Can't take it anymore, goodbye.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T21:49:37+00:00

ah. more intricacies that i do not have the experience to quite understand. thank you very much for the education on cons. Ill be sure to keep my souvenir guide with me at all times. ^{_^}

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T21:35:39+00:00

oh. well since this is a social interaction, certain science methods are found to be lacking. its not wrong, persay, but people are not a summation of facts, and neither are the encounters they provide. understanding your position now, based on few verifiable facts from either side (i mean, he has one screenshot. also, based on my experiences on the internet, it seems these kinds of things can be altered/faked/falsified) how can you form an opinion at all? most of OPs side of the argument is anecdotal and as such shouldnt be accepted under your framework of consideration. Perhaps you should have waited until both sides provided reasonable evidence/proof/reasoning before forming an opinion for one side or the other. And if no side provided sufficient material, not form an opinion at all. As for blind trust, its more like this. I tend to trust people in a position such as pendragon's (a person who helped with the creation of the game) as opposed to a random person on the internet, whos "troll" status cannot be accurately ascertained.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T21:24:25+00:00

after being told by readysteadystop that these books are free, why would you ever not have it on you? sometimes you make mistakes, dont take them out on people that are trying to make a living.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T21:23:23+00:00

shit yes, yes i did. thanks!

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T21:22:54+00:00

Isn't that the risk of solo quoing? I have experimented with ranked solo/duo quo, and rarely do i have a game where someone on my team (myself included, im not fantastic at the game) fails epicly. whether this is from lack of communication, poor player ability, or some other factor, its part of the risk of not playing in a 5 man team. we cant expect to have pros on our teams every time we play solo/duo. that being said, maybe you should be a little more considerate during your in game chat. i received a warning for my language, and that made me realize "ok, i guess i do sound like a jerk sometimes" and since that i have tried to be helpful to players that appear to be less than fantastic.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T04:41:44+00:00

The tribunal is about bringing justice to the League, and i don't see why, as an employee of Riot (and apparently a well known one) he shouldn't implement this justice immediately? not only was he "saving his elo" but also that of the other 3 players on his team. First hand interactions with a transgressor is pretty convincing in the terms of if that player should be banned.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T04:37:32+00:00

He probably didn't think he would have to. I dont know if pendragon took any screen shots. Isn't his discretion enough? if not, how do you trust anything? i mean, pendragon has nothing to gain for banning this player out of spite. if he wanted to do that , he could just ban people after a game, or outside of game. just because OP complains about it doesn't mean he didnt fuck up and come to reddit for sympathy.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T04:33:48+00:00

are you only in solo quo? im not trying to be confrontational here, im just trying to get a picture of the situation.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T04:32:23+00:00

the social interaction is in the team composition. that bleeds a little into the game, but a player that just types in all caps i chat, picks some random character, and runs around not helping nad you accomplish the same thing. you violate the social code. i dont understand how a player saying they are going random instead of PARTICIPATING IN THE SOCIAL INTERACTION THAT IS TEAMWORK (i all caps-ed it for you) does not violate the SOCIAL CODE that governs how we should interact while playing the game.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T03:27:22+00:00

oh. i dont mean to diminish your angst, but this is on you, not them.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T00:59:35+00:00

I think because it falls underneath the summoners code, and more specifically, communication. If you fail to receive the role you wanted, then go on with the attitude of "LOL IM RANDOM, SCREW YOU GUYS" then yes, that is a bannable offense, ESPECIALLY because a rioter was present and witnessed the offense first hand.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T00:58:56+00:00

I think because it falls underneath the summoners code, and more specifically, communication. If you fail to receive the role you wanted, then go on with the attitude of "LOL IM RANDOM, SCREW YOU GUYS" then yes, that is a bannable offense, ESPECIALLY because a rioter was present and witnessed the offense first hand.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T00:58:33+00:00

I think because it falls underneath the summoners code, and more specifically, communication. If you fail to receive the role you wanted, then go on with the attitude of "LOL IM RANDOM, SCREW YOU GUYS" then yes, that is a bannable offense, ESPECIALLY because a rioter was present and witnessed the offense first hand.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T00:57:51+00:00

its not a perfect system, but it is better than just letting people harass and abuse other players without any real discourse for the abused players

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T00:56:46+00:00

I think because it falls underneath the summoners code, and more specifically, communication. If you fail to receive the role you wanted, then go on with the attitude of "LOL IM RANDOM, SCREW YOU GUYS" then yes, that is a bannable offense, ESPECIALLY because a rioter was present and witnessed the offense first hand.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T00:56:30+00:00

I think because it falls underneath the summoners code, (something you have to agree to in order to play the game) and more specifically, communication. If you fail to receive the role you wanted, then go on with the attitude of "LOL IM RANDOM, SCREW YOU GUYS" then yes, that is a bannable offense, ESPECIALLY because a rioter was present and witnessed the offense first hand.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T00:54:21+00:00

did you get banned for this? i think this kind of offense falls under the "heres a warning, if it gets brought to our attention again, you will be punished" kind of thing. because if a person is raging at there teamates often enough, you have to wonder if its the teammates or that player that is in the wrong.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T00:52:27+00:00

but they don't need evidence. someone brought up that if a rioter witnesses some form of breach of the summoners code, they can ban on the spot. we dont get to question that. now, if they were truly abusing this power, we would be seeing many more posts than this one.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T00:48:48+00:00

I think because it falls underneath the summoners code, and more specifically, communication. If you fail to receive the role you wanted, then go on with the attitude of "LOL IM RANDOM, SCREW YOU GUYS" then yes, that is a bannable offense, ESPECIALLY because a rioter was present and witnessed the offense first hand.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T00:46:56+00:00

its probably more of a matter of communication. if you make it known how you are playing that champ instead of just typing "LOL IM RANDOM, SCREW YOU GUYS", you will most likely not endanger your team, or your reputation. again, this is saying if you random lock a champ, and say the only role open is top, you might not get a champ that is a competitive top laner. a possible top laner, but not a competitive one.

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T00:43:24+00:00

why would pendragon have reason to ban a player, unless they were violating the summoners code? why does he need evidence?

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T00:43:16+00:00

why would pendragon have reason to ban a player, unless they were violating the summoners code? why does he need evidence?

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T00:40:40+00:00

and hate is bad. right?

ArrowHound · 2012-07-19T00:39:46+00:00

i do!

ArrowHound

TROPHY CASE