Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc of SKK
Nice name but your post sucks, you don't address my points so I'll make them simpler for you:
1: I don't think flaming in game should get people banned from tournaments, unless it is to an obscene degree. Almost all sports tolerate offensive language.
2: I don't think a tribunal convict is good evidence that someone is being as extreme as I'd require in (1), for the reasons I detailed in my first post.
3: I think that DDOSing, threats to assault could be punishable by this sort of ban but the punishment has to be on a reasonable timescale, and not repeated. Otherwise you have a situation where Riot can choose whether to ruin someones career at a much later date. I think there's a more technical name for this like selective application or something.
Two side notes since I'm already typing:
The way that anyone in this thread who has disagreed with Riot has been ad hominem attacked demonstrates pretty well the lynch-mob mentality this report system creates.
Racism is a very cultural thing, some cultures tolerate certain forms of "racism" that others wouldn't, some are very sensitive. A game as international as this probably shouldn't get stuck in the gritty details of how to culturally interpret racism, nor should they go nuts at anything that looks like a racial slur since this may be culturally unfair (kind of another form of racism) so the only reasonable response is probably to treat racism similarly to other forms of abusive language.
|
No.
Racism is not a cultural thing and it has nothing to do with sensitivity. When someone decides to invoke the holocaust as a way to wish death on someone while also throwing out a slur mired in history which demeans an entire race there is no cultural pass for this.
We're not robots who discern things through some weird numerical lens, we're human beings working in a very multicultural environment and based worldwide. When you throw out a racial or homophobic slur it doesn't matter what your thoughts are on the matter, what matters is how other people view it. You have no reason to ever base your insults on prejudice or hate, unless you're prejudicial and hateful.
If you're claiming that it's an individual culture that allows this then leave that at the door because you're not in that culture when playing League of Legends. You don't need it, we don't want it; nobody has a doctors note saying they require twenty slurs to be spoken a day or they'll die.
For the most part, people aren't culturally unaware, they know this is wrong and they do it anyway which shows a willingness to hate that is belligerent.
This isn't a matter of sensitivity, or a culture war, it's being dignified as a human being and showing the minimum respect for others in order to be a respectable person. That isn't even up for discussion. Riot Games isn't a monolithic entity, it's made up of people, some of whom have encountered Racism and Homophobia throughout their lives and know exactly what it looks like.
The vast, vast majority of our players go through their games without earning even a warning. Stop making excuses as to why others are unable to be chill dudes.
Quote:
|
1: I don't think flaming in game should get people banned from tournaments, unless it is to an obscene degree. Almost all sports tolerate offensive language.
|
Would we be comfortable having a caster call out the plays of someone who consistently and over a prolonged period of time has proven themselves to use the very worst slurs? Or who has threatened a colleague with violence?
Actions do have consequences and we're not making an example here, it would have been wrong for us not to take action and undermine what we're setting out to do. Offensive language towards others professionally is typically going to get you punished and also lose the respect of your peers in any sport.
Quote:
|
2: I don't think a tribunal convict is good evidence that someone is being as extreme as I'd require in (1), for the reasons I detailed in my first post.
|
This was not just the Tribunal, we do a full investigation on all fronts. We look at every aspect of this, it's discussed back and forth to see every angle.
You're under the impression that the extremities of this case are somewhat mild, or some cheeky banter. It really wasn't and that is why the decision was made.
This is the only response I'll make here, we have some fantastic people in this thread explaining things with good reasoning and sense and they deserve to be backed up a little by a Red post.
)
