8 ms·

This has been discussed by the community for as long as I've been playing (2012ish), and rito has said they won't do it because it creates a "prisoners island"

This has been discussed by the community for as long as I've been playing (2012ish), and rito has said they won't do it because it creates a "prisoners island" type situation where all the mean players end up playing together and player retention drops. They argue its much better to attempt to rehabilitate rude players, but this was back when riot Lyte was doing his thing. I don't know if they spoken on the subject since.

luckylion 4y ago
That's wild. Their reasoning (or even finding, they should have the data) is that if you isolate the annoying players away from the general population, people overall play less? I'd intuitively expect the opposite, you play less if you constantly have rude players around. Or is it more of a thing of "60% of our players like to harass people, if we only pair them with other harassers, they don't have any fun and leave"?
- adamdusty 4y ago
  My memory isn't 100% but they essentially said that most players are actually unlikely to be toxic with any regularity. Typically players will have a bad game, and they will lash out. They said that for players that are habitually toxic, a short ban (I think 2 weeks is standard) significantly reduces the chance of reoffending. For players with repeat bans for harassment or aggression they get permanently banned or eventually quit because of frequent longer bans. Most of their communication should still be online in some form whether on their website or reddit. All this is just from my memory so subject to misremembering.
JohnFen 4y ago
> They argue its much better to attempt to rehabilitate rude players That's fascinating. It was rude and nasty players that drove me away from online gaming completely. They make it seriously unfun, and if it's not fun, there's no point in doing it.

8 ms·

This has been discussed by the community for as long as I've been playing (2012ish), and rito has said they won't do it because it creates a "prisoners island"

by adamdusty 4y ago

luckylion 4y ago
That's wild. Their reasoning (or even finding, they should have the data) is that if you isolate the annoying players away from the general population, people overall play less? I'd intuitively expect the opposite, you play less if you constantly have rude players around. Or is it more of a thing of "60% of our players like to harass people, if we only pair them with other harassers, they don't have any fun and leave"?
- adamdusty 4y ago
  My memory isn't 100% but they essentially said that most players are actually unlikely to be toxic with any regularity. Typically players will have a bad game, and they will lash out. They said that for players that are habitually toxic, a short ban (I think 2 weeks is standard) significantly reduces the chance of reoffending. For players with repeat bans for harassment or aggression they get permanently banned or eventually quit because of frequent longer bans. Most of their communication should still be online in some form whether on their website or reddit. All this is just from my memory so subject to misremembering.
JohnFen 4y ago
> They argue its much better to attempt to rehabilitate rude players That's fascinating. It was rude and nasty players that drove me away from online gaming completely. They make it seriously unfun, and if it's not fun, there's no point in doing it.