Upcoming Changes to the Tribunal

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MathMage

Senior Member

09-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAzazel View Post
Upton's studies on blood donations and incentives are marred by a mistake in the selection process. The experiment was conducted thusly:
Individuals were called and asked to sign up for a blood donation. The treatment group was promised compensation if they donated blood while the control group was not. The dependent variable of the study was to then measure whether a donor followed through on their pledge and donated blood.

As you can probably tell, Upton's mistake was in the selection of the treatment group and the control group, because he failed to randomize it properly. Instead of announcing the compensation when recruiting individuals to sign up, he should have recruited all donors without the promise of compensation. One could then randomly select half the participants, call them again, and tell them that, if they follow through on their pledge, they would receive a (monetary) reward. (Upton's study -- flawed as it may have been -- did suggest crowding-out of motivation.)
That description of the 'mistake' and suggested 'solution' doesn't make sense. The obvious statistically sound method of measuring conversion rates with the incentive vs. without the incentive is to start with two random samples of the population and offer one compensation from the beginning. Signing up charitable individuals first and THEN promising compensation is a method for determining the effect of incentives on whether the individual who donated first for charity will donate again for money, not on determining the effect of incentives on first-time donation.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Cry1

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

Senior Member

09-13-2012

This change makes me so happy


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

McAzazel

Junior Member

09-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollinarius View Post
Your suggested method for Upton's study is invalid because your starting pool is tainted with people who would have done it for free in both groups.
The study wasn't about finding out if people would do it for free or not, but if those who did it for free would or wouldn't do it when an incentive was offered. As such, my suggested method would have ruled out his mistake in getting people to pledge after hearing about the incentive. I should have noted that Upton also tracked who had donated blood previously, but I completely forgot about it until I dug out the actual study just now.

My post wasn't about the Tribunal per se, but about incentives and prosocial behavior when it comes to blood donations.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AvariceX

Senior Member

09-13-2012

I don't see why the IP reward has to be removed to implement this system. Why not have both?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

neverlucky

Senior Member

09-13-2012

Now there's a ranking system for how well I judge others?

I'm essentially getting an ELO FOR MY SENTENCING ABILITIES?

ADJFSKFSBJDF ****. SO MUCH PRESSURE.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

zliplus

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

Senior Member

09-13-2012

Lyte, you mentioned in one of the posts in this topic that Tribunal has a punish rate of 50-60% in all regions. How does this number translate to the expected/average punish rate by tribunal reviewers? I suppose it would have to consider both the weighting of the judge votes and the required thresholds for punish (assuming not just flat 50%).

In summary, what would be an appropriate proportion of punish votes by a tribunal user to match up with the overall punish rate of 50-60%?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Miles Long

Senior Member

09-13-2012

Useless changes to the Tribunal in lieu of real content for the game itself.

Baffling.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

McAzazel

Junior Member

09-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMage View Post
Signing up charitable individuals first and THEN promising compensation is a method for determining the effect of incentives on whether the individual who donated first for charity will donate again for money, not on determining the effect of incentives on first-time donation.
Yes, which is what Upton was studying. My summary of his study was incomplete, sorry about that (I thought that would be obvious given the post I was replying to, but I see now that if you didn't follow the discussion from the start you'd get the wrong idea).


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Frakenbourrough

Senior Member

09-13-2012

Well, there goes the reason I was fair to people. I'm slamming the Ban from now on.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Disappoptimist

Senior Member

09-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
To accurately run this experiment, we need to remove the IP rewards and measure whether Tribunal increases in accuracy. This experiment also helps figure out what percent of the population does Tribunal for IP versus doing them for these two new features.

We want to encourage players to use the Tribunal if they want to make a difference in the community and reduce the number of players who are trying to do the Tribunal just for IP.
So why not award more IP as your correct streak gets longer, therefore giving more incentive to read through and judge correctly?