I'm pretty sure it all has to do with the percentage of games you are reported it. I don't think it's a static numerical value.

I have to agree with the idea of a 'status bar' being either a way to gauge how much you can game within a system, or just added stress on good players that get wrongly reported.

A better system, in my opinion, is to give a player a 'cool down' period if they're having a bad day. An uptick in reports against them, such as 5 reports in 1 game (I believe the normal is 1 report in 10 games?), and if that trend continues into the next game, introduce a short 'cool down' period starting at 5 minutes before they can go back into a game, with the cool down period being added to if the trend of reports continues. It prevents toxic players from jumping right back in, and lets normal players who are having a rough day a chance to breath and re-evalute their current attitude.

Edit: A talk in Boston? PAX/MIT I assume?

The 3/7/14 ban is a cool down period though.

Lyte, you've probably answered this somewhere before, but I'm genuinely curious to know what all the parameters for the Santa Baron icon were. I didn't receive a noteworthy amount of honor in 2012, but I was surprised to see that I did apparently get the icon. What kinds of systems do you have in place for detecting positive behaviours?

Talks in Boston? When? Where? Is it open to anyone? I've honestly been extremely interested in your projects and research (involving the LoL community), and living in NY I figure this might give me a chance to sit in on some enlightening stuff.

RiotLyte, I'm sure you've observed that a large number of the frustrations that occur in-game (including, or perhaps especially, Champion Select) stem from a difference in perspectives and expectations upon queuing up.

I frequently encounter people who view Normal (Blind or Draft) as not-serious games, meaning they feel ignoring traditional rules for champion selection, AFKing/Idling, and generally fooling around is OK, whereas I feel that Coop-AI games fill that role and only queue for a PvP match (ranked or otherwise) if I'm playing at 100%.

Obviously this results in a lot of frustration, not only for me but others, who queue up expecting one thing and winding up on a team of people expecting something else. Are there any plans or theories on how offering additional queues for specific tastes could reduce the problems caused by mismatched perceptions on what a Normal-Blind match actually means? People wanting to play whatever and just fool around shouldn't really be stuck in games with people looking for a more serious matchup.

While most suggestions cater to giving toxic players more leeway or a better picture of how long they can toe the line, offering more queue options like this would reward positive players for doing exactly what they want to.

I think some implementation of restricted chat is a really good (partial) solution.

A parallel that comes to mind is stream chats that are open or public, versus those that are subscriber only.

Public chats with any number of people are often absolutely full of trolls, and any kind of insightful or positive conversation is nearly impossible. There are no sanctions (except a ban, which is usually just a limited amount of time, and people can make an unlimited number of accounts anyways).

Subscriber-only chats are generally much more positive places with good conversation.

While I'm not arguing that in-game chat should be subscriber based, I think having some form of restricted chat as a penalty for previous abuses is a comparable situation. In both cases, there is a premium paid to be able to participate in chat, either money, or good behaviour, and a penalty for misusing that opportunity (restricted chat, or a ban on a subscriber account).

Banning entire accounts is definitely necessary here in some cases, but I think for the majority, it's still a somewhat blunt instrument.

Hello Lyte,

I actually think Prisoner's Island would be a good idea, given some tweaks. Players deemed 'Toxic' (either through the tribunal, or an internal evaluation system) would be paired only with other players of the same 'Toxic' level, but they have the ability to get out based on time away from the game.

Example: A player is deemed toxic for the 1st time in his LoL career, he goes to this toxic matchmaking system and is paired with others like him. Because it's his first time in this toxic island he can stop playing the game for 3 days to be delivered back off the island. A 2nd time offender would need a week. 3rd time offender 2 weeks of not playing to remove themselves from the island. So basically, if they're fine with all the raging, they can stay and deal with it. But if they get sick of it and want 'off the island' they have to essentially "time-ban" themselves to get off. Maybe there's some flaw in this i'm not seeing, but I feel like it could work.

Its not immediate resolution since I believe those suspensions go through the Tribunal, and those are from constant trends, not a short burst of reports against the player. Its a more of a in-your-face way of after a game to tell a player to take a few minutes.

We'll be visiting a few campuses in Boston, I believe the talks are for current faculty and students.

We'll also be giving a talk at GDC that will be available in the GDC Vault online.