Hansiman (EUNE)
: Muting was tested and didn't work. Permabans are used against players that simply don't want to reform. They are players that Riot are telling that they don't want them to play this game. It's a last resort to protect the majority of the community from such behaviour. If muting a player had no effect, why keep on trying to mute them?
Sometimes there is no solution to a problem. Sometimes a problem doesn't deserve experimenting with more extreme measures to solve (as this simply creates a new set of problems). Everyone is making justifications here. We can't solve the problem using this method so we have to resort to an extreme method. Not all problems are meant to be solved, dude. The mentality exhibited by the majority of people here is the precise mentality which is going to make the internet (if public life isn't already that way) a heavily regulated and restricted area with harsh, asymmetrical penalties for whatever the leading organisations have decided is unacceptable (like cursing, or simply having a "controversial" opinion).
Hansiman (EUNE)
: > u can just perma mute me, that fixes everything Permanent chat restrictions were actually tested a while back, and it was discovered that it doesn't fix everything. People undergoing this penalty had a tendency to find other ways of ruining the game, such as intentional feeding. All it did was allow these players to ruin even more games before getting their deserved permabans.
That's similar to saying that since there is a probability that prisoners repeat their crimes after serving their sentence then they should never be allowed out. The penalty should be as severe as possible (despite the crime) in order to restrict the very possibility of committing any other crimes. That line of reasoning practically applied is the very anti-thesis of liberty. It's extreme. I agree with the OP. Muting is a more reasonable response to his behavior, and still, I am skeptical of that response.
: > Behavior is a more complex issue to deal with. On the contrary, it's pretty simple and straightforward. Everything is crystal clear in one's chat logs. Rules exist and they state that you are "allowed" to violate them three times before being permanently suspended (this varies with the intensity of a violation). > but that I do disagree with this particular manner of dealing with this situation Which means that you'd like to see something new being implemented to deal with this issue. Correct me if I'm wrong. "Special treatment" was maybe a bit too serious and caused the confusion.
Well, that is true, the rules are stated beforehand for players to take into account before deciding whether or not they wish to invest their time and money into the game, and thus, in this regard, the responsibility lies with them. I meant that it is a complex question (e.g. what standards should we posit to control behaviour? What restrictions should we impose on others? etc.) in general. How any organisation deals with that question has significant effects on the quality of our lives. Correct. I do wish for a change, because, this type of problem is not only found on LoL, but in the workplace, university, public life etc. If one reads my other threads, it will be clear that I do perceive verbal abuse as an issue, and one of my threads highlights how significant the issue is (see 'The Effects of Hostile Behaviour on Player Time Investment'), however, taking decisions which increase the quantity of players coming into LoL does not necessarily mean that the quality of the game will improve which my other thread (see 'A Possible Solution to Player Hostility') depicts by hinting at the logical outcomes of these problems.
: > [{quoted}](name=Lunar Curse,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=BMX5yvI8,comment-id=00090000000000000000,timestamp=2017-07-21T21:55:56.229+0000) > > Hacking, cheating, sharing accounts, selling accounts, prohibited use of intellectual property etc. Oddly enough, I don't see anything that relates to one's behavior, which is just as detrimental as all of the other things you mentioned, but in its own way. > I am well aware of the investment made (time, money etc.) of other players, and as a result, I would certainly not make a hasty decision to rob them off that without sufficient reason. First of all, Riot is not robbing anyone. You don't own anything you buy in League of Legends and they have every right to suspend your account, regardless of the amount of money you've put into it. Secondly, explain "hasty decision". The Instant Feedback rarely makes any mistakes when it comes to penalizing reported players and is highly perspicacious and discerning in its job. There is a reason for every suspension (and should there be none, the punishment will be lifted --> extremely rare). And if you think people who verbally abuse others should not be permanently suspended and should instead be given a special treatment, then I'm afraid you and I (and probably a vast number of players) present ineffable differences.
Behavior is a more complex issue to deal with. I stated that I am _uncertain_, but that I do _disagree_ with this particular manner of dealing with this situation (although not _absolutely_) and I never claimed that they deserve special treatment. Yes, it is true that they are not robbing him. I didn't expect anyone to take that statement literally. I was simply trying to express that the player had lost his investment. A hasty decision means that they have not approached the matter with enough restraint (exemplified by their actions). Read my post carefully, please.
: Would you add more warnings? Research has proven that adding more punishments before permaban doesn't improve anything. Players who don't reform after a 14 days ban, don't reform if there are more punishments in between. By adding more punishments, you only keep toxic players for a longer time and I doubt that's what you want.
Interesting. I am not sure what the most efficient way of approaching the situation would be. If what you say is true (it seems credible since we all know strong habits are hard to suppress) then more warnings wouldn't be effective. It is true, that I do not enjoy the company of toxic players, and yet, despite of this, I would not go as far as banning a player who committed an offense similar to the OP. I am well aware of the investment made (time, money etc.) of other players, and as a result, I would certainly not make a hasty decision to rob them off that without sufficient reason. There's the added dimension, where I am aware of the multitude of errors I commit in day to day life, which leads to a certain level of tolerance, mercy, and flexibility with others. There is a limit, and the gravity of the situation will have to be assessed individually (a very time-consuming process, and, the number of players and reports might explain why Riot make such poor decisions although there may be other reasons), which is why, I encourage very careful use of the report system. Anyone who has played LoL will not be surprised to hear that the report system is heavily abused as it constantly used impulsively. In fact, there should be clear consequences to those who use it carelessly (the problem is, that Riot, has very low standards in this regard). I wrote some more about this topic if anyone is interested here: https://boards.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/off-topic-en/utOvkgsK-autofill-toxic-players Note how the player I am having an exchange with is _prepared_ to issue me a "permaban" due to my post. He's not so different from most players commenting on this thread. The problem is, if they are the majority, then the central organisation is prioritizing their needs, over other concerns (e.g. reason, principles). I get that, so, I understand that certain changes are highly improbable.
: > [{quoted}](name=Lunar Curse,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=BMX5yvI8,comment-id=000900000000,timestamp=2017-07-21T20:10:55.182+0000) > > It depends on the nature of the offense. > > In this case (and many other cases I have come across) my answer would be a definite yes. What is, in your opinion, worthy of a permanent suspension?
Hacking, cheating, sharing accounts, selling accounts, prohibited use of intellectual property etc.
: Why the Honor System will Fail
The honor system works in synergy with the loot system (which works in synergy with the LoL store). There's a financial consideration that may possibly make my prediction negligible. The rewards are of a particular nature. The LoL "key" is the best way to imagine this, it has no use-value without a chest. Similarly, many of the other items which we are being rewarded with have no use-value until a certain amount of them are acquired (which evidently occurs over a long-time frame). So, players find themselves in a situation of tension (thus being _this_ much closer to fulfilling an objective) thereby increasing the probability of making a financial investment (compounded by the relatively low, equal, or sometimes higher value of these products in relation to the products which they are used to purchase or acquire). It's a gold mine, fellas.
: The Effects of Hostile Behaviour on Player Time Investment
Interesting. As of yet, using a small sample of 23 players, 1 out of every 2.3 players have stopped playing or otherwise have considered quitting due to negative (in-game) experiences.
: >It is overly-harsh. Getting three warnings before you get permanently banned is harsh?
It depends on the nature of the offense. In this case (and many other cases I have come across) my answer would be a definite yes.
Shiwah (EUW)
: Increasing the frequency and/or value of the rewards incurs in the overjustification effect, which would end up having the opposite effect of encouraging players to keep a good behaviour. Hence why Riot set up the system this way. No one realistically expects everybody to suddenly start behaving well, but reducing toxicity in order to reduce players having an outburst (thus spreading toxicity like wildfire) is the real goal Riot is trying to achieve.
What is the "overjustification effect" and how exactly would it lead to such an outcome? I just googled it, and Wikipedia states: "The overjustification effect occurs when an expected external incentive such as money or prizes decreases a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task." That's pretty interesting, actually. I think I have thought of that in my own way when I had replied to Riot Eambo above with regards to players who already demonstrate positive behaviour where ultimately the motivations at play are effectively transformed which undermines performance. I don't know enough about this concept (at-least, how exactly psychologists conceptualize it). However, I have quickly skimmed the general idea and it aligns with my own experiences (I have personally observed this phenomena play out, and have already given thought to it). However, it doesn't seem like such an effect would apply to players who have a tendency toward negative behaviour, or if it the effect did indeed apply to them, they would simply return to their negative behavioural patterns. So there are no contradictions here apart from your own.
: I regret wasting €415,- on league of 0 respect.
He's correct in addressing that Riot's sense of proportion (at-least, in this given case, if it is true) is very poor. It is overly-harsh. It's important to attempt to give symmetrical consequences to offenses. Unfortunately, buddy, many people have not suffered (unjust) consequences for their actions (nor have the ability to imagine the pain or implications injustice creates), and thus, they unhesitatingly promote violence, make rash judgements, and over-exaggerate righteousness. They are simply intolerant and shallow (which makes them very dangerous). Good luck. I sincerely hope you get your account back. In fact, thank you for your post (there are many others like it) - I will avoid making any further financial investments into this game as a result until the situation is rectified.
el barno (EUW)
: Sounds like a bad idea. There are so many different objectives and strategic decisions to be made. A system like this would be one of two things: - The system is too simplistic leading to a lot of guesswork through pings or quick chat - Players need to click/press through a thousand different menus and submenus. Smite(another moba) has a quick chat system(in addition to normal chat) and there are already so many keybinds, while the system is still very basic and only allows you to convey basic info to your teammates. [](https://www.google.nl/search?q=smite+quickchat&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia56_N0ZrVAhWBYlAKHWqXDYoQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=971#imgrc=Lh6KHhCpf_TKXM:) The current chatsystem is fine, sometimes players use the system to flame, there's a mutebutton if that annoys you.
I've deleted the post (which can now be found under the thread titled 'A Possible Solution to Player Hostility'). Thanks for posting it over there, dude.
el barno (EUW)
: Sounds like a bad idea. There are so many different objectives and strategic decisions to be made. A system like this would be one of two things: - The system is too simplistic leading to a lot of guesswork through pings or quick chat - Players need to click/press through a thousand different menus and submenus. Smite(another moba) has a quick chat system(in addition to normal chat) and there are already so many keybinds, while the system is still very basic and only allows you to convey basic info to your teammates. The current chatsystem is fine, sometimes players use the system to flame, there's a mutebutton if that annoys you.
A valid comment. Perhaps, the chat system can be restricted to higher ELOs (or ranked games) who will be more likely to utilize the chat system to co-ordinate more effectively. It seems, however, based on the comments in this thread, that the chat system has significant value for even casual players.
Zantonny (EUW)
: Solution 2: Genocide.
Ha! Good point. Imagine implementing such an idea IRL (well, it happens to degrees, but at a certain stage, it becomes too tyrannical). Hell. I've even downvoted myself.
shamshamm (EUW)
: If you're gonna state something can you at least source it ? :v
Riot Eambo, above, on this very thread, supports EMLDRAGONSTALKED's claim.
Shiwah (EUW)
: The 'low' (which is a very subjective statement) value is on purpose. You're supposed to keep your behaviour consistently sportsmanslike, if you want access to higher and better rewards.
Correct. I have tried to address why it was unlikely that players (particularly those with a tendency toward negative behavior) would maintain positive behaviour over the long-term. There's a certain balance that must be implemented. There is a limit to how much players will concentrate (invest energy) into positive behavior in order to achieve a reward. The factors which contribute to this are the frequency and the value of the reward. The lower the frequency (and value) of obtaining a reward, the lower the probability of such players altering their behavior. If the frequency of obtaining a reward is, say, _often_, but not often enough, a counter-effect may result, as the players begin to concentrate to repress certain behaviors up to the period of time possible for each given player before having to release. The way it will be released will be dictated by whether the player receives a reward or not. If he does not receive the reward _in time_ I believe that the players will over-express their negative behaviors (hence the expectation of an explosion of reports). If he does receive a reward, the negative behaviour will be circumvented.
: In addition it also boosts intrinsic motivation, short term (simply getting honored) and long term (recognition for consistent good behavior with the occasional loading screen badges). Thats quite a lot of different methods :)
Good point. I didn't consider that simply being honored is a short-term reward. Ironically, this may be the strongest element of the honor system (which was, in fact, already in place, the most significant and positive improvement being that the honor screen is presented _before_ the overview of the results thus increasing the probability of players issuing honors).
: To me, the honor system plays multiple roles: - It encourages positive behaviour - It discourages negative behaviour - It rewards short term (Keys) - It rewards long term (high levels, better rewards) The honor system isn't in itself any form of "silver bullet", it's one of many methods of encouraging a more positive player behaviour, and making the rift a more sportsmanlike place to play :-) We still have punishments for negativity outside honour, and there'll be improvements (and maybe new systems) in the future. Personally I quite like the new honour - there's certainly improvements that could be made, and it's not going to magically make players behave - but it's nice to encourage positivity and reward those paragon's of the community ^_^
Thank you for your comment. I am glad that you have highlighted the roles the honor system are meant to play and that they are aligned with my assumptions. However, I am making the proposition that it will fail to discourage negative behaviour. In fact, I would go as far as saying it would achieve the opposite effect. I believe that it will only _temporarily_ alter the behavior of players who have a tendency towards negative behaviour, and create a significant reversal in the long-run. As for encouraging positive behaviour, the system may possibly lead to a counter-effect, where players who have a tendency toward positive behaviours will find their behaviour subordinated to acquiring a reward, and ultimately, lead to the same sequence of patterns I predict negative players will follow for the reasons outlined above. These are just assumptions. I am certain that, in one way or another, I will either be proven correct, or proven wrong, after enough data has been acquired. If my conclusions were to be proven correct, I hope that my hypothesis has some value in explaining why the results turned out to be as they are.
: > he or she is not not likely to gain a reward This would be a valid argument, if it would be true. But it's not. Rewards for honor are guaranteed.
True. It would have been better to say that the frequency of gaining a reward is low, and furthermore, the value of the reward (specifically those that are gained at a higher rate) are low. As such, the incentive created is simply not strong enough to have a positive effect on behavioral patterns.
Hansiman (EUNE)
: I don't understand the logic of having to be rewarded everytime you're polite towards someone. Common decency pretty much says that you should treat others with respect, and not really expect a reward for it. Giving out rewards for short-time sportsmanlike behaviour makes it abusable since players that normally behave in an unwanted manner can just farm rewards every now and then by behaving sportsmanlike. By giving rewards for longtime positive behaviour, you promote people to commit to good behaviour. Everyone starts at Honor level 2, and if you commit to good behaviour, you get to level 3 which can hold larger rewards for you.
I am not suggesting that players should be rewarded every time they display positive behavior. I am simply predicting that the honor system will fail to change the behavioral patterns of hostile players in the long run. However, I do believe that, if our objective was to circumvent hostile behavior, rewarding players in a shorter time frame would have a much greater effect. The problem, however, is that rewarding players within short-term periods would decrease the value of the LoL market (i.e. the store), and on those grounds, it would simply not be a viable option for Riot. The problem here isn't that people will fake or force good behavior. Such an outcome would be beneficial in relation to the goal. In fact, this is a far more realistic objective than attempting to alter human nature from its roots. **This is one of the cases where abusing the system would actually be a _positive_ outcome.** Ironically, it's downfall, is that it is _not_ ripe for abuse (but there is a valid reason for this, explained in the second paragraph of this post).
shamshamm (EUW)
: I personally wouldn't enjoy the game half as much without chat, i'm a casual player and to me talking to random people about random things is half the fun of playing Lol If the solution to get rid of bad is to get rid of good then i believe there's gotta be a better solution somewhere
Thank you for your comment. I understand that very well and it is well worth noting. This idea is radical, and so, it certainty comes with significant disadvantages, but, to my mind, it is the simplest and surest way of solving a problem (although, it does create a new set of problems). The question is, is it worth it? Does the current problem outweigh the possible set of problems that may arise?
Hansiman (EUNE)
: > The reason is simple: when players repress the urge to be hostile in order to acquire a reward, and realize, after a significant period of time, that he or she is not not likely to gain a reward (due to the nature of the system) Could you clarify? How is the system preventing them from getting a reward?
It is not that it is preventing them from getting a reward, rather, it simply does not reward the player soon enough (or with enough _certainty_) for it to have a significant effect in the long-term. This is all based on the assumption that Riot intended to improve player experience by providing an incentive for sportsmanlike behavior.
Rioter Comments
  Rioter Comments
: It personally has affected my decision a great deal. I used to play a lot, but at some point, the flamers, afks, and idiotic attitude frustrated me to the point that I switched to other games with better communities. You play half an hour, and lose because the carry flamed his support and the latter left, or because of toxic behaviour match after match after match. It is frustrating Lol - one report every two matches Starcraft - one report in a lifetime Now i just play this in summer if so. It doesn't feel like these people are getting banned at all, if one encounters them every day. They act with impunity, and therefore this behaviour is systemic.
Thank you for your response. I certainly empathize.
: But I think there is a difference between a bad game/experience and a bad community. When you play ranked, where toxicity is generally higher, you can very easily come to think that the League community is very bad. But that's a biased perception because we generalize too much. If a game contains a toxic player, it is kind of ruined. It's a bad exerpience. However it was just one player, the other 9 were probably fine. So even if you think a lot games are ruined by toxic players, this shouldn't lead to the conclusion that the community in general makes this game bad. Thats why I called them a "very loud minority". Toxic players have the power to completely ruin a match on their own. But they are still a minority that just appears way bigger than they are, due to this ability. And that's why I am still sure that the vast majority of the community are cool people, despite the fact that quite a lot of games are ruined by toxic jerks.
Those are all valid points. **It seems that I should have replaced the word 'social community' with 'hostile players'** in order to get my question across. I want to concentrate on this particular aspect of the community and not the community as a whole since they [toxic players] have a significant effect on gameplay. 1:9 (hostile players to social players) would mean that we would expect to come into contact with a hostile player _every_ game - that is a problem, or, at-least, I am presuming that it is, hence my investigation. I did not expect my wording to be interpreted in such a manner. It might explain why the poll results are not bending to my expectations. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
: I feel like I can't answer this with this poll, because the community is not just one uniform blob, but consists of very different people. The vast majority of the community is awesome and they are the biggest reason why I still play the game and enjoy the stuff beyond the game (boards, live events, fan creations etc.). On the other hand, there are some real jerks here, like everywhere on the internet. Obviously, I don't like those people at all and they make me like the game less. So it goes in both directions. However I think that a certain amount of jerks is unavoidable for ANY community, so that's not really something I attribute to League specifically. However, I did make the experience (especially on live events) that League players tend to be nicer than most people. I think that is something that actually is specific to League. Or maybe to gaming in general, I don't know. So overall I definitely like "the community" way more than I hate it. Or in other words: I love the community and they are the reason why I play the game, except for the very loud minority of jerks.
Thanks for the response. As the poll suggests, I was more interested in in-game experience rather than other events (e.g. boards) but that is interesting to note. My own experiences also lead me to conclude that it goes in both directions, however, unfortunately, it weighs far more on the negative side than the positive. In fact, the vast majority of the time, a positive experience on LoL means that everybody was silent... As soon as the chat room is utilized, which happens more often than not, frustration follows. It is _always_ used to point out the supposed inadequate level of a player's skill.
Rioter Comments
: all fine for me. maybe you already own all 9? :P
Hey. Thanks for the reply. I just checked. You're correct. I didn't spot them somehow and I must have bought them a long time ago which led me to forget. Thanks.
Rioter Comments
: You know what? You keep thinking and saying that stuff in game. and i'll continue to report people for saying that in game and i'll get thank you message every now and then. So we're all happy. You do and think what you want and i'll do the same.
Do as you like. Doesn't change the fact it's a sign of being intolerant and having a very low threshold for dealing with others. It's not very different in the real world. Intolerant types gain momentum, appeal to an administrative power for protection, and create highly socially restricted or monitored environments for everyone around them. Now, we have to be hyper-vigilant, even paranoid, about other people's emotions. Lest they ruin your life over the petty. Welcome to the "adult" daycare center. We should also remember that teenagers play this game. It's their nature to vent and to taunt to some degree. The fact one cannot deal with it does not justify restricting the freedoms of others through manipulation. There are limits, however. I do not claim otherwise.
: It may be an observation but it's still an insult. *I think you're ugly and fat*, but hey! It's just an observation. So there is no difference between the two.
Again, there's a difference between feeling insulted and being insulted. If one were ugly and fat, and one made such a comment to one such a person, that would not necessarily be an insult. It would simply be an observation (although it could be said with malicious intent, but let's imagine here that it was not, in order to avoid complications). Since we are able to emphasize with others, that is, understand, or predict, their emotional response to our comment(s), we avoid making the comment unless we deem it necessary (i.e. if the circumstances call for it). This situation is simply IRRITATING under those particular conditions. If they were an organized team who knew how to communicate to one another it would not be an issue. It could actually be constructive. "How are you playing so badly?" "I was doing x, y, and z." "I see. Try a, b, and c." OR "I don't need your advice." "Ok. That's fine." OR "How are you playing so badly?" "Please don't make comments of that sort. It is irritating." "Ok." People are simply too tense while playing and thus they respond asymmetrically to stimuli. People should aim to keep their cool and keep their emotions under control. They should also be discouraged from abusing and depending on the report system to deal with their problems - it's childish.
: You have your opinion and i have mine. there is no "twisting" of words here. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's an insult nevertheless.
That wasn't an insult. That was an observation. There's a difference between feeling insulted and being insulted.
TwitchTILT (EUNE)
: I am sorry for everything that i have done and goodbye!
Riot would lose revenue if they permitted players to share accounts. Not only that, if they allowed others to share accounts, then the market for LoL accounts would be effectively permitted as a consequence.
MadWifeHR (EUW)
: "I had to leave and lose 3 lp but that is not the problem" read the post next time. And I cant believe your defending his actions... If I get the jungle role, but a toxic autofilled player gets support but decides to steal my jungle role, im suppose to be okay with that? you sir deserve a perma ban for your thought process...
If it's a draft mode, then yes, I agree with you. He was in the wrong. I was just making a point about blind games. People always want to report others simply because they called a position that was taken from them. In reality, there's no obligation to do so (i.e. give another player a position because he called it). It's just common courtesy and custom. Back to your predicament, It's unfortunate, yes, but, it is minor, and I still don't believe these sort of situations merit a report. People invest a great deal of time and energy (even money) into their accounts, is it really fair to ban that account simply because he hijacked your role? That's an over-reaction. People take the report system way too lightly. That's why it's a weak system. Somebody makes a bad decision? Report. Someone communicates in a distasteful way? Report. Someone constantly dies because they are being outplayed? Report. You suggesting I should be perma-banned because of my post is another example. It's absurd. You clearly have no notion of what constitutes an appropriate reaction for any given action, and so, you make extreme propositions. That's a very dangerous psychology. Just relax, accept it as a probable outcome (since many people have no interest in playing the SECONDARY ROLE), and adapt to the situation.
vukojepro (EUNE)
: Autofill toxic players
What were you playing? Was it ranked? Blind? If it's blind - shotcalling positions is just a player custom, it's NOT against the rules and certainly doesn't merit a report. Want to decrease the probability someone doesn't pick your role? Use DRAFT mode. That's what it's there for.

Lunar Curse

Level 30 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion