: Check mate.
You keep telling me I haven't come up with a good argument. That the whole veto example is bad and that I'm not countering your arguments. I hope I showed you why your point of the majority voting 'yes' itself is not an argument, if it were, this part would always be true: "The game would 100% be forfeited, why would two people overrule the vote of three others?". I'm still trying to find the thought behind this (for example, the fairness argument). Secondly, you haven't substantively talked about my veto example of which I (hopefully) showed you the relevancy of. Something with many similiaries to such a system seems to be in place. I really just want to have a reply to this one paragraph above. And please don't forget, personal attacks are never the way to go, neither is a resort to playing less good on purpose (=trolling). So please don't do that.
Hahrimazd (EUW)
: Veto means: _the power or right to prohibit or reject a proposed or intended act (especially the power of a chief executive to reject a bill passed by the legislature)_ Since everyone is equal in this game (unless this somehow isn't the case, if so, then point out how we know who's above who and on what it's based) A majority, also called a simple majority to distinguish it from similar terms, is the greater part, or more than half, of the total. It is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements. For example, if a group consists of 20 individuals, a majority would be 11 or more individuals, while having 10 or fewer individuals would not constitute a majority. "Majority" can be used to specify the voting requirement, as in a "majority vote", which means more than half of the votes cast. This one is going to be very sweet by the way :) _While we all carry a diverse set of individual ambitions and expectations into a game of League of Legends, once we hit the Field we're a part of a team. For better or worse, our fates are intertwined with that of our teammates. Once the game gets into full swing, you have to make a choice between being a positive force for your team, or contributing to your own demise. Being a good team player begins at champion select. Be open minded when considering the needs of your team. If you're the last one to pick, try to fill a niche in your team that hasn't already been filled. If everyone's picked and something stands out as a deficiency in your team composition, try asking for another player to fill the gap, or change roles to embrace that responsibility yourself. Remember, that by taking on a role you don't normally play, you'll learn more about unfamiliar champions and increase your own skill level. Once you get in game, try to keep an open line of communication. Warn your teammates if someone is missing from your lane, or if something is placing them in immediate danger. If they're not paying attention to chat you can always try pinging the map. Just remember that one ping is enough! Also, remember that you have to be there to contribute, so don't leave the game or go AFK! Encourage players who are having trouble, and congratulate those who are playing well. And most of all, if you're having a bad game don't take it out on your team!_ let me zoom in: _so don't leave the game or go AFK! Encourage players who are having trouble, _ As I mentioned, I do not go afk and I don't leave the game. I just don't play as well anymore, because I have GIVEN UP, because you are WASTING MY TIME. This one is also very nice: _Enjoy Yourself, but not at Anyone Else's Expense_ What are you doing when you decide to keep the majority hostage? Enjoying yourself, but at the majority their expense. What I don't read in the summoner's code however, is that they all of the sudden become a god and get to __Enjoy Yourself, but not at Anyone Else's Expense__. Reading up on the summoner's code, I read no where that somehow you get a veto vote. So this is something pulled out of your butt. Unless you can provide concrete evidence that somehow people have more rights in a game then I have, I will conclude you have been providing false information for your own good this whole time, thus, rendering your 'valid points' (what we all know wasn't even remotely close to valid) very much invalid. This one is also very nice to read upon: _**CODE OF CONDUCT**_ _5.1. Can I troll, flame, threaten or harass people while using the Riot Services? _ (keep in mind, I am not trolling, flaming, threatening or harassing anyone when I: _stop resisting to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority._) While using the Riot Services, you must comply with all laws, rules and regulations in the jurisdiction in which you reside. You must also comply with certain additional rules that govern your use of the Riot Services (the “Code of Conduct”). The Code of Conduct is not meant to be exhaustive, and we reserve the right to modify it at any time, as well as take appropriate disciplinary measures including account termination and deletion to protect the integrity and spirit of the Riot Services, regardless of whether a specific behavior is listed in the policy as inappropriate. In addition to the Code of Conduct, please review the Summoner’s Code for additional guidance on exemplary gameplay behavior. The following are examples of behavior that warrant disciplinary measures: i. Impersonating any person, business or entity, including an employee of Riot Games, or communicating in any way that makes it appear that the communication originates from Riot Games; ii. Posting identifying information about yourself or other players to the Website or within the Game; iii. Harassing, stalking or threatening other players while using the Riot Services; iv. Removing, altering or concealing any copyright, trademark, patent or other proprietary rights notice of Riot Games contained in the Website, the Game and/or the Software. You also may not transmit content that violates or infringes the rights of others, including patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, publicity, personal rights or other rights; v. Transmitting or communicating any content which, in the sole and exclusive discretion of Riot Games, is deemed offensive, including language that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, or racially, ethically, or otherwise objectionable; vi. Transmitting or facilitating the transmission of any content that contains a virus, corrupted data, trojan horse, bot keystroke logger, worm, time bomb, cancelbot or other computer programming routines that are intended to and/or actually damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept or mine, scrape or expropriate any system, data or personal information; vii. Spamming chat, whether for personal or commercial purposes, by disrupting the flow of conversation with repeated postings; viii. Participating in any action which, in the sole and exclusive judgment of Riot Games, defrauds any other user of the Game, including by scamming or social engineering; ix. Using any unauthorized third party programs, including mods, hacks, cheats, scripts, bots, trainers and automation programs that interact with the Software in any way, for any purpose, including any unauthorized third party programs that intercept, emulate, or redirect any communication between the Software and Riot Games and any unauthorized third party programs that collect information about the Game by reading areas of memory used by the Software to store information; x. Accessing or attempting to access areas of the Game or Game servers that have not been made available to the public; xi. Selecting a Summoner name that is falsely indicative of an association with Riot Games, contains personally identifying information, or that is offensive, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable. You may not use a misspelling or an alternative spelling to circumvent this restriction on Summoner name choices. Riot Games may modify any name which, in the sole and exclusive judgment of Riot Games, violates this provision, without notification to you, and may take further disciplinary measures, including account termination for repeated violations; xii. Logging out or exiting the Game during live game-play. Riot Games’ automated Leaverbuster® system tracks this data over time and issues a temporary ban when a user is determine to have left mid-game too many times. The length of the temporary ban will increase over time if a particular account continues to leave live game play; xiii. Playing on another person’s account to “boost” that account’s status or rank; or xiv. Inducing or encouraging others to violate this Code of Conduct or the terms of this Agreement. Nowhere do I read about your veto vote, which I (going by your words) 'agreed on'. Or as people would say in chess: Check mate.
You, just like me, have put a lot of effort into this discussion / talk or however you want to name it. Then reading the following paragraph actually surprised dearly: > I have simply come to conclusion, when I wanted to write, yet another book, that you are close-minded and refuse to see how simply stating the majority of people do not enjoy playing a game is actually a fact and an argument. You failed to debunk this and came on with some veto crap. This game just reflects the iron hand and you enjoy being part of that iron hand. That's your conclusion after our exchange of so insanely many words? That's really strange if you ask me. But let me keep it short as well and just quickly cover many of your points with a few words. I'll be quoting just your first two lines everytime to not inflate this post to insane lengths: > decided not to go into this argument any further since you obviously think that when I state the majority as given up, it's not an argument, yet it actually IS an argument. You Veto. > You refuse to actually admit that when out of 5 people, 3 have said they do NOT enjoy this game and want to move on, they somehow should be kept hostage. Sure thing, but You are violating their veto right, they are kind of right to be upset about that (but should never start flaming/trolling you for it of course). > On points I did not respond to, I do not agree with them. I don't agree with you and I will never agree with you. You probably didn't really mean this. But having an argument with someone who straight up tells you 'I will never agree with you' is an argument won. You shouldn't argue for the sake of arguing. You shouldn't argue for the sake of winning. I started this post with an honest thought and an honest question why this wasn't yet implemented, there was actually a use to this post for me. Don't take down this post for your own good. > I just hope for you that democracy is actually a thing in your country, or else I understand how the minority gets to somehow keep on playing according to you. Personal attack, don't do that in arguments, doesn't help. > You consider flaming selfish, yet when minority (and again I will state it because you have failed to debunk it) is being selfish by actually thinking they're some sort of gods Gods? No. You giving them that veto right? Yes. > stand by democracy and that a 3 yes vote on a surrender should go on, no matter a ghetto or a veto or whatever crap you want to pull out. I know this already. But WHY? Only because you already see the majority having the final vote in other places doesn't instantly make it a valid thing for all situations. What is the reasoning behind you wanting the majority to be able to have that last vote? (And I'll try to help you again, it's probably a fairness argument that you still haven't mentioned and you keep avoiding to for whatever reason). Also, joking about vetos again, good job. Try to substantively argue about my veto example please, it still seems relevant to me. > You are close minded (what I already could tell by how you neglected that the minority keeping the majority hostage is not selfish) and you enjoy the iron hand people rule with Repeating that same personal attack? Questionable technique in arguing. > For me it's pretty simple, when 3 people vote yes and 2 vote no, I just die a couple of times and stop defending. You want to keep on playing? Sure, go ahead, i'm not You start trolling and admit that? Why would you do that? You plainly state here yourself that you are violating the terms etc.. How can you still feel like someone should take you very seriously then if this is how you argue? You already made your voice clear by starting a forfeit vote didn't you? Why would you press your opinion on the other players like this (even if it's the majority)? I just showed you that you wanting your voice to be heard is a bad, made up reason to start trolling. So what is the actual reason? (Revenge?) > Riot hasn't defined toxic either, since meteos the intentional feeder (on stream and drunk btw) didn't get any punishment, but I have gotten a punishment for a pretty More very specific examples I'm not even going to talk about. Finding precedents works well in studying law but seems a little exaggerated here. > I told you to define certain things and you failed big time Personal attack. Additionally, how did I fail? Don't you think it's fair to explain stuff before you insult them like that? > It is, there has been a simple research (an actual research, not just a 'did you know' pulled out of someone his butt) that basically reflects that in every single game the Reports themselves don't get people banned. That's not how the system works at all. It only gives Riot a handle to find wrongdoers. You can actually even get punished for reporting people for no valid reason. > The same EXACT reason I am not happy to be playing. How can it be, they have the right NOT to be happy, but somehow I don't have that right, when I do not wish to waste Veto. > I never took that right away, I would've taken away that right, had I somehow managed to DOS the server and create a ghost game. They keep on playing, in matter of fact, The whole point of giving them that right is to not blow it up in their face. You technically give them the right to play on, true, but this won't hold up anywhere. If you need to go in this much detail and try to find the seams, you should just give up on that argument in my opinion. > Nope, I am not destroying anything. You want to play, then go ahead and play? I decided NOT to play (and so did the majority which you still haven't debunked, unless you You guessed it, veto. > It's rather me making you understand that you as a 'no voter' are selfish. Don't go around telling people they are selfish when you are the most hypocritical person out Gods? No. You giving them that veto right? Yes. > again, do you actually read your crap? Or do you just write? Personal attack. > Show me where I agreed to them having a veto right? Either show it to me or stop using that veto crap. You playing the game, agreeing to Riot's terms. They now have their veto right. > Them having the right to 'think about themselves' not being considered selfish, yet when the majority says 'I do not wish to play any longer' (remember, as a TEAM), they Personal attack. Also, veto. > This is the definition of surrendering: This part I don't understand. I know what that word means. I don't understand why you bring this all up? It once again only shows me the majority wants to 'stop resisting to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority'. Doesn't tell me anything more? Ok, I know endlessly repeating 'personal attack' and 'veto' is childish, but I've actually tried my best for the many posts before. I just want to show you how I'm reading your posts all the time. I spent time writing them all (and you keep talking about 'wasting my time' etc xD) trying to show you my point of view. I'm done with that and give you this as a reply to show you what I just simply want to have answered. Now here come your text after which I'll make that veto statement clear once more, that is what I'd like answered: 1. > Since everyone is equal in this game (unless this somehow isn't the case, if so, then point out how we know who's above who and on what it's based) 2. > A majority, also called a simple majority to distinguish it from similar terms, is the greater part, or more than half, of the total. It is a subset of a set consisting of more than 3. > Reading up on the summoner's code, I read no where that somehow you get a veto vote. So this is something pulled out of your butt. Unless you can provide concrete evidence 4. > Nowhere do I read about your veto vote, which I (going by your words) 'agreed on'. Let's say everyone was indeed equal (1.) and the majority indeed wants to forfeit (2.). The game would 100% be forfeited, why would two people overrule the vote of three others? That would be stupidly unfair. 'Strangely enough' the two people in League ACTUALLY overrule the three others. Somehow these two people seem to have more rights than the other three, they seem to have more power. This exactly contradicts (1.). So I just pointed that out. 'Who's above who?': Clearly the ones that don't want to forfeit are above the ones who do want to forfeit. That's the only way the two can have more influence than the three. I never said (3.), I only showed you the example of veto rights because it is very similar. But I just showed you how the two can always fall back on using their 'extra power' to force a minority vote to be executed. Which is exactly what can happen with veto votes as well. Hence my comparison (which I had already explained). Then about (4.), you don't read about it because I made that example to try to show you my point. But if we say them having the 'extra power' would equal the veto right, you playing the game have to deal with it. Conclusion, if you want to play the game, you have to deal with the veto rights. If you don't want to agree, you don't want to play the game (you really can't have both at the moment). So, (1.) in combination with (2.) shows you that 'veto rights' exist in League. I conclude from (3.) and (4.) that you have to decide to accept it or not, both probably come at a price. (Also, personal attack in (3.)). > Or as people would say in chess: Check mate. That's very bold after me writing 'personal attack' about half a dozen times. Didn't quite make it in one post **Read part 2 below**
Hahrimazd (EUW)
: > You might have heard of a veto? Is it selfish to use that veto right if you have it? I've never actually seriously heard anyone use the 'unfairness' argument in this setting. The entire point of having a veto is so that you can use it whenever you feel like you have to. In League of Legends' case, two players together have some kind of 'veto' vote. Them using something that the game literally hands you is not selfish. The other players (or countries in real life) wanting to completely negate this veto is. The veto IS already there, you (as the three forfeiting players) are in 'violation' when you actually want the game to end right there. You keep on banking on vetos and metos and ghettos, but at the end of the day, it remains: Majority has given up, majority has voted, so out of all the people, MOST OF THEM are not HAVING FUN IN THIS GAME AND WANT TO MOVE ON. Somehow the majority is in violation. Yeah right. You are trying desperately to save face for your horrible argument regarding the minority having the right to deny a surrender vote. > You might have heard of a veto? Is it selfish to use that veto right if you have it? So they aren't selfish, but when the majority agrees to giving up, they are selfish? I seriously just hope you see how deluded this statement is. And if you have that 'veto' right, sure, go ahead, play, but don't cry and blame the MAJORITY when they obviously stated how they feel regarding playing a certain game. You shouldn't be surprised when you get beaten up in someone his home when you are robbing him. Same goes for this game. Don't be surprised when the majority makes a vote, you decide to use some sort of 'godlike' vote, only to be surprised they decide not to play then. That's the whole idea of SURRENDERING. You GIVE UP. > This has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. There is evidence through research that flaming and being toxic (or having teammates in your team that are) makes you MORE likely to LOSE a game (see the in-game tips Riot shares for example). Once you can empirically show me that your argument has any causality, I might follow (but please already follow my advice (and the research) and don't flame etc. - you'll statistically be more likely to lose games this way). You mean rigged evidence? Of course people who are winning are less likely to flame. Of course someone on the losing side is more likely to tilt. They use this flawed statistic to show you that you can 'win 33% more games', when you're being positive. Define positive, define toxic, define winning, define losing, define comebacks. The 'in-game tip' is flawed in every capable way my man. > Like I already mentioned, I don't entirely understand this anymore. How is you flaming not selfish then? Again, a 'veto' vote isn't selfish, me telling them how I feel regarding this crap all of the sudden becomes selfish? Again, very much flawed. **I will come back later to edit, right now have to go.**
I see that you posted this over a day ago, so I guess that editing already happened. For all the points you didn't react to I'll just assume we've agreed. Then typing this thing doesn't have to take that long either :). > You keep on banking on vetos and metos and ghettos THIS is how you react? You just try to make fun of it? I presume you know or have looked up what vetos are. Try to actually react to that please instead of this... thing, you aren't laughing this away this easily. > but at the end of the day, it remains: Majority has given up, majority has voted True. (I don't see however why this is important here? I bring up the whole veto thing for you to finally give up this 'argument', don't just keep repeating it please. Majority has given up, majority has voted, majority has to keep playing because two players use their 'veto', right?) > MOST OF THEM are not HAVING FUN IN THIS GAME AND WANT TO MOVE ON. Yes, yes, I've read this a million times now (not too long ago without the all caps though). This (alone) is just not a strong argument. I've already told you twice why. > Somehow the majority is in violation. Yeah right. Yeah right. You violate the terms by not continuing to play to your best ability. Teammates should (and probably will) report you for trolling/inting/afk'ing as is their right since you are when you don't take the game seriously anymore. You feel like the game should've ended, but it isn't since the rules simply state it isn't (interesting how I feel like I'm repeating myself endlessly as well...). > So they aren't selfish, but when the majority agrees to giving up, they are selfish? I seriously just hope you see how deluded this statement is. You already bypassed the most important point here. Them only thinking about themselves, to talk using your terms, was beforehand given as a fair and valid thought/point to KEEP PLAYING. These two players HAVE the right to 'only think about themselves' since they are given the veto (and you agreed to giving them one by simply playing the game remember). You three (as the majority) DON'T HAVE the right to stop playing. And indeed, no one can dictate what you must do in life, but you giving up is a valid reportable offensive (as I wrote above) which proves you are in the wrong doing so. > And if you have that 'veto' right, sure, go ahead, play, but don't cry and blame the MAJORITY when they obviously stated how they feel regarding playing a certain game. 'Cry and blame' is your assumption of everyone's actions when they don't forfeit? If you mean that they start flaming you; indeed they shouldn't do that, flaming is always bad (and again, repeating myself). Them, let's say, not being happy with you giving up and you losing the game for sure isn't strange though. We've agreed on giving them a right to keep playing, you now (unwillingly) execute that right but just complete destroy it's purpose by losing on purpose. Moreover, this is an absolutely meaningless argument and I don't even know what point it should support. So please try to explain that a bit. > You shouldn't be surprised when you get beaten up in someone his home when you are robbing him Ok? > Don't be surprised when the majority makes a vote, you decide to use some sort of 'godlike' vote, only to be surprised they decide not to play then. That's the whole idea of SURRENDERING. You GIVE UP. Just explained this. When you agree on something and one of both parties clearly sabotages that agreement, which party is in the wrong? And which party should feel betrayed? > You mean rigged evidence? This is actually laughable. > Of course someone on the losing side is more likely to tilt. They use this flawed statistic to show you that you can 'win 33% more games', when you're being positive Do you have an idea how research like this is performed? You can't state the whole paper is wrong when it's been published and such. If you actually have arguments why these findings can't be trusted. I am (and I'm assuming a large scientific community is) happy to listen. > Define positive, define toxic, define winning, define losing, define comebacks Is this how you live your life? I doubt it sincerely. You want to make sure everything is so well defined that you can find out when something isn't exactly as how it was once meant to be or work out? Or is this some weird technique to try and invalidate my point? Defining positive doesn't seem relevant here. Defining toxic is actually done by Riot (and, repeating myself once more, you can find that in their terms). You win when you... win? You lose when you... lose? Defining comebacks also doesn't seem relevant here, but sure you could put some gold deficit here to indicate 'coming back'. > me telling them how I feel regarding this crap all of the sudden becomes selfish You are allowed to tell how you feel. You are not allowed to flame. I don't know your actions in these situations but there is a pretty clear line between these two in my opinion. Of course I still stand by my point that flaming is selfish. Conclusion, I've still not read a new argument as to why a majority vote should be the new forfeit requirement. I still don't know whether 'fairness' is your main argument although I specifically asked twice for you to confirm or deny that. On top of that, you keep coming back with the same thing over and over again. You keep telling me the majority has given up, the majority don't want to continue playing and the majority doesn't enjoy playing anymore. Ok. These are no arguments. These are probably closest to some vivid example I, by now, surely understand. What are your arguments, thoughts, reasons behind this? Why are they somehow more important than leaving the system as it is?
xiVoiix (EUW)
: Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to lie though, this reply is a little too all over the place to answer and argue further about. But I'm just pointing a few things out from the post you made. I'm not avoiding any others or whatever, if you really would like me to expand on anything I don't cover here, please let me know :). > That's just flawed in every capable way. Every reasoning DOES matter. When the majority a.k.a the bigger part of the team has given up, who are those 2 people the minority to decide the game hasn't finished? This, and you mention it later again, is not an argument. You are repeating what you would like to see changed. I already know you feel like three votes should be enough to forfeit. The only reasoning/argument I can extrapolate here is that you feel like the majority should have the decisive vote, and that the current system is blatantly unfair, but you've never actually confirmed that thought of mine. And as I already said, I see where you are coming from, but we are not reigning some kind of nation here. Riot simply decides the rules, Riot made this rule up and you complied to it (or at least you should since you are playing the game). > Now THAT is selfish. Me accepting the fact that a game is over and instead of wasting 50 minutes, I can call it a quit with my team a.k.a the majority of the votes and go on to the next game. You might have heard of a veto? Is it selfish to use that veto right if you have it? I've never actually seriously heard anyone use the 'unfairness' argument in this setting. The entire point of having a veto is so that you can use it whenever you feel like you have to. In League of Legends' case, two players together have some kind of 'veto' vote. Them using something that the game literally hands you is not selfish. The other players (or countries in real life) wanting to completely negate this veto is. The veto IS already there, you (as the three forfeiting players) are in 'violation' when you actually want the game to end right there. > Whenever I flame, I am told this is 'just a game'. If it's "just a game", then let me get out when me and the majority of the team agree to surrender. Besides, aren't people saying "you are a consistent factor, you can carry" etc.? So why not show us how good you are and take your teammates out of the pit they have fell into? So basically when someone gives up, instead of helping him get back on his feet so you can win, you think it's much more justified to report the majority, because the minority hasn't given up? So when people hold me hostage in a game, it's "just a game" and "it's for fun". Can't really follow this entire reasoning. But I quoted the part where you start reasoning and oh my it's a bad part. "Whenever I flame" to start an argument? Just DON'T flame. There is NO justification to your flaming, however bad teammates screw over your game. You report them and hope they don't do it again (or hope they get punished by the system if they do). And I really don't care whether you hear or feel that "it's just a game" or whatever, that isn't very important now. > However when I make clear (and the 2 others aswell) that the game is lost, and they hold me hostage Since you keep mentioning 'hostage' let me put that argument down for good. You keep arguing that being held hostage is bad. I've mentioned before that I feel like the term 'hostage' is too exaggerated for this situation, that's exactly for this reason. Of course it sounds horrible to be held hostage. Problem is though that with your reasoning if ONE player gives up, the game should end. No vote, no nothing, just a plain loss instantly. Why? Since that one player is kept hostage by the other four players (assuming they would vote no), being held hostage is bad, hence we instantly forfeit the game. You see my problem here? The entire argument of 'being held hostage' is strange and inaccurate. And you use it in your reasoning just to further prove your point that you feel like the majority should have the final vote. So choose, either you feel like one player should have the clearance to forfeit the entire game because otherwise he would be kept hostage, or you don't mind players being held hostage at all. To be fair, at the moment you seem to not care about hostages UNTIL the point where there are more 'hostages' than hostage keepers which goes right back into that majority thing (of which I assume your argument is that it is unfair, but you've yet to confirm that). > Very much correct, when 3 majority against 2 minority votes YES it's obvious MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT ENJOYING THE STOMP, so the game should end RIGHT THERE. Again, yes I understand where you are coming from. But this comes down to that veto part again. In this case the three are actually being selfish and not the two, even when it's 3 versus 2. > Me and another person = 2, not 3, again, where did I state 2 people should make up the surrender vote? I have said: when 3 people vote yes, aka majority, the surrender vote should be accepted. Typo, of course I meant three persons all along. > Then why bring up something I never said? Why are you trying to make it seem I said something like that? It literally contributes 0 to this debate. Look at all the things I wrote, I say many things you never said. I never made it look like you said that? I'm literally just saying that you can't forfeit with three votes just to further clarify my point. It indeed doesn't contribute anything extra to the debate, I'm just trying to clarify further that even if you feel like the game should end, the simple fact that it never will (with just three votes) should flip your entire train of thought and you should forget about the game ending entirely and keep playing. > 'probably' isn't going to get us anywhere... and I doubt I agreed with me being held hostage in a game. I doubt they wrote anything regarding "when you are held hostage, you are forced to keep on playing even if you don't enjoy it". I write "probably" because I honestly don't know for sure. I don't memorize their entire terms of service, and with me most (if not all) players. But I'm actually certain about you agreeing to complying to their rules. Also certain about you giving them all the right to just perma ban you if they feel like they have reason to (just as an example to show you how little 'rights' you have as a player). Their rule is simply to forfeit with four votes, so you have to comply to that. But who knows, maybe there is some escape clause here, only that probability is very, very small. > I don't know much about Trump and those weird elections then, but my point stands: When the majority obviously doesn't want something (to be held hostage in the game), then why push it? Firstly, "When the majority obviously doesn't want something" as in, having Trump be president? But he is president at the moment, and the majority didn't want that? What do you mean here? Clearly although the majority didn't want this to happen, it still did, since the rules of the game simply dictate this is the outcome. It doesn't actually matter what the majority thinks in this real life example either? How does this help your reasoning? Then, let me use this to show you how flaming other players is horribly wrong. Imagine you voted for Clinton, you lost the election (with the majority of the votes, remember). Now you are upset and you feel like the system is unfair (and I would agree in this case). Who would you need to blame for Trump winning? All those people that just comply to the system and voted for Trump? Unaware they might win with less votes? Or the government and their systems making this weird system and keeping it active thoughout all these years? Indeed, as a voter you would have to take it up to the government to try and change the system. But please leave individual voters out of this because they 'could've changed the outcome' by voting for Clinton instead. Yes, Clinton would've been president, but the weird and unfair system would still be there wouldn't it? I hope you see what I mean, I hope you see that flaming teammates is such a strange move to make, it's their decision and they are entitled to it. If you feel like the system is wrong, then please take it up to Riot. > So if the majority of the people in your country would be against a mass murder, it should still be pushed through, even though the majority disagrees? Primarily, this example really stretches the usability of examples and is hard to consider as a reliable similarity. But once again, there are countless examples of exactly this happening. Think of many warzones, of WWII etc. You think 50+% of all inhabitants agreed? Fair? NO. Reality? Afraid so... I'm not gonna elaborate on this any further for obvious reasons. Please understand and accept that you are in the wrong here. **Part 2 right beneath:**
> I simply responded to your comment here. You told me throughout your post that I shouldn't be so selfish, yet when it comes to others, I am again the person who's selfish. They feed, troll, int and your response literally is stop being so selfish. Like I already mentioned, I don't entirely understand this anymore. How is you flaming not selfish then? What's the communal gain when you flame? You shouldn't talk about all the others who are horrendous people when you can't explain that part. > I have been nice to people for a very long time in this game (season 3 and 4) and it brought me all the way back to bronze. In season 5 and up I have been toxic and it got me all the way up diamond +. On this account I am very positive and yet again I see the same results: going backwards. This has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. There is evidence through research that flaming and being toxic (or having teammates in your team that are) makes you MORE likely to LOSE a game (see the in-game tips Riot shares for example). Once you can empirically show me that your argument has any causality, I might follow (but please already follow my advice (and the research) and don't flame etc. - you'll statistically be more likely to lose games this way). > No. This was regarding the post I commented on. And this makes me sad :(. What do you think is wrong about my idea of hiding the window then? Would there be another way to improve it in your opinion? > Your post remained crap to me and I disagree with you. You disagree, sure, I would like to know why. But what makes my initial post 'crap'? Did I make a huge mistake or miss something? You disagree AND it's crap, and I really like to know what I can improve in for the future.
Hahrimazd (EUW)
: > Calm, don't feel attacked. You didn't state that. However, I never stated you did? I just told you, you can't forfeit with just two votes. Then why bring up something I never said? Why are you trying to make it seem I said something like that? It literally contributes 0 to this debate. > Surprise, you probably did, agreeing to the terms of service etc.. If it is stated in the rules of the game you need to have four votes to forfeit and you accept that rule, you shouldn't hate on teammates that make use of that exact rule? You might feel this is incredibly unfair, but please take that up to Riot or don't accept the terms (and stop playing the game), but leave teammates that 'are wasting your time' out of this please. 'probably' isn't going to get us anywhere... and I doubt I agreed with me being held hostage in a game. I doubt they wrote anything regarding "when you are held hostage, you are forced to keep on playing even if you don't enjoy it". > Yes that's your point of view, mine is different. Doesn't help in the argumentation why it should or it shouldn't be over when the majority agrees to forfeit. It does. It literally does. The fact that I bring up the _majority_ of votes should equal a surrender vote is an argument. What is your argument against the surrender vote, even though the _majority_ agreed to give up and move on? > Fun fact, Trump won the election with 46.1% of the popular vote versus 48.2% for Clinton. So he DID win with the MINORITY (nearly 3 million less) of the votes ^^. That is of course because they have a strange system with electors and such we don't know here in Europe. Does further prove my point that it doesn't matter whether someone actually has the majority or not, if it's simply not stated in the rules that the majority is the key variable, it doesn't matter whether you have it or not. In the US the electors are the decisive variable, in League of Legends apparently the need to have at least 80% agreement on the forfeit vote (and of course you might oppose to that rule, but it's not 'wrong' to not be able to forfeit with three people, you probably just feel like it's unfair). I don't know much about Trump and those weird elections then, but my point stands: When the majority obviously doesn't want something (to be held hostage in the game), then why push it? So if the majority of the people in your country would be against a mass murder, it should still be pushed through, even though the _majority_ disagrees? > How am I supposed to do that? I try to tell them that in my games. You should try to do that in your games as well? Has very little to do with my point though? We're not talking about the others now. I simply responded to your comment here. You told me throughout your post that I shouldn't be so selfish, yet when it comes to others, I am **again** the person who's selfish. They feed, troll, int and your response literally is **stop being so selfish**. > Afraid I can't answer this one. This is a way of living and has to do with your convictions. I do believe that if I do right, there is a higher chance that others will react positively as well. And I lose hardly anything by being nice to others and not being overly selfish. That's worth it to me. Not being nice doesn't instantly mean that you're being selfish. I have been nice to people for a very long time in this game (season 3 and 4) and it brought me all the way back to bronze. In season 5 and up I have been toxic and it got me all the way up diamond +. On this account I am very positive and yet again I see the same results: going backwards. > Which I assume is "crappy post": The only post I made before yours is the initial one, so that one is crappy? Ok, let's keep that in mind... Indeed should've been 'post' and not 'most'. Correct, talking about the initial one as well (as crap). > Wow great! This makes me happy. Coming from so far apart and still agreeing in the end :). Kind of strange how my initial post is simply "crappy" when you actually agree with it though... No. This was regarding the post I commented on. Your post remained crap to me and I disagree with you. I agree with the person I responded to, but I misunderstood your question regarding me agreeing with a post (I thought it was regarding the person I commented on, which again, I completely agree with him). Therefore also rendering the previous, useless -> > Ok, let's keep that in mind... Rendering this part useless.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to lie though, this reply is a little too all over the place to answer and argue further about. But I'm just pointing a few things out from the post you made. I'm not avoiding any others or whatever, if you really would like me to expand on anything I don't cover here, please let me know :). > That's just flawed in every capable way. Every reasoning DOES matter. When the majority a.k.a the bigger part of the team has given up, who are those 2 people the minority to decide the game hasn't finished? This, and you mention it later again, is not an argument. You are repeating what you would like to see changed. I already know you feel like three votes should be enough to forfeit. The only reasoning/argument I can extrapolate here is that you feel like the majority should have the decisive vote, and that the current system is blatantly unfair, but you've never actually confirmed that thought of mine. And as I already said, I see where you are coming from, but we are not reigning some kind of nation here. Riot simply decides the rules, Riot made this rule up and you complied to it (or at least you should since you are playing the game). > Now THAT is selfish. Me accepting the fact that a game is over and instead of wasting 50 minutes, I can call it a quit with my team a.k.a the majority of the votes and go on to the next game. You might have heard of a veto? Is it selfish to use that veto right if you have it? I've never actually seriously heard anyone use the 'unfairness' argument in this setting. The entire point of having a veto is so that you can use it whenever you feel like you have to. In League of Legends' case, two players together have some kind of 'veto' vote. Them using something that the game literally hands you is not selfish. The other players (or countries in real life) wanting to completely negate this veto is. The veto IS already there, you (as the three forfeiting players) are in 'violation' when you actually want the game to end right there. > Whenever I flame, I am told this is 'just a game'. If it's "just a game", then let me get out when me and the majority of the team agree to surrender. Besides, aren't people saying "you are a consistent factor, you can carry" etc.? So why not show us how good you are and take your teammates out of the pit they have fell into? So basically when someone gives up, instead of helping him get back on his feet so you can win, you think it's much more justified to report the majority, because the minority hasn't given up? So when people hold me hostage in a game, it's "just a game" and "it's for fun". Can't really follow this entire reasoning. But I quoted the part where you start reasoning and oh my it's a bad part. "Whenever I flame" to start an argument? Just DON'T flame. There is NO justification to your flaming, however bad teammates screw over your game. You report them and hope they don't do it again (or hope they get punished by the system if they do). And I really don't care whether you hear or feel that "it's just a game" or whatever, that isn't very important now. > However when I make clear (and the 2 others aswell) that the game is lost, and they hold me hostage Since you keep mentioning 'hostage' let me put that argument down for good. You keep arguing that being held hostage is bad. I've mentioned before that I feel like the term 'hostage' is too exaggerated for this situation, that's exactly for this reason. Of course it sounds horrible to be held hostage. Problem is though that with your reasoning if ONE player gives up, the game should end. No vote, no nothing, just a plain loss instantly. Why? Since that one player is kept hostage by the other four players (assuming they would vote no), being held hostage is bad, hence we instantly forfeit the game. You see my problem here? The entire argument of 'being held hostage' is strange and inaccurate. And you use it in your reasoning just to further prove your point that you feel like the majority should have the final vote. So choose, either you feel like one player should have the clearance to forfeit the entire game because otherwise he would be kept hostage, or you don't mind players being held hostage at all. To be fair, at the moment you seem to not care about hostages UNTIL the point where there are more 'hostages' than hostage keepers which goes right back into that majority thing (of which I assume your argument is that it is unfair, but you've yet to confirm that). > Very much correct, when 3 majority against 2 minority votes YES it's obvious MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT ENJOYING THE STOMP, so the game should end RIGHT THERE. Again, yes I understand where you are coming from. But this comes down to that veto part again. In this case the three are actually being selfish and not the two, even when it's 3 versus 2. > Me and another person = 2, not 3, again, where did I state 2 people should make up the surrender vote? I have said: when 3 people vote yes, aka majority, the surrender vote should be accepted. Typo, of course I meant three persons all along. > Then why bring up something I never said? Why are you trying to make it seem I said something like that? It literally contributes 0 to this debate. Look at all the things I wrote, I say many things you never said. I never made it look like you said that? I'm literally just saying that you can't forfeit with three votes just to further clarify my point. It indeed doesn't contribute anything extra to the debate, I'm just trying to clarify further that even if you feel like the game should end, the simple fact that it never will (with just three votes) should flip your entire train of thought and you should forget about the game ending entirely and keep playing. > 'probably' isn't going to get us anywhere... and I doubt I agreed with me being held hostage in a game. I doubt they wrote anything regarding "when you are held hostage, you are forced to keep on playing even if you don't enjoy it". I write "probably" because I honestly don't know for sure. I don't memorize their entire terms of service, and with me most (if not all) players. But I'm actually certain about you agreeing to complying to their rules. Also certain about you giving them all the right to just perma ban you if they feel like they have reason to (just as an example to show you how little 'rights' you have as a player). Their rule is simply to forfeit with four votes, so you have to comply to that. But who knows, maybe there is some escape clause here, only that probability is very, very small. > I don't know much about Trump and those weird elections then, but my point stands: When the majority obviously doesn't want something (to be held hostage in the game), then why push it? Firstly, "When the majority obviously doesn't want something" as in, having Trump be president? But he is president at the moment, and the majority didn't want that? What do you mean here? Clearly although the majority didn't want this to happen, it still did, since the rules of the game simply dictate this is the outcome. It doesn't actually matter what the majority thinks in this real life example either? How does this help your reasoning? Then, let me use this to show you how flaming other players is horribly wrong. Imagine you voted for Clinton, you lost the election (with the majority of the votes, remember). Now you are upset and you feel like the system is unfair (and I would agree in this case). Who would you need to blame for Trump winning? All those people that just comply to the system and voted for Trump? Unaware they might win with less votes? Or the government and their systems making this weird system and keeping it active thoughout all these years? Indeed, as a voter you would have to take it up to the government to try and change the system. But please leave individual voters out of this because they 'could've changed the outcome' by voting for Clinton instead. Yes, Clinton would've been president, but the weird and unfair system would still be there wouldn't it? I hope you see what I mean, I hope you see that flaming teammates is such a strange move to make, it's their decision and they are entitled to it. If you feel like the system is wrong, then please take it up to Riot. > So if the majority of the people in your country would be against a mass murder, it should still be pushed through, even though the majority disagrees? Primarily, this example really stretches the usability of examples and is hard to consider as a reliable similarity. But once again, there are countless examples of exactly this happening. Think of many warzones, of WWII etc. You think 50+% of all inhabitants agreed? Fair? NO. Reality? Afraid so... I'm not gonna elaborate on this any further for obvious reasons. Please understand and accept that you are in the wrong here. **Part 2 right beneath:**
Hahrimazd (EUW)
: Let me break your comment down, to show you how much crap you're talking. > There is probably a good reason why there is a need for 4 votes currently. Whatever that reason is, doesn't matter for your reasoning. Yeah, there is also a good reasoning why the earth should be flat, and why we shouldn't believe anyone else with common sense or anything for that matter, right? > Firstly, you feel like you are 'allowed' to give up whenever you think you can't win any longer I indeed am allowed to give up whenever I THINK I CANNOT WIN ANY LONGER. Who are you to decide FOR ME how to feel or how to be? > this attitude is just simply wrong. Debatable, because enough high-tier players do it, enough PROs do it. I bet you also think Mike Tyson was 'simply wrong', even though he went on to become to worlds youngest heavyweight champion. > You CAN'T forfeit with just two votes Where did I EVER state this? > the game tells you you have to play on. You aren't held hostage if you complied to these rules in the first place Define 'taken hostage' then? Because if this is the game, then TFBlade wasn't held hostage either. You go ahead and tell all his fans he wasn't, yeah? I never complied to any rules stating you are allowed to waste my time either. So no idea where you got that from either. > and "when the 3 in a team DECIDE IT'S OVER" is just not possible Actually, it should, that's what this WHOLE POST is about. That when the MAJORITY says "It's over", you surrender. Or would you also like to tell Trump he didn't won, even though the MAJORITY voted for him? > Secondly, you shouldn't just care about your own fun when you have four other teammates, that's incredibly selfish. Don't tell me, how about you tell this to the trollers, feeders etc. in my team? People who play bravery heart? And go ahead and say: This game is 'just for fun'. And then when they're done trolling and I 'flame' them, I get banned and they get to keep on playing. How about this 'selfish' crap of yours, goes both ways instead of one? > Sadly, this all has nothing to do with my initial post. You clearly feel different about the entire surrender system than I do Again, where did I EVER state my comment was regarding YOUR post? I was merely agreeing with the person who gave a MUCH better option and solution to your crappy most. > but do you also feel like this implementation would improve the game experience? Yes it would.
Somewhat of a personal attack to prove your point? That's generally only making your point less convincing. But I appreciate you taking the time to write your thoughts, so strap in; here I go: >Yeah, there is also a good reasoning why the earth should be flat, and why we shouldn't believe anyone else with common sense or anything for that matter, right? Doesn't this exactly prove the point of "Whatever that reason is, doesn't matter for your reasoning". It really doesn't matter whether the earth is flat or not or whether there is any good reasoning for any of that. That's exactly my point here, it doesn't matter what made Riot decide the four votes are needed. > I indeed am allowed to give up whenever I THINK I CANNOT WIN ANY LONGER. Who are you to decide FOR ME how to feel or how to be? Ties in with the selfish/egoistic point I made later. Yes of course you are allowed (hence my 'allowed'...) to think whatever you want. No one can force you to think differently in a free country. Problem here is that you shouldn't 'feel' allowed to, since you also have four other teammates that don't get to make this decision themself since you just made that decision for them. You giving up, means they lose the game, them deciding to NOT give up doesn't change a thing here. You effectively take away there choice. > because enough high-tier players do it, enough PROs do it. I bet you also think Mike Tyson was 'simply wrong', even though he went on to become to worlds youngest heavyweight champion. Do what though? Give up? Yes, of course, I never said anything about that. The clue is in the one thing you didn't quote: "(and you actually think the game should end right there whenever one other teammate agrees)". I assume (and you just reading over this proves it even further) that you think the game should end right there whenever one other teammate agrees. That attitude is simply wrong. Since it is impossible to forfeit with just two votes. You shouldn't still think the game should've already been over thanks to the forfeit vote. It's not possible, so don't think like that. > Where did I EVER state this? Calm, don't feel attacked. You didn't state that. However, I never stated you did? I just told you, you can't forfeit with just two votes. > Define 'taken hostage' then Sure, looked up the definition and you might call it a hostage. You're right here. However, I still feel the term is a little exaggerated to use in this context. And I honestly don't know TFBlade, so no clue there. > I never complied to any rules stating you are allowed to waste my time either. So no idea where you got that from either. Surprise, you probably did, agreeing to the terms of service etc.. If it is stated in the rules of the game you need to have four votes to forfeit and you accept that rule, you shouldn't hate on teammates that make use of that exact rule? You might feel this is incredibly unfair, but please take that up to Riot or don't accept the terms (and stop playing the game), but leave teammates that 'are wasting your time' out of this please. > Actually, it should, that's what this WHOLE POST is about. That when the MAJORITY says "It's over", you surrender. Yes that's your point of view, mine is different. Doesn't help in the argumentation why it should or it shouldn't be over when the majority agrees to forfeit. > Or would you also like to tell Trump he didn't won, even though the MAJORITY voted for him? Fun fact, Trump won the election with 46.1% of the popular vote versus 48.2% for Clinton. So he DID win with the MINORITY (nearly 3 million less) of the votes ^^. That is of course because they have a strange system with electors and such we don't know here in Europe. Does further prove my point that it doesn't matter whether someone actually has the majority or not, if it's simply not stated in the rules that the majority is the key variable, it doesn't matter whether you have it or not. In the US the electors are the decisive variable, in League of Legends apparently the need to have at least 80% agreement on the forfeit vote (and of course you might oppose to that rule, but it's not 'wrong' to not be able to forfeit with three people, you probably just feel like it's unfair). > how about you tell this to the trollers, feeders etc. in my team? How am I supposed to do that? I try to tell them that in my games. You should try to do that in your games as well? Has very little to do with my point though? We're not talking about the others now. > And then when they're done trolling and I 'flame' them, I get banned and they get to keep on playing. Assuming you flame them when they are trolling, and not when they are finished. But you should still never resort to flaming. Yes, they should get banned for their actions (and I feel like the system is indeed WAY to forgiving). This doesn't change the fact that you also violate the terms and you should also get banned. It's like you get robbed of all your money on the street and you resort to burgling someone's house because you feel like it's unfair you got robbed in the first place. Yes, they shouldn't have robbed you, but you seriously shouldn't have burgled someone in response, right? There are other ways to try and solve your problem like filing a report with the police (or, to end the example, reporting the player in League of Legends). > How about this 'selfish' crap of yours, goes both ways instead of one? Afraid I can't answer this one. This is a way of living and has to do with your convictions. I do believe that if I do right, there is a higher chance that others will react positively as well. And I lose hardly anything by being nice to others and not being overly selfish. That's worth it to me. > Again, where did I EVER state my comment was regarding YOUR post? Calm (again), usually an argumentative 'attack' doesn't start with the word "Sadly". I'm just concluding that we have drifted away from my initial question and wanted to redirect attention back to it. You read (and quoted) the sentence differently than I intented. There is a period after the first sentence, it was just a segway to me re-asking the question. And you feeling entirely different about the current surrender system made me even more interested in whether you, in the end, agree with the point I made in the initial post. > to your crappy most Which I assume is "crappy post": The only post I made before yours is the initial one, so that one is crappy? Ok, let's keep that in mind... > Yes it would. Wow great! This makes me happy. Coming from so far apart and still agreeing in the end :). Kind of strange how my initial post is simply "crappy" when you actually agree with it though... In the end, with an even bigger following, I am still wondering what would be the best way to pitch this idea to Riot... (Bottom line, I'm not convinced I'm talking crap :D)
itaiIKi (EUNE)
: Even better in my opinion is that each player will vote yes or no and they can't see what the others vote and then it tells if the surrender vote passed or failled(It wont tell 3 to 2 or 4 to 1 etc).
Yep, seems like a good plan to me too. Where do we pitch this to Riot? :P
: Votes casted by each player independently. No warnings, no signs, no windows. Only surrender when all 5 players agree.
Hiding the forfeit votes seems like a good plan. Not actively being reminded to vote will probably reduce the amount of games ending in a forfeit (which is a good thing imo). Problem is though that people will endlessly ask others to forfeit as well since they don't know who did and who didn't (it's less 'decisive' than a simple 'no' to forfeiting through the voting window). Problem with the surrendering with only 5 players agreeing is that actively keeping people in a game that is over becomes to easy, and although I actually never surrender myself, I still don't feel like this would be a desirable change.
Rolebo (EUW)
: But for the person declining it is bullshit to sit through the whole time if i declined the moment it pops up. I am still editing my runes or whatever i was doing, now i have to wait that entire timeout.
Are we talking about the same pop-up? That takes a total of 5 seconds? Just accept that time loss. And on the other hand, you decided to queue, so just be ready when you queue instead?
Hahrimazd (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=ImSweeney,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=JzzdncWk,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-10-12T14:08:35.187+0000) > > I'll do you one better. The surrender vote should go through when the majority votes yes at any point in the game. The vote should not have to be unanimous pre 20. 3 to 2 at any point starting from 15. I should not have to be held hostage in a doomed game by a 0/7 troll toplaner just so he can have fun ruining my game and wasting my time. if the majority decides the game is over, we should be allowed to ff. It makes no sense. why do we need 4 votes to surrender, but only 2 to keep playing??? You are completely correct. 3 to 2 = DEMOCRACTLY CHOSEN MAJORITY = SURRENDER VOTE. I mean, right now a premade can EASILY keep you hostage in a game, because you need 2 votes to reject the surrender vote. Why do people also complain when the 3 in a team DECIDE IT'S OVER? Why would the 2 who voted no start crying to 'report' someone when he has obviously given up. Given up is part of everything, if you really cared and played as a team, you would know how to get someone out of the pit, instead of confirming his downfall by 'reporting' him and crying he's toxic. This game is for fun afterall, right? and I certainly DON'T have ANY fun when i'm held hostage in a game.
There is probably a good reason why there is a need for 4 votes currently. Whatever that reason is, doesn't matter for your reasoning. Firstly, you feel like you are 'allowed' to give up whenever you think you can't win any longer (and you actually think the game should end right there whenever one other teammate agrees), this attitude is just simply wrong. You CAN'T forfeit with just two votes, the game tells you you have to play on. You aren't held hostage if you complied to these rules in the first place, and "when the 3 in a team DECIDE IT'S OVER" is just not possible (and yes, of course this is different when the two trolling teammates are the ones who are not forfeiting, but there is little I can think of to solve that problem). Secondly, you shouldn't just care about your own fun when you have four other teammates, that's incredibly selfish. Sadly, this all has nothing to do with my initial post. You clearly feel different about the entire surrender system than I do, but do you also feel like this implementation would improve the game experience?
: Fine. Just remove the vote overall. Uneeded feature
Removing seems a little exaggerated (although I dislike forfeiting myself as well). I do feel like some restrictions to forfeiting can really help out. At the moment there is no downside for a negative player to just call a vote and see how it ends.
Ehhhh (EUW)
: Yes, and if you're gonna do that, may as well re-queue immediately if someone denies the match popup. There's no reason it should still go on that long if someone denies playing since its gonna cancel it anyway and try to find another game. Gets really annoying having to hear the popup, press accept and wait for it to be canceled, to do it again and again.
That is like a 3 second time save, seems like a lot of effort for such a small payoff
Jesi Oni (EUNE)
: Everyone should have one 'surrender' option to use. 5 overall in team should be enough for a game that lasts max one hour.
How would this work exactly? That you can only call to open a forfeit vote once per player?
Rioter Comments
Hansiman (EUW)
: > Can this actually be used to warrant a ban or another penalty against someone innocent? No. It doesn't matter how many reports you get if you're not breaking the rules. Reports do not lead to a penalty, ever. All they lead to is an investigation, and it's your behavior that ultimately gets you punished. It's more likely people will end up reporting that person that's trying to frame another person on their team. People aren't stupid.
Sure this makes a lot of sense. Only someone who might've flamed once or twice in another game could still get penalized this way right? The investigation that's set up for no good reason, might then actually still find something that's worth penalizing someone. Although he shouldn't have flamed in the first place, it doesn't feel quite fair. What are your thoughts on that?
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Cryptidian (EUNE)
: The thing is that losing definitely sucks, but if the team tries their best at least, I'm fine with it. But when people deliberately ruin your game by either leaving or intentionally feeding, it really leaves a bad taste and it feels like you threw all that time down the crapper.
Twice the time actually since you also need to play another game to get back to the same point as where you were (assuming you manage to win the second game)... The overall community is to be ashamed of. At least 50% of the games is won/lost before minute 10 since someone already gave up or is tilting too badly..
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: Looks like you are also burning from red buff, can see the flames coming off you, the gif quality is low, does he have red buff? (can't see it clearly) You don't instantly flash, as he does hit you when he flashes with his aoe skill, that along with the red buff burn would probably be enough to kill you over time, before you hit the flash. Overall you had very low health anyway, just unlucky boss.
Skarner does have redbuff too. It doesn't really make any difference though. Still I should either have died before i flashed into my ult or my flash shouldn't have activated because I had already died...
: This following explanation is just a theroy, and I realy dont know if its realy the case, but it might explain bugs like this: League does not realy calculate everyting "in real time", it sort of stacks up every action that takes place in a short period of time and evaluates the results of those actions all at once. I think I once read something about the game having 30 "ticks" per second, so this would divide the game into 30 short periods of 0.03333... seconds each in one single second. Now it could happen that the damage that Skarner did to you was applied within the same period that your flash command was received by the server. So the server had the information that Skarner damaged you and that you would flash away. He then tested if you were alive and could flash away, which was positive and he flagged this command as "doable", he then tested if you were damageable by Skarner, which was also the case in this same period because the flashing action didnt take place yet (or at least the result wasnt there yet), so he also flagged this as true. He then executed all of the actions that were flagged as true at the end of that calculation. Since the damage AND your flash were flagged as true/"doable", both executed and you flashed, but also died. You can ecnounter this kind of bug in league of legends with other combinations of actions too, it happens pretty rarely though since this period is "only" 0.0333....s long. Again I would like to point out that this is only a theory and could be completely wrong. I studied computer science at a university in germany, and as far as I know this could easily be the case, but the game could also be coded completely different, since I dont have insight in the sourcecode of Leauge I can only theorize about how exactly those bugs happen. Also Im not even sure about those 30 ticks each second, I just read it once somewhere on the internet, it might be coded completely differently. greetings Nicole :)
This could definetely be the case since your explanation seems very valid. Still this doesn't explain why they call flash instant. And since I feel like it happened to me a few times before and some people here react they experience the same thing, it doesn't really seem like a small problem they can just ignore either actually..
314exeexe (EUNE)
: Maybe the last part of the ult doesnt give you invulnerability but is just there for animation?
I've been playing Kindred for a long time and you are invulnerable until the moment you get healed (which didn't happen yet).
DaveOneGo (EUNE)
: Hey Voii! I agree with you, flash is sometimes ****NOT**** instant and it's very annoying. I suggest you do it a lil' quicker.
great suggestion :P
Rioter Comments
: Your proposed system would basically give the player a bit more power in deciding the punishments, I'm not sure how abusable this would be though. The way you describe it, the "powerful" reports must have some direct impact on a player's punishment. Like X amount of "powerful" reports = ban. Because the normal investigation after reports can't always identify intentional feeders. --- The problem with this is that you give a lot of power into the hands of players. Even if it needs multiple players to ban someone, they could still be mistaken. I've been accused of- and reported for trolling or intentional feeding multiple times, because some players actually have a wrong idea of what trolling is. --- If many of those players happen to use their "powerful" report on you for playing {{champion:17}} Support, you might get banned.
The ideal situation would be one where player reported by those powerful reports would be reviewed by an actual human being. I still get though that that might not be within Riot's possibilities. But at the same time they should feel responsible for their game, trying to get rid of as many trollers as possible. My idea isn't completely thought through though, some changes and improvements are undenyable. But with this system I just sincerely hope that the report players put out actually has some meaning. If someone is reported by one of those powerful reports he probably really did troll (meaning that if one of those reports is used for an off-meta pick like Teemo supp, the player will lose it's powerful vote and the Teemo supp can just continue playing). Like I already said, only if you report players who actually violated the terms you can continue reporting players, meaning that the incredible stack of reports will only get smaller. The ones that remain might really deserve their punishment.
: Greetings. I have a feeling you came up with this idea despite not really knowing how the current report system works ^^ Currently, a single report by a player is usually enough to punish a troll or intentional feeder if they get detected as such by the Feederbuster. Just one game of trolling or intentional feeding will grant them a 14-day ban! --- So the problem isn't that the system doesn't recognize players reporting them, it's that you often cannot differentiate between intentional feeding/trolling and simply having a bad game. The reason some people seem to get away with feeding is that Riot has to be very careful about not punishing players who didn't actually break the rules, but simply had a bad game.
Thanks for the reply, but I think you don't understand my point entirely. Firstly I completely get that Riot can't just go and ban everyone who is getting reported without solid evidence of them trolilng instead of having a bad game. And the problem with the report system might be in the fact that everyone can just report anyone however many times they like. This can make certain important reports end up in the big pile of reports, without someone looking at the case. The system I proposed would try to tackle this problem. By giving summoners just 2 (very important) reports, they will definetely have to 'choose' whether the player they are reporting was actually trolling, or just having a bad game. This system would very quickly get rid of the players who just randomly ban players for their bad games since those players would run out of reportvotes. The summoners who report players, who then by the system actually get tracked as trollers, will just be able to report more players in the future since they will always have those reportvotes available. And I don't really feel like one report is enough to get someone banned... If players actually tell their teammates they are trolling and feeding intentionally, and then die numerous times. The system still doesn't manage to pick them up as trollers? To me, after all these years, the whole system just seems to randomly pick the very very worst of all reported players, and bans those...
Rioter Comments

xiVoiix

Level 300 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion