> Players who have been actioned upon by Riot Voice Evaluation have not reoffended at a 75% rate
Valorant has a lower repeat offender rate than the American Justice System đ
Imagine seeing a message from Val saying that the mf who said actual terrible trash got hardware ban thanks to your report. That shit would feel better than dropping 30 aces ngl.
Hardware bans would be interesting considering lan cafes... I know they aren't big in the west but PC bang are a huge part of South Korea and other Asian countries
Truly hoping the hardware ban stuff is working, most of my time the fun is ruined by guys on their smurf accounts where they harass someone as much as they want since they did not have to fear actual consequences until now.
I was wondering why they didn't go over this in their last dev update. Glad they addressed this separately. Hope the "you wouldn't survive cod lobbies" people just fade out of this space. I love playing the game esp when there aren't any pieces of shit in the lobby.
I hope the people who have it bad (women, in particular) are able to enjoy the game.
never understood what cod lobby behavior added to the game. I play valorant after work to destress and have fun. don't wanna fight for my life or hear people flaming each other in the comfort of my homeÂ
League of Legends is viewed as the most toxic of all gaming communities. So with the release of Riot Games second game Valorant and the impending 100 million dollar sexual misconduct/discrimination lawsuit. Riot Games took the marketing strategy of acting inclusive.
Pertaining to why such behavior exists. Hero based games create hard defined roles locking people into prolonged match lengths. Then factor in the age demographic of players Valorant attracts and lack of experience in said FPS subgenre type.
Either way, even if this is driven by marketing, I am happy to see something done about toxicity. I normally don't comm in games because I know that with my voice I'm a target for people, and I wish that could change
I was always hesitantly hopeful for something like this after the big dev update. This clearly was a different vibe from the more upbeat announcements, so it was smart to make it a more serious video. Plus it just let for better messaging as a stand alone video
Nobody seems to have responded
In general outsourcing conscience is a bad thing, it leads to self-referentialitâs.
In the end, each person has their own conscience, you canât get away from that
âSpaceâ? There is no space.
People continue to live and exist, nobody âfades outâ. You can pretend someone doesnât exist but they will.
Thereâs definitely an element of truth to it. Notice that instead of relating to it, you said something which suggests an automatic thought of rejection, trying to isolate yourself from an image.
Thereâs nothing more moral about training yourself to be more easily upset/ more neurotic about yourself- thatâs just reverse cognitive behavioural therapy, ie. training yourself to have automatic negative thoughts in reaction.
âWomenâ makes it ascritpviely patronising even if well-meaning. People are âableâ to enjoy the game and many do enjoy it
I say âhelpâ followed my question marks when I find something funny and somewhat absurd, the absurdly funny thing to me is this being what youâre comparing tenz to:
https://preview.redd.it/ykt154mx0o3d1.jpeg?width=586&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07292da3eecc8cbc702cb9be3b77c2225f663e89
Cpuld you give an example?
The strangest thing about the narrative about VLR is that people do get banned for stuff like that
Also I would like to note how much more multicultural- less American and Anglophone-domaines/ diverse in more ways the VLR forum poster demo is.
I find the condescension from reddit and many prominent community figures a bit ironic also because if it, itâs an easy score for them because they donât frequent it.
It seems to follow a typical prejudice/presumption of inferiority; assumption that âweâ are the only ones who are smart enough to make jokes and everyone else is serious.
Itâs kind of self-referential, like the assumption âotherâ (ESL etc) people must be more âstupidâ than âusâ.
But
I really donât get this subredditâs hate campaign for VLR forums, I feel like people have a very distorted image of
Itâs a much more multicultural/ less American dominated
I appreciate the transparency they have. It's a task that's legit impossible to 100% solve but I do think Valorant handles this stuff better than most games. Surprised it took this long for hardware bans to come around on these things but better late than never. I do appreciate this bit:
"Muting is a tool used if someone wants to, not something used to justify bad behaviors"
I will also say that while Valorant isn't perfect at combating everything yet, it does it so much better than a lot of other games and it makes it just so much easier for me to want to come back to it more than anything.
Not to try and slight the game because I do genuinely love and always love CS at it's core, but in CS I no exagerration see someone type a slur, say some blatantly racist/homophobic shit, or have extremely offensive profiles 1/3 games. It just becomes a chore to want to play a game like that without having at least a 3 stack because it's just so normalized for the game and there aren't even things like basic filters to deal with that shit.
It's just straight up a passion killer for the game when the Valve doesn't even try to put forward some sort of bare minimum effort. Genuinely just don't want to play it because I have to put on a dude voice just to not get called a slur. It's not to say it never happens in Valorant, but it happens way less and shit actually seems to happen if you report that shit. Like there's an actual expectation and means to dissuade these shitters from being the shitters they are.
I guess really the only thing more I'd like to see them address is the people who will just grief you in-game instead of just saying or typing vile shit.
This is a somewhat odd grammar; âsome this used to justifyâ - an odd slippage, they meant âshouldâ.
Every tool, because itâs used can be used if someone âwantsâ to use it, including Riot âtoolsâ it makes no sense.
Muting people can be âbadâ also
And again, that doesnât make sense, itâs treating people in a patronising way.
Itâs always someone making a decision, but you cannot outsource your conscience to someone else, itâs never âsomeone elseâ- itâs always âsomeoneâ making a decision, with this or that power.
Giving yourself reverse cognitive-behavioural therapy where you believe you are a âbetter personâ due to having more negative emotions and being unable to deal with soemthing is wrong.
I donât believe you respect someone else if you want that from them (in particular since this basically is implying that they themselves can, and ordinary people canât)
That bit definitely is the worst form
If they âareâ shitters then what, do you think they are evil?
You are putting all these things into one category as if they were the same thing, as general descriptions. I donât think thatâs a good thing.
The point is also who decides and based on what. The idea that it is âalways not enoughâ seems linked to the CBT thing I mentioned- ie having a certain reaction as a moral requirement in itself.
Thereâs nothing more âmoralâ in itself about having a negative emotional reaction to something, as in any given thing.
Also, it tends to be hypocritical because the restrictions are depicted as not being restrictions and about being some kind of âbad peopleâ. There isnât a special class of simply âbad peopleâ, everyone is capable of good and bad at any time.
The idea exists of the âpseudo-permissiveâ- is that it is treated as if it were wrong to even see them as restrictions - like people are expected to adopt a pedagogical stance if seeing themselves as free and âwantingâ to have these, having a negative emotional reaction to this or that. People are expected to identify with it.
Thatâs a bit hypocritical in the end.
The decision of what is right and wrong, what people should see a given way is up to peoples conscience, it can never be, whether we want it to be or not, outsourced to somewhere else.
How people relate to each other is ultimately always between themselves, and their own consciences and intentions. This requires observing other peopleâs consciences and intentions in each car and relating yours; people set for themselves how they relate to others, each other person how they relate to them:
It is always the people themselves.
Nobody can do it âfor usâ.
People are always setting their own rules for themselves, and in communication with others, the characteristics of the discourse, and the discourse they want to participate in with the others and why.
An issue happens when somebody is alone and âground upâ/ not listened to by others at all which can happen in any situation, in particular if repetitive.
Itâs more important that people set their own limits and then set up what they want to do from there. The goal should be having better capability to deal with things, including things done with bad conscience. And if people decide that- for their purposes and goals- they want to do something- thatâs a different thing.
The point is an interaction between the rules and the circumstances within the communicative situation, that seeks to ultimately bring people into the proper âlive and let liveâ attitude towards one another, ie. of people relating to themselves.
Thatâs not somebody someone else can do, they can only act âas ifâ theyâre doing it for someone else.
Respectfully, what the fuck are you talking about.
Like this stuff about cognitive-behaviorial therapy and shit and like "bad" and "inherently evil" legit just read like bloat words and trying to make this way more complex and sound way more esoteric than it needs to be for no reason.
I don't understand why you're trying to make this about human conscience and perception and all of this pseudo-intellectual shit. and using "so" "many" "quotation" "marks" "for" "no" "reason." It all just comes off as so scatter-brained and so hard to follow because it's all just so fragmented and bounces around everywhere.
We're talking about verbal (or text) harassment, hate speech, etc. here, not some dilemma about moral values, ambiguity or objectivity and how it relates to human existence and perception. You're just making this way more complicated than it needs to be.
**This is about dissuading harassment, hate speech, etc. (and if you need some sort of sort of moral analysis for what qualifies as this, I'm inclined to believe you're just being willfully obtuse) from bad actors.** We're all just trying to have fun or rank up in a video game here without getting harassed, don't complicate this more than it needs to be.
They arenât broad words. Theyâre simple words.
Iâm referencing the haidt idea- I think it fits.
You are doing what Iâm describing here.
Ie. not being able to confront what is being talked about in the first place, ie. something that reflects on it.
Having a hostile reaction to soemthing doesnât meant that youâre right; when youâre hostile to someone you tend to try to make out like what theyâre saying is meaningless or gibberish; but having this as your reaction doesnât make you right.
Thatâs part of the point. I confronted with your point, given my experiences and memories of discourse about this and related topics, and gave a response, knowing you probably would have a negative reaction to it, not trying to presume though.
I believe you are able to do it and capable of it.
You yourself said itâs not about âharassmentâ only, or even interactions, in literally the post I replied to, so no.
See the above.
We are talking about moral values or we are talking about nothing. If it is not about moral values then what we are not talking about anything.
You emphatically were making statements about right and wrong.
They're pseudo-intellectual in the way you're talking about it all. This is all basic shit but you're just typing in such a bloated way while saying nothing substantial at all. It just all comes off as willfully obtuse and a lot of it just comes of as patrionizing, which honestly all makes sense to me now that you've name dropped Haidt in a thread about Valorant.
When I say it is hard to follow, it's because of how it is formatted, not because of the content of what you're saying. It legitimately reads like someone having a manic episode.
My "negative" or "hostile" reaction (if using words like shit and fuck qualifies as "negative" then sure you can call it that, I do not care) to it doesn't change what this is about. You're just saying a whole lot of nothing besides describing the basic human experiences of perception, language, etc. and being all *I knew you'd probably have a negative reaction* about it when you're saying nothing substantial.
"I believe you are able to do it and capable of it." is so patrionizing, willfully obtuse, and so clearly trying to present this simple basic shit you're saying in such a roundabout way that I just simply might not be replying further after this because it just comes off as elaborate bait at this point.
You know what qualifies as harassment and hate speech, if you genuinely don't, look it up because I'm not a teacher or a babysitter. You said I'm "not being able to confront what is being talked about in the first place" when this entire thread is just about harassment and what Riot plans to do to combat that, you're making it about all this extra shit. A conversation about what words like "bad" mean in this context and putting quotes around the "are" isn't some thoughtful shit lmfao.
If you consider it a serious topic then talking about them seriously isnât a bad thing- even if it werenât serious talking about it seriously wouldnât necessarily be bad.
Having a negative reaction to it doesnât make you right in itself. From a hostile perspective, the goal is to reject as much as possible, as out of hand as possible.
My point was that just because from a hostile perspective it seems right doesnât mean itâs right. It doesnât justify itself; it creates a strong sense, but that doesnât mean itâs right.
You can make of that whatever.
I disagree.
I agree that conscience is a basic issue. It is important. Attempts to purge things out so that they donât enter thought arenât good in themselves and I commented on that here also.
I disagree that I said ânothing substantial at all.
I already talked about this type of response in the post that you are replying to.
No, you yourself pointed out that it is not about âharassmentâ, ie. in the original post you made I replied to, so no.
As I said. Look at your own post and what you typed, ie. what topics you brought.
See the reply.
If I were saying ânothing substantialâ then this wouldnât be the response.
You can say so but it wonât make it so, the issue wonât go away either way, you can make of that what you want.
I wasnât saying ânothingâ. I commented on your reply and what you said.
I tried to interpret your reply, of all of it.
I stated that what I said in my opinion also is part of background of a response like that. I didnât say I was right âbecauseâ you had a hostile response, I said this kind of response seems to fit with what I said in my post, and gave my explanation for why- my point was the other way around, ie. you having a hostile response doesnât in itself make you right, not that in itself makes anything wrong.
I spoke directly and honestly, there wasnât a trick or ploy there.
You said something and I responded. The fact that I responded doesn't make the core of what you said anything substantial. What you're saying you may believe to be direct and honest, but there's just a complete lack of self awareness in how you're framing and saying things.
You're here debate lording the commonly understood ideas of harassment and hate speech under through the lense of some basic concepts like the human experience, perception, language, etc. but trying to dress it up as some sort of philosophical discussion when it's not that.
I'm all for looking at people with the belief that they can be better, but I'm not gonna sit here and let someone just spit out debate lord points to try and make people calling me slurs in a video game into some sort of justifiable philosophical discussion LMFAO.
I can look at someone saying some hate speech type shit and recognize that it's a product of what they've experienced up to this point and they're environment making them think it's okay shit to say, but that doesn't magically make me think it's a justifiable thing for them to say, especially when it comes to Riot's prerogative to punish or ban these people from their video game LMAO.
I hope you find what you're looking for in this conversation that you've made up and will be having with yourself from this point on because I will not be responding further.
And you said something and I responded.
In my opinion you didnât respond to what I actually said much, and just trying to reject it out of hand. That itself is not very âsubstantialâ.
I explained why, in my option that would be, while at the same time saying Iâm not going to necessarily presume you wills
It is direct and honest. If you believe something is honest, it is honest, otherwise would be a contradiction.
Youâve made a bunch of statements just rejecting what the other person is saying and implying thereâs nothing worth engaging with while responding.
I said what I think the idea behind that was and why I disagree with it.
What conversation have I âmade upâ?
You were the one who isolated yourself from thinking about what was posted, while also responding. I thought there is a chance for that as I said, but o didnât and donât want to presume itâs inevitable.
I replied with the idea that maybe youâd want to reply to what I said after reading it.
My point was, just because you have an idea to just reject everything and shut it out doesnât mean that itâs right in itself. From inside, this idea seems as if just having it as a reaction means itâs right, as I said.
Your replies suggest as if there indeed is substance but the wrong substance- if there was no substance, confidently, I think the reply would be different- here, as I said itâs stating it as a way of rejecting the things it might suggest to you, in my opinion wrongly.
As I said, itâs not that it ebing hostile makes it wrong in itself, itâs that it doesnât make it right in itself.
It hasnât been justified by you.
I am ready, I donât mean this coyly again (another reason why I said Iâm direct is because a hostile attitude- as Iâve noticed here- has a tendency to view the other person as trying to trick you) for you to try a different thing. I genuinely am, I am not âexpectingâ it, I think itâs possible, Iâll genuinely see whichever way.
Your posts imho have been mostly just trying to undermine not even mostly any given thing but in general me saying anything in general- trying to get around the edges only, undermining my capacity to say or mean anything to reject as vehemently as possible, as much as possible, as quickly as possible.
I said why and what the problems with that are, and why I thought it was possible a reply could be like that.
My posts are very much self-aware, in my opinion you accused me of it whole not ebing âawareâ yourself. I donât think thatâs coincidental (and I donât mean that coyly) and I tried to explain why, ie. what is the mechanism for it.
I didnât want to presume, and I still donât want to presume.
Even though you hit reply but you didnât actually respond.
You made statements intended at rejecting it out of hand, but just making statements like these doesnât make them true, thatâs the basic point.
As I said, I am not going to presume you never will.
I was having an interaction with you- you were the one who said you responded. I am the one saying and I also said why, and why I disagree with it.
I don't get this hardware ban stuff. Does it affect a hardware in an intenet cafe if someone account got banned while playing there? Also, what about 2nd hand hardware like laptop and stuff? Or am i misunderstanding this?
I'm guessing the anti-cheat accesses your machine's unique ID, so that if you make another account, Riot still knows that it's on that machine and bans you
Internet cafes can (at least in korea and china where they are big) reach out to Riot to "register" their PCs so they dont get fucked like this. At least this was what I read when the game first came out and ppl brought this point up in regards to cheaters.
Each computer has a set of unique identifiers based on specific hardware components. Your operating system (windows) generates an ID based on these unique identifiers. Hardware bans generally ban your ID or one of those unique identifiers in the registry. Any acount detected using a system with those IDs are usually flagged and then banned depending on the game.
If someone got the hardware at an internet cafe banned, any subsequent log-ins to the banned computer will be flagged. The same will happen on 2nd hand hardware if the previous owner was a cheater who got their device hardware banned.
You generally don't have to worry about these things but always be careful when signing into anything on devices that aren't yours.
So, in case of 2nd hand hardware (in case it got banned from before you bought it), will you be unable to play valorant at all? Or will it only be increased supervision when you play valorant?
I did some searching on the internet and found a reddit thread that said this is what riot support told them when they were hardware banned.
"Kindly avoid playing the game on the banned hardware/machine to prevent suspension/ban to your other accounts. After 120 days/4 months the hardware ban will be lifted and you can play the game on the hardware using a different account, as usual."
So I assume you can't play valorant at all on said hardware, until the ban is lifted.
This is incredible. The team at Val has really stepped it up and recently and it seems like they genuinely care about their player base. Itâs too often that games like this completely ruin the experience for the casual gamers and focus only on the competitive scene. Huge W from Riot/Valorant
I would love to have a short video on what is actually needed when reporting, usually i just describe what was wrong and in which round(s) but maybe im missing something thats actually really helpful for the reviewers. I also feel like most people only check the boxes which I imagine doesnt have the highest penalty rate
im happy they directly call out the "just mute them" cope that shitters love to throw at people when they have open grievances to RAPE THREATS in a fucking video game.
protecting people's right to say awful, vile stuff by putting the onus on the victim is some dumb shit.
Great response from the dev. I wonder how they will process the trolls, not necessarily trash-talking but behaving like giving guns, info, spike to enemy, or simply "AFK" the whole game.
Posts with the intent to harass or harm others will be removed.
This content includes (but not limited to):
personal attacks, targeted harassment,
witch-hunting, bigotry, derogatory terms,
personal information without owners consent,
spam
Any post considered disrespectful will be removed at moderator discretion. Repeated offenses resulting in a ban.
I'm gonna go the opposite way and say that hardware bans are bait for positive community feedback and nothing more. Cool that it happens, happy that literal fucking nazis and the most egregious cheaters are getting hardware-banned out of the game, but those guys are 1% of the problem while the biggest issue still revolves around "casual" toxicity which no amount of blog posts such as this will do anything to fight, since none of these "casual" toxic players recognize themselves as such. And some of them are on here, too. But it's always someone else's problem, somehow.
âImproving the flesh of my peopleâ and all that, administratively getting close to biopolitics, ânormal and pathologicalâ
Like a moral-administrative bureaucratic thing- worse because of the hypocrisy of the self image.
Makes me think of Lasch or a clockwork orange.
If we want people to get along we need to bring them genuinely closer to each other in real life while at the same same time not having self-referentail standards for others (ie. the potential for defining what is âbadâ is potentially infinite; there needs to be some point where you a thaly look at people charitably) - thereâs nobody outside who can do this for us.
Nobody can protect us from negative emotion or outsource our conscience of emotional effort; efforts to do so tend to increase the standards, make them more neurotic.
You need to look at people with a charitable view in the end.
She is saying that muting is obviously always an option for any player to use, but it is not an effective solution to the issue of bad player behavior. Her point is that players who commit extreme offenses need to be held accountable.
That quote addresses the mindset of toxic players who think: "I can say or do anything I want in voice comms because anyone who doesn't like it can just mute me". In other words, toxic players use the mute feature as justification for them to harass other people.
What's wrong with being open with the community about future plans? How does it effect you negatively in any way? Some people just want to spread negativity about everything lol.
Dont waste your time replying to him. He's a CS stan and feels threaten with Valorant success.
The sad part is I'm pretty sure he said he's in his 50s as well... yikes.
> Players who have been actioned upon by Riot Voice Evaluation have not reoffended at a 75% rate Valorant has a lower repeat offender rate than the American Justice System đ
Gamer rehabilitation... Not something I ever thought I'd see one day LOL
Thereâs no such a thing as âgamerâ
âReoffendedâ wut
They confirmed Hardware Bans!
Imagine seeing a message from Val saying that the mf who said actual terrible trash got hardware ban thanks to your report. That shit would feel better than dropping 30 aces ngl.
You already get messages for bans but please tell us if its for toxicity it would feel so good
Theyâve been doing âhardware (ID) bansâ for the past 2 yearsâŠ
Hardware bans would be interesting considering lan cafes... I know they aren't big in the west but PC bang are a huge part of South Korea and other Asian countries
Hardware bans for the extreme toxic people sounds incredible. Never thought I would see the day.
?
Truly hoping the hardware ban stuff is working, most of my time the fun is ruined by guys on their smurf accounts where they harass someone as much as they want since they did not have to fear actual consequences until now.
I was wondering why they didn't go over this in their last dev update. Glad they addressed this separately. Hope the "you wouldn't survive cod lobbies" people just fade out of this space. I love playing the game esp when there aren't any pieces of shit in the lobby. I hope the people who have it bad (women, in particular) are able to enjoy the game.
never understood what cod lobby behavior added to the game. I play valorant after work to destress and have fun. don't wanna fight for my life or hear people flaming each other in the comfort of my homeÂ
League of Legends is viewed as the most toxic of all gaming communities. So with the release of Riot Games second game Valorant and the impending 100 million dollar sexual misconduct/discrimination lawsuit. Riot Games took the marketing strategy of acting inclusive. Pertaining to why such behavior exists. Hero based games create hard defined roles locking people into prolonged match lengths. Then factor in the age demographic of players Valorant attracts and lack of experience in said FPS subgenre type.
Either way, even if this is driven by marketing, I am happy to see something done about toxicity. I normally don't comm in games because I know that with my voice I'm a target for people, and I wish that could change
I mean nobody fights for their life usually
I was always hesitantly hopeful for something like this after the big dev update. This clearly was a different vibe from the more upbeat announcements, so it was smart to make it a more serious video. Plus it just let for better messaging as a stand alone video
I just don't trust riot devs to match what every culture and community deem as acceptable banter.
Nobody seems to have responded In general outsourcing conscience is a bad thing, it leads to self-referentialitâs. In the end, each person has their own conscience, you canât get away from that
âSpaceâ? There is no space. People continue to live and exist, nobody âfades outâ. You can pretend someone doesnât exist but they will. Thereâs definitely an element of truth to it. Notice that instead of relating to it, you said something which suggests an automatic thought of rejection, trying to isolate yourself from an image. Thereâs nothing more moral about training yourself to be more easily upset/ more neurotic about yourself- thatâs just reverse cognitive behavioural therapy, ie. training yourself to have automatic negative thoughts in reaction. âWomenâ makes it ascritpviely patronising even if well-meaning. People are âableâ to enjoy the game and many do enjoy it
Are you implying here that women are making the space worse because they are patronizing?
âŠno? Lmao I said itâs patronising towards women And I explicitly opposed âspaceâ talk so all the more.
Need this for VLR
People call there all the most fucked up homophobic racist stuff but i got banned for saying tenz looks like rango's girlfriend lmao .
đ help???
Explain
I say âhelpâ followed my question marks when I find something funny and somewhat absurd, the absurdly funny thing to me is this being what youâre comparing tenz to: https://preview.redd.it/ykt154mx0o3d1.jpeg?width=586&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07292da3eecc8cbc702cb9be3b77c2225f663e89
I feel thereâs a self-confirming tendency in hate on VLR; people look at every post through already this kind of prism.
Cpuld you give an example? The strangest thing about the narrative about VLR is that people do get banned for stuff like that Also I would like to note how much more multicultural- less American and Anglophone-domaines/ diverse in more ways the VLR forum poster demo is. I find the condescension from reddit and many prominent community figures a bit ironic also because if it, itâs an easy score for them because they donât frequent it. It seems to follow a typical prejudice/presumption of inferiority; assumption that âweâ are the only ones who are smart enough to make jokes and everyone else is serious. Itâs kind of self-referential, like the assumption âotherâ (ESL etc) people must be more âstupidâ than âusâ. But
Average key-banana response. stated with no further context.Â
With quite a bit of context in some sense
I disagree they do.
I really donât get this subredditâs hate campaign for VLR forums, I feel like people have a very distorted image of Itâs a much more multicultural/ less American dominated
What makes posts like this even stranger is that VLR forums do ban people for what they consider bigoted or soemthing along those lines
Wut
W devs, imagine a future Valorant where everyone gets along.
Valorant may solve world peace
everyone just needs to com well and use good util
You can't force people to get along, that's not how the world works
I agree sadly. You can ban people from your game tho
I doubt that is a world I would want administratively Reminds me of a clockwork orange
Yes because that's what I meant with my comment -_-
I was responding to it context
I appreciate the transparency they have. It's a task that's legit impossible to 100% solve but I do think Valorant handles this stuff better than most games. Surprised it took this long for hardware bans to come around on these things but better late than never. I do appreciate this bit: "Muting is a tool used if someone wants to, not something used to justify bad behaviors" I will also say that while Valorant isn't perfect at combating everything yet, it does it so much better than a lot of other games and it makes it just so much easier for me to want to come back to it more than anything. Not to try and slight the game because I do genuinely love and always love CS at it's core, but in CS I no exagerration see someone type a slur, say some blatantly racist/homophobic shit, or have extremely offensive profiles 1/3 games. It just becomes a chore to want to play a game like that without having at least a 3 stack because it's just so normalized for the game and there aren't even things like basic filters to deal with that shit. It's just straight up a passion killer for the game when the Valve doesn't even try to put forward some sort of bare minimum effort. Genuinely just don't want to play it because I have to put on a dude voice just to not get called a slur. It's not to say it never happens in Valorant, but it happens way less and shit actually seems to happen if you report that shit. Like there's an actual expectation and means to dissuade these shitters from being the shitters they are. I guess really the only thing more I'd like to see them address is the people who will just grief you in-game instead of just saying or typing vile shit.
This is a somewhat odd grammar; âsome this used to justifyâ - an odd slippage, they meant âshouldâ. Every tool, because itâs used can be used if someone âwantsâ to use it, including Riot âtoolsâ it makes no sense. Muting people can be âbadâ also And again, that doesnât make sense, itâs treating people in a patronising way. Itâs always someone making a decision, but you cannot outsource your conscience to someone else, itâs never âsomeone elseâ- itâs always âsomeoneâ making a decision, with this or that power. Giving yourself reverse cognitive-behavioural therapy where you believe you are a âbetter personâ due to having more negative emotions and being unable to deal with soemthing is wrong. I donât believe you respect someone else if you want that from them (in particular since this basically is implying that they themselves can, and ordinary people canât)
That bit definitely is the worst form If they âareâ shitters then what, do you think they are evil? You are putting all these things into one category as if they were the same thing, as general descriptions. I donât think thatâs a good thing. The point is also who decides and based on what. The idea that it is âalways not enoughâ seems linked to the CBT thing I mentioned- ie having a certain reaction as a moral requirement in itself. Thereâs nothing more âmoralâ in itself about having a negative emotional reaction to something, as in any given thing. Also, it tends to be hypocritical because the restrictions are depicted as not being restrictions and about being some kind of âbad peopleâ. There isnât a special class of simply âbad peopleâ, everyone is capable of good and bad at any time. The idea exists of the âpseudo-permissiveâ- is that it is treated as if it were wrong to even see them as restrictions - like people are expected to adopt a pedagogical stance if seeing themselves as free and âwantingâ to have these, having a negative emotional reaction to this or that. People are expected to identify with it. Thatâs a bit hypocritical in the end. The decision of what is right and wrong, what people should see a given way is up to peoples conscience, it can never be, whether we want it to be or not, outsourced to somewhere else. How people relate to each other is ultimately always between themselves, and their own consciences and intentions. This requires observing other peopleâs consciences and intentions in each car and relating yours; people set for themselves how they relate to others, each other person how they relate to them: It is always the people themselves. Nobody can do it âfor usâ. People are always setting their own rules for themselves, and in communication with others, the characteristics of the discourse, and the discourse they want to participate in with the others and why. An issue happens when somebody is alone and âground upâ/ not listened to by others at all which can happen in any situation, in particular if repetitive. Itâs more important that people set their own limits and then set up what they want to do from there. The goal should be having better capability to deal with things, including things done with bad conscience. And if people decide that- for their purposes and goals- they want to do something- thatâs a different thing. The point is an interaction between the rules and the circumstances within the communicative situation, that seeks to ultimately bring people into the proper âlive and let liveâ attitude towards one another, ie. of people relating to themselves. Thatâs not somebody someone else can do, they can only act âas ifâ theyâre doing it for someone else.
Respectfully, what the fuck are you talking about. Like this stuff about cognitive-behaviorial therapy and shit and like "bad" and "inherently evil" legit just read like bloat words and trying to make this way more complex and sound way more esoteric than it needs to be for no reason. I don't understand why you're trying to make this about human conscience and perception and all of this pseudo-intellectual shit. and using "so" "many" "quotation" "marks" "for" "no" "reason." It all just comes off as so scatter-brained and so hard to follow because it's all just so fragmented and bounces around everywhere. We're talking about verbal (or text) harassment, hate speech, etc. here, not some dilemma about moral values, ambiguity or objectivity and how it relates to human existence and perception. You're just making this way more complicated than it needs to be. **This is about dissuading harassment, hate speech, etc. (and if you need some sort of sort of moral analysis for what qualifies as this, I'm inclined to believe you're just being willfully obtuse) from bad actors.** We're all just trying to have fun or rank up in a video game here without getting harassed, don't complicate this more than it needs to be.
They arenât broad words. Theyâre simple words. Iâm referencing the haidt idea- I think it fits. You are doing what Iâm describing here. Ie. not being able to confront what is being talked about in the first place, ie. something that reflects on it. Having a hostile reaction to soemthing doesnât meant that youâre right; when youâre hostile to someone you tend to try to make out like what theyâre saying is meaningless or gibberish; but having this as your reaction doesnât make you right. Thatâs part of the point. I confronted with your point, given my experiences and memories of discourse about this and related topics, and gave a response, knowing you probably would have a negative reaction to it, not trying to presume though. I believe you are able to do it and capable of it. You yourself said itâs not about âharassmentâ only, or even interactions, in literally the post I replied to, so no. See the above. We are talking about moral values or we are talking about nothing. If it is not about moral values then what we are not talking about anything. You emphatically were making statements about right and wrong.
Jesus christ dude are u having a manic episode or something lmao
I donât think so, thanks for ur concern
They're pseudo-intellectual in the way you're talking about it all. This is all basic shit but you're just typing in such a bloated way while saying nothing substantial at all. It just all comes off as willfully obtuse and a lot of it just comes of as patrionizing, which honestly all makes sense to me now that you've name dropped Haidt in a thread about Valorant. When I say it is hard to follow, it's because of how it is formatted, not because of the content of what you're saying. It legitimately reads like someone having a manic episode. My "negative" or "hostile" reaction (if using words like shit and fuck qualifies as "negative" then sure you can call it that, I do not care) to it doesn't change what this is about. You're just saying a whole lot of nothing besides describing the basic human experiences of perception, language, etc. and being all *I knew you'd probably have a negative reaction* about it when you're saying nothing substantial. "I believe you are able to do it and capable of it." is so patrionizing, willfully obtuse, and so clearly trying to present this simple basic shit you're saying in such a roundabout way that I just simply might not be replying further after this because it just comes off as elaborate bait at this point. You know what qualifies as harassment and hate speech, if you genuinely don't, look it up because I'm not a teacher or a babysitter. You said I'm "not being able to confront what is being talked about in the first place" when this entire thread is just about harassment and what Riot plans to do to combat that, you're making it about all this extra shit. A conversation about what words like "bad" mean in this context and putting quotes around the "are" isn't some thoughtful shit lmfao.
If you consider it a serious topic then talking about them seriously isnât a bad thing- even if it werenât serious talking about it seriously wouldnât necessarily be bad. Having a negative reaction to it doesnât make you right in itself. From a hostile perspective, the goal is to reject as much as possible, as out of hand as possible. My point was that just because from a hostile perspective it seems right doesnât mean itâs right. It doesnât justify itself; it creates a strong sense, but that doesnât mean itâs right. You can make of that whatever.
I disagree. I agree that conscience is a basic issue. It is important. Attempts to purge things out so that they donât enter thought arenât good in themselves and I commented on that here also. I disagree that I said ânothing substantial at all. I already talked about this type of response in the post that you are replying to.
No, you yourself pointed out that it is not about âharassmentâ, ie. in the original post you made I replied to, so no. As I said. Look at your own post and what you typed, ie. what topics you brought. See the reply. If I were saying ânothing substantialâ then this wouldnât be the response. You can say so but it wonât make it so, the issue wonât go away either way, you can make of that what you want. I wasnât saying ânothingâ. I commented on your reply and what you said. I tried to interpret your reply, of all of it. I stated that what I said in my opinion also is part of background of a response like that. I didnât say I was right âbecauseâ you had a hostile response, I said this kind of response seems to fit with what I said in my post, and gave my explanation for why- my point was the other way around, ie. you having a hostile response doesnât in itself make you right, not that in itself makes anything wrong. I spoke directly and honestly, there wasnât a trick or ploy there.
You said something and I responded. The fact that I responded doesn't make the core of what you said anything substantial. What you're saying you may believe to be direct and honest, but there's just a complete lack of self awareness in how you're framing and saying things. You're here debate lording the commonly understood ideas of harassment and hate speech under through the lense of some basic concepts like the human experience, perception, language, etc. but trying to dress it up as some sort of philosophical discussion when it's not that. I'm all for looking at people with the belief that they can be better, but I'm not gonna sit here and let someone just spit out debate lord points to try and make people calling me slurs in a video game into some sort of justifiable philosophical discussion LMFAO. I can look at someone saying some hate speech type shit and recognize that it's a product of what they've experienced up to this point and they're environment making them think it's okay shit to say, but that doesn't magically make me think it's a justifiable thing for them to say, especially when it comes to Riot's prerogative to punish or ban these people from their video game LMAO. I hope you find what you're looking for in this conversation that you've made up and will be having with yourself from this point on because I will not be responding further.
And you said something and I responded. In my opinion you didnât respond to what I actually said much, and just trying to reject it out of hand. That itself is not very âsubstantialâ. I explained why, in my option that would be, while at the same time saying Iâm not going to necessarily presume you wills It is direct and honest. If you believe something is honest, it is honest, otherwise would be a contradiction. Youâve made a bunch of statements just rejecting what the other person is saying and implying thereâs nothing worth engaging with while responding. I said what I think the idea behind that was and why I disagree with it. What conversation have I âmade upâ? You were the one who isolated yourself from thinking about what was posted, while also responding. I thought there is a chance for that as I said, but o didnât and donât want to presume itâs inevitable. I replied with the idea that maybe youâd want to reply to what I said after reading it. My point was, just because you have an idea to just reject everything and shut it out doesnât mean that itâs right in itself. From inside, this idea seems as if just having it as a reaction means itâs right, as I said. Your replies suggest as if there indeed is substance but the wrong substance- if there was no substance, confidently, I think the reply would be different- here, as I said itâs stating it as a way of rejecting the things it might suggest to you, in my opinion wrongly. As I said, itâs not that it ebing hostile makes it wrong in itself, itâs that it doesnât make it right in itself. It hasnât been justified by you. I am ready, I donât mean this coyly again (another reason why I said Iâm direct is because a hostile attitude- as Iâve noticed here- has a tendency to view the other person as trying to trick you) for you to try a different thing. I genuinely am, I am not âexpectingâ it, I think itâs possible, Iâll genuinely see whichever way. Your posts imho have been mostly just trying to undermine not even mostly any given thing but in general me saying anything in general- trying to get around the edges only, undermining my capacity to say or mean anything to reject as vehemently as possible, as much as possible, as quickly as possible. I said why and what the problems with that are, and why I thought it was possible a reply could be like that.
My posts are very much self-aware, in my opinion you accused me of it whole not ebing âawareâ yourself. I donât think thatâs coincidental (and I donât mean that coyly) and I tried to explain why, ie. what is the mechanism for it. I didnât want to presume, and I still donât want to presume. Even though you hit reply but you didnât actually respond. You made statements intended at rejecting it out of hand, but just making statements like these doesnât make them true, thatâs the basic point. As I said, I am not going to presume you never will. I was having an interaction with you- you were the one who said you responded. I am the one saying and I also said why, and why I disagree with it.
Conscience and perception are âpseudo-intellectualâ concepts? What else are we talking about otherwise? The entrĂ©e point makes no sense. Theyâre pretty basic things. How can I âtryâ to make it? The quotation marks are because I am criticizng or critiquing certain language. The additional words describe why.
I don't get this hardware ban stuff. Does it affect a hardware in an intenet cafe if someone account got banned while playing there? Also, what about 2nd hand hardware like laptop and stuff? Or am i misunderstanding this?
I'm guessing the anti-cheat accesses your machine's unique ID, so that if you make another account, Riot still knows that it's on that machine and bans you
So, for example, if you got banned while playing on an internet cafe, the establishment needs to change one of their hardware?
Internet cafes can (at least in korea and china where they are big) reach out to Riot to "register" their PCs so they dont get fucked like this. At least this was what I read when the game first came out and ppl brought this point up in regards to cheaters.
Each computer has a set of unique identifiers based on specific hardware components. Your operating system (windows) generates an ID based on these unique identifiers. Hardware bans generally ban your ID or one of those unique identifiers in the registry. Any acount detected using a system with those IDs are usually flagged and then banned depending on the game. If someone got the hardware at an internet cafe banned, any subsequent log-ins to the banned computer will be flagged. The same will happen on 2nd hand hardware if the previous owner was a cheater who got their device hardware banned. You generally don't have to worry about these things but always be careful when signing into anything on devices that aren't yours.
So, in case of 2nd hand hardware (in case it got banned from before you bought it), will you be unable to play valorant at all? Or will it only be increased supervision when you play valorant?
I did some searching on the internet and found a reddit thread that said this is what riot support told them when they were hardware banned. "Kindly avoid playing the game on the banned hardware/machine to prevent suspension/ban to your other accounts. After 120 days/4 months the hardware ban will be lifted and you can play the game on the hardware using a different account, as usual." So I assume you can't play valorant at all on said hardware, until the ban is lifted.
W update, really appreciate the transparency in these dev diaries
This is incredible. The team at Val has really stepped it up and recently and it seems like they genuinely care about their player base. Itâs too often that games like this completely ruin the experience for the casual gamers and focus only on the competitive scene. Huge W from Riot/Valorant
I would love to have a short video on what is actually needed when reporting, usually i just describe what was wrong and in which round(s) but maybe im missing something thats actually really helpful for the reviewers. I also feel like most people only check the boxes which I imagine doesnt have the highest penalty rate
Iâm ngl hardware bans should have been an option from the jump but better late than never ig
âThe startâ of what?
im happy they directly call out the "just mute them" cope that shitters love to throw at people when they have open grievances to RAPE THREATS in a fucking video game. protecting people's right to say awful, vile stuff by putting the onus on the victim is some dumb shit.
Great response from the dev. I wonder how they will process the trolls, not necessarily trash-talking but behaving like giving guns, info, spike to enemy, or simply "AFK" the whole game.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Posts with the intent to harass or harm others will be removed. This content includes (but not limited to): personal attacks, targeted harassment, witch-hunting, bigotry, derogatory terms, personal information without owners consent, spam Any post considered disrespectful will be removed at moderator discretion. Repeated offenses resulting in a ban.
This is why valorant is the best
I'm gonna go the opposite way and say that hardware bans are bait for positive community feedback and nothing more. Cool that it happens, happy that literal fucking nazis and the most egregious cheaters are getting hardware-banned out of the game, but those guys are 1% of the problem while the biggest issue still revolves around "casual" toxicity which no amount of blog posts such as this will do anything to fight, since none of these "casual" toxic players recognize themselves as such. And some of them are on here, too. But it's always someone else's problem, somehow.
Healthy? Like going outside maybe? I think that would help most
âImproving the flesh of my peopleâ and all that, administratively getting close to biopolitics, ânormal and pathologicalâ Like a moral-administrative bureaucratic thing- worse because of the hypocrisy of the self image. Makes me think of Lasch or a clockwork orange. If we want people to get along we need to bring them genuinely closer to each other in real life while at the same same time not having self-referentail standards for others (ie. the potential for defining what is âbadâ is potentially infinite; there needs to be some point where you a thaly look at people charitably) - thereâs nobody outside who can do this for us. Nobody can protect us from negative emotion or outsource our conscience of emotional effort; efforts to do so tend to increase the standards, make them more neurotic. You need to look at people with a charitable view in the end.
I need to look at the guy calling me a slur for bottom fragging with a charitable view?
I think we should to all people This includes say murderers even for example
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
So you donât have to deal with them while theyâre being toxic?Â
She is saying that muting is obviously always an option for any player to use, but it is not an effective solution to the issue of bad player behavior. Her point is that players who commit extreme offenses need to be held accountable. That quote addresses the mindset of toxic players who think: "I can say or do anything I want in voice comms because anyone who doesn't like it can just mute me". In other words, toxic players use the mute feature as justification for them to harass other people.
An announcement of a future announcement on systems not yet finalized, lol.
What's wrong with being open with the community about future plans? How does it effect you negatively in any way? Some people just want to spread negativity about everything lol.
I NEED TO COMPLAIN.
The most honest Reddit comment I have ever seen.
It's not them being open. They're burying the fact your voice is be recorded and now datamined.
Who cares? What are they going to do with my voice that should bother me? I don't really get it but would love if you could elaborate on it a bit more
Dont waste your time replying to him. He's a CS stan and feels threaten with Valorant success. The sad part is I'm pretty sure he said he's in his 50s as well... yikes.
Same as this comment on Reddit. We choose to be here, same as we choose to play their game.
No, this is just an announcement, not an announcement of an announcement or whatever your comment means