League of Legends Community
12345 ... 8

League of Legends Community (http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/index.php)
-   Tribunal Ban Inquiries (http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=41)
-   -   Disable Chat for Tribunal Offenders instead of Bans (http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=2966869)

ThisDĂşcklingGĂşy 01-03-2013 03:21 AM

Disable Chat for Tribunal Offenders instead of Bans
 
When 90+ percent of the tribunal cases are strictly about language related issues, I think you need to use your brain Riot and just add a feature that permanently mutes accounts with issues sent to the tribunal. I just finished reviewing 20 cases and every single one was language related.

Instead of banning people you need to change what player have access to certain chat features. This would a) remove almost all need for tribunal and b) improve in game play. Which the tribunal does not. If you remove a summoner they just remake on another account with the same issues... This chat feature would actually change things.

Not everyone is the same. In fact most humans think differently depending on the individual. So you need more than a one size fits all model.

Last I would suggest you still allow people at max chat ban to still issues a certain amount of pings and indicators. Anyway a model like this would correct play instead of just force it onto other accounts where most people might actually be more malicious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leaver (Hozzászólás 33106771)
what if they got reported in the first place for failing to communicate with their team?

If they implemented this you would not get banned, the tribunal would be revamped and most likely taken back to a company based decision and not automated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fayori (Hozzászólás 33106754)
Only reason this is a bad idea is that communication needs to happen, this is a team game. Imagine in champion select, trying to figure out places, and you have one guy that is completely silent because he's lost chat privileges. Or if they were really ******y, they'd just switch to feeding instead of saying anything rude.

They have a mute function. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. By that same argument the person who muted the other person should also be banned for not communicating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile4eva (Hozzászólás 33106834)
Mute function is there as a choice it's not a mandatory thing where you can't decide if you can see someones chat or not. And if somebody can't even relax and calm down when they have the opportunity to defend themselves in chat how are they going to calm down and relax when they have no opportunity to defend themselves? They will just rage harder because they can't chat and will troll the game in other ways.

You haven't thought this through have you?

The issue is if it truly is an issue where the liability is based on your decision to mute someone there should not be an option after the game to punish based on language. I have long discussed this issue about language liability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dracallus (Hozzászólás 33107180)
So instead of having people rage at me in chat I get people who can't call mia's or coordinate at all?

As I stated they would have options for a spectrum of disabled features and limits. Mia features, pings, target pings, and retreat pings would very likely never be disabled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dracallus (Hozzászólás 33107180)
Muting them doesn't fix the problem, it doesn't punish them at all, they can still play the game, they just can't rage at you. Instead you have the rest of the team who suffers because the muted player can't communicate at all.

You're basically saying we should take the biggest problem currently, people being exceptionally crude in chat, and punish them less for it. Your examples don't hold weight either, if someone finds being muted just as bad as being banned, they would just make a new account anyway.

To the first part I would just like to say the rest of the team would not suffer, more than likely you would focus on the game more so as well never know there was a chat disable on the person at all. Many games I play people do not type in chat for the duration of the game and my game experience is not effected in a negative fashion.

The second part about pushing them less "Is True". Most times when a person commits a wrong doing or foul both in life or in a game it could have been prevent by better organization or measures. What I am suggesting is one of many measures that could be in play to greatly reduce negative environments on all players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcane Azmadi (Hozzászólás 33107311)
Frankly, why bother? We don't owe them any favours. We're just better off without them. Just get rid of them and forget them.

I would like to highlight this comment because it is one of the main reasons this should be implemented. The better off with out them is both a narrow minded view but more so you would be incorrect at thinking they have left the game. People will always find ways to comeback to a game. Especially if it is free accounts. So why not address the source, improve their (the offenders) environment so they do not harm others and potentially change. People can have a lot invested into any game or object and when you take it away it is the same scenario as backing a dog into a corner of giving a person nothing to lose. Eventually you will get bit.

Fudouri 01-03-2013 03:57 AM

Hm...

I like the thinking (alternative ways to try and slow and stop someone).

Unfortunately, I don't know if this is right solution.
A toxic player will be toxic, that's just sort of how it will go. If they can't speak, they will intentionally feed. Or afk. Or spam ping. Those are already hard to catch now. Removing their speaking just makes toxic players harder to find.

Arador 01-03-2013 04:25 AM

Personally, I would love to see this option implemented. Not for others, mind you, but for me. I tend to get in trouble for responding to others who are being toxic. This would be a GREAT solution for players like me.

Some suggestions:

I personally don't think that the chat log is necessary for a fully functioning team. I think about half the time, it facilitates communication, while the other half, it destroys team unity and morale (even if it's just one player).

Additionally, many of those arguments you list are what we call "non-unique" arguments, because they don't show any actual harm. The reason the player is muted is because they did not use the chat system in an appropriate way. Arguing that muting them does not enable them to use the chat system in an appropriate way is non-unique - they don't use chat appropriately whether they are muted or not. Simply put - you can't take away something that was never there.

If the player in question does call mias and whatnots, or is otherwise beneficial to the team, then they wouldn't be getting muted. If they are both "appropriate" and "inappropriate", then it's a cost-benefit analysis for the community / the players reporting them - but the point is that muted players are those who, despite their communication with the team, caused more harm than good via the in-game chat system.

That being said, I think you can keep your premises and simply amend your solution to accommodate for that critique. Two options come to mind:

1) Have their "all" chat rights removed. There is no significant reason chatting with the ENEMY team is necessary for this game.

2) Give them a drop-down menu with limited communication options. Things like "Yes", "No", "MIA", "Be Careful", "I'm going to heal", etc. Put a spam filter in place to stop abuse of this function. This should take care of all the necessary communication.

Jryiah 01-03-2013 04:44 AM

Hey I am going to agree with OP.
I am really sick of low level games being filled with toxic smurfs. I seriously just played a level 1 game (because I wanted to team up with my real life friend who is new), and ran into major noob bashing rage, it was kind of unreal.

Players who have been muted should still be able to chat in the pregame lobby, and send messages to friends. But in game they should be able to ping and nothing else. It makes more sense then banning the player.

Edit: You can ignore the muted player in game in case they are abusing their pinging privileges.

gnfnrf 01-03-2013 05:16 AM

My concern with that plan is that angry people with something taken away from them who are not interested in reform tend to lash out using the tools available to them. Witness all the forum trolls.

So, a player is angry, expresses it in chat. Now he's prevented from chatting, but not playing. He's still angry. The chat-ban is unjust, in his mind. What does he do? Takes his anger out in gameplay. Trolls, killsteals, feeds, writes messages with wards, whatever.

And when he's punished for THAT, he says "But I couldn't talk to explain my actions and defend myself!" and gets even angrier.

Dethrayne 01-03-2013 05:25 AM

yes i love this idea. please use it riot.

Arador 01-03-2013 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnfnrf (Hozzászólás 33108745)
My concern with that plan is that angry people with something taken away from them who are not interested in reform tend to lash out using the tools available to them. Witness all the forum trolls.

So, a player is angry, expresses it in chat. Now he's prevented from chatting, but not playing. He's still angry. The chat-ban is unjust, in his mind. What does he do? Takes his anger out in gameplay. Trolls, killsteals, feeds, writes messages with wards, whatever.

And when he's punished for THAT, he says "But I couldn't talk to explain my actions and defend myself!" and gets even angrier.

This is a great concern, and I have to agree. I think the solution is to mute their chat as "last warning" sort of situation.

Players (like me, for instance) who aren't interested in trolling, and who ARE interested in reforming but are very easily provoked, would greatly benefit from a mute. The number of people reporting us would likely go down significantly if we were unable to chat (yay!).

However, for toxic trolls who are uninterested in reforming, a simple "mute" function probably wouldn't change the number of reports they get, because their behavior may simply get worse (or simply remain unchanged). They'd eventually make it on to the permaban.

If nothing else, I think it would be nice for Riot to allow players who have been punished only for their behavior in chat logs to have an option to disable their chat, in order to avoid a permaban. This shouldn't in any way replace or otherwise remove permabans.

NynaeveaM 01-03-2013 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnfnrf (Hozzászólás 33108745)
My concern with that plan is that angry people with something taken away from them who are not interested in reform tend to lash out using the tools available to them. Witness all the forum trolls.

So, a player is angry, expresses it in chat. Now he's prevented from chatting, but not playing. He's still angry. The chat-ban is unjust, in his mind. What does he do? Takes his anger out in gameplay. Trolls, killsteals, feeds, writes messages with wards, whatever.

And when he's punished for THAT, he says "But I couldn't talk to explain my actions and defend myself!" and gets even angrier.

Not everybody is like that. If a player that has the -mute- status ends up in tribunal for intentional feeding then he could start with a 3day ban not with a warning. That'd speed up the "weeding out"

Please im Drunk 01-03-2013 05:57 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVUhZmx2imk

Please im Drunk 01-03-2013 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Please im Drunk (Hozzászólás 33109264)

This youtube video shows that the Tribunal is just an idiotic idea, meaning that players can be reported and banned for almost nothing.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:26 PM.
12345 ... 8


(c) 2008 Riot Games Inc