Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


"It was controversial" Time Bans.....

12
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

NtentionalFeeder

Senior Member

08-06-2012

Seems to me like the "It was controversial" Time Ban decisions that I've seen posted here have bee more like "EXTREMELY controversial." Some so much so, that everyone in the threads they're posted in actually UPVOTE the OP.

On these forums, this is an extreme rarity in threads involving ANYTHING Tribunal related; and ESPECIALLY threads regarding reversing Tribunal judgements.

I would suggest that perhaps any rulings deemed "controversial" be put back in to the system, to be ruled over again by another round of Tribunal Judges. The slippery slope I see resides in the fact that, in effect, ANY ruling could be deemed "controversial." This means that ANY ruling could result in a Time Ban.

Now I'm not saying they WOULD, but Riot certainly COULD abuse this system very easily if they so desired. It means they can essentially stamp a "controversial" ruling on any case, and ban them if they so choose.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kagami

Senior Member

08-06-2012

"controversial" bans commonly come from when the 1st game looks clean, and then the lazy/bad judges click pardon without reading the other games assuming they are clean too, where the player is clearly toxic in some of the other games and deserved to be punished.

Which is why Lyte said in the future he intends to make the game order random to prevent the bias weight that happens sometimes from the 1st game shown.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

CrossTheRiver

Senior Member

08-06-2012

anecdotal evidence is about as useful as used toilet paper. And both usually lead to the same place.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

NtentionalFeeder

Senior Member

08-06-2012

Quote:
CrossTheRiver:
anecdotal evidence is about as useful as used toilet paper. And both usually lead to the same place.


funny...cuz I actually based this thread on your Tribunal report card.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

CrossTheRiver

Senior Member

08-06-2012

I didn't have one lol.

What are you smoking bro? I've never been banned.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

NecroticBinder

Senior Member

08-06-2012

Sigh. The issue with this is that controversial things are just that, controversial. They are cases which barely passed the threshold for punishment rather then having the require number of people deem them worth pardoning. Putting the cases back into the system doesn't solve much because it will still be a case in which the community is divided on and if you pardon a case that was controversial and leaned towards the punish side, or the opposite, you are effectively removing the communities input on these cases.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Elegance SG

Senior Member

08-06-2012

They should be pardoned imo, better a false negative, than a false positive.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kagami

Senior Member

08-06-2012

Quote:
Elegance SG:
They should be pardoned imo, better a false negative, than a false positive.


the false positive rate for the tribunal is .5%, so odds of being that rather low.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MCerberus

Senior Member

08-06-2012

Quote:
Elegance SG:
They should be pardoned imo, better a false negative, than a false positive.


When you're bringing in the length of punishment into the % of votes required to be found guilty, you're ignoring the fact that the person would have already been punished once before and given a warning.

It's a fallacy, like asking if someone should have been permabanned for their actions in that it simply ignores past behavior.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

gnfnrf

Senior Member

08-07-2012

Quote:
Elegance SG:
They should be pardoned imo, better a false negative, than a false positive.


That doesn't help. If you move the pardon/punish line so that the current crop of borderline cases are pardoned, a new batch of cases are put right next to the edge to become controversial.


12