Neomarre (EUW)
: DId you actually watch his video? Because i have and only saving grace is that its URF. But if the question is did he vigilantly do trades which he 99 percent of time knew will probabably go bad then the answer is yes he did and a lot.
> [{quoted}](name=Neomarre,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=z75AYGpz,comment-id=000600000000,timestamp=2019-02-28T20:51:47.324+0000) > > DId you actually watch his video? Because i have and only saving grace is that its URF. But if the question is did he vigilantly do trades which he 99 percent of time knew will probabably go bad then the answer is yes he did and a lot. This brings into question of who decides what is a bad trade, and are bad trades ban worthy? If I were to show you a clip of an Iron player should they should all be banned on sight because of their awful decisions? Personally, I don't think so. p.s Xin was my premade and at no point did I mock Soraka. She decided to report me before my first death (when she pinged my amp tome lvl1)
Hansiman (EUW)
: Let me ask you one thing: In your Twitter response image, the Rioter states that your "chat logs doesn't help the cause", indicating that you were saying something in the chat as well. What were you saying?
> [{quoted}](name=Hansiman,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=z75AYGpz,comment-id=000a0000000000010001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-02-27T21:33:30.525+0000) > > Let me ask you one thing: In your Twitter response image, the Rioter states that your "chat logs doesn't help the cause", indicating that you were saying something in the chat as well. What were you saying? It's because the only thing I said all game was "Soraka" "sad player" hence why it doesn't help because I said nothing all game lmao. (You can watch the Youtube video and see at 13 ish minutes I said that)
: I'm... disagreeing with Riot here to an extent. I'll explain how below . To be clear. I thought I'd established that. > Since one Rioter deemed it was int, it puts Riot in the awkward position of admitting fault with their system if they revert the ban. I think the problem here doesn't so much stem from the review of it, but rather the fact that this was escalated to an immediate 14-day ban. If you have a clean slate, as you say, given the circumstances then in my own (and I heavily emphasize this is my own opinion) that should be something like a warning. A "Hey, this is your one off. Try not to do this again". But the punishment pyramid at current is so black and white. And it also opens question to the debate of what punishments should be in place and at what point is it differentiated for someone that's escalating? It's an imperfect system. I'm not here to argue against that. It's just unfortunate that sometimes it works out... not so well.
> But the punishment pyramid at current is so black and white. And it also opens question to the debate of what punishments should be in place and at what point is it differentiated for someone that's escalating? Exactly. I understand that Riot have to show a strong front when enforcing bans, if they unbanned one player they'll be inundated with support tickets for an unban (which I'm sure already happens). When the Soraka boasted that she'd gotten "millions of players like me banned and I won't be logging on tomorrow" I honestly laughed at her. I've never been banned before, and this wasn't a game to be worried about since there was no way (in my opinion) could it be deemed inting. It's such a shame that my account is now in jeopardy of being permenent banned for another infraction. I've honestly never felt so vulnerable as a player as any next game could be my last due to a support ticket. If you haven't watched the Youtube clip I've provided I implore you to do so and make a decision for yourself, is this really ban worthy?
: We're not robots. We have our own opinions. You can find quite a few posts littered around where I've voiced disagreement with decisions. The common misconception stems from the fact _most of the time_ in player behaviour related posts, we try to stay impartial. People misunderstand that as defending someone, rather than laying out what is and isn't wrong, and allowing you to make an informed decision based off of that. We're not bad people. EDIT: using the wrong words because trying to write two things at the same time kappa.
> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion This is my ban in a nutshell. The Rioter that responded to the Tweet said it seems harsh for an URF game. The majority of people in this thread agree that it's way to harsh a punishment. Riot support said no, you inted and that's that. Both of the greens in this thread agree with Riot and I respect your opinions. What i'm frustrated by is that I feel like my ban could have gone either way depending on which Rioter reviewed the initial case. Since one Rioter deemed it was int, it puts Riot in the awkward position of admitting fault with their system if they revert the ban.
Hansiman (EUW)
: > but checking your profile I can see you are quite active I can go through and see that your claim is true And I recently switched my posting from my EUNE account, with the same name, to my EUW one since that's the one I actively use now ingame. My EUNE account has a much much larger posting history. --- > I honestly hardly see you guys on the top of the top posts Remember that we're volunteers. We don't work for Riot, nor get anything for our time. All of us have real jobs/education to attend, which sometimes means we are less active. I've personally been less active the last few months due to university being extra demanding for a while, as well as other life events that took place that has demanded time. (I got married last year, for instance). --- > I feel like people see the controversial posts and make conclusions about you from that. That's pretty accurate. We don't always agree with the information we provide players with, but it doesn't make the information any less true. If players are upset about a certain situation and asks questions, should we not at least assist them with the accurate response, even if we don't necessarily agree with the stance? As volunteers, we're dedicated to the community, and have a desire to help out. It's honestly a hobby of mine, and I love interacting with people. We don't mainly "work for" Riot, but for the community. I stand more on the community's side than I do with Riot. Remember, we're players like yourself. I love the game, which is why I hang around.
> Remember, we're players like yourself. I love the game, which is why I hang around. This statement hurts me the most to read. As a fellow player who loves playing League I thought you might be able to understand my frustration with the current situation I am in. No previous convictions and I get a 2 week ban for an URF game that I didn't int? I've uploaded the game to youtube and will add it to the main post as an edit, hopefully watching it might give you an insight into my perspective and frustrations.
Angst Two (EUW)
: There is no justice
Meanwhile I get a [2 week ban for having a bad KDA in an URF game](https://boards.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behaviour-en/z75AYGpz-14-day-ban-for-one-urf-game-is-riots-punishment-system-unjust-proof-inside) and fighting at inopportune moments....
: There must be a historical context to this. You would not go from having zero punishments ever to being 14 day suspended for dying once 1v4. There must surely be a pattern here...
Nope.... first-time offence of any form and never trolled a game before! As the green said, it's an instant 2 week ban if they decide you 'inted' even with 0 prior infractions.
brutąl (EUNE)
: post it on NA boards, please.
I'm not sure if they'd remove the post because it's a separate region?
: > If I were to show you a clip of a lower ranked player in our community, You know that that's not a correct argument. It's the same argument as player behaviour: If someone flames me, I'm "also allowed" to flame. That's still incorrect. > I'd disagree and say there was no intentional feeding as every decision made has a merit too it in this game. Even diving under tower resulted in 1 for 2 trades or 2 for 2 trades in which they lost minions and xp. And a riot employee stated that you were turretdiving when there was no chance of winning a fight. Okay, but the other thing: **you went 1v4** (in which you died, because everybody was far behind).
But it's not? Flame can be objectively defined. Being aggressive and using verbally abusive words can be categorized and have blacklists against them. I'm saying who decides something is a bad play? To a lower ranked player a trade might be amazing, but to a higher ranked player the same trade is 'inting' because of their deeper knowledge of the game. It's entirely subjective. I went in 1v4 lvl1. Once. Additionally I lvl'd E and my assumption was that swain lvl'd Q first so they had zero CC. I was going to dash through all of them and at worst, flash / barrier back to the safety of my tower. Swain lvl'd E and I died. For the remainder of the game I never engaged when I was outnumbered to that degree.
Hansiman (EUW)
: > Here's the key weakness in your argument though, you specifically worded it as follows: It's not a weakness. It was a simplified example to show why that persons claim that KDA can't be used alone to detect inting. Inting is inting, even if it's just once. That doesn't mean the example I made was specified for your personal case.
So what definition of inting would you provide which matches my game? I'm curious.
: > [{quoted}](name=Hansiman,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=z75AYGpz,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-02-26T13:33:33.585+0000) > > That's not what they're saying. They're saying that you're jumping under the enemy turret or trying to fight 4 enemies alone when it's very clear that you have no chance of success. When they say that after a manual audit that the ban itself is correct, it means that they believe it's more than a bad game. So you agree with that ? to ban players in urf in a troll/fun mode for that ? To be hohnes over the last 2 years some mind blowing threads appeared on boards and without an official riot answer it's really unsettled. So me on my main account that I have it since League was released, before europe server existed, so its like 10 years old, you want to tell me that I did not lost that account for an troll/fun mode in a video game because I was LUCKY nobody reported me ? While in normal games or rank games I never intentional feed, try not to die, play safe etc, but even then some time i go aggressive for a kill, afterwall it's just a videogame not my life, and we are not professional beeign paid to win with all costs, and even profesional do risky plays some time. But in urf and I played around 50 games I play like this: - I alway take electrocute or dark harvest no matter champions, I always go ad or ap no matter what champions (like jana ad or ap, blitz ad with trinity and cirt items or full ap, tryndamere many time I do it ap and spin in people, etc) - I always take flash + ignite - When I go on lane I flash ignite and hit the enemy when I see it almost all the times, thing that its 100% intentional feed on a normal game to rundown lane and flash in enemy, but I do it in 90% of cases in urf becuase is funny because many time enemy get afraid and flash to, and because some time not being ready to be so aggressive he die, but some time I die. - multiple times i catapult in 5 enemy with a strategy in mind that most of time fail and i die (for example to utl with lisandra then zonia, or utl with kenan and zonia) - I fight, constant fight, it's a war game a troll mode is fun to fight so i fight, i go in1v3 1v4 etc countless times, never in this time crossed my mind to aset if I can win or not a fight , I just do it, under towers or in disadvantaged situaitons, some time beeign feed i kill 2-3 enemy some time I instantly die. - I finish many many games with 25-30 even more deads, and yes i did in those games crazy intentional 1v4 or crazy tower dives so it's not just about the amount of deads which has nothing to do with intentional feed, but are deeds that many come after intentional crazy fights and dives. - i was never intentional feed just to feed, but i was all time intentional fight fight fight in situations that in normal game or rank should be punished. but here I flash in enemy team not to trol but because compared to normal/rank game flash has small cooldown so you want to tell me the company side with the delusional players (which it seem are not so delusional after all ) that keep flame me inside game to PLAY SERIOS, and keep whine of forums with threads like "i knwo it's aurf but why not play seros" you want to tell me that company want us to act like robots and be afraid to have fun even in AURF ?! for real you want to say that its normal that support say that he went 1v4 in fights or in tower when he knew he can't win in AURF ?! or he speak about enemy having more itemization in urf ? really ? i never ever raised tab and cared about enemy kills or their items in aurf! it's interesting in what world we live in, in which games are not games anymore, are not for fun and relaxation, need to be stressful and to be afraid, take players accounts away because they had fun in a troll mod! This games i should have been 14 days suspended ? and I just got lucky ? to lose 10 years account for a fun mod cause I DARE to have fun ? https://i.gyazo.com/2ce56ffdf054c0689d042b1ca939714f.png And I knwo it's not about dead count but if they are intentional or not, like I said before I constant flash and fight enemy, I dived towers, went many times 1-3 or 1v4, was never with the intention to troll or intentional JUST die, but nobody can read my mind so if you watch the game it was INTENTIONAL no matter if in my mind was intentional to fight and have fun and kill them not **just to die** like intentional feeders do in rank/normal games.
I agree with your final point, at no point did I think "Hey, I should intentionally int this game" I used the cannon to go to the middle of the lane, I hit people to get dark harvest procs (even in a bad trade, because hey, dark harvest proc!) I'd love to be able to show everyone the game so they could see how I actually tried to win.
Hansiman (EUW)
: "Inting" in itself isn't about having as high amount of deaths per game as possible. If you encounter a player that literally runs down mid 3 times, then does not participate in the game: Would you say they are not inting because it was just 3 times?
Here's the key weakness in your argument though, you specifically worded it as follows: > literally runs down mid 3 times in my game I never 'litterally run it down'. In every dive I did I traded kills. I got something from my death, running it down is clicking at tower and dying and achieving nothing of merit for your team.
: Just accept that their system bans people who don't int and doesn't work properly at all. I go Ohmwrecker, Shureliyas and Sorc shoes on Camille in about 15 games and even ran it down mid yet Riot has done nothing about it because I kept my deaths below 15 or so. Stupid system that should be monitored by humans, but im guessing that Riot's parent company is grasping the money and won't pay extra salaries for something that players would gladly do for free, like the system in CSGO which makes players watch the match and see if a player was Cheating, Scripting, or Griefing.
The worst part about this case is that it was manually audited by a human and the decision was intentional.
Hansiman (EUW)
: > see screenshot 'E'. Even in this wording Riot are saying they don't believe I was actually trolling or 'running it down' but instead just 'were not having a good game'. That's not what they're saying. They're saying that you're jumping under the enemy turret or trying to fight 4 enemies alone when it's very clear that you have no chance of success. When they say that after a manual audit that the ban itself is correct, it means that they believe it's more than a bad game. --- > it was my understanding that you had to intentionally run it down or intentionally lose the game for your team You've misunderstood. The goal is to catch **any** form of intentionally feeding after a single offense. The case you mention as an example may be easier to detect, but that's not the only thing players get detected by. --- > It was also my understanding that you would have to hard flame / run it down a few games in a row to receive a 1-7 Day ban not be told by riot that they feel you’re not playing up to par and be given an instant 2 week ban. This is also a misunderstanding. You were punished for intentionally feeding, which aims to hand out a direct 14 day penalty after a single offense.
> That's not what they're saying. They're saying that you're jumping under the enemy turret or trying to fight 4 enemies alone when it's very clear that you have no chance of success. When they say that after a manual audit that the ban itself is correct, it means that they believe it's more than a bad game. If I were to show you a clip of a lower ranked player in our community, would it not occur to you that they engage is similar situations where it is very clear they have no chance of success? Do they receive bans for making poor decisions? > You've misunderstood. The goal is to catch any form of intentionally feeding after a single offense. The case you mention as an example may be easier to detect, but that's not the only thing players get detected by. I'd disagree and say there was no intentional feeding as every decision made has a merit too it in this game. Even diving under tower resulted in 1 for 2 trades or 2 for 2 trades in which they lost minions and xp. > This is also a misunderstanding. You were punished for intentionally feeding, which aims to hand out a direct 14 day penalty after a single offense. Thank you for clarifying, I was unaware of this.
Rioter Comments

LuckyCritOmg

Level 68 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion