Riot Games to issue penalties for "off-platform conduct"
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/riot-games-to-issue-penalties-for-off-platform-conductOpen linkView original on sopuli.xyz127
Comments29https://www.gamesindustry.biz/riot-games-to-issue-penalties-for-off-platform-conductOpen linkView original on sopuli.xyz
In unrelated news Riot has faced allegations and lawsuits alleging a toxic workplace culture, including gender discrimination and sexual harassment. The company was criticized for its use of forced arbitration in response to these allegations.
A company who wants kernel level access to your system for "anti-cheat" is being run by psychopaths with no concept of personal boundaries
adds up
I'm devastated that League of Legends, TFT and the Netflix series Arcane are all related to this horrible company.
LoL is a terrible game, a shallow copy of the original concept.
I will die on this hill.
HoN was the superior dota successor.
Which, funnily enough, I never got into.
Bought the game like 3 weeks before going F2P, yet it never clicked as much as LoL.
Thank god for Dota 2.
We die together comrade
Also Avatar: The Last Airbender
... What?
Giancarlo Volpe, one of the writers for Avatar, works at Riot as a senior asshole.
RIP Tyler1
Based. Toxic streamers are careful to stay away from chat, and are have a huge impact on the overall culture.
So in theory one could be banned for making a negative review video?
Vanguard was enough for me to nope out, but this just seems like more anti consumer bullshit to me.
In theory you could read the article?
Not reading the article is a bannable offence.
Sorry, new rules.
Oh God please let this happen
What if reading it counts as negative conduct?
Red State detected
The article focuses on streamers and doesn't unambiguously answer this question
The article is very vague, I agree. But they do say
And it doesn't answer the question is because the question is irrelevant. But I do agree that the article is shit. One image of the said code of conduct shared on twitter was more informative than this article.
My point is just that it doesn't make sense to criticize the question for not reading the article if the article doesn't answer the question, and what's really needed to answer it is additional context. The broad scope of Riot's statement could be construed to mean they could do more than just ban streamers for using hateful language.
There was already another comment that added the relevant information so I didn't repeat it and no, riots statement is pretty concise.
Article and Riot's official documents refer to penalising toxic (flaming teammates/other people) behaviour during content creation with Riot' IPs. A negative review isn't toxic inherently
To capitalized G-amer clowns it is the same.
They have full legal rights to ban you for farting when the minute hand and hour hand aligned. This changes nothing in terms of what they "can" do. It's rather their public announcement about what they "will" do. If they really wanted to ban you for silly reasons, they don't even need these silly reasons, they can just ban you and are fully within their legal rights to do so.
Negative reviews are the least likely scenario for banning someone in game, as the person has already reviewed it and needs no further acesss on that account for their stream.
More likely they will punish people with an ever increasing range of 'inappropriate' that seems somewhat reasonable at first (hate speech) and end up with some minority group (LGBTQ+) being silenced through a chilling effect.
Doesn't seem unreasonable, I wouldn't want to associate myself with misbehaviour either.
not playing any riot games,Dont want them running a whole Surveillance camera("Anticheat") in my Windows NT Kernel.
that's what you get for playing corporate games.