For the top 1000 Judges eyes only A Petition!

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Great Pyrenees

Senior Member

12-10-2012

deleted


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

LittleDi

Senior Member

12-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Pyrenees View Post
Becasue the tribunal is set up to be a lenient system to give people a second chance and reform. Riot has always stated when they judge cases they are much less lenient than the tribunal.
Please stop flip flopping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Pyrenees View Post
Riot please only allow the top 1000 judges to judge cases for the next few weeks.
Each judge is the deciding vote on their 20 cases per day (1 vote decides the case)
First you start with you should be more entitled due to being a highly ranked judge, then you state that the tribunal is intended to be lenient and that Riot would be less lenient.

Effectively you have just argued that you should be hired as a judge, and given the power of the executioner rather than allow the tribunal vote to determine it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Methelod

Senior Member

12-10-2012

I'm fully against this idea. It is something that goes completely against the idea of the tribunal. It was designed to give the people the ability to help administrate the community. It was not designed to give a select few the ability to oversee millions.

If the sudden influx of people pardoning is truly an issue and is not just a large amount of people who are extremely lenient then the solution would be to raise the amount of pardons needed to pardon a case and de-value those caught spamming at a quicker rate.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BillyTheAttorney

Senior Member

12-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Methelod View Post
I'm fully against this idea. It is something that goes completely against the idea of the tribunal. It was designed to give the people the ability to help administrate the community. It was not designed to give a select few the ability to oversee millions.

If the sudden influx of people pardoning is truly an issue and is not just a large amount of people who are extremely lenient then the solution would be to raise the amount of pardons needed to pardon a case and de-value those caught spamming at a quicker rate.

+1.

The argument that "only the top 1000 Tribunal justices" should do the cases, because "they know better" is similar to the discussion that you see on GD all the time:

"I'm plat/diamond noob, you have no idea what you're talking about therefore your opinion is invalid because I saw your lolking. You are wrong"

Tribunal Rating =/= "knowing better" just as high elo =/= "authority"

And even just today, I accidentally hit the "punish" button when I meant to hit "pardon." I felt bad. I made an accident. (Luckily the case came back with a "Pardon" verdict just a little while ago with an overwhelming majority. So I didn't affect this person's gameplay). I'm top 1000 and I didn't get one right due to human error.

Hell, I'm also educated and trained for applying statutes to real life cases of breach (criminal and civil) and I still wouldn't want to be one of the small percentage of people solely responsible for handing down a judgment. That in and of itself is unjust. That's why juries consist of laypeople that keep judges in check.

EDIT: As for the "sudden influx of pardons" Actually, I've pardoned a few more in the past few days than I had for the past couple of weeks. I felt they deserved pardons. And I certainly back Riot's decision to ban IWillSpectate from the competition.

Judge on a case-by-case basis according to your belief. Don't judge because you "think the consensus will think that"


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

SchierkeWiking

Senior Member

12-10-2012

I'm sure there must be a system that devaluates, if not outright bans, people with terrible accuracy from the tribunal. Someone who insta pardons is bound to have a ~20% accuracy, atrocious by any standard, so I'm sure eventually the effect will dissipate.

Also they could raise the requirementes to participate, level 30, six months playing and never had been brought before the Tribunal.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Great Pyrenees

Senior Member

12-10-2012

deleted


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Methelod

Senior Member

12-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchierkeWiking View Post
I'm sure there must be a system that devaluates, if not outright bans, people with terrible accuracy from the tribunal. Someone who insta pardons is bound to have a ~20% accuracy, atrocious by any standard, so I'm sure eventually the effect will dissipate.

Also they could raise the requirementes to participate, level 30, six months playing and never had been brought before the Tribunal.
I'd say no to the suggestion for increased requirements. By level 20, you already know what is and isn't going to be acceptable for yourself. Six months playing is also an arbitrary requirement and never being brought before the tribunal is unfair for people who reform.

So... again. So far these suggestions go against what the tribunal is made for.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Grammardor

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

12-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by EpikMagikarp View Post
I don't know how many people actually do the Tribunal on a consistent basis, but think about it, you're leaving 1000 to do what Riot originally intended the community to do. By community, there are millions of LoL players and you expect the top 1000 judges to make decisions? That's not fair to those who are getting punished.
Not only is it not fair to those players, but unfair to the players who enjoy the Tribunal but aren't top 1000. I just broke into the top 1000 recently. I would have been very upset if suddenly I was told my opinion didn't matter prior to this.

The only thing "Pardon Spammers" do is alter the outcome of cases that are borderline. If that player is truly toxic, he shall return to the Tribunal. It's statistically improbable that he'll get Pardon Spammers again. Don't worry about being right, worry about removing negative influences from the game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Tech Support

Senior Member

12-10-2012

I haven't judged a case in quite some time now, primarily because I'm tired of reading negativity..and also because I'm not quite bored enough. I am not in the top 1000 judges. My correct case judging is over 90% though. Am I going to get assassinated or something for reading this post when it was directed at the top 1000 only? ..I would really like to not be assassinated. Unless it was by..chocolate..or maybe that creamy cheese stuff they give you when you order soft pretzels.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

SchierkeWiking

Senior Member

12-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Methelod View Post
I'd say no to the suggestion for increased requirements. By level 20, you already know what is and isn't going to be acceptable for yourself. Six months playing is also an arbitrary requirement and never being brought before the tribunal is unfair for people who reform.

So... again. So far these suggestions go against what the tribunal is made for.
It's not about knowing how to use the Tribunal. Mature people with common sense would use it properly at level 1, inmature ragers can have 2000 games and still think it's aproppiate to call someone a "co** suck*** ******" if they miss a skillshot or whatever.

It's about preventing troll judges that may or may not negatively impact the workings of the Tribunal. Someone who has played the game for 6 months without ending up in the Tribunal is very unlikely to be a troll.