Zyzyx (EUW)
: > they only take into account what i said not why i said I think the concept you are not understanding her is that they do that INTENTIONALLY and that it's a good thing. Not for you obviously, but in general it's a good concept, as long as the evidence is solid...which it is in the case of flaming in League.
Finally, someone who actually has a valid opinion
Fisit (EUW)
: All im saying is i think i deserve the right to a trial as i believe the punishment was extreme for what i said
Hahaha why are you triggered by a post? You'd be shite as a lawyer
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
can you please explain the overwatch thing cause i dont have a clue about that
: _Blah, blah blah, I disagree with my punshment blah, blah blah, crying, blah, blah, blah._ I'm done arguing with you. Your reasoning is motivated by your personal feelings and you will not listen to the arguments that don't align with your pre-existing view. Nothing you said in response to my points was remotely close to adressing them. From now on if I respond to you it'll just be with mockery, at least unless you present some kind of logic that could be considered worth discussing in good faith. Have a nice day sir.
Salty hahaha easy win Imagine being a lawyer who has the maturity of my baby cousin
: Yup. In certain law system "Partaking in a brawl" is a distinct crime in its own right. You're completly correct.
Yes but i wouldnt have to "part take in a brawl" if i did not have an assault against myself
Febos (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Fisit,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=3EHN6jWx,comment-id=00010000000000000000000000010001,timestamp=2018-06-10T13:07:21.645+0000) > > however just less than the guy who punched me Thing is both of you would be arrested for misconduct in a private place, at worst. At best, both of you would be escorted out of the establishment. Point is both of you would have the same punishment.
Not in a court of law we wouldnt.
: Why a trial if you're obviously guilty. That doesn't make sense. And no, the other guy started isn't an excuse since kindergarten.
yes i am guilty im not disputing that fact im saying i deserve a trial to determine a punishment so i can given my opinion on why i said the things i did. i am disputing the fact i believe the punishment was to harsh therefore by disputing it they can intake the mitigating factors not just the aggravating factors.
Febos (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Fisit,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=3EHN6jWx,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2018-06-10T13:05:20.402+0000) > > i believe the punishment was to harsh do you not think i should have the right to challenge that punishment atleast once? You have the right to challenge your punishment, but I've seen many cases like yours and it (almost) always ends to same way. Manye before you have said something in the lines of "he did something worse" which is completely irrelevant. You're "judged" based on what you say. Context is nil.
i disagree context is nil as if you steal food to feed your family you shouldnt be compared to someone who stole just for the fun of it are you?
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
You say its one guys opinion however 700 people agree with him not in taking the 70k plus viewers that have failed to like or dislike the video therefore you can not say its unrealiable plus twitch views is a great way of analysing how to tell if a game is dying as lets be honest the lower down on twitch the game is the more dead it is.
: Sure. But here's the thing - this isn't court of law. Analogies to justice system can be useful from time to time, but at the end of the day there is no direct translation between a private company enforcing their own rules of providing service and criminal proceedings. But since you are so hung up on that, as I happen to actually be a lawyer, let me enlighten you on how those circumstances might be taken into account by court. First there is the most famous self-defense. This one, despite popular perception, fails very often. Because courts do judge it to the standard of reasonable and measured response. Which means that self-defense is only exculpating as far as the way you defended yourself was appropriate relative to the danger. This basically means two things. First is that you didn't cause damage to a good more important than the good you were protecting. Say if someone is keying your car it is not self-defense to burst out an AR-15 and empty a mag into perpetrator. Because damage to your car's paint-job is much less valuable than human life. Secondly there is the scale of the danger. If someone tries to mug you with a knife and you pull out the gun and they start running then you have defended yourself already and shooting them is no longer self-defense. When judging the self-defense clause it is also important that the measures used are actually able to avert the danger. Causing damage without actually having a hope of preventing the crime in question would not be valid self-defense case. Secondly there is indeed clause for some crimes if theye were commited under anomalous motivating situation or extreme emotional duress. This comes in two variants. One is judge's discretion within the prescribed punishments while sentencing. Say if the punishment is between 1 year and 9 years for a given crime, judge can take reasons the person had into account and give them the minimum. Second is that some crimes had specific variants that have lowers punishment prescribed directly in the law if they happened under specific circumstances. For example a voluntary manslaughter instead of murder. Thing is that reason does not translate to League well, because it talks about extremes. Situations that are way beyond every day annoyances and frustrations, where the emotions were truly and understandably beyond control. If you'd like to get leniency for the level of frustration that happens in League its like asking the court to be extraordinarily lenient towards you after you killed someone because he cut in front of you in a que. Plus, the above ignores the fact that whover else is with you in the team becomes and indirect victim. Harming a third party will pretty much negate any possible leniency that you'd get in court.
did i not say in the written section above if i was given a less harsher punishment and they gave me the right to redeem myself i will apologise to all players within the game for my actions. Also what im saying is I STILL SHOULD BE PUNISHED however i believe the punishment was to harsh as they did not take in the mitigating factors your just saying they wouldnt take my actions into account in a court of law however they would despite how insignificant they may be they would still take them into account.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
oooo sorry
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
If you look on twitch league of legends used to be the most watched game by thousands now fortnite is im not saying the game is not still popular but its not what it used to be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VJmE_DI2FA
Exhibit B (EUNE)
: I do not. I deleted it half an hour ago.
You cannot compare everyone to the majority of people for example if a guy stole to feed his family your not going to compare him to someone who stole just for the fun of it are you?
: Now that you mention it... There was this one guy, a real patriot. He wanted to get his country out of terrible economic crisis and finally bring the people responsible for its situation to justice. Harsh justice, but it was all in service of his nation, the only thing he wanted was a good future for his people. Name's Hitler. Yes, I did just Godwin myself but it nicely illustrates the point you made that, especially if we try, we can ascribe very good or even noble reasons to actions that are apalling and even downright evil. And no, before someone tries to interpret it that way, I am not comparing flamers to Hitler. Just showing that everything can be presented as reasonable reaction to the "context".
All im saying is i think i deserve the right to a trial as i believe the punishment was extreme for what i said
Febos (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Fisit,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=3EHN6jWx,comment-id=000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-06-10T12:08:10.372+0000) > > No but if they can see why i insulted them for example it may have been a response to their actions Imagine the following. You're at a bar. A guy comes up to you and punches you right in the face. Instead of calling security, you decide to punch him right back. Question: what will happen? 1 - Only he is punished 2 - Both are punished 3 - Neither is punished 4 - Teemo is the true Lord and Saviour Get it right and you win the big prize: 1 million. ######I've giving you 50% chance to get it right.
If a guy came up to me and punched me my emotions would get the better of me and i would instinctively fight back. in hindsight yes i probably shouldnt have hit him but if he didnt hit me in the first place the entire issue would not of occurred therefore i believe i still should be punished however just less than the guy who punched me as i was only reacting to what i sort fit at the time.
: He did. It was, "we've had this kind of rhetoric on the boards way too many times, and it always ends the same way". Reading between the lines isn't hard.
the difference between me and others are that this time i believe i should of been punished but i believe the punishment was to harsh do you not think i should have the right to challenge that punishment atleast once?
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
You comparing murders to flaming! That is insanity. im NOT saying i should have been punished for what i said im saying i should have had a trial to determine if what i did was worth a permanent ban
: Did you flame? Yes? K, trial completed, you're guilty, cu.
Did i say i wasnt guilty? No, instead of trying to be a smart ass have a intellectual conversation for once.
: No, no it's not. My comparison states that for the same offense one should be punished and one shouldn't. This is what you suggest - and it's wrong.
im not saying i shouldn't be punished i just believe i deserved a less harsher punishment yes ban me for a couple of months which by then will teach me as i love this game and to be apart from it for months would do more than banning me permanently
: No. Because it doesn't matter who started and if they were flaming or trolling, responding with flaming of your own solves nothing. On the contrary it makes the situation worse by escalating. And for all cries of "I was just defending myself!" it won't ever be a valid response to someone breaking the rules. Because it doesn't stop or prevent them from whatever they were doing. More often than not it does actually encourage further toxicity and creates a vicious spiral. Add to that the fact that in many cases the supposed slight, mostly trolling or intentionally feeding, exists only in the mind of person who is "defending" himself by flaming. And since there is literally no situation that can be made better by flaming, the context is irrelevant. You are making the game worse for everyone, yourself included, and what someone said before you started doing that doesn't change anything. And if you'd like to bring emotional distress as a reason to flame, well that doesn't work either. Everyone gets frustrated and annoyed. By toxic players or just by teammate doing badly. But there is difference between feeling an emotion and acting upon it without restraint. Ability to reason and control our emotional responses is one of things that differentiates humans from animals. Besides, if feeling anger was a valid excuse for lashing out, why shouldn't we all just do like Micheal Douglas in _Falling Down_? After all real world also has multiple sources of anger and frustration! Therefore there is no single, valid reason for including what others did into consideration.
If were taking this into the "Real World" then in court they take into consideration other factors which may have caused someone to act in a certain way they are known as mitigating factors. Therefore like i have said countless times now i do not want to be unbanned as i have seen my actions i just think i deserved the right to a trial and to have my opinion on the matter said.
Febos (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Fisit,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=3EHN6jWx,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-06-10T11:58:19.157+0000) > > I believe that in league of legends most players are punished before you take into account **what the other person has done to influence others behaviour**. This is all I need to read. {{sticker:vlad-salute}}
If your going to join in atleast make a point
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
Not really, they only take into account what i said not why i said it like i said previously in the section above i was flamed first therefore i should be given a less harsh sentence as i was only reacting to the situation in the heat of the moment we all dont realise what we say however in hindsight i realise what i said was bad but i wasnt given the option to redeem myself
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
No, its to accomplish if i do infact deserve the correct punishing a permanent ban for flaming someone i think i deserve a fair trial so i can atleast explain myself not just get banned without giving my side of the story
: Excuse my next comparison, I know it's brutal, I'm making a point here. So if you shoot my innocent child, am I allowed to use that in my defense and kill yours ? Does the fact that you did something to me, allow me to legally commit manslaughter against an innocent child, that happens to be yours ? "But I only did what he did, he started it, I was only defending myself". This is what you're suggesting buddy. You get flamed, so you flame back, the one who started should get punished, you should be able to redeem yourself. Basically you can do exactly what the other guy did, and go unpunished - this is what you want. This is called "street justice", and people would rarely reach the age of 30, if this was the case in our modern world. Thank god for the authorities.
You point is completely over the top im saying that i should be given the right to a fair trial before they just say fk it and ban me completely
Exhibit B (EUNE)
: There is no solution to toxicity. People will always find something to be toxic about, whether it's a champion being overpowered, braindead teammates or just the general state of this shitty game.
If you think its shitty why do you play it?
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
Yeah but if you look at the figures now a days the game is dying just like any other game therefore banning users wont help them to gain players will it bu providing them with a solution instead of banning them will increase players
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
No but if they can see why i insulted them for example it may have been a response to their actions
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
Do you not believe that both parties should be given a fair trial to discuss why they said what they said?
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
Would it not increase the number of players? therefore making it a safer game for all ages?
: Great idea. Now we only need half a million new RioT's employees and two month or so for every game where reports happened to set up all the discussions and s@@t. We can definetely do it.
You wouldnt need to hire that many employees if you wished to get your say they should do a system like paypal where they ask for both parties input then actually base the punishment off that not just instantly ban them without hearing my side of the story.
Rioter Comments

Fisit

Level 39 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion