You cant be serious about this ban

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

tempnameA461

Member

11-26-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMage View Post
You inserted this last bit because the two situations are otherwise identical.
That is not the case.
As a Math Mage, you should know this.
There is a fine line between doing something because you can, and doing it because you enjoyed doing it.

I can go play in traffic.
But I enjoy not playing in traffic.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DJay Saint

Senior Member

11-26-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerkyDotair View Post
You obviously know the difference. This is your argument:

Hugging somebody in real life is fine, but that guy got arrested because he hugged the same person (who he didn't know) 600 times a day for three weeks. That's bull****! So now it's okay to charge anybody for hugging anyone?

It's okay to have *** with somebody. It's not okay to have *** with somebody without their consent.

See the difference? Context.
If you're PHYSICALLY harming someone that's a completely different story. He is using an emote in a game DESIGNED (by a dev consent, advertised and everything) to be spammed.

That's not even close to the same thing and you know it. He was causing no harm to anyone by spamming emotes. Mildly annoying as it may be, he was not actually HARMING anyone.

Player support or customer service tells you "just mute that guy" if you report them for harassment when they are legit harassing you. So why is it all of a sudden a huge deal when someone spams an emote, that it's no longer acceptable to mute said person? It takes the same amount of effort or less.

In one instance where someone is actually causing you emotional distress, it's perfectly acceptable to just say "just mute him and ignore him, it's no big deal!", but in another instance where someone is playing with in game emotes that do not hurt you in the slightest, suddenly that response is unacceptable.

The fact that you people don't grasp how stupid this ban is, and in fact SUPPORT it just baffles me.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

diggyla

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Member

11-26-2012

I am glad that Riot responded to this thread. It is great that Riot cares enough about its community to communicate with the player-base even about controversial subjects such as bans.

The game I used to moderate for had the policy of instantly moving such threads to an invisible section of the forums. I personally hated this policy. For reasons I believe you understand.

I am slightly disappointed, though that the Riot post seems to be saturated by name calling. My own posts certainly are not free of every literary taboo either, though I find it necessary to give feedback on what I find issue with so that things may improve in the future.

To clarify for those who do not obsess over literary techniques:
Name-calling is a very easy to use form of propaganda if you want to demonize a member in the eyes of those who see it. This is why it is used so often in political debates. Why prove your argument purely based on facts when you can equate them to something that everyone hates. The more times you do it the worse they look and the better your argument appears to be. I digress on this point for the sake of not dwelling on what style of writing/speech someone chooses to use in order to convince others.

I do not wish to say that his argument lacked any legitimate substance. His post makes one point quite clear (paraphrasing): "You should use the functions of the game in a good way and not in a bad way." Who could disagree with that? The problem is that things are not so black and white. The concepts of right and wrong are different for each culture, religion, and each individual person. "Jerk" in my eyes may very well be "hero" in someone else's eyes."

Many people may view the act of offending someone else as an act of "being a jerk". Others, sometimes very well educated individuals may find this as a necessary means for interacting with others or even a means of improving society.

One such highly educated person would be Linus Torvalds (the person who created Linux): "I like offending people, because I think people who get offended should be offended." Another such educated individual would be Stephan Fry.

My point in referencing such outstanding individuals is to point out that there is a place for going against the grain within a community. People are easily offended by things. I believe we should be mindful of the views of others, although I do not believe their low tolerance for a specific thing should dictate another's actions. This is common-ground where the majority of people agree that something is "bad", but this common-ground must be made clear in order for it to be accepted by the masses as law (the rules of the game).

There are reasons why in larger structures of society than a game, we have very specific rules (laws). Society has come to understand that words do not hold the same meaning to all who read them; rules should be detailed for the sake of clarity for those outside your own moral/ethics/cultural mindset. When we place our own views as universal, those who do not share our views will feel alienated, cheated, or feel that actions taken against them are in some way "illegitimate", even if it may seem so clear from your perspective or from my own.

