Adama (EUW)
: Why does this happen 5 times in a row?
My friend had this happen to him once. first 3 placements : 3 wins, great! next 7 placements : still 3 wins, uh... On a serious note, Riot really does need to fix their matchmaking, because there's so many people that have undeserved ranks it's unbelievable.
ILouvar (EUW)
: if that is the case, ive only dc'd on that one game, why should I get a 20minute que time for this instance, im sure the team could of surrendered the game early.
Next time disconnect when you're absolutely sure they will end, like when the camera is already flying towards the destroyed nexus.
PH45 (EUNE)
: > U can see it in my chat log. In the middle of game my jungle Elise and Malzahar started flaming my family Should've muted them. > When i reported both of them i got chat ban and they didn't, they added me and kept swearing... How do you know they didn't get a chat ban? The IFS notification is highly unreliable, unless they told you they didn't get one, they might've been issued one without you knowing. MusiPusi: ff 15 MusiPusi: open bot MusiPusi: u run like dog MusiPusi: report elise toxic flaming MusiPusi: report malzahar plz he keeps flaming my mother Don't do report calling, it is considered negative act, and besides doing it is pointless. Doesn't matter if a person is reported 9 times or just once, 1 report does the job, stacking reports don't do anything.
I am not trying to defend the person here, but one report doesn't do anything. Most of the time the player who deserved it ends up without a punishment. A few more, however, can do something and will actually punish.
Hansiman (EUW)
: > however it's too obvious the other person has never gotten any punishment if you did not get an instant feedback report popup. That's intentionally set to rarely pop up, under certain conditions. So no, that's not evidence of them not being punished.
Oh really? There are so many cases where that hasn't popped up and the bad player was still playing afterwards. If it was a chat restriction, fine. But most toxic players already had gone through that so it was time for their 14-day or a permanent.
Hansiman (EUW)
: > And we can discuss that in voice chat If you're unable to provide me with evidence here, because you "can't be bothered", I don't assume you would be more inclined to do so on voice chat. --- > Why not ? We will discuss these stuff better and faster. Instead of having multiple time wasting quotes which lead to NOWHERE because on the next day you will say the same stuff to another guy while having the same discussion And how would voice chat change that? The next person won't know what we spoke of in voice chat, but it's more likely they can see our conversation here, that took place in text.
Stop asking for evidence. As he said above, even posting it won't do anything as you'll continue bullshitting the same thing. Just quit it and admit your system is not good enough.
Hansiman (EUW)
: I keep asking for evidence because people are making a claims, presenting them as facts, but refuse to show anything to even remotely suggest that they're speaking the truth. --- > This has happened alot of times, where both sides said that they would report eachother and only one does get a punishment. And you have access to the penalties taken on other accounts, how?
> And you have access to the penalties taken on other accounts, how? I do not, however it's too obvious the other person has never gotten any punishment if you did not get an instant feedback report popup. That is why the system should get changed, the bot should punish if it is a 100% sure it is punishment-worthy, and if not then to put it in a moderator's hands.
Hansiman (EUW)
: All I have seen you is make a claim, without wanting to provide evidence to suggest you are speaking the truth. Provide me with the evidence, and I'll believe you.
You keep asking for evidence because that's all you can do. You know we are telling the truth and trying to hide it will not work. Alot of times the person who has started the toxic chain ends up innocent and the one who defended himself (sure with toxicity aswell) is the only one ending up banned. This has happened alot of times, where both sides said that they would report eachother and only one does get a punishment.
Hansiman (EUW)
: > Have I ever said that verbal abuse is ok in the game world? Not directly, no, but you do imply it when you say you can't compare social interaction in the real world to an online one. I say that in both settings you are interacting with real people, so social norms apply. By countering this logic, it does sound to me that you're advocating toxicity as valid in the online sphere. --- > Do you think that doesn't happen with the 14 day bans either? Some (the sensitive ones) may wait them out, while 99% of other suspended players will just get on a smurf. Where does the 99% come from? Is that an actual figure, or just something you made up? Having "one friend" that does something doesn't mean it represents what most people do. That's not a sample size. --- > As stated earlier, it doesn't work almost all the time. Based on what evidence? Since I'm interested in the subject, I'd love to see the research that claims that reform systems don't reform people. You can compare that to real world justice systems. Countries that base their punishment systems on reforming prisoners have a higher reform rate than countries that focuses purely on the severity of punishment.
I have already ended this as this is getting boring, considering the passive aggressive behaviour.
Hansiman (EUW)
: > Have I ever said that verbal abuse is ok in the game world? Not directly, no, but you do imply it when you say you can't compare social interaction in the real world to an online one. I say that in both settings you are interacting with real people, so social norms apply. By countering this logic, it does sound to me that you're advocating toxicity as valid in the online sphere. --- > Do you think that doesn't happen with the 14 day bans either? Some (the sensitive ones) may wait them out, while 99% of other suspended players will just get on a smurf. Where does the 99% come from? Is that an actual figure, or just something you made up? Having "one friend" that does something doesn't mean it represents what most people do. That's not a sample size. --- > As stated earlier, it doesn't work almost all the time. Based on what evidence? Since I'm interested in the subject, I'd love to see the research that claims that reform systems don't reform people. You can compare that to real world justice systems. Countries that base their punishment systems on reforming prisoners have a higher reform rate than countries that focuses purely on the severity of punishment.
This is getting boring. You keep turning the pages over, bashing me with the same stuff over and over and you keep thinking that you're smart. The passive aggressive behaviour is making me lose more and more hope over these forums. You also keep thinking that the real world and the game world is the same. It is not in any possible way. Yes, you do have social interaction on both, but you do not realise people feel safer on the internet rather than the real world. As I said a second ago, this post chain is getting boring, you keep going back to the same stupid points. This is worthless.
Mada (EUW)
: I honestly agree chat should be removed. Not so much so people don't get banned but to stop them using the game like a chat room ^^
At it's best and I think the perfect match for both sides would be to make a chat which allows you to chat normally, but too many messages in a specific amount of time would make you unable to chat for a few minutes, something along the lines of a slowmode. If the chat would to be removed completely, we would need a few more pings.
Hansiman (EUW)
: > but you have never heard that people can be completely different if it's in the real world or the game world. Social rules still exist in the same manner when you interact online with people. Just because there's a barrier separating the two of you from physically interacting, that doesn't mean that suddenly verbal abuse is ok. --- > Then make people unable to play (But not ban them ;-;) for a few days. Before chat restrictions were a thing, short time bans were used. They were replaced by chat restrictions since this type of penalty held a higher reform rate. (For a while, they co-existed meaning a player would first be banned for a few days, and the chat restricted upon returning). Only the 14 day ban was kept, since that's the ban timer that actually showed proper reform rates. For the shorter bans, people just hopped onto smurfs to play without caring to reform. --- > but it would make more sense in the Prisoner's Island world. A Prisoner's Island system won't make sense since it shows the exact opposite of what Riot wants. Riot focuses on systems that reform players, and Prisoner's Island does not do this.
> Social rules still exist in the same manner when you interact online with people. Just because there's a barrier separating the two of you from physically interacting, that doesn't mean that suddenly verbal abuse is ok. Have I ever said that verbal abuse is ok in the game world? So for you, literally saying that people are different depending on the world instantly means that I think verbal abuse is ok. Yeah, alright. > They were replaced by chat restrictions since this type of penalty held a higher reform rate. > For the shorter bans, people just hopped onto smurfs to play without caring to reform. Do you think that doesn't happen with the 14 day bans either? Some (the sensitive ones) may wait them out, while 99% of other suspended players will just get on a smurf. I even had a friend who got a 14 day and instantly made a new account instead of waiting it out. > Riot focuses on systems that reform players. As stated earlier, it doesn't work almost all the time. People hop on another account, flame, get banned, hop on another account, and so on. It's a never ending loop that quite often doesn't work and permabanning for just improper chatting is dumb.
Hansiman (EUW)
: > The passive-aggressiveness is spitting in my face. This is a terrible behaviour for a moderator to answer so blatantly. But what answer do you seek? I informed you of the answer as the system was tested out, and you simply state "in what world". What other world is there? --- > People never reform. So people are unable to change? --- > A comparison of a video game situation to the real world. In both settings you're interacting with real people. --- > Getting people to sit in there for long enough is the only way to reform them to actually calm down. Having to deal with constant toxicity would make it boring for them over time, possibly making them stop and not play the game all that seriously. Still, your assumption is not what such systems show. They show the exact opposite.
> In both settings you're interacting with real people. That is completely true, but you have never heard that people can be completely different if it's in the real world or the game world. > Still, your assumption is not what such systems show. They show the exact opposite. Then make people unable to play (**But not ban them ;-;**) for a few days. Yes, that's exactly how the 14-day suspension works, but it would make more sense in the Prisoner's Island world.
Hansiman (EUW)
: > In what world did this not work? Our world. --- > A detected-players queue would make the normal queues alot more cleaner, less hostile. If you're thinking of a separate queue for punished players, then the system is known as "Prisoner's Island". The major issue with such a system is that it creates toxicity, rather than solves it. --- > Test it on the real servers. It was. It was a live on NA and EU in 2014. --- > I wonder how does it feel for a player (even if they haven't spent any money) that played for a long time get a permaban on his account. Permabans don't come out of the blue though. They're a last resort after exhausting all other means of penalty that could lead to reform. --- > Just the overall fact that for saying a number of words that the system detects as punishment-worthy you can get a permaban isn't right in a logical sense, right? Go to any social gathering in the real world, and start spewing out hatred and vile comments towards the other people there. Would you be shocked if you were kicked out of the gathering? --- > Again, in what world does it not work out? Again, our world. It was tested on live servers. --- > Just put a perma chat restriction, and it'll do the job. Repeating your claim won't make it more valid. What you are suggesting as the solution was already tested, and found to not solve anything. So why would it be the solution now?
> Our world. The passive-aggressiveness is spitting in my face. This is a terrible behaviour for a moderator to answer so blatantly. > Permabans don't come out of the blue though. They're a last resort after exhausting all other means of penalty that could lead to reform. People never reform. Why bother permabanning a toxic player if they're simply going to come back and do it again? Just keep their accounts and let them take a punishment after punishment that won't move them anyways. Reform never works in these situations. > Go to any social gathering in the real world, and start spewing out hatred and vile comments towards the other people there. Would you be shocked if you were kicked out of the gathering? This is next level. A comparison of a video game situation to the real world. If you really think that the real world is the exact same as the Internet one, you're completely wrong and your blatant answers don't show much proof of you being Senior Emissary worthy. Yes, you can get kicked out of a gathering, even on the Internet. But you cannot just go back in it in a different costume in the real world. Most of the time that's impossible and they'll already remember you. The Internet however? You can just make another account and you're back in it, without anyone knowing it's you. > If you're thinking of a separate queue for punished players, then the system is known as "Prisoner's Island". The major issue with such a system is that it creates toxicity, rather than solves it. Getting people to sit in there for long enough is the only way to reform them to actually calm down. Having to deal with constant toxicity would make it boring for them over time, possibly making them stop and not play the game all that seriously.
Hansiman (EUW)
: Ranked restrictions were tried out for a while, but they didn't really show good reform rates. The main thing that happened was that you shifted bad behavior from one queue to another. All of Riot's behavior penalties are designed with player reform in mind. That is, all but one. Permabans are only issued once all other forms of penalties have been exhausted without the player showing signs of wanting to play by the rules. The penalties are designed to reform players, but to simply remove them. If the person wants to create a new account, there's no stopping them, but if they want to keep up with their behavior, Riot would rather they found something else to play. The amount of money a person spends does not matter, since Riot treats everyone equally. Having spent money isn't an excuse to be forgiven more than those that don't spend money. The rules apply to everyone, and being rich doesn't give you special rights in this game. --- > if u take account away from someone who's toxic, he's either gonna leave the game, which is a lose of loyal customer for you (in terms of profit ofc) Toxic players are one of the main reasons non-toxic players quit the game. Those non-toxic people have the potential to spend far more money in total than the permabanned toxic group of players that leave the game for good. Not banning toxic players in case they might spend money is simply bad for business.
The already classic response to ideas. > Ranked restrictions were tried out for a while, but they didn't really show good reform rates. In what world did this not work? A detected-players queue would make the normal queues alot more cleaner, less hostile. But testing it on your own chosen people isn't a good idea. Test it on the real servers. > The penalties are designed to reform players... I wonder how does it feel for a player (even if they haven't spent any money) that played for a long time get a permaban on his account. Really terrible information, sometimes able to tear up players. Just the overall fact that for saying a number of words that the system detects as punishment-worthy you can get a permaban isn't right in a logical sense, right? Quoting from earlier post: > Permanent chat restrictions were tested out for a while, but it didn't work out, which is why it's removed. Again, in what world does it not work out? Only able to ping, without the access to any messaging in the chat in a toxic player's account would keep his flaming/verbal abuse only to his own self. Sure, he can spam ping ?, but that's not even tilting. The constant passive-aggressive responding just shows the moderators here are being bored of this, you don't want to accept that your permabanning for literally saying a word or two makes no sense whatsoever. If it's in the chat, keep it in the chat. Don't move it further to a strong punishment. Just put a perma chat restriction, and it'll do the job.
BesniStakor (EUNE)
: They tried something similar and it didn’t work. People resorted to trolling and inting. Honestly if someone is so toxic they get punished so often and so bad to get to permanent...they deserve it.
That's why I said that the trolling and inting punishments should work as they do currently, but the verbal abuse ones not.
Hansiman (EUW)
: If a player doesn't improve their behavior after multiple chat restrictions, what good will even more chat restrictions do? They've already shown to not be effective on that individual. Permanent chat restrictions were tested out for a while, but it didn't work out, which is why it's removed. --- > And yes, I do understand that it is the player's fault they are being toxic, but often times it's one simple bad game that can ruin a great account. Penalties for verbal abuse come from trends in ones behavior. It would only punish you for a single game in cases of extreme abuse, such as homophobia, racism, death threats, etc. You can't blame that one a bad game. --- > What if the person has spent alot of money (let's say $150 on the account) and because of a bad teammate he ends up getting a permanent ban. So what if they've spent money. The rules still apply to them just like anyone else. **Nobody** is banned due to bad teammates. They're banned due to their own behavior.
Bad teammates cause bad behaviour. Not our faults the system doesn't care to look how the stuff started. > Permanent chat restrictions were tested out for a while, but it didn't work out, which is why it's removed. Didn't work? In what world would it not. Permanent chat restriction = no toxicity from the player and the only one they would be able to express is through their own feelings in the real world. > So what if they've spent money. The rules still apply to them just like anyone else. Yes they do, but I was not talking about that. I was talking about the fact losing an account due to one bad teammate that cause something to leak out from you isn't a great thing, is it? > If a player doesn't improve their behavior after multiple chat restrictions, what good will even more chat restrictions do? They've already shown to not be effective on that individual. More chat restrictions could give the person some information they should calm down, possibly just /mute others. a 10 and 25 games is truly nothing in the big run and can be ran through fast, 100 games? not so much anymore. > Nobody is banned due to bad teammates. They're banned due to their own behavior. That is completely true, but the system never did and never will understand who started the downhill chain. Unless it was another person who made the X player leak out, I don't think that's fair much, is it? Self-defense exists, right? I am 100% sure that there were situations that caused some fighting, and the person who got attacked on defended himself, after the game he ended up getting banned and the person who started it never did. > Penalties for verbal abuse come from trends in ones behavior. You think so? Alot of the community already know what the system instantly targets as punishment worthy, so I don't think any "trends" make sense here.
Rioter Comments

DavidK14

Level 49 (EUNE)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion