JesRect (EUW)
: Why do you have the authority?
The problem about making posts with unpopular opinions is most people don't care about productive discussion. Talking to masses is not about the talking, it's about your personal status. If my post had been written by a Riot authority, he/she would've most likely been seen as a benevolent and generous soul for wanting to help even those everyone sees as the "scum" of the earth (because that's kind of the vibe I've gotten from people here). The same argument would've probably been taken very seriously and maybe even would've made an impact on the system. Instead, I got people who actively ignored and misinterpreted almost everything I was saying, to the point where I was being asked things I had answered repeatedly and I was even being asked and attacked about my personal case, which is irrelevant to the argument itself. I don't really agree with this post, though, and I'm sorry to have to say it, but you know how masses work. This is where I have to go: "No sir, this is absolutely unacceptable" and distance myself from you because otherwise people throw me in with you and we become the enemies of the state, we become the monster to defeat, so they can feel righteous. Masses don't understand that everything and everyone is different, only the "us" vs "them" So yeah, I apologize for making you feel like I'm betraying you in the following paragraph. You mentioned you thought Riot shouldn't be allowed to decide who uses their services (plays their games). It's a private business, after all, so it can do whatever it want; but, this happens in public environments too. The government makes laws and decides who is allowed to use their services (live in their country). Don't you think the government should be allowed to kick out, at least temporarily, extreme cases of individuals who continuously break the law?
Paper1 (EUW)
: > Of course it is, so decide where you draw the line of what counts as toxic enough behaviour and let the algorithm treat everyone equally. We did and the line is where it is now. > Of course there's going to be disagreements if the matter is subjective. But you're talking as if something about bans being permanent isn't subjective. It's the same thing, here I am disagreeing with having permanent bans. Okay, but I don't think you've given a convincing enough argument for that yet. See further down in this post. > Are you saying it shouldn't be algorithms, but players, who decide who should be banned? Weren't you the one talking about prejudice? Humans are the ones who get attached and make exceptions, we're the ones who make prejudiced decisions. The algorithms are constructed and influenced to a degree by humans though. The algorithms are a means to automate bans on a large scale so that somebody doesn't have to take the enormous amount of time looking through each individual case. So to a certain extent, yes I do think the community should have a say in some way on which kind of players should be banned because it is ultimately affecting our games. I think it is weird that you would frame that answer as something to be ashamed of. > It wouldn't be less effective in the slightest. The truly dedicated toxic players are making account after account, so with the current system you're getting rid of the best of the worst (the ones who would stop being part of "the worst" over time) and keeping the worst of the worst. I don't agree that you can make that conclusion from that statement. There are those that make new accounts after being banned, and those that don't. The latter is what we want when we issue permanent bans: We're saying you are not allowed to play this game anymore, so they don't. Ban successful. > I'd argue it'd be more effective, because the possibility of recovering their accounts in the future might bind them more strongly with their original account and motivate them to try and keep it. Right now most people don't give a shit what account it is theyre on, the fifth? The seventh? It becomes a bragging matter at this point. These people are completely deattached from their accounts so permanently banning them solves nothing. If they already consider their accounts disposable, then their original account will also be considered disposable by them, so your argument doesn't make sense.
I'll go as far as to say that, because of your repeated offenses (such as asking for answers that have already been given to you, and failing to engage in any form of discussion with a positive attitude), I'm going to stop reading your messages because it's clear you've got some growing up to do. I think I'm going to let you try again in about a year, unless you'd prefer I never ever listen to you again, which would be the equivalent of a permanent ban.
Paper1 (EUW)
: > Of course it is, so decide where you draw the line of what counts as toxic enough behaviour and let the algorithm treat everyone equally. We did and the line is where it is now. > Of course there's going to be disagreements if the matter is subjective. But you're talking as if something about bans being permanent isn't subjective. It's the same thing, here I am disagreeing with having permanent bans. Okay, but I don't think you've given a convincing enough argument for that yet. See further down in this post. > Are you saying it shouldn't be algorithms, but players, who decide who should be banned? Weren't you the one talking about prejudice? Humans are the ones who get attached and make exceptions, we're the ones who make prejudiced decisions. The algorithms are constructed and influenced to a degree by humans though. The algorithms are a means to automate bans on a large scale so that somebody doesn't have to take the enormous amount of time looking through each individual case. So to a certain extent, yes I do think the community should have a say in some way on which kind of players should be banned because it is ultimately affecting our games. I think it is weird that you would frame that answer as something to be ashamed of. > It wouldn't be less effective in the slightest. The truly dedicated toxic players are making account after account, so with the current system you're getting rid of the best of the worst (the ones who would stop being part of "the worst" over time) and keeping the worst of the worst. I don't agree that you can make that conclusion from that statement. There are those that make new accounts after being banned, and those that don't. The latter is what we want when we issue permanent bans: We're saying you are not allowed to play this game anymore, so they don't. Ban successful. > I'd argue it'd be more effective, because the possibility of recovering their accounts in the future might bind them more strongly with their original account and motivate them to try and keep it. Right now most people don't give a shit what account it is theyre on, the fifth? The seventh? It becomes a bragging matter at this point. These people are completely deattached from their accounts so permanently banning them solves nothing. If they already consider their accounts disposable, then their original account will also be considered disposable by them, so your argument doesn't make sense.
You don't seem to understand what this exercise is about. I'm tired of you.
Paper1 (EUW)
: > Of course it is, so decide where you draw the line of what counts as toxic enough behaviour and let the algorithm treat everyone equally. We did and the line is where it is now. > Of course there's going to be disagreements if the matter is subjective. But you're talking as if something about bans being permanent isn't subjective. It's the same thing, here I am disagreeing with having permanent bans. Okay, but I don't think you've given a convincing enough argument for that yet. See further down in this post. > Are you saying it shouldn't be algorithms, but players, who decide who should be banned? Weren't you the one talking about prejudice? Humans are the ones who get attached and make exceptions, we're the ones who make prejudiced decisions. The algorithms are constructed and influenced to a degree by humans though. The algorithms are a means to automate bans on a large scale so that somebody doesn't have to take the enormous amount of time looking through each individual case. So to a certain extent, yes I do think the community should have a say in some way on which kind of players should be banned because it is ultimately affecting our games. I think it is weird that you would frame that answer as something to be ashamed of. > It wouldn't be less effective in the slightest. The truly dedicated toxic players are making account after account, so with the current system you're getting rid of the best of the worst (the ones who would stop being part of "the worst" over time) and keeping the worst of the worst. I don't agree that you can make that conclusion from that statement. There are those that make new accounts after being banned, and those that don't. The latter is what we want when we issue permanent bans: We're saying you are not allowed to play this game anymore, so they don't. Ban successful. > I'd argue it'd be more effective, because the possibility of recovering their accounts in the future might bind them more strongly with their original account and motivate them to try and keep it. Right now most people don't give a shit what account it is theyre on, the fifth? The seventh? It becomes a bragging matter at this point. These people are completely deattached from their accounts so permanently banning them solves nothing. If they already consider their accounts disposable, then their original account will also be considered disposable by them, so your argument doesn't make sense.
Let's just start over then. That way I also get the chance to better explain myself. There is currently a system in place whose purpose is to maintain the community in the company's desired state. It serves that purpose with a series of rules and punishments for breaking those rules. This, I think we can all agree, is a justice system. It is supposed to impart justice. Let's, for the sake of argument, imagine we're both in the dev team and we're the ones who decide what this "justice" actually is. We both have different opinions and one has to try to win over the other. Let's lay out some of the facts first to make sure there's no misunderstandings, you tell mr if you have any problem with any of these: 1-Permanently banning a player makes it so he is still being punished long after he has stopped doing whatever it is he was punished for. 2-Players who continuously make new accounts when banned are mostly indifferent to the fact that bans are permanent instead of just very long. 3-Permanent bans are a strong measure. 4-We'd want a player who is twice as bad for the community as another to get twice the punishment the other is getting. 5-Regardless of what system we decide upon, there will be people who end up reforming, there will be people who never do, there will be people who kind of reform, at least enough to not be worthy of punishment (whatever punishment we're talking about). There will always be people of all types. 6-If we can think of a system that makes 7% of people reform, instead of just 5%, and the downsides (if there are any) don't superpose the upside, we have no reason to not choose it.
Èclair (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Low Brain Usage,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=5XJmxYzw,comment-id=00040000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-19T10:31:46.166+0000) > > ..right, and they want that data because..? There are myriad reasons why they would want to run such experiment. But looks like unbaning toxic players ain't one of 'em. > If your reading comprehension wasn't as terrible, what you'd understand from this would be "don't get your hopes up because this will most likely not change anything" which is very different from "we have plans not to unban players" I hope you've done some warm-up before making such wide reach. You might hurt yourself. > What I meant by that is you think of me as something completely separate from you and you don't consider I could've been much more sane in other circumstances Nobody cares about your life story - not me, not other readers, not even Riot themselves. It's a weak justification for your behaviour. > or you could've been like me in my circumstances. I doubt so. I at least can own my mistakes and respect the consequences for my actions. So even if I had rough weeks of flaming other people I wouldn't be on forums trying to argue that I did nothing and Riot should unban me right now because I demand so. > This is just more of the same alienating and judgemental attitude I've previously said led me to a permaban. I explain my situation to make you understand we're not as different as you think and you spit out a "cry me a river". Really? Judgmental attitude led you to your permanent ban? And not spamming people that they are morons and suck ass? Did you send wrong chat logs or what? You don't get a free pass just because you had some _"bad situation"_ whatever that mean. It's life. We all have bad situation. That doesn't entitle you to throwing dead meat at other people. What if those you called morons had even worse situation than you? Do you even think about people other than yourself and how your horrendous behaviour impact them? > Excuse for what? For my arguments not being dismissed for invalid reasons? What is it I'm giving excuses for? Excuse for throwing temper tantrums over video game. > Are sure about this sentence? How would I benefit exactly? I didn't know Riot unbanned players who apologized, damn, that one's new to me. They don't. But you also don't apologize just to gain something. You apologize because you're sorry for your actions. I don't think anybody responsible for lifting bans would consider even touching the case if the subject doesn't even understand that their past behaviour was unacceptable and doesn't show any modicum of regret. > How many times have I already said I was justifiably punished for breaking the rules? Zero. You did, however, said: > As I've already clearly stated, I don't agree with infinite punishments So you either agree with punishment given or not. If you don't agree with indefinite bans then you can't say the punishment was justified. I doubt I'm the one having troubles reading. It seems like the other side just isn't capable of making any coherent argument. I think your case is probably the strongest argument for indefinite suspensions and looking at the results of your little pool it seems like the community is in its right mind on that too. To you I say good riddance.
>There are myriad reasons why they would want to run such experiment. But looks like unbaning toxic players ain't one of 'em. Whatever, I still think you're wrong but whether Riot will do something or other is irrelevant to the discussion so drop this point. >I hope you've done some warm-up before making such wide reach. You might hurt yourself More of the same >Nobody cares about your life story - not me, not other readers, not even Riot themselves. It's a weak justification for your behaviour. That's funny. The causes that led ro something aren't justification, for you. I wonder what would be. >I doubt so. I at least can own my mistakes and respect the consequences for my actions. So even if I had rough weeks of flaming other people I wouldn't be on forums trying to argue that I did nothing and Riot should unban me right now because I demand so. To deny me this point is just delusional. Do you honestly think if you had been born in the same date and place I was, to the same parents, went to the same school, met the same people, you would be much different from me? And, for the hundredth time, please read properly. I never said I did nothing and I never thought of telling Riot to unban me because I specifically demanded so. >Really? Judgmental attitude led you to your permanent ban? And not spamming people that they are morons and suck ass? Did you send wrong chat logs or what? It was precisely that attitude which made me have such unjustified contempt for these people. Bad attitude led to chat offenses which led to a permaban. Come on. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. >You don't get a free pass just because you had some "bad situation" whatever that mean. It's life. We all have bad situation. That doesn't entitle you to throwing dead meat at other people. What if those you called morons had even worse situation than you? Do you even think about people other than yourself and how your horrendous behaviour impact them? Oh my god. A free pass? Being entitled to throwing dead meat? Why are you still stuck on this? I've repeatedly demonstrated this is not what I think! >Excuse for throwing temper tantrums over video game. So I explain the situation that made me act a certain way and you say it doesn't count? As what? It's a true situation, you say it's not an excuse, what does that even mean? >They don't. But you also don't apologize just to gain something. You apologize because you're sorry for your actions. Which is why I don't apologize. I'm ashamed, I'm not sorry. >I don't think anybody responsible for lifting bans would consider even touching the case if the subject doesn't even understand that their past behaviour was unacceptable and doesn't show any modicum of regret. I don't? What do you think "I'm ashamed" means? Like, what the hell, man? >Zero. You did, however, said: Well, %%%% me. It's clear you can't read. >So you either agree with punishment given or not. If you don't agree with indefinite bans then you can't say the punishment was justified. I doubt I'm the one having troubles reading. I agree with being punished. I was justifiably punished. I disagree with the punishment being infinite. The punishment itself is unjustified, me being punished in some way is justified. Please read properly. > It seems like the other side just isn't capable of making any coherent argument. Heh. Please, tell me, what is being discussed here? Do you even know? Because you don't even seem to be attempting to participate in the discussion, only to talk about my specific case, which is irrelevant to tbe discussion. >I think your case is probably the strongest argument for indefinite suspensions Again, I dare you to put forth an occasion in this whole post where I broke the summoner's code. > and looking at the results of your little pool it seems like the community is in its right mind on that too. To you I say good riddance. The results of the poll show about 30% of the community disagreeing with the current system, which is definetly a high number which shouldn't be ignored.
Paper1 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Low Brain Usage,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=5XJmxYzw,comment-id=000a,timestamp=2019-02-19T10:43:26.408+0000) > > Pretty disappointed by this discussion. "Your proposition is not viable because you, personally, were rightfully banned" is all I'm hearing from most people here. Sorry to hear that you feel that way. I hope that during our debate specifically you didn't feel that I was intentionally attacking you, because that is not what I was going for. It seems clear that we will just have to agree to disagree.
To be honest, I don't even know who I'm responding to at this point, so don't worry.
Paper1 (EUW)
: > Of course it is, so decide where you draw the line of what counts as toxic enough behaviour and let the algorithm treat everyone equally. We did and the line is where it is now. > Of course there's going to be disagreements if the matter is subjective. But you're talking as if something about bans being permanent isn't subjective. It's the same thing, here I am disagreeing with having permanent bans. Okay, but I don't think you've given a convincing enough argument for that yet. See further down in this post. > Are you saying it shouldn't be algorithms, but players, who decide who should be banned? Weren't you the one talking about prejudice? Humans are the ones who get attached and make exceptions, we're the ones who make prejudiced decisions. The algorithms are constructed and influenced to a degree by humans though. The algorithms are a means to automate bans on a large scale so that somebody doesn't have to take the enormous amount of time looking through each individual case. So to a certain extent, yes I do think the community should have a say in some way on which kind of players should be banned because it is ultimately affecting our games. I think it is weird that you would frame that answer as something to be ashamed of. > It wouldn't be less effective in the slightest. The truly dedicated toxic players are making account after account, so with the current system you're getting rid of the best of the worst (the ones who would stop being part of "the worst" over time) and keeping the worst of the worst. I don't agree that you can make that conclusion from that statement. There are those that make new accounts after being banned, and those that don't. The latter is what we want when we issue permanent bans: We're saying you are not allowed to play this game anymore, so they don't. Ban successful. > I'd argue it'd be more effective, because the possibility of recovering their accounts in the future might bind them more strongly with their original account and motivate them to try and keep it. Right now most people don't give a shit what account it is theyre on, the fifth? The seventh? It becomes a bragging matter at this point. These people are completely deattached from their accounts so permanently banning them solves nothing. If they already consider their accounts disposable, then their original account will also be considered disposable by them, so your argument doesn't make sense.
>It means there is no point in discussing a line for what is toxic enough to earn a year ban unless there is a chance on me agreeing with you on the removal of permanent bans. That is your proposal isn't it? Get rid of permanent bans and replace it with year bans. Obviously, yes. This would be part of the work that would have to be done if my suggestion went through. I just don't get what purpose it serves to state this. I believe I was talking about how my possible system could work and you seemed to use that as a response, which was odd, considering it's a known fact which is also irrelevant to the discussion. >This implies that you think there is prejudice in the current system. I'm saying it isn't, which you apparently agree with, but then deeper into the conversation you also said: But it doesn't imply that. I think prejudice means similar cases are being treated differently, that's not the case. All cases are being treated equally right now, I'm making the point that the current system can be changed without becoming prejudiced, without becoming unfair. I'd say, in fact, becoming even more fair. >You asked if I talked about prejudice, but you actually introduced the idea that the current system was prejudiced. As I've just said, I didn't. > This is now a confusing mess of messages that is difficult to make sense of, because now you're claiming I am making a counterargument to your new system, when we are talking about the current system. It did seem like you were trying to make a counterargument, to me. If you say you weren't, now I just don't know what the purpose of that is. Stating obvious facts that have already been taken into account is just weird. >As i said above, you have to persuade me that removing permanent bans is somewhat of a good idea first. What is so special about a year anyway? As I've said, permanent bans treat different cases equally. That might sound like the best thing ever, right? Equality at its best! Okay, let's have equality at its best, let's treat absolutely everyone equally in this same way. Let's hire people without studies, let's hire PE teachers to design Nasa rockets, some guy got the death sentence? What about the rest of humanity? Do we not get equal treatment? Better have all humanity get death sentence You see where I'm getting at? Yes, you will say we're treating everyone who's done a certain thing equally. The thing is people who years ago broke the rules are being treated just like those who have been breaking the same rules for years and will keep on doing so (they have, therefore, contributed hundreds of times more to the negativity of tbe community). Do you not think this is unfair? > If I was a player that was banned for a year and got a new account, I wouldn't even think about going back to that account, I'd just play on the new one. That what you'd do. As I've explained several times, there's people like me who are more attached to their account. Do you think the system should only take into account those who in all matters act like yourself? >No, because you still decided to be toxic enough to get a permanent ban knowing that you could lose all your stuff. If you really are attached to your account, then you made a bad decision after receiving plenty of warnings. Not the fault of the system, that's on you. Note that I still remember that you didn't ask for a second chance, I am just using you as an example because you are presenting yourself as one of those people. You can't be saying this seriously. I'm not attached to my account, right. What do you even think the purpose of this whole post is? Why do you think I'm putting so much effort into defending my proposition? I want my account back and I think it makes sense for me and everyone in my position to have a chance to get our accounts back, so I'm trying to make a difference. >Again, you are twisting the point. In a nutshell, your argument is that we should alter the system to change permanent bans to year bans because that isn't fair for the people who are supposedly reformed some time after the ban and have lots of stuff on their accounts that they presumably care about. Yes. >If they reform, that is a choice they have chosen to make that is more strongly influenced by getting permanently banned than any temporary ban ever could (assuming the previous warnings didn't do the trick). No. As I've explained in my post, my "reform" had nothing to do with the ban, not even with the game at all. I was toxic because I hated my life, my life changed immensely and I now enjoy it. This big change in my life happened while I was banned. > Logic dictates therefore the permanent ban should stick, regardless of what happens next. I've just explained why this is not true. >Having a years ban as well is just like an extra warning, but it isn't going to be a very effective one because like I said above, it is more likely that players would just jump to a new account and forget about the banned one. Oh man, I thought you had read my post. I'm not suggesting there should be more warnings. I'm suggesting years bans should be the highest tier ban, which simply repeats itself if, after a whole year, the player is the same. Does it take 3 years of ban for a player to quit the game? That just means he'll play a couple weeks more (over the span of **3 years**) than he would've with the current system. Is he the kind of player who simply makes new accounts all the time because he's not attached to any account? This system change doesn't affect him in tbe slightest, everything stays the same for him. Does it take 7 years for some other guy? Welp, he'll just play a couple weeks more than the last guy (over the span of **7 years**) . These unreformable players are simply almost unaffected by this change. The only people who are affected are those who are attached to their account, it makes them hope for redemption, and possibly reforms them. >It is like rewarding them because it's just like saying "You behaviour is really unacceptable in this game, but instead of giving you a permanent ban, you just have to wait it out for a year and you get to stay if you reform". No, lol. It's like saying "We don't want you like this. You're out for a year, try again next time." >Deciding to change their own behaviour is something they should figure out for themselves. "Deciding to change". I don't think that's how changes like these work. You can't decide to change, you end up changing over time in the right circumstances and you don't change if you're unlucky. To think it's so easy to decide what happens to you is just dumb. Why haven't you decided to change your personality in a way that gets you higher paying jobs yet? I mean, you can decide to change according to yourself. > Making them wait for a year isn't a trigger to change their behaviour if they can just switch to another account. If they can switch to a single other account which can last them a whole year, wouldn't they have to be reformed? >You will no doubt argue that the same can be said for permanent bans, but they are currently the best option available. I've just adressed this, but I thought I'd point something out about this part because it sticks out. You say the current system is the best available while admitting it has the same single problem you've mentioned there is in my suggested system.
: > [{quoted}](name=Low Brain Usage,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=5XJmxYzw,comment-id=000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-18T21:41:31.957+0000) > > I've heard about Karnivool but haven't listened to them yet. Might check them out when I finish with the long list I already have. Lately I've gotten super into everything by Opeth and I've been checking out Dream Theater too, both are %%%%ing awesome. I love music. yeaaa i have download songs from both bands my Favorite from Opeth is "Bleak" and from Dream Theater "This Dying Soul" and recently i just discovered this https://youtu.be/oEIRzoVAxtM Check it out its awesome
I check out bands by listening to whole albums one at a time. I don't even care to check the names of the songs most of the time. I've definetly heard Bleak, though, it's from Blackwater Park i believe? Or Deliverance. Doesn't matter, both are so good.
Christien (EUW)
: Since you’re just attacking everyone that disagrees with you, I’ll just leave you at that. Not gonna discuss with someone that can only see his own point and won’t admit the permaban is deserved and that being reformed now does not change that. Btw if the behaviour you show here is how you behave in game too, you’re not reformed at all and you would be banned in no time again anyway. So no point in stating you’re reformed, because you clearly aren’t. :)
>Since you’re just attacking everyone that disagrees with you, Please, state a single occasion where I attacked someone for a point theh were making and not as defense to their attacks. Please, try. I dare you. >Not gonna discuss with someone that can only see his own point and won’t admit the permaban is deserved and that being reformed now does not change that. Whether an infinite punishment is ethical is precisely the matter at stake in the discussion. And you're literally saying you're not willing to discuss with someone who doesn't think like you. What the hell? >Btw if the behaviour you show here is how you behave in game too, you’re not reformed at all and you would be banned in no time again anyway. So no point in stating you’re reformed, because you clearly aren’t. :) Again, I dare you to clearly state an occasion in this whole post where I explicitly broke the summoner's code. Also, it's funny you'd say this considering I've been playing all this time on another account and haven't been banned.
: Permanent bans shouldn't exist
Pretty disappointed by this discussion. "Your proposition is not viable because you, personally, were rightfully banned" is all I'm hearing from most people here.
Èclair (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Low Brain Usage,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=5XJmxYzw,comment-id=000400000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-18T19:54:39.863+0000) > > What is the point of an experiment if its results will not be taken into account? I already said what is the purpose of said experiment - data analysis. It won't change the ban policy because we already had a test on that and it failed miserably. > Plus, If you read the text you sent to me yourself you'll see it doesn't explicitly deny the possibility with 100% certainty, like you're so strongly stating yourself. Did you even read it though? Because it clearly states the following - "We **do not have any plans to unban or allow players to return to League on perma-banned accounts** outside of this experiment." > If you read my last message you'll see that is not what I think, I understand what I was banned for and what kind of behaviour Riot doesn't want in their game. Your own words: > You know it's hard to feel sorry about something you didn't do. ____ > This is another problem, most of you here seem to think I am some kind of monster that infested the world with its deadly evil nature. I doubt so. Most people think of toxic players as spoiled children who cannot control their own emotions because frankly, this is how they behave. > My life sucked, a lot of games I ended up raging, some games I was friendly, most the others i deactivated the chat or muted everyone, about 25%/10%/65%. I've had players "ruin my games" with their toxicity, like you have. It's annoying. Cry me a river, would ya? Not so many people actually do live perfect lives, we all have problems. But mature people are expected to display mature behaviour. Yes, we do play the same game and experience the same toxicity. Yet here you are, having your account banned while I'm yet to receive any punishment. Not an excuse. > Would I want the person to be sorry and come apologize? Nah, no thanks. I'd rather just continue on with my life like that game never happened. I'm not the one who would benefit from the apology - you are. You come forward to show people that toxic players can change, can be sorry for their actions and accept their mistakes to move on, become better in terms of their behaviour and therefore should be pardoned. But you still can't do just that - apologize. Who do you want to convince exactly? Us, that second chance is the best course of action. Or ourself, that you didn't deserve suspension that come your way? > I thought I'd specifically talk about this because it sounds like you think it's unjustified. This is exactly my point - the stereotype is justified because of people like you. Too bad they stick to this game like they were treated with superglue. People who contribute so much to the circle of toxicity. People who display behaviour so neatly captured within your chat logs from two years ago. And you think you didn't contribute to such phenomena? Believe me or not, if IP or even "ID" bans were even remotely possible, we would've them already in place.
>I already said what is the purpose of said experiment - data analysis. It won't change the ban policy because we already had a test on that and it failed miserably. ..right, and they want that data because..? >Did you even read it though? Because it clearly states the following - "We do not have any plans to unban or allow players to return to League on perma-banned accounts outside of this experiment." If your reading comprehension wasn't as terrible, what you'd understand from this would be "don't get your hopes up because this will most likely not change anything" which is **very** different from "we have plans not to unban players" >Your own words: Are you trolling too? It's pretty clear what I meant by that. Go and read the whole paragraph again yourself, I'm not wasting my time with that. >I doubt so. Most people think of toxic players as spoiled children who cannot control their own emotions because frankly, this is how they behave. What I meant by that is you think of me as something completely separate from you and you don't consider I could've been much more sane in other circumstances, or you could've been like me in my circumstances. And considering the contempt these "most people" have for me according to you, I'd say I'm right. >Cry me a river, would ya? Not so many people actually do live perfect lives, we all have problems. But mature people are expected to display mature behaviour. Heh, okay. This is just more of the same alienating and judgemental attitude I've previously said led me to a permaban. I explain my situation to make you understand we're not as different as you think and you spit out a "cry me a river". Kk fam, good luck in life. >Yes, we do play the same game and experience the same toxicity. Yet here you are, having your account banned while I'm yet to receive any punishment. Not an excuse. Excuse for what? For my arguments not being dismissed for invalid reasons? What is it I'm giving excuses for? >I'm not the one who would benefit from the apology - you are. Are sure about this sentence? How would I benefit exactly? I didn't know Riot unbanned players who apologized, damn, that one's new to me. >You come forward to show people that toxic players can change, can be sorry for their actions and accept their mistakes to move on, become better in terms of their behaviour and therefore should be pardoned. Oh, man. It's as if you had never read my post. I came forward to suggest a system which gives everyone the chance to redeem themselves once a year or 2 years. Not a second chance, not a "please pity me". A change in a system which currently doesn't work well. Because the fact that there are players who reform is undeniable. Riot has data for that from that experiment in which 5% reformed. So there are people who reform. I never tried to prove that because I didn't have to. It was a settled fact that was being taken into account in the discussion. >Who do you want to convince exactly? Us, that second chance is the best course of action? If you could read you wouldn't even be asking this question. >Or ourself, that you didn't deserve suspension that come your way? As I've already clearly stated, I don't agree with infinite punishments, not for League, not for anything in life, nothing at all. So I don't think I deserved an infinite suspension, no. >This is exactly my point - the stereotype is justified because of people like you. Too bad they stick to this game like they were treated with superglue. People who contribute so much to the circle of toxicity. People who display behaviour so neatly captured within your chat logs from two years ago. And you think you didn't contribute to such phenomena? Are you kidding me? xD It's as if you hadn't read anything I've been saying. "You think you didn't contribute"? Did it hurt pulling that out your ass? How many times have I said I did? How many times have I already said I was justifiably punished for breaking the rules? How many times have I already said my problem is with the severity of the punishments themselves? Also, that "people like you" just confirms once more your judgemental and hateful attitude. >Believe me or not, if IP or even "ID" bans were even remotely possible, we would've them already in place. 🤷
Christien (EUW)
: > True, why can't i state my disagreement with the TOU, though? You can always state that you disagree with the TOU, but it’s still up to RIOT whether to do something with that statement or not. Just because you disagree does not mean you don’t have to follow their rules. I understand it sucks to be permabanned, but it’s RIOT’s policy and they don’t have to change that if they don’t want to.
Eh, I thought all that was obvious enough. Where did I appear to think I didn't deserve any punishment at all? Is it not clear my thoughts are I deserved a 365+ day long ban?
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
>That's what "out for your blood" means. You chose to read the arguments as personal hate. Are you actually serious? Do you even remember how you've been talking to me? Since the beginning you've been all about the "I'm gonna teach this rat, look at him, he's been permabanned and dares to have a problem with it, I'm gonna show him" attitude. Calling me an asshat when you know next to nothing about me is not personal hate? How about the masterpiece by Deathraven13? Have you checked that thing out? It's marvelous! >You have, repeatedly, used your personal case as basis for your request. Yes, I have used my personal case as an example for what might be wrong with the system. How is that a problem? I could've used any other case and the argument would've been the same. This is completely irrelevant to the whole thing and you keep getting stuck on it. Just stop. >And have repeatedly failed to give a compelling reason to think that a year is enough to reform people, or even why anybody in their right mind would trust that they would reform. What? How many times do I have to tell you to read properly in order for you to do so? The fact that you're even asking this question proves you have no idea what it is I'm suggesting. Get out of this comment section, please.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
>The mistakes you're making in this discussion: > Believing that everyone disagreeing with you is out for your blood - no dude, we're simply disagreeing with you and bringing forth the reasons why Riot has never accepted suggestions like yours (it's not the first time we see it); Wrong. Two big reasons. First: read. "jumped on by people with hateful and judgemental attitudes". Not out for my blood, just people that came in here and directed stacked up hate towards me, someone they hardly knew anything about. Second: Julevi and Paper1 were clearly pacifists from the start. Now it's clear PH45 is also. >The mistakes you're making in this discussion: > Projecting your own reform as an universal rule - no dude, the reason why Riot doesn't do it is because you're a minority, and catering to such a minority ends up favoring the majority that does not reform and keeps creating/buying accounts to flame and troll. For the tenth time, I am not doing that. I have **repeatedly** talked about how the majority would end up being banned again. I have also, **repeatedly**, explained why my suggestion does not favour the majority of toxic players, and why I think it might, in fact, have a positive impact on it.
: > [{quoted}](name=Low Brain Usage,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=5XJmxYzw,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-18T16:24:39.278+0000) > > I know, that's why I said it was cool :p i suggest you these bands , Prisma , Karnivool and Green Orbit if you like tool youre gonna like these also check Downface dude they are awesome
I've heard about Karnivool but haven't listened to them yet. Might check them out when I finish with the long list I already have. Lately I've gotten super into everything by Opeth and I've been checking out Dream Theater too, both are %%%%ing awesome. I love music.
Paper1 (EUW)
: > Of course it is, so decide where you draw the line of what counts as toxic enough behaviour and let the algorithm treat everyone equally. We did and the line is where it is now. > Of course there's going to be disagreements if the matter is subjective. But you're talking as if something about bans being permanent isn't subjective. It's the same thing, here I am disagreeing with having permanent bans. Okay, but I don't think you've given a convincing enough argument for that yet. See further down in this post. > Are you saying it shouldn't be algorithms, but players, who decide who should be banned? Weren't you the one talking about prejudice? Humans are the ones who get attached and make exceptions, we're the ones who make prejudiced decisions. The algorithms are constructed and influenced to a degree by humans though. The algorithms are a means to automate bans on a large scale so that somebody doesn't have to take the enormous amount of time looking through each individual case. So to a certain extent, yes I do think the community should have a say in some way on which kind of players should be banned because it is ultimately affecting our games. I think it is weird that you would frame that answer as something to be ashamed of. > It wouldn't be less effective in the slightest. The truly dedicated toxic players are making account after account, so with the current system you're getting rid of the best of the worst (the ones who would stop being part of "the worst" over time) and keeping the worst of the worst. I don't agree that you can make that conclusion from that statement. There are those that make new accounts after being banned, and those that don't. The latter is what we want when we issue permanent bans: We're saying you are not allowed to play this game anymore, so they don't. Ban successful. > I'd argue it'd be more effective, because the possibility of recovering their accounts in the future might bind them more strongly with their original account and motivate them to try and keep it. Right now most people don't give a shit what account it is theyre on, the fifth? The seventh? It becomes a bragging matter at this point. These people are completely deattached from their accounts so permanently banning them solves nothing. If they already consider their accounts disposable, then their original account will also be considered disposable by them, so your argument doesn't make sense.
>Okay, but that's assuming that I've already bought into the possibility of repeated year bans, which I haven't. ...What does that mean? You haven't "bought the possibility"? You mean you're not considering any argument i put forward? >I feel like we've derailed from the original point and has been blown all out of proportion. If you have two cases of toxic behaviour which are more or less the same, but you don't ban the one that is a pro/streamer and you ban the one that isn't, that is prejudice. Yes. That wouldn't happen at all with the system I'm suggesting. This is not a counterargument, then. >I had said before "all people who break the same rules regardless of their reformedness should receive equal punishments" and if that is the case (which it is), there is much less prejudice such that it doesn't even deserve that label. Also true. That would still happen with the system I'm suggesting. All people who'd break the same rule would get the same year ban punishment. If after a whole year one is being toxic and the other isn't, the one who is will recieve another year ban punishment, along with all those who break the same rule again. Those who don't break it again after the year ends simply will not be punished again, because they won't have broken the rule. This is not prejudiced in any way. I don't see how it is, at least. >Well, there are already plenty of reasons to keep your original account but they rely on the player actually putting value on those things in the first place. Things are like owned champions, skin collection, icons, loading screen borders, time it would take to earn all those back if you were banned e.t.c. Evidently people don't though if they are just happy to start anew over and over after so many bans. This is a good point for those players who really don't care about anything. At which point it'd seem weird to me that they're even playing the game. The thing is, these players are the ones being punished the less by the permaban, so something is clearly wrong with the current system. For players like me, with 700k mastery points and several skins on their favourite champion, for cases which are not that lost, does it not look like we're attached to our accounts? > I don't know how you would make people care about those things in a free to play game, but it's definitely not by rewarding them for waiting for a years ban to expire, or for rewarding them period. Uh... You see a year ban as a reward? I don't think people would be happy if Riot gave away year bans as the Ranked Rewards for 2019, do you?
Èclair (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Low Brain Usage,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=5XJmxYzw,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-18T16:23:51.438+0000) > > Maybe I get lucky and my proposition becomes the pop, righteous oppinion to have, but if that ever happens it will be years from now, at which point I might even be already unbanned for whatever other pop reason. I hate politics and mass appeal. %%%% this. Or maybe your proposition simply lacks merit and thus is ignored. > yesterday a friend told me he'd heard some people got unbanned and told me to try and send a ticket. Or you could just google it. It was NA exclusive experiment centred around few selected players for the purpose of pure data analyst. Meaning whether the experiment fails or succeeds, there will be no permanent ban lifting in the future: _We do not have any plans to unban or allow players to return to League on perma-banned accounts outside of this experiment. The fact that we’re running this limited experiment should not give hope that we will end up changing our policies at a later date._ ____ It's also funny how you went from _"I've moved on from being toxic"_ to _"I didnu!"_ within few posts. But sure, if you really think you've been banned for innocence - show us your chat logs that pop out every time you try to log on your account. > I definetly did act in a very toxic way, but I also definetly didn't hurt anyone. This isn't about hurting people. It's about ruining player's fun and game's reputation to the point where "toxic kid" is the most well-known stereotype of League players. > What should I be sorry about? Who should I be sorry to? People whose day you ruined by spewing toxic waste on chat? They didn't log on League just to witness your temper tantrums. They didn't ask for you to throw slurs at people. They probably wish you would have behaved like normal human being. Toxicity might not hurt the player directly but it does affect the game and how people view and play it.
>Or maybe your proposition simply lacks merit and thus is ignored. Yeah, there's a lot of options, obviously. >Or you could just google it. It was NA exclusive experiment centred around few selected players for the purpose of pure data analyst. Meaning whether the experiment fails or succeeds, there will be no permanent ban lifting in the future: >We do not have any plans to unban or allow players to return to League on perma-banned accounts outside of this experiment. The fact that we’re running this limited experiment should not give hope that we will end up changing our policies at a later date. Uh... What is the point of an experiment if its results will not be taken into account? Plus, If you read the text you sent to me yourself you'll see it doesn't explicitly deny the possibility with 100% certainty, like you're so strongly stating yourself. >It's also funny how you went from "I've moved on from being toxic" to "I didnu!" within few posts. But sure, if you really think you've been banned for innocence - show us your chat logs that pop out every time you try to log on your account. From "I've moved on" to what? If you read my last message you'll see that is not what I think, I understand what I was banned for and what kind of behaviour Riot doesn't want in their game. Therefore I know why my ban came about. I am not innocent. I am, however stating that I don't think the current system works, stating what doesn't work, why, and how to fix it. When someone puts forward an argument, it is completely irrelevant to the validity of the argument who it is that is putting it forward. If God himself came down from inexistant heaven and put forward an argument about something we'd have to take it with the same seriousness as we'd take an argument by Ted Bundy. Whatever it is I've done, whoever I am, the argument is the same, understand that. This is why I'm fascinated by this comment section. Hardly anyone came to discuss the issue, only to attack me based on some unjustified judgemental hatred which was precisely the attitude that got me banned. >This isn't about hurting people. It's about ruining player's fun and game's reputation to the point where "toxic kid" is the most well-known stereotype of League players. > What should I be sorry about? Who should I be sorry to? >People whose day you ruined by spewing toxic waste on chat? They didn't log on League just to witness your temper tantrums. They didn't ask for you to throw slurs at people. They probably wish you would have behaved like normal human being. Toxicity might not hurt the player directly but it does affect the game and how people view and play it. I've been on both sides of this. This is another problem, most of you here seem to think I am some kind of monster that infested the world with its deadly evil nature. My life sucked, a lot of games I ended up raging, some games I was friendly, most the others i deactivated the chat or muted everyone, about 25%/10%/65%. I've had players "ruin *my* games" with their toxicity, like you have. It's annoying. Would I want the person to be sorry and come apologize? Nah, no thanks. I'd rather just continue on with my life like that game never happened. > to the point where "toxic kid" is the most well-known stereotype of League players. I thought I'd specifically talk about this because it sounds like you think it's unjustified. Have you played other games? These last few years I've been having a blast on Path of Exile and if I were to compare my experience with the communities in both games I'd just have to start giving blowjobs to everyone playing PoE. It's the dream community. Coming back to this was, honestly, disappointing. The chat logs **from 2 years ago**: Game 1 In-Game Low Brain Usage: wtf xD Low Brain Usage: amazing Low Brain Usage: lvl 2 gank + doublebuff Low Brain Usage: %%%% %%%%% laners who cant lane alone Low Brain Usage: what a %%%%ing %%%%% Low Brain Usage: xDDD Low Brain Usage: im lagging hard Low Brain Usage: that r dodge opieop Low Brain Usage: baguette? Low Brain Usage: wwtf Low Brain Usage: whatever Low Brain Usage: you suck no matter what Low Brain Usage: WTF Low Brain Usage: WTF? Low Brain Usage: ??????????????????????????????? Low Brain Usage: ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Low Brain Usage: im not surrendering to that useless ezreal Low Brain Usage: lmao Low Brain Usage: then ezreal is black matter Low Brain Usage: bro Low Brain Usage: he got 4 ganks in the first 7 minutes of game Low Brain Usage: and a free double buff Low Brain Usage: k Low Brain Usage: suck my cock Low Brain Usage: the onyl garbage player here is ezreal Low Brain Usage: and hes winning because hes well aware of it so he asks for such babysit Low Brain Usage: please report ziggs Low Brain Usage: and ezreal of course, but that was obvious Low Brain Usage: youre garbage Low Brain Usage: what are you asking Low Brain Usage: you Low Brain Usage: are Low Brain Usage: garbage Low Brain Usage: pretty smelly one Low Brain Usage: lmao xD Low Brain Usage: bro Low Brain Usage: you do realise you got the most insane babysit of the year do you Low Brain Usage: XD Low Brain Usage: you Low Brain Usage: suck Low Brain Usage: suck Low Brain Usage: you suck so insanely hard Low Brain Usage: you ask your whole team to come kill me 5v1 Low Brain Usage: its like the 20th time someone who is not you comes to midlane Low Brain Usage: what a pathetic useless noob Low Brain Usage: i bet your friends are tired of playing 4v5 Low Brain Usage: im just tilted that this noob is not 0/20 like he deserves Low Brain Usage: ?????????????????????????????????? Low Brain Usage: that e was out of %%%%ing range are you kidding me Low Brain Usage: lmao Low Brain Usage: yeah Low Brain Usage: focusing the weakeas after i had solokilled you twice in lane Low Brain Usage: after getting 5 ganks and a free doublebuff Low Brain Usage: %%%%ing %%%%% ass moron
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
>Dude, it already happens like that - you simply keep not doing some research. No, it simply does not. Unless there's been a major change in ban policy these couple of years I've been banned and nobody has talked about it. I never ever fed, trolled, inted. Never a single gameplay offense other than back in 2014 when i installed league in my dying laptop and it would crash on me in the middle of games. My ban was in 2017, purely for chat reasons. You can tell me to do my research as much as you want, what you're saying is simply false, otherwise I was mistakenly banned which is not the case as the reform ticket states I was banned for continuous chat offense. >Again, there's no reason why other players have to deal with returning asshats. You're saying theres **no reason**, none at all. The players who are reformed don't exist apparently. Okay, man, whatever. This is just fascinating. I'll say it again. With that attitude you're on the same path that led me to a permaban.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
XD Is it not clear what I mean by this is both things being completely separate? Meaning you dont get game restrictions for your chat behaviour and you dont get chat restrictions for your game behavior I don't know man. I don't feel like you're taking the discussion, if we can even call it that, seriously at all.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
I dont think you even understand what I'm suggesting at all. You keep asking me to give you things I've already given several times, not only to you but other people in this post. Everytime I do you choose to ignore it. I'm tired of this.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
>When prompted to explain how and why Riot should trust 1-year banned players to reform, you didn't give an answer. You dodged it with a "they will get a 1-year ban again". ...what? Riot shouldn't trust or mistrust anyone, they should put up a system which detects players being toxic. Those who reform will stop being punished by the system and those who don't reform will keep continuously being year-banned by it. I've been saying this all the time. I swear, it's getting very annoying to have to repeat myself to the same guy all the time. >But in the meantime, they will have flamed/trolled more matches. At that point, why would Riot want to keep them around? Yes, maybe they'll play for a week and then get banned for a whole other year. This is not *keeping them around*, this is telling them "we don't want you like this, try again next year" instead of "we dont want you", an attitude full of hate and resentment which, again, resembles the attitude that got me banned.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> If certain people don't want to reform Are you counting me as one of those? >Gameplay related offenses get a 14 days and permanent ban at the first and second confirmed offenses! There's still no independent chat offenses/punishments system
Paper1 (EUW)
: > Of course it is, so decide where you draw the line of what counts as toxic enough behaviour and let the algorithm treat everyone equally. We did and the line is where it is now. > Of course there's going to be disagreements if the matter is subjective. But you're talking as if something about bans being permanent isn't subjective. It's the same thing, here I am disagreeing with having permanent bans. Okay, but I don't think you've given a convincing enough argument for that yet. See further down in this post. > Are you saying it shouldn't be algorithms, but players, who decide who should be banned? Weren't you the one talking about prejudice? Humans are the ones who get attached and make exceptions, we're the ones who make prejudiced decisions. The algorithms are constructed and influenced to a degree by humans though. The algorithms are a means to automate bans on a large scale so that somebody doesn't have to take the enormous amount of time looking through each individual case. So to a certain extent, yes I do think the community should have a say in some way on which kind of players should be banned because it is ultimately affecting our games. I think it is weird that you would frame that answer as something to be ashamed of. > It wouldn't be less effective in the slightest. The truly dedicated toxic players are making account after account, so with the current system you're getting rid of the best of the worst (the ones who would stop being part of "the worst" over time) and keeping the worst of the worst. I don't agree that you can make that conclusion from that statement. There are those that make new accounts after being banned, and those that don't. The latter is what we want when we issue permanent bans: We're saying you are not allowed to play this game anymore, so they don't. Ban successful. > I'd argue it'd be more effective, because the possibility of recovering their accounts in the future might bind them more strongly with their original account and motivate them to try and keep it. Right now most people don't give a shit what account it is theyre on, the fifth? The seventh? It becomes a bragging matter at this point. These people are completely deattached from their accounts so permanently banning them solves nothing. If they already consider their accounts disposable, then their original account will also be considered disposable by them, so your argument doesn't make sense.
>We did and the line is where it is now. I'm talking about a line of what counts as toxic enough behaviour to get year-banned repeatedly. >The algorithms are constructed and influenced to a degree by humans though. The algorithms are a means to automate bans on a large scale so that somebody doesn't have to take the enormous amount of time looking through each individual case. So to a certain extent, yes I do think the community should have a say in some way on which kind of players should be banned because it is ultimately affecting our games. I think it is weird that you would frame that answer as something to be ashamed of. Of course they are, because they have to be. The thing with algorithms is there is just 1 for each thing. Because of that we can have lots of people working on what is best for the same algorithm which will be applied equally in every situation. Otherwise we get individual people working individual cases, making the whole matter exponentially prejudiced. >I don't agree that you can make that conclusion from that statement. There are those that make new accounts after being banned, and those that don't. The latter is what we want when we issue permanent bans: We're saying you are not allowed to play this game anymore, so they don't. Ban successful. Yes, some make new accounts and some don't. Which of these two is worse for the community? Those who do continuously make new accounts. These are the ones making the most amount of games terrible for people. I think it's pretty safe to assume, then, that this is the group you should prioritize on getting rid of. They are making new accounts so it's not possible to make them want to quit the game. You must give them a reason to want to keep their original account. You must make their accounts less disposable. If you give them a chance to, after a long time, maybe, recover their account, they might spend money and effort on one of these accounts, which might motivate them to want to not get banned for year-long periods. >If they already consider their accounts disposable, then their original account will also be considered disposable by them, so your argument doesn't make sense. I've just adressed this.
: > [{quoted}](name=Low Brain Usage,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=5XJmxYzw,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-02-17T19:24:20.518+0000) > > Cool username btw it's the names of two songs from my favorite band Tool give a listen to them if you want :p
I know, that's why I said it was cool :p
Èclair (EUNE)
: Riot's been trying with second chance programs for few years already. The first experiment which consisted of approx. 200 players that were supposed to level up to 20 on a smurf account without getting one justified report had 5% success rate amongst hand-picked individuals. Current NA unban experiment was opened six months ago with Riot even remarking that they won't post any feedback and it'll probably won't change any already existing policy. > [{quoted}](name=Low Brain Usage,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=5XJmxYzw,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2019-02-17T19:51:25.540+0000) > > Yes, for which the past me has been punished. Sadly, the past has that nasty side effect of influencing the present. You weren't punished with a year or two long ban, but a permanent one. So the punishment isn't severed. >I have. Moving on and accepting it doesn't mean agreeing with all of Riot's policy, however. Moving on and accepting your wrongdoings also means accepting the punishment. I think you're lacking on the later. If the only part of your remorse is disagreeing with punishment given then you're not really sorry for your actions, you're sorry you got caught.
>Sadly, the past has that nasty side effect of influencing the present. You weren't punished with a year or two long ban, but a permanent one. So the punishment isn't severed. You, yourself, are saying this is sad. It's not an absolute fact, a necessity for the universe to exist, is it? It can change. That's precisely what I'm attempting with this post. Sadly, according to the support team, there's no way to make impopular suggestions to the dev team. So I guess I'm stuck here with whatever the pop opinion happens to be. Maybe I get lucky and my proposition becomes the pop, righteous oppinion to have, but if that ever happens it will be years from now, at which point I might even be already unbanned for whatever other pop reason. I hate politics and mass appeal. %%%% this. >Moving on and accepting your wrongdoings also means accepting the punishment. I think you're lacking on the later. If that's what you mean by moving on. Personally I think moving on is about living without giving much importance to whatever it is you've moved on from. That I definetly have, but yesterday a friend told me he'd heard some people got unbanned and told me to try and send a ticket. I started thinking back and I kind of miss this account, which is why I made this post when the support guy told me the only reason to contact the dev team was through forums. B'yeah, RIP that. >If the only part of your remorse is disagreeing with punishment given then you're not really sorry for your actions, you're sorry you got caught. Oh, come on. You know it's hard to feel sorry about something you didn't do. I definetly did act in a very toxic way, but I also definetly didn't hurt anyone. I'm assuming you've played the game a bunch. Even if you have played just a handful of games you're guaranteed to have seen some guy or other being toxic. Would you say they ever hurt anyone but themselves? Didn't they just get looked down on and reported by the sane players in the game? What should I be sorry about? Who should I be sorry to? I'm definetly ashamed, but I'm not sorry. You can't ask me that.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
Was my reply to this "ghost" deleted?
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
>It didn't reform people. I thought permanent bans weren't supposed to reform people. >chat restricted players chose to start trolling once their allotted messages were up. Some people would do this, some wouldn't. Which is why having separate ban systems for gameplay behavior and chat behavior makes sense.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
>It wasn't the past for you, riot and the ones you flamed to the point of getting a perma. "But you were generating" >If you choose to see counter-arguments to your suggestion as personal attacks, so be it - we're done here, and nothing will change. What counter-arguments, exactly? These? >And, before you use the "muh mute button" argument: why should we have to deal with you, >The sarcasm you're oozing doesn't really give me the impression that you are fighting for a principle. >you are very well aware of what I'm trying to get to, but you choose to dodge the topic. >You've given me no indication you thought this thoroughly Are these your genious counter-arguments which are definetly on topic? Heh, I almost forgot about the one where you called me an asshat. Genious argument indeed. >Except you never provided any solution for people who keep creating or buying accounts to dodge bans - which is why your suggestion, ultimately, is pointless. I have, I think, twice, in this comment section. Also it's pretty funny thay you'd consider my suggestion pointless simply because it wouldn't fix a certain issue. The issue which, particularly, still exists with the current system. Wouldn't you have to see the current one as pointless as well, then? >The real question is - are people truly reformed after a perma, or they're simply pretending? Why did it take a perma to initiate reform? Which you keep not responding to. Again, it seems like you haven't even read the post. The answer to this question(which, by the way, is irrelevant to the suggestion I'm making) is in several places in this post.
Paper1 (EUW)
: > Prejudiced how? Those who aren't reformed would get banned for another whole year after some toxic games and those who are reformed wouldn't. How is that prejudiced? There isn't a discrete measure of how reformed somebody is. It is subjective. How I may judge somebody to be reformed is different from how you would judge them or how anybody else would judge them. Riot may choose to judge players to be reformed that a lot of the player base may not agree with, so thats how it can be prejudiced. It wouldn't be all that surprising to see pro players or streamers get preferential treatment. The thing that everyone objectively agrees on is that a permanently banned player must have broken the rules, and it only makes logical sense that the punishment system never allows permanently banned accounts to be played on again, because thats what permanent means. > No, it's not. This is the 21st century, we have algorithms already in place which don't go around deciding who they make friends with. They don't trust or mistrust. Algorithms aren't the players, humans are the players. If a player has been toxic for many many games, we as a community of human players do not think that should be allowed and if we deem it so bad, then we dont want to play with that player anymore. We have therefore lost trust in that player to behave appropriately to such a degree that we collectively don't believe that player will not act that way in game ever again. This is the scenario for the overwhelmingly majority of permaban cases. > We're not worth it, for you, so you're okay with consciously harming those who no longer deserve it simply because there's not a lot of us? The choice you have presented in this question isn't what is actually happening though. I am not for changing the duration of the most severe form of punishment in the system for a minority when the current form of severest punishment works for the majority, especially when a change you're suggesting would be less effective for that majority.
>There isn't a discrete measure of how reformed somebody is. It is subjective. How I may judge somebody to be reformed is different from how you would judge them or how anybody else would judge them. Of course it is, so decide where you draw the line of what counts as toxic enough behaviour and let the algorithm treat everyone equally. >Riot may choose to judge players to be reformed that a lot of the player base may not agree with, so thats how it can be prejudiced. It wouldn't be all that surprising to see pro players or streamers get preferential treatment. Of course there's going to be disagreements if the matter is subjective. But you're talking as if something about bans being permanent isn't subjective. It's the same thing, here I am disagreeing with having permanent bans. >The thing that everyone objectively agrees on is that a permanently banned player must have broken the rules, and it only makes logical sense that the punishment system never allows permanently banned accounts to be played on again, because thats what permanent means. Well, yeah. We all agree that whatever happens is caused by whatever the cause was. The fact that this process happens this way is pretty objective I'd say. This process, however, is affected by Riot's policy, which is decided through subjective opinion. >Algorithms aren't the players, humans are the players. If a player has been toxic for many many games, we as a community of human players do not think that should be allowed and if we deem it so bad, then we dont want to play with that player anymore. We have therefore lost trust in that player to behave appropriately to such a degree that we collectively don't believe that player will not act that way in game ever again. This is the scenario for the overwhelmingly majority of permaban cases. Are you saying it shouldn't be algorithms, but players, who decide who should be banned? Weren't you the one talking about prejudice? Humans are the ones who get attached and make exceptions, we're the ones who make prejudiced decisions. >The choice you have presented in this question isn't what is actually happening though. I am not for changing the duration of the most severe form of punishment in the system for a minority when the current form of severest punishment works for the majority, especially when a change you're suggesting would be less effective for that majority. It wouldn't be less effective in the slightest. The truly dedicated toxic players are making account after account, so with the current system you're getting rid of the best of the worst (the ones who would stop being part of "the worst" over time) and keeping the worst of the worst. I'd argue it'd be more effective, because the possibility of recovering their accounts in the future might bind them more strongly with their original account and motivate them to try and keep it. Right now most people don't give a shit what account it is theyre on, the fifth? The seventh? It becomes a bragging matter at this point. These people are completely deattached from their accounts so permanently banning them solves nothing.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
>But you were generating to the point of getting booted out. You're even using the past tense yourself. >The sarcasm you're oozing doesn't really give me the impression that you are fighting for a principle. At this point I'm simply defending myself. I make a post about my opinion on a certain topic and i get downvoted to the ground mostly by people who didn't even comment and jumped on by people with hateful and judgemental attitudes just like the one that got me banned, but all directed to myself. >Or, who knows, you are very well aware of what I'm trying to get to, but you choose to dodge the topic. I don't think I am, almost all I'm seeing from you is personal attacks which I choose to defend myself from with sarcasm. >And it would be perfectly useless, as stated. You've given me no indication you thought this thoroughly, nor any assurance that a year-banned person wouldn't jump on a smurf and avoid reforming - instead, you are dodging these points like they're Teemo's darts. I never dodged that question. I don't know if it was you but I told someone "jumping on a smurf and avoid reforming" is not a viable option for someone who deserves the ban. If they truly do deserve it they will get banned on their smurf aswell, it's simply not sustainable. Yeah, it'd be possible to make 56 accounts to play one each week of the year and cheat the system. Using this as an argument is quite comical, though. Plus, the only difference would be that, these toxic players who would be dedicated enough to make and remember 56 accounts are, right now, simply making a new one whenever they're banned. The only difference would be that once a year the account is the same. Are you sure that's worth punishing people who are reformed?
Julevi (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Low Brain Usage,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=5XJmxYzw,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2019-02-18T07:38:24.344+0000)That makes no sense to me. What´s the point of having them banned if they´re not worthy of it? Not everyone changes, some people will stick to a toxic mentality for a longer period or potentially their whole life. Let´s say we grant you the benefit of the doubt - you turned to a player who ensures a positive environment for their teammates. But this automaticall leads to some questions: * **Why does Riot have to pamper "negative customers"? Why should we give them chances over and over again? ** In a normal case people have to face a 10 Game CR, 25 Game CR, a 14-days-ban and finally the permanent ban. 10 CR and 25 CR are really not much more than a small slap as you are still able to use nearly everything in the game - it's rather a sign that they should start rethinking their behaviour. After that we have to face a 14-day-suspension which explicity tells you that it will be too late when you continue with your chosen path of negativity. Now they pull out harder suspensions in the hope to wake you up. In my experience there is a massive problem with people who skip some steps and receive sooner a 14-day due to trigger-words as they often lack self-awareness or some kind of education - the cases where I witnessed this the affected player did not see a problem with belittling certain groups and feel unfairly treated because "their words are not that harsh and other people are snowflakes". One case I saw live was when I played with a close friend of one of my contacts and he found it hilarious to repeat: "Blacks (I mean, you probably know that he used another word) don't have rights" and stuff like that - and he meant it from the bottom of his heart. So how could Riot reform players like this? **The permanent ban doesn´t have to fulfill an educational part anymore, like other users have already mentioned this is Riots way to say "We don´t want you longer as our customer, leave". There is always an option to restart with a new account but certain achievements, wasted money and memories will stick forever to your banned account. And this hurts and it should hurt. Because this is frightening and ensures atleast that some toxic people pull themselves together as they fear losing everything.** Riot gives banned people the chance to make a new account and prove themselves there. So what is the problem with permanent bans? You are not forever kept from playing League of Legends. Why should we give toxic (or maybe-past toxic) people who have been registered negatively chances over and over again, why are they so worthy to actually spend a lot of resources (time/money) for their wellbeing? Riot gave them up as they were unwilling to respect simple rules. > If when someone´s ban ends that player´s behavior has improved enough to not get banned again, what´s the point on *still* having them banned? * **When we reduce the permanent ban to a limited one - saying for like 6 months or up to a year, how can we make sure that they have reformed?** I would say that people are able to "serve their sentence" quite easily in this amount of time (especially when they spent a lot of bucks for skins) and now we have the big question - how can we guarantee that they have changed? Well, it might be easy to say: "When they show toxic traits they have to face the same punishment again" but this relies on the report system which is not perfect and offers some gaps to abuse. New idea - programming a tool which monitors their chat 24/7 and instantly punishes them without the need for a report - but this costs not only time and money but it's simply not benefical as only a small percentage of the playerbase goes this far. * **My waiting time is over but I gave the game up - what should prevent me from selling my account?** Let´s say I was toxic enough for the last punishment but now, after one year, I come back. Although I enjoyed the game back then it changed in a way which can't satisfy me anymore but damn, I spent more than 1OO € for skins/icons/whatever! Why shouldn't I break the rules one time again and sell it for a few euros online?
>Not everyone changes, some people will stick to a toxic mentality for a longer period or potentially their whole life. Again, this is not a counterargument to my proposition. I never denied this, I've repeatedly said there's going to be a lot of people like this, which will only be able to play a few games after a whole year before being banned for another whole year, a cycle that will simply repeat until, either the game dies, the person reforms or the person dies. The first two being the most likely, of course. >In my experience there is a massive problem with people who skip some steps and receive sooner a 14-day due to trigger-words as they often lack self-awareness or some kind of education - the cases where I witnessed this the affected player did not see a problem with belittling certain groups and feel unfairly treated because "their words are not that harsh and other people are snowflakes". One case I saw live was when I played with a close friend of one of my contacts and he found it hilarious to repeat: "Blacks (I mean, you probably know that he used another word) don't have rights" and stuff like that - and he meant it from the bottom of his heart. So how could Riot reform players like this? Again, most of the time they can't reform, some can. Those who can't will have what I've said in the last paragraph happen to them. >The permanent ban doesn´t have to fulfill an educational part anymore, like other users have already mentioned this is Riots way to say "We don´t want you longer as our customer, leave". There is always an option to restart with a new account but certain achievements, wasted money and memories will stick forever to your banned account. And this hurts and it should hurt. Because this is frightening and ensures atleast that some toxic people pull themselves together as they fear losing everything. No, it doesn't, neither would an over 365 day ban. The purpose of a long but not infinite ban would be to simply get rid of the player for a while to give him time to change what is making them so horrible. "We don't want you like this" instead of just "we don't want you" which is just holding grudges against people. >Riot gives banned people the chance to make a new account and prove themselves there. So what is the problem with permanent bans? You are not forever kept from playing League of Legends. Why should we give toxic (or maybe-past toxic) people who have been registered negatively chances over and over again, why are they so worthy to actually spend a lot of resources (time/money) for their wellbeing? Riot gave them up as they were unwilling to respect simple rules. That's precisely the problem with permanent bans, they disconnect people from their accounts. That means the truly toxic people who play the most (so those who are worst for the community) face almost no consequences from having an account permanently banned. They can make a new account and start being toxic right away. With year bans, they can too, but the fact that they might get back their account in the future binds them with their original account, motivating them to try and keep it. >I would say that people are able to "serve their sentence" quite easily in this amount of time (especially when they spent a lot of bucks for skins) and now we have the big question - how can we guarantee that they have changed? Well, it might be easy to say: "When they show toxic traits they have to face the same punishment again" but this relies on the report system which is not perfect and offers some gaps to abuse. Are we not currently relying on this same report system? What makes it perfectly capable of determining who should be banned with the current system but incapable with my proposed system? >Let´s say I was toxic enough for the last punishment but now, after one year, I come back. Although I enjoyed the game back then it changed in a way which can't satisfy me anymore but damn, I spent more than 1OO € for skins/icons/whatever! Why shouldn't I break the rules one time again and sell it for a few euros online? Huh, the good and the bad, right? Those who have been banned are evil and those who haven't are righteous. Of course, because we were banned for verbal toxicity years ago we're prone to get into account trafficking. And, of course, because someone didn't get permanently banned it means they wouldn't sell their account no matter how little they care about the game these days.
Paper1 (EUW)
: > This is not me asking for a second chance. I'm stating my genuine disagreement with the current state of affairs. Having read some of your other comments though, you seem to care a lot about this problem that a part of you wishes that you did get a second chance. > My point is, with the current system, unreformed people are getting punished pretty hard and reformed people are being treated just as the unreformed, whether a single individual is reformed or not, whether they'd be lying or not, isn't relevant. You are correct, all people who break the same rules regardless of their reformedness should receive equal punishments, and that should remain the case. Otherwise it would be prejudiced. > I'm suggesting permanent bans should be replaced with 365+ day bans, that way the reformed get the chance to redeem themselves and the unreformable just end up banned for an extra year every time. Does it take 3 years of ban for someone to quit the game? That means this guy might play for a couple weeks more(over the span of **3 years**)than he would've with the current system. Thankfully, though, this way, we are not having reformed people pointlessly banned. I don't want to see players in the game who have displayed truly horrible behaviour to such a degree that they got themselves a permanent ban. You can't distinguish between reformed an unreformed because like I said before people lie about themselves and its a matter of who you trust and who you dont. Generally as players, we can't put trust in random strangers not being toxic to us or anyone else in our games in the future once we have experienced it. We are still experiencing it by other players who haven't been banned yet, it happens almost every game for at least one team. I would not be in favour of opening the doors to the game back open for these people after a year, they had plenty more warnings from Riot already than I would have given. > It *is* pointless to have knowingly reformed people banned. Yes, you can't know for sure when someone really is reformed or is simply lying, but you *can* know that there's some people out there who are reformed, who are banned. Is their ban not pointless, whoever these people happen to be? It's not pointless. This idea of reformed actually only comes about because those people are banned. Some people out there may be capable of changing their behaviour after a permanent ban, but that number is so small that it's not worth changing the ban rules over. Also, most people who are capable of changing their behaviour do so after their first one or two warnings, so I am unsympathetic to those who get to the permaban stage. They were afforded the same opportunities to improve their behaviour earlier and they chose not to.
>Having read some of your other comments though, you seem to care a lot about this problem that a part of you wishes that you did get a second chance. Not a second chance. A chance for everyone to redeem themselves after a **long** ban time has passed. But, yes, of course I'd want the same treatment I'm asking for everyone. The contrary wouldn't make much sense. >You are correct, all people who break the same rules regardless of their reformedness should receive equal punishments, and that should remain the case. Otherwise it would be prejudiced. Prejudiced how? Those who aren't reformed would get banned for another whole year after some toxic games and those who are reformed wouldn't. How is that prejudiced? >I don't want to see players in the game who have displayed truly horrible behaviour to such a degree that they got themselves a permanent ban. You can't distinguish between reformed an unreformed because like I said before people lie about themselves and its a matter of who you trust and who you dont. No, it's not. This is the 21st century, we have algorithms already in place which don't go around deciding who they make friends with. They don't trust or mistrust. >It's not pointless. This idea of reformed actually only comes about because those people are banned. Some people out there may be capable of changing their behaviour after a permanent ban, but that number is so small that it's not worth changing the ban rules over. We're not worth it, for you, so you're okay with consciously harming those who no longer deserve it simply because there's not a lot of us?
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
Well, now I'm just fascinated by how you're not permanently banned yourself. You're being just as hateful and judgemental as i was back then. >Why does it matter to you, is the real question. Why are you so stuck with a permabanned account, to the point of getting all emotionally detached from your secondary accounts? Whatever my reasons are, if there are no reasons for the opposite what is stopping my personal preference to come true? Nothing, unless people actually care about me playing on one account instead of the other, which would be strange considering how little they know about the whole thing. Sounds to me like you've labelled me as Satan or something and directed to me all the hate you've accumulated with the other people you had bad experiences with in this game. >Eh, you're the one who said they changed after the whole ordeal was done. So yeah, why are you dodging the question? Dodge the question? I, sarcastically, told you I thought I would've changed either way, because my toxicity was a byproduct of how much I hated my life. >Why did it took you a permanent ban and a school change to realize you were an asshat? This is just fascinating. >What assurances would have you given Riot that you deserved a 4th chance? What assurance would any person banned for a year give Riot that they changed in the meantime? Again, it sounds like you haven't even read whay I'm suggesting. I'm tired of explaining it to people. You can read for yourself. >In fact, you are giving plenty of reasons as to why your suggestion is bad. You are not tackling counter-arguments, you are dodging them with sarcasm. Am i really not? I believe I am. Please state the argument that was presented to me which I dodged. Quote the whole thing and mark each point, please. >It's clear, at this point, that the only objective you have is to give as many tools as possible to toxic people - but not necessarily for reform, which is the whole point of the three-strikes policy. It's not even that this policy is new on the Internet. This whole thing is a perfect example of the attitude I had back then, which got me permanently banned. Good luck with that.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
>That's literally just your viewpoint. You hate having to be made responsible for your actions on a beloved account. ...what? What is my viewpoint? My question is a viewpoint? Or you mean viewing secondary accounts is my viewpoint? How is that relevant? I can just rewrite the question, "what's the difference between me playing on one account instead of another?" If the problem was with my toxicity and I'm playing the game again without getting banned, what does it matter what account I'm using? It matters to me, what does it matter to everyone else, though? >Would you have changed attitude if it was not for the permanent ban? Possibly not - you flamed immediately after getting told your standing was improving. Have you even read the post? This was years ago, my life has changed massively, I like it now, you don't think that would've made me a more positive person? >You have to ask yourself whether you took the warnings seriously or not. Whether you would have changed attitude before the perma. It's really easy to say "yes" after the deal is done, but you should understand that at that time, the trust placed on you was very thin already, and you broke it one final time. That's why people have a hard time believing verbal reassurances like "if you revert this punishment, I will never act like that anymore" - you at least three possibilities to do that. Again, read the post and what I'm suggesting. This is not about me, I'm using my experience with it as an example to say what's wrong with it.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
What do you mean it "didn't work"? The programmers didn't manage to successfully ban players from using in-game chat?
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
... >It still serves jack shit. You think a year of goodbye to a toxic player serves nothing? How long do you plan on even playing this game for? Decades? > If you're toxic enough to get banned for a year, why shouldn't you get banned permanently? Because permanently means you'll be banned also when you've long stopped being toxic. >You seem to be mistaking something: when people demonstrate they don't want to change, a line must be drawn. Riot chose to draw that line. It also protects their business - verbal toxicity causes an increased likelihood of players quitting and never returning. What am I mistaking, exactly? Is a 365+ day ban not a line? A year is nothing to you? Are you immortal or something? You're a couple billion years old? >And, before you use the "muh mute button" argument: why should we have to deal with you, instead of you taking responsibility for your actions? The what, now? Deal with me? With what about me? The toxicity I no longer generate? Are you sure you're even in the right conversation? I'm suggesting permanent bans should be replaced with year bans which simply repeat themselves when after a year the player demonstrates no change. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm suggesting I should be allowed to go around spatting out whatever I want and suffer no consequences.
: From 2 weeks to permanent is kinda harsh. Make one ban that's 6 months long in between.
I'd be okay with a 6 month ban as the previous step to a year ban, but as another step to a permaban I don't think it'd make much of a difference. Riot doesn't think so either. I agree that it's too harsh and I'd personally support your proposition but I think what is truly necessary is to eliminate permanent bans. Have a max tier ban be a year ban which simply repeats itself if the player is consistently toxic (over 365+ day intervals).
: Permanent bans shouldn't exist
A lot of the people in the comments sound like they want to keep permanent bans in case people aren't toxic enough to get banned when their temporary ban ends. That makes no sense to me. What's the point of having them banned if they're not worthy of it? If when someone's ban ends that player's behavior has improved enough to not get banned again, what's the point on *still* having them banned?
Paper1 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Low Brain Usage,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=5XJmxYzw,comment-id=000300000000000000020000,timestamp=2019-02-18T00:31:21.493+0000) > > Yes, but what is the point of preventing me from doing something I wouldn't do regardless? Not the guy you're replying to but wanted to chime in on this in particular. The point of preventing you for doing it again is that there is no way to know for 100% sure whether you wouldn't do it again. You or anyone who got a permaban could easily lie about changing your behaviour, not saying that you are lying, but the point is that you could be and that becomes more likely for those that are known to have been banned before.
>The point of preventing you from doing it again is that there is no way to know for 100% sure whether you wouldn't do it again. This is not me asking for a second chance. I'm stating my genuine disagreement with the current state of affairs. My point is, with the current system, unreformed people are getting punished pretty hard and reformed people are being treated just as the unreformed, whether a single individual is reformed or not, whether they'd be lying or not, isn't relevant right now. I'm suggesting permanent bans should be replaced with 365+ day bans, that way the reformed get the chance to redeem themselves and the unreformable just end up banned for an extra year every time. Does it take 3 years of ban for someone to quit the game? That means this guy might play for a couple weeks more(over the span of **3 years**)than he would've with the current system. Thankfully, though, this way, we are not having reformed people pointlessly banned. It *is* pointless to have knowingly reformed people banned. Yes, you can't know for sure when someone really is reformed or is simply lying, but you *can* know that there's some people out there who are reformed, who are banned. Is their ban not pointless, whoever these people happen to be?
Julevi (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Low Brain Usage,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=5XJmxYzw,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-17T20:15:24.948+0000)> So you would punish people for your pleasure? You´d send someone with amnesia to prison for something they don´t remember doing? You'd have pointless punishments put on others just because it makes you feel righteous or something like that? > Nobody will be punished just for the sake of satisfaction - people in this game have to face consequences for their actions as the ruin the game experience for their mates. A majority of toxic people here probably don't suffer from amnesia or any other kind of illnesses which could cloud their judgment. And even when they deal with something in their private life - that does not give them a free pass to behave in a contraproductive way. And to answer your question (although this is quite sensitive) - some people are unlucky and suffer from illnesses and this is per se not a problem. But as soon as it starts to escalate and the affected people start harming others or commit crimes - sorry, but my tolerance here is limited. In my country I read about various incidents in the last year where people were murdered or injured - one of the first reactions from the offenders was always "Hey, I have this XY illness and can't remember a thing, it felt like being on drugs" - now tell me, does this justify their actions? **Edit:** In LoL you can't harm somebody physical but your words still could have a massive impact on the life of another player. Riot gives you enough chances to reconsider your attitude in form of the punishments and they are not at all pointless.
> Riot gives you enough chances to reconsider your attitude in form of the punishments and they are not at all pointless. Is it not pointless for my original account to be banned right now? What is accomplished, exactly? When I feel like playing some games I do. What's the difference between having me play on fake accounts instead of the real one?
PH45 (EUNE)
: > This one sounded pretty judgemental, to be honest. I "decided to flame hard". Is that what you think of me? Of people who are/have been toxic? We're just "the devil" and go around spreading negativity because it's our way of life? Have you never stopped to consider everything that happens comes with a backstory? Sorry if it sounded like that, you just made it seem like kind of a bad way when you put it ''I get a client popup about how there has been an improvement in my behaviour and I'm no longer on some watchlist. I flame pretty hard the next game'' That just sounds overall like a poor judgement call but sorry if I made it sound judgemental. > I've checked my Email and I couldn't find anything about the two week ban or the permaban at all, only about a 7day ban from back in 2014. Maybe I deleted it at some point, I dont remember. I am talking about the reform card you get when you log into the client. > So you would punish people for your pleasure? You'd send someone with amnesia to prison for something they don't remember doing? You'd have pointless punishments put on others just because it makes you feel righteous or something like that? Well I think if someone with Amnesia breaks the law, he still doesn't get a free pass for it afaik? But still this is a different thing. You made it sound like the toxic you and the current you are 2 different beings. They aren't. Sure you've changed your behavior but at the end of the day, you are still you. You broke the rules in the past, not toxic you. > That just means most people will be banned again after the 2 years end and they start playing again. Most people will be banned again, some will be saved. Still sounds good to me. Whatever, it can sound good to you, but majority of the playerbase wants to keep the permabanned players banned, and I don't think that's changing anytime soon especially with how these experiments have gone in the past.
>I am talking about the reform card you get when you log into the client. I don't know what the reform card is, when i log onto this account i get a popup with the chat log of the game that supposedly got me banned. >Well I think if someone with Amnesia breaks the law, he still doesn't get a free pass for it afaik? That'd be the current law in whatever country we're talking about but deciding to do something just because someone else is doing it is very often not a wise choice. >But still this is a different thing. You made it sound like the toxic you and the current you are 2 different beings. They aren't. I could argue they are different, that we're never the same being at all. But that's already getting into philosophy. People don't like that, which is why I'm arguing from a more practical sense. If the current me will not be toxic again, a ban is simply pointless. >Sure you've changed your behavior but at the end of the day, you are still you. You broke the rules in the past, not toxic you. Yes, but what is the point of preventing me from doing something I wouldn't do regardless? >Whatever, it can sound good to you, but majority of the playerbase wants to keep the permabanned players banned If people manage to have so much hate towards people they dont know that they're okay with consciously harming the undeserving I'd argue these people are most likely very toxic themselves in ways, luckily for them, Riot simply doesn't care as much about. >and I don't think that's changing anytime soon especially with how these experiments have gone in the past. well that just sucks
: >We can't have everything exactly like we want to. In order to play this game I had to accept rules I didn't like. Nothing force you to play this game, so you didn't like the rules and did not followed them wich resulted in a perma ban according to the rules you accepted, it's not hard to understand that you are in the wrong here. You have 2 choice: Follow the rules or don't play the game. You got punished for not following the rules and I see nothing wrong with it, you saw it coming.
>Nothing force you to play this game, so you didn't like the rules and did not followed them wich resulted in a perma ban according to the rules you accepted, Yeah, that's accurate. But I *did* want to play the game and accepted them at my own risk. What's wrong with stating my disagreement with the rules, though? > it's not hard to understand that you are in the wrong here. Again, wrong about what? About disagreeing with the TOU? That's not a matter of right and wrong, it's an opinion. >You have 2 choice: Follow the rules or don't play the game. You got punished for not following the rules and I see nothing wrong with it, you saw it coming. Yeah... Again, why can't I state my disagreement with the rules?
: >People can't disagree with the contract they've signed? If you disagreed with the TOU then why did you agreed ? So you are in the wrong here and you can't complain. >To live in a state you agree to its "terms of use", its laws. You're saying nobody should ever disagree with any law ever, because it's part of the contract they initially signed? Once again you can try to find whatever excuses you want, you did not followed the TOU so your account got perma banned just like you agreed to, but I'll use your logic and reverse it: "Before you could access your account and now you can't because LOL decided it. Everything as an end". >Did you even expect me to take your comment seriously? You sound pretty condescending in that last line. Sounds like you just read the title and the tl;dr and thought: "bah, another one of these %%%%%%s, let's just copypaste this thing" One thing never change when someone perma banned complain about the rules: They are always in the wrong. Let me explain, it's simple: You don't agree with the TOU ? Don't accept it. You did not read the TOU ? Then you should not have accepted it. You did not followed the TOU you agreed to follow and you got perma banned ? You can only blame yourself. Should RIOT listen to people who can't even follow something they accepted to agree ? No. Should people who broke the laws multiple time writte the rules ? (By using your terrible exemple above) No. It's that simple and it's clear that you are not in the good according to people seeing the negative votes. {{sticker:zombie-brand-clap}}
I can't tell if you're trolling or just way too young still. >If you disagreed with the TOU then why did you agreed ? We can't have everything exactly like we want to. In order to play this game I had to accept rules I didn't like. This, unfortunately, led to a permaban. But it also could have not. I'm sure there's players out there who haven't been banned who don't agree 100% with the TOU. >Once again you can try to find whatever excuses you want, you did not followed the TOU so your account got perma banned just like you agreed to, but I'll use your logic and reverse it: "Before you could access your account and now you can't because LOL decided it. Everything as an end". Uh... >One thing never change when someone perma banned complain about the rules: They are always in the wrong. This just makes no sense. Opinions about things are not factual statements. They can't be wrong or right. "I like red carpets" Is the sentence above right? Is it wrong? No, and no. Well, we could say sentences like this are always right, unless the person is lying about their opinion. >You don't agree with the TOU ? Don't accept it. But I want to play the game >You did not read the TOU ? Then you should not have accepted it. True, why can't i state my disagreement with the TOU, though? >You did not followed the TOU you agreed to follow and you got perma banned ? You can only blame yourself. True, why can't i state my disagreement with the TOU, though? >Should RIOT listen to people who can't even follow something they accepted to agree ? No. Whoa, bold statement. Apparently only a few of us plebs have made mistakes. You guys are the real supreme beings. >Should people who broke the laws multiple time writte the rules ? (By using your terrible exemple above) No. True, why can't they state their disagreement with the rules, though? >It's that simple and it's clear that you are not in the good according to people seeing the negative votes. ..Right. Because the majority is always right.
Julevi (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Low Brain Usage,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=5XJmxYzw,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-17T20:15:24.948+0000)> So you would punish people for your pleasure? You´d send someone with amnesia to prison for something they don´t remember doing? You'd have pointless punishments put on others just because it makes you feel righteous or something like that? > Nobody will be punished just for the sake of satisfaction - people in this game have to face consequences for their actions as the ruin the game experience for their mates. A majority of toxic people here probably don't suffer from amnesia or any other kind of illnesses which could cloud their judgment. And even when they deal with something in their private life - that does not give them a free pass to behave in a contraproductive way. And to answer your question (although this is quite sensitive) - some people are unlucky and suffer from illnesses and this is per se not a problem. But as soon as it starts to escalate and the affected people start harming others or commit crimes - sorry, but my tolerance here is limited. In my country I read about various incidents in the last year where people were murdered or injured - one of the first reactions from the offenders was always "Hey, I have this XY illness and can't remember a thing, it felt like being on drugs" - now tell me, does this justify their actions? **Edit:** In LoL you can't harm somebody physical but your words still could have a massive impact on the life of another player. Riot gives you enough chances to reconsider your attitude in form of the punishments and they are not at all pointless.
>Nobody will be punished just for the sake of satisfaction - people in this game have to face consequences for their actions as they ruin the game experience for their mates. Let me scrutinize that statement. >people in this game have to face consequences for their actions This, in itself, doesn't have to imply a permanent ban. >as they ruin the game experience for their mates. You're saying the reason for the consequences is the fact that people ruin (not *ruined*) the game experience for their mates. I agree with this completely. But, when that is no longer the case, when we stop ruining the experience for our mates, what is the point of preventing us from doing something we won't do? We, in the past, did things, for which we paid the consequences. What, in the present, are we doing, that warrants the same consequences? >A majority of toxic people here probably don't suffer from amnesia or any other kind of illnesses which could cloud their judgment. And even when they deal with something in their private life - that does not give them a free pass to behave in a contraproductive way. A free pass is definetly not what I'm asking for, unless you'd consider a ban lasting upwards from 365 days a "free pass". Yeah, my case wasn't amnesia or anything like that. But like in an amnesia case, I am nothing like I was back then. I would never act that way again, which, in my eyes, makes a punishment seem like an act of hateful cruelty. Sort of like religious killings. >as soon as it starts to escalate and the affected people start harming others or commit crimes - sorry, but my tolerance here is limited. What about when it starts to de-escalate? Are you sure you agree with treating the de-escalating cases just like the escalating ones?
: >Permanent bans shouldn't exist You agreed with the Terms Of Use wich says: > 2.1. How can my account be suspended or terminated? (If you break the rules, Demacian Justice will be visited upon your account!) >Three different people/entities can suspend or terminate your account: >2.1.1. You. You may terminate or suspend your account at any time by contacting us at support@riotgames.com. >2.1.2. Us.We may terminate or suspend your account if we determine, in our sole discretion, that: >(a) you have violated any part of this Agreement; >(b) we have stopped offering the Riot Services in your region; or >(c) doing so would be in the best interests of our community, the Riot Services, or the rights of a third party. >We may make such determinations, among other ways, by using automated systems and machine learning tools. And then in the TOU you can read: > 5.1. Can I troll, flame, threaten or harass people while using the Riot Services? (No. If you do, you might get banned.) So next time read what you agreed to and if you don't agree with the TOU then decline it and don't install the game. TOU here: https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/legal/termsofuse
... Your response to my opinion on permanent bans is "you agreed to the terms of use"? I find that somewhat disappointing, if I'm being honest. People can't disagree with the contract they've signed? To live in a state you agree to its "terms of use", its laws. You're saying nobody should ever disagree with any law ever, because it's part of the contract they initially signed? How do laws ever change then? Did you even expect me to take your comment seriously? You sound pretty condescending in that last line. Sounds like you just read the title and the tl;dr and thought: "bah, another one of these %%%%%%s, let's just copypaste this thing"
: a chat ban for life is what i would wish for.
Actually, that might be a more sensible solution.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
[7 day ban email](https://imgur.com/a/XdKIzOg)
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
I'm not suggesting there should be more steps, I'm suggesting the highest ban should be a year ban. If someone truly doesn't stop, jumping on a smurf and waiting it out (a whole year) is not an option. If it was, it would probably mean the ban wasn't that necessary in the first place.
PH45 (EUNE)
: > IIRC, the way the whole thing went down was something like: -get 2 week ban -2 weeks end, I start playing again -I get a client popup about how there has been an improvement in my behaviour and I'm no longer on some watchlist -I flame pretty hard the next game -I play another after that and when it ends I get a popup about being banned because of the previous game. So the moment your behavior had seen an improvement, you decided to flame hard next game? Smart. > I don't recall reading anywhere that my next ban would be permanent, I, in fact, remember feeling quite frustrated because I didn't expect it at all. Better read the reform card dude. 14-day ban reform card states this: Other players judged your comms to be far below the standards of the league community. The vast majority of players agree that while League's an intense, competitive game, everyone deserves respect on the Rift. If this behavior continues, your account will be permanently suspended. > ...I know. But don't you think the changed me should be free of the punishment that was given to the toxic me? It's an account punishment, not a personality punishment. To answer your question, no. > I get that, I also think that if we had, say, 2 year bans, it'd be pretty easy to detect if one of these players was still toxic, it would mean you have to put up with those who don't reform for about a week every couple of years but we'd be giving those who do a second chance. I think it's worth it. Riot also did a permaban unbanning experiment on NA, but didn't provide data from that experiment yet. From what I heard though a lot of those unbanned players fell back to their toxic ways quite quick. In the end you need a lot of bad behavior to get a permaban, if players can't correct their behavior with 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances then good riddance. Imo that's already more than enough chances.
>So the moment your behavior had seen an improvement, you decided to flame hard next game? Smart. This one sounded pretty judgemental, to be honest. I "*decided* to flame hard". Is that what you think of me? Of people who are/have been toxic? We're just "the devil" and go around spreading negativity because it's our way of life? Have you never stopped to consider everything that happens comes with a backstory? >Better read the reform card dude. 14-day ban reform card states this: >Other players judged your comms to be far below the standards of the league community. The vast majority of players agree that while League's an intense, competitive game, everyone deserves respect on the Rift. If this behavior continues, your account will be permanently suspended. I've checked my Email and I couldn't find anything about the two week ban or the permaban at all, only about a 7day ban from back in 2014. Maybe I deleted it at some point, I dont remember. >It's an account punishment, not a personality punishment. As I've stated in my post, for some people, the two are connected. >To answer your question, no. So you would punish people for *your* pleasure? You'd send someone with amnesia to prison for something they don't remember doing? You'd have pointless punishments put on others just because it makes you feel righteous or something like that? >Riot also did a permaban unbanning experiment on NA, but didn't provide data from that experiment yet. From what I heard though a lot of those unbanned players fell back to their toxic ways quite quick. >In the end you need a lot of bad behavior to get a permaban, if players can't correct their behavior with 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances then good riddance. Imo that's already more than enough chances. That just means most people will be banned again after the 2 years end and they start playing again. Most people will be banned again, some will be saved. Still sounds good to me.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
I don't think that would happen with year bans. And, even if it did, a year is so much I don't even think the few games a non-reformed player would play before being year-banned again would be noticeable at all.
Show more

Low Brain Usage

Level 30 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion