Player: Christian Rivera / IWillDominate Date of Ruling: 12.03.12 Subject: Suspension; Violations of Summoner’s Code
Facts: Recently, IWillDominate was brought before the Tribunal for consideration of a permanent ban. The majority of players voted to punish and today the Riot player behavior team has approved the ban after review of the case.
IWillDominate has been in Tribunal nine times and punished eight times, including the most recent permanent ban. He has a persistent record of in-game harassment, verbal abuse, offensive language and negative attitude.
Despite the punishments and official warnings, his harassment score has risen more than 30% from early August to the present date, placing him at the top of the list of North American pro players and among the worst 0.7% of all North American players.
There also have been repeated incidents of similar behavior outside the game.
Relevant Rules: The Summoner's Code establishes the standards of behavior for all League of Legends players.
Analysis: IWillDominate has consistently engaged in behavior which violates the letter and spirit of the Summoner’s Code.
His persistent tendency to engage in verbal abuse and insults, his lack of cordial demeanor, and his treatment of less-skilled players is unacceptable for any player, especially a high-profile professional player who has a regular opportunity to lead the community by example.
Ruling: IWillDominate has violated the letter and spirit of the Summoner’s Code in a systematic fashion.
Penalties: IWillDominate is ineligible to play in the League of Legends Championship Series for a period of one year. This suspension shall commence immediately.
In addition, all other existing known accounts used by IWillDominate are permanently banned.
Basically this is the hot news that everyone is talking about. Seems like it needed it's own thread as it's pretty big news.
I applaud riot for this move and my respect level for them went up a ton. I've seen people on reddit defending him and saying riot has too much power and ruined his life. No, riot didn't ruin his life. He ruined his own life. He was warned 8 times and never changed. His case was totally preventable if you know he could control himself and act like a mannered and decent human being. He chose not to and got punished for it like he deserved. This is 100% on him and him alone.
Does this really need it's own thread? Seems like a waste when most people will forget about it in a few days or so. Now if you made the title less about one person, and more about the idea of banning professional players, you might have more of a separate thread worthy topic
On December 05 2012 07:43 ketchup wrote: Does this really need it's own thread? Seems like a waste when most people will forget about it in a few days or so. Now if you made the title less about one person, and more about the idea of banning professional players, you might have more of a separate thread.
Its a really big event that will have repercussions in the whole community. Its bigger then just another gd discussion I think.
And this is why having Riot controll all tournaments is not a good idea They have way too much leverage over their "pro-scene" it is really disturbing.
On December 05 2012 07:42 Dandel Ion wrote: Riot HAS too much power, that's not up for debate.
They just happened to hit somebody with their stick that deserved it...
SoloQ is also srs bsns from now on.
They have too much power in the game that they created and maintain? Okay then...
it's pretty clear this guy was a douchebag and he deserved his bad. I don't know how this has anything to do with riot having "too much power". If TLO was acting like a douchebag constantly I'm sure TL would step up and make him stop and eventually Blizz might step up.
Given the insane amount of trolling and shit talk that goes on in high elo games, IWD must have been fucking awful to actually get reported enough to go to Tribunal nine times.
On December 05 2012 07:50 cLutZ wrote: Here is the thing. Hes not banned for a year. He's done for life, barring something amazing.
You're wrong.
His Main account and all of his smurfs may be done "for life" due to not ever being unbanned, but he can make another account for a "fresh" start. He stated in his reddit thread that his dreams of being a professional league of legends player isn't over, and that when the year suspension is up he hopes to return to the competitive scene, and until then will be solo queing to keep up his mechanics and to work on his behavior.
On December 05 2012 08:15 MeatlessTaco wrote: Gamers in general need to realize that being a gaping asshole is not a right. Seems like a legit punishment, 8 warnings and all.
This left me with a very disturbing and horrifying mental image....
After my 9 tribunal punishments, with the final being a perma ban, I've never talked smack or raged in a game since. It really takes a SHOCK to get it in someones head that they need to change. Warnings do nothing, and will never do anything. He got what he deserved, and hopefully this will change his mentality when he's playing the game, or for esports in general.
On December 05 2012 08:18 RebelSlayer wrote: I don't see why Riot had to make a public announcement about banning him.
Because he is a notable player in the scene. If they didn't the community would have demanded one. So either way, it would have came out. Now its just easier to not feel so bad for him.
On December 05 2012 07:45 Implenia wrote: And this is why having Riot controll all tournaments is not a good idea They have way too much leverage over their "pro-scene" it is really disturbing.
Compared to a certain company which happily pushed for the death of an entire progaming scene, this is nothing.
I guess the issue for a lot of people is that Riot games decided to punish IWD rather then his team (employer), Dignitas. In s3 however IWD would have been an employee of Riot games and it probably isn't wise to belittle, insult and abuse the customers of your employer.
The manner that Riot has handles this has really made it a convoluted issue however since as far as I know there is not yet a contract between IWD and Riot for s3 stating clear rules and guidelines that must be adhered to.
All in all it's not a professional decision by Riot at this time, but with that said, I feel little for someone who has been found guilty in the tribunal on eight separate occasions.
Why would they punish his team? It doesn't matter who he is or who he plays for, if you're going to act like an asshole in solo queue for maybe a year then it is IWD's fault alone.
Sucks for Dig but I would have expected such a team to not allow such trash behavior.
On December 05 2012 07:42 Dandel Ion wrote: Riot HAS too much power, that's not up for debate.
too much power? wtf does that mean. it's their game. you play on their servers. you read and accept their EULA.
Too much power as in they control the competitive scene and the players since they are giving them a salary now.
Control over their game and perma banning IWD is fine. Banning him from playing competitively from stuff he did in casual play is ridiculous. Especially considering the duration of his ban.
On December 05 2012 07:42 Dandel Ion wrote: Riot HAS too much power, that's not up for debate.
too much power? wtf does that mean. it's their game. you play on their servers. you read and accept their EULA.
There is nothing in the EULA that says receiving a perma-ban has the potential to impact your eligibility to play professionally on that that large of a scale.
On December 05 2012 08:18 RebelSlayer wrote: I don't see why Riot had to make a public announcement about banning him.
Pretty simple. Banning a high-profile player over your standard solo-queue trash talk lets Riot use IWD as an example for other players. The message gets across that even a professional player who makes their living off of League of Legends is not exempt from the basic courtesy that the Summoner's Code demands, and that consequences will be dealt toward you, no matter your status.
Also, like another user stated earlier, making the ruling public removes the possibility of anyone being in the dark about IWD's fate, so nobody will be clamoring to Riot for an explanation. Of course, now they're clamoring about Riot having too much control over the competitive scene, so I guess it's a moot point, because people will scream either way.
On December 05 2012 07:42 Dandel Ion wrote: Riot HAS too much power, that's not up for debate.
too much power? wtf does that mean. it's their game. you play on their servers. you read and accept their EULA.
There is nothing in the EULA that says receiving a perma-ban has the potential to impact your eligibility to play professionally on that that large of a scale.
From Riot EULA:
The Code of Conduct is not meant to be exhaustive, and Riot Games reserves the right to modify this Code of Conduct at any time, as well as take any appropriate disciplinary measures including Account termination and deletion to protect the integrity and spirit of the Game, regardless of whether a specific behavior is listed here as prohibited.
On December 05 2012 07:42 Dandel Ion wrote: Riot HAS too much power, that's not up for debate.
too much power? wtf does that mean. it's their game. you play on their servers. you read and accept their EULA.
There is nothing in the EULA that says receiving a perma-ban has the potential to impact your eligibility to play professionally on that that large of a scale.
The Code of Conduct is not meant to be exhaustive, and Riot Games reserves the right to modify this Code of Conduct at any time, as well as take any appropriate disciplinary measures including Account termination and deletion to protect the integrity and spirit of the Game, regardless of whether a specific behavior is listed here as prohibited.
So the EULA says Riot has the right to make any decision they want and can justify it by saying it protects the integrity of the game? If that doesn't sound like too much power than I don't know what does.
On December 05 2012 07:42 Dandel Ion wrote: Riot HAS too much power, that's not up for debate.
too much power? wtf does that mean. it's their game. you play on their servers. you read and accept their EULA.
There is nothing in the EULA that says receiving a perma-ban has the potential to impact your eligibility to play professionally on that that large of a scale.
From Riot EULA:
The Code of Conduct is not meant to be exhaustive, and Riot Games reserves the right to modify this Code of Conduct at any time, as well as take any appropriate disciplinary measures including Account termination and deletion to protect the integrity and spirit of the Game, regardless of whether a specific behavior is listed here as prohibited.
So the EULA says Riot has the right to make any decision they want and can justify it by saying it protects the integrity of the game? If that doesn't sound like too much power than I don't know what does.
Pretty much every EULA ever has or will have that disclaimer in some variation. I think the creator of an online game ought to have supreme control over their product, as long as they don't go overboard with using that control.
I don't think Riot's overstepped their bounds here, either.
Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
Would you prefer that Riot ban the players account but not actually punish him outside the game? So that he just makes a new account and keeps being a jerk? For a casual player, removing their account and forcing them to make another is a big punishment, it takes a lot of work to get to level 30.
For a professional it's a different story. The professional player can easily get a new level 30 account (somebody would probably give him one if he just asked for it), and provides a public image outside the game. Riot wants LoL to become a serious, mainstream, respectable thing. So if a professional and well known community member is not acting like an adult, how is Riot preventing them from doing so exerting too much power?
It sounds to me like Riot was very nice to IWD. If he's been punished in the tribunal 8 times, I'm sure they've already talked to him about it and tried to get him to change his behavior. If I was in their position I doubt I would give somebody 8 chances before doing something serious.
Saying that Riot has too much power or that this is a dangerous thing for them to be doing just sounds like a cry of entitlement to me. If you had an office job and you went around calling your coworkers retards all day, I doubt your boss would give you 8 chances before firing you. IWD got 8 chances, and didn't get fired, just got a one year suspension.
On December 05 2012 07:42 Dandel Ion wrote: Riot HAS too much power, that's not up for debate.
too much power? wtf does that mean. it's their game. you play on their servers. you read and accept their EULA.
There is nothing in the EULA that says receiving a perma-ban has the potential to impact your eligibility to play professionally on that that large of a scale.
From Riot EULA:
The Code of Conduct is not meant to be exhaustive, and Riot Games reserves the right to modify this Code of Conduct at any time, as well as take any appropriate disciplinary measures including Account termination and deletion to protect the integrity and spirit of the Game, regardless of whether a specific behavior is listed here as prohibited.
So the EULA says Riot has the right to make any decision they want and can justify it by saying it protects the integrity of the game? If that doesn't sound like too much power than I don't know what does.
Also from Riot EULA:
Riot Games may terminate this License Agreement at any time, for any reason or no reason.
On December 05 2012 07:42 Dandel Ion wrote: Riot HAS too much power, that's not up for debate.
too much power? wtf does that mean. it's their game. you play on their servers. you read and accept their EULA.
There is nothing in the EULA that says receiving a perma-ban has the potential to impact your eligibility to play professionally on that that large of a scale.
From Riot EULA:
The Code of Conduct is not meant to be exhaustive, and Riot Games reserves the right to modify this Code of Conduct at any time, as well as take any appropriate disciplinary measures including Account termination and deletion to protect the integrity and spirit of the Game, regardless of whether a specific behavior is listed here as prohibited.
So the EULA says Riot has the right to make any decision they want and can justify it by saying it protects the integrity of the game? If that doesn't sound like too much power than I don't know what does.
Pretty much every EULA ever has or will have that disclaimer in some variation. I think the creator of an online game ought to have supreme control over their product, as long as they don't go overboard with using that control.
I don't think Riot's overstepped their bounds here, either.
I just find it hard to accept this behavior when they want eSports to be taken as seriously as real sports. The NHL and NFL have defined rules, there is not clause anywhere that gives them nearly as much power as the one Riot has. Plus they have defined player unions that aren't controlled by the league. Maybe that's just the nature of eSports versus real sports. Oh well, I guess in the end Riot can do what they want and we can agree or disagree all we want but it won't make a difference. I lost a little respect for Riot, but hopefully nothing as controversial will happen in the future.
On December 05 2012 08:59 NeoIllusions wrote: This is a good thing and it deserves its own thread.
I'm just surprised that IWD is more toxic than some other players I had in mind.
Yeah, they keep quoting that he was 300% more toxic than other players yet, how do we know? I've been reported for defending myself from harassment a number of times. Who is to say that didn't happen to him because hes a pro-player that casuals can poke at and make fun of? As a pro-player he is well known by the community and this community is FULL of trolls and asshats looking to get under anyones skin.
The fact that there are so many people trying to defend or justify this a-hole really says a lot about the LoL community.
People whine and whine about how it's filled with inmature douches and when Riot makes an example of a pro douche then everyone still whines. It's mildly infuriating.
On December 05 2012 07:42 Dandel Ion wrote: Riot HAS too much power, that's not up for debate.
too much power? wtf does that mean. it's their game. you play on their servers. you read and accept their EULA.
There is nothing in the EULA that says receiving a perma-ban has the potential to impact your eligibility to play professionally on that that large of a scale.
From Riot EULA:
The Code of Conduct is not meant to be exhaustive, and Riot Games reserves the right to modify this Code of Conduct at any time, as well as take any appropriate disciplinary measures including Account termination and deletion to protect the integrity and spirit of the Game, regardless of whether a specific behavior is listed here as prohibited.
So the EULA says Riot has the right to make any decision they want and can justify it by saying it protects the integrity of the game? If that doesn't sound like too much power than I don't know what does.
Pretty much every EULA ever has or will have that disclaimer in some variation. I think the creator of an online game ought to have supreme control over their product, as long as they don't go overboard with using that control.
I don't think Riot's overstepped their bounds here, either.
I just find it hard to accept this behavior when they want eSports to be taken as seriously as real sports. The NHL and NFL have defined rules, there is not clause anywhere that gives them nearly as much power as the one Riot has. Plus they have defined player unions that aren't controlled by the league. Maybe that's just the nature of eSports versus real sports. Oh well, I guess in the end Riot can do what they want and we can agree or disagree all we want but it won't make a difference. I lost a little respect for Riot, but hopefully nothing as controversial will happen in the future.
On the contrary, I feel this is EXACTLY what eSports needs in order to be taken seriously. Riot has pretty much declared that this kind of behavior (which was not an isolated incident, mind you) will not be tolerated, ESPECIALLY if you're someone participating in the Championship Series, and made an example of IWD, the worst of the pros. People get on KESPA's butt about its stringent rules, but I also felt that those rules were necessary (I just had a bit of a problem with the execution of the rules).
Does this mean that players will be just robots with no personality? Not at all! There are plenty of ways to be a player with personality without being a huge dick, as IWD was.
This is ridiculous and is a direct attack on someone's financial wellbeing; a recognised legal offence in most if not all countries under tort law. My only question is: if he shows up at LAN events or participates in international online tournaments will they attempt to prohibit this? Because he will obviously just change IP addresses and create a new account but it would be a first time thing if and when Dig qualify for an important LAN tournament and riot officials show up to attempt to disqualify this player. Complete bullshit where the only objective in mind is to scare "toxic" players into being less "toxic" so noobies and immature kids will be more likely to get hooked and spend their pocket money in the Riot store. This shit makes me sick, whatever happened to freedom of speech? I mean there is a goddamn mute feature, why don't they just advertise that? zzzzzzzz
On December 05 2012 07:42 Dandel Ion wrote: Riot HAS too much power, that's not up for debate.
too much power? wtf does that mean. it's their game. you play on their servers. you read and accept their EULA.
There is nothing in the EULA that says receiving a perma-ban has the potential to impact your eligibility to play professionally on that that large of a scale.
From Riot EULA:
The Code of Conduct is not meant to be exhaustive, and Riot Games reserves the right to modify this Code of Conduct at any time, as well as take any appropriate disciplinary measures including Account termination and deletion to protect the integrity and spirit of the Game, regardless of whether a specific behavior is listed here as prohibited.
So the EULA says Riot has the right to make any decision they want and can justify it by saying it protects the integrity of the game? If that doesn't sound like too much power than I don't know what does.
Pretty much every EULA ever has or will have that disclaimer in some variation. I think the creator of an online game ought to have supreme control over their product, as long as they don't go overboard with using that control.
I don't think Riot's overstepped their bounds here, either.
I just find it hard to accept this behavior when they want eSports to be taken as seriously as real sports. The NHL and NFL have defined rules, there is not clause anywhere that gives them nearly as much power as the one Riot has. Plus they have defined player unions that aren't controlled by the league. Maybe that's just the nature of eSports versus real sports. Oh well, I guess in the end Riot can do what they want and we can agree or disagree all we want but it won't make a difference. I lost a little respect for Riot, but hopefully nothing as controversial will happen in the future.
On the contrary, I feel this is EXACTLY what eSports needs in order to be taken seriously. Riot has pretty much declared that this kind of behavior (which was not an isolated incident, mind you) will not be tolerated, ESPECIALLY if you're someone participating in the Championship Series, and made an example of IWD, the worst of the pros. People get on KESPA's butt about its stringent rules, but I also felt that those rules were necessary (I just had a bit of a problem with the execution of the rules).
Does this mean that players will be just robots with no personality? Not at all! There are plenty of ways to be a player with personality without being a huge dick, as IWD was.
Specifically I meant this raises a larger question about LoL player's rights, and how they are much better player's right are protected in traditional sports where they have a defined set of rules as well as a union to fight for them. Cracking down on professionals raging in solo q isn't the problem, I totally agree they should do that.
On December 05 2012 09:12 MyTHicaL wrote: This is ridiculous and is a direct attack on someone's financial wellbeing; a recognised legal offence in most if not all countries under tort law. My only question is: if he shows up at LAN events or participates in international online tournaments will they attempt to prohibit this? Because he will obviously just change IP addresses and create a new account but it would be a first time thing if and when Dig qualify for an important LAN tournament and riot officials show up to attempt to disqualify this player. Complete bullshit where the only objective in mind is to scare "toxic" players into being less "toxic" so noobies and immature kids will be more likely to get hooked and spend their pocket money in the Riot store. This shit makes me sick, whatever happened to freedom of speech? I mean there is a goddamn mute feature, why don't they just advertise that? zzzzzzzz
Freedom of speech doesn't apply to a private entity like Riot or its servers.
On December 05 2012 09:12 MyTHicaL wrote: This is ridiculous and is a direct attack on someone's financial wellbeing; a recognised legal offence in most if not all countries under tort law. My only question is: if he shows up at LAN events or participates in international online tournaments will they attempt to prohibit this? Because he will obviously just change IP addresses and create a new account but it would be a first time thing if and when Dig qualify for an important LAN tournament and riot officials show up to attempt to disqualify this player. Complete bullshit where the only objective in mind is to scare "toxic" players into being less "toxic" so noobies and immature kids will be more likely to get hooked and spend their pocket money in the Riot store. This shit makes me sick, whatever happened to freedom of speech? I mean there is a goddamn mute feature, why don't they just advertise that? zzzzzzzz
Any LANs associated with Riot's championship series he wouldn't be allowed to play in. As far as I know that means pretty much every LAN. I guess he could still play in small tournaments like the solomid weekly stuff? He's been dropped from the Dig roster already though.
And Riot didn't IP ban him. They banned his main account and his smurfs.
On December 05 2012 09:12 MyTHicaL wrote: This is ridiculous and is a direct attack on someone's financial wellbeing; a recognised legal offence in most if not all countries under tort law. My only question is: if he shows up at LAN events or participates in international online tournaments will they attempt to prohibit this? Because he will obviously just change IP addresses and create a new account but it would be a first time thing if and when Dig qualify for an important LAN tournament and riot officials show up to attempt to disqualify this player. Complete bullshit where the only objective in mind is to scare "toxic" players into being less "toxic" so noobies and immature kids will be more likely to get hooked and spend their pocket money in the Riot store. This shit makes me sick, whatever happened to freedom of speech? I mean there is a goddamn mute feature, why don't they just advertise that? zzzzzzzz
2nd of all, if he tries to circumvent his ban, Riot will probably just ban him again for longer, just like TL.
Dignitas will just have to find a new jungler now (poor Odee, his house burned down, now he has to find a new jungler because IWD couldn't keep his mouth shut in solo que.
i've never player LoL much cause all the hate in Solo MM made me sick, so i dare say : well deserved, if the presented fact are true, that is. No matter how good you are, you should still be held accountable for your actions taken against others.
On December 05 2012 09:18 Slow Motion wrote: This might be amazing for Dignitas if they can find a decent top laner. Crumbz is a way better jungler than IWD.
Recruit Reapered from Korea :D
But he's committed to commentating for OGN for the Winter season...
On December 05 2012 09:12 MyTHicaL wrote: This is ridiculous and is a direct attack on someone's financial wellbeing; a recognised legal offence in most if not all countries under tort law. My only question is: if he shows up at LAN events or participates in international online tournaments will they attempt to prohibit this? Because he will obviously just change IP addresses and create a new account but it would be a first time thing if and when Dig qualify for an important LAN tournament and riot officials show up to attempt to disqualify this player. Complete bullshit where the only objective in mind is to scare "toxic" players into being less "toxic" so noobies and immature kids will be more likely to get hooked and spend their pocket money in the Riot store. This shit makes me sick, whatever happened to freedom of speech? I mean there is a goddamn mute feature, why don't they just advertise that? zzzzzzzz
2nd of all, if he tries to circumvent his ban, Riot will probably just ban him again for longer, just like TL.
Dignitas will just have to find a new jungler now (poor Odee, his house burned down, now he has to find a new jungler because IWD couldn't keep his mouth shut in solo que.
I think all of you are confusing his ban for something bigger than it really is. They banned his main account permanently, because it was filled with toxic behavior accounts. The only reason, as clarified by lyte, that all of his smurfs were banned, is because he was displaying the same amount of toxic behavior across all of his accounts.
They aren't prohibiting him from making a new account at level 1, to start "fresh." They banned him from their own sponsored championship series, not competitive play from other lans or private events. Although now that he isn't on dignitas he won't be going to those regardless.
He already stated that he's making a new account in order to not diminish his mechanics, and that when the year ban is up, he plans on joining a team again to participate in the championship series/other events.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
On December 05 2012 09:12 MyTHicaL wrote: This is ridiculous and is a direct attack on someone's financial wellbeing; a recognised legal offence in most if not all countries under tort law. My only question is: if he shows up at LAN events or participates in international online tournaments will they attempt to prohibit this? Because he will obviously just change IP addresses and create a new account but it would be a first time thing if and when Dig qualify for an important LAN tournament and riot officials show up to attempt to disqualify this player. Complete bullshit where the only objective in mind is to scare "toxic" players into being less "toxic" so noobies and immature kids will be more likely to get hooked and spend their pocket money in the Riot store. This shit makes me sick, whatever happened to freedom of speech? I mean there is a goddamn mute feature, why don't they just advertise that? zzzzzzzz
2nd of all, if he tries to circumvent his ban, Riot will probably just ban him again for longer, just like TL.
Dignitas will just have to find a new jungler now (poor Odee, his house burned down, now he has to find a new jungler because IWD couldn't keep his mouth shut in solo que.
I think all of you are confusing his ban for something bigger than it really is. They banned his main account permanently, because it was filled with toxic behavior accounts. The only reason, as clarified by lyte, that all of his smurfs were banned, is because he was displaying the same amount of toxic behavior across all of his accounts.
They aren't prohibiting him from making a new account at level 1, to start "fresh." They banned him from their own sponsored championship series, not competitive play from other lans or private events. Although now that he isn't on dignitas he won't be going to those regardless.
He already stated that he's making a new account in order to not diminish his mechanics, and that when the year ban is up, he plans on joining a team again to participate in the championship series/other events.
I meant his ban from Championship series events, like the guy I quoted implied. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
On December 05 2012 07:35 3 Lions wrote: At least it will scare other professional players into behaving better in solo-queue
Which is a problem, Riot prioritizes solo Q over the careers of players that create the pro scene in the first place. Really odd that people like this development. Solo Q players rejoicing?
He was warned sufficient times (8 is massive, at work i get 3 verbal warnings, 1 written warning them im out) and this is his job, then he should treat it as such and be a professional about it.
On December 05 2012 09:25 iinsom wrote: I cant see how this is an issue?
He was warned sufficient times (8 is massive, at work i get 3 verbal warnings, 1 written warning them im out) and this is his job, then he should treat it as such and be a professional about it.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
On December 05 2012 09:12 MyTHicaL wrote: This is ridiculous and is a direct attack on someone's financial wellbeing; a recognised legal offence in most if not all countries under tort law. My only question is: if he shows up at LAN events or participates in international online tournaments will they attempt to prohibit this? Because he will obviously just change IP addresses and create a new account but it would be a first time thing if and when Dig qualify for an important LAN tournament and riot officials show up to attempt to disqualify this player. Complete bullshit where the only objective in mind is to scare "toxic" players into being less "toxic" so noobies and immature kids will be more likely to get hooked and spend their pocket money in the Riot store. This shit makes me sick, whatever happened to freedom of speech? I mean there is a goddamn mute feature, why don't they just advertise that? zzzzzzzz
If an employee of a company gives the company a bad name by their behaviour, they will be warned and disciplined no matter WHAT the field. If I walk around my town wearing my work uniform being a cunt to people, my employer would probably be informed, and I'd be disciplined. If he was on a smurf unrelated to his main account that people didn't know was him, it'd be different. But after multiple warnings to stop doing something in the PUBLIC eye, Riot have every right to ban him from their tournaments.
That's the other thing. If they did something to influence his financial state there are laws surrounding it. However they didn't kick him off his team. They banned him from the tournaments THEY host and THEY run and THEY pay for. This is the proper response, AND this is good to set a bar for other pro gamers. A lot of them give others abuse in solo queue because obviously they're pros so anyone who disagrees with them is totally wrong flame them now! Maybe they'll conduct themselves better.
On December 05 2012 07:35 3 Lions wrote: At least it will scare other professional players into behaving better in solo-queue
Which is a problem, Riot prioritizes solo Q over the careers of players that create the pro scene in the first place. Really odd that people like this development. Solo Q players rejoicing?
As it turns out, Riot has smarter people than you or I telling them that it's not good exposure to have a professional player who treats the little folk like dirt. This isn't Feudal Europe, he doesn't own the place. He's just a little kid who can't handle the demands of his "profession."
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
I'm pretty certain other people are welcome to host their own LoL tournaments. Just because Riot are willing to invest so much into the competitive scene, and all the tournaments lap it up, doesn't mean they're the ONLY ones who can run any given tournament.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
Yes this amount of control Riot has over the game is horrible policy and borderline unconstitutional. However, this is the system we are stuck with in the U.S. and most of the world (until lobbyists for movies, music, etc. somehow don't control Congress lololol). Not really Riot's fault they are gifted with this ridiculous IP system and they use it to the fullest extent.
I think this discussion though is kinda getting too far from what's happening here. Basically, Riot has the legal authority to do this and they used it in a reasonable way here. The main thing I'm afraid of is that it's not really a fair system and the more popular players are basically untouchable no matter what they do.
On December 05 2012 07:35 3 Lions wrote: At least it will scare other professional players into behaving better in solo-queue
Which is a problem, Riot prioritizes solo Q over the careers of players that create the pro scene in the first place. Really odd that people like this development. Solo Q players rejoicing?
Their game, their rules, their decisions. You all agreed to it in the EULA, if you have a problem with it they aren't forcing you to stay. If you act like that in any type of job setting you shouldn't be allowed to have a "career" in whatever it is you are trying to do. Act at least half like a decent human being and maybe you'll be able to keep a job.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
I'm pretty certain other people are welcome to host their own LoL tournaments. Just because Riot are willing to invest so much into the competitive scene, and all the tournaments lap it up, doesn't mean they're the ONLY ones who can run any given tournament.
Actually this is exactly the problem. In the U.S. Riot ARE the only ones that can run a tournament. Others must seek permission from Riot in order to run a tourney. Now of course you can run a little local tourney for $100 or whatever and Riot won't give a shit or bother to sue you. But the large tournaments must get the ok from Riot first and if they don't Riot probably will take legal action.
On December 05 2012 09:25 iinsom wrote: I cant see how this is an issue?
He was warned sufficient times (8 is massive, at work i get 3 verbal warnings, 1 written warning them im out) and this is his job, then he should treat it as such and be a professional about it.
Solo queue isn't his job.
He's salaried by RIOT, everything to do with League is now technically his "job"
It'd be like if in your job you went out to lunch still wearing a badge/uniform and completely badmouth your company and how terrible it is etc yet when you were at the job you acted all prim and proper, you represent the company, your behaviours are associated to the company.
I don't honestly understand anyones points in trying to defend this, even without the salary acting like that shouldn't be accepted at any level & why would you ever want someone like him in your SoloQ game, he's the exact same as any of the ragey kids but he just happens to have ELO, good riddance.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
Yes this amount of control Riot has over the game is horrible policy and borderline unconstitutional. However, this is the system we are stuck with in the U.S. and most of the world (until lobbyists for movies, music, etc. somehow don't control Congress lololol). Not really Riot's fault they are gifted with this ridiculous IP system and they use it to the fullest extent.
I think this discussion though is kinda getting too far from what's happening here. Basically, Riot has the legal authority to do this and they used it in a reasonable way here. The main thing I'm afraid of is that it's not really a fair system and the more popular players are basically untouchable no matter what they do.
How more popular do you need to get? He's on one of the most well-known pro teams and plays for them in every tournament.
Not a fair system? 9 tribunal trips, 8 punishments. Any reasonable person would agree you should learn your lesson after that or something like this is going to happen, no matter who you are.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
Yes this amount of control Riot has over the game is horrible policy and borderline unconstitutional. However, this is the system we are stuck with in the U.S. and most of the world (until lobbyists for movies, music, etc. somehow don't control Congress lololol). Not really Riot's fault they are gifted with this ridiculous IP system and they use it to the fullest extent.
I think this discussion though is kinda getting too far from what's happening here. Basically, Riot has the legal authority to do this and they used it in a reasonable way here. The main thing I'm afraid of is that it's not really a fair system and the more popular players are basically untouchable no matter what they do.
How more popular do you need to get? He's on one of the most well-known pro teams and plays for them in every tournament.
Not a fair system? 9 tribunal trips, 8 punishments. Any reasonable person would agree you should learn your lesson after that or something like this is going to happen, no matter who you are.
I dunno I think Riot may be a lot more lenient with someone like Dyrus who has a huge fan following. They may still ban him if he goes super out of line but somehow I think he will get more chances.
On December 05 2012 09:25 iinsom wrote: I cant see how this is an issue?
He was warned sufficient times (8 is massive, at work i get 3 verbal warnings, 1 written warning them im out) and this is his job, then he should treat it as such and be a professional about it.
Solo queue isn't his job.
He's salaried by RIOT, everything to do with League is now technically his "job"
It'd be like if in your job you went out to lunch still wearing a badge/uniform and completely badmouth your company and how terrible it is etc yet when you were at the job you acted all prim and proper, you represent the company, your behaviours are associated to the company.
I don't honestly understand anyones points in trying to defend this, even without the salary acting like that shouldn't be accepted at any level & why would you ever want someone like him in your SoloQ game, he's the exact same as any of the ragey kids but he just happens to have ELO, good riddance.
He isn't salaried by Riot, he was going to be, but they haven't signed any contracts yet. I guess my biggest issue is I'm trying to compare it to traditional sports, but since you have to agree to the EULA to play LoL, whereas you don't to practice football, it falls apart for me where Riot has more power. In football there are different levels of rules, but the NFL can't suspend you before you sign a contract since you aren't part of the league.
On December 05 2012 09:25 iinsom wrote: I cant see how this is an issue?
He was warned sufficient times (8 is massive, at work i get 3 verbal warnings, 1 written warning them im out) and this is his job, then he should treat it as such and be a professional about it.
Solo queue isn't his job.
However, accepting Riot's 3 Champion league deal would make him a Riot employee.
And Riot has fired Rioters for acting like idiots.
I think it is sensible for them to ban him from competition for a year because he cannot compete without playing on their servers. Ergo, he is banned from competitive play. Maybe there's a quibble over a year length ban as a first-of-its-kind punishment, but this is not a single instance of bad behavior. He has a long pattern of unrepentant toxic behavior. It's amazing he even got this far without some sort of action.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
Yes this amount of control Riot has over the game is horrible policy and borderline unconstitutional. However, this is the system we are stuck with in the U.S. and most of the world (until lobbyists for movies, music, etc. somehow don't control Congress lololol). Not really Riot's fault they are gifted with this ridiculous IP system and they use it to the fullest extent.
I think this discussion though is kinda getting too far from what's happening here. Basically, Riot has the legal authority to do this and they used it in a reasonable way here. The main thing I'm afraid of is that it's not really a fair system and the more popular players are basically untouchable no matter what they do.
How more popular do you need to get? He's on one of the most well-known pro teams and plays for them in every tournament.
Not a fair system? 9 tribunal trips, 8 punishments. Any reasonable person would agree you should learn your lesson after that or something like this is going to happen, no matter who you are.
I dunno I think Riot may be a lot more lenient with someone like Dyrus who has a huge fan following. They may still ban him if he goes super out of line but somehow I think he will get more chances.
In my opinion, if Dyrus was in the exact same situation as IWD, Riot wouldn't hesitate to ban him, regardless of his fan following.
And for all those saying IWD's carreer is over because he can't come back in a year, why? Will he not be able to practice or something outside of tournaments? Will LoL be dead in a year, in which case who cares? He's going to be just fine. It's up to him whether he returns to a team next year or not. Riot didn't destroy anything.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
I'm pretty certain other people are welcome to host their own LoL tournaments. Just because Riot are willing to invest so much into the competitive scene, and all the tournaments lap it up, doesn't mean they're the ONLY ones who can run any given tournament.
Actually this is exactly the problem. In the U.S. Riot ARE the only ones that can run a tournament. Others must seek permission from Riot in order to run a tourney. Now of course you can run a little local tourney for $100 or whatever and Riot won't give a shit or bother to sue you. But the large tournaments must get the ok from Riot first and if they don't Riot probably will take legal action.
1. I want to reiterate that IWD has had numerous warnings and bans before this perm ban took place today. Unfortunately, everyone will simply have to take Riot's word at face value. As with TeamLiquid, when a moderator bans a TL user over severe behavior, you accept our actions for what they are. There is no reason why Riot or TL would unjustifiably ban a player, pro or otherwise.
2. I am informed that the Dignitas orga was notified of IWD's ingame behavior "months in advance". In no way was this simply sprung on dig, without letting them know actions were going to be levied against IWD. dig had time to rein in IWD and work on his behavior before today's decision was made.
3. From Zileas and Lyte, pro players are role models of the community. If you want to get a salary and participate in Season 3, where the benefits have greatly improved since Season 2, don't do negative actions for a long period of time. Riot understands even pros have their bad days but keep yourself in check. This one is common sense.
4. Unfortunately, I am seeing a comparison with Dota2 for some reason and I have to say that is neither here nor there. Riot is doing what it thinks is best for their brand and game. If a professional player misbehaves, Riot/Tribunal will step in and say something. If this occurs to the same player nine times over the course of one season, how would you not implement a severe action here?
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
Yes this amount of control Riot has over the game is horrible policy and borderline unconstitutional. However, this is the system we are stuck with in the U.S. and most of the world (until lobbyists for movies, music, etc. somehow don't control Congress lololol). Not really Riot's fault they are gifted with this ridiculous IP system and they use it to the fullest extent.
I think this discussion though is kinda getting too far from what's happening here. Basically, Riot has the legal authority to do this and they used it in a reasonable way here. The main thing I'm afraid of is that it's not really a fair system and the more popular players are basically untouchable no matter what they do.
How more popular do you need to get? He's on one of the most well-known pro teams and plays for them in every tournament.
Not a fair system? 9 tribunal trips, 8 punishments. Any reasonable person would agree you should learn your lesson after that or something like this is going to happen, no matter who you are.
I dunno I think Riot may be a lot more lenient with someone like Dyrus who has a huge fan following. They may still ban him if he goes super out of line but somehow I think he will get more chances.
If that's the case and people are worried, then maybe they should create a player union like NHLPA, NBAPA, etc. There will always be a power struggle between the owners (Riot) and the players so there may as well be a central player organization to help each other out.
On December 05 2012 09:25 iinsom wrote: I cant see how this is an issue?
He was warned sufficient times (8 is massive, at work i get 3 verbal warnings, 1 written warning them im out) and this is his job, then he should treat it as such and be a professional about it.
Solo queue isn't his job.
He's salaried by RIOT, everything to do with League is now technically his "job"
It'd be like if in your job you went out to lunch still wearing a badge/uniform and completely badmouth your company and how terrible it is etc yet when you were at the job you acted all prim and proper, you represent the company, your behaviours are associated to the company.
I don't honestly understand anyones points in trying to defend this, even without the salary acting like that shouldn't be accepted at any level & why would you ever want someone like him in your SoloQ game, he's the exact same as any of the ragey kids but he just happens to have ELO, good riddance.
He isn't salaried by Riot, he was going to be, but they haven't signed any contracts yet. I guess my biggest issue is I'm trying to compare it to traditional sports, but since you have to agree to the EULA to play LoL, whereas you don't to practice football, it falls apart for me where Riot has more power. In football there are different levels of rules, but the NFL can't suspend you before you sign a contract since you aren't part of the league.
As several other people have said, isn't the suspension more like Riot not wanting to hire/draft IWD into their championship series?
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
Yes this amount of control Riot has over the game is horrible policy and borderline unconstitutional. However, this is the system we are stuck with in the U.S. and most of the world (until lobbyists for movies, music, etc. somehow don't control Congress lololol). Not really Riot's fault they are gifted with this ridiculous IP system and they use it to the fullest extent.
I think this discussion though is kinda getting too far from what's happening here. Basically, Riot has the legal authority to do this and they used it in a reasonable way here. The main thing I'm afraid of is that it's not really a fair system and the more popular players are basically untouchable no matter what they do.
How more popular do you need to get? He's on one of the most well-known pro teams and plays for them in every tournament.
Not a fair system? 9 tribunal trips, 8 punishments. Any reasonable person would agree you should learn your lesson after that or something like this is going to happen, no matter who you are.
I dunno I think Riot may be a lot more lenient with someone like Dyrus who has a huge fan following. They may still ban him if he goes super out of line but somehow I think he will get more chances.
If that's the case and people are worried, then maybe they should create a player union like NHLPA, NBAPA, etc.
On December 05 2012 09:25 iinsom wrote: I cant see how this is an issue?
He was warned sufficient times (8 is massive, at work i get 3 verbal warnings, 1 written warning them im out) and this is his job, then he should treat it as such and be a professional about it.
Solo queue isn't his job.
He's salaried by RIOT, everything to do with League is now technically his "job"
It'd be like if in your job you went out to lunch still wearing a badge/uniform and completely badmouth your company and how terrible it is etc yet when you were at the job you acted all prim and proper, you represent the company, your behaviours are associated to the company.
I don't honestly understand anyones points in trying to defend this, even without the salary acting like that shouldn't be accepted at any level & why would you ever want someone like him in your SoloQ game, he's the exact same as any of the ragey kids but he just happens to have ELO, good riddance.
He isn't salaried by Riot, he was going to be, but they haven't signed any contracts yet. I guess my biggest issue is I'm trying to compare it to traditional sports, but since you have to agree to the EULA to play LoL, whereas you don't to practice football, it falls apart for me where Riot has more power. In football there are different levels of rules, but the NFL can't suspend you before you sign a contract since you aren't part of the league.
As several other people have said, isn't the suspension more like Riot not wanting to hire/draft IWD into their championship series?
It would be good if the players can have an organization for themselves but the push is gonna have to come from a player who's really passionate about it. Their teams and Riot definitely won't help them unionize lol. Also it's even more mixed up given guys like HSGG and Regi who are players and management. I think the way esports is structured presents a lot of barriers to this kind of player org.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
Yes this amount of control Riot has over the game is horrible policy and borderline unconstitutional. However, this is the system we are stuck with in the U.S. and most of the world (until lobbyists for movies, music, etc. somehow don't control Congress lololol). Not really Riot's fault they are gifted with this ridiculous IP system and they use it to the fullest extent.
I think this discussion though is kinda getting too far from what's happening here. Basically, Riot has the legal authority to do this and they used it in a reasonable way here. The main thing I'm afraid of is that it's not really a fair system and the more popular players are basically untouchable no matter what they do.
How more popular do you need to get? He's on one of the most well-known pro teams and plays for them in every tournament.
Not a fair system? 9 tribunal trips, 8 punishments. Any reasonable person would agree you should learn your lesson after that or something like this is going to happen, no matter who you are.
I dunno I think Riot may be a lot more lenient with someone like Dyrus who has a huge fan following. They may still ban him if he goes super out of line but somehow I think he will get more chances.
If that's the case and people are worried, then maybe they should create a player union like NHLPA, NBAPA, etc. There will always be a power struggle between the owners (Riot) and the players so there may as well be a central player organization to help each other out.
I think that a player union would be really good going forward but I don't think it'll happen. Riot would likely be opposed to a player union and for good reasons.
Unless it was a player union owned and operated by Riot which would be completely pointless lol.
I'm actually pretty mad about this IWD thing. He was way nicer than Oddone and Saint in my eyes, and don't let me get started on Regi and Dyrus. But I guess the Tribunal said otherwise :/ (funny how they're all famous streamers and IWD isn't.)
Crumbzz jungle would make me really happy. Sadly there isn't a simple good toplane in NA, like people are worse than Crumbzz at that role. Wings would honestly be Dig's only hope.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
Yes this amount of control Riot has over the game is horrible policy and borderline unconstitutional. However, this is the system we are stuck with in the U.S. and most of the world (until lobbyists for movies, music, etc. somehow don't control Congress lololol). Not really Riot's fault they are gifted with this ridiculous IP system and they use it to the fullest extent.
I think this discussion though is kinda getting too far from what's happening here. Basically, Riot has the legal authority to do this and they used it in a reasonable way here. The main thing I'm afraid of is that it's not really a fair system and the more popular players are basically untouchable no matter what they do.
How more popular do you need to get? He's on one of the most well-known pro teams and plays for them in every tournament.
Not a fair system? 9 tribunal trips, 8 punishments. Any reasonable person would agree you should learn your lesson after that or something like this is going to happen, no matter who you are.
I dunno I think Riot may be a lot more lenient with someone like Dyrus who has a huge fan following. They may still ban him if he goes super out of line but somehow I think he will get more chances.
If that's the case and people are worried, then maybe they should create a player union like NHLPA, NBAPA, etc. There will always be a power struggle between the owners (Riot) and the players so there may as well be a central player organization to help each other out.
I don't think people/players are necessarily worried. Riot made it pretty clear you have to be a huge douche in-game AND disregard every single warning from both the players he played against/with and Riot themselves. Most people would have learned before they get to the point IWD did.
And although a players union sounds nice, I can't really recall a single huge event against (pro) players by Riot that would make anyone even consider forming a union.
I remember when Hotshot got hacked Oddone played a game with Hackedshotgg and got banned from WCG qualifiers or something l0l. This is a bit over the top though.
Actually, thinking about it, there used to be so much shit happening in League that wasn't widespread since no one used Reddit back then. I'd love to see what the community reactions would be nowadays, like when Regi would order pizzas to Hotshot's house.
On December 05 2012 09:59 HazMat wrote: I'm actually pretty mad about this IWD thing. He was way nicer than Oddone and Saint in my eyes, and don't let me get started on Regi and Dyrus. But I guess the Tribunal said otherwise :/ (funny how they're all famous streamers and IWD isn't.)
Crumbzz jungle would make me really happy. Sadly there isn't a simple good toplane in NA, like people are worse than Crumbzz at that role. Wings would honestly be Dig's only hope.
Saint doesn't really act out that much in solo queue though. That last time I remember doing something that was bannable was his Trundle double jungle stunt that actually got him banned for a bot. Not that Saint is a saint but I don't think he cares enough about solo queue to rage like a lot of other pros.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
Yes this amount of control Riot has over the game is horrible policy and borderline unconstitutional. However, this is the system we are stuck with in the U.S. and most of the world (until lobbyists for movies, music, etc. somehow don't control Congress lololol). Not really Riot's fault they are gifted with this ridiculous IP system and they use it to the fullest extent.
I think this discussion though is kinda getting too far from what's happening here. Basically, Riot has the legal authority to do this and they used it in a reasonable way here. The main thing I'm afraid of is that it's not really a fair system and the more popular players are basically untouchable no matter what they do.
How more popular do you need to get? He's on one of the most well-known pro teams and plays for them in every tournament.
Not a fair system? 9 tribunal trips, 8 punishments. Any reasonable person would agree you should learn your lesson after that or something like this is going to happen, no matter who you are.
I dunno I think Riot may be a lot more lenient with someone like Dyrus who has a huge fan following. They may still ban him if he goes super out of line but somehow I think he will get more chances.
If that's the case and people are worried, then maybe they should create a player union like NHLPA, NBAPA, etc. There will always be a power struggle between the owners (Riot) and the players so there may as well be a central player organization to help each other out.
I don't think people/players are necessarily worried. Riot made it pretty clear you have to be a huge douche in-game AND disregard every single warning from both the players he played against/with and Riot themselves. Most people would have learned before they get to the point IWD did.
Yeah but when every pro is salaried by the same group that's running the league you're all playing in a player's union makes sense. The organizing body has too much power.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
Yes this amount of control Riot has over the game is horrible policy and borderline unconstitutional. However, this is the system we are stuck with in the U.S. and most of the world (until lobbyists for movies, music, etc. somehow don't control Congress lololol). Not really Riot's fault they are gifted with this ridiculous IP system and they use it to the fullest extent.
I think this discussion though is kinda getting too far from what's happening here. Basically, Riot has the legal authority to do this and they used it in a reasonable way here. The main thing I'm afraid of is that it's not really a fair system and the more popular players are basically untouchable no matter what they do.
How more popular do you need to get? He's on one of the most well-known pro teams and plays for them in every tournament.
Not a fair system? 9 tribunal trips, 8 punishments. Any reasonable person would agree you should learn your lesson after that or something like this is going to happen, no matter who you are.
I dunno I think Riot may be a lot more lenient with someone like Dyrus who has a huge fan following. They may still ban him if he goes super out of line but somehow I think he will get more chances.
If that's the case and people are worried, then maybe they should create a player union like NHLPA, NBAPA, etc. There will always be a power struggle between the owners (Riot) and the players so there may as well be a central player organization to help each other out.
I don't think people/players are necessarily worried. Riot made it pretty clear you have to be a huge douche in-game AND disregard every single warning from both the players he played against/with and Riot themselves. Most people would have learned before they get to the point IWD did.
Yeah but when every pro is salaried by the same group that's running the league you're all playing in a player's union makes sense. The organizing body has too much power.
Yeah, it's not like Riot owns the game and bankrolls the scene. They are truly the evil guys here!
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
Yes this amount of control Riot has over the game is horrible policy and borderline unconstitutional. However, this is the system we are stuck with in the U.S. and most of the world (until lobbyists for movies, music, etc. somehow don't control Congress lololol). Not really Riot's fault they are gifted with this ridiculous IP system and they use it to the fullest extent.
I think this discussion though is kinda getting too far from what's happening here. Basically, Riot has the legal authority to do this and they used it in a reasonable way here. The main thing I'm afraid of is that it's not really a fair system and the more popular players are basically untouchable no matter what they do.
How more popular do you need to get? He's on one of the most well-known pro teams and plays for them in every tournament.
Not a fair system? 9 tribunal trips, 8 punishments. Any reasonable person would agree you should learn your lesson after that or something like this is going to happen, no matter who you are.
I dunno I think Riot may be a lot more lenient with someone like Dyrus who has a huge fan following. They may still ban him if he goes super out of line but somehow I think he will get more chances.
If that's the case and people are worried, then maybe they should create a player union like NHLPA, NBAPA, etc. There will always be a power struggle between the owners (Riot) and the players so there may as well be a central player organization to help each other out.
I don't think people/players are necessarily worried. Riot made it pretty clear you have to be a huge douche in-game AND disregard every single warning from both the players he played against/with and Riot themselves. Most people would have learned before they get to the point IWD did.
Yeah but when every pro is salaried by the same group that's running the league you're all playing in a player's union makes sense. The organizing body has too much power.
Yeah, it's not like Riot owns the game and bankrolls the scene. They are truly the evil guys here!
It's not about evil or bad, it's about the fact that sometimes Riot and the players will have different interests, and if the players don't organize they have less influence on the decisions that deal with those issues.
What would a player union accomplish? Ok we want the ability to be toxic in solo q games forever and not risk getting banned. Riot is doing some insanely awesome things with their game. People wanting to find negative flaws because they don't treat their pros better than anyone else. Newsflash, even with the perm ban, he was treated better than the average gamer.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
Yes this amount of control Riot has over the game is horrible policy and borderline unconstitutional. However, this is the system we are stuck with in the U.S. and most of the world (until lobbyists for movies, music, etc. somehow don't control Congress lololol). Not really Riot's fault they are gifted with this ridiculous IP system and they use it to the fullest extent.
I think this discussion though is kinda getting too far from what's happening here. Basically, Riot has the legal authority to do this and they used it in a reasonable way here. The main thing I'm afraid of is that it's not really a fair system and the more popular players are basically untouchable no matter what they do.
How more popular do you need to get? He's on one of the most well-known pro teams and plays for them in every tournament.
Not a fair system? 9 tribunal trips, 8 punishments. Any reasonable person would agree you should learn your lesson after that or something like this is going to happen, no matter who you are.
I dunno I think Riot may be a lot more lenient with someone like Dyrus who has a huge fan following. They may still ban him if he goes super out of line but somehow I think he will get more chances.
If that's the case and people are worried, then maybe they should create a player union like NHLPA, NBAPA, etc. There will always be a power struggle between the owners (Riot) and the players so there may as well be a central player organization to help each other out.
I think that a player union would be really good going forward but I don't think it'll happen. Riot would likely be opposed to a player union and for good reasons.
Unless it was a player union owned and operated by Riot which would be completely pointless lol.
Hmm, I don't think it's in Riot's best interest to oppose such a union. If another IWD incident happen the union can take care of the punishment and Riot doesn't have step in themselves. Riot's decision for IWD is one of the only certain ways to punish a pro player atm because you cannot trust a team to dish it out. All the teams are so scattered and have such different management structures that they can just say "it was handled internally" and not do anything. Once the players form a union, they can pressure each other to give the proper punishment.
On December 05 2012 09:59 HazMat wrote: I'm actually pretty mad about this IWD thing. He was way nicer than Oddone and Saint in my eyes, and don't let me get started on Regi and Dyrus. But I guess the Tribunal said otherwise :/ (funny how they're all famous streamers and IWD isn't.)
Crumbzz jungle would make me really happy. Sadly there isn't a simple good toplane in NA, like people are worse than Crumbzz at that role. Wings would honestly be Dig's only hope.
The only difference between IWD and those other streamers I guess is most people won't report them or they leave no evidence. If they are raging on webcam or w/e but don't type in chat then there really isn't anything the tribunal can do.
On December 05 2012 10:07 Irave wrote: What would a player union accomplish? Ok we want the ability to be toxic in solo q games forever and not risk getting banned. Riot is doing some insanely awesome things with their game. People wanting to find negative flaws because they don't treat their pros better than anyone else. Newsflash, even with the perm ban, he was treated better than the average gamer.
I assume the first thing to come to mind would be contract negotiations.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
Yes this amount of control Riot has over the game is horrible policy and borderline unconstitutional. However, this is the system we are stuck with in the U.S. and most of the world (until lobbyists for movies, music, etc. somehow don't control Congress lololol). Not really Riot's fault they are gifted with this ridiculous IP system and they use it to the fullest extent.
I think this discussion though is kinda getting too far from what's happening here. Basically, Riot has the legal authority to do this and they used it in a reasonable way here. The main thing I'm afraid of is that it's not really a fair system and the more popular players are basically untouchable no matter what they do.
How more popular do you need to get? He's on one of the most well-known pro teams and plays for them in every tournament.
Not a fair system? 9 tribunal trips, 8 punishments. Any reasonable person would agree you should learn your lesson after that or something like this is going to happen, no matter who you are.
I dunno I think Riot may be a lot more lenient with someone like Dyrus who has a huge fan following. They may still ban him if he goes super out of line but somehow I think he will get more chances.
If that's the case and people are worried, then maybe they should create a player union like NHLPA, NBAPA, etc. There will always be a power struggle between the owners (Riot) and the players so there may as well be a central player organization to help each other out.
I don't think people/players are necessarily worried. Riot made it pretty clear you have to be a huge douche in-game AND disregard every single warning from both the players he played against/with and Riot themselves. Most people would have learned before they get to the point IWD did.
Yeah but when every pro is salaried by the same group that's running the league you're all playing in a player's union makes sense. The organizing body has too much power.
Yeah, it's not like Riot owns the game and bankrolls the scene. They are truly the evil guys here!
It's not about evil or bad, it's about the fact that sometimes Riot and the players will have different interests, and if the players don't organize they have less influence on the decisions that deal with those issues.
And this case is an example of that in which way exactly?
There's no abuse of power going on here, the guy is an inmature, toxic douche and him and his team were warned about it and he still didn't change.
Riot has stated many times that the pro scene is a money drain and that they support it only as a way to promote the game itself. And one of the more legitimate criticism about LoL is how inmature and toxic the community is, so if Riot allows this type of individual to be a member of the pro scene the message to the community would be clear; it's ok to be an a-hole.
On December 05 2012 10:07 Irave wrote: What would a player union accomplish? Ok we want the ability to be toxic in solo q games forever and not risk getting banned. Riot is doing some insanely awesome things with their game. People wanting to find negative flaws because they don't treat their pros better than anyone else. Newsflash, even with the perm ban, he was treated better than the average gamer.
If you think Riot is never gonna make a questionable decision or one that is not fully in the interests of the players then I guess you don't need a union. I personally don't think that. I'm not downing on Riot but the fact that what is sometimes what's good for the company, or the fans, or the game, is not the same as what is best for the players.
Esports is a business. The employees in a business don't usually expect their company to maximize their happiness and wealth over other objectives, nor should they.
I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
On December 05 2012 10:09 HazMat wrote: Honestly, you can argue for the other people in my post but Dyrus should absolutely 100% be perma banned by now lol. zzzzz
Yeah that's what I was thinking lol but it's hard to tell unless you have access to the same info Riot has and compare IWD and Dyrus's behavior. Basically we just don't know, and we have no power to get his information.
I don't understand why you guys hate the ideas of a player organization so much. I have already said in this thread that Riot's decision here is a good one. But this is also the business world and there is plenty Riot has done that a player's org would object to.
For example when they accused Dignitas and Crs of match-fixing (to decide winner of series) and of prize-splitting. I'm pretty sure Riot Redbeard fucked up there and made an accusation that was not substantiated by the facts. However the accusation was tossed out there, Crs and Dig denied it, and Riot swept the whole thing under the rug. Not very good for the players when they are accused of the worst thing you can do in esports and never get a clear answer back about it.
On December 05 2012 10:09 HazMat wrote: Honestly, you can argue for the other people in my post but Dyrus should absolutely 100% be perma banned by now lol. zzzzz
Yeah that's what I was thinking lol but it's hard to tell unless you have access to the same info Riot has and compare IWD and Dyrus's behavior. Basically we just don't know, and we have no power to get his information.
I don't understand why you guys hate the ideas of a player organization so much. I have already said in this thread that Riot's decision here is a good one. But this is also the business world and there is plenty Riot has done that a player's org would object to.
For example when they accused Dignitas and Crs of match-fixing (to decide winner of series) and of prize-splitting. I'm pretty sure Riot Redbeard fucked up there and made an accusation that was not substantiated by the facts. However the accusation was tossed out there, Crs and Dig denied it, and Riot swept the whole thing under the rug. Not very good for the players when they are accused of the worst thing you can do in esports and never get a clear answer back about it.
Didnt know you were aware of every single thing communicated between Riot and Crs/Dig
People really need to stop believing that info on reddit or wherever is all there is. Because companies really put all there private communication out on the street...
On December 05 2012 10:07 Irave wrote: What would a player union accomplish? Ok we want the ability to be toxic in solo q games forever and not risk getting banned. Riot is doing some insanely awesome things with their game. People wanting to find negative flaws because they don't treat their pros better than anyone else. Newsflash, even with the perm ban, he was treated better than the average gamer.
If you think Riot is never gonna make a questionable decision or one that is not fully in the interests of the players then I guess you don't need a union. I personally don't think that. I'm not downing on Riot but the fact that what is sometimes what's good for the company, or the fans, or the game, is not the same as what is best for the players.
Esports is a business. The employees in a business don't usually expect their company to maximize their happiness and wealth over other objectives, nor should they.
I don't see them doing anything to really hurt the players. It's getting paid to play in their league. The biggest show in town, other options don't exist. This is insane, and I imagine most people who get this privilege will love it. Highly unlikely that Riot would try and cut ties with MLG/IPL etc. They aren't going to force the players to stop streaming. Its what they have now, but with more tournaments, and money for all.
IWD fell to his own demise. He had plenty of warnings, they tried. He didn't improve, if Riot feels inclined to not want him playing their game, or to hire him so be it.
On December 05 2012 10:09 HazMat wrote: Honestly, you can argue for the other people in my post but Dyrus should absolutely 100% be perma banned by now lol. zzzzz
Yeah that's what I was thinking lol but it's hard to tell unless you have access to the same info Riot has and compare IWD and Dyrus's behavior. Basically we just don't know, and we have no power to get his information.
I don't understand why you guys hate the ideas of a player organization so much. I have already said in this thread that Riot's decision here is a good one. But this is also the business world and there is plenty Riot has done that a player's org would object to.
For example when they accused Dignitas and Crs of match-fixing (to decide winner of series) and of prize-splitting. I'm pretty sure Riot Redbeard fucked up there and made an accusation that was not substantiated by the facts. However the accusation was tossed out there, Crs and Dig denied it, and Riot swept the whole thing under the rug. Not very good for the players when they are accused of the worst thing you can do in esports and never get a clear answer back about it.
Didnt know you were aware of every single thing communicated between Riot and Crs/Dig
People really need to stop believing that info on reddit or wherever is all there is. Because companies really put all there private communication out on the street...
What private conversation? Riot publicly accused Crs/Dig of something. Both Crs and Dig denied it. So . . . then nothing happens? Either Riot fucked up and should make a PUBLIC APOLOGY (something that a player union can pressure them on), or Crs and Dig (not just the players but the organizations) straight out lied after they match-fixed and prize-split in a tourney to secide NA rankings. But after this both teams were allowed to compete in NA finals.
On December 05 2012 09:25 iinsom wrote: I cant see how this is an issue?
He was warned sufficient times (8 is massive, at work i get 3 verbal warnings, 1 written warning them im out) and this is his job, then he should treat it as such and be a professional about it.
Solo queue isn't his job.
But it has direct correlation with his "job" as hes now been banned from tournaments for a year.
On December 05 2012 10:07 Irave wrote: What would a player union accomplish? Ok we want the ability to be toxic in solo q games forever and not risk getting banned. Riot is doing some insanely awesome things with their game. People wanting to find negative flaws because they don't treat their pros better than anyone else. Newsflash, even with the perm ban, he was treated better than the average gamer.
If you think Riot is never gonna make a questionable decision or one that is not fully in the interests of the players then I guess you don't need a union. I personally don't think that. I'm not downing on Riot but the fact that what is sometimes what's good for the company, or the fans, or the game, is not the same as what is best for the players.
Esports is a business. The employees in a business don't usually expect their company to maximize their happiness and wealth over other objectives, nor should they.
I don't see them doing anything to really hurt the players. It's getting paid to play in their league. The biggest show in town, other options don't exist. This is insane, and I imagine most people who get this privilege will love it. Highly unlikely that Riot would try and cut ties with MLG/IPL etc. They aren't going to force the players to stop streaming. Its what they have now, but with more tournaments, and money for all.
IWD fell to his own demise. He had plenty of warnings, they tried. He didn't improve, if Riot feels inclined to not want him playing their game, or to hire him so be it.
So you don't think players should have any ability to negotiate contracts, rules for tourneys they don't agree with, etc.? Sure they can do this individually but they have little choice or power to negotiate unless they present some unity.
On December 05 2012 10:09 HazMat wrote: Honestly, you can argue for the other people in my post but Dyrus should absolutely 100% be perma banned by now lol. zzzzz
Yeah that's what I was thinking lol but it's hard to tell unless you have access to the same info Riot has and compare IWD and Dyrus's behavior. Basically we just don't know, and we have no power to get his information.
I don't understand why you guys hate the ideas of a player organization so much. I have already said in this thread that Riot's decision here is a good one. But this is also the business world and there is plenty Riot has done that a player's org would object to.
For example when they accused Dignitas and Crs of match-fixing (to decide winner of series) and of prize-splitting. I'm pretty sure Riot Redbeard fucked up there and made an accusation that was not substantiated by the facts. However the accusation was tossed out there, Crs and Dig denied it, and Riot swept the whole thing under the rug. Not very good for the players when they are accused of the worst thing you can do in esports and never get a clear answer back about it.
Didnt know you were aware of every single thing communicated between Riot and Crs/Dig
People really need to stop believing that info on reddit or wherever is all there is. Because companies really put all there private communication out on the street...
What private conversation? Riot publicly accused Crs/Dig of something. Both Crs and Dig denied it. So . . . then nothing happens? Either Riot fucked up and should make a PUBLIC APOLOGY (something that a player union can pressure them on), or Crs and Dig (not just the players but the organizations) straight out lied after they match-fixed and prize-split in a tourney to secide NA rankings. But after this both teams were allowed to compete in NA finals.
And without a player's union and all the player's under Riot's salary it makes situations like that way more awkward for teams. If Riot made that same accusation in Season 3 with Crs/Dig on their pay roll what options does Crs/Dig have? Deny it to Riot and hope that Riot will believe them? Deny it publically and essentially call out their employers as liars? Accept their fate and hope that Riot is lenient?
There's no good reason not to have a player's union now that everyone is going to be salaried.
The way this banning was handled is what bothers me the most. If Riot want's a player banned from competitive play, that first of all should be completely separate from soloqueue. I don't disagree that soloqueue abuse could be a reason to ban from competitive play, since actions in soloqueue affect competitive popularity, but something like the Tribunal should never have even been mentioned. That is the wrong mechanism.
Secondly, how this information was released was handled by the wrong people. Dignitas is ultimately responsible for IWD's actions, and it should fall to Dignitas to handle discipline. If Riot wanted IWD banned form competitive LoL for a year, they should have told Dignitas, and Dignitas should have handled the press release, not Riot. Riot should not have announced both the banning of all of IWD's accounts at the same time as IWD's ban from LoL esports. Dignitas should have been given every warning, Dignitas should have been made aware of any misbehavior, and Dignitas should have been allowed to manage its player, not Riot.
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote: I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Why do you think it is your inalienable right to curse people out? And have you SEEN what self-policed communities (e.g. the huge subreddits) turn into?
Anyway, it ultimately comes down to a executive decision: either they believe having a nice environment will make them more money or the management really, really believes in it.
On December 05 2012 10:07 Irave wrote: What would a player union accomplish? Ok we want the ability to be toxic in solo q games forever and not risk getting banned. Riot is doing some insanely awesome things with their game. People wanting to find negative flaws because they don't treat their pros better than anyone else. Newsflash, even with the perm ban, he was treated better than the average gamer.
If you think Riot is never gonna make a questionable decision or one that is not fully in the interests of the players then I guess you don't need a union. I personally don't think that. I'm not downing on Riot but the fact that what is sometimes what's good for the company, or the fans, or the game, is not the same as what is best for the players.
Esports is a business. The employees in a business don't usually expect their company to maximize their happiness and wealth over other objectives, nor should they.
I don't see them doing anything to really hurt the players. It's getting paid to play in their league. The biggest show in town, other options don't exist. This is insane, and I imagine most people who get this privilege will love it. Highly unlikely that Riot would try and cut ties with MLG/IPL etc. They aren't going to force the players to stop streaming. Its what they have now, but with more tournaments, and money for all.
IWD fell to his own demise. He had plenty of warnings, they tried. He didn't improve, if Riot feels inclined to not want him playing their game, or to hire him so be it.
So you don't think players should have any ability to negotiate contracts, rules for tourneys they don't agree with, etc.? Sure they can do this individually but they have little choice or power to negotiate unless they present some unity.
Negotiate what rules? I think LoL has played enough tournaments to where the rules are already set in stone. It's pretty obvious by offering money, that they expect their players to treat this like a job. Biggest reason for the age restriction. Why would they need to negotiate contract, without this option they wouldn't be getting any type of this money. Riot is already being extremely generous with their league. Player safety shouldn't magically become an issue because one guy couldn't shut his mouth playing.
On December 05 2012 09:25 iinsom wrote: I cant see how this is an issue?
He was warned sufficient times (8 is massive, at work i get 3 verbal warnings, 1 written warning them im out) and this is his job, then he should treat it as such and be a professional about it.
Solo queue isn't his job.
League of Legends is his job, and solo queue is part of that. Riot is saying that you aren't exempt from following the same rules as every other player in the game just because you're at the professional level. A year suspension is very harsh, but honestly, I'm happy that Riot is taking an aggressive stance here, my ONLY concern is whether IWD was warned that his behavior would affect his professional status and his team.
Edit - my only concern is sated based on Neo's post (which I hadn't seen when I posted this.) Riot 100% justified.
BTW I hope there aren't any misunderstandings about how a player org would work. They are not there to battle Riot over every little thing, but to act as a safeguard and a way for players to exercise some power for themselves. For example, in this kind of case Riot would provide information on the banning to IWD, and if it's as severe as it probably is the organization would cooperate with Riot and voice their support of the decision. Furthermore, they could also add their own penalties to punish IWD's behavior, such as kicking him out of the org or forcing him to make some sort of apology.
On December 05 2012 10:07 Irave wrote: What would a player union accomplish? Ok we want the ability to be toxic in solo q games forever and not risk getting banned. Riot is doing some insanely awesome things with their game. People wanting to find negative flaws because they don't treat their pros better than anyone else. Newsflash, even with the perm ban, he was treated better than the average gamer.
If you think Riot is never gonna make a questionable decision or one that is not fully in the interests of the players then I guess you don't need a union. I personally don't think that. I'm not downing on Riot but the fact that what is sometimes what's good for the company, or the fans, or the game, is not the same as what is best for the players.
Esports is a business. The employees in a business don't usually expect their company to maximize their happiness and wealth over other objectives, nor should they.
I don't see them doing anything to really hurt the players. It's getting paid to play in their league. The biggest show in town, other options don't exist. This is insane, and I imagine most people who get this privilege will love it. Highly unlikely that Riot would try and cut ties with MLG/IPL etc. They aren't going to force the players to stop streaming. Its what they have now, but with more tournaments, and money for all.
IWD fell to his own demise. He had plenty of warnings, they tried. He didn't improve, if Riot feels inclined to not want him playing their game, or to hire him so be it.
So you don't think players should have any ability to negotiate contracts, rules for tourneys they don't agree with, etc.? Sure they can do this individually but they have little choice or power to negotiate unless they present some unity.
Negotiate what rules? I think LoL has played enough tournaments to where the rules are already set in stone. It's pretty obvious by offering money, that they expect their players to treat this like a job. Biggest reason for the age restriction. Why would they need to negotiate contract, without this option they wouldn't be getting any type of this money. Riot is already being extremely generous with their league. Player safety shouldn't magically become an issue because one guy couldn't shut his mouth playing.
The age restriction is interesting because it is that kinda of thing a player org could have negotiated (but not necessarily wanted to or won on). Also as an employee you don't depend on your boss's generosity for your salary. Riot isn't donating money to players as a charity. The players work and provide something for Riot as well. Within this exchange there is room for negotiation. You might be fine with whatever salary Riot decides on and think it's fair, but in the end I'm saying that the players should have some option to push for a higher salary for their own good if possible. To leave the power to set the salary entirely up to the employer is crazy imo.
If you act like a douche you will be banned. Nothing wrong with that. He acted the way he did cause he didn't think he would face harsh consequences. Riot proved him wrong
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote: I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Tribunal is self policing. The tribunal sent IWD to disneyland 8 times. 8 times. Because of his tribunal history, Riot E-Sports reviewed what's going on, decided that the community self-policing actions taken were justified, and extended the punishment to tournament play.
On December 05 2012 10:07 Irave wrote: What would a player union accomplish? Ok we want the ability to be toxic in solo q games forever and not risk getting banned. Riot is doing some insanely awesome things with their game. People wanting to find negative flaws because they don't treat their pros better than anyone else. Newsflash, even with the perm ban, he was treated better than the average gamer.
If you think Riot is never gonna make a questionable decision or one that is not fully in the interests of the players then I guess you don't need a union. I personally don't think that. I'm not downing on Riot but the fact that what is sometimes what's good for the company, or the fans, or the game, is not the same as what is best for the players.
Esports is a business. The employees in a business don't usually expect their company to maximize their happiness and wealth over other objectives, nor should they.
I don't see them doing anything to really hurt the players. It's getting paid to play in their league. The biggest show in town, other options don't exist. This is insane, and I imagine most people who get this privilege will love it. Highly unlikely that Riot would try and cut ties with MLG/IPL etc. They aren't going to force the players to stop streaming. Its what they have now, but with more tournaments, and money for all.
IWD fell to his own demise. He had plenty of warnings, they tried. He didn't improve, if Riot feels inclined to not want him playing their game, or to hire him so be it.
So you don't think players should have any ability to negotiate contracts, rules for tourneys they don't agree with, etc.? Sure they can do this individually but they have little choice or power to negotiate unless they present some unity.
Negotiate what rules? I think LoL has played enough tournaments to where the rules are already set in stone. It's pretty obvious by offering money, that they expect their players to treat this like a job. Biggest reason for the age restriction. Why would they need to negotiate contract, without this option they wouldn't be getting any type of this money. Riot is already being extremely generous with their league. Player safety shouldn't magically become an issue because one guy couldn't shut his mouth playing.
The age restriction is interesting because it is that kinda of thing a player org could have negotiated (but not necessarily wanted to or won on). Also as an employee you don't depend on your boss's generosity for your salary. Riot isn't donating money to players as a charity. The players work and provide something for Riot as well. Within this exchange there is room for negotiation. You might be fine with whatever salary Riot decides on and think it's fair, but in the end I'm saying that the players should have some option to push for a higher salary for their own good if possible. To leave the power to set the salary entirely up to the employer is crazy imo.
The age restriction is there due to US child labor laws. A player org can't really change that. Fnatic is, according to the Rekkles AMA, attempting to find a way that Rekkles can still participate in S3 even though he's 1 year too young.
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote: It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
You can start making any sort of case when any of those 'shoulds' ever happens. And as above, the community is really the one that punished IWD in Tribunal.
1.) Anyone who think this ban isn't justified are not looking at this in the proper mindset. Think about it, he got reported by the top players multiple times and banned as well. These higher elo players definitely have a thicker skin than most people, but this guy got banned repeatedly for his overall behavior. Not only that, he had months to improve his conduct, and never took it seriously. They also mentioned out of game conduct. This has huge implications, but I doubt anyone will share specifics.
2.) There are definite power issues with Riot. They simply have too much, that's true. The problem here is that trying to get behind IWD is a bad cause. Don't defend his actions. It makes no sense. Complaining about Riot's overwhelming control is fine. I believe it actually harms your overall stand if you try to use IWD to further your point though.
On December 05 2012 10:11 Chrispy wrote: Holy shit this is amazing.
Good job, too many pros act like complete ass wipes.
Dunno why this isn't the resounding reaction from TL. I am disappoint.
After hearing so much about how TL's LoL community was small but "elite", it's pretty sad to see the same kind of nonsensical responses that in GD or Reddit.
For the life of me I can't understand how so many people find something negative about this. Gamers sometimes are a really bizarre group.
I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
You should all think about if this dude was punished in the Tribunal 8 times and Riot did nothing as he was a professional player. Would this feel right? How many companies have the guts to punish celebrities and not give them preferential and unjust treatment? Everyone complaining about how they treated this should feel ashamed.
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote: I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Why do you think it is your inalienable right to curse people out? And have you SEEN what self-policed communities (e.g. the huge subreddits) turn into?
Anyway, it ultimately comes down to a executive decision: either they believe having a nice environment will make them more money or the management really, really believes in it.
That's the thing. Executive decision. While Riot may own the game and its servers, we, the community, are the ones who play it. We're the ones who made the game what it is. Without us, LoL would be nothing. Some forgotten f2p game played by Brazillians and Russians too poor to afford WoW subscriptions.
We do not need executive decision from some shadowy central banning committee that answers to no one. We, the online gaming community in general, have been doing quite fine for about two decades now on self-policing, and I don't understand why this has to stop just because of the centralised servers that are part of the f2p model.
Riot may have legal right to do whatever they want, but they don't have the moral right. They owe it to the community that made them what they are to decide for themselves. Running the game like an 80s Warsaw pact country is not the way to go.
In the limited contact I have had with the Rioters who work in this area, they are very dedicated to their jobs and take this very seriously. It is unacceptable for a professional player to reach the state where they are banned by the Tribunal not once, not twice, not even thrice but nine time.
Whether other players deserve to be banned or not is irrelevant to the decision at hand. That is another matter for another time, and something for the Tribunal and PBJ to decide upon. Today's decision is about IWillDominate.
It is not acceptable to claim immaturity, professional status or any other excuse here. IWillDominate not only crossed the line but decided to charge right passed it with nary a consideration. It is completely within Riot's rights to remove a player from the professional scene if the player in questions has fundamentally ignored and disregarded the Summoner's Code. Furthermore, if the Tribunal has repeatedly rules they do not want you as part of their game, then you have no place in this game. It fact, to not remove IWillDominate would be completely hypocritical and undermine everything Riot Player Behavior & Justice has worked for during Season 2.
On December 05 2012 10:11 Chrispy wrote: Holy shit this is amazing.
Good job, too many pros act like complete ass wipes.
Dunno why this isn't the resounding reaction from TL. I am disappoint.
I thought the majority agreed with the ban. People are just questioning how Riot went about doing it.
Is it the too much power thing? I thought Riot went on this appropriately. Moderate steps were taken before this final dunk.
That seems to be it. I thought what Riot did was fine but people always want balance (or at least the perception of balance). Even though Riot communicates with the community a lot and take feedback, they are still the only ones who can do anything substantial.
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote: I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Why do you think it is your inalienable right to curse people out? And have you SEEN what self-policed communities (e.g. the huge subreddits) turn into?
Anyway, it ultimately comes down to a executive decision: either they believe having a nice environment will make them more money or the management really, really believes in it.
That's the thing. Executive decision. While Riot may own the game and its servers, we, the community, are the ones who play it. We're the ones who made the game what it is. Without us, LoL would be nothing. Some forgotten f2p game played by Brazillians and Russians too poor to afford WoW subscriptions.
We do not need executive decision from some shadowy central banning committee that answers to no one. We, the online gaming community in general, have been doing quite fine for about two decades now on self-policing, and I don't understand why this has to stop just because of the centralised servers that are part of the f2p model.
Riot may have legal right to do whatever they want, but they don't have the moral right. They owe it to the community that made them what they are to decide for themselves. Running the game like an 80s Warsaw pact country is not the way to go.
Nine confirmations from the Tribunal for a ban (which is a community driven initiative), multiple warnings and temporary bans, direct contact with Dignitas and a failure to reform gives Riot a complete mandate from the community and moral obligation to deal with this exceptional case of a breach in the Summoner's Code. I do not see how this is some shadowy conspiracy.
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
How does Riot being LoL pro players' employer change anything? In the real world, don't piss off your boss otherwise you get the pink slip. I'm not seeing the prob. @.@
I'm amazed anyone can find negatives from this. He got warned so many times, now he got banned, GG.
Life lesson folks: Don't be a dick.
Jeez, it's not really difficult. He didn't need to act like a saint, just normal. Instead he acted like dick, was warned several times only to act even more like a dick, and he got punished. Well deserved.
On December 05 2012 10:11 Chrispy wrote: Holy shit this is amazing.
Good job, too many pros act like complete ass wipes.
Dunno why this isn't the resounding reaction from TL. I am disappoint.
Me, too. I always thought the TL crowd were more adult and could use their head.
Riot has a lot of power that is true. As long as they dont abuse it its fine for me. In particular with bans the past shows that Riot was never wrong with permbans. In addition Riot made it clear if you treat your other playmates as trash you will be punished. IWD already got a little pro player treatment. Riot contacted Dignitas months ahead and nothing happened. Thats whay they decided to ban him which is justified. People who say that he just defended himself should start thinking because this case was probably viewed by more than one Riot employee. Just mindblowing how many people think that this ban is undeserved.
I applaud Riot for this decision because Proplayers should always be rolemodels and they should act like it.
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
How does Riot being LoL pro players' employer change anything? In the real world, don't piss off your boss otherwise you get the pink slip. I'm not seeing the prob. @.@
Because in the real world the boss does not have all the power. The boss cannot set incredibly arbitrary rules without damaging his own business. There are other jobs I could find if the boss does not provide benefits to working there that are at least comparable to the same jobs in my industry. In captured industries like this one, where the employees don't really have many other options, the boss does have all the power. That's why in the real world, in situations like this, you tend to see unionization. This is the same situation because these pro players only have the skill to play LoL and not other esports. If they don't like something they cannot easily go to find a similar job with their existing skills.
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote: I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Why do you think it is your inalienable right to curse people out? And have you SEEN what self-policed communities (e.g. the huge subreddits) turn into?
Anyway, it ultimately comes down to a executive decision: either they believe having a nice environment will make them more money or the management really, really believes in it.
That's the thing. Executive decision. While Riot may own the game and its servers, we, the community, are the ones who play it. We're the ones who made the game what it is. Without us, LoL would be nothing. Some forgotten f2p game played by Brazillians and Russians too poor to afford WoW subscriptions.
We do not need executive decision from some shadowy central banning committee that answers to no one. We, the online gaming community in general, have been doing quite fine for about two decades now on self-policing, and I don't understand why this has to stop just because of the centralised servers that are part of the f2p model.
Riot may have legal right to do whatever they want, but they don't have the moral right. They owe it to the community that made them what they are to decide for themselves. Running the game like an 80s Warsaw pact country is not the way to go.
Professional sports leagues fine and suspend players all the time for bad behaviour. They all have a committee which decides this and not a 'fan-vote' to decide. I am not sure how this is different. He got multiple warnings and kept doing it.
I don't know which wonderland you work in where you can harass co-workers and your boss liberally and get away with it.
It's not hard to imagine what kind of flaming a player in a video game would throw out at other people and IWD was tribunaled >>8<< times before. If you got a warning from your work place 8 times for acting like a douche, what would be your course of action and would you deny their right to terminate your employment?
And what court would rule in your favor if you'd take it up there, lol. O well, maybe in good ol' AMURICA. Wouldn't happen in the civilized world (don't hit me neo).
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote: I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Why do you think it is your inalienable right to curse people out? And have you SEEN what self-policed communities (e.g. the huge subreddits) turn into?
Anyway, it ultimately comes down to a executive decision: either they believe having a nice environment will make them more money or the management really, really believes in it.
That's the thing. Executive decision. While Riot may own the game and its servers, we, the community, are the ones who play it. We're the ones who made the game what it is. Without us, LoL would be nothing. Some forgotten f2p game played by Brazillians and Russians too poor to afford WoW subscriptions.
We do not need executive decision from some shadowy central banning committee that answers to no one. We, the online gaming community in general, have been doing quite fine for about two decades now on self-policing, and I don't understand why this has to stop just because of the centralised servers that are part of the f2p model.
Riot may have legal right to do whatever they want, but they don't have the moral right. They owe it to the community that made them what they are to decide for themselves. Running the game like an 80s Warsaw pact country is not the way to go.
Are you really comparing a gaming company banning a toxic pro douche from their game to a communist dictatorship?
Talk about massive hyperbole. This isn't some libertarian cause to fight against Big Brother. It's a private company enforcing the rules they've set up for their product. The community doesn't suffer from this, the only one who suffer is the toxic guy who ruined the game for dozens of his fellow players. There's no abuse of power nor any shady conspiracy. Such level of paranoia and hostility towards a company makes me wonder why would you be playing their game in the first place.
For all we know they're infecting us with keyloggers to try and steal our credit card information since they're so shady, right?
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
How does Riot being LoL pro players' employer change anything? In the real world, don't piss off your boss otherwise you get the pink slip. I'm not seeing the prob. @.@
Because in the real world the boss does not have all the power. The boss cannot set incredibly arbitrary rules without damaging his own business. There are other jobs I could find if the boss does not provide benefits to working there that are at least comparable to the same jobs in my industry. In captured industries like this one, where the employees don't really have many other options, the boss does have all the power. That's why in the real world, in situations like this, you tend to see unionization. This is the same situation because these pro players only have the skill to play LoL and not other esports. If they don't like something they cannot easily go to find a similar job with their existing skills.
What is incredibly arbitrary about the Summoner's Code? It read like basic English to me. General idea? Don't be a douche when you play League.
A "boss" that doesn't provide benefits? Are we on the same page? Riot is talking about paying teams a monthly salary for Season 3. Please find me another gaming dev who plans on paying teams a salary too. You talk as if Riot's expectation are too high or something, when all they're simply asking for the "norm". And no, trolling and fucking idiotic behavior that is used to describe the MOBA/ARTS genre should not be the norm here.
All Riot is doing is asking us to be better gamers online. Is it that hard?
Your only skill is to play LoL? Don't fuck up your chances at the game then.
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
How does Riot being LoL pro players' employer change anything? In the real world, don't piss off your boss otherwise you get the pink slip. I'm not seeing the prob. @.@
Because in the real world the boss does not have all the power. The boss cannot set incredibly arbitrary rules without damaging his own business. There are other jobs I could find if the boss does not provide benefits to working there that are at least comparable to the same jobs in my industry. In captured industries like this one, where the employees don't really have many other options, the boss does have all the power. That's why in the real world, in situations like this, you tend to see unionization. This is the same situation because these pro players only have the skill to play LoL and not other esports. If they don't like something they cannot easily go to find a similar job with their existing skills.
I do not understand what unionisation has to do with this. Riot has been very clear that they will take action against people who consistently appear in the Tribunal and are determined to be extremely toxic and require to be banned. Furthermore, every professional player agrees to follow the Summoner's Code. IWillDominate has not followed this and was dealt with accordingly. I see no mismatch in what has occurred here.
Saying that his skills are non-transferable is irrelevant here. It is not Riot's obligation to provide IWillDominate a job. At the same time, this was not a sudden decision on their part and IWillDomintate was given chances to reform. IWillDominate is old enough to vote, he is old enough to drink, old enough to drive a car and therefore old enough to make decisions that will affect his career.
We all know he'll get a level 30 smurf off someone within a week.
He deserved his ban.
Also, there's nothing arbitrary about the decision. It was a steadily growing issue that got him repeatedly warned. He had ample opportunity to stop being a giant douche, but didn't. I wish Riot would ban more "big" names like him.
Considering what it takes to get repeatedly actioned, you damn well deserve a substantial ban by the time you've racked up as many infractions as him.
On December 05 2012 11:01 Canucklehead wrote: Does anyone have his statement from reddit? I heard he wrote one, but that thread is way too long to find it.
Today i was informed by riot that I will be suspended for 1 year of the Season 3 Championship Series. Although the ruling is extremely tough, I agree with riot that player sportsmanship is a serious matter and I want to apologize to anyone that i've offended in game and my fans. I fully understand that pro players are viewed as role models and should act accordingly. I'd like to thank my teammates and the whole Dignitas organization for the amazing year that i have spent with them and wish the team the best of luck going into season 3. Personally I will not let this end my dreams of being a professional league of legends player. During my suspension I intend to keep my mechanics in top form and remain a competitive jungler. After my suspension i hope to rejoin the championship series and once again compete at the highest level. League of Legends is my life, and I will do everything in my power to play as long as possible.
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
An employer can EASILY terminate employment over this. People have lost their jobs over smaller things said on facebook. This isn't even that petty - this is Riot's game, and Riot is terminating the employment of a player of the game because they want their salaried professional players to be role models - and that is not a new message from Riot.
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote: I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Why do you think it is your inalienable right to curse people out? And have you SEEN what self-policed communities (e.g. the huge subreddits) turn into?
Anyway, it ultimately comes down to a executive decision: either they believe having a nice environment will make them more money or the management really, really believes in it.
That's the thing. Executive decision. While Riot may own the game and its servers, we, the community, are the ones who play it. We're the ones who made the game what it is. Without us, LoL would be nothing. Some forgotten f2p game played by Brazillians and Russians too poor to afford WoW subscriptions.
We do not need executive decision from some shadowy central banning committee that answers to no one. We, the online gaming community in general, have been doing quite fine for about two decades now on self-policing, and I don't understand why this has to stop just because of the centralised servers that are part of the f2p model.
Riot may have legal right to do whatever they want, but they don't have the moral right. They owe it to the community that made them what they are to decide for themselves. Running the game like an 80s Warsaw pact country is not the way to go.
Nine confirmations from the Tribunal for a ban (which is a community driven initiative), multiple warnings and temporary bans, direct contact with Dignitas and a failure to reform gives Riot a complete mandate from the community and moral obligation to deal with this exceptional case of a breach in the Summoner's Code. I do not see how this is some shadowy conspiracy.
Then I'll tell you. Firstly, the Tribunal is charade. It is a mechanism where players are given ingame currency for AFK clicking Punish ten times a day. Its decisions are worth about as much as those of a Belarusian general election.
Secondly, the Tribunal is powerless. Its decisions have to be validated by the aforementioned shadowy banning comittee.
Thirdly, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) all this guy is guilty of is BM. Maybe rage-throwing a soloqueue game here and there? Since when is the legit reason to perm in any other game? He didn't cheat, he didn't bot? I mean by whose standards does BM warrant permban? Riot's, apparently, and that's where the problem is. Riot and its ban comittee, enforcing its views upon the community that created it.
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
How does Riot being LoL pro players' employer change anything? In the real world, don't piss off your boss otherwise you get the pink slip. I'm not seeing the prob. @.@
Because in the real world the boss does not have all the power. The boss cannot set incredibly arbitrary rules without damaging his own business. There are other jobs I could find if the boss does not provide benefits to working there that are at least comparable to the same jobs in my industry. In captured industries like this one, where the employees don't really have many other options, the boss does have all the power. That's why in the real world, in situations like this, you tend to see unionization. This is the same situation because these pro players only have the skill to play LoL and not other esports. If they don't like something they cannot easily go to find a similar job with their existing skills.
What is incredibly arbitrary about the Summoner's Code? It read like basic English to me. General idea? Don't be a douche when you play League.
Provide benefits? Are we on the same page? Riot is talking about paying teams a monthly salary for Season 3. Please find me another gaming dev who are doing that too. You talk as if Riot's expectation are too high or something when they're simply asking for the "norm". And no, trolling and fucking idiotic behavior that is used to describe the MOBA/ARTS genre should not be the norm here.
All Riot is doing is asking us to be better gamers online. Is it that hard?
Your only skill is to play LoL? Don't fuck up your chances at the game then.
When did I EVER say Riot's rules are arbitrary or that their salary isn't good enough? All I'm saying is that the players should have to option to negotiate these things if they do create an arbitrary rule in the future or the players aren't satisfied with their salary and think they have the power to demand a better one. I don't understand why you don't want the players to have any say in what their job conditions should be like or what the salaries should be. That is nothing like real life.
What terrible thing would happen if the players had an organization? Yes I like how Riot handled this particular situation and how they are providing the players with a salary. That doesn't mean I think they should have ALL the power in making these decisions and the players none.
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
An employer can EASILY terminate employment over this. People have lost their jobs over smaller things said on facebook. This isn't even that petty - this is Riot's game, and Riot is terminating the employment of a player of the game because they want their salaried professional players to be role models - and that is not a new message from Riot.
Did you read anything that I posted? Where did I say that Riot couldn't or shouldn't have banned IWD? In fact I specifically supported it.
On December 05 2012 11:01 Canucklehead wrote: Does anyone have his statement from reddit? I heard he wrote one, but that thread is way too long to find it.
Today i was informed by riot that I will be suspended for 1 year of the Season 3 Championship Series. Although the ruling is extremely tough, I agree with riot that player sportsmanship is a serious matter and I want to apologize to anyone that i've offended in game and my fans. I fully understand that pro players are viewed as role models and should act accordingly. I'd like to thank my teammates and the whole Dignitas organization for the amazing year that i have spent with them and wish the team the best of luck going into season 3. Personally I will not let this end my dreams of being a professional league of legends player. During my suspension I intend to keep my mechanics in top form and remain a competitive jungler. After my suspension i hope to rejoin the championship series and once again compete at the highest level. League of Legends is my life, and I will do everything in my power to play as long as possible.
Man it's hilarious how a lot of the people coming in here complaining about this ban don't play LoL. (don't how the tribunal works)
LoL at the professional level cannot afford to have people like IWD and a number of other pros out there currently still, who I also hope get punished if their act is not cleaned up. These players set an example for all who see their actions.
The community as whole wants this and therefore riot is justified in doing it.
To the few people who are defending him; Are you crazy? He has been punished 8 times by the tribunal.
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote: I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Why do you think it is your inalienable right to curse people out? And have you SEEN what self-policed communities (e.g. the huge subreddits) turn into?
Anyway, it ultimately comes down to a executive decision: either they believe having a nice environment will make them more money or the management really, really believes in it.
That's the thing. Executive decision. While Riot may own the game and its servers, we, the community, are the ones who play it. We're the ones who made the game what it is. Without us, LoL would be nothing. Some forgotten f2p game played by Brazillians and Russians too poor to afford WoW subscriptions.
We do not need executive decision from some shadowy central banning committee that answers to no one. We, the online gaming community in general, have been doing quite fine for about two decades now on self-policing, and I don't understand why this has to stop just because of the centralised servers that are part of the f2p model.
Riot may have legal right to do whatever they want, but they don't have the moral right. They owe it to the community that made them what they are to decide for themselves. Running the game like an 80s Warsaw pact country is not the way to go.
Nine confirmations from the Tribunal for a ban (which is a community driven initiative), multiple warnings and temporary bans, direct contact with Dignitas and a failure to reform gives Riot a complete mandate from the community and moral obligation to deal with this exceptional case of a breach in the Summoner's Code. I do not see how this is some shadowy conspiracy.
Then I'll tell you. Firstly, the Tribunal is charade. It is a mechanism where players are given ingame currency for AFK clicking Punish ten times a day. Its decisions are worth about as much as those of a Belarusian general election.
Secondly, the Tribunal is powerless. Its decisions have to be validated by the aforementioned shadowy banning comittee.
Thirdly, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) all this guy is guilty of is BM. Maybe rage-throwing a soloqueue game here and there? Since when is the legit reason to perm in any other game? He didn't cheat, he didn't bot? I mean by whose standards does BM warrant permban? Riot's, apparently, and that's where the problem is. Riot and its ban comittee, enforcing its views upon the community that created it.
Riot and a LOT of other people. I think you are pretty far in the minority. Also, it's not "a game here and there" it's more like an exception when he DOESN'T rage.
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
An employer can EASILY terminate employment over this. People have lost their jobs over smaller things said on facebook. This isn't even that petty - this is Riot's game, and Riot is terminating the employment of a player of the game because they want their salaried professional players to be role models - and that is not a new message from Riot.
Did you read anything that I posted? Where did I say that Riot couldn't or shouldn't have banned IWD? In fact I specifically supported it.
In that case we're in agreement (though I stand by my statements in a more general sense), and I probably confused something someone else said as coming from you, sorry, my bad.
On December 05 2012 11:07 beef42 wrote: Then I'll tell you. Firstly, the Tribunal is charade. It is a mechanism where players are given ingame currency for AFK clicking Punish ten times a day. Its decisions are worth about as much as those of a Belarusian general election.
Incorrect. The Tribunal no longer gives IP and has fail-safe mechanism to analyse voting patterns and take them into account accordingly. Persistant abuse of the Tribunal will decrease the relative weight your votes are actually worth.
On December 05 2012 11:07 beef42 wrote: Secondly, the Tribunal is powerless. Its decisions have to be validated by the aforementioned shadowy banning comittee.
The Tribunal automatically deals with bans and temp bans. Perma bans are reviewed by Riot Staff to ensure they are justified for quality control. This is wrong... how? The process is completely documented and explained on the Tribunal FAQ and Riot Staff regularly go on the forums to discuss and explain their decision making process as well as consult with the community. I don't understand how this is some shadow committee.
On December 05 2012 11:07 beef42 wrote: Thirdly, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) all this guy is guilty of is BM. Maybe rage-throwing a soloqueue game here and there? Since when is the legit reason to perm in any other game? He didn't cheat, he didn't bot? I mean by whose standards does BM warrant permban? Riot's, apparently, and that's where the problem is. Riot and its ban comittee, enforcing its views upon the community that created it.
IWIllDominate has a history of making extremely negative remarks (including but not limited to racism and hate speech). The Summoner's Code provides a clear guideline on acceptable behaviour. If you have been judged by the Tribunal nine times to be banned then you have cleared crossed multiple lines here.
The Tribunal is entirely community driven - how is Riot enforcing its views upon people? For that matter, how is wanting a more pleasant community a bad idea in the first place?
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
How does Riot being LoL pro players' employer change anything? In the real world, don't piss off your boss otherwise you get the pink slip. I'm not seeing the prob. @.@
Because in the real world the boss does not have all the power. The boss cannot set incredibly arbitrary rules without damaging his own business. There are other jobs I could find if the boss does not provide benefits to working there that are at least comparable to the same jobs in my industry. In captured industries like this one, where the employees don't really have many other options, the boss does have all the power. That's why in the real world, in situations like this, you tend to see unionization. This is the same situation because these pro players only have the skill to play LoL and not other esports. If they don't like something they cannot easily go to find a similar job with their existing skills.
What is incredibly arbitrary about the Summoner's Code? It read like basic English to me. General idea? Don't be a douche when you play League.
Provide benefits? Are we on the same page? Riot is talking about paying teams a monthly salary for Season 3. Please find me another gaming dev who are doing that too. You talk as if Riot's expectation are too high or something when they're simply asking for the "norm". And no, trolling and fucking idiotic behavior that is used to describe the MOBA/ARTS genre should not be the norm here.
All Riot is doing is asking us to be better gamers online. Is it that hard?
Your only skill is to play LoL? Don't fuck up your chances at the game then.
When did I EVER say Riot's rules are arbitrary or that their salary isn't good enough? All I'm saying is that the players should have to option to negotiate these things if they do create an arbitrary rule in the future or the players aren't satisfied with their salary and think they have the power to demand a better one. I don't understand why you don't want the players to have any say in what their job conditions should be like or what the salaries should be. That is nothing like real life.
What terrible thing would happen if the players had an organization? Yes I like how Riot handled this particular situation and how they are providing the players with a salary. That doesn't mean I think they should have ALL the power in making these decisions and the players none.
eh? Compare Riot Games to any other technology corporation. Do you really think engineers and designers have a say in work conditions? I'm not sure where you're coming from to think that unions are the standard. Yes, there is a human resources department, you can voice you displeasure there. If pro players/teams don't like something, there are channels to Riot to whom they can speak with.
I am fine with Riot having all the power. Frankly, Riot has a solid vision in what they want and expect from their game, the community, and their players. If there was an instance where Riot's final decision was over the line, I'd agree with you. But so far, Riot has not made a failure in judgment. Why doubt them now?
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote: I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Why do you think it is your inalienable right to curse people out? And have you SEEN what self-policed communities (e.g. the huge subreddits) turn into?
Anyway, it ultimately comes down to a executive decision: either they believe having a nice environment will make them more money or the management really, really believes in it.
That's the thing. Executive decision. While Riot may own the game and its servers, we, the community, are the ones who play it. We're the ones who made the game what it is. Without us, LoL would be nothing. Some forgotten f2p game played by Brazillians and Russians too poor to afford WoW subscriptions.
We do not need executive decision from some shadowy central banning committee that answers to no one. We, the online gaming community in general, have been doing quite fine for about two decades now on self-policing, and I don't understand why this has to stop just because of the centralised servers that are part of the f2p model.
Riot may have legal right to do whatever they want, but they don't have the moral right. They owe it to the community that made them what they are to decide for themselves. Running the game like an 80s Warsaw pact country is not the way to go.
Nine confirmations from the Tribunal for a ban (which is a community driven initiative), multiple warnings and temporary bans, direct contact with Dignitas and a failure to reform gives Riot a complete mandate from the community and moral obligation to deal with this exceptional case of a breach in the Summoner's Code. I do not see how this is some shadowy conspiracy.
Then I'll tell you. Firstly, the Tribunal is charade. It is a mechanism where players are given ingame currency for AFK clicking Punish ten times a day. Its decisions are worth about as much as those of a Belarusian general election.
Secondly, the Tribunal is powerless. Its decisions have to be validated by the aforementioned shadowy banning comittee.
Thirdly, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) all this guy is guilty of is BM. Maybe rage-throwing a soloqueue game here and there? Since when is the legit reason to perm in any other game? He didn't cheat, he didn't bot? I mean by whose standards does BM warrant permban? Riot's, apparently, and that's where the problem is. Riot and its ban comittee, enforcing its views upon the community that created it.
You don't seem to understand the point. Riot doesn't want rage-throwing in solo queue games. They are actively taking steps to quash that kind of behavior.
When he flames/ragequits hundreds of times, that a lot of dissatisfied players over the course of many months. Why would Riot accept that kind of behavior? I'm not sure what kind of transparency you're looking for because you innately think IWD didn't do anything to warrant this perm.
So this is how they stop Rengar from being played in Competitive games....
Shitty that Dig didn't rein him in earlier. Scarra my fav LoL player and Dominate is an excellent jungler fore their team. let's see how this all plays out and whether there is an appeal or something.
I can understand where Slow Motion is coming from. Riot is setting up a scenario where they will hold an inordinate amount of power over certain salaried employees, who are spending a lot of time developing rather specialized skills.
It's like making an ESPA, or whatever that SC2 association is called. KesPa used to do it before it got all twisted.
On December 05 2012 10:52 NeoIllusions wrote: How does Riot being LoL pro players' employer change anything? In the real world, don't piss off your boss otherwise you get the pink slip. I'm not seeing the prob. @.@
Verbally abusing your boss's customers is the kind of mistake that transcends all careers.
Riot is committed to improving the social atmosphere of their game and it shows. This is consistent with their recent ban waves for toxicity, too. I'm sure any non-gamer would be shocked at the kind of behavior that gets a first ban in LoL, let alone the fact that you can do it seven more times and keep playing.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
But that argument right at the end there is the real kick of it. KESPA for all its sins paved the way for the first and currently only true mainstream esport market in the world. Would it really be in Riots intrests to follow KESPA's example and institute the things kespa did to make League of legends sucessful around the world?
So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
Perfect.
I figure that was the issue between your POV and mine. I am a-ok to disagree on that opinion.
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
How does Riot being LoL pro players' employer change anything? In the real world, don't piss off your boss otherwise you get the pink slip. I'm not seeing the prob. @.@
Because in the real world the boss does not have all the power. The boss cannot set incredibly arbitrary rules without damaging his own business. There are other jobs I could find if the boss does not provide benefits to working there that are at least comparable to the same jobs in my industry. In captured industries like this one, where the employees don't really have many other options, the boss does have all the power. That's why in the real world, in situations like this, you tend to see unionization. This is the same situation because these pro players only have the skill to play LoL and not other esports. If they don't like something they cannot easily go to find a similar job with their existing skills.
What is incredibly arbitrary about the Summoner's Code? It read like basic English to me. General idea? Don't be a douche when you play League.
Provide benefits? Are we on the same page? Riot is talking about paying teams a monthly salary for Season 3. Please find me another gaming dev who are doing that too. You talk as if Riot's expectation are too high or something when they're simply asking for the "norm". And no, trolling and fucking idiotic behavior that is used to describe the MOBA/ARTS genre should not be the norm here.
All Riot is doing is asking us to be better gamers online. Is it that hard?
Your only skill is to play LoL? Don't fuck up your chances at the game then.
When did I EVER say Riot's rules are arbitrary or that their salary isn't good enough? All I'm saying is that the players should have to option to negotiate these things if they do create an arbitrary rule in the future or the players aren't satisfied with their salary and think they have the power to demand a better one. I don't understand why you don't want the players to have any say in what their job conditions should be like or what the salaries should be. That is nothing like real life.
What terrible thing would happen if the players had an organization? Yes I like how Riot handled this particular situation and how they are providing the players with a salary. That doesn't mean I think they should have ALL the power in making these decisions and the players none.
eh? Compare Riot Games to any other technology corporation. Do you really think engineers and designers have a say in work conditions? I'm not sure where you're coming from to think that unions are the standard. Yes, there is a human resources department, you can voice you displeasure there. If pro players/teams don't like something, there are channels to Riot to whom they can speak with.
I am fine with Riot having all the power. Frankly, Riot has a solid vision in what they want and expect from their game, the community, and their players. If there was an instance where Riot's final decision was over the line, I'd agree with you. But so far, Riot has not made a failure in judgment. Why doubt them now?
In any other tech corp the employees do have a say. Their complaints (if legitimate and concerted) will have more weight because they can find another job in the same industry. The workers have to compete with others for the job, but the employers also compete with other employers to hire the best workers.
Here, the pro gamers have no other options in the same industry. A pro LoL player can't just decide to become a DotA pro and vice versa. What they do have are suboptimal choices such as going back to school or finding a job when they have already devoted a lot of time and resources to LoL. In this situation, Riot has tremendous power over the players.
The problem with this power isn't even as extreme as abuse by Riot. Riot can do things such as provide a decent salary that are fair, but aren't going to give the players the highest amount they are willing to pay players. I think as an employer it is in your best interest to have the ability to make this negotiation. Your interest as an employee is to get the most pay that the company is willing to give you and have the best job conditions possible.
If you look at it from a scale of 1 (the least Riot can pay pro gamers and still have the season 3 they want) - 2 (a fair amount) - 3 (the most Riot is willing to pay progamers for their tournament), Riot is always going to be at most a 2, maybe lower. This is fair, but it is in the employees interest to see if he can negotiate for something between 2 and 3. I don't think pro gamers have any ability to do that without their own organization.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
He's arguing in principle, not actuality. It's fine.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
I don't know how many of you people that are angry have played for more than a few months... but the community is definitely heading in the right direction under riot's guidance. I'm not saying the tribunal and honor and all that stuff are a magical cure, but damn, you guys should have seen what the community was like prior to their introduction.
Seems like riot made the right call here. Maybe 6 months would have been better than a year, but who really knows. I think they are totally justified in handing down massive penalties considering their continuous investment in the development of the LoL competitive scene.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
This is not true.
Nearly every major multiplayer game bans for typing mean words into chat, including but not limited to: All Blizzard games Every major MMO etc
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
This is not true.
Nearly every major multiplayer game bans for typing mean words into chat, including but not limited to: All Blizzard games Every major MMO etc
^--- exactly, so which games were you playing again?
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
I do and applaud riot. It's not very hard for someone to not bm and act normal, but anonymity gives people the power online that they crave for in real life to act out. The people who defend the bm, probably bm themselves since I don't see any reason to defend his actions. Have an ounce of self control to not rage and bm. It's really not that hard. It was his choice to bm and he deserves everything he gets from it.
Oh and for the record I don't think Riot would do any of the abusive things kespa did (or could legally if they wanted to). I believe kespa exploited young children and screwed them over. In the process they created amazing products (the games, the tournaments, the stars) but it was very sad for the kids who grinded games, practiced with the superstars, and got very little out of it.
I'm not gonna pretend I gave too much thought to those kids though compared to the hours I spent enjoying the games though. I'm only arguing here for what I think the players should do. Hell from my perspective as a spectator it'd be better if Riot had all the power and didn't have to deal with a player's organization.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
I suspect many of them wanted to but weren't able.
There is a reason "XBox live gamer" has a huge stigma associated with it. I'm really glad Riot is trying to make gaming into a more mainstream activity. People don't go around flaming others in real life, why is it okay in gaming?
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
How does Riot being LoL pro players' employer change anything? In the real world, don't piss off your boss otherwise you get the pink slip. I'm not seeing the prob. @.@
Because in the real world the boss does not have all the power. The boss cannot set incredibly arbitrary rules without damaging his own business. There are other jobs I could find if the boss does not provide benefits to working there that are at least comparable to the same jobs in my industry. In captured industries like this one, where the employees don't really have many other options, the boss does have all the power. That's why in the real world, in situations like this, you tend to see unionization. This is the same situation because these pro players only have the skill to play LoL and not other esports. If they don't like something they cannot easily go to find a similar job with their existing skills.
What is incredibly arbitrary about the Summoner's Code? It read like basic English to me. General idea? Don't be a douche when you play League.
Provide benefits? Are we on the same page? Riot is talking about paying teams a monthly salary for Season 3. Please find me another gaming dev who are doing that too. You talk as if Riot's expectation are too high or something when they're simply asking for the "norm". And no, trolling and fucking idiotic behavior that is used to describe the MOBA/ARTS genre should not be the norm here.
All Riot is doing is asking us to be better gamers online. Is it that hard?
Your only skill is to play LoL? Don't fuck up your chances at the game then.
When did I EVER say Riot's rules are arbitrary or that their salary isn't good enough? All I'm saying is that the players should have to option to negotiate these things if they do create an arbitrary rule in the future or the players aren't satisfied with their salary and think they have the power to demand a better one. I don't understand why you don't want the players to have any say in what their job conditions should be like or what the salaries should be. That is nothing like real life.
What terrible thing would happen if the players had an organization? Yes I like how Riot handled this particular situation and how they are providing the players with a salary. That doesn't mean I think they should have ALL the power in making these decisions and the players none.
eh? Compare Riot Games to any other technology corporation. Do you really think engineers and designers have a say in work conditions? I'm not sure where you're coming from to think that unions are the standard. Yes, there is a human resources department, you can voice you displeasure there. If pro players/teams don't like something, there are channels to Riot to whom they can speak with.
I am fine with Riot having all the power. Frankly, Riot has a solid vision in what they want and expect from their game, the community, and their players. If there was an instance where Riot's final decision was over the line, I'd agree with you. But so far, Riot has not made a failure in judgment. Why doubt them now?
In any other tech corp the employees do have a say. Their complaints (if legitimate and concerted) will have more weight because they can find another job in the same industry. The workers have to compete with others for the job, but the employers also compete with other employers to hire the best workers.
Here, the pro gamers have no other options in the same industry. A pro LoL player can't just decide to become a DotA pro and vice versa. What they do have are suboptimal choices such as going back to school or finding a job when they have already devoted a lot of time and resources to LoL. In this situation, Riot has tremendous power over the players.
The problem with this power isn't even as extreme as abuse by Riot. Riot can do things such as provide a decent salary that are fair, but aren't going to give the players the highest amount they are willing to pay players. I think as an employer it is in your best interest to have the ability to make this negotiation. Your interest as an employee is to get the most pay that the company is willing to give you and have the best job conditions possible.
If you look at it from a scale of 1 (the least Riot can pay pro gamers and still have the season 3 they want) - 2 (a fair amount) - 3 (the most Riot is willing to pay progamers for their tournament), Riot is always going to be at most a 2, maybe lower. This is fair, but it is in the employees interest to see if he can negotiate for something between 2 and 3. I don't think pro gamers have any ability to do that without their own organization.
Professional players make a conscious decision to choose this job. As such, they have to abide by whatever professional standard their job has (e.g. HIPPA, etc). Riot has created a set of standard they want all players (not just professional players) to follow. It is then up to players to decide if they want to follow them or face the consequences.
You could make the argument that the standards Riot has set are incorrect. A valid point, however given how transparent they are regarding the Tribunal and how involved the community is, I do not believe it is a concern.
There is going to be concentration of power somewhere in eSports. The teams, the players, or a third part organisation. Every form has a downside and I'm sure you can find examples of each. If you wanted to purely "theorycraft" the dangers, you could come up with lots of reasons. However, this is a mental exercise that can be performed on absolutely anything in life from whether the provision of international aid to the BRIC countries is justified to matters as trivial as what to eat for dinner. "Theorycraft" doesn't get you anywhere. Facts and precedents are more important here, and I do not believe that Riot having the ability to determine these matters is a current concern. Indeed, their transparency, consistency and strict self-review I feel makes them the most suitable group of people right now to take the position within the LoL scene.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
you haven't play wow if that's true. play every major mmo. Stop lying in order to be the one who got the last word.
I really like where RIOT is going with their vision for the community, alot of the people that are arguing against the ban and all that are the same people that have had years of being able to act fairly well as they please in MODO/SC2/WoW/Etc without too many repercussions and are now being faced with the fact they may have to become accountable for their actions and not be able to act like a petulant child on the internet anymore.
And it's also true that other players should be banned out as well, I haven't watched streams in a fair while and went to watch some of the current "pros" last night, my god all they do is bitch and moan about everything.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
He's arguing in principle, not actuality. It's fine.
I understood that in his opinion that BM is not a bannable offense. That is okay that is just his opinion.
But he said Riot is the only one who bans for BM and that is just not true. Every Blizzard game bans for BM.
On December 05 2012 11:49 Skithiryx wrote: I really like where RIOT is going with their vision for the community, alot of the people that are arguing against the ban and all that are the same people that have had years of being able to act fairly well as they please in MODO/SC2/WoW/Etc without too many repercussions and are now being faced with the fact they may have to become accountable for their actions and not be able to act like a petulant child on the internet anymore.
And it's also true that other players should be banned out as well, I haven't watched streams in a fair while and went to watch some of the current "pros" last night, my god all they do is bitch and moan about everything.
So complaining should be banned? Seems like a pretty strict and singular vision of what the community should be.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
I suspect many of them wanted to but weren't able.
There is a reason "XBox live gamer" has a huge stigma associated with it. I'm really glad Riot is trying to make gaming into a more mainstream activity. People don't go around flaming others in real life, why is it okay in gaming?
I'm not saying it's okay, I'm just saying it's not up to the developers behind a game to decide what is proper behaviour in-game. In the old days, we had decentralised servers, so if I was unhappy with not being allowed to say "fuck" while playing on Christian servers, I could just go on to the next one.
If I go for a pub game of DotA on Garena, for example, I am perfectly aware I might not get a good game. Somebody might feed or leave, no problem. Regardless of this loads of people still play pub games on Garena, even though they know they might get screwed.
Why can't LoL be like this? If people want clean moderated games, let the community organize inhouse leagues or 5v5 tournaments where rules can be created and enforced by the community itself.
If I was boss of Riot I would abandon all hope of trying to officially "clean up" soloqueue, because soloqueue is just that; a game with nine internet strangers that you have little control over the outcome or "pleasantness" of.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
I suspect many of them wanted to but weren't able.
There is a reason "XBox live gamer" has a huge stigma associated with it. I'm really glad Riot is trying to make gaming into a more mainstream activity. People don't go around flaming others in real life, why is it okay in gaming?
I'm not saying it's okay, I'm just saying it's not up to the developers behind a game to decide what is proper behaviour in-game. In the old days, we had decentralised servers, so if I was unhappy with not being allowed to say "fuck" while playing on Christian servers, I could just go on to the next one.
If I go for a pub game of DotA on Garena, for example, I am perfectly aware I might not get a good game. Somebody might feed or leave, no problem. Regardless of this loads of people still play pub games on Garena, even though they know they might get screwed.
Why can't LoL be like this? If people want clean moderated games, let the community organize inhouse leagues or 5v5 tournaments where rules can be created and enforced by the community itself.
If I was boss of Riot I would abandon all hope of trying to officially "clean up" soloqueue, because soloqueue is just that; a game with nine internet strangers that you have little control over the outcome or "pleasantness" of.
I'm glad you're not the boss of Riot -_-
I love everything they're doing and far more value my personal enjoyment in a more pleasant community over someone's supposed right to say things to people over the internet they would never say to that person's face.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
I suspect many of them wanted to but weren't able.
There is a reason "XBox live gamer" has a huge stigma associated with it. I'm really glad Riot is trying to make gaming into a more mainstream activity. People don't go around flaming others in real life, why is it okay in gaming?
I'm not saying it's okay, I'm just saying it's not up to the developers behind a game to decide what is proper behaviour in-game. In the old days, we had decentralised servers, so if I was unhappy with not being allowed to say "fuck" while playing on Christian servers, I could just go on to the next one.
If I go for a pub game of DotA on Garena, for example, I am perfectly aware I might not get a good game. Somebody might feed or leave, no problem. Regardless of this loads of people still play pub games on Garena, even though they know they might get screwed.
Why can't LoL be like this? If people want clean moderated games, let the community organize inhouse leagues or 5v5 tournaments where rules can be created and enforced by the community itself.
If I was boss of Riot I would abandon all hope of trying to officially "clean up" soloqueue, because soloqueue is just that; a game with nine internet strangers that you have little control over the outcome or "pleasantness" of.
I would be cool with Riot making unmoderated queues/servers. It's just that solo queue is the default that everyone is exposed to so they want to clean it up. Making people work to have a nicer experience is not good PR.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
I suspect many of them wanted to but weren't able.
There is a reason "XBox live gamer" has a huge stigma associated with it. I'm really glad Riot is trying to make gaming into a more mainstream activity. People don't go around flaming others in real life, why is it okay in gaming?
I'm not saying it's okay, I'm just saying it's not up to the developers behind a game to decide what is proper behaviour in-game. In the old days, we had decentralised servers, so if I was unhappy with not being allowed to say "fuck" while playing on Christian servers, I could just go on to the next one.
If I go for a pub game of DotA on Garena, for example, I am perfectly aware I might not get a good game. Somebody might feed or leave, no problem. Regardless of this loads of people still play pub games on Garena, even though they know they might get screwed.
Why can't LoL be like this? If people want clean moderated games, let the community organize inhouse leagues or 5v5 tournaments where rules can be created and enforced by the community itself.
If I was boss of Riot I would abandon all hope of trying to officially "clean up" soloqueue, because soloqueue is just that; a game with nine internet strangers that you have little control over the outcome or "pleasantness" of.
If this is how you feel, then I am SO GLAD you are not the boss of Riot.
It's a developer's job to create the best experience possible for its players. This, unfortunately for you, means that the developer cannot afford to have a small minority of the playing population ruin the playing experience for the rest of the player base, and I agree with this. If you want to play a game in which it's okay to BM others, then go ahead and play that game. I certainly won't miss you in solo que.
Doesn't change the fact that a dick is a dick, regardless of game.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
I suspect many of them wanted to but weren't able.
There is a reason "XBox live gamer" has a huge stigma associated with it. I'm really glad Riot is trying to make gaming into a more mainstream activity. People don't go around flaming others in real life, why is it okay in gaming?
I'm not saying it's okay, I'm just saying it's not up to the developers behind a game to decide what is proper behaviour in-game. In the old days, we had decentralised servers, so if I was unhappy with not being allowed to say "fuck" while playing on Christian servers, I could just go on to the next one.
If I go for a pub game of DotA on Garena, for example, I am perfectly aware I might not get a good game. Somebody might feed or leave, no problem. Regardless of this loads of people still play pub games on Garena, even though they know they might get screwed.
Why can't LoL be like this? If people want clean moderated games, let the community organize inhouse leagues or 5v5 tournaments where rules can be created and enforced by the community itself.
If I was boss of Riot I would abandon all hope of trying to officially "clean up" soloqueue, because soloqueue is just that; a game with nine internet strangers that you have little control over the outcome or "pleasantness" of.
These bans are not just Riot trying to clean up solo queue. It is also a business decision so players new to the genre do not have to deal with ragers/racists/leavers. If they can retain these new player, they have now increased their potential for revenue. The flip side is the people who got "cleaned up" or people who don't like Riot's decisions leave the game but they are in the minority and should not affect Riot's decision to try and grow its playerbase.
I will say that I do strongly prefer the community you get from playing say a game by Valve (like TF2 or CS:GO) where I can find good servers that are populated and that ban assholes. Whereas in League nearly every game I'm going to be on the same team with or playing against an asshole.
I'm fine with Riot baning people from their game for BM, that's good for their game. I dislike that IWD got banned from competitive play because of BM in pubs especially for the year long duration but that was likely so they didn't have to contract him. I don't think it's practical for Riot to allow people to set up their own servers because that would create a huge mess and creating a separate queue that isn't moderated would be sorta pointless.
On December 05 2012 11:49 Skithiryx wrote: I really like where RIOT is going with their vision for the community, alot of the people that are arguing against the ban and all that are the same people that have had years of being able to act fairly well as they please in MODO/SC2/WoW/Etc without too many repercussions and are now being faced with the fact they may have to become accountable for their actions and not be able to act like a petulant child on the internet anymore.
And it's also true that other players should be banned out as well, I haven't watched streams in a fair while and went to watch some of the current "pros" last night, my god all they do is bitch and moan about everything.
So complaining should be banned? Seems like a pretty strict and singular vision of what the community should be.
No, but they spent the entire time just whingeing/bitching/ragging on/about people, like we all whinge about things in the game from time to time but if the game honestly bothers you that much why still play it, or better yet, why are you taking it out on others. Like I get that these people have "stream personas" they stick to as it clearly works and they get the viewers I just don't understand why someone would want to watch someone else play a soloq game and do nothing but qq the entire time, Every time.
On December 05 2012 12:52 De4ngus wrote: how this happen to iwd and not someone like oddone? iwd doesnt even talk that much lol.
Yeah that's what I'm confused about. IWD obv can be a rager but more-so than Dyrus and Oddone? I find that extremely hard to believe, just going off my experiences. But 8 bans is pretty crazy though lol.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
you haven't play wow if that's true. play every major mmo. Stop lying in order to be the one who got the last word.
I don't even know where people get these ridiculous ideas. I know it gets tossed around from time to time on random forums, but it's always crushed with hundreds of examples.
Another perspective to view this is that since Riot had yet to officially start S3 and pay the players their salary, Riot is choosing not to "hire" IWD cause he's a douche. In other words solo q behavior is part of the interview and IWD fucked up.
Also, this isn't unheard of in other games. IIRC artstyle from Dota2 was blacklisted from by several big name tourney organizations/organizers for being a douche. Granted, its a bit different than having Tue game company doing the action, but same end result.
Also, I've played with IWD before and he's an utter asshole. He doesnt just rage but he legit trolls people and purposefully throw games as well. Me and my roommate both fucking hate having him on our team in solo q 9 times out of 10.
On December 05 2012 11:57 beef42 wrote: Why can't LoL be like this? If people want clean moderated games, let the community organize inhouse leagues or 5v5 tournaments where rules can be created and enforced by the community itself.
The thing is, Riot wants to have clean games as a standart.
What you're considering as a luxury is just what they want for their game, and I'm fine with that. If they wanted us to be a bunch of douchebags, i would have been fine with that too, but that's not the case. The possibility to have nice games with nice players, I don't want to have an ELO of 2500+, or cutting myself from 10 millions players just to play games with nice guys.
If those 10 millions players can just chill out and have fun without being toxic - everyone can have a bad day from time to time - I will gladly take it. It's not that hard to just shut the fuck up when you can't stop yourself from raging, isn't it ? I've played thousands of BW and LoL games, and if I felt sometimes frustrated, I don't know why you have to be agressive with all the other players.
LoL is becoming a lot more friendly since they added the honor system, and now that. It becomes easier to joke with allies and enemies without someone being mad, losing or winning the game. It's not yet perfect but I hope it's a next step to clean the game.
And I hope IWD will learn his lesson and come back as a respectable player in the future.
Up until World of Warcraft you were held pretty accountable for what you did and said in games online, especially on the pc. Games like Counter-Strike had separate servers and if you acted like a child and just suicided you'd get banned from the server fairly quickly. Older MMO's most certainly did ban for player behavior, run around swearing like a child would get you in a two week ban in one of the games I used to play. It wasn't until online communities began to grow so large that effective moderation was simply not possible that we began to see players get away with whatever they wanted, specifically revolving around World of Warcraft and most Blizzard titles where they simply do not care what you say in chat channels became the norm.
The guy had 8 chances to reform, and act like a professional. He never did and at the end of the day pro or not pro he was making enough peoples experiences playing the game bad that he had to be removed. The people that pay riots bills are guys like you and me that suck, not the professionals. The pros are a vehicle to grow the game and when in certain cases you have people that are so poorly mannered they negatively impact the game they should not be getting anything from Riot, or anybody else.
I have to point out, almost all of this seems to have to do with in-game chat/ and player reports. Remember, this guy was REPORTED and it's actually the tribunal system at work for the majority of his bans. A lot of people keep bringing up other pro players, but they aren't that likely to type out their rage. They generally express themselves verbally, rather than typing. Of course, it's no excuse for anyone to act the way some pro players do, but Riot seems more lenient when the raging does not effect the game directly. Not to mention, being reported for trash talking on stream is probably impossible to validate or take seriously.
Then there's a point that you all seem to forget. Do you really think other pro players were not warned for their behavior? Reginaid back in beta was pretty bad, and he also got banned a couple of times as well(although this was nowhere near as strict as IWD's case). I remember a few "pros" in beta were warned quite a bit. There's also other incentives to keeping up good behavior for streamers(getting featured boosts your stream by at least 10k if you go by the general trend.) If you consider the Regniaid from beta to what he is doing now. It's a pretty huge difference. I mean why do you guys think guys like Dyrus write up an apology almost the exact second something blows up(aside from caring about his fans which I will assume is implied)?
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote: I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Why do you think it is your inalienable right to curse people out? And have you SEEN what self-policed communities (e.g. the huge subreddits) turn into?
Anyway, it ultimately comes down to a executive decision: either they believe having a nice environment will make them more money or the management really, really believes in it.
That's the thing. Executive decision. While Riot may own the game and its servers, we, the community, are the ones who play it. We're the ones who made the game what it is. Without us, LoL would be nothing. Some forgotten f2p game played by Brazillians and Russians too poor to afford WoW subscriptions.
We do not need executive decision from some shadowy central banning committee that answers to no one. We, the online gaming community in general, have been doing quite fine for about two decades now on self-policing, and I don't understand why this has to stop just because of the centralised servers that are part of the f2p model.
Riot may have legal right to do whatever they want, but they don't have the moral right. They owe it to the community that made them what they are to decide for themselves. Running the game like an 80s Warsaw pact country is not the way to go.
This is pretty hilarious. So IWD is a douche in solo queue, but he's untouchable because he has no reason to care about the consequences for his conduct. What are you going to do to him with your community self-policing? Give him a stern talking-to? Tell everyone to refuse to practice with him? Throw games that he joins? Or perhaps some emails to his sponsors should do the trick, I heard that works out pretty well.
According to Neo, IWD and Dignitas were both informed that there would be severe consequences if IWD continued his toxic solo-q behavior. So he had warning outside of the game. Now that I am aware of this, I can get behind Riot's decision without issue.
The guy is a jerk and had it coming from everything i have seen, but it is kind of disturbing that riot has this much power. Banning his accounts i can accept, but banning him from the pro scene bugs me. I just don't like one organization having that much power, feels way to kespa like for my taste.
On December 05 2012 12:52 De4ngus wrote: how this happen to iwd and not someone like oddone? iwd doesnt even talk that much lol.
Yeah that's what I'm confused about. IWD obv can be a rager but more-so than Dyrus and Oddone? I find that extremely hard to believe, just going off my experiences. But 8 bans is pretty crazy though lol.
Riot doesn't count raging on stream probably
I think the Oddone gets all his rage out verbally. Plus, him and Dyrus have this strange, lovable , happy-go-lucky thing going on. Whereas, IWD has a condescending name + condescending attitude.
oddone's rage usually has to do about bad play - strictly gameplay for the most part with the occasional insult with iwd seems like the reverse, really. not too surprised
As someone who doesn't follow LoL that much, what stuff did he actually do to get him banned? It says 'verbal abuse', but that can mean a lot of things.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
this is entirely aliens and bizzare to me. in any place of business where one customer is harassing another customer, the one doing the harassing is asked to leave. if it is repeated again and again, he may be banned from entering the premises. hurling insults at other customers is not accepted in restaurants, stores, supermarkets, banks - basically anywhere in civilized society.
what you stand behind is essentially the right for you to be an asshole.
I think that's a really stupid cause to champion, but hey, it's your opinion.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
this is entirely aliens and bizzare to me. in any place of business where one customer is harassing another customer, the one doing the harassing is asked to leave. if it is repeated again and again, he may be banned from entering the premises. hurling insults at other customers is not accepted in restaurants, stores, supermarkets, banks - basically anywhere in civilized society.
what you stand behind is essentially the right for you to be an asshole.
I think that's a really stupid cause to champion, but hey, it's your opinion.
Can I be banned for going outside in real life because I cursed someone out in the street? No. If I curse someone out in the street nothing can happen to me. They can fight, but then they're in the wrong. People need to stop getting butthurt over some shit said over a video game. I'm tired of everyone coddling each other and having this carebear ass attitude online and in real life. Words are words, and nothing more. If you let them bother you then that's on you, not me. Too much qq over being called a "baddie" or "faggot" or "nigger" or whatever slur people use nowdays.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
this is entirely aliens and bizzare to me. in any place of business where one customer is harassing another customer, the one doing the harassing is asked to leave. if it is repeated again and again, he may be banned from entering the premises. hurling insults at other customers is not accepted in restaurants, stores, supermarkets, banks - basically anywhere in civilized society.
what you stand behind is essentially the right for you to be an asshole.
I think that's a really stupid cause to champion, but hey, it's your opinion.
No. If I curse someone out in the street nothing can happen to me. They can fight, but then they're in the wrong. People need to stop getting butthurt over some shit said over a video game. I'm tired of everyone coddling each other and having this carebear ass attitude online and in real life.
Wait, you talk about coddling and carebear attitude, but say if you curse someone out in real life they can fight you, but they're in the wrong. So basically you're defending the right to be an asshole in real life, but then want to hide behind the law if someone tries to put you in your place for being said asshole? Talk about wanting to be coddled!
On December 05 2012 13:43 ketchup wrote: I have to point out, almost all of this seems to have to do with in-game chat/ and player reports. Remember, this guy was REPORTED and it's actually the tribunal system at work for the majority of his bans. A lot of people keep bringing up other pro players, but they aren't that likely to type out their rage. They generally express themselves verbally, rather than typing. Of course, it's no excuse for anyone to act the way some pro players do, but Riot seems more lenient when the raging does not effect the game directly. Not to mention, being reported for trash talking on stream is probably impossible to validate or take seriously.
Then there's a point that you all seem to forget. Do you really think other pro players were not warned for their behavior? Reginaid back in beta was pretty bad, and he also got banned a couple of times as well(although this was nowhere near as strict as IWD's case). I remember a few "pros" in beta were warned quite a bit. There's also other incentives to keeping up good behavior for streamers(getting featured boosts your stream by at least 10k if you go by the general trend.) If you consider the Regniaid from beta to what he is doing now. It's a pretty huge difference. I mean why do you guys think guys like Dyrus write up an apology almost the exact second something blows up(aside from caring about his fans which I will assume is implied)?
I don't know what the general consensus on this is but I think on stream rage is completely fine as long as they keep it on stream and out of the chat. It would take something egregious like calling aphro a nigger or threatening violence for me to really have a problem with stream rage. It gets a lot more muddled once player become salaried but I think it would be best if riot keeps up its hand on approach to in game behavior but stays hand off when it comes to on stream behavior.
On December 05 2012 12:52 De4ngus wrote: how this happen to iwd and not someone like oddone? iwd doesnt even talk that much lol.
Yeah that's what I'm confused about. IWD obv can be a rager but more-so than Dyrus and Oddone? I find that extremely hard to believe, just going off my experiences. But 8 bans is pretty crazy though lol.
He has renamed half of high elo soloqueue to include "nigger" in their names, so yeah, I can see how he gets more reports than those dudes and thus more tribunal stuff.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
this is entirely aliens and bizzare to me. in any place of business where one customer is harassing another customer, the one doing the harassing is asked to leave. if it is repeated again and again, he may be banned from entering the premises. hurling insults at other customers is not accepted in restaurants, stores, supermarkets, banks - basically anywhere in civilized society.
what you stand behind is essentially the right for you to be an asshole.
I think that's a really stupid cause to champion, but hey, it's your opinion.
Can I be banned for going outside in real life because I cursed someone out in the street? No. If I curse someone out in the street nothing can happen to me. They can fight, but then they're in the wrong. People need to stop getting butthurt over some shit said over a video game. I'm tired of everyone coddling each other and having this carebear ass attitude online and in real life. Words are words, and nothing more. If you let them bother you then that's on you, not me. Too much qq over being called a "baddie" or "faggot" or "nigger" or whatever slur people use nowdays.
Last year someone was arrested and convicted because he cursed out his ex-gf in public. Hell not even a few months ago someone was arrested for disorderly conduct for, you guessed it, cursing out someone in public.
Cursing someone out is harassment and disorderly conduct, so yeah, shit can happen to you for cursing out people in public. Especially in the US.
On December 05 2012 15:39 Lann555 wrote: As someone who doesn't follow LoL that much, what stuff did he actually do to get him banned? It says 'verbal abuse', but that can mean a lot of things.
Lets just say if you are in one of his games and you make a mistake, he will let you know in not such a nice way, multiple times.
On December 05 2012 10:11 Chrispy wrote: Holy shit this is amazing.
Good job, too many pros act like complete ass wipes.
Dunno why this isn't the resounding reaction from TL. I am disappoint.
it isnt the resounding reaction because Riot has a history of terrible terrible decisions and misjudgements. They are just not a very professional company. Dat public lynching.
This would be great if riot handled it properly but they never do.
On December 05 2012 15:39 Lann555 wrote: As someone who doesn't follow LoL that much, what stuff did he actually do to get him banned? It says 'verbal abuse', but that can mean a lot of things.
Lets just say if you are in one of his games and you make a mistake, he will let you know in not such a nice way, multiple times.
Just like every other game of solo que anyone plays ever? Because this happens every single game regardless of the players. Its the community,
On December 05 2012 15:39 Lann555 wrote: As someone who doesn't follow LoL that much, what stuff did he actually do to get him banned? It says 'verbal abuse', but that can mean a lot of things.
Lets just say if you are in one of his games and you make a mistake, he will let you know in not such a nice way, multiple times.
Just like every other game of solo que anyone plays ever? Because this happens every single game regardless of the players. Its the community,
He's on a professional team, he has to be held to a higher standard because he's in the public eye. That's the world we live in, our celebrities and the like are everywhere and influencing everyone. Just because he's saying it online doesn't make it any less awful of him to say. Anyways if he's getting a year long ban, he's being a lot worse than just regular solo queue players. No god damn way you get that ban without being a consistent mega asshole.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
this is entirely aliens and bizzare to me. in any place of business where one customer is harassing another customer, the one doing the harassing is asked to leave. if it is repeated again and again, he may be banned from entering the premises. hurling insults at other customers is not accepted in restaurants, stores, supermarkets, banks - basically anywhere in civilized society.
what you stand behind is essentially the right for you to be an asshole.
I think that's a really stupid cause to champion, but hey, it's your opinion.
Can I be banned for going outside in real life because I cursed someone out in the street? No. If I curse someone out in the street nothing can happen to me. They can fight, but then they're in the wrong. People need to stop getting butthurt over some shit said over a video game. I'm tired of everyone coddling each other and having this carebear ass attitude online and in real life. Words are words, and nothing more. If you let them bother you then that's on you, not me. Too much qq over being called a "baddie" or "faggot" or "nigger" or whatever slur people use nowdays.
If you repeatedly curse someone out, and have witnesses report you 8 times, you'll be in serious trouble
You're could also be ostracized from that community.
Words are words? What does that even mean? Don't words have meanings?
The worst thing about online gaming is playing with people who don't have basic civility and can't take losing. Luckily, Riot agrees, and is taking good measures, better than any other game company has ever done. I hope they take it further, and inspire everyone else.
Asking people to stop being immature cunts isn't a carebear attitude.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
this is entirely aliens and bizzare to me. in any place of business where one customer is harassing another customer, the one doing the harassing is asked to leave. if it is repeated again and again, he may be banned from entering the premises. hurling insults at other customers is not accepted in restaurants, stores, supermarkets, banks - basically anywhere in civilized society.
what you stand behind is essentially the right for you to be an asshole.
I think that's a really stupid cause to champion, but hey, it's your opinion.
Can I be banned for going outside in real life because I cursed someone out in the street? No. If I curse someone out in the street nothing can happen to me. They can fight, but then they're in the wrong. People need to stop getting butthurt over some shit said over a video game. I'm tired of everyone coddling each other and having this carebear ass attitude online and in real life. Words are words, and nothing more. If you let them bother you then that's on you, not me. Too much qq over being called a "baddie" or "faggot" or "nigger" or whatever slur people use nowdays.
Possibly you could be arrested if you were persistent enough. Regardless, the analogy is not correct anyways. If you walked into Applebees and harassed other customers incessantly would you be thrown out? Yes you would. Remember, League of Legends is not a public domain, it is owned by a corporation and whatever they see fit goes. If Riot does not condone people being tumbling tumbling dickweeds then i'm afraid you have to respect that if you want to have any involvement in their product. No one is going to shed a tear for you or protect you if you break the rules. Stop being a carebear and man up.
I think it's great. I don't know how it is in this specific case, but Riot being harsh on people acting like idiots will eventually lead to the community having the same stance, and when that happens, you get SC mentality, where "GG"ing and mannering it up is seen as a good thing, which in turn makes the game far more enjoyable.
I have never been in a game where flaming and trolling is prevalent where I found it enjoyable. I know some kids think it's extremely funny to watch streamers etc rage and troll, but it certainly makes the experience in-game far worse. LoL is a big target for people ranking shitty communities, and I'm sure Riot wants to do their best to fix what is actually considered one of the bigger problems with the game/genre.
What people seem to be missing in the player's union talks is that in most pro sports the players are underpaid relative to free market value and their ability to play is being controlled by owners who make a ton of profit off of them. Riot is providing *more* than market value - they're taking a loss on the strictly eSports side as investment/marketing. Players don't really have leverage because the other side (Riot) is already paying/offering them *more* than what's fair.
On December 05 2012 12:52 De4ngus wrote: how this happen to iwd and not someone like oddone? iwd doesnt even talk that much lol.
Yeah that's what I'm confused about. IWD obv can be a rager but more-so than Dyrus and Oddone? I find that extremely hard to believe, just going off my experiences. But 8 bans is pretty crazy though lol.
Can you tell me more about how TOO BM? I watch his stream sometimes, he does rage but it always in a funny way and in voice chat with his viewers. He didn't type that much in soloQ cos hes busy explain every moves he makes to viewers.
On December 05 2012 18:25 JALbert wrote: What people seem to be missing in the player's union talks is that in most pro sports the players are underpaid relative to free market value and their ability to play is being controlled by owners who make a ton of profit off of them. Riot is providing *more* than market value - they're taking a loss on the strictly eSports side as investment/marketing. Players don't really have leverage because the other side (Riot) is already paying/offering them *more* than what's fair.
More than what's fair is still pretty much not worth it if you invest your time moving up the ladder in any decent company. It doesn't matter if you think they're getting paid well (I assume almost no player gets paid well) relative to anything, what matters is they can easily do something else and make more money. Riot HAS to give people financial incentives to play or they won't ever consider doing it once the shine of being a pro wears off. Playing any game professionally isn't very attractive once you see how few people can live off it. Might as well just stream and market yourself while making money off twitch and youtube. Hopefully it can be a viable lifestyle for all legit pro players (ones on established teams), but for now, I feel like getting a degree and a good job are 100% better options.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
this is entirely aliens and bizzare to me. in any place of business where one customer is harassing another customer, the one doing the harassing is asked to leave. if it is repeated again and again, he may be banned from entering the premises. hurling insults at other customers is not accepted in restaurants, stores, supermarkets, banks - basically anywhere in civilized society.
what you stand behind is essentially the right for you to be an asshole.
I think that's a really stupid cause to champion, but hey, it's your opinion.
Can I be banned for going outside in real life because I cursed someone out in the street? No. If I curse someone out in the street nothing can happen to me. They can fight, but then they're in the wrong. People need to stop getting butthurt over some shit said over a video game. I'm tired of everyone coddling each other and having this carebear ass attitude online and in real life. Words are words, and nothing more. If you let them bother you then that's on you, not me. Too much qq over being called a "baddie" or "faggot" or "nigger" or whatever slur people use nowdays.
Oh, you go out, try to harrass someone with your words for 9 times. I'd be sure you either get your ass kicked by that person or the police will contact you. Its not as simple as you may think, you can get into some serious shit with your words only.
And dont try to dump everything down to "just a video game". Online interaction is replacing many real life activity now. People needs to behave in an online community just as they would in a real life community. If you think LOL or any major MMO is the place for you to whatever you want, you are very wrong. There will always be consequences for what you said and done.
On December 05 2012 18:25 JALbert wrote: What people seem to be missing in the player's union talks is that in most pro sports the players are underpaid relative to free market value and their ability to play is being controlled by owners who make a ton of profit off of them. Riot is providing *more* than market value - they're taking a loss on the strictly eSports side as investment/marketing. Players don't really have leverage because the other side (Riot) is already paying/offering them *more* than what's fair.
Yea, no thats not right about pro sports (wont comment on esports). Stars, like LBJ and Peyton Manning, are paid below market value as a result of CBAs in sports, but low tier and lower-middle tier players are compensated far above market value. That is basically how a union works.
On December 05 2012 15:39 Lann555 wrote: As someone who doesn't follow LoL that much, what stuff did he actually do to get him banned? It says 'verbal abuse', but that can mean a lot of things.
Lets just say if you are in one of his games and you make a mistake, he will let you know in not such a nice way, multiple times.
Just like every other game of solo que anyone plays ever? Because this happens every single game regardless of the players. Its the community,
And hopefully this is one of the signs that riot will work to get rid of those guys from our games. More perma bans for people who act like retards, and i may get my friends back to this game. It is a fact that people like IWD are a big part of why many paying customers have left LOL... I am still baffled that he had 8(!!!) warnings before his perma ban. I've played thousands of games, and i've yet to receive one warning. I think 2-3 warnings is enough, then 6 month ban, and the 4-5th time should be perm.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
Actually, Riot can ban anyone, at any time, for any season. Read the EULA. A Rioter is legally allowed to perm-ban you simply because he "does not like you".
It's the same for Teamliquid. Technically if (say) Nazgul does not like you (e.g. he finds you verbose and too polite), he can just perm-ban you - posting on Teamliquid is a privilege, not a right.
Playing LoL is the same. Riot has every right to ban anyone they like.
On December 05 2012 10:11 Chrispy wrote: Holy shit this is amazing.
Good job, too many pros act like complete ass wipes.
Dunno why this isn't the resounding reaction from TL. I am disappoint.
it isnt the resounding reaction because Riot has a history of terrible terrible decisions and misjudgements. They are just not a very professional company. Dat public lynching.
This would be great if riot handled it properly but they never do.
This has become like some sort of Mantra... Riot is bad... Riot is bad... Riot is bad... Zzzzzzzzzz
Judging from what Neo has posted and from what I read, they handled this as one should handle it in my opinion. They first informed the player and dig month prior to the actual ban and asked them to work with the player to reform. He didn't reform and they toko take action.
They could have just banned him and stayed silent, but as people have pointed out, there would have been a Reddit thread and things would have exploded. So instead they went proactive and announced the reason for the ban at the time it was enforced. This has nothing to do with public lynching. Also a pro-player is a public figure and therefor he has expect that his behavior is under public "scrutiny".
I also find all the union talk in this specific case absurd. Yes, long term the players/teams might want to consider to form some sort of "union", but what would a union fight for in this case? The right to BM in a game. The right to insult and abuse other players? The right to make fun of amateur in public games for not being on the same level of play as a person paid to play?
And to all people that argue for the right to bm. The majority of the player base is not your punching bag and SoloQ is not there for you to release your anger that you accumulated off-line. Most of us want to relax and just play a game. Find a gym to release excess energy or get a therapist to take care of your issues, seriously...
this is sorta like the government can give life sentences to those who break the law but they absolutely cannot do so to people who merely act immorally. Or better, the MLB can ban pete rose for betting on baseball but the idea of banning a player for bad sportsmanship is ludicrous. Not a good precedent to set. Also IWD got all of his reports from solo queue, yet they banned him from competing professionally where he has done nothing wrong. I'd agree completely if they banned him from solo queue forever but to ban from progaming is lol. It seems they acted on impulse.
On December 05 2012 19:26 zulu_nation8 wrote: this is sorta like the government can give life sentences to those who break the law but they absolutely cannot do so to people who merely act immorally. Or better, the MLB can ban pete rose for betting on baseball but the idea of banning a player for bad sportsmanship is ludicrous. Not a good precedent to set. Also IWD got all of his reports from solo queue, yet they banned him from competing professionally where he has done nothing wrong. I'd agree completely if they banned him from solo queue forever but to ban from progaming is lol. It seems they acted on impulse.
Another bad example considering the betting in Rose's case was all about morality.
On December 05 2012 19:26 zulu_nation8 wrote: this is sorta like the government can give life sentences to those who break the law but they absolutely cannot do so to people who merely act immorally. Or better, the MLB can ban pete rose for betting on baseball but the idea of banning a player for bad sportsmanship is ludicrous. Not a good precedent to set. Also IWD got all of his reports from solo queue, yet they banned him from competing professionally where he has done nothing wrong. I'd agree completely if they banned him from solo queue forever but to ban from progaming is lol. It seems they acted on impulse.
What? Even sports coaches get banned for limited amounts if they badmouth around. Like we got this one hockey coach in Finland who every now and then gets benched by the hockey authorities for complaining publicly about the referees or the league or whatever.
And it's their fucking championship series. If a player gets a lifeban from their game, then what kind of logic does say he would still be eligible to play in their own championship series for said game? I just...jesus, people these days wtf. Too much Hollywood and amurican lawyers I tell you.
+ Riot banning IWD. The ban reasoning is undisputable. + IWD's reaction. He reacted to the ban in the best possible manner. I congratulate him for that. I wish that he will fullfill his dreams and show us all how he improves his behaviour during the ban. This would be an exceptional example and very important for the Tribunal System and the lol community.
I don't like: - Poeple trying to make this some kind of unfair conspiracy or anything like it. The community wanted him to get banned. Riot warned him and his team several times. They banned him. He apologized to the community and to his team.
Riot was actually acting as a buffer between the tribunal and IWD, giving him additional chances and advising his team.
lol u people make it sound like being allowed to play a video game is some sort of divine, inalienable right and that preventing someone from doing so is a gross injustice...
and wtf "riot has too much power" they made the game they can do whatever the fuck they want
On December 05 2012 21:05 clickrush wrote: I like the follwing things:
+ Riot banning IWD. The ban reasoning is undisputable. + IWD's reaction. He reacted to the ban in the best possible manner. I congratulate him for that. I wish that he will fullfill his dreams and show us all how he improves his behaviour during the ban. This would be an exceptional example and very important for the Tribunal System and the lol community.
I don't like: - Poeple trying to make this some kind of unfair conspiracy or anything like it. The community wanted him to get banned. Riot warned him and his team several times. They banned him. He apologized to the community and to his team.
Riot was actually acting as a buffer between the tribunal and IWD, giving him additional chances and advising his team.
To me his response read like generic pr fluff and really says nothing to me beyond him having the discipline to keep his mouth shut until someone told him what to say. His main and all other know accounts were premabanned yet he plans on still playing regularly. The community and Roit has said "we do not want you" but he is coming back. That to me is in no way a positive thing. Riot shouldn't and won't try and stop him but only because it is not worth the effort, not because he deserves a second (10th) chance. If he can manage to act like a normal person and eventually reenter the pro scene then well that's good for him but it is in no way an exceptional example for the LoL community nor a victory for the Tribunal System.
On December 05 2012 07:42 Dandel Ion wrote: Riot HAS too much power, that's not up for debate.
too much power? wtf does that mean. it's their game. you play on their servers. you read and accept their EULA.
You accept to be permabanned from the game, not from their sponsored events
if riot really wanted to, they could just ban all his accounts forever. Then he cant play in tournaments because participants still play on Riots server.
So yeah, being banned from the game means you cant play the game in a tournament.
On December 05 2012 07:42 Dandel Ion wrote: Riot HAS too much power, that's not up for debate.
too much power? wtf does that mean. it's their game. you play on their servers. you read and accept their EULA.
You accept to be permabanned from the game, not from their sponsored events
Riot repeatedly said "When we permaban people, we don't want them to make new accounts and come back into the game, even if they pay us more money". By saying "Yeah, ok, since you are a progamer we'll accept you back next year" they are already more lenient than against their regular playerbase.
Actually, like many others before me have said, I'm surprised more haven't been banned. Or rather, if TOO/Dyrus is even 1/2 as bad as IWD (which we all agree they are), why haven't TSM received the warning dig received "Your player is acting out of bounds. Deal with that shit or we will ban him."
I don't know anything about IWD but I know (ok, I don't know know, but I think I know) that TOO is smart enough to take such a warning dead serious. I think TOO puts on a facade/an act to entertain his viewers. He is too smart and to cool headed to actually care that much about a soloQ-game. I honestly believe that if this facade was endangering his career (which he would be made aware of by TSM receiving a warning) he would drop it right away.
This leads me to think TOO hasn't come up yet, which means he's not been reported enough, which must mean people he play vs. either accept his tirades or don't care enough to report. Which is strange. I'd report him, even if his flaming is factually correct. He is still toxic in many of the games he plays.
On December 05 2012 23:53 Cuddle wrote: I'm all for this.
Actually, like many others before me have said, I'm surprised more haven't been banned. Or rather, if TOO/Dyrus is even 1/2 as bad as IWD (which we all agree they are), why haven't TSM received the warning dig received "Your player is acting out of bounds. Deal with that shit or we will ban him."
I don't know anything about IWD but I know (ok, I don't know know, but I think I know) that TOO is smart enough to take such a warning dead serious. I think TOO puts on a facade/an act to entertain his viewers. He is too smart and to cool headed to actually care that much about a soloQ-game. I honestly believe that if this facade was endangering his career (which he would be made aware of by TSM receiving a warning) he would drop it right away.
This leads me to think TOO hasn't come up yet, which means he's not been reported enough, which must mean people he play vs. either accept his tirades or don't care enough to report. Which is strange. I'd report him, even if his flaming is factually correct. He is still toxic in many of the games he plays.
I don't even. Not only is this off-topic, you are accusing a pro player of lying to an audience. But before you did that you asked why riot doesn't warn people who don't do those things wrong? I just...what?
TOO isn't that bad. If he rages, it's mostly on camera only. He might call someone a retard but he doesn't tell them that in-game. Basically, it's the same as you thinking it to yourself except you're broadcasting your thoughts -- which is, er, what the point of streams. You watch a progamer play "live" and get an inside look into this thoughts.
Raging and typing out insults is much much much different.
I also agree with the notion that most of TOO's "rage" is in jest. He gets that high-pitched voice like he's complaining/whining, but it really does seem like he doesn't care that much. Even when all the crap went down with TRM and there was a shoutfest, he remained relatively quiet even though a lot of the crap was direct at him.
I honestly don't understand how anyone can compare IWD to most other progamers. Even HSGG isn't that bad. And to say Riot having control over these types of situations is bad... I don't even understand how you can come up with that conclusion.
On December 05 2012 07:42 Dandel Ion wrote: Riot HAS too much power, that's not up for debate.
too much power? wtf does that mean. it's their game. you play on their servers. you read and accept their EULA.
You accept to be permabanned from the game, not from their sponsored events
How can he play in their sponsored events, if he is perma banned from the game?
can use someone else's account if they play on normal servers, and tournament realm accounts aren't tied to your normal account
there was another player who was permabanned recently (on elohell I think it was) but only banned from one tournament. Can still use other accounts to play in sponsored tournaments now.
I agree with riots decision, just worried that they might not have made it clear that this could lead to year suspension, given that the only precedent was one tournament only.
On December 05 2012 07:42 Dandel Ion wrote: Riot HAS too much power, that's not up for debate.
too much power? wtf does that mean. it's their game. you play on their servers. you read and accept their EULA.
You accept to be permabanned from the game, not from their sponsored events
How can he play in their sponsored events, if he is perma banned from the game?
can use someone else's account if they play on normal servers, and tournament realm accounts aren't tied to your normal account
there was another player who was permabanned recently (on elohell I think it was) but only banned from one tournament. Can still use other accounts to play in sponsored tournaments now.
I agree with riots decision, just worried that they might not have made it clear that this could lead to year suspension, given that the only precedent was one tournament only.
That was my original issue as well, but apparently both he and Dignitas were warned that there would be severe consequences if he didn't improve his behavior. Don't know the specifics, but it seems as though he was warned outside of his in game warnings/bans.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
People have been banned in many games (WoW for example) for: - Stuff they say in chat (references to bodily functions, hate speech, racism, etc.) (I once got a warning in WoW for calling a griefer a "pissant"). - Names they choose (for the same reasons above - ie. racist names). - Player harassment
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
People have been banned in many games (WoW for example) for: - Stuff they say in chat (references to bodily functions, hate speech, racism, etc.) (I once got a warning in WoW for calling a griefer a "pissant"). - Names they choose (for the same reasons above - ie. racist names). - Player harassment
All of these services (and many more) are committed to bans for BM. It's all just a matter of the degree of intensity. Riot thinks nine times in the Tribunal is enough.
Riot enforces these rules because it's good for business. Alienating potential customers because of "toxic" behavior is the reason they do these things. IWD would have been permbanned anyway for his behavior and Riot only made a public statement because they want people to understand they don't make an exception for pro players but they are aware of the impact it has on his pro career.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
People have been banned in many games (WoW for example) for: - Stuff they say in chat (references to bodily functions, hate speech, racism, etc.) (I once got a warning in WoW for calling a griefer a "pissant"). - Names they choose (for the same reasons above - ie. racist names). - Player harassment
All of these services (and many more) are committed to bans for BM. It's all just a matter of the degree of intensity. Riot thinks nine times in the Tribunal is enough.
Yeah, I would be fired after 2 times pulling non-sense like that. 9 times is more than enough.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
People have been banned in many games (WoW for example) for: - Stuff they say in chat (references to bodily functions, hate speech, racism, etc.) (I once got a warning in WoW for calling a griefer a "pissant"). - Names they choose (for the same reasons above - ie. racist names). - Player harassment
All of these services (and many more) are committed to bans for BM. It's all just a matter of the degree of intensity. Riot thinks nine times in the Tribunal is enough.
Yeah, I would be fired after 2 times pulling non-sense like that. 9 times is more than enough.
And honestly, overall, the fact is that the game is supposed to be fun for everyone who is playing it. BMing others hurts other players' game experience (overall), so it's a great reason to kick people out of the game. Having fun at the expense of people (and the players in LoL ARE people... I think lots of people tend to forget this) is wrong. And doing it egregiously enough to get Tribunal'd NINE TIMES is awful.
No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
You mean, since he didn't stream, people didn't see his raging. He got into tribunal what 8 times? And he plays high elo? Those guys seem notoriously lazy about reporting in their games (might be false, just impression left from streamers).
I also saw a good amount of people on the reddit thread saying they didn't like playing with him since he was a douche to them ingame.
Imagine if blizzard came out during brood war days and was like " we are banning idra from all proleague play for a year because he has been being mean to people online in games on battle.net" and made it a big topic right in their forum. the community backlash would be unreal. Riot is lucky here that no one really likes IWD jungling for their team anyway, but player skill should not dictate whether this is okay or not.
The amount of time needed to get before the tribunal 8 times make any notion that people didnt suffer from his actions laughable. Your talking over a 10's if not 100's of reports.
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
No one "ruined" his life. He did it himself.
he cant actually ban himself from progaming so i think it's fair to say riot ruined his life, he dropped out of college the last semester to pursue progaming, hence he has no degree and no other method of income. I think people taking raging in solo queue just a bit too seriously.
On December 06 2012 03:48 IntoTheWow wrote: How about IWD is an idiot for shitting where he eats?
Maybe this will help him grow up.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
No one "ruined" his life. He did it himself.
he cant actually ban himself from progaming so i think it's fair to say riot ruined his life, he dropped out of college the last semester to pursue progaming, hence he has no degree and no other method of income. I think people taking raging in solo queue just a bit too seriously.
On December 06 2012 03:48 IntoTheWow wrote: How about IWD is an idiot for shitting where he eats?
Maybe this will help him grow up.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
He dropped out of school yet when warned by riot and his team he could not bring himself to be a less toxic player, shows you how serious he took his "job".
"People" are not taking raging in solo queue a bit too seriously. Riot is.
Rage in LoL (and games in the genre in general) is one of the biggest complains people have about the game. All Riot is doing here is protecting their product, which you know, gives the money.
Other sports work like this too. A player is offensive to a crowd in a stadium, shits on fair play or does something to hurt the image of the company behind it and guess what happens? They get banned for a number of games.
On December 06 2012 03:49 zulu_nation8 wrote: because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
It's where riot markets part of their game. You don't like it, you go out.
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
First off I'm pretty sure some people here have been blasted by him in solo q, second it doesn't matter if we're the victim of it or not, if he's being a complete douche and deserves to be banned then people will agree and accept it.
His life isn't even ruined. Sure he can't compete in the circuit but hell that's not the end of the world. Calling this thing that he brought upon himself (Riot even contacted dig months before, he still didn't change) something that would ruin his life is absolutely idiotic. It may end his life as a progamer, but there are many more things to life than playing LoL professionally.
Hell if anything this may help IWD in the future. He may learn his lesson and be more professional throughout his life because of this. Being a professional instead of a douche is something that nearly every employer looks for in an employee after all.
On December 06 2012 03:56 oneofthem wrote: definitely too drastic. a month ban or something may suffice but it does not suffice for whatever PR impact riot desired. a sacrificial rager?
this is like a soccer player being mean to people constantly in sunday park games and getting banned from the premier league as a result. I'm saying no one HERE has been affected.
Just because he got warned repeatedly doesnt mean its justified.
On December 06 2012 04:04 zulu_nation8 wrote: this is like a soccer player being mean to people constantly in sunday park games and getting banned from the premier league as a result. I'm saying no one HERE has been affected.
Just because he got warned repeatedly doesnt mean its justified.
8 tribunal cases all found to be punish by riot after carefull review. Stop spouting BS.
On December 06 2012 04:04 zulu_nation8 wrote: this is like a soccer player being mean to people constantly in sunday park games and getting banned from the premier league as a result. I'm saying no one HERE has been affected.
Just because he got warned repeatedly doesnt mean its justified.
You know players get banned for their actions outside the match too right? Like what they say on TV.
And yes, people have been affected. People that played with him in solo Q.
You should take more than two seconds before regurgitating the first thing that comes into your mind.
All I said is that "justified" is subjective, and in this case, the rules are set by riot. Please quote the post where I say "keep your opinions to yourself".
yes professional athletes get banned from their sport for something outside of professional sports when they do stuff like commit murder. In football/soccer, when have people ever been globally banned except for doping? Hence my first argument. How am I sprouting BS? I obviously know people have been affected when he got reported, I'm saying no one HERE has been affected yet people are too quick to be as unsympathetic as possible.
On December 06 2012 04:17 IntoTheWow wrote: You should take more than two seconds before regurgitating the first thing that comes into your mind.
All I said is that "justified" is subjective, and in this case, the rules are set by riot. Please quote the post where I say "keep your opinions to yourself".
I'm saying justified ethically, which is what we're arguing about yes? If we can't argue whether the decision is justified because Riot has the final say then why do we have this thread? Can you come up with real opinions now besides he rager he bad me angry?
Why do you care no one HERE has been affected? No one HERE has been affected by 9/11 either, why should we be unsympathetic to bin laden after the U.S. ruined his life? (note: this statement is probably about as true as yours)
EDIT: and honestly we've had real opinions this whole time but you keep writing them off as 'angry mob' as if any opinion that doesn't agree with yours isn't valid
Banning him is most likely the right decision but a year ban is far to extreme. Feels more like a scapegoat for all the rest of the BS raging other pros do. I wonder if we will ever see guys like Dyrus get hit by anything after this.
On December 06 2012 04:18 zulu_nation8 wrote: yes professional athletes get banned from their sport for something outside of professional sports when they do stuff like commit murder. In football/soccer, when have people ever been globally banned except for doping? Hence my first argument. How am I sprouting BS? I obviously know people have been affected when he got reported, I'm saying no one HERE has been affected yet people are too quick to be as unsympathetic as possible.
This isn't soccer, this is LoL. You cannot compare things that have completely different rule set.
And I have no sympathy for a person who harasses others for making mistakes in an online game.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
Hence why they promote it through... featured streamers? It should have been obvious for months and months that Riot does put some weight in the image of pub games. If they didn't, they wouldn't have put resources into their tribunal system, punish players for their streaming conduct, reward players for their streaming conduct, etc.
On December 06 2012 04:18 zulu_nation8 wrote: yes professional athletes get banned from their sport for something outside of professional sports when they do stuff like commit murder. In football/soccer, when have people ever been globally banned except for doping? Hence my first argument. How am I sprouting BS? I obviously know people have been affected when he got reported, I'm saying no one HERE has been affected yet people are too quick to be as unsympathetic as possible.
Because we can relate to the action of being harrassed or insulted in a game.
So when a person mugs someone on the street we should be sympathetic because he didn't mug us in particular? Are you trying to be annoying now?
Of course you don't get global bans on football, cause they are not necessary. Players have binding contracts that prohibit them from playing for other teams, so while a player is banned from X league is not like he can play in Y league while his banned.
On December 06 2012 04:17 IntoTheWow wrote: You should take more than two seconds before regurgitating the first thing that comes into your mind.
All I said is that "justified" is subjective, and in this case, the rules are set by riot. Please quote the post where I say "keep your opinions to yourself".
I'm saying justified ethically, which is what we're arguing about yes? If we can't argue whether the decision is justified because Riot has the final say then why do we have this thread? Can you come up with real opinions now besides he rager he bad me angry?
Ethics are subjective as well, so I don't see how that changes anything.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
Hence why they promote it through... featured streamers? It should have been obvious for months and months that Riot does put some weight in the image of pub games. If they didn't, they wouldn't have put resources into their tribunal system, punish players for their streaming conduct, reward players for their streaming conduct, etc.
IWD doesn't even stream, I know he has one but he doesn't use it. So it's better to punish someone who has no fanbase rather than actual ragers who rage on stream because they have fanbases who will provide more of a backlash.
On December 06 2012 04:25 zulu_nation8 wrote: would you have known bin laden was a murderer and terrorist if no one told you? I'm just glad you guys don't decide on real death sentences.
except some of us actually played with this guy in solo q.
And death penalty is a terrible analogy. Rather, think of it this way. If you end up playing in Riot's Championship series, you're getting salaried iirc. In other words, starting S3, progaming is a legit fucking job. Now I don't know if/where you work, but if I run my mouth off to my boss's customers 9 times, I'd get fucking fired. That's basically what happened here. IWD got fired for being a douche, which happens in the real world all the time. While LoL may just be a game for you and me, for IWD and the other pros, it's not "just a game." It's their job. They need to treat it as such and accept the consequences for not doing so.
Riot didn't ruin his life; IWD ruined his own goddam life by ignoring 8 warnings. It's not like he didn't know this would happen ahead of time anyways. If you got warned 8 times at your job for harassment, then you were told by your boss that you'd get fired if you keep this up, then you don't actually change your behavior, would you be surprised you got fired?
Also, guys like TOO and Dyrus rage plenty, but they don't actually harass their teammates (usually). They just rage on screen and verbally. There's nothing wrong with that since they're not actually harassing their teammates; they're basically just saying what they're thinking and there's nothing wrong with thinking X player is utter trash or Y player is a goddamn cocksucking fag fucker. It's like you yelling at your computer screen when some idiot does somethign stupid in game. However, there is somethign wrong when you actually take the time to say that to them repeatedly and harass them.
On December 06 2012 04:18 zulu_nation8 wrote: yes professional athletes get banned from their sport for something outside of professional sports when they do stuff like commit murder. In football/soccer, when have people ever been globally banned except for doping? Hence my first argument. How am I sprouting BS? I obviously know people have been affected when he got reported, I'm saying no one HERE has been affected yet people are too quick to be as unsympathetic as possible.
Because we can relate to the action of being harrassed or insulted in a game.
So when a person mugs someone on the street we should be sympathetic because he didn't mug us in particular? Are you trying to be annoying now?
Of course you don't get global bans on football, cause they are not necessary. Players have binding contracts that prohibit them from playing for other teams, so while a player is banned from X league is not like he can play in Y league while his banned.
so like I said, IWD has become the scapegoat for every solo queuer who has ever gotten harassed or insulted. The difference is he's not the people who have harassed you and you only know him from progaming, His image as a normal, even professional progamer is destroyed because of something that has nothing to do with anyone aside from like the 1k people at his elo who've queued into or with him, I don't even think he's played that many solo queue games last season. But the public outcry is so strong because apparently he's become the guy who just harassed you in game yesterday. I think this is called mob mentality, without concern for the individual.
On December 06 2012 04:25 zulu_nation8 wrote: would you have known bin laden was a murderer and terrorist if no one told you? I'm just glad you guys don't decide on real death sentences.
except some of us actually played with this guy in solo q.
And death penalty is a terrible analogy. Rather, think of it this way. If you end up playing in Riot's Championship series, you're getting salaried iirc. In other words, starting S3, progaming is a legit fucking job. Now I don't know if/where you work, but if I run my mouth off to my boss's customers 9 times, I'd get fucking fired. That's basically what happened here. IWD got fired for being a douche, which happens in the real world all the time. While LoL may just be a game for you and me, for IWD and the other pros, it's not "just a game." It's their job. They need to treat it as such and accept the consequences for not doing so.
Riot didn't ruin his life; IWD ruined his own goddam life by ignoring 8 warnings. It's not like he didn't know this would happen ahead of time anyways. If you got warned 8 times at your job for harassment, then you were told by your boss that you'd get fired if you keep this up, then you don't actually change your behavior, would you be surprised you got fired?
Also, guys like TOO and Dyrus rage plenty, but they don't actually harass their teammates (usually). They just rage on screen and verbally. There's nothing wrong with that since they're not actually harassing their teammates; they're basically just saying what they're thinking and there's nothing wrong with thinking X player is utter trash or Y player is a goddamn cocksucking fag fucker. There is somethign wrong when you say that to them repeatedly and harass them.
I obviously know that people have played with him in solo queue, but unless someone can step out and say, yes IWD has harassed me constantly, he's a toxic person and I'm glad to see him banned, to wish for someone's progaming career to end especially when no one even knows his in game personality 2 days ago is maybe a bit harsh?
bly, stop shitting the subforum. No kid. This has nothing to do with mob mentality.
Edit: I've played with IWD in 3s a bunch of times and he was inflammatory towards my team, constantly spamming "how did you guys get to this elo" in a slightly more profane way. Edit2: Listening to SotL, will comment here in a moment. Let's just say people are reporting you by the handful, bly. Sometimes you just don't know when to let go.
On December 06 2012 04:11 IntoTheWow wrote: your version of "justified" could be different to Riots. Let's play a game called "guess whose version matters here?".
i interpreted this sentence as, riot has the final say so why argue? correct me if anyone sees it differently.
On December 06 2012 04:25 zulu_nation8 wrote: would you have known bin laden was a murderer and terrorist if no one told you? I'm just glad you guys don't decide on real death sentences.
except some of us actually played with this guy in solo q.
And death penalty is a terrible analogy. Rather, think of it this way. If you end up playing in Riot's Championship series, you're getting salaried iirc. In other words, starting S3, progaming is a legit fucking job. Now I don't know if/where you work, but if I run my mouth off to my boss's customers 9 times, I'd get fucking fired. That's basically what happened here. IWD got fired for being a douche, which happens in the real world all the time. While LoL may just be a game for you and me, for IWD and the other pros, it's not "just a game." It's their job. They need to treat it as such and accept the consequences for not doing so.
Riot didn't ruin his life; IWD ruined his own goddam life by ignoring 8 warnings. It's not like he didn't know this would happen ahead of time anyways. If you got warned 8 times at your job for harassment, then you were told by your boss that you'd get fired if you keep this up, then you don't actually change your behavior, would you be surprised you got fired?
Also, guys like TOO and Dyrus rage plenty, but they don't actually harass their teammates (usually). They just rage on screen and verbally. There's nothing wrong with that since they're not actually harassing their teammates; they're basically just saying what they're thinking and there's nothing wrong with thinking X player is utter trash or Y player is a goddamn cocksucking fag fucker. There is somethign wrong when you say that to them repeatedly and harass them.
I obviously know that people have played with him in solo queue, but unless someone can step out and say, yes IWD has harassed me constantly, he's a toxic person and I'm glad to see him banned, to wish for someone's progaming career to end especially when no one even knows his in game personality 2 days ago is maybe a bit harsh?
....well people clearly do think he's a toxic person and are glad to see him banned. -.-; To say "no one knows his in game personality 2 days ago" is just blatantly false. If IWD did the same thing in any other career, his career would've been ended a LONG time ago. Even now, his career hasn't completely ended.
IWD was never that high elo; he was in the 1800s range for a very long time. My roommate and I have played with him before and honestly, every time my roommate sees him in game on his team he gets super pissed. Not only does IWD harass people, he trolls people and throws games on a somewhat regular basis. He's a shitty guy in solo q. It's not really much of a secret. I guess it's not super common knowledge because, like you said, he doesn't stream so unless you've actually played with him multiple times before you won't really know. But seriously....minimum 8 times in tribunal? C'mon now.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
Hence why they promote it through... featured streamers? It should have been obvious for months and months that Riot does put some weight in the image of pub games. If they didn't, they wouldn't have put resources into their tribunal system, punish players for their streaming conduct, reward players for their streaming conduct, etc.
IWD doesn't even stream, I know he has one but he doesn't use it. So it's better to punish someone who has no fanbase rather than actual ragers who rage on stream because they have fanbases who will provide more of a backlash.
Are you going to actually take any points or are you just going to strawman everything that is contrary to you?
On December 06 2012 04:18 zulu_nation8 wrote: yes professional athletes get banned from their sport for something outside of professional sports when they do stuff like commit murder. In football/soccer, when have people ever been globally banned except for doping? Hence my first argument. How am I sprouting BS? I obviously know people have been affected when he got reported, I'm saying no one HERE has been affected yet people are too quick to be as unsympathetic as possible.
Because we can relate to the action of being harrassed or insulted in a game.
So when a person mugs someone on the street we should be sympathetic because he didn't mug us in particular? Are you trying to be annoying now?
Of course you don't get global bans on football, cause they are not necessary. Players have binding contracts that prohibit them from playing for other teams, so while a player is banned from X league is not like he can play in Y league while his banned.
so like I said, IWD has become the scapegoat for every solo queuer who has ever gotten harassed or insulted. The difference is he's not the people who have harassed you and you only know him from progaming, His image as a normal, even professional progamer is destroyed because of something that has nothing to do with anyone aside from like the 1k people at his elo who've queued into or with him, I don't even think he's played that many solo queue games last season. But the public outcry is so strong because apparently he's become the guy who just harassed you in game yesterday. I think this is called mob mentality, without concern for the individual.
IWD has not become a scapegoat. People get banned all the time for their soloQ behaviour. Progamers and steamers get banned for trolling in games (Dyrus come to my mind). This is just the first of someone being banned globally and I expect this to happen to other people under the same circumstances who do the same.
Since you discredit our opinion because we haven't been q'd against IWD, I'll paste Snoopeh's thoughts. Snoopeh has played vs IWD many times, more than you and me, and everyone in this conversation combined.
[–]snoopeh 1567 points 21 hours ago (2113|546) While I feel for the guys over at Dignitas and especially Odee (their Manager) who is a fantastic guy, as well as team owner. I don't know the extent of IWD's behaviour in or out of game, but I know that Riot would not enforce such punishment light heartedly - therefore I'd assume it's justified. It's sad to see anyone act in a disrespectful manner, even more so a professional player who's behaviour is reflected onto the entire community. I hope this sets an example to other top players that may think they have some sort of 'superior status,' which makes them immune from punishment. Obviously professional players are in the eyes of the public way more than most and we can also be easily provoked into acting uncharacteristically. However it does not excuse poor behaviour, especially on a recurring basis - this is a step forward by Riot in professionalising the LoL Pro Scene which they are very passionate about.
So, one of IWD's peers, under the same circumstances (meaning he could be a 'victim' of the same treat) is happy this is being enforced.
This came to a surprise to a lot of people imo. Especially considering there are people like HSGG, and so on, who actually are a noticeable menace in game, and have a known personality of being a complete dick in game, while IWD is fairly unknown; so when a severe punishment came out, it seemed rather out of the blue for most of us. I don't think anyone condones IWD's behavior, but the punishment should fit the crime. A ban on an account is already a huge punishment, after all it is essentially nullifying all investments put into that account (time and money). To continually ban all future accounts and investment into the game as social ostracism is more punishment than the crime of being a dick player.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
Hence why they promote it through... featured streamers? It should have been obvious for months and months that Riot does put some weight in the image of pub games. If they didn't, they wouldn't have put resources into their tribunal system, punish players for their streaming conduct, reward players for their streaming conduct, etc.
IWD doesn't even stream, I know he has one but he doesn't use it. So it's better to punish someone who has no fanbase rather than actual ragers who rage on stream because they have fanbases who will provide more of a backlash.
Are you going to actually take any points or are you just going to strawman everything that is contrary to you?
Is strawman the thing where I back off my original stance that riot doesnt market progamers from solo queue, agree that through streaming, their behavior in solo queue does make up a lot of their public image, but then make another point according to those assumptions.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
Hence why they promote it through... featured streamers? It should have been obvious for months and months that Riot does put some weight in the image of pub games. If they didn't, they wouldn't have put resources into their tribunal system, punish players for their streaming conduct, reward players for their streaming conduct, etc.
IWD doesn't even stream, I know he has one but he doesn't use it. So it's better to punish someone who has no fanbase rather than actual ragers who rage on stream because they have fanbases who will provide more of a backlash.
Are you going to actually take any points or are you just going to strawman everything that is contrary to you?
Is strawman the thing where I back off my original stance that riot doesnt market progamers from solo queue, agree that through streaming, their behavior in solo queue does make up a lot of their public image, but then make another point according to those assumptions.
Strawman is the thing where your response has nothing to do with the quoted post. It's like you're purposely being annoying by being a contrarian that grasps at straws.
[–]Wickd 1473 points 22 hours ago (1993|521) I think it's a good thing that riot keeps pro players to higher standards. I just really hope that he got a warning first.
To continually ban all future accounts and investment into the game as social ostracism is more punishment than the crime of being a dick player.
It's one year. Read please.
Fairly unknown in terms of pro-players, everyone knows the personality of the most popular streamers, but IWD was fairly unknown, aside from being jungler of Dig. No one really knew who he was. He's not like Scarra, or WoDx, or DL, or St.V or HSGG, or Chauster, or Froggen, or Snoopeh, etc etc.
You really think he'll have a future in LoL with an entire year of being unable to play the game? He can't even practice during that year. Especially considering the game has only been 3 years out~ So essentially, he's been barred for an entire year.
On December 06 2012 04:37 NeoIllusions wrote: bly, stop shitting the subforum. No kid. This has nothing to do with mob mentality.
please enlighten. How this has nothing to do with mob mentality, and in what way i'm shitting up the forum by arguing a stance.
Because you are stubbornly arguing that Riot was wrong in banning IWD for no other reason that believing than a “mob” of people demanded that he be banned, yet you provide no evidence of this fact. When asked for details, you shift your argument claiming that the ban was not “ethically justified”, which is the weakest argument available. It is like arguing public policy in law, which is the argument you make when you have no leg to stand on.
Take the post I am responding to. You edited out the part where NeoIllusions clearly states he played with IWD 3 times and all three times he was a jerk for no reason. Riot has stated they warned him 9 times before taking action. All reports from Riot and players that have interacted with IWD support the claim that he is a jerk when he plays a team game. Furthermore, he does not deny these claims in any way.
All evidence shows that you are incorrect and just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I'm not a League of Legends player, but I follow SC2 and Dota 2 and have been known to tune into the odd LoL stream.
This news honestly scares me. It really seems incredible that Riot/the tribunal have the authority to ban a player from tournament play, particularly due to their behavior in public matchmaking games. Being barred from the competitive scene for a full year seems like a death sentence - if you're not allowed to compete, how can you hope to maintain your skill level? Sure, I guess the player could just focus on scrims and such on a new account, but tournament/LAN experience is hard to compete with.
Furthermore I can't think it likely that Dignitas would keep a player on their books that they literally cannot send to any tournaments, so I would not be surprised to see the player being removed from their roster. This affects the entire Dignitas LoL squad, since they'll have to start working on team chemistry and communication with a new player. The impact of a year-long tournament ban for one player is going to affect the entire team.
On the other hand, I can't argue that since Riot is entrenched in the organization of LoL tournaments and the Tribunal system is itself built into the framework of LoL and the TOS/etc, that Riot isn't within their power and their rights to make this move. It definitely reminds me of KeSPA and other esports associations that are able to lay down the law and dole out punishments. If anything the main difference I can see is that KeSPA has more transparency regarding their decisions - have we seen logs of the player's behavior, or the internal discussion that led to this decision? - as well as the fact that (unless I'm mistaken) the Tribunal is managed by players, not professionals who might be held accountable for any poor calls.
This reminds me of the SC2 caster Orb getting fired from his casting position (with EG I think?) due to flaming on ladder.
Bottom line, I'd be inclined to think that the player will suffer a huge blow to his esports career, and that his team will have to move on in light of his ban. The implications of this on the rest of the pro players probably will be realized pretty soon, as I can't think players will take the risk of receiving a yearly ban - even accusations could seriously damage their ability to practice and compete. I don't like that any organization can wield such an overarching authority.
A big ban for a man but a small ban in the struggle to teach people who think being an asshole is ok when "it's only on the internet" that they're wrong. Boggles my mind how anyone still defends such a 8 bans into 30% flame increase build order.
Bly is right. This would NEVER happen to a player like Dyrus, TOO, or Hotshot even though they are just as toxic if not more. IWD did not have a fan base. He's an easy target for Riot to start their new manner intiative or w.e it is they're doing.
Also, lol@people who think Dyrus or Oddone only bm to their viewers on stream. At the very least IWD doesn't ragequit when a game goes wrong. I haven't seen ANY punishment for Dyrus doing this in front of 10k viewers. And there's a difference between banning someone and ending their career zzz.
It all makes me flashback to when TOO played and trolled with Hackedshotgg. Or when TSM colluted to throw a game. Their punishment was nowhere near severe.
On December 06 2012 04:56 greyconnect wrote: I'm not a League of Legends player, but I follow SC2 and Dota 2 and have been known to tune into the odd LoL stream.
This news honestly scares me. It really seems incredible that Riot/the tribunal have the authority to ban a player from tournament play, particularly due to their behavior in public matchmaking games. Being barred from the competitive scene for a full year seems like a death sentence - if you're not allowed to compete, how can you hope to maintain your skill level? Sure, I guess the player could just focus on scrims and such on a new account, but tournament/LAN experience is hard to compete with.
Furthermore I can't think it likely that Dignitas would keep a player on their books that they literally cannot send to any tournaments, so I would not be surprised to see the player being removed from their roster. This affects the entire Dignitas LoL squad, since they'll have to start working on team chemistry and communication with a new player. The impact of a year-long tournament ban for one player is going to affect the entire team.
On the other hand, I can't argue that since Riot is entrenched in the organization of LoL tournaments and the Tribunal system is itself built into the framework of LoL and the TOS/etc, that Riot isn't within their power and their rights to make this move. It definitely reminds me of KeSPA and other esports associations that are able to lay down the law and dole out punishments. If anything the main difference I can see is that KeSPA has more transparency regarding their decisions - have we seen logs of the player's behavior, or the internal discussion that led to this decision? - as well as the fact that (unless I'm mistaken) the Tribunal is managed by players, not professionals who might be held accountable for any poor calls.
This reminds me of the SC2 caster Orb getting fired from his casting position (with EG I think?) due to flaming on ladder.
Bottom line, I'd be inclined to think that the player will suffer a huge blow to his esports career, and that his team will have to move on in light of his ban. The implications of this on the rest of the pro players probably will be realized pretty soon, as I can't think players will take the risk of receiving a yearly ban - even accusations could seriously damage their ability to practice and compete. I don't like that any organization can wield such an overarching authority.
My 2c.
Note the 1 year ban is only for The Champions which is a league run by Riot itself. He is free to compete in IPL's MLG's ect.
On December 06 2012 04:58 HazMat wrote: Bly is right. This would NEVER happen to a player like Dyrus, TOO, or Hotshot even though they are just as toxic if not more. IWD did not have a fan base. He's an easy target for Riot to start their new manner intiative or w.e it is they're doing.
Also, lol@people who think Dyrus or Oddone only bm to their viewers on stream. At the very least IWD doesn't ragequit when a game goes wrong. I haven't seen ANY punishment for Dyrus doing this in front of 10k viewers. And there's a difference between banning someone and ending their career zzz.
It all makes me flashback to when TOO played and trolled with Hackedshotgg. Or when TSM colluted to throw a game. Their punishment was nowhere near severe.
Has TOO and Dyrus had there account warned/temp banned 8 times? if not then there is no difference in punishment yet.
On December 06 2012 04:57 wei2coolman wrote: Hmmm, I'm pretty sure I read hazmat saying that IWD wasn't as bad as some of the other pro players while in game~.
Eh, I know he rages. But so do other pros. I don't think it's fair to lose their career over temper though.
That said, if IWD truly did get warnings that he'd be banned from competetive play and he kept on raging then he'a just an idiot.
On December 06 2012 04:18 zulu_nation8 wrote: yes professional athletes get banned from their sport for something outside of professional sports when they do stuff like commit murder. In football/soccer, when have people ever been globally banned except for doping? Hence my first argument. How am I sprouting BS? I obviously know people have been affected when he got reported, I'm saying no one HERE has been affected yet people are too quick to be as unsympathetic as possible.
Because we can relate to the action of being harrassed or insulted in a game.
So when a person mugs someone on the street we should be sympathetic because he didn't mug us in particular? Are you trying to be annoying now?
Of course you don't get global bans on football, cause they are not necessary. Players have binding contracts that prohibit them from playing for other teams, so while a player is banned from X league is not like he can play in Y league while his banned.
so like I said, IWD has become the scapegoat for every solo queuer who has ever gotten harassed or insulted. The difference is he's not the people who have harassed you and you only know him from progaming, His image as a normal, even professional progamer is destroyed because of something that has nothing to do with anyone aside from like the 1k people at his elo who've queued into or with him, I don't even think he's played that many solo queue games last season. But the public outcry is so strong because apparently he's become the guy who just harassed you in game yesterday. I think this is called mob mentality, without concern for the individual.
IWD has not become a scapegoat. People get banned all the time for their soloQ behaviour. Progamers and steamers get banned for trolling in games (Dyrus come to my mind). This is just the first of someone being banned globally and I expect this to happen to other people under the same circumstances who do the same.
Since you discredit our opinion because we haven't been q'd against IWD, I'll paste Snoopeh's thoughts. Snoopeh has played vs IWD many times, more than you and me, and everyone in this conversation combined.
[–]snoopeh 1567 points 21 hours ago (2113|546) While I feel for the guys over at Dignitas and especially Odee (their Manager) who is a fantastic guy, as well as team owner. I don't know the extent of IWD's behaviour in or out of game, but I know that Riot would not enforce such punishment light heartedly - therefore I'd assume it's justified. It's sad to see anyone act in a disrespectful manner, even more so a professional player who's behaviour is reflected onto the entire community. I hope this sets an example to other top players that may think they have some sort of 'superior status,' which makes them immune from punishment. Obviously professional players are in the eyes of the public way more than most and we can also be easily provoked into acting uncharacteristically. However it does not excuse poor behaviour, especially on a recurring basis - this is a step forward by Riot in professionalising the LoL Pro Scene which they are very passionate about.
So, one of IWD's peers, under the same circumstances (meaning he could be a 'victim' of the same treat) is happy this is being enforced.
Ok I will elaborate further on my point that no one here has played with him in solo queue just in case people misinterpret it as another elitist argument.
I have never played with or against IWD in any queue. I did not know that he was a rager in solo queue until this thread was made. I know what he looks like and a bit of his personality from interviews and press. I'm assuming his exposure to me is the same as with most league players. From his interviews and press, I felt like he's just another standard progamer personality, his play is ok, some good games bad games, his interviews are ok, basic answers, nothing out of the ordinary. He looks kinda lame but that's my opinion.
All of a sudden I read he has been banned from progaming for a year, which practically is a lifetime ban. My first reaction, and the reaction I would hope reasonable people to have, is that wow, I don't wish that upon anyone, he must've done something really wrong. When I saw it was raging in solo queue, I was puzzled. Next I come into this thread reading posts as if he just raped everyone's family. I get that ragers are bad and make the game unfun. But to wish someone's life to be ruined over raging in a video game, especially someone that no one here has personally been the victim of, is a sentiment lacking in conscience and sympathy. If you disagree and think, no it's absolutely fine for me to hate someone I don't know and be glad his life is ruined over something I didn't know they did until 2 days ago, to people I don't know, then there's nothing more to say. If you perhaps agree that the reaction is harsh, then hence my point.
On December 06 2012 04:37 NeoIllusions wrote: bly, stop shitting the subforum. No kid. This has nothing to do with mob mentality.
please enlighten. How this has nothing to do with mob mentality, and in what way i'm shitting up the forum by arguing a stance.
Because you are stubbornly arguing that Riot was wrong in banning IWD for no other reason that believing than a “mob” of people demanded that he be banned, yet you provide no evidence of this fact. When asked for details, you shift your argument claiming that the ban was not “ethically justified”, which is the weakest argument available. It is like arguing public policy in law, which is the argument you make when you have no leg to stand on.
Take the post I am responding to. You edited out the part where NeoIllusions clearly states he played with IWD 3 times and all three times he was a jerk for no reason. Riot has stated they warned him 9 times before taking action. All reports from Riot and players that have interacted with IWD support the claim that he is a jerk when he plays a team game. Furthermore, he does not deny these claims in any way.
All evidence shows that you are incorrect and just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I'm saying the reaction of TL is an example of mob mentality, please link me to the part where I said Riot banned him because of mob mentality lol.
I'm arguing that, the majority reaction shows a disturbingly lack of sympathy, and also that, the decision is unethical because tourney and public ladder are separate. I'm also making the point that he has no solo queue image which then would make the decision irrational from a PR perspective, and that Riot is hypocritical for not doing the same to players who have fanbases. Finally I agree that he's an idiot for not tending to warnings, so you guys can stop bringing that up now.
On December 06 2012 04:58 HazMat wrote: Bly is right. This would NEVER happen to a player like Dyrus, TOO, or Hotshot even though they are just as toxic if not more. IWD did not have a fan base. He's an easy target for Riot to start their new manner intiative or w.e it is they're doing.
Also, lol@people who think Dyrus or Oddone only bm to their viewers on stream. At the very least IWD doesn't ragequit when a game goes wrong. I haven't seen ANY punishment for Dyrus doing this in front of 10k viewers. And there's a difference between banning someone and ending their career zzz.
It all makes me flashback to when TOO played and trolled with Hackedshotgg. Or when TSM colluted to throw a game. Their punishment was nowhere near severe.
I would hope that if Riot is starting a new manner initiative that they wouldn't end it with IWD just to make a point. We can't know this until they make another move, but if HSGG, TOO, or Dyrus came up in the Tribunal as much as IWD seems to have, Riot should ban them too. And I hope they plan to.
I guess my point is that just because there are other terrible members of the scene doesn't mean that IWD shouldn't be banned for his own bad behavior. We can only hope that Riot has their heads on their shoulders enough to keep doing their jobs and following their own principles. If not, then yes, fuck this. But ideally they'll punish everyone who was in the same position as IWD.
EDIT: And it's worth noting that by "the same position," I mean suitably warned. As should be everyone at risk of a permanent ban.
Why would it scare you? It's 100% preventable. Just don't be a bm douche enough to get warned 9 times. Pretty simple no? Shouldn't scare anyone really and I have 0 sympathy for him. This is 100% on him and him alone.
Some people are acting like riot is some scary big brother waiting to hit everyone with the banhammer and ruin their lives. No riot's message is simple - just act like a civilized human being online and you have nothing to worry about.
seems to me that they are having a lot of gamer culture problems, not with pro players per se but with kids playing lol in general. so this is more like a pr move.
the player is pretty dumb though for what he did, but in a professional sport these matters are usually handled by either a player association internally, or through negotiation between the league and the players.
On December 06 2012 04:57 wei2coolman wrote: Hmmm, I'm pretty sure I read hazmat saying that IWD wasn't as bad as some of the other pro players while in game~.
Eh, I know he rages. But so do other pros. I don't think it's fair to lose their career over temper though.
That said, if IWD truly did get warnings that he'd be banned from competetive play and he kept on raging then he'a just an idiot.
Wouldn't put it past them to continue doing what they've been doing. Raging and flaming at people, it's all a habit, and habits are hard to break. All it takes is one unbearable game for 9 people to report you. There's a reason why a lot of tribunal'd players don't show much improvement after each ban.
With regards to whether the punishment was accurate as to it's severity, I believe that one year was a perfectly accurate punishment. There are several factors that should be considered as to IWD's punishment. 1)His permaban for soloq 2)The salary system for S3 3)The fact that Dig was already notified of this potentially happening previously (assuming this information is indeed correct) 4)The number of tournaments that are considered Champ Series tournaments that would actually happen in a year
If he were just given a couple tournament suspension, then this toxic behavior would continue in short order, seeing as he was given time to change already. That would only be a band-aid for the problem, seeing as it is highly unlikely for IWD to change his ways. Combine that with the fact that Riot is effectively employing IWD, and the year long ban makes more sense.
With regards to IWD being targeted as opposed to more popular ragers such as TOO or Dyrus, the bottom line is that Riot is taking a method that renders looking at others irrelevant by looking solely at tribunal. From Riot's perspective, it doesn't matter if the other rage pros do what they do because they aren't being seen as problematic enough by other players to be sent to the tribunal and subsequently warned/banned multiple times. In that case, it's the fault of the people who queue with Dyrus, TOO, etc. (if anyone's fault at all) in that they are not reporting them to the level that would be appropriate to their rage, assuming it's at a similar level to IWD (I don't watch pro streams so I can't comment on how bad they are at all).
On December 06 2012 04:58 HazMat wrote: Bly is right. This would NEVER happen to a player like Dyrus, TOO, or Hotshot even though they are just as toxic if not more. IWD did not have a fan base. He's an easy target for Riot to start their new manner intiative or w.e it is they're doing.
Also, lol@people who think Dyrus or Oddone only bm to their viewers on stream. At the very least IWD doesn't ragequit when a game goes wrong. I haven't seen ANY punishment for Dyrus doing this in front of 10k viewers. And there's a difference between banning someone and ending their career zzz.
It all makes me flashback to when TOO played and trolled with Hackedshotgg. Or when TSM colluted to throw a game. Their punishment was nowhere near severe.
I would hope that if Riot is starting a new manner initiative that they wouldn't end it with IWD just to make a point. We can't know this until they make another move, but if HSGG, TOO, or Dyrus came up in the Tribunal as much as IWD seems to have, Riot should ban them too. And I hope they plan to.
I guess my point is that just because there are other terrible members of the scene doesn't mean that IWD shouldn't be banned for his own bad behavior. We can only hope that Riot has their heads on their shoulders enough to keep doing their jobs and following their own principles. If not, then yes, fuck this. But ideally they'll punish everyone who was in the same position as IWD.
See I on the other hand don't care if players are BM in solo queue. Shit like saying "stfu retard" in a PRO MATCH should be though, and AFAIK Diamond had nothing happen to him from Riot. Or screen peeking at a tourney match.
How does Blizzard handle this? Afaik Idra doesn't get banned for bm'ing in ladder matches.
I just don't think it's fair to put these players to a higher standard than ourselves.
On December 06 2012 04:58 HazMat wrote: Bly is right. This would NEVER happen to a player like Dyrus, TOO, or Hotshot even though they are just as toxic if not more. IWD did not have a fan base. He's an easy target for Riot to start their new manner intiative or w.e it is they're doing.
Also, lol@people who think Dyrus or Oddone only bm to their viewers on stream. At the very least IWD doesn't ragequit when a game goes wrong. I haven't seen ANY punishment for Dyrus doing this in front of 10k viewers. And there's a difference between banning someone and ending their career zzz.
It all makes me flashback to when TOO played and trolled with Hackedshotgg. Or when TSM colluted to throw a game. Their punishment was nowhere near severe.
I would hope that if Riot is starting a new manner initiative that they wouldn't end it with IWD just to make a point. We can't know this until they make another move, but if HSGG, TOO, or Dyrus came up in the Tribunal as much as IWD seems to have, Riot should ban them too. And I hope they plan to.
I guess my point is that just because there are other terrible members of the scene doesn't mean that IWD shouldn't be banned for his own bad behavior. We can only hope that Riot has their heads on their shoulders enough to keep doing their jobs and following their own principles. If not, then yes, fuck this. But ideally they'll punish everyone who was in the same position as IWD.
How does Blizzard handle this? Afaik Idra doesn't get banned for bm'ing in ladder matches.
Idra did get banned for typing that he wanted david kim to be raped by a tire iron in a ladder game.
I'm not a League of Legends player, but I follow SC2 and Dota 2 and have been known to tune into the odd LoL stream.
This news honestly scares me. It really seems incredible that Riot/the tribunal have the authority to ban a player from tournament play, particularly due to their behavior in public matchmaking games. Being barred from the competitive scene for a full year seems like a death sentence - if you're not allowed to compete, how can you hope to maintain your skill level? Sure, I guess the player could just focus on scrims and such on a new account, but tournament/LAN experience is hard to compete with.
Furthermore I can't think it likely that Dignitas would keep a player on their books that they literally cannot send to any tournaments, so I would not be surprised to see the player being removed from their roster. This affects the entire Dignitas LoL squad, since they'll have to start working on team chemistry and communication with a new player. The impact of a year-long tournament ban for one player is going to affect the entire team.
On the other hand, I can't argue that since Riot is entrenched in the organization of LoL tournaments and the Tribunal system is itself built into the framework of LoL and the TOS/etc, that Riot isn't within their power and their rights to make this move. It definitely reminds me of KeSPA and other esports associations that are able to lay down the law and dole out punishments. If anything the main difference I can see is that KeSPA has more transparency regarding their decisions - have we seen logs of the player's behavior, or the internal discussion that led to this decision? - as well as the fact that (unless I'm mistaken) the Tribunal is managed by players, not professionals who might be held accountable for any poor calls.
This reminds me of the SC2 caster Orb getting fired from his casting position (with EG I think?) due to flaming on ladder.
Bottom line, I'd be inclined to think that the player will suffer a huge blow to his esports career, and that his team will have to move on in light of his ban. The implications of this on the rest of the pro players probably will be realized pretty soon, as I can't think players will take the risk of receiving a yearly ban - even accusations could seriously damage their ability to practice and compete. I don't like that any organization can wield such an overarching authority.
My 2c.
This is nothing like what happened with Orb, Orb wasn't warned 9 times. He was fired on the spot for screens dug up from past events that severely hurt EG's image due to plenty of hateful and racist remarks made while raging.
IWD went to Tribunal 9 times AND Riot even contacted dignitas about him. He had so many chances, and always fucked them up.
On December 06 2012 04:58 HazMat wrote: Bly is right. This would NEVER happen to a player like Dyrus, TOO, or Hotshot even though they are just as toxic if not more. IWD did not have a fan base. He's an easy target for Riot to start their new manner intiative or w.e it is they're doing.
Also, lol@people who think Dyrus or Oddone only bm to their viewers on stream. At the very least IWD doesn't ragequit when a game goes wrong. I haven't seen ANY punishment for Dyrus doing this in front of 10k viewers. And there's a difference between banning someone and ending their career zzz.
It all makes me flashback to when TOO played and trolled with Hackedshotgg. Or when TSM colluted to throw a game. Their punishment was nowhere near severe.
I would hope that if Riot is starting a new manner initiative that they wouldn't end it with IWD just to make a point. We can't know this until they make another move, but if HSGG, TOO, or Dyrus came up in the Tribunal as much as IWD seems to have, Riot should ban them too. And I hope they plan to.
I guess my point is that just because there are other terrible members of the scene doesn't mean that IWD shouldn't be banned for his own bad behavior. We can only hope that Riot has their heads on their shoulders enough to keep doing their jobs and following their own principles. If not, then yes, fuck this. But ideally they'll punish everyone who was in the same position as IWD.
See I on the other hand don't care if players are BM in solo queue. Shit like saying "stfu retard" in a PRO MATCH should be though, and AFAIK Diamond had nothing happen to him from Riot. Or screen peeking at a tourney match.
How does Blizzard handle this? Afaik Idra doesn't get banned for bm'ing in ladder matches.
I just don't think it's fair to put these players to a higher standard than ourselves.
Honestly, I've very rarely heard of Blizzard banning anyone for BM, only for hacking.
On December 06 2012 05:04 HazMat wrote: I mean just think of the shitstorm that would ensue if this happned to a more famous player lol. I wouldn't be able to handle the baylife.
If a TSM member got banned, I don't think I could imagine the shitstorm O.o Riot doesn't have the balls to actually ban a player with a big fanbase, so they went for the easy PR ban, on IWD. He's a pro-player, but not big enough to have that big of a backlash. I mean, just imagine if Dyrus got banned for an entire year. lulz,
On December 06 2012 04:57 wei2coolman wrote: Hmmm, I'm pretty sure I read hazmat saying that IWD wasn't as bad as some of the other pro players while in game~.
Eh, I know he rages. But so do other pros. I don't think it's fair to lose their career over temper though.
That said, if IWD truly did get warnings that he'd be banned from competetive play and he kept on raging then he'a just an idiot.
Wouldn't put it past them to continue doing what they've been doing. Raging and flaming at people, it's all a habit, and habits are hard to break. All it takes is one unbearable game for 9 people to report you. There's a reason why a lot of tribunal'd players don't show much improvement after each ban.
50% of the people warned by the Tribunal never appear before it again
On December 06 2012 04:57 wei2coolman wrote: Hmmm, I'm pretty sure I read hazmat saying that IWD wasn't as bad as some of the other pro players while in game~.
Eh, I know he rages. But so do other pros. I don't think it's fair to lose their career over temper though.
That said, if IWD truly did get warnings that he'd be banned from competetive play and he kept on raging then he'a just an idiot.
Wouldn't put it past them to continue doing what they've been doing. Raging and flaming at people, it's all a habit, and habits are hard to break. All it takes is one unbearable game for 9 people to report you. There's a reason why a lot of tribunal'd players don't show much improvement after each ban.
50% of the people warned by the Tribunal never appear before it again
That's still 50% of offenders not reforming. That's not a very impressive stat. That's like the equivalent of how many people go to jail and end up going back to jail.
On December 06 2012 04:18 zulu_nation8 wrote: yes professional athletes get banned from their sport for something outside of professional sports when they do stuff like commit murder. In football/soccer, when have people ever been globally banned except for doping? Hence my first argument. How am I sprouting BS? I obviously know people have been affected when he got reported, I'm saying no one HERE has been affected yet people are too quick to be as unsympathetic as possible.
Because we can relate to the action of being harrassed or insulted in a game.
So when a person mugs someone on the street we should be sympathetic because he didn't mug us in particular? Are you trying to be annoying now?
Of course you don't get global bans on football, cause they are not necessary. Players have binding contracts that prohibit them from playing for other teams, so while a player is banned from X league is not like he can play in Y league while his banned.
so like I said, IWD has become the scapegoat for every solo queuer who has ever gotten harassed or insulted. The difference is he's not the people who have harassed you and you only know him from progaming, His image as a normal, even professional progamer is destroyed because of something that has nothing to do with anyone aside from like the 1k people at his elo who've queued into or with him, I don't even think he's played that many solo queue games last season. But the public outcry is so strong because apparently he's become the guy who just harassed you in game yesterday. I think this is called mob mentality, without concern for the individual.
IWD has not become a scapegoat. People get banned all the time for their soloQ behaviour. Progamers and steamers get banned for trolling in games (Dyrus come to my mind). This is just the first of someone being banned globally and I expect this to happen to other people under the same circumstances who do the same.
Since you discredit our opinion because we haven't been q'd against IWD, I'll paste Snoopeh's thoughts. Snoopeh has played vs IWD many times, more than you and me, and everyone in this conversation combined.
[–]snoopeh 1567 points 21 hours ago (2113|546) While I feel for the guys over at Dignitas and especially Odee (their Manager) who is a fantastic guy, as well as team owner. I don't know the extent of IWD's behaviour in or out of game, but I know that Riot would not enforce such punishment light heartedly - therefore I'd assume it's justified. It's sad to see anyone act in a disrespectful manner, even more so a professional player who's behaviour is reflected onto the entire community. I hope this sets an example to other top players that may think they have some sort of 'superior status,' which makes them immune from punishment. Obviously professional players are in the eyes of the public way more than most and we can also be easily provoked into acting uncharacteristically. However it does not excuse poor behaviour, especially on a recurring basis - this is a step forward by Riot in professionalising the LoL Pro Scene which they are very passionate about.
So, one of IWD's peers, under the same circumstances (meaning he could be a 'victim' of the same treat) is happy this is being enforced.
Ok I will elaborate further on my point that no one here has played with him in solo queue just in case people misinterpret it as another elitist argument.
I have never played with or against IWD in any queue. I did not know that he was a rager in solo queue until this thread was made. I know what he looks like and a bit of his personality from interviews and press. I'm assuming his exposure to me is the same as with most league players. From his interviews and press, I felt like he's just another standard progamer personality, his play is ok, some good games bad games, his interviews are ok, basic answers, nothing out of the ordinary. He looks kinda lame but that's my opinion.
All of a sudden I read he has been banned from progaming for a year, which practically is a lifetime ban. My first reaction, and the reaction I would hope reasonable people to have, is that wow, I don't wish that upon anyone, he must've done something really wrong. When I saw it was raging in solo queue, I was puzzled. Next I come into this thread reading posts as if he just raped everyone's family. I get that ragers are bad and make the game unfun. But to wish someone's life to be ruined over raging in a video game, especially someone that no one here has personally been the victim of, is a sentiment lacking in conscience and sympathy. If you disagree and think, no it's absolutely fine for me to hate someone I don't know and be glad his life is ruined over something I didn't know they did until 2 days ago, to people I don't know, then there's nothing more to say. If you perhaps agree that the reaction is harsh, then hence my point.
I don't know why I'm forced to one of two stances. I don't hate IWD.
But I'm happy Riot is taking reports seriously, even if they have to do this to pro players.
You can see how they are making changes to the tribunal (ribbons and what not) and being more proactive in bans (the whole 0.1% toxic players deal).
Progaming figures are a big deal to them as well, since they are employing and promoting them in S3. If those players are runing the image Riot is trying to promote, I see them in their right to act accordinly. As I said, I just expect this to happen with other players who did the same.
You are also saying "raging over a video game" like it's something silly it should be looked over. The "video game" is his job. Anyone who has ever worked at any formal job knows you have to behave when doing your job, even if it's not said to you.
Besides all that, Dignitas was warned about his behaviour, so you can't really blame Riot after 8 warnings on IWD and a specific warning to dignitas.
Has Dignitas commented on this issue, the warning? IWD?
On December 06 2012 04:58 HazMat wrote: Bly is right. This would NEVER happen to a player like Dyrus, TOO, or Hotshot even though they are just as toxic if not more. IWD did not have a fan base. He's an easy target for Riot to start their new manner intiative or w.e it is they're doing.
Also, lol@people who think Dyrus or Oddone only bm to their viewers on stream. At the very least IWD doesn't ragequit when a game goes wrong. I haven't seen ANY punishment for Dyrus doing this in front of 10k viewers. And there's a difference between banning someone and ending their career zzz.
It all makes me flashback to when TOO played and trolled with Hackedshotgg. Or when TSM colluted to throw a game. Their punishment was nowhere near severe.
I would hope that if Riot is starting a new manner initiative that they wouldn't end it with IWD just to make a point. We can't know this until they make another move, but if HSGG, TOO, or Dyrus came up in the Tribunal as much as IWD seems to have, Riot should ban them too. And I hope they plan to.
I guess my point is that just because there are other terrible members of the scene doesn't mean that IWD shouldn't be banned for his own bad behavior. We can only hope that Riot has their heads on their shoulders enough to keep doing their jobs and following their own principles. If not, then yes, fuck this. But ideally they'll punish everyone who was in the same position as IWD.
See I on the other hand don't care if players are BM in solo queue. Shit like saying "stfu retard" in a PRO MATCH should be though, and AFAIK Diamond had nothing happen to him from Riot. Or screen peeking at a tourney match.
How does Blizzard handle this? Afaik Idra doesn't get banned for bm'ing in ladder matches.
I just don't think it's fair to put these players to a higher standard than ourselves.
I had a post higher up the page with B.net's harassment policy. But then, IdrA's still out there, so take that with a grain of salt.
And unfortunately, I'm an idealist... I would like to hold ALL of us to a higher standard. And BM'ing then getting banned after warnings should BE the standard.
IdrA should probably be banned too. But I can see why that kind of goes under the radar because of how SC2 works. Since player cooperation naturally has to be more important in LoL, so should the attention to the harassment guidelines, etc.
On December 06 2012 04:18 zulu_nation8 wrote: yes professional athletes get banned from their sport for something outside of professional sports when they do stuff like commit murder. In football/soccer, when have people ever been globally banned except for doping? Hence my first argument. How am I sprouting BS? I obviously know people have been affected when he got reported, I'm saying no one HERE has been affected yet people are too quick to be as unsympathetic as possible.
Because we can relate to the action of being harrassed or insulted in a game.
So when a person mugs someone on the street we should be sympathetic because he didn't mug us in particular? Are you trying to be annoying now?
Of course you don't get global bans on football, cause they are not necessary. Players have binding contracts that prohibit them from playing for other teams, so while a player is banned from X league is not like he can play in Y league while his banned.
so like I said, IWD has become the scapegoat for every solo queuer who has ever gotten harassed or insulted. The difference is he's not the people who have harassed you and you only know him from progaming, His image as a normal, even professional progamer is destroyed because of something that has nothing to do with anyone aside from like the 1k people at his elo who've queued into or with him, I don't even think he's played that many solo queue games last season. But the public outcry is so strong because apparently he's become the guy who just harassed you in game yesterday. I think this is called mob mentality, without concern for the individual.
IWD has not become a scapegoat. People get banned all the time for their soloQ behaviour. Progamers and steamers get banned for trolling in games (Dyrus come to my mind). This is just the first of someone being banned globally and I expect this to happen to other people under the same circumstances who do the same.
Since you discredit our opinion because we haven't been q'd against IWD, I'll paste Snoopeh's thoughts. Snoopeh has played vs IWD many times, more than you and me, and everyone in this conversation combined.
[–]snoopeh 1567 points 21 hours ago (2113|546) While I feel for the guys over at Dignitas and especially Odee (their Manager) who is a fantastic guy, as well as team owner. I don't know the extent of IWD's behaviour in or out of game, but I know that Riot would not enforce such punishment light heartedly - therefore I'd assume it's justified. It's sad to see anyone act in a disrespectful manner, even more so a professional player who's behaviour is reflected onto the entire community. I hope this sets an example to other top players that may think they have some sort of 'superior status,' which makes them immune from punishment. Obviously professional players are in the eyes of the public way more than most and we can also be easily provoked into acting uncharacteristically. However it does not excuse poor behaviour, especially on a recurring basis - this is a step forward by Riot in professionalising the LoL Pro Scene which they are very passionate about.
So, one of IWD's peers, under the same circumstances (meaning he could be a 'victim' of the same treat) is happy this is being enforced.
Ok I will elaborate further on my point that no one here has played with him in solo queue just in case people misinterpret it as another elitist argument.
I have never played with or against IWD in any queue. I did not know that he was a rager in solo queue until this thread was made. I know what he looks like and a bit of his personality from interviews and press. I'm assuming his exposure to me is the same as with most league players. From his interviews and press, I felt like he's just another standard progamer personality, his play is ok, some good games bad games, his interviews are ok, basic answers, nothing out of the ordinary. He looks kinda lame but that's my opinion.
All of a sudden I read he has been banned from progaming for a year, which practically is a lifetime ban. My first reaction, and the reaction I would hope reasonable people to have, is that wow, I don't wish that upon anyone, he must've done something really wrong. When I saw it was raging in solo queue, I was puzzled. Next I come into this thread reading posts as if he just raped everyone's family. I get that ragers are bad and make the game unfun. But to wish someone's life to be ruined over raging in a video game, especially someone that no one here has personally been the victim of, is a sentiment lacking in conscience and sympathy. If you disagree and think, no it's absolutely fine for me to hate someone I don't know and be glad his life is ruined over something I didn't know they did until 2 days ago, to people I don't know, then there's nothing more to say. If you perhaps agree that the reaction is harsh, then hence my point.
There is no question that IWD deserved the permaban after being punished by the tribunal multiple times (any time after the first one is just IWD being an idiot). What I'm getting from you is whether the 1 year ban fit the crime. Maybe, maybe not. It's not Riot's responsibility to ensure that IWD has a good life after the "crime" has been committed. I just think that you've become too attached to all the potential consequences in IWD's life after being banned.
On December 06 2012 04:58 HazMat wrote: Bly is right. This would NEVER happen to a player like Dyrus, TOO, or Hotshot even though they are just as toxic if not more. IWD did not have a fan base. He's an easy target for Riot to start their new manner intiative or w.e it is they're doing.
Also, lol@people who think Dyrus or Oddone only bm to their viewers on stream. At the very least IWD doesn't ragequit when a game goes wrong. I haven't seen ANY punishment for Dyrus doing this in front of 10k viewers. And there's a difference between banning someone and ending their career zzz.
It all makes me flashback to when TOO played and trolled with Hackedshotgg. Or when TSM colluted to throw a game. Their punishment was nowhere near severe.
I would hope that if Riot is starting a new manner initiative that they wouldn't end it with IWD just to make a point. We can't know this until they make another move, but if HSGG, TOO, or Dyrus came up in the Tribunal as much as IWD seems to have, Riot should ban them too. And I hope they plan to.
I guess my point is that just because there are other terrible members of the scene doesn't mean that IWD shouldn't be banned for his own bad behavior. We can only hope that Riot has their heads on their shoulders enough to keep doing their jobs and following their own principles. If not, then yes, fuck this. But ideally they'll punish everyone who was in the same position as IWD.
See I on the other hand don't care if players are BM in solo queue. Shit like saying "stfu retard" in a PRO MATCH should be though, and AFAIK Diamond had nothing happen to him from Riot. Or screen peeking at a tourney match.
How does Blizzard handle this? Afaik Idra doesn't get banned for bm'ing in ladder matches.
I just don't think it's fair to put these players to a higher standard than ourselves.
Honestly, I've very rarely heard of Blizzard banning anyone for BM, only for hacking.
Yeah, like it should be the team's choice to drop the player if he's hurting the team's image. Stephano got a 1 month ban from competitive play for thay stupid molestation joke by EG, not by Blizzard. (not the best example, like I said I haven't followed SC2 too closely in a while. Maybe Naniwa or Ret trolling and then being punished by their team is a more fitting analogy.)
If Dig felt IWD's attitude in solo queue was hurting their image they could have dropped him, but we all know no one cared about his rage. When the rage gets to tournaments then it becomes a problem.
Meh, I also think this is part of the problem. Riot wants to be the LoLesports organization, as well as provider, and it leads to this sort of ordeal. Riot too Big Brother imo.
On December 06 2012 04:18 zulu_nation8 wrote: yes professional athletes get banned from their sport for something outside of professional sports when they do stuff like commit murder. In football/soccer, when have people ever been globally banned except for doping? Hence my first argument. How am I sprouting BS? I obviously know people have been affected when he got reported, I'm saying no one HERE has been affected yet people are too quick to be as unsympathetic as possible.
Because we can relate to the action of being harrassed or insulted in a game.
So when a person mugs someone on the street we should be sympathetic because he didn't mug us in particular? Are you trying to be annoying now?
Of course you don't get global bans on football, cause they are not necessary. Players have binding contracts that prohibit them from playing for other teams, so while a player is banned from X league is not like he can play in Y league while his banned.
so like I said, IWD has become the scapegoat for every solo queuer who has ever gotten harassed or insulted. The difference is he's not the people who have harassed you and you only know him from progaming, His image as a normal, even professional progamer is destroyed because of something that has nothing to do with anyone aside from like the 1k people at his elo who've queued into or with him, I don't even think he's played that many solo queue games last season. But the public outcry is so strong because apparently he's become the guy who just harassed you in game yesterday. I think this is called mob mentality, without concern for the individual.
IWD has not become a scapegoat. People get banned all the time for their soloQ behaviour. Progamers and steamers get banned for trolling in games (Dyrus come to my mind). This is just the first of someone being banned globally and I expect this to happen to other people under the same circumstances who do the same.
Since you discredit our opinion because we haven't been q'd against IWD, I'll paste Snoopeh's thoughts. Snoopeh has played vs IWD many times, more than you and me, and everyone in this conversation combined.
[–]snoopeh 1567 points 21 hours ago (2113|546) While I feel for the guys over at Dignitas and especially Odee (their Manager) who is a fantastic guy, as well as team owner. I don't know the extent of IWD's behaviour in or out of game, but I know that Riot would not enforce such punishment light heartedly - therefore I'd assume it's justified. It's sad to see anyone act in a disrespectful manner, even more so a professional player who's behaviour is reflected onto the entire community. I hope this sets an example to other top players that may think they have some sort of 'superior status,' which makes them immune from punishment. Obviously professional players are in the eyes of the public way more than most and we can also be easily provoked into acting uncharacteristically. However it does not excuse poor behaviour, especially on a recurring basis - this is a step forward by Riot in professionalising the LoL Pro Scene which they are very passionate about.
So, one of IWD's peers, under the same circumstances (meaning he could be a 'victim' of the same treat) is happy this is being enforced.
Ok I will elaborate further on my point that no one here has played with him in solo queue just in case people misinterpret it as another elitist argument.
I have never played with or against IWD in any queue. I did not know that he was a rager in solo queue until this thread was made. I know what he looks like and a bit of his personality from interviews and press. I'm assuming his exposure to me is the same as with most league players. From his interviews and press, I felt like he's just another standard progamer personality, his play is ok, some good games bad games, his interviews are ok, basic answers, nothing out of the ordinary. He looks kinda lame but that's my opinion.
All of a sudden I read he has been banned from progaming for a year, which practically is a lifetime ban. My first reaction, and the reaction I would hope reasonable people to have, is that wow, I don't wish that upon anyone, he must've done something really wrong. When I saw it was raging in solo queue, I was puzzled. Next I come into this thread reading posts as if he just raped everyone's family. I get that ragers are bad and make the game unfun. But to wish someone's life to be ruined over raging in a video game, especially someone that no one here has personally been the victim of, is a sentiment lacking in conscience and sympathy. If you disagree and think, no it's absolutely fine for me to hate someone I don't know and be glad his life is ruined over something I didn't know they did until 2 days ago, to people I don't know, then there's nothing more to say. If you perhaps agree that the reaction is harsh, then hence my point.
There is no question that IWD deserved the permaban after being punished by the tribunal multiple times (any time after the first one is just IWD being an idiot). What I'm getting from you is whether the 1 year ban fit the crime. Maybe, maybe not. It's not Riot's responsibility to ensure that IWD has a good life after the "crime" has been committed. I just think that you've become too attached to all the potential consequences in IWD's life after being banned.
On December 06 2012 05:19 wei2coolman wrote: Meh, I also think this is part of the problem. Riot wants to be the LoLesports organization, as well as provider, and it leads to this sort of ordeal. Riot too Big Brother imo.
How is this to Big Brother. He is banned from the Champions. a league organised by Riot itself in which they pay salary to players.
On December 06 2012 04:37 NeoIllusions wrote: bly, stop shitting the subforum. No kid. This has nothing to do with mob mentality.
Edit: I've played with IWD in 3s a bunch of times and he was inflammatory towards my team, constantly spamming "how did you guys get to this elo" in a slightly more profane way. Edit2: Listening to SotL, will comment here in a moment. Let's just say people are reporting you by the handful, bly. Sometimes you just don't know when to let go.
haha "no kid"
is that really how moderators act now? riot is not the only one power hungry I see
People have a difference in opinion, your opinion is not any more correct than his.
On December 06 2012 05:19 wei2coolman wrote: Meh, I also think this is part of the problem. Riot wants to be the LoLesports organization, as well as provider, and it leads to this sort of ordeal. Riot too Big Brother imo.
How is this to Big Brother. He is banned from the Champions. a league organised by Riot itself in which they pay salary to players.
they have all the leverage, the tournament scene is so centralized around Riot's money, that a ban on Riot tournaments pretty much makes him a toxic pick up for any team.
If I work at a store, then I'm off-duty and I'm shopping at the store and I yell obscenities at some customers I'm going to get fired even though I'm not technically working at that time. Hell if you go to a bar with a coworker after hours and get too drunk and grope his/her butt in an inappropriate way, the coworker can complain to your manager and you will get fired for that too. That's real life.
People have a difference in opinion, your opinion is not any more correct than his.
People can easily have wrong opinions. "No one thought he was toxic" is a wrong opinion, given how many people have come out and said he was toxic.
On December 06 2012 04:58 HazMat wrote: Bly is right. This would NEVER happen to a player like Dyrus, TOO, or Hotshot even though they are just as toxic if not more. IWD did not have a fan base. He's an easy target for Riot to start their new manner intiative or w.e it is they're doing.
Also, lol@people who think Dyrus or Oddone only bm to their viewers on stream. At the very least IWD doesn't ragequit when a game goes wrong. I haven't seen ANY punishment for Dyrus doing this in front of 10k viewers. And there's a difference between banning someone and ending their career zzz.
It all makes me flashback to when TOO played and trolled with Hackedshotgg. Or when TSM colluted to throw a game. Their punishment was nowhere near severe.
I would hope that if Riot is starting a new manner initiative that they wouldn't end it with IWD just to make a point. We can't know this until they make another move, but if HSGG, TOO, or Dyrus came up in the Tribunal as much as IWD seems to have, Riot should ban them too. And I hope they plan to.
I guess my point is that just because there are other terrible members of the scene doesn't mean that IWD shouldn't be banned for his own bad behavior. We can only hope that Riot has their heads on their shoulders enough to keep doing their jobs and following their own principles. If not, then yes, fuck this. But ideally they'll punish everyone who was in the same position as IWD.
See I on the other hand don't care if players are BM in solo queue. Shit like saying "stfu retard" in a PRO MATCH should be though, and AFAIK Diamond had nothing happen to him from Riot. Or screen peeking at a tourney match.
How does Blizzard handle this? Afaik Idra doesn't get banned for bm'ing in ladder matches.
I just don't think it's fair to put these players to a higher standard than ourselves.
Honestly, I've very rarely heard of Blizzard banning anyone for BM, only for hacking.
Yeah, like it should be the team's choice to drop the player if he's hurting the team's image. Stephano got a 1 month ban from competitive play for thay stupid molestation joke by EG, not by Blizzard. (not the best example, like I said I haven't followed SC2 too closely in a while. Maybe Naniwa or Ret trolling and then being punished by their team is a more fitting analogy.)
If Dig felt IWD's attitude in solo queue was hurting their image they could have dropped him, but we all know no one cared about his rage. When the rage gets to tournaments then it becomes a problem.
Stephano got suspended by the organizations he gets his salary from. Same for IWD. Also trolling/being bm in lol doesn't affect the enemy team most of the time, only your team. Which case is impossible in SC2, this is why we don't see blizzard handing out bans left and right for being bm. Also communicating in lol has a lot to do with the game itself (be it by chatting or by pings), which again isn't the case for sc2. It's just silly to compare the two games, imo.
On December 06 2012 04:37 NeoIllusions wrote: bly, stop shitting the subforum. No kid. This has nothing to do with mob mentality.
Edit: I've played with IWD in 3s a bunch of times and he was inflammatory towards my team, constantly spamming "how did you guys get to this elo" in a slightly more profane way. Edit2: Listening to SotL, will comment here in a moment. Let's just say people are reporting you by the handful, bly. Sometimes you just don't know when to let go.
haha "no kid"
is that really how moderators act now? riot is not the only one power hungry I see
People have a difference in opinion, your opinion is not any more correct than his.
On December 06 2012 04:37 NeoIllusions wrote: bly, stop shitting the subforum. No kid. This has nothing to do with mob mentality.
Edit: I've played with IWD in 3s a bunch of times and he was inflammatory towards my team, constantly spamming "how did you guys get to this elo" in a slightly more profane way. Edit2: Listening to SotL, will comment here in a moment. Let's just say people are reporting you by the handful, bly. Sometimes you just don't know when to let go.
haha "no kid"
is that really how moderators act now? riot is not the only one power hungry I see
People have a difference in opinion, your opinion is not any more correct than his.
As Neo says in a later post, it's because he was getting a ton of reports about bly's posts, not because of his own personal opinions. Also, TL moderators have always acted with that kind of tone, and it isn't a bad thing. Just look at the Ban List. That was also a warning, not an outright forum-level-action, so power-hungry is not the word you're looking for.
On December 06 2012 05:27 Pooshlmer wrote: HazMat, are you suggesting that Riot is somehow misleading us when they say he was 300% worse than the next pro player?
Yes. Which isn't hard to believe when you have context. Though my #1 concern is not what pro is more toxic but that they be banned from competitibe play for being toxic in solo queue.
And yeah, it's really not fair to warn Bly for being resolute in his opinion.
On December 06 2012 04:37 NeoIllusions wrote: bly, stop shitting the subforum. No kid. This has nothing to do with mob mentality.
Edit: I've played with IWD in 3s a bunch of times and he was inflammatory towards my team, constantly spamming "how did you guys get to this elo" in a slightly more profane way. Edit2: Listening to SotL, will comment here in a moment. Let's just say people are reporting you by the handful, bly. Sometimes you just don't know when to let go.
haha "no kid"
is that really how moderators act now? riot is not the only one power hungry I see
People have a difference in opinion, your opinion is not any more correct than his.
As Neo says in a later post, it's because he was getting a ton of reports about bly's posts, not because of his own personal opinions. Also, TL moderators have always acted with that kind of tone, and it isn't a bad thing. Just look at the Ban List. That was also a warning, not an outright forum-level-action, so power-hungry is not the word you're looking for.
I just find it ironic that he is talking about IWD being toxic and then using that to address some one, which is just as condescending.
they have all the leverage, the tournament scene is so centralized around Riot's money, that a ban on Riot tournaments pretty much makes him a toxic pick up for any team.
The thing is that even if there was only a one tourney suspension and Dig dropped him because of that, he would still be seen as a toxic pick up due to a combo of toxic behavior and the low chance of fixing said toxic behavior that got him into the situation in the first place.
they have all the leverage, the tournament scene is so centralized around Riot's money, that a ban on Riot tournaments pretty much makes him a toxic pick up for any team.
The thing is that even if there was only a one tourney suspension and Dig dropped him because of that, he would still be seen as a toxic pick up due to a combo of toxic behavior and the low chance of fixing said toxic behavior that got him into the situation in the first place.
That's for teams to determine, not Riot to force the issue.
On December 06 2012 04:37 NeoIllusions wrote: bly, stop shitting the subforum. No kid. This has nothing to do with mob mentality.
Edit: I've played with IWD in 3s a bunch of times and he was inflammatory towards my team, constantly spamming "how did you guys get to this elo" in a slightly more profane way. Edit2: Listening to SotL, will comment here in a moment. Let's just say people are reporting you by the handful, bly. Sometimes you just don't know when to let go.
haha "no kid"
is that really how moderators act now? riot is not the only one power hungry I see
People have a difference in opinion, your opinion is not any more correct than his.
Isn't that just Neo being too lazy to type out No kidding?
If that makes you think Neo is acting out of line, you haven't read anything from some of the SC2 or General forum mods. Sometimes you have to be mean to get your point across being people are just being stubborn for the sake of it.
On December 06 2012 04:37 NeoIllusions wrote: bly, stop shitting the subforum. No kid. This has nothing to do with mob mentality.
Edit: I've played with IWD in 3s a bunch of times and he was inflammatory towards my team, constantly spamming "how did you guys get to this elo" in a slightly more profane way. Edit2: Listening to SotL, will comment here in a moment. Let's just say people are reporting you by the handful, bly. Sometimes you just don't know when to let go.
haha "no kid"
is that really how moderators act now? riot is not the only one power hungry I see
People have a difference in opinion, your opinion is not any more correct than his.
As Neo says in a later post, it's because he was getting a ton of reports about bly's posts, not because of his own personal opinions. Also, TL moderators have always acted with that kind of tone, and it isn't a bad thing. Just look at the Ban List. That was also a warning, not an outright forum-level-action, so power-hungry is not the word you're looking for.
I just find it ironic that he is talking about IWD being toxic and then using that to address some one, which is just as condescending.
"No kid" = "no kidding." As in, he was giving a serious warning. I feel like you're saying that Neo was calling him a kid. He wasn't.
On December 06 2012 04:58 HazMat wrote: Bly is right. This would NEVER happen to a player like Dyrus, TOO, or Hotshot even though they are just as toxic if not more. IWD did not have a fan base. He's an easy target for Riot to start their new manner intiative or w.e it is they're doing.
Also, lol@people who think Dyrus or Oddone only bm to their viewers on stream. At the very least IWD doesn't ragequit when a game goes wrong. I haven't seen ANY punishment for Dyrus doing this in front of 10k viewers. And there's a difference between banning someone and ending their career zzz.
It all makes me flashback to when TOO played and trolled with Hackedshotgg. Or when TSM colluted to throw a game. Their punishment was nowhere near severe.
I would hope that if Riot is starting a new manner initiative that they wouldn't end it with IWD just to make a point. We can't know this until they make another move, but if HSGG, TOO, or Dyrus came up in the Tribunal as much as IWD seems to have, Riot should ban them too. And I hope they plan to.
I guess my point is that just because there are other terrible members of the scene doesn't mean that IWD shouldn't be banned for his own bad behavior. We can only hope that Riot has their heads on their shoulders enough to keep doing their jobs and following their own principles. If not, then yes, fuck this. But ideally they'll punish everyone who was in the same position as IWD.
See I on the other hand don't care if players are BM in solo queue. Shit like saying "stfu retard" in a PRO MATCH should be though, and AFAIK Diamond had nothing happen to him from Riot. Or screen peeking at a tourney match.
How does Blizzard handle this? Afaik Idra doesn't get banned for bm'ing in ladder matches.
I just don't think it's fair to put these players to a higher standard than ourselves.
Honestly, I've very rarely heard of Blizzard banning anyone for BM, only for hacking.
Yeah, like it should be the team's choice to drop the player if he's hurting the team's image. Stephano got a 1 month ban from competitive play for thay stupid molestation joke by EG, not by Blizzard. (not the best example, like I said I haven't followed SC2 too closely in a while. Maybe Naniwa or Ret trolling and then being punished by their team is a more fitting analogy.)
If Dig felt IWD's attitude in solo queue was hurting their image they could have dropped him, but we all know no one cared about his rage. When the rage gets to tournaments then it becomes a problem.
Stephano got suspended by the organizations he gets his salary from. Same for IWD. Also trolling/being bm in lol doesn't affect the enemy team most of the time, only your team. Which case is impossible in SC2, this is why we don't see blizzard handing out bans left and right for being bm. Also communicating in lol has a lot to do with the game itself (be it by chatting or by pings), which again isn't the case for sc2. It's just silly to compare the two games, imo.
IWD gets money from Dig as well and it wasn't their choice to ban him, what's your point?
There's a conflict of interests which is just what happens. Riot both controls the "solo queue" and the "competitive field" other games don't have this to such an extent so there's no precedent to judge this by.
On December 06 2012 04:37 NeoIllusions wrote: bly, stop shitting the subforum. No kid. This has nothing to do with mob mentality.
Edit: I've played with IWD in 3s a bunch of times and he was inflammatory towards my team, constantly spamming "how did you guys get to this elo" in a slightly more profane way. Edit2: Listening to SotL, will comment here in a moment. Let's just say people are reporting you by the handful, bly. Sometimes you just don't know when to let go.
haha "no kid"
is that really how moderators act now? riot is not the only one power hungry I see
People have a difference in opinion, your opinion is not any more correct than his.
As Neo says in a later post, it's because he was getting a ton of reports about bly's posts, not because of his own personal opinions. Also, TL moderators have always acted with that kind of tone, and it isn't a bad thing. Just look at the Ban List. That was also a warning, not an outright forum-level-action, so power-hungry is not the word you're looking for.
I just find it ironic that he is talking about IWD being toxic and then using that to address some one, which is just as condescending.
"No kid" = "no kidding." As in, he was giving a serious warning. I feel like you're saying that Neo was calling him a kid. He wasn't.
that is the worst abbreviation ive ever seen if thats true lol. completely changes the tone and meaning
He meant no kidding. Bly's getting reported because some people don't like him but his points are valid. Luckily Neo realizes that and hasn't pulled the trigger, or so it seems.
On December 06 2012 04:37 NeoIllusions wrote: bly, stop shitting the subforum. No kid. This has nothing to do with mob mentality.
Edit: I've played with IWD in 3s a bunch of times and he was inflammatory towards my team, constantly spamming "how did you guys get to this elo" in a slightly more profane way. Edit2: Listening to SotL, will comment here in a moment. Let's just say people are reporting you by the handful, bly. Sometimes you just don't know when to let go.
haha "no kid"
is that really how moderators act now? riot is not the only one power hungry I see
People have a difference in opinion, your opinion is not any more correct than his.
As Neo says in a later post, it's because he was getting a ton of reports about bly's posts, not because of his own personal opinions. Also, TL moderators have always acted with that kind of tone, and it isn't a bad thing. Just look at the Ban List. That was also a warning, not an outright forum-level-action, so power-hungry is not the word you're looking for.
I just find it ironic that he is talking about IWD being toxic and then using that to address some one, which is just as condescending.
"No kid" = "no kidding." As in, he was giving a serious warning. I feel like you're saying that Neo was calling him a kid. He wasn't.
that is the worst abbreviation ive ever seen if thats true lol. completely changes the tone and meaning
On December 06 2012 04:58 HazMat wrote: Bly is right. This would NEVER happen to a player like Dyrus, TOO, or Hotshot even though they are just as toxic if not more. IWD did not have a fan base. He's an easy target for Riot to start their new manner intiative or w.e it is they're doing.
Also, lol@people who think Dyrus or Oddone only bm to their viewers on stream. At the very least IWD doesn't ragequit when a game goes wrong. I haven't seen ANY punishment for Dyrus doing this in front of 10k viewers. And there's a difference between banning someone and ending their career zzz.
It all makes me flashback to when TOO played and trolled with Hackedshotgg. Or when TSM colluted to throw a game. Their punishment was nowhere near severe.
I would hope that if Riot is starting a new manner initiative that they wouldn't end it with IWD just to make a point. We can't know this until they make another move, but if HSGG, TOO, or Dyrus came up in the Tribunal as much as IWD seems to have, Riot should ban them too. And I hope they plan to.
I guess my point is that just because there are other terrible members of the scene doesn't mean that IWD shouldn't be banned for his own bad behavior. We can only hope that Riot has their heads on their shoulders enough to keep doing their jobs and following their own principles. If not, then yes, fuck this. But ideally they'll punish everyone who was in the same position as IWD.
See I on the other hand don't care if players are BM in solo queue. Shit like saying "stfu retard" in a PRO MATCH should be though, and AFAIK Diamond had nothing happen to him from Riot. Or screen peeking at a tourney match.
How does Blizzard handle this? Afaik Idra doesn't get banned for bm'ing in ladder matches.
I just don't think it's fair to put these players to a higher standard than ourselves.
Honestly, I've very rarely heard of Blizzard banning anyone for BM, only for hacking.
Yeah, like it should be the team's choice to drop the player if he's hurting the team's image. Stephano got a 1 month ban from competitive play for thay stupid molestation joke by EG, not by Blizzard. (not the best example, like I said I haven't followed SC2 too closely in a while. Maybe Naniwa or Ret trolling and then being punished by their team is a more fitting analogy.)
If Dig felt IWD's attitude in solo queue was hurting their image they could have dropped him, but we all know no one cared about his rage. When the rage gets to tournaments then it becomes a problem.
Stephano got suspended by the organizations he gets his salary from. Same for IWD. Also trolling/being bm in lol doesn't affect the enemy team most of the time, only your team. Which case is impossible in SC2, this is why we don't see blizzard handing out bans left and right for being bm. Also communicating in lol has a lot to do with the game itself (be it by chatting or by pings), which again isn't the case for sc2. It's just silly to compare the two games, imo.
IWD gets money from Dig as well and it wasn't their choice to ban him, what's your point?
My point is that it's silly to even compare SC2 to LoL, when talking about being BM.
IWD totally deserved his ban. He was banned/warned 9 times, even the attention of his team was raised about the issue. A simple user can afford something like this, but not a pro-player - if you wanna earn money from them, by playing their game, for which you agreed the EULA, you gotta play by their rules. That simple. It's not at all abusive what Riot did, at any level.
On December 06 2012 05:27 Pooshlmer wrote: HazMat, are you suggesting that Riot is somehow misleading us when they say he was 300% worse than the next pro player?
Someone like TheOddOne could've been sent to Tribunal more than IWD and got pardoned every time. We don't really know exact facts about the tribunal.
On December 06 2012 05:38 HazMat wrote: He meant no kidding. Bly's getting reported because some people don't like him but his points are valid. Luckily Neo realizes that and hasn't pulled the trigger, or so it seems.
I think people are reporting him because he wasn't explaining his reasonable position at first. If he had, I don't think it would've been an issue.
Or people are being stupid. That's also a possibility.
On December 06 2012 05:38 HazMat wrote: He meant no kidding. Bly's getting reported because some people don't like him but his points are valid. Luckily Neo realizes that and hasn't pulled the trigger, or so it seems.
Bly was arguing mostly with ITW and he could have pulled the trigger himself if things got really bad. Neo was just being nice and gave him a public warning before things got worse.
I always see people bring up theoddone and dyrus and while I didnt watch much of Dyrus the past months, oddone is mostly "flaming" his his teammates on stream but doesn't actually type out really toxic shit or goes afk. People that annoy him are just being muted.
On December 06 2012 05:39 overt wrote: Someone like TheOddOne could've been sent to Tribunal more than IWD and got pardoned every time. We don't really know exact facts about the tribunal.
If TOO were theoretically to have been sent to Tribunal 50 times and pardoned every time, then he can't be considered as toxic a player as IWD from the Tribunal perspective simply because those pardons would either imply that people somehow knew it was TOO and pardoned him because of that (incredibly unlikely unless his name was mentioned in chat or something) or that the reports were not accurate/ not worthy of punishment.
EDIT: From Riot's perspective, as long as rage/behavioral issues are kept under a certain, extreme point (like serious death threats or something), only the Tribunal is going to matter here, not what people are perceived to be in regards to rage. As an example, say Dyrus is a 9/10 for raging, but IWD is like a 6/10 (these numbers are random and hold no true bearing to reality, just being used as an example). If Dyrus is not sent to reported, sent to Tribunal, and punished, but IWD is, then Riot will see IWD as the more toxic player. The responsibility with how Riot would be handling it then rests on the shoulders of people who queue with Dyrus in this hypothetical scenario to report him for his rage more often so that he is accordingly punished in line with his level of rage.
I think this is a weird pro/anti authoritarian divide. Some people believe that Riot is trying to serve some personal agenda by banning, while others are willing to take what Riot says at face value.
On December 06 2012 05:27 Pooshlmer wrote: HazMat, are you suggesting that Riot is somehow misleading us when they say he was 300% worse than the next pro player?
Someone like TheOddOne could've been sent to Tribunal more than IWD and got pardoned every time. We don't really know exact facts about the tribunal.
Saying that something might have happened as a reason the ban is bad is a pretty terrible argument.
On December 06 2012 05:53 Pooshlmer wrote: I think this is a weird pro/anti authoritarian divide. Some people believe that Riot is trying to serve some personal agenda by banning, while others are willing to take what Riot says at face value.
Their "personal agenda" being making an example of a horribly inmature pro player as to show how they are trying to improve the terrible BM in the community.
But there are some people that feel that calling someone a co** sucking nig*** and the like is just harmless trash talk and that Riot is a horrible authoritarian company for trying to stop that.
On December 06 2012 05:53 Pooshlmer wrote: I think this is a weird pro/anti authoritarian divide. Some people believe that Riot is trying to serve some personal agenda by banning, while others are willing to take what Riot says at face value.
Their "personal agenda" being making an example of a horribly inmature pro player as to show how they are trying to improve the terrible BM in the community.
But there are some people that feel that calling someone a co** sucking nig*** and the like is just harmless trash talk and that Riot is a horrible authoritarian company for trying to stop that.
On December 06 2012 04:37 NeoIllusions wrote: bly, stop shitting the subforum. No kid. This has nothing to do with mob mentality.
Edit: I've played with IWD in 3s a bunch of times and he was inflammatory towards my team, constantly spamming "how did you guys get to this elo" in a slightly more profane way. Edit2: Listening to SotL, will comment here in a moment. Let's just say people are reporting you by the handful, bly. Sometimes you just don't know when to let go.
haha "no kid"
is that really how moderators act now? riot is not the only one power hungry I see
People have a difference in opinion, your opinion is not any more correct than his.
As Neo says in a later post, it's because he was getting a ton of reports about bly's posts, not because of his own personal opinions. Also, TL moderators have always acted with that kind of tone, and it isn't a bad thing. Just look at the Ban List. That was also a warning, not an outright forum-level-action, so power-hungry is not the word you're looking for.
I just find it ironic that he is talking about IWD being toxic and then using that to address some one, which is just as condescending.
"No kid" = "no kidding." As in, he was giving a serious warning. I feel like you're saying that Neo was calling him a kid. He wasn't.
that is the worst abbreviation ive ever seen if thats true lol. completely changes the tone and meaning
Does that mean no angry website feedback threads?
I sad now no kid
angry feedback? thats about the biggest waste of time in the world since it just gets trashed/ignored.
Anyways I dont really see how zulu_nation did anything remotely bannable, he didnt personally insult anyone and kept in line, an opinion does not have to be correct.it is simply a viewpoint or judgement from one person.
On December 06 2012 04:37 NeoIllusions wrote: bly, stop shitting the subforum. No kid. This has nothing to do with mob mentality.
Edit: I've played with IWD in 3s a bunch of times and he was inflammatory towards my team, constantly spamming "how did you guys get to this elo" in a slightly more profane way. Edit2: Listening to SotL, will comment here in a moment. Let's just say people are reporting you by the handful, bly. Sometimes you just don't know when to let go.
haha "no kid"
is that really how moderators act now? riot is not the only one power hungry I see
People have a difference in opinion, your opinion is not any more correct than his.
As Neo says in a later post, it's because he was getting a ton of reports about bly's posts, not because of his own personal opinions. Also, TL moderators have always acted with that kind of tone, and it isn't a bad thing. Just look at the Ban List. That was also a warning, not an outright forum-level-action, so power-hungry is not the word you're looking for.
I just find it ironic that he is talking about IWD being toxic and then using that to address some one, which is just as condescending.
"No kid" = "no kidding." As in, he was giving a serious warning. I feel like you're saying that Neo was calling him a kid. He wasn't.
that is the worst abbreviation ive ever seen if thats true lol. completely changes the tone and meaning
Does that mean no angry website feedback threads?
I sad now no kid
angry feedback? thats about the biggest waste of time in the world since it just gets trashed/ignored.
Anyways I dont really see how zulu_nation did anything remotely bannable, he didnt personally insult anyone and kept in line, an opinion does not have to be correct.it is simply a viewpoint or judgement from one person.
Repeating the same thing over and over while ignoring what everyone else says is pretty bad, it was going that way until his latest posting.
On December 06 2012 04:18 zulu_nation8 wrote: yes professional athletes get banned from their sport for something outside of professional sports when they do stuff like commit murder. In football/soccer, when have people ever been globally banned except for doping? Hence my first argument. How am I sprouting BS? I obviously know people have been affected when he got reported, I'm saying no one HERE has been affected yet people are too quick to be as unsympathetic as possible.
Because we can relate to the action of being harrassed or insulted in a game.
So when a person mugs someone on the street we should be sympathetic because he didn't mug us in particular? Are you trying to be annoying now?
Of course you don't get global bans on football, cause they are not necessary. Players have binding contracts that prohibit them from playing for other teams, so while a player is banned from X league is not like he can play in Y league while his banned.
so like I said, IWD has become the scapegoat for every solo queuer who has ever gotten harassed or insulted. The difference is he's not the people who have harassed you and you only know him from progaming, His image as a normal, even professional progamer is destroyed because of something that has nothing to do with anyone aside from like the 1k people at his elo who've queued into or with him, I don't even think he's played that many solo queue games last season. But the public outcry is so strong because apparently he's become the guy who just harassed you in game yesterday. I think this is called mob mentality, without concern for the individual.
IWD has not become a scapegoat. People get banned all the time for their soloQ behaviour. Progamers and steamers get banned for trolling in games (Dyrus come to my mind). This is just the first of someone being banned globally and I expect this to happen to other people under the same circumstances who do the same.
Since you discredit our opinion because we haven't been q'd against IWD, I'll paste Snoopeh's thoughts. Snoopeh has played vs IWD many times, more than you and me, and everyone in this conversation combined.
[–]snoopeh 1567 points 21 hours ago (2113|546) While I feel for the guys over at Dignitas and especially Odee (their Manager) who is a fantastic guy, as well as team owner. I don't know the extent of IWD's behaviour in or out of game, but I know that Riot would not enforce such punishment light heartedly - therefore I'd assume it's justified. It's sad to see anyone act in a disrespectful manner, even more so a professional player who's behaviour is reflected onto the entire community. I hope this sets an example to other top players that may think they have some sort of 'superior status,' which makes them immune from punishment. Obviously professional players are in the eyes of the public way more than most and we can also be easily provoked into acting uncharacteristically. However it does not excuse poor behaviour, especially on a recurring basis - this is a step forward by Riot in professionalising the LoL Pro Scene which they are very passionate about.
So, one of IWD's peers, under the same circumstances (meaning he could be a 'victim' of the same treat) is happy this is being enforced.
Ok I will elaborate further on my point that no one here has played with him in solo queue just in case people misinterpret it as another elitist argument.
I have never played with or against IWD in any queue. I did not know that he was a rager in solo queue until this thread was made. I know what he looks like and a bit of his personality from interviews and press. I'm assuming his exposure to me is the same as with most league players. From his interviews and press, I felt like he's just another standard progamer personality, his play is ok, some good games bad games, his interviews are ok, basic answers, nothing out of the ordinary. He looks kinda lame but that's my opinion.
All of a sudden I read he has been banned from progaming for a year, which practically is a lifetime ban. My first reaction, and the reaction I would hope reasonable people to have, is that wow, I don't wish that upon anyone, he must've done something really wrong. When I saw it was raging in solo queue, I was puzzled. Next I come into this thread reading posts as if he just raped everyone's family. I get that ragers are bad and make the game unfun. But to wish someone's life to be ruined over raging in a video game, especially someone that no one here has personally been the victim of, is a sentiment lacking in conscience and sympathy. If you disagree and think, no it's absolutely fine for me to hate someone I don't know and be glad his life is ruined over something I didn't know they did until 2 days ago, to people I don't know, then there's nothing more to say. If you perhaps agree that the reaction is harsh, then hence my point.
There is no question that IWD deserved the permaban after being punished by the tribunal multiple times (any time after the first one is just IWD being an idiot). What I'm getting from you is whether the 1 year ban fit the crime. Maybe, maybe not. It's not Riot's responsibility to ensure that IWD has a good life after the "crime" has been committed. I just think that you've become too attached to all the potential consequences in IWD's life after being banned.
I think the reason the whole mob mentality argument got brought in the first place was because a lot of people in favor of the ban kept saying things like "lol how can you even be against this?" or "You'd be stupid to think he doesn't deserve this." These phrases make if seem like if I disagree with someone else's opinion, they think I'm stupid and my opinion is worthless, which is not conducive to a civil discussion about the entire incident =\. The severity of the punishment was one of my biggest issues but I just get yelled at for supporting BM in the game when that was never the point I was trying to make
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
No one "ruined" his life. He did it himself.
he cant actually ban himself from progaming so i think it's fair to say riot ruined his life, he dropped out of college the last semester to pursue progaming, hence he has no degree and no other method of income. I think people taking raging in solo queue just a bit too seriously.
On December 06 2012 03:48 IntoTheWow wrote: How about IWD is an idiot for shitting where he eats?
Maybe this will help him grow up.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
I don't see how you can it's fair to say Riot ruined his life. If a student dropped out of school *cough*Lebron James*cough* to play in the NBA, then got caught doping and got banned, did the NBA ruin his life?
No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion and I expected more from you.
He was Perma banned, as a result of that they also banned him from there own self payed and organized league. Say its severe all you want. When you tell someone you don't want him in your game (a perma ban) and then happily pay him a salary is just hypocritical.
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
No one "ruined" his life. He did it himself.
he cant actually ban himself from progaming so i think it's fair to say riot ruined his life, he dropped out of college the last semester to pursue progaming, hence he has no degree and no other method of income. I think people taking raging in solo queue just a bit too seriously.
On December 06 2012 03:48 IntoTheWow wrote: How about IWD is an idiot for shitting where he eats?
Maybe this will help him grow up.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
I don't see how you can it's fair to say Riot ruined his life. If a student dropped out of school *cough*Lebron James*cough* to play in the NBA, then got caught doping and got banned, did the NBA ruin his life?
No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion and I expected more from you.
The major difference with this analogy is that the NBA has specific rules that say if you get caught with PED you can be suspended or banned. Riot can justify the ban by using an interpretation of the EULA that doesn't specifically say anything about progaming or suspensions. There's no 1:1 parity. Again, I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, just that the analogy is a bit different.
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
No one "ruined" his life. He did it himself.
he cant actually ban himself from progaming so i think it's fair to say riot ruined his life, he dropped out of college the last semester to pursue progaming, hence he has no degree and no other method of income. I think people taking raging in solo queue just a bit too seriously.
On December 06 2012 03:48 IntoTheWow wrote: How about IWD is an idiot for shitting where he eats?
Maybe this will help him grow up.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
I don't see how you can it's fair to say Riot ruined his life. If a student dropped out of school *cough*Lebron James*cough* to play in the NBA, then got caught doping and got banned, did the NBA ruin his life?
No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion and I expected more from you.
The major difference with this analogy is that the NBA has specific rules that say if you get caught with PED you can be suspended or banned. Riot can justify the ban by using an interpretation of the EULA that doesn't specifically say anything about progaming or suspensions. There's no 1:1 parity. Again, I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, just that the analogy is a bit different.
From other accounts, dig and IWD did get prior warning from Rior about this happening
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
No one "ruined" his life. He did it himself.
he cant actually ban himself from progaming so i think it's fair to say riot ruined his life, he dropped out of college the last semester to pursue progaming, hence he has no degree and no other method of income. I think people taking raging in solo queue just a bit too seriously.
On December 06 2012 03:48 IntoTheWow wrote: How about IWD is an idiot for shitting where he eats?
Maybe this will help him grow up.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
I don't see how you can it's fair to say Riot ruined his life. If a student dropped out of school *cough*Lebron James*cough* to play in the NBA, then got caught doping and got banned, did the NBA ruin his life?
No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion and I expected more from you.
The major difference with this analogy is that the NBA has specific rules that say if you get caught with PED you can be suspended or banned. Riot can justify the ban by using an interpretation of the EULA that doesn't specifically say anything about progaming or suspensions. There's no 1:1 parity. Again, I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, just that the analogy is a bit different.
From other accounts, dig and IWD did get prior warning from Rior about this happening
And I agree he should have stopped if he was warned, its his own dumbass fault if he didn't think Riot was serious. The sports analogy still isn't the same, a warning isn't a written rule. Even though he deserved to be punished if he disregarded Riot, I can still disagree with the severity of the punishment.
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
No one "ruined" his life. He did it himself.
he cant actually ban himself from progaming so i think it's fair to say riot ruined his life, he dropped out of college the last semester to pursue progaming, hence he has no degree and no other method of income. I think people taking raging in solo queue just a bit too seriously.
On December 06 2012 03:48 IntoTheWow wrote: How about IWD is an idiot for shitting where he eats?
Maybe this will help him grow up.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
I don't see how you can it's fair to say Riot ruined his life. If a student dropped out of school *cough*Lebron James*cough* to play in the NBA, then got caught doping and got banned, did the NBA ruin his life?
No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion and I expected more from you.
The major difference with this analogy is that the NBA has specific rules that say if you get caught with PED you can be suspended or banned. Riot can justify the ban by using an interpretation of the EULA that doesn't specifically say anything about progaming or suspensions. There's no 1:1 parity. Again, I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, just that the analogy is a bit different.
From other accounts, dig and IWD did get prior warning from Rior about this happening
And I agree he should have stopped if he was warned, its his own dumbass fault if he didn't think Riot was serious. The sports analogy still isn't the same, a warning isn't a written rule. Even though he deserved to be punished if he disregarded Riot, I can still disagree with the severity of the punishment.
I once again refer to my earlier post. Riot told him they didnt want him to play there game (the perma ban) should they then allow him to play in there own organized and sponsored league and pay him a salary? Remember they banned him only from the Championship series. Ipl/MLG/go4lol all that stuff he is still allowed to play in.
Personally, I think the punishment is fitting. I would've motioned for ostracizing IWD altogether if I was part of the internal discussion at Riot, but I guess since they had no precedent regarding this matter, they had to start somewhere.
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
No one "ruined" his life. He did it himself.
he cant actually ban himself from progaming so i think it's fair to say riot ruined his life, he dropped out of college the last semester to pursue progaming, hence he has no degree and no other method of income. I think people taking raging in solo queue just a bit too seriously.
On December 06 2012 03:48 IntoTheWow wrote: How about IWD is an idiot for shitting where he eats?
Maybe this will help him grow up.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
I don't see how you can it's fair to say Riot ruined his life. If a student dropped out of school *cough*Lebron James*cough* to play in the NBA, then got caught doping and got banned, did the NBA ruin his life?
No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion and I expected more from you.
The major difference with this analogy is that the NBA has specific rules that say if you get caught with PED you can be suspended or banned. Riot can justify the ban by using an interpretation of the EULA that doesn't specifically say anything about progaming or suspensions. There's no 1:1 parity. Again, I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, just that the analogy is a bit different.
This is really the crux of the issue. I am 100% for making players ineligible from competitive play if you get perma-banned for awful behavior in solo-Q. I approve of Riot trying to make a more pleasant gaming experience for average gamers and trying to promote a professional image. The problem is that no where in the ToS is it written that a potential consequence of your account being permanently banned is ineligibility from competitive play. Though Riot may have contacted IWD and Team Dignitas outside of the game to warn them of the consequences this is not particularly professional. I hope in the future Riot will put down into writing (contract) exactly the rules and guidelines you need to follow to be eligible to play in the competitive scene.
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
No one "ruined" his life. He did it himself.
he cant actually ban himself from progaming so i think it's fair to say riot ruined his life, he dropped out of college the last semester to pursue progaming, hence he has no degree and no other method of income. I think people taking raging in solo queue just a bit too seriously.
On December 06 2012 03:48 IntoTheWow wrote: How about IWD is an idiot for shitting where he eats?
Maybe this will help him grow up.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
I don't see how you can it's fair to say Riot ruined his life. If a student dropped out of school *cough*Lebron James*cough* to play in the NBA, then got caught doping and got banned, did the NBA ruin his life?
No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion and I expected more from you.
The major difference with this analogy is that the NBA has specific rules that say if you get caught with PED you can be suspended or banned. Riot can justify the ban by using an interpretation of the EULA that doesn't specifically say anything about progaming or suspensions. There's no 1:1 parity. Again, I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, just that the analogy is a bit different.
This is really the crux of the issue. I am 100% for making players ineligible from competitive play if you get perma-banned for awful behavior in solo-Q. I approve of Riot trying to make a more pleasant gaming experience for average gamers and trying to promote a professional image. The problem is that no where in the ToS is it written that a potential consequence of your account being permanently banned is ineligibility from competitive play. Though Riot may have contacted IWD and Team Dignitas outside of the game to warn them of the consequences this is not particularly professional. I hope in the future Riot will put down into writing (contract) exactly the rules and guidelines you need to follow to be eligible to play in the competitive scene.
Have you read the contracts that players of the Championship have signed? if not then you have no idea what your talking about. This isnt something for the EULA or ToS but the contract Riot offers players when they pay them salary.
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
No one "ruined" his life. He did it himself.
he cant actually ban himself from progaming so i think it's fair to say riot ruined his life, he dropped out of college the last semester to pursue progaming, hence he has no degree and no other method of income. I think people taking raging in solo queue just a bit too seriously.
On December 06 2012 03:48 IntoTheWow wrote: How about IWD is an idiot for shitting where he eats?
Maybe this will help him grow up.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
I don't see how you can it's fair to say Riot ruined his life. If a student dropped out of school *cough*Lebron James*cough* to play in the NBA, then got caught doping and got banned, did the NBA ruin his life?
No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion and I expected more from you.
The major difference with this analogy is that the NBA has specific rules that say if you get caught with PED you can be suspended or banned. Riot can justify the ban by using an interpretation of the EULA that doesn't specifically say anything about progaming or suspensions. There's no 1:1 parity. Again, I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, just that the analogy is a bit different.
From other accounts, dig and IWD did get prior warning from Rior about this happening
And I agree he should have stopped if he was warned, its his own dumbass fault if he didn't think Riot was serious. The sports analogy still isn't the same, a warning isn't a written rule. Even though he deserved to be punished if he disregarded Riot, I can still disagree with the severity of the punishment.
On the severity of the punishment, I sorta agree with it. He clearly didn't get it and if you don't hit him with a severe punishment he'd probably just laugh it off. Sometimes a severe punishment is needed to get the message across to the player.
It's riot's game and it's their server. Imagine if a pro football player went to some practice scrim sponsored by the NFL at a high school and started bitching at people and acting like an idiot and kept it up through 8 warnings from the league. It wouldn't sit well. The pro players are themselves a representative and they give off a bad image of the community (much worse impact than others) if they act that way.
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
No one "ruined" his life. He did it himself.
he cant actually ban himself from progaming so i think it's fair to say riot ruined his life, he dropped out of college the last semester to pursue progaming, hence he has no degree and no other method of income. I think people taking raging in solo queue just a bit too seriously.
On December 06 2012 03:48 IntoTheWow wrote: How about IWD is an idiot for shitting where he eats?
Maybe this will help him grow up.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
I don't see how you can it's fair to say Riot ruined his life. If a student dropped out of school *cough*Lebron James*cough* to play in the NBA, then got caught doping and got banned, did the NBA ruin his life?
No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion and I expected more from you.
The major difference with this analogy is that the NBA has specific rules that say if you get caught with PED you can be suspended or banned. Riot can justify the ban by using an interpretation of the EULA that doesn't specifically say anything about progaming or suspensions. There's no 1:1 parity. Again, I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, just that the analogy is a bit different.
From other accounts, dig and IWD did get prior warning from Rior about this happening
And I agree he should have stopped if he was warned, its his own dumbass fault if he didn't think Riot was serious. The sports analogy still isn't the same, a warning isn't a written rule. Even though he deserved to be punished if he disregarded Riot, I can still disagree with the severity of the punishment.
On the severity of the punishment, I sorta agree with it. He clearly didn't get it and if you don't hit him with a severe punishment he'd probably just laugh it off. Sometimes a severe punishment is needed to get the message across to the player.
This is all opinion, so no argument there. I just feel a one month competitive ban, the permaban on his accounts, and a fine would have been enough. That's all.
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
No one "ruined" his life. He did it himself.
he cant actually ban himself from progaming so i think it's fair to say riot ruined his life, he dropped out of college the last semester to pursue progaming, hence he has no degree and no other method of income. I think people taking raging in solo queue just a bit too seriously.
On December 06 2012 03:48 IntoTheWow wrote: How about IWD is an idiot for shitting where he eats?
Maybe this will help him grow up.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
I don't see how you can it's fair to say Riot ruined his life. If a student dropped out of school *cough*Lebron James*cough* to play in the NBA, then got caught doping and got banned, did the NBA ruin his life?
No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion and I expected more from you.
The major difference with this analogy is that the NBA has specific rules that say if you get caught with PED you can be suspended or banned. Riot can justify the ban by using an interpretation of the EULA that doesn't specifically say anything about progaming or suspensions. There's no 1:1 parity. Again, I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, just that the analogy is a bit different.
From other accounts, dig and IWD did get prior warning from Rior about this happening
And I agree he should have stopped if he was warned, its his own dumbass fault if he didn't think Riot was serious. The sports analogy still isn't the same, a warning isn't a written rule. Even though he deserved to be punished if he disregarded Riot, I can still disagree with the severity of the punishment.
On the severity of the punishment, I sorta agree with it. He clearly didn't get it and if you don't hit him with a severe punishment he'd probably just laugh it off. Sometimes a severe punishment is needed to get the message across to the player.
This is all opinion, so no argument there. I just feel a month ban and a fine would have been enough. That's all.
So, your opinion is that after being punished 8 times already a 1 month ban will set him straight? 9th times the charm I guess.
Quite generous of you, I however don't share your view.
I support punishment, but I think one year ban from competition was a bit harsh. Oh well, better than nothing. I guess that is what leftists like me feel after advocating prison reform...
On December 06 2012 03:36 zulu_nation8 wrote: No one has ever seen him rage to the point that he doesn't even have a reputation for raging. His only contact with the community is through progaming where he has not broken any rules and has helped Riot promote the game. I understand this is the standard internet mob reaction but I think it's ridiculous that everyone is quick to accept that it's okay to ruin someone's life over raging in solo queue, and where no one here has been the victim.
No one "ruined" his life. He did it himself.
he cant actually ban himself from progaming so i think it's fair to say riot ruined his life, he dropped out of college the last semester to pursue progaming, hence he has no degree and no other method of income. I think people taking raging in solo queue just a bit too seriously.
On December 06 2012 03:48 IntoTheWow wrote: How about IWD is an idiot for shitting where he eats?
Maybe this will help him grow up.
because solo queue is where riot markets progamers
I don't see how you can it's fair to say Riot ruined his life. If a student dropped out of school *cough*Lebron James*cough* to play in the NBA, then got caught doping and got banned, did the NBA ruin his life?
No offense, but this is a ridiculous notion and I expected more from you.
The major difference with this analogy is that the NBA has specific rules that say if you get caught with PED you can be suspended or banned. Riot can justify the ban by using an interpretation of the EULA that doesn't specifically say anything about progaming or suspensions. There's no 1:1 parity. Again, I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, just that the analogy is a bit different.
From other accounts, dig and IWD did get prior warning from Rior about this happening
And I agree he should have stopped if he was warned, its his own dumbass fault if he didn't think Riot was serious. The sports analogy still isn't the same, a warning isn't a written rule. Even though he deserved to be punished if he disregarded Riot, I can still disagree with the severity of the punishment.
On the severity of the punishment, I sorta agree with it. He clearly didn't get it and if you don't hit him with a severe punishment he'd probably just laugh it off. Sometimes a severe punishment is needed to get the message across to the player.
This is all opinion, so no argument there. I just feel a month ban and a fine would have been enough. That's all.
So, your opinion is that after being punished 8 times already a 1 month ban will set him straight? 9th times the charm I guess.
Quite generous of you, I however don't share your view.
A one month competitive ban, the permaban on his account is acceptable. Edited my prior comment for clarity.
Let the butthurt kids have their fun, then this game can become the complete circlejerk it was meant to be. Then in the end only riot employees are allowed to troll. Done fisting a bunch of crybabies? (noob, gg, easy)...time to move on. Though it probably won't take long for an embittered jungler to go postal and blow up riot hq or something ("Ban me from your game? Ban you from existence grrrr")
On December 06 2012 08:20 TheLink wrote: Step #1 try not to rage Step #2 disable all chat Step #3 pry the damn enter key off your keyboard so you can't talk in-game
you know, some people DO use their computer for non-gaming stuff (writing essays, heck posting on TL) kinda hard to do that without an enter key
@bly: perhaps "shitting up the subforum" is taking it a step too far but you and I both know how unyieldingly stubborn you can be sometimes and this is one of those times. I'm glad JBright finally got through to you. Riot's main goal is to mold the community to their expectation. To everyone who thinks this is "carebear" mentality, stop being such a jackass. No one is saying all LoL players need to pander each other and compliment every good thing they do. "Don't be a douche" is not asking for too much. IWD was appropriately punished. If you think a year is too long, then you have an issue with severity, which is ok by me. But IWD losing out on the money from being a pro is a consequence of his own actions. He had ample warning. When does it become his own fault for not heeding Riot when they came at him 9 times with temp bans?
@Shake: there are a bunch of pros who have been assholes in the past and many of them have reformed. The main big one is really HotShotgg. Even TSM members like Regi and Dyrus have moments of rage still. I know Dyrus has been temp banned in the past as well. But in the end, pretty much all their behavior have been on an upswing and I highly doubt they've been reported at the rate or frequency that IWD was. You can argue that your personal experience with IWD was not as bad as with TSM but your experience is a small sample and in all, IWD was consider more toxic by a panel of his peers.
@VayneAuthority: I meant "no kidding". Please check my profile and zulu's profile for our TL join dates. We're probably two of the oldest TL users in this subforum. bly and I butt heads when it comes to our opinions but I still hold him in esteem. Just because he's a TL vet does not mean I won't keep him in check when he's running his mouth. bly also knows that when I do so, it's not out of malice. So when you make comments about how TL LoL mods are power hungry, you're just embarassing yourself. Apparently you don't have a clue what I have personally contributed in making this subforum what it is today.
To everyone else, we can continue talking in circles about this debacle but frankly I think it's run its course. Keep in mind two things: 1) Riot's expectations of their game and its users, 2) IWD's willingness to ignore warnings and bans on 9 different instances. This includes Riot department heads contacting IWD and dig outside of the game.
Personally I was very amused when he wrote:"is that really how moderators act now?" coming from someone who has been a member of this forum for not even 2 month it is kinda funny since I doubt he knows mods "used" to act.
you watched "whose league is it anyway" earlier, didn't you? What did Odee say regarding this?
Odee said that dig didn't know about the perm ban until recently (don't know how recent exactly) but they were informed of all of IWD's past transgression, many of which was during his coL/pre-dig days. But dig realize those warnings carried over when IWD joined dig.
Over all, he supported Riot's decision. I am very happy to hear both Odee and Torch's straight arrow approach to eSports. No room for BS or preferential treatment if you're a pro. As a pro or pro team, set an example for the community. No excuses.
Like the 10th time I've said it in this thread, "don't be a douche".
On December 06 2012 11:21 wei2coolman wrote: Artest beat up a spectator, he didn't even get a year ban on basketball, muchless NBA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_players_banned_or_suspended_by_the_NBA On November 20, 2004, Artest was suspended indefinitely by NBA commissioner David Stern for his involvement in the Pacers–Pistons brawl. On the following day, the length of his suspension was determined to last for the remainder of the season; a suspension which eventually totaled 86 games (73 regular season and 13 playoff games).[26]
He was banned the entire NBA season (73/82 regular season games and all playoff games). The NBA can't ban him from basketball, because the NBA doesn't own the game of basketball, and the NBA doesn't own all the arenas in which basketball is played. That's not true with Riot.
I apologize that this is really tangential, but your point is actually wrong, haha.
EDIT: Will take the rest of this nitpicking to PMs.
On December 06 2012 11:29 wei2coolman wrote: Rest of the season =/= 1 year, and they didn't ban him from playing basketball*, which is also a point. They pretty much left his career intact.
IWD, can't even practice LoL for a year. That's the point of how severe Riot's punishment is, in comparison.
Have the punishment fit the crime. Whatever IWD did, was in no way anywhere close to what Artest did, and yet he got a much heftier punishment.
Yes he can, he's not banned from making a smurf. Good God, get your facts straight.
On December 06 2012 11:29 wei2coolman wrote: Rest of the season =/= 1 year, and they didn't ban him from playing basketball*, which is also a point. They pretty much left his career intact.
IWD, can't even practice LoL for a year. That's the point of how severe Riot's punishment is, in comparison.
Have the punishment fit the crime. Whatever IWD did, was in no way anywhere close to what Artest did, and yet he got a much heftier punishment.
Yes he can, he's not banned from making a smurf. Good God, get your facts straight.
On December 06 2012 11:35 zulu_nation8 wrote: pretty sure he is.. it means he can't play league for a year unless he does so in secret.
Neo or anyone else, do we know for sure if he's allowed to make another account? I was under the impression that he would be allowed to, but just not compete for a year. Or, is he completely black listed from LoL for a year?
On December 06 2012 11:35 zulu_nation8 wrote: pretty sure he is.. it means he can't play league for a year unless he does so in secret.
Neo or anyone else, do we know for sure if he's allowed to make another account? I was under the impression that he would be allowed to, but just not compete for a year. Or, is he completely black listed from LoL for a year?
I'm gonna make an assumption and say yes, he is allowed. Especially since he said he's going to practice hard for a year to keep his mechanics in shape. That sounds like he's allowed to make a new account.
well even if they IP track him he can play with a proxy, etc, but it would be against Riot's will, so basically he's blacklisted for a year, can't imagine the punishment meaning anything different. Obviously no team is gonna pick up someone who can't practice, and assuming he can play on the tourney client or something, no team is gonna pick up someone who can only play MLG or something.
Teams aren't going to pick him up on their main rosters. He'll probably be able to make a new smurf, they'll know it's him but all they'll do is remember his old bans (so if he lands in tribunal again he'll get perma'd the first time).
For MLG etc. he will probably get tapped to sub for teams who are missing members, he won't be able to play as much as a regular pro but it won't be like he'll be completely out for a year.
On December 06 2012 11:29 wei2coolman wrote: Rest of the season =/= 1 year, and they didn't ban him from playing basketball*, which is also a point. They pretty much left his career intact.
IWD, can't even practice LoL for a year. That's the point of how severe Riot's punishment is, in comparison.
Have the punishment fit the crime. Whatever IWD did, was in no way anywhere close to what Artest did, and yet he got a much heftier punishment.
Yes he can, he's not banned from making a smurf. Good God, get your facts straight.
His smurfs will be banned if found out.
no they won't. cite where you heard that because that's untrue as far as I know. the punishment was that Riot banned all known accounts of IWD. Not "prevent IWD from playing LoL for one year"
Penalties: IWillDominate is ineligible to play in the League of Legends Championship Series for a period of one year. This suspension shall commence immediately.
In addition, all other existing known accounts used by IWillDominate are permanently banned.
Nowhere does it say he's banned from playing for a year.
On December 06 2012 08:59 NeoIllusions wrote: @bly: perhaps "shitting up the subforum" is taking it a step too far but you and I both know how unyieldingly stubborn you can be sometimes and this is one of those times. I'm glad JBright finally got through to you. Riot's main goal is to mold the community to their expectation. To everyone who thinks this is "carebear" mentality, stop being such a jackass. No one is saying all LoL players need to pander each other and compliment every good thing they do. "Don't be a douche" is not asking for too much. IWD was appropriately punished. If you think a year is too long, then you have an issue with severity, which is ok by me. But IWD losing out on the money from being a pro is a consequence of his own actions. He had ample warning. When does it become his own fault for not heeding Riot when they came at him 9 times with temp bans?
@Shake: there are a bunch of pros who have been assholes in the past and many of them have reformed. The main big one is really HotShotgg. Even TSM members like Regi and Dyrus have moments of rage still. I know Dyrus has been temp banned in the past as well. But in the end, pretty much all their behavior have been on an upswing and I highly doubt they've been reported at the rate or frequency that IWD was. You can argue that your personal experience with IWD was not as bad as with TSM but your experience is a small sample and in all, IWD was consider more toxic by a panel of his peers.
@VayneAuthority: I meant "no kidding". Please check my profile and zulu's profile for our TL join dates. We're probably two of the oldest TL users in this subforum. bly and I butt heads when it comes to our opinions but I still hold him in esteem. Just because he's a TL vet does not mean I won't keep him in check when he's running his mouth. bly also knows that when I do so, it's not out of malice. So when you make comments about how TL LoL mods are power hungry, you're just embarassing yourself. Apparently you don't have a clue what I have personally contributed in making this subforum what it is today.
To everyone else, we can continue talking in circles about this debacle but frankly I think it's run its course. Keep in mind two things: 1) Riot's expectations of their game and its users, 2) IWD's willingness to ignore warnings and bans on 9 different instances. This includes Riot department heads contacting IWD and dig outside of the game.
I have been posting in this subforum since it existed and have been at TL just as long.
On December 06 2012 04:37 NeoIllusions wrote: bly, stop shitting the subforum. No kid. This has nothing to do with mob mentality.
Edit: I've played with IWD in 3s a bunch of times and he was inflammatory towards my team, constantly spamming "how did you guys get to this elo" in a slightly more profane way. Edit2: Listening to SotL, will comment here in a moment. Let's just say people are reporting you by the handful, bly. Sometimes you just don't know when to let go.
haha "no kid"
is that really how moderators act now? riot is not the only one power hungry I see
People have a difference in opinion, your opinion is not any more correct than his.
As Neo says in a later post, it's because he was getting a ton of reports about bly's posts, not because of his own personal opinions. Also, TL moderators have always acted with that kind of tone, and it isn't a bad thing. Just look at the Ban List. That was also a warning, not an outright forum-level-action, so power-hungry is not the word you're looking for.
I just find it ironic that he is talking about IWD being toxic and then using that to address some one, which is just as condescending.
"No kid" = "no kidding." As in, he was giving a serious warning. I feel like you're saying that Neo was calling him a kid. He wasn't.
that is the worst abbreviation ive ever seen if thats true lol. completely changes the tone and meaning
What, have you never heard it phrased as "I kid you not"? It's not actually an abbreviation, kid can be used just like kidding, it's only that the in progress "I am kiddding" is more common than the regular "I kid". If he were calling him a kid it would need a comma to be properly interpreted that way, as in "No, kid. It's actually like this, etc etc." It's a misreading on your part, neo said it fine, the -ing form isn't necessary.
On December 06 2012 11:46 zulu_nation8 wrote: well even if they IP track him he can play with a proxy, etc, but it would be against Riot's will, so basically he's blacklisted for a year, can't imagine the punishment meaning anything different. Obviously no team is gonna pick up someone who can't practice, and assuming he can play on the tourney client or something, no team is gonna pick up someone who can only play MLG or something.
You're just talking out your ass now. There's no indication that future smurfs are automatically going to be banned by Riot. They said existing accounts are closed.
On December 06 2012 08:59 NeoIllusions wrote: @bly: perhaps "shitting up the subforum" is taking it a step too far but you and I both know how unyieldingly stubborn you can be sometimes and this is one of those times. I'm glad JBright finally got through to you. Riot's main goal is to mold the community to their expectation. To everyone who thinks this is "carebear" mentality, stop being such a jackass. No one is saying all LoL players need to pander each other and compliment every good thing they do. "Don't be a douche" is not asking for too much. IWD was appropriately punished. If you think a year is too long, then you have an issue with severity, which is ok by me. But IWD losing out on the money from being a pro is a consequence of his own actions. He had ample warning. When does it become his own fault for not heeding Riot when they came at him 9 times with temp bans?
@Shake: there are a bunch of pros who have been assholes in the past and many of them have reformed. The main big one is really HotShotgg. Even TSM members like Regi and Dyrus have moments of rage still. I know Dyrus has been temp banned in the past as well. But in the end, pretty much all their behavior have been on an upswing and I highly doubt they've been reported at the rate or frequency that IWD was. You can argue that your personal experience with IWD was not as bad as with TSM but your experience is a small sample and in all, IWD was consider more toxic by a panel of his peers.
@VayneAuthority: I meant "no kidding". Please check my profile and zulu's profile for our TL join dates. We're probably two of the oldest TL users in this subforum. bly and I butt heads when it comes to our opinions but I still hold him in esteem. Just because he's a TL vet does not mean I won't keep him in check when he's running his mouth. bly also knows that when I do so, it's not out of malice. So when you make comments about how TL LoL mods are power hungry, you're just embarassing yourself. Apparently you don't have a clue what I have personally contributed in making this subforum what it is today.
To everyone else, we can continue talking in circles about this debacle but frankly I think it's run its course. Keep in mind two things: 1) Riot's expectations of their game and its users, 2) IWD's willingness to ignore warnings and bans on 9 different instances. This includes Riot department heads contacting IWD and dig outside of the game.
I have been posting in this subforum since it existed and have been at TL just as long.
VayneAuthority Joined TL.net Thursday, 18th of October 2012
On December 06 2012 15:24 Craton wrote: Probably a PBU.
Which brings a certain level of irony to the situation.
As was mentioned by Neo, most of what has to be said has been said. People should be held accountable for their actions. I know a lot of people want this divide between their real life and their e-persona, but more and more that isn't a realistic expectation.
At the rate he is going, he'll probably drop the P from PBU.
Also to add something to the discussion. We recently discussed this: Lyte explains banwave
And I would like to quote from it:
Lyte wrote: This is a misconception. The player behavior and eSports teams have been working together and have actively been investigating pro player behavior. No one is 'above' player behavior; in fact, we expect our pro players to have even higher standards as they should be the role models of our community.
This was three weeks ago and I remember that riot has expressed similar sentiments in the past on several occasions. You could argue that SoloQ and pro-games shouldn't be linked and bad behavior in SoloQ should not affect your pro-career, but the matter of fact is, that Riot has explicitly expressed what they expect of the pro-players and that their conduct in SoloQ is important to them. So at the end of the day this is about fulfilling the expectations of your employer more than anything else.
And whether we like it or not. Pro-players are a marketing tool in any sport. Soccer, baseball, football... it doesn't matter. No sport on earth creates actual value. They create marketing opportunities for companies to sell their products. Riot is using their league to market their own game.
Maybe in the future it will become big enough to attract sponsors from other industries, but for the time being, every pro player is a "LoL-ambassador" if you will. And Riot is therefor very keen on making sure that there not videos and chat-logs circulating around the internet of these people, behaving like ass-hats in the game they are supposed to make attractive to the wider audience of gamers.
I also believe that many people at Riot have a genuine interest in e-sports and totally love the idea of making video games as a sport really big. But the two things are really not exclusive, they go hand in hand.
On December 06 2012 08:59 NeoIllusions wrote: @bly: perhaps "shitting up the subforum" is taking it a step too far but you and I both know how unyieldingly stubborn you can be sometimes and this is one of those times. I'm glad JBright finally got through to you. Riot's main goal is to mold the community to their expectation. To everyone who thinks this is "carebear" mentality, stop being such a jackass. No one is saying all LoL players need to pander each other and compliment every good thing they do. "Don't be a douche" is not asking for too much. IWD was appropriately punished. If you think a year is too long, then you have an issue with severity, which is ok by me. But IWD losing out on the money from being a pro is a consequence of his own actions. He had ample warning. When does it become his own fault for not heeding Riot when they came at him 9 times with temp bans?
@Shake: there are a bunch of pros who have been assholes in the past and many of them have reformed. The main big one is really HotShotgg. Even TSM members like Regi and Dyrus have moments of rage still. I know Dyrus has been temp banned in the past as well. But in the end, pretty much all their behavior have been on an upswing and I highly doubt they've been reported at the rate or frequency that IWD was. You can argue that your personal experience with IWD was not as bad as with TSM but your experience is a small sample and in all, IWD was consider more toxic by a panel of his peers.
@VayneAuthority: I meant "no kidding". Please check my profile and zulu's profile for our TL join dates. We're probably two of the oldest TL users in this subforum. bly and I butt heads when it comes to our opinions but I still hold him in esteem. Just because he's a TL vet does not mean I won't keep him in check when he's running his mouth. bly also knows that when I do so, it's not out of malice. So when you make comments about how TL LoL mods are power hungry, you're just embarassing yourself. Apparently you don't have a clue what I have personally contributed in making this subforum what it is today.
To everyone else, we can continue talking in circles about this debacle but frankly I think it's run its course. Keep in mind two things: 1) Riot's expectations of their game and its users, 2) IWD's willingness to ignore warnings and bans on 9 different instances. This includes Riot department heads contacting IWD and dig outside of the game.
I have been posting in this subforum since it existed and have been at TL just as long.
VayneAuthority Joined TL.net Thursday, 18th of October 2012
??
Even if it is true, TL LoL as a community existed for far longer than the subforum.
On December 06 2012 08:59 NeoIllusions wrote: @bly: perhaps "shitting up the subforum" is taking it a step too far but you and I both know how unyieldingly stubborn you can be sometimes and this is one of those times. I'm glad JBright finally got through to you. Riot's main goal is to mold the community to their expectation. To everyone who thinks this is "carebear" mentality, stop being such a jackass. No one is saying all LoL players need to pander each other and compliment every good thing they do. "Don't be a douche" is not asking for too much. IWD was appropriately punished. If you think a year is too long, then you have an issue with severity, which is ok by me. But IWD losing out on the money from being a pro is a consequence of his own actions. He had ample warning. When does it become his own fault for not heeding Riot when they came at him 9 times with temp bans?
@Shake: there are a bunch of pros who have been assholes in the past and many of them have reformed. The main big one is really HotShotgg. Even TSM members like Regi and Dyrus have moments of rage still. I know Dyrus has been temp banned in the past as well. But in the end, pretty much all their behavior have been on an upswing and I highly doubt they've been reported at the rate or frequency that IWD was. You can argue that your personal experience with IWD was not as bad as with TSM but your experience is a small sample and in all, IWD was consider more toxic by a panel of his peers.
@VayneAuthority: I meant "no kidding". Please check my profile and zulu's profile for our TL join dates. We're probably two of the oldest TL users in this subforum. bly and I butt heads when it comes to our opinions but I still hold him in esteem. Just because he's a TL vet does not mean I won't keep him in check when he's running his mouth. bly also knows that when I do so, it's not out of malice. So when you make comments about how TL LoL mods are power hungry, you're just embarassing yourself. Apparently you don't have a clue what I have personally contributed in making this subforum what it is today.
To everyone else, we can continue talking in circles about this debacle but frankly I think it's run its course. Keep in mind two things: 1) Riot's expectations of their game and its users, 2) IWD's willingness to ignore warnings and bans on 9 different instances. This includes Riot department heads contacting IWD and dig outside of the game.
I have been posting in this subforum since it existed and have been at TL just as long.
VayneAuthority Joined TL.net Thursday, 18th of October 2012
??
Even if it is true, TL LoL as a community existed for far longer than the subforum.
On December 06 2012 08:59 NeoIllusions wrote: @bly: perhaps "shitting up the subforum" is taking it a step too far but you and I both know how unyieldingly stubborn you can be sometimes and this is one of those times. I'm glad JBright finally got through to you. Riot's main goal is to mold the community to their expectation. To everyone who thinks this is "carebear" mentality, stop being such a jackass. No one is saying all LoL players need to pander each other and compliment every good thing they do. "Don't be a douche" is not asking for too much. IWD was appropriately punished. If you think a year is too long, then you have an issue with severity, which is ok by me. But IWD losing out on the money from being a pro is a consequence of his own actions. He had ample warning. When does it become his own fault for not heeding Riot when they came at him 9 times with temp bans?
@Shake: there are a bunch of pros who have been assholes in the past and many of them have reformed. The main big one is really HotShotgg. Even TSM members like Regi and Dyrus have moments of rage still. I know Dyrus has been temp banned in the past as well. But in the end, pretty much all their behavior have been on an upswing and I highly doubt they've been reported at the rate or frequency that IWD was. You can argue that your personal experience with IWD was not as bad as with TSM but your experience is a small sample and in all, IWD was consider more toxic by a panel of his peers.
@VayneAuthority: I meant "no kidding". Please check my profile and zulu's profile for our TL join dates. We're probably two of the oldest TL users in this subforum. bly and I butt heads when it comes to our opinions but I still hold him in esteem. Just because he's a TL vet does not mean I won't keep him in check when he's running his mouth. bly also knows that when I do so, it's not out of malice. So when you make comments about how TL LoL mods are power hungry, you're just embarassing yourself. Apparently you don't have a clue what I have personally contributed in making this subforum what it is today.
To everyone else, we can continue talking in circles about this debacle but frankly I think it's run its course. Keep in mind two things: 1) Riot's expectations of their game and its users, 2) IWD's willingness to ignore warnings and bans on 9 different instances. This includes Riot department heads contacting IWD and dig outside of the game.
I have been posting in this subforum since it existed and have been at TL just as long.
That means shit when you are a PBU. Shape up your posting.
Makes me a bit sad to see a team crippled like this but you have to be a pretty big dick to end up in tribunal. Hope this is a wakeup call for everyone else to shape up!
This reminds me of fishy bans on an fps game, where a lot of players were banned on ffa games demos. It was subsquently agreed that it was a bad move, but it was a league, not the devellopers of the game. The fact that Riot is taking all the jobs in the industry of their game is really not a good thing.
When I read stuff like this I wanna give Riot more of my money.
I used to love Blizzard, but they turned into a neglectful parent and lately it's like they even stopped pretending they love me back. But then Riot comes along and adopts me and suddenly I'm getting all this attention, they actually seem to give a fuck what I think, and they give an impression of senior authority and intelligence, leading by example and prinicple. It's like having a real dad.
On December 07 2012 01:32 levelnoobz wrote: This reminds me of fishy bans on an fps game, where a lot of players were banned on ffa games demos. It was subsquently agreed that it was a bad move, but it was a league, not the devellopers of the game. The fact that Riot is taking all the jobs in the industry of their game is really not a good thing.
You are miles and miles behind in this discussion. Please read the thread before iterating .
On December 07 2012 01:49 Keniji wrote: What does PBU mean? :[
previously banned user. You might check out the automated ban list thread in the closed forum from time to time. It's fun!
Actually I'd like to add that I have played with IWD plenty of times and I'm not surprised at all of this decision. The guy is a grade A asshole and frankly toxic. My games in soloQ with him were never fond memories (unless he was enemy team, in which case it was a free win cuz he tilts his team so hard )
Im glad that Riot has taken a stance to make the game seem very competitive, but I fell like this is exaggerated just a tad. I feel like Riot used him to make an example more than anything. Although, if this is what it takes, so be it. Lesson learned: Solo que is serious business.
EPT
They have way too much leverage over their "pro-scene" it is really disturbing. 
