Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


You cant be serious about this ban

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Superalex121

Senior Member

11-27-2012

Quote:
WookieeCookie:
[COLOR="Red"]Don't be a jerk.[/COLOR]

Players frequently write to my team full of excuses for their case, or fearful that they're going to get banned in the future.

They often want to debate the Summoner's Code down point by point.

Is it okay to do this? What about that? What if someone else does X, and I do Y to them in retaliation? Can I get banned for Z?

And our response can always be summed up with one simple phrase:

[COLOR="red"]Don't be a jerk[/COLOR]


Sometimes player's ask why isn't the Summoner's Code more specific? Why doesn't it specify each and every action I can or can't do? But they don't notice that we wrote the Code that way on purpose.

We don't want to run a game dictated by strict specific rules. Because every game is unique, and played by different standards.


How much fun would a rule be that says you can never say the F word in your matches?

How much fun would a rule be that says last pick must always be support?

How much fun would a rule say that you can never be Rammus support because he's not considered "optimal" by the community?


Every game should be judged by its own context. And that's why the core rule is always:

[COLOR="red"]Don't be a jerk.[/COLOR]


You can say the F word in a friendly context:



You can also say it in a very toxic context:




---The key difference? [COLOR="Red"]Don't be a jerk[/COLOR]


Sometimes it makes sense for last pick to be something besides support:


Sometimes the situation can be very toxic:



---The key difference? [COLOR="Red"]Don't be a jerk[/COLOR]


Sometimes it makes sense to go with a real unusual support pick:



Sometimes an unusual pick can be really toxic:



---The key difference? [COLOR="Red"]Don't be a jerk[/COLOR]


I've seen this case emote spamming case before. And he fails the test. [COLOR="Red"]He was being a jerk.[/COLOR]

You can see in his matches that other players ask him to stop. They even do so nicely at some points. But this player doesn't care. [COLOR="red"]He doesn't care because he's being a jerk.[/COLOR]

Is he using a feature of our game which has many legitimate purposes? Of course!

But is he abusing this legitimate feature to be a [COLOR="red"]jerk[/COLOR]? Yes. He is literally spamming the same phrase throughout the entire duration of the game.

Could other players fiddle with their sound settings to disable this? Sure.

Should we expect other players to adjust their player experience because a [COLOR="Red"]jerk [/COLOR]is harassing them?

No. Never.

I even spent some extra time looking up this player's past harassment history. This is not an isolated 5 games this player has done this. He has repeatedly found ways to annoy and harass other players. That's the main reason he has a tribunal case in the first place.

Lyte has mentioned this in the past, but the Tribunal is really great at finding jerks in our game. But it's not always great at providing the full context of just how much of a jerk they are. But always keep in mind it takes many reports, in many games, by many people to even be considered for the Tribunal. The system may only pull 1 to 5 chat logs for a case, but make no doubt about it, the accused has been reported in many many more games than that.

The process is always being iterated on and improved though. And if the PB&J Team sees a need for the additional context to be shown, I'm confident in their abilities to make that happen.


Phreak insisted on spamming laugh on Singed


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Mitey Oosik

Senior Member

11-27-2012

Quote:
The Exarkun:
I do understand the jerk part but other riot employees have said we are allowed to spam emotes to our "hearts content"
http://euw.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=704999 (Under General)



So you understand this as "I get to spam emotes and if the enemy or allies asks me to stop I don't have to". You genius you!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Fat Pigeon

Member

11-27-2012

Quote:
Mitey Oosik:
So you understand this as "I get to spam emotes and if the enemy or allies asks me to stop I don't have to". You genius you!


To be fair, he wasn't really asked to stop in the four games in his linked Tribunal case. One player said only "stahp" once without directing it to someone (how is the person reviewing the case supposed to put a message of "stahp" in context?). Two enemies vulgarly insulted him and told him to shut up. That's the extent to which he was told to stop spamming emotes. Effectively, it was brought up three times at the beginning of two of the four games. So really, fourteen people were incredibly unhappy about the reported player's actions but effectively did nothing about it (except those two people who violated the rules themselves) and made no fuss about it throughout the course of the game. Only at the end of the game did they decide it was harassment.

What this case shows is that based on no in-game evidence, you can be punished through the Tribunal based solely on the number of reports of people who weren't bothered by the actions of the reported player enough to bring it up in game, but for some reason reported it at the end. Not a single piece of material is present in the Tribunal case that suggests that the player violated any rules or spammed any emotes throughout the entire match except (some vulgar statements suggest that he might have been doing so early in two of the four matches) for comments in the reports. And if simply getting lots of reports is deserving of a punishment, then the Tribunal should be removed and a player automatically banned once he gets a certain number of reports. Making a decision to punish in this instance can only be done with information outside what is present in the case file.

But, it has now been clarified that spamming emotes is a punishable offense if it bothers people, even if those people are not obligated to let you know it bothers them. That seems like a difficult stance to defend. What this case seems like is "if I am not asked to stop, I can spam emotes and be punished."


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Nores

Senior Member

11-28-2012

Quote:
WookieeCookie:
Generally players who end up in the Tribunal are reported anywhere from 12% to 30% of the games they've played. The average for non-toxic League of Legends player is less than 1% on NA. I hope this helps provide context of what kinds of players we're dealing with here in the Tribunal.



Do you guys take into account type of games played? I think in co-op games players are rarely report if ever. In normals mostly if the circumstances are really bad. But in rank... I swear every single game someone reports somebody, If you losing and didnt do great you are very likely to be reported especially at lower elos

Really say player plays nothing but rank -he is reported in probably 20-40% of games. If same exact players plays nothing but co-op he is never reported.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

gnfnrf

Senior Member

11-28-2012

Quote:
Nores:
Do you guys take into account type of games played? I think in co-op games players are rarely report if ever. In normals mostly if the circumstances are really bad. But in rank... I swear every single game someone reports somebody, If you losing and didnt do great you are very likely to be reported especially at lower elos

Really say player plays nothing but rank -he is reported in probably 20-40% of games. If same exact players plays nothing but co-op he is never reported.


Your numbers only work if only a tiny fraction of players play ranked, or else they'd draw up the total average.

If the proportion of games played in Co-op, Normals, and Ranked are about equal, and no reporting comes from Co-op, an Normals are reported at 1%, the highest total report rate from Ranked could be is 2%. If ranked is played half as much as the other two, it's 4%.

For it to be 30%, as you speculate (and the overall average to be 1%), only 1.6% of games can be ranked. This can be more if normal games are also reported higher than 1%... but then fewer people are playing them.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

WTF NO MIA

Member

11-28-2012

just wondering I was playing lulu and I was spamming emotes for fun would I get banned for that?..


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

HotshotGG5

Senior Member

11-28-2012

Quote:
Night with Taric:
just wondering I was playing lulu and I was spamming emotes for fun would I get banned for that?..

Pretty self explanatory.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Nores

Senior Member

11-28-2012

Quote:
gnfnrf:
Your numbers only work if only a tiny fraction of players play ranked, or else they'd draw up the total average.

If the proportion of games played in Co-op, Normals, and Ranked are about equal, and no reporting comes from Co-op, an Normals are reported at 1%, the highest total report rate from Ranked could be is 2%. If ranked is played half as much as the other two, it's 4%.

For it to be 30%, as you speculate (and the overall average to be 1%), only 1.6% of games can be ranked. This can be more if normal games are also reported higher than 1%... but then fewer people are playing them.


Absolute minority of games are ranked. That is a known fact.

But that is beside the point , the point is that if you play ranked games you have much higher chance to get reported (even if you behave and play exact same way). If you play nothing but rank chances are pretty high you can easily get into 20% of games you are reported in


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

gnfnrf

Senior Member

11-28-2012

Quote:
Nores:
Absolute minority of games are ranked. That is a known fact.

But that is beside the point , the point is that if you play ranked games you have much higher chance to get reported (even if you behave and play exact same way). If you play nothing but rank chances are pretty high you can easily get into 20% of games you are reported in


And my point is, for both that statement (which is much weaker than your original statement) and the general assertion that the report rate is <1% to both be true, ranked games can't just be a minority (to be clear, they were a minority in every example I posted), they have to be a TINY minority. And they're not. I'm looking for a real number, but I can't find one. Do you have a fraction to propose?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Tyrant Zell

Senior Member

11-28-2012

bump. Read the RIOT POST