You have made it clear that the system is vague for a reason. The reason as you explain it, however, would not be less fulfilled if our rules were specific. We can have a set of rules that specifically state "you are free to use curse words as long as you are not using them for the sake of demoralizing your teammates/opponents."

Every time I see someone get banned, they always appear confused. Usually Lyte comes in and explains to them which actions were considered bad. We can take a list of such reasons why people get banned (Using curse words for the sake of demoralizing others,Sexist remarks,racist remarks towards teamates, ect.) and make it into a set of objective rules for this game.

Examples of such clearly defined rules would look something like: "You may not make racist remarks towards your teammate." "You may not follow your jungler around for the sake of bothering him after you did not receive your preferred team position." From my experience, other games with such rules usually do not have near as much confusion over bans as we see here.

I'm going to end this post now due to how long it has become and how late at night I am now typing. I apologize for any rambling/repeating I have done within this post. ;x

Please consider what I have said. I typed this because I want the game to continue to improve. I am slightly frustrated by some Riot actions, though overall I feel Riot does a good job.

Do not disappoint us. ~


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

General Quackers

Senior Member

11-26-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by tempnameA461 View Post
That is completely different.
Everyone keeps jumping to the conclusion that he's being an a-hole for the sake of being an a-hole.

What if he's being an a-hole because that's how he has fun?
It has nothing to do with pissing you off to piss you off.
It's about pissing you off to have fun.
That may not make him not guilty, but the degree of guiltiness shift significantly.
Being an ass hole because it's how you have fun is still being an ass hole.

Do you read the things you type out before you post them?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Cha0sniper

Senior Member

11-26-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by WookieeCookie View Post
<snipped epic post and stuff>
It's the Wil Wheaton Rule of the Internet: Don't be a Dick.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MathMage

Senior Member

11-26-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by tempnameA461 View Post
That is not the case.
As a Math Mage, you should know this.
There is a fine line between doing something because you can, and doing it because you enjoyed doing it.

I can go play in traffic.
But I enjoy not playing in traffic.
You're leaving premises unstated. Person A could do many other things, which means "Because I can" is an insufficient motivation to perform this specific action as opposed to one of the many other possible actions (like logging off). The typical completion of such a statement is "Because I can, and because I enjoy rubbing people's noses in the fact that they can't stop me from doing it."

Similarly, "Because I can" is an implied premise of Person B's reply, as well; if he couldn't do it, he wouldn't, even though he would enjoy doing it.

Logic 101, folks. Nothing to see here, move along.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ZeroKuno

Senior Member

11-26-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by tempnamea461 View Post
that is not the case.
As a math mage, you should know this.
There is a fine line between doing something because you can, and doing it because you enjoyed doing it.

i can go play in traffic.
But i enjoy not playing in traffic.
wtf!!!!!!!!!!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

tempnameA461

Member

11-26-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Duck View Post
Being an ass hole because it's how you have fun is still being an ass hole.

Do you read the things you type out before you post them?
This is absolutely true. However, the degree of assholity does matter.
It will not change the guilt level, but it would (in theory) turn a 7 day ban into a 5 day ban, perhaps even a 3.

And no.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PerkyDotair

Senior Member

11-26-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by tempnameA461 View Post
Situation 1
You punch someone in the face. When they ask you why you did it, you say, "Because I can."

Situation 2
You punch someone in the face. When they ask you why you did it, you say, "I just really enjoyed it. I'm sorry." Then you hug them.

I am probably familiar with it without knowing its term.
Could you enlighten me? ^.~
Deriving enjoyment from the discomfort, pain, and anger of another person is sadism; its terrifying as it shows a deeply disturbed mind. That behaviour is not normal. Healthy people do not enjoy hurting each other.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MathMage

Senior Member

11-26-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by tempnameA461 View Post
This is absolutely true. However, the degree of assholity does matter.
It will not change the guilt level, but it would (in theory) turn a 7 day ban into a 5 day ban, perhaps even a 3.

And no.
Sorry, "I derived personal enjoyment from my offensive action" is not a mitigating circumstance that would merit consideration at sentencing.