Those real time games are very immersive, and players can easily let their ugly true self out if they aren't careful. And that's why Riot is interested in their potential employees' chat logs.
Oh well that makes it ok then. If I find a clear correlation between say black skin and employee underperformance, I guess I can just go right ahead and sack individuals based on some statistical association discovered in a population they happen to belong to.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? I mean the entire lesson of not being racist or not being sexist or whatever is that it isn't ok to judge individuals by the population they happen to belong to. I mean guess what, black people are more likely to be criminals. Women are less likely to be coders. White people are less likely to play basketball well. These are statistical facts, though it seems awkward to say them. But that's ok, because the entire point is that you assess each individual you meet in life on their own merits, not some statistical generalization.
And somewhere along they way, you've missed this point. You don't get to assume that an individual is a shitty employee because they are a shitty LoL player just because you have some correlation to go on.
This means absolutely nothing if you don't compare against the equivalent rate of "employee toxicity" from "non-toxic players". 25% isn't that high; I would bet that in general 1 out of 4 LoL players have been toxic in chat at one time or another. You can't just state 25% for one side of the equation without also mentioning what results you found from the other side.
I suspect that 25% of LoL players in general have been "toxic". You can't just focus only on the "bad employees" and call that correlation.
Sure, if your boss pulls you into his office and says your chat in that last game was completely unacceptable, you'll feel properly ashamed. But take that same person and put them in a situation where they know they can't be caught doing it (say, when they're playing an Xbox Live game), and the toxicity will spring right back.
It's not sufficient for society to merely teach people what things are wrong; that's not enough to stop every person. We also hire police to fill in the gaps.
It's just another analog for meatspace, where you have to go around pretending to be nice to people who probably don't deserve it.
You do, however, have to not be actively hostile.
One that though I don't play it, I take it that it simulates hostility (violence, fighting, etc). If I'm mistaken there, I welcome correction.
So the hostility doesn't have any of the harm that we associate with real-world hostility, but occurs within a video game that is modeled on hostility... and I'm not supposed to be hostile?
What, do avatars just wander around basket-weaving and finger-painting in League of Legends? It's bizarre. God, I worry that I need to rush off and delete my Facebook account, lest my own employers get any strange ideas.
Edit: Here's an analogy. Consider if you were playing a basketball game and one of the players slapped the ball out of his teammate's hand and started screaming in his face about how he s a terrible player and should have been aborted. That's the sort of behavior we're talking about.
Doesn't matter; you're interacting with real people.
"So the hostility doesn't have any of the harm that we associate with real-world hostility, but occurs within a video game that is modeled on hostility... and I'm not supposed to be hostile?"
No. You're supposed to be a grown up. Especially if you work for the company making the game, and are a public representative of that company.
Games and play is not only human. If you observe puppies and kitties playing, you'll find out that they are mimicking hunting moves, fights, etc., all things they'll do "seriously" in their adult life in order to survive and reproduce.
Kids games are no different. IRL games and video games are no different, except that anonymity allows people to abuse others more.
If your preferred way to relieve stress is by calling people faggots and telling them to kill themselves, then I don't want to play games with you.
Interesting you jump to that though. This is what I'm talking about... anything less than perfect politeness must be exaggerated into indefensibility. The "you asshole" typed into in-game chat is apparently enough to get someone fired.
Then, if it's reported or commented on publicly, someone like you'd jump in and characterize it as "he was running around screaming that we were all faggots".
You've already said that you've never played this game, you don't appear to have much experience with online games in general, and you clearly haven't read the article if you think that Riot is firing people for saying "you asshole" in chat. You don't know anything about any part of the topic we're discussing. Why are you so determined that you're right anyway?
But yet you're all downvoting me for expressing an opinion without any name-calling at all. You disapprove of my opinion, you imagine that I'm screaming "faggots", and then you punish me for something that I've never done.
Why would I believe you when you tell me that you're only punishing those who deserve it? You've already given me all the evidence I need to see what you'd really do.
> You've already said that you've never played this game, you don't appear to have much experience with online games in general, and you clearly haven't read the article if you think that Riot is firing people for saying "you asshole" in chat.
I did read the article. They didn't list out some exhaustive policy. They didn't talk about digging deep into the context or examining nuance and different perspectives. Like you, they already knew what they wanted to be rid of, they exaggerated behavior or fabricated it wholesale (just as you and the other hackernewsians have done here), and that was that. No defense, no appeals process, no presumption of innocence.