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


PBE: Restricted Chat For Toxic Players

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AFK in lol ftw

Senior Member

03-19-2013

Quote:
Hoboslayer:
'the chat restriction replaces the ban in some cases, the truely toxic will still get suspended though


You mean for people with just warnings? Or you mean it will replace one of their 1 week game bans with 1 week chat ban?


Quote:
YueienGato:
From what I gather it looks that way, but then again only been 3 hours since it got pushed to live. From what I gather, you still get periodic time bamps if you get out of restrict and get back in. Not sure about permas but, I suspect, if one does it too often then a perma might still be an option.


I hope it's not a replacement for bans. I was hoping it would be more of a tacked on punishment. I'd like to know how they'll differentiate who gets the chat bans and who gets the game bans.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Exploding Barrel

Senior Member

03-19-2013

It's live! For now it's tacked on to bans, but apparently the tentative plan is to have it replace lower level bans.

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=35769412#post35769412


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

YueienGato

Senior Member

03-20-2013

Quote:
Exploding Barrel:
It's live! For now it's tacked on to bans, but apparently the tentative plan is to have it replace lower level bans.

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=35769412#post35769412


Ohh missed that, thanks for the info. Added your link to the front-end of this thread.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

YueienGato

Senior Member

04-27-2013

Lyte recently spoke about the Restricted Chat - along with other Tribunal related stoof - and where it has gone so far.

Quote:
On the player behavior team, we take a lot of risks. We have to because we're often pushing boundaries on what's been tried before in the online community space. We have very little prior history, documentation, or references to learn from so we really have little information on how a player might react in a pressure situation with something like Restricted Chat Mode. We simply take what we can from psychology, cognition and neuroscience and try to make the best decisions given the limited knowledge and data we do have.

We'll make mistakes. I know we will. However, for every experiment, we reveal a few more insights about psychology and a few more insights about human behavior in general. We're going to keep trying new things, and we're going to keep learning--that's all I can ask of the player behavior team.

So far, we've learned a few interesting things already from the Restricted Chat Mode experiment:

1) It is correctly forcing a subset of players to consciously think about their chat resources. At the end of the day, players want to win, and they are learning about the difference between positive chat providing a distinct advantage versus the destructiveness of negative chat. We're mapping out the usage of Restricted Chat Mode, and are interested in seeing things like what ratio of messages are used for cooperation versus destruction. We're also interested in seeing how many games of Restricted Chat Mode is required before a player's personality or character fundamentally improves for the better.

2) A lot of players are self-aware of their own outbursts and rage in games and have asked to opt-in to Restricted Chat Mode voluntarily. This is interesting because for a long time, many developers and game studios have assumed that a lot (if not all) of toxic players simply lack self-awareness--they don't realize that their behaviors are toxic, or that racism isn't OK. However, through Restricted Chat Mode, we're finding a demographic of players that are very self-aware, but need help--they need a nudge in the right direction, and they can't do it alone. I often talk to the player behavior team about whether it's our responsibility to collaborate and work with players in these cases and time and time again, we find that the answer is "Yes."


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Saint Latona

Senior Member

04-27-2013

Was gonna say "NECRO WHY" then I saw it was you, who created the thread.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

YueienGato

Senior Member

04-27-2013

Quote:
Saint Latona:
Was gonna say "NECRO WHY" then I saw it was you, who created the thread.


Trying to keep a master list for the Restricted Chat-related announcements. Keeping this not only for community access but, also, for a friend of mine at the think tank I work with. He is looking at ways of adjusting behaviour for people with gambling addiction and this is scratching his interest.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Distillz

Senior Member

04-27-2013

That quote from lyte made me sad. Really. He's lost. It's even worse now that this game has turned into a social experiment with people's accounts and time on the losing end.

Players in this game are guinea pigs and the "scientists" seem like really bad ones.

For example, when he talks about other companies and what they see "toxic" players as, he doesn't seem to be talking about the same players he is banning. I don't see any other company going full ****** on people getting angry here and there. The real problem are the players who use racism (which he dropped in to legitimize his BS) and those who do far more than just get mad at things in the game. He seems to be mixing up his vices. This is really being run like a kids high-school experiment.

And another thing. WHO was responsible for hiring the people on his team? If they don't cover a wide range of opinions, his little experiment is all the more poorly thought out. If they are all purple loving girly men... ok, that was mean, but you get the idea. At least they realize what they were doing was wrong, but its a bit too late if people are mad at them. I for one would have responded to this better if they didn't start from the extreme end. Doing that just demonstrates to me they don't have their heads on straight and really can't be trusted.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Aeternum

Senior Member

04-27-2013

Quote:
tempnameA076:
. . . If they are all purple loving girly men... ok, that was mean, but you get the idea . . .


O.O

You even pointed out that what you said was uncalled for. I'm really struggling to take you seriously now.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

SimplyAlive

Senior Member

04-27-2013

Quote:
tempnameA076:
That quote from lyte made me sad. Really. He's lost. It's even worse now that this game has turned into a social experiment with people's accounts and time on the losing end.


I'm just wondering though: If Riot wants to do something new when it comes to punishments/reform, how else could they do it other than actually trying it and correct themselves when errors are made?

Quote:
Players in this game are guinea pigs and the "scientists" seem like really bad ones.


And like all experiments, we kinda agreed with it when agreeing with the ToS. We can also quit whenever we want, just like is the case in a true experimental setting.

About the 'bad scientists', that's just your bias showing and unneeded for your argument. Riot has several employees with a PhD of different aspects of Psychology (among others), so chances are they actually know what they are doing.

Otherwise, on what did you made the conclusion that they are bad scientists?

Quote:
For example, when he talks about other companies and what they see "toxic" players as, he doesn't seem to be talking about the same players he is banning. I don't see any other company going full ****** on people getting angry here and there. The real problem are the players who use racism (which he dropped in to legitimize his BS) and those who do far more than just get mad at things in the game. He seems to be mixing up his vices. This is really being run like a kids high-school experiment.


Fair enough. I don't entirely agree with you, but I agree that Lyte can basically talk about 'toxicity', while some mild cases are being punished in the Tribunal.

That said, I agree with the far majority of cases and they fit within the words of Lyte quite well.

Quote:
And another thing. WHO was responsible for hiring the people on his team? If they don't cover a wide range of opinions, his little experiment is all the more poorly thought out. If they are all purple loving girly men... ok, that was mean, but you get the idea. At least they realize what they were doing was wrong, but its a bit too late if people are mad at them. I for one would have responded to this better if they didn't start from the extreme end. Doing that just demonstrates to me they don't have their heads on straight and really can't be trusted


Read the thread where that Lyte post came from. The PBJ-team has people from very different backgrounds in it.

I'll disregard the jab. Don't do that.

And they started at the extreme end? Hell no.
In the beginning of the Tribunal, Riot reviewed each and every case. They looked whether the verdicts of the community were the same as the Riot employees.

The Tribunal has also been very, very conservative with punishing. They had to make it more strict after outrage of the playerbase about what kind of cases got pardoned.

So no...I can't agree with you that the Tribunal started at the extreme. Quite the opposite actually.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Distillz

Senior Member

04-27-2013

Quote:
Aeternum:
O.O

You even pointed out that what you said was uncalled for. I'm really struggling to take you seriously now.


Never said it was uncalled for, said it was mean. Either way, don't get your point.