League Of Legends: Riot Versus Employee Toxicity

I’ve written a lot of about toxicity in MOBAs in many guises over the years, but a recent Re:work case study (that’s Google’s HR insights project) has some really interesting info about League of Legends developer, Riot, tracking employees’ toxic behaviour in its game. The company has been using that behaviour to help with staff disciplinary matters. Specifically, they took some of the worst chat logs and showed them to the offending staff members.

God, those must have been some seriously uncomfortable meetings.

Here’s what happened according to the case study:

“Riot’s Talent team wondered whether there was a correlation between in-game toxicity and real-world behavior. All Riot employees (called “Rioters”) play League of Legends and every player has a behavioral profile. The Talent team partnered with their game designers to see if in-game toxicity might predict workplace troubles.”

The blog post is keen to point out that this isn’t about tackling a big toxicity problem or anything, just about using their resources to keep it from becoming a problem as the company grows. Looking at some of the other research linked to in the blog post it seems like focusing on improving the behaviour of toxic employees might actually be more impactful or valuable than replacing average workers with star performers, although as with anything it depends on the particular situation (the paper I just linked to event says as much: “Although we certainly cannot answer this question for all possible settings, wecan assess this trade-off for our own setting”.

“Riot looked at the preceding 12 months of gameplay of every employee and discovered there was a correlation between in-game and in-Riot toxicity. They determined that 25% of employees who had been let go in the previous year were players with unusually high in-game toxicity. The most common bad behaviors they found were passive aggression (snarky comments) and the use of authoritative language, sometimes using their authority as a Riot employee to intimidate or threaten others.”

The company took the thirty most toxic employees (all more junior-level staff) and divided them up into people who needed a “stern warning” and people who “should leave Riot, because their in-game chat was unusually toxic”. Each employee then had a meeting scheduled to discuss the in-game behaviour and, for the worst offenders, where they would be confronted with their in-game chatlogs.

The study notes that some employees were let go and that the chatlogs factored into that, although it states that there were also existing serious problems in those cases. But generally the response was a more positive one.

“Pretty much everyone we spoke with was appalled at their own behaviour. We actually received some essays from employees vowing to change their ways and become not just more considerate gamers but better people,” says Jay Moldenhauer-Salazar, Riot’s head of Talent.

For me, this is that thing where you think you’re anonymous online but you’re really not and sometimes that can come back to bite you. It also chimes with a lot of the discussion around the disconnect between online interactions and what we are happy to do or say face-to-face. The New Yorker has an interesting and nuanced look at the subject of online commenting and toxicity which seems relevant to this discussion.

The study goes on to say:

“The team is now trying to figure out how to use this in-game information as a signal during the hiring process. Riot asks applicants for their in-game handle during the application process so they can review their gameplay and identify any toxic chats and behaviors.

“Riot is experimenting with displaying this information in their applicant tracking system using a simple stoplight code – red, yellow, green. For any applicant flagged “red” (the most toxic), there are sample chat logs so a recruiter or hiring manager can see how an applicant conducts themselves in the very product they’re hoping to work on.”


My first thought is that I’d really like to see a follow-up study to see how that contrition and vowing to improve actually plays out. I think it’s entirely possible to say that you want to change when called out on something and to mean it, but actually implementing that change is a different matter.

Another thought is about how chatlogs could affect hiring. I’m actually not sure how I feel about that. On one level you want the people who will be the public face of your company to represent it well and embody your values so if they don’t and if they’re behaving badly that would impact whether you want them as an employee. On another, I guess I imagine so many “what if” scenarios. What if someone had changed a lot but had been really toxic in the past? I assume the system might try to recognise shifts over time but would it work in practice?

I think there’s also just another part of me that hates conflating the things I do for pleasure and the things I do for work. I make a real effort to keep the gaming I do for me and the gaming I do for RPS, if not distinct, then at least separate enough that some of what I play feels like actual downtime and not work. So even though the only really terrible things in my chatlogs are bad jokes and puns I’d still feel really uncomfortable giving up my game handle.

I don’t quite know how to explain the discomfort adequately. The closest I can get is that when you are acting in the name of your avatar or profile you can be a slightly different version of you than you are when your real name is attached or when you’re in a work situation or something. I’d feel incredibly exposed giving that up to an employer even though there’s no negative information contained in that.

A final thought is that there’s a curious number mentioned in the study: “If a new player encounters toxic behavior in their very first game, they are 320% less likely to come back again.” I am so curious to know what that 320% means and how they worked it out. I got in touch with Riot to ask but so far haven’t found someone able to give a response. I mean, I assume it just expresses a relationship with a baseline figure they have for average likelihood to return or something, but when you’re skim reading it comes off as more “NOT ONLY WILL I UNINSTALL THIS GAME I WILL ALSO SALT MY HARDDRIVE SO NOTHING MAY EVER GROW HERE AGAIN.”

I’ll post an update if I get an explanation on that front!

Sponsored links by Taboola

More from the web

From this site


  1. RQH says:

    One way to look at this is that Riot takes its employees’ behavior seriously. Another way to look at it is Riot doesn’t respect its employees’ privacy. Between the two lies a vast grey area.

    • Xocrates says:

      As long as Riot restricts this to their own game, I think it makes sense. Whether willingly or not every Rioter represents Riot in-game, which is exacerbated by the fact that Riot employees are the only ones allowed to (and frequently do) have the handle “Riot” on their in-game name.

    • Hedgeclipper says:

      Doesn’t need to be looked at from one way or the other. Riot can take its employees’ behavior seriously -and- not respect its employees’ privacy all in one go.

    • Solidstate89 says:

      Is it really employee privacy though? I have to imagine a lot of this playtime is done while on company time. I know a lot of developer studios have employees that do that for their online offerings – it isn’t always at home.

      • Jediben says:

        You’ve go to be a complete moron to smack talk people in a game being run on a work clientry during work time. If this is on personal time and Riot are tracking employee home ip etc then I think they are cumbuckets of the highest order.

        • tormos says:

          I think Riot has chatlogs for every game of LoL played in general. Probably a requirement for working there is to give them your in game name. With this information they can read chatlogs for a given player using their in game player monitoring tools. (In previous cases, a riot developer has been able to read the chatlogs of people who posted on the forums to say they were incorrectly banned)

  2. Nelyeth says:

    ” I am so curious to know what that 320% means and how they worked it out.”

    Logically speaking, it means that a player that did not encounter any toxic behaviour in his first game is 320% more likely to keep playing. Put more simply, it means that toxic players deter 76.2% of the new players whom would have otherwise kept playing. Basically, 3 of 4 new players matched with a toxic asshat will quit, even though they would have come back in other circumstances.

    As for the article, I agree with Riot here. Rioters always have “Riot” in their nicknames, and as such represent Riot in every game they play. If they want to have some fun, and let out some steam as a normal player (regardless of toxicity), nothing prevents them from creating another account, which couldn’t be linked to Riot. But on their main account, they should be aware of the impact they have on their company’s image.

    • Xocrates says:

      Where did that 76.4% come from?

      We don’t know the baseline for the 320%, and that number itself only says that one player is 320% more likely to leave when finding toxicity than one that didn’t. I does not say that 320% more players leave than stay.

      • redcap says:

        This, this right here. The 76% would only be true if the baseline was 1 out of every 4 new players dropped out; which I highly doubt. It is probably much much lower a percentage than that. Even if it was 1/100 that would mean a new player who had a toxic experience is only 3.2% likely to never touch the game again.

      • Geebs says:

        I agree with Nelyeth, I think that by this (rather tortured) statistic they mean that they think someone who encounters abuse on a first game is about three times more likely to not come back than someone who doesn’t, not that they subjected 321 people to abuse on their first game and 320 of them quit.

        i.e. if, say, 90% of people who play a first game normally play another, then that figure falls to 90 – (10 * 3.2) = 58% in the context of a bad experience.

        • Xocrates says:

          If 90% play another, then the ones that leave is 10%.

          If On a bad experience that set is 320% of the baseline, that means: 10% * 3.2 = 32%

          Also: “not that they subjected 321 people to abuse on their first game and 320 of them quit.”

          Where did this come from?

          • Xocrates says:

            Furthermore, we have no idea what percentage actually encounter toxicity in their first game.

          • Geebs says:

            Oh, the 320 vs 321 thing was a reductio ad absurdum, I mean to say that that definitely wasn’t the source of the “320%”

            For the other part, I think you’re saying that about 40% of people leave vs 10%, which is the same thing as my suggestion that 60% of people stayed vs 90%.

          • Geebs says:

            The actual percentage of people who encounter bad behaviour isn’t relevant to the statistic.

          • Xocrates says:

            There’s is a 10% difference between your numbers and mine, because for some reason you subtracted your result to 90% for reasons I don’t understand since the 90% already account for the people who left.

            So you were saying that of the 90% of the people that stayed after the first game, 32% left after the first game? What?

          • Xocrates says:

            Though to be fair, your number might not be wrong, depending if you read it as an increase of 320% (in which case it would be 10% + 3.2* 10% = 42% who left or 58% who stayed), or 320% of the baseline, in which case my numbers should be correct.

      • Nelyeth says:

        Here are the maths I’ve done :

        We have a player 320% more likely to keep playing than another, meaning we have 4.2 to 1 odds (and not 3.2:1). 1/4.2=0.238 : that’s the probability of someone playing even though he has encountered a toxic player, when taking a player who has never faced toxicity as a baseline (i.e 100%). 1-0.238=0.764, that’s where my 76.4% comes from : this is the probability of a player quitting even though he would have otherwise kept playing.

        • Xocrates says:

          I think you’re mixing up various points of reference during your math as well as coming up with various numbers out of thin air.

          First you assume that the 320% number is in relation to number of players who met toxic players but didn’t leave (while it’s more likely it’s in relation of a baseline of all new players who left after 1 game).
          So for every 1 player who met toxic behaviour and stayed, 4.2 (because it’s an increase) who met toxic behaviour left.

          Which would mean that 1/(1 + 4.2) = 0.192 stayed (we need to add them up to have the full population) amongst those that faced toxicity.

          But everything from this point on is pure nonsense.
          You assume that every player that didn’t face toxicity stayed (the 100%) and then you mix the players that didn’t face toxicity with the ones that did even though we have no idea how those two groups compare in size.

          • Nelyeth says:

            “You assume that every player that didn’t face toxicity stayed (the 100%)”

            No. I said I took it as a baseline, meaning that I considered that 100% of the people who do not face toxicity stay in order to get relative numbers, because, as you said, we don’t know the proportion. I tried to be as clear as I could, but all the numbers I give are in relation to “people who didn’t face toxicity and kept playing”, which is how I understand the article’s text. If “they are 320% less likely to come back again” when facing toxicity, it means they take as a reference people coming back without facing toxicity.

            I never compared sample sizes since I worked on relative proportions, so I don’t get your second point The way I see it, you just didn’t understand what I said, which may be my fault. Hard to explain probability calculations when english’s not your first language I guess.

    • DrazharLn says:

      I think you’re interpreting their statement slightly wrong.

      I think their statement is “If a new player encounters toxic behavior in their very first game, they are 320% less likely to come back again [compared to a player who does not encounter toxicity]”, which I interpret as:

      P(comesback|toxic) / 3.2 = P(comesback|!toxic)

      where P(comesback|toxic) means Probability a player comes back given they encountered toxicity in their first game.

      Generally, P(X|Y) = Probability of event X given that event Y has occurred; and P(X|!Y) = Probability of event Z given that event Y has not occurred

      As a percentage:

      31% P(comesback|toxic) = 100% P(comesback|!toxic)

      i.e. The number of players who play a second game given that they had a toxic first game is 31% of the number of players who play a second game given that they played a non-toxic first game.

      If the population of players who encounter toxicity on their first game and the population who do not are broadly similar, then this is a controlled test and you can claim that toxic first games reduce the likelihood of a player playing a second game by 3.2; which is the same as saying toxic first games deter 69% of players who would otherwise have played a second game.

    • Premium User Badge

      Jaeja says:

      What it’s saying is that, if you divide your new players up into two groups, those who experience toxic behaviour and those who don’t, the percentage of people who quit after one game will be 320% higher in the first group than it is in the second.

  3. Ethaor says:

    I quite understand the passion for MOBAs from a gameplay perspective. But boy I could never go past the horrible horrible community. That’s not something I’d want in my life.

    I long for the day that will never come were the Internet gives no other choice for every user to use his/her real identity.

    Never have I been part of such constructive debates, helpful exchanges and considerate discussions as when I took part in communities where your real name has to be used. Iracing for exemple. There will always be salty and embittered people everywhere but hardly anything that could be called “toxic”.

    • Llewyn says:

      I long for the day that will never come were the Internet gives no other choice for every user to use his/her real identity.

      You’re making the same logical error Blizzard did when they proposed this for their games. You, like they, rightly notice that having one’s real name associated with one’s comments will make a significant number of people think more carefully about their actions.

      But you, like they, completely overlook that this opens up the opportunity for the toxic element to take their behaviour out of the game and into the real world. Play a bad game as a newbie in a MOBA and you’ll likely get abusive chat messages in game. With your proposal you almost certainly won’t; why bother when they can target you elsewhere?

      Sure, this isn’t a problem for the John Smiths of this world, but for anyone with a distinctive name this potentially replaces a small problem with a much bigger one.

    • ScubaMonster says:

      In a day and age where the gaming community will send death threats to people over the littlest of things and “swatting”, making people identifiable online is a horrible idea.

    • ScubaMonster says:

      And the toxic behavior I just described can be done anonymously outside of a game so no, just because these people would have to use real ID in a game too won’t prevent that from happening.

  4. slerbal says:

    This is a very interesting article. Thanks for posting it. Back when I ran my own games company it was amazing how much damage one toxic employee did to every aspect of the company. It was a very thorny issue, and I think Riot are on to something. The big problem fir them now will be potential employees with fake, job-facing accounts though if they act nice there maybe it will change their overall disruptive behaviour.

  5. po says:

    I think the root problem behind internet toxicity needs to be recognised for what it really is: A personality disorder, namely Anti Social Personality Disorder (although in many cases it may be sub-clinical, that is not severe enough to get a diagnosis).

    I’m sure anyone who has worked towards building any kind of online community, will recognise a lot of the traits of its most unpleasant members, in the diagnostic criteria shown at the above link.

    • gunny1993 says:

      The root of the problem is that people can be complete cuntbuckets, no need to use any more labels than that.

      • LionsPhil says:

        If your analysis of the problem is forced to be that simplistic, your solution will be too.

        I mean, I’m all in favour of dropping the Earth into the Sun, but there are some real logistical challenges there we’ve yet to solve.

    • Premium User Badge

      X_kot says:

      I’m wary about that disorder. It originated as a US military screening diagnosis of unsuitable soldier candidates, and then clinicians decided to apply it to society at large. Much like BMI, it’s a niche concept that has been stretched beyond its original scope.

      That said, some of the behaviors categorized thusly probably contribute to toxic game chat.

  6. DavidGil says:

    I figured I’dpost upon reading this, as I played League of Legends about . . . well, a few weeks after release. Whether that was the beta or full release, I can’t remember.

    Anyhow, I’m the first to admit I’m not the best player. I also don’t use hotkeys, or rather didn’t at the time, like I should. I was also playing as a certain character for the 1st time, Mundo I think? Regardless, not being a competitive player and knowing that I’m not the best, I played my first custom game via the random match making system, after playing against bots. The amount of toxic behavior displayed, in a custom non-ranked game, was unbelievable. And of course it was directed at me from both my own ‘team’ and the others.

    I never played again.

    • Leidan Wing says:

      I hate toxic behavior in on-line playing, and this has actually prevented me to enjoy multiplayer gaming a lot of times.

      I bought Left 4 Dead 2 like 5 years ago, I love it, I always loved it. However, me and my friends normally get tired of a game rather quickly, so we have been playing it only sporadically for the last 5 years.
      Recently we installed again and we started playing again in coop mode, only with friends, as we normally do. We remembered how awesome the Versus mode was (that in which you can be a zombie or a survivor), so we entered into an online match. As I said, I haven’t played consistently this game for the last 5 years. I have less than 100 hours registered, so even though I know all the maps, weapons, how to handle the zombies, etc, I’m not as expert as other people may be. Also, I was very rusty using the zombies because we normally like to play coop. I ended up doing a couple of very obvious noobish mistakes with a Boomer. I could have easily made the survivors fail, because they had an stranded guy in one inaccessible part of the map. They ended up failing anyway, but much later.
      And there it goes, one of my non-friend “teammates” entered into rage mode. He (or she) started insulting me and calling me noob, even though the other team lost. We weren’t going to put up with this, of course, so we voted to kick the guy and tried to start playing again. However, to my surprise, as soon as I kicked him, he started adding me to Steam groups to mock me, with names like:
      “I am a noob”
      “My mother is …”
      “Don’t know the map, better go to online mode”.

      It really shocked me that in a game of the nature of L4D2, in which the competition is rather…nonexistent (or I think it should be), there were people who could spread so much “Boomber bilis” at others, and a situation like this could escalate so extremely. Specially when you can just leave and find a better match with no penalties. I think this probably the fastest time we have bounced off the game xD.

      I cannot imagine a game as competitive as LoL can be (I played Dota 2 for a couple of years, but always with friends because of these type of situations). So all measures against player toxicity (even though is only for employees) is welcome.

    • mnemos says:

      I’m in more or less the same boat. I tried to get into LoL about two years ago, because my partner played it religiously at the time, and I just couldn’t hack it. There wasn’t any one game or comment that ruined it for me, it was a lot of smaller stuff over a few weeks. I tend to stay away from multiplayer games, because I know I’m not very good at them, and I find the whole competitive aspect extremely stressful.

      I’ve been playing Overwatch recently, and I really appreciate the steps Blizzard has taken to make it a more positive experience, i.e., tailoring the end-game stats to each hero and only comparing your performance to how you’ve done in the past. It seems to be working, too, as I haven’t encountered any behavior I’d classify as toxic so far. That’s not to say that I blame Riot for League’s toxicity problems; I understand it’s a totally different beast from Overwatch, and it does seem like Riot are putting in a real effort to make the community more welcoming.

  7. unacom says:

    I would really like to see more information on this. Does online-toxicity predate, accompany or follow an increase in workplace-toxicity?
    Were the “offending” employees increasing their toxic behaviour (if yes. why?)? Were they just assholes? Was their toxicity related to workplace-stress? Their personal life?
    Is this relation stronger or weaker in people who do not work in the gaming industry? Is it even appliable?
    So many unanswered questions.

    Another thought. Were those accounts evaluated by professional psychotherapists? By statisticians? By human resource managers? How does that bias the decisions of the board?

    And yet another one. Riot may be OK to ask applicants for their game handle. They want to work in gaming, so their in-game behaviour is what customers see of them. But asking a prospective accountant, a secretary or a janitor for their game handle could be too much (I´m not implying they did that, by the way).

    • Nelyeth says:

      “Another thought. Were those accounts evaluated by professional psychotherapists? By statisticians? By human resource managers? How does that bias the decisions of the board?”

      This I can answer. They were most likely evaluated the same way toxicity is evaluated for players. Basically, Riot has developed a self-teaching bot, which usually reviews the logs of people who have been reported in game. This bot’s been in place for 2 years now I believe, and has improved a lot over that time, to the point where it’s almost failproof now. If the bot flags a player as toxic, the logs are then sent to a Riot employee, which reviews them : most of the Rioters doing this are part of the Social System team, and have degrees in cognitive psychology : they’re the ones trying to eradicate toxicity from LoL. If the Rioter agrees with the bot, the player is then punished. I don’t think they did it any differently with their employees, except maybe cranking down the tolerance levels of the bot to be sure not to miss anything.

  8. Emeraude says:

    Who’s to address employer toxicity then? And how?

    • Premium User Badge

      Nauallis says:

      I’m sure that the mainstay of the Riot employees are able to leave at will (within the confines of their own economic realities, of course).

      • Emeraude says:

        Those are certainly not insignificant confines.

        But then you do exemplify perfectly well the problematic asymmetry in worker/employer relationship when there’s no solid union or similar structure to create a dialogue.

        Employer has analog leeway. Can tip the scales in as many directions as wanted, as strongly as wanted, as long as it doesn’t reach the breaking point. Employee can take it or leave it.

  9. Kala says:

    Definitely 320% likely not to go back in my case. A friend got us to install it and play it with him. Once.

    The smack talking /o\ I wouldn’t mind, I’m not adverse to a bit of barbed banter, but it was so laughably dumb and pointlessly aggressive. Like, why are you taking this so seriously? You are ridiculous.

  10. aircool says:

    Whoa… sacking employees because they’re dicks in an online game?

    I may be mistaken, but is this what they’re doing, in a similar way to employers nosing about on your facebook profile?

    I tend to keep very quiet in online games outside of a few formalities like ‘hello’ and ‘gg’ etc…

    However, there are times when I can’t keep my emotions in check, and there’s no doubt that many of my posts on RPS are just full of shit.

    We’re humans, and at times at the mercy of our emotions which are rooted in our core instincts.

    I can be a total fucking arsehole at times. Unfortunately, that’s due to several mental health issues. Even worse is the fact that I’m actually an affable chap most of the time, easy going, friendly and I enjoy putting people at ease and being inclusive.

    Anti-social behaviour in the work place has an extremely detrimental effect on the morale and well being of other employees which has a massive knock on effect. However, because you’re a dick online, that’s not really grounds for dismissal;

    Unless there is a clause in your contract where, as an employee of a company, whenever you are representing your product as an employee of that company, you have a strict code of discipline.

    • Rizlar says:

      The study notes that some employees were let go and that the chatlogs factored into that, although it states that there were also existing serious problems in those cases. But generally the response was a more positive one.

      You are mistaken. They are using the logs to isolate problematic employees and as a talking point for addressing poor behaviour.

    • Nelyeth says:

      “Unless there is a clause in your contract where, as an employee of a company, whenever you are representing your product as an employee of that company, you have a strict code of discipline.”

      Basically, all Riot employees have “Riot” in their online nickname, and they are the only ones allowed to have it. Because of that, they are indeed representing their companies when they play on these accounts. However, they can perfectly create another account, which would be totally private, and play on it : it’s not endorsed by the company, but it’s perfectly tolerated. If they were caught being toxic on their official account, it shows they cannot stay calm even when their companies’ image is at stake. As such, I understand why Riot would do that.

    • zsd says:

      Whoa… sacking employees because they’re dicks in an online game?

      Yes. Their game, where toxicity is a huge problem that costs them money. If you owned a store, you wouldn’t want your staff to take the occasional fat dump on your inventory for the same reason.

      We’re humans, and at times at the mercy of our emotions which are rooted in our core instincts.

      I can be a total fucking arsehole at times. Unfortunately, that’s due to several mental health issues. Even worse is the fact that I’m actually an affable chap most of the time, easy going, friendly and I enjoy putting people at ease and being inclusive.

      I can empathize, having plenty of mental health issues of my own. However, people on the other side of the screen don’t know your mental history or what you’re “really like,” nor should they be required to. They only see your behavior. You may not be able to control how you feel, but you are entirely able to control how you respond to those feelings. In fact, you are the only person who can control that.

      • zsd says:

        Well, so much for my blockquoting skills, but hopefully I got the idea across.

    • jonahcutter says:

      If the individuals are on their official Riot account with “Riot” as part of their handle, it’s acceptable to be held to a company’s standard. Especially if they’re playing on company time.

      Otherwise you are absolutely correct. It would be a disturbing, hopefully illegal, invasion of privacy by a powerful corporation if the employees were playing on personal accounts and on their own time.

  11. LionsPhil says:

    The closest I can get is that when you are acting in the name of your avatar or profile you can be a slightly different version of you than you are when your real name is attached or when you’re in a work situation or something.

    I wonder if younger generations have gotten over this, with the social media pushes to destroy pseudonyms and anonymity.

  12. TheAngriestHobo says:

    Personally, I’d be happy to see a little less anonymity on the internet. People should be held accountable for their words and actions, and we shouldn’t give undue weight to the words of people who don’t deserve it. If people knew that what they say to others in this medium could come back to haunt them in their day-to-day lives, we’d see a lot more civility than we do right now.

    There’s also the related, but distinct issue of the way modern news media now relies on Tweets from unidentified individuals for their quotes and to gauge public reactions to current events. In the past, even if a source remained anonymous, you could at least trust that the reporter had direct contact with them and knew something of their credentials. These days, you have no idea who the hell is being quoted, or if it’s even an individual. Internet anonymity is hurting journalistic credibility in a big way.

    • jonahcutter says:

      Journalism has largely moved into being stenography for powerful interests long before the internet became such a powerful force in our lives.

      The reality of anonymous sourcing through “trusted” journalists is that it was simply them often being fed storylines by factional interests, and repeating those storylines to the public as gospel. It bred the incestuous, corrupted situation we have today.

      Mainstream journalism is not to be trusted because of who owns the parent companies, not because of internet anonymity. The MSM sources were already abusing anonymity, pre-internet, to advance their parent companies’ interests.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Unfortunately, it’s pretty easy to be a complete racist, sexist bigot out in the open without substantial negative consequences if you’re at least some of white, male, straight, and Christian.

      One of the current champions of it is lining up to become the most powerful man in the world for the next four years.

      • Jediben says:

        You forgot RICH. He would be in a world of shot without money, stop making it a race/gender/hetero/religious thing when the only protection is the dollar.

      • Cederic says:

        Given he’s running against one of the most openly sexist presidential candidates in living memory shows that you’re just applying sexist prejudice yourself.

        I’d go further and call into question your ancestors but that’s toxic behaviour I try and keep separate to my RPS persona. I save that shit for online gaming, and keep it out of the office.

        Of course, Riot appear not to understand this ability to separate in-game and out-of-game behaviour. Then again, I never mention or risk being seen to represent my employer in online communities/games.

  13. Premium User Badge

    santheocles says:

    Jay Moldenhauer-Salazar, head of talent.

    A last name worthy of a vampire count, bracketed by ‘Jay’ and ‘head of talent’.

    Life’s not fair.

  14. GardenOfSun says:

    Personally, more than just the privacy angle, what could make me feel suspicious is the fact that “All Riot employees (called “Rioters”) play League of Legends”.

    Why is that, I wonder? How do they know in such a categorical way? Why, say, Jim from accounting should be expected, at least as a prediction, to play the game? Isn’t it odd that no one in accounting doesn’t like the game so much, to the point of not playing it?

    I’m not alleging anything, mind you, but that sentence in the context of a massive corporate effort to monitor their employee’s behaviour might indicate some unknown (or even unspoken of) policies that could shed more light on the situation of the real people involved.

    • Premium User Badge

      Jekadu says:

      Presumably they require all employees and potential applicants to be familiar with the game, even people in accounting. As other people have pointed out, they have employee accounts that they are probably expected to use.

      • Jediben says:

        “…for at least 3 hours every day in lieu of coffee breaks and lunch.”

  15. unacom says:

    Just found out it´s not restricted to RIOT.
    If you`re applying for a flat in Great Britain, this could happen in your close future. Pretty bleak, isn´t it?

  16. xfstef says:

    Wow Riot. SS much ?

    I think Orwell is spinning in his grave faster than a russian CS:GO player on his way to rush B.

    This is another example of corporations having access to too much data and not knowing what to do with it.
    If they would pull that on me I’d quit before they had the chance to fire me. It’s a breach of my personal life and my trust, and I wouldn’t want to be employed by a company who cannot separate the quality of the work I’m doing for them from how and what I do in my free time.