Upcoming Changes to the Tribunal

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

SimplyAlive

Senior Member

09-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles Long View Post
Useless changes to the Tribunal in lieu of real content for the game itself.

Baffling.
Different teams, different purposes.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Apollinarius

Senior Member

09-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAzazel View Post
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.
The goal of the study was to determine if people are more likely to follow through if there was incentive or not.

This means:
Group A consists of people who were promised incentive.
Group B consists of people who were not promised incentive.

One month later, you look at participation rate from group A and group B. Is participation rate in group A higher than group B? If the answer is yes, then lack of incentive is a deterrent. If not, then people do it because they want to.

Nobody is trying to test if offering incentive increases the participation rate of a random sample of a population. Everyone knows incentives increase participation from a random sample. This is because offering incentives pulls in those who would not have participated otherwise without deterring those who would have participated anyway.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MrDominooo

Senior Member

09-13-2012

These changes sound pretty ace.

You know why I use the tribunal? Not for the IP, the amount was pretty miniscule. It's because I love hitting that punish button on someone who's behavior was absolutely abhorrent and then had the gall to type "REPORT ME THEN NO ONE READS THOSE." It's. So. Delicious.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Apollinarius

Senior Member

09-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles Long View Post
Useless changes to the Tribunal in lieu of real content for the game itself.

Baffling.
Improving the quality of players in the game is a way of improving game content. Honestly, it's the best way.

Imagine a world where every game of LoL was fun because both teams were friendly to each other and supportive of their teammates. Nobody raged, and if teams felt they were losing and didn't want to play anymore they'd happily surrender to play another game with more people like those they just played with.

The game could have only 1 champion, be built on 8 bit graphics and drawn by a 2 year old and it would still be the best multiplayer game in the world.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MathMage

Senior Member

09-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAzazel View Post
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).
Um. Given that I STARTED the blood donation discussion, that would be more than a little strange, because that wasn't what I was talking about, and it didn't seem to be what Lyte was talking about, either.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

bluekn1ght

Senior Member

09-13-2012

Hey Riot and @Lyte ,

First off, I'd like to say that the Tribunal is one of the best things that's happened to the game. I've been playing for 3 years now, and remember the days where trolls and toxic players ruled. The game is so much better now, and a lot has to do with the Tribunal and the great community behind it. There are still some incidents, but by and large it's a better place.

My only concern about the new system is the reward incentive to go on accurate streaks. I'm not a statistician nor psychologist, so maybe there's things that refute this.....but to me it seems like a streak incentive would bias a player to be thinking "What would the tribunals say" vs. "How does this line up with the summoner's code"? These should be one in the same, but we all know we're not perfect and there is some variance. I'm concerned that people will gravitate toward "group think", vs. objectively evaluating each case.

I do think people who judge more cases should get more "points" as they're definitely contributing more - my only concern was the streak notation.

What about having accuracy tiers + number of cases judged tiers?
Example: 80% accurate with a minimum 10 cases judged per month. < 80% accurate with minimum 30 cases per month < 95% with 30 cases per month?

At least this way you won't have to worry about streaking and group think, but you make sure your evaluations are overall accurate and objective.

I'm sure I'm not quite getting my ideas across here. I hope they're coherent. Maybe the point is moot because rewards are intrinsic vs tangible. And maybe you've already brought these up internally and it's already been discussed. And maybe the stats are exactly the same because, as you mentioned, only the people who are in the tribunal are those who judge accurately anyway and streaks are a nice "bonus".

Thoughts?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

McAzazel

Junior Member

09-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMage View Post
Um. Given that I STARTED the blood donation discussion, that would be more than a little strange, because that wasn't what I was talking about, and it didn't seem to be what Lyte was talking about, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
The blood donation study is interesting, someone should discuss what happened when monetary incentives were provided for donating blood...
Which is what I did.

Upton's study is named "Altruism, Attribution, and Intrinsic Motivation in the Recruitment of Blood Donors", Cornell Uni., 1973.

Edit: and now I'm off to work.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MathMage

Senior Member

09-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by McAzazel View Post
Which is what I did.

Upton's study is named "Altruism, Attribution, and Intrinsