: > [{quoted}](name=Red Erica,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=ZpVFGGFq,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-09-15T12:33:21.998+0000) > > Okay hi, > > you can officially go 0-10-0 with 0,5 deaths per minute and lowest dmg dealt to champions in a ranked game without consequences. Weird, almost as if intentional feeding is only undebatably punishable when the _intent_ is clear. > You can leave as much as you want -> low prio queue. That's still a punishment. > But offensive language BOOHOO! You don't even need to say the really offensive trigger words! Do...do you really need it explained to you that you don't need to be profane in order to come across as unpleasant to your teammates? > If enough people reported you in a small time span, you're gone. Only if you've done something wrong. And it means nothing if by "a small time span" you mean "a single match", since multiple reports are worth just as much as one report precisely to counter that kind of abuse. > And that happens to me because I flame all the degenerated griefers, obviously. You literally admitted in this sentence that you flame. Between this and the below tasteless "mentally ill" remark, why should anyone sympathize with you, even ignoring the fact that your complaint is based on vague anecdotes?
> [{quoted}](name=Cobaltmotari,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=ZpVFGGFq,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-09-15T16:33:31.659+0000) > > Weird, almost as if intentional feeding is only undebatably punishable when the _intent_ is clear. Yes for everyone in those games the intent is very clear. It's otherwise not possible to get this result, at least not in and above medium low elo (Diamond). Since you can't check the intent without watching the game, the person who came up with the wording "intentional" was definitely a rockbrain:/ So Riot just ended up drawing a generous line so only players who run into turrets or into enemies without using spells or absurd deaths like 20+ will get banned. The report tool does not work, either my reports don't count because they think it wasn't intentional or feeding needs too many. > Do...do you really need it explained to you that you don't need to be profane in order to come across as unpleasant to your teammates? If you correctly get fired from your job for good reasons, your staff manager might also come across as unpleasant. Thanks for the free pass analogy. > You literally admitted in this sentence that you flame. Between this and the below tasteless "mentally ill" remark, why should anyone sympathize with you, even ignoring the fact that your complaint is based on vague anecdotes? Of course I flame. How can you not flame some people in this community as a sane, interactive, social person? It's good enough if the boys and myself sympathize with this post.
: > Well by saying toxicity is easier to detect you are admitting yourself that they prioritize it over inting and such. System doesn't stop it's checks on griefing to do toxicity checks. Both run simultaneously. There's no prioritising. One is just easier to detect and punish. That's not prioritising. >However those are, to a large degree, just an excuse to make more money, both of us know that. Not really. Toxicity and griefing is the main contributing factor to players leaving most games like League. Leaving it to run rampant actually costs money so to a degree yes. But only because then the player is literally causing problems. Banning the player is also not proven logically to increase revenue - think about this logically as you'll likely have two scenarios: 1. Banned player won't come back. 2. Banned player makes new account but now wont invest money knowing they may get banned again. Neither option is particularly profitable.
> [{quoted}](name=A Snarky Cyclone,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=ZpVFGGFq,comment-id=000400010000,timestamp=2019-09-15T14:22:47.830+0000) > > Neither option is particularly profitable. But I said that not banning feeders and not investing ressources into system improvement is more profitable?
: either way he has a point, no1's getting banned for inting. not even himself
> [{quoted}](name=CritThatClit,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=ZpVFGGFq,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-09-15T12:43:35.542+0000) > > either way he has a point, no1's getting banned for inting. not even himself Absolutely true! However I'm a bad example now because I later got banned for flaming XDXXDDDXXDXXDXD
: Are you referring to the Nami in your last match who went 1/12/14, or are you referring to yourself when you went 0/11/6 a few matches earlier?
> [{quoted}](name=Wandering Mist,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=ZpVFGGFq,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-15T12:36:40.624+0000) > > Are you referring to the Nami in your last match who went 1/12/14, or are you referring to yourself when you went 0/11/6 a few matches earlier? Yes my bad indeed. Now use your spider senses and come up with the 2 reasons why I A: decided to basically run it down (soft int) B: was able to do that unpunished Good luck!
: > [{quoted}](name=IWDodgeTheGame,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=ZpVFGGFq,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-09-15T13:03:58.557+0000) > > No no Riot is a company that's trying to make money while hard ignoring every single customer...Sounds weird right? And what do you expect Riot to do about it? If you have a suggestion I'd love to hear it, and I'm sure Riot would too.
> [{quoted}](name=Wandering Mist,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=ZpVFGGFq,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-15T13:13:44.673+0000) > > And what do you expect Riot to do about it? If you have a suggestion I'd love to hear it, and I'm sure Riot would too. What are you okay? People have been making suggestions for years. For example they want a way to deal with champ select griefers. And I also made suggestions. Simply punish it harder and in order to do that implement a damn algorithm that can read the severity of the inting and therefore weigh it correctly. We can probably get rid of the reporting system too then.
: As I Questionable I pointed out, both do get punished, one is significantly easier to detect, and as a result is seen more frequently. For intentional feeding, it requires a computer to determine the intent of the person behind the screen - that's not really an easy task. Setting a standard pre-requisite of or whatever doesn't really work too much either, because then you'd have newer players, inexperienced players or players having a bad game having the possibility of triggering something compeltely by accident. Where as with toxicity and verbal abuse, the evidence is right there. You said it. It's in writing. There's no disputing the intent because it's directly laid out infront of you. So it's a matter of "System has to figure out patterns and determine thought processes of person behind computer" to "person clearly said something bad, I have it in writing" as to why you see toxicity bans more frequently. Inters get punished to. Not saying the system is perfect, it can definitely use improvement, but this whole "They prioritise toxicity over inting" is nonsense - again, one is an easily detectable issue, the other isn't always necessarily.
> [{quoted}](name=A Snarky Cyclone,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=ZpVFGGFq,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-09-15T13:10:24.628+0000) > > As I Questionable I pointed out, both do get punished, one is significantly easier to detect, and as a result is seen more frequently. > > For intentional feeding, it requires a computer to determine the intent of the person behind the screen - that's not really an easy task. Setting a standard pre-requisite of or whatever doesn't really work too much either, because then you'd have newer players, inexperienced players or players having a bad game having the possibility of triggering something compeltely by accident. > > Where as with toxicity and verbal abuse, the evidence is right there. You said it. It's in writing. There's no disputing the intent because it's directly laid out infront of you. > > So it's a matter of "System has to figure out patterns and determine thought processes of person behind computer" to "person clearly said something bad, I have it in writing" as to why you see toxicity bans more frequently. > > Inters get punished to. > > Not saying the system is perfect, it can definitely use improvement, but this whole "They prioritise toxicity over inting" is nonsense - again, one is an easily detectable issue, the other isn't always necessarily. Yes, you should change the wording to just feeding. You can just implement your 0,5 deaths per minute standard (or whatever algorithm you come up with) above platinum for example. There are already elo specific things in place like: - Decay in diamond and above - Promo Helper: Failed promotions lower than Gold 1 grant a free win for the next time the player enters promotion. This does not apply in the case of forfeited series. - Promotion skipping up to Platinum 1 Well by saying toxicity is easier to detect you are admitting yourself that they prioritize it over inting and such. For technical reasons sure. However those are, to a large degree, just an excuse to make more money, both of us know that.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=Honored 4 Sexy,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=MgwHiQxI,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-07-25T13:01:07.593+0000) > > Hope all of you who are responsible for this situation get tstcle cncr and h*%g yourslvs as fast as possible, since at this point there is no reason to have hope for improvement and there need to be consequences. > > Totally not toxic. No it is toxic but I don't feel too bad about it. Did everything in my power and since I'll still play this game I'm stuck with these riot rtrds and it's their turn to do something, it has been their turn for 4 years.
Rioter Comments

Red Erica

Level 84 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion