I just learned about it from this post. Your perspective isnt the only one, not sure why shut down the conversation.

Dont have to play it? You didnt have to reply to their post either.

It’s relevant because the article acts like strictness is a unimodal thing. Riot decides how far they want to push it and some people will fall on one side and believe chat is overly sanitized while others will fall on the opposite side and believe that chat is overly toxic.

This makes it sound like the only reason someone could take issue with Riot being zealous with their policing is because that person wants to see these toxic behaviors in their game. The article quickly mentions hardware bans like they are magic, even though something like harder to spoof hardware is one of the reasons Riot would give for requiring invasive software.

And similar to how I won’t accept a game requiring such invasive measures I also won’t accept an article glossing over these things. Just like there are many players who see no problem with toxic behavior there are also many players who don’t see any problem with Riot’s measures or are simply uninformed, and the article should be more informative.

Uh, did you forget the rootkit?

I dont consider something free if I am paying for it with my data.

“Choosing beggars” is someone who wants more or better than what they were offered. Criticizing the offering for flaws and problems is not.

IOW - I get a free chicken sandwich. I demand better toppings, a free drink and chips on the side. There’s a roast beef available, how come I didn’t get that? That’s a choosing beggar.

The chicken sandwich is undercooked, the bread is dry. That’s what’s happening here. Criticism.

Or you could see it as it is. A community that’s passionate about the game, and games in general, giving feedback to the developer about why their game might die so that this game or future games might be more consumer friendly. Only someone who is overly critical/cynical assumes any and every feedback is whining and complaining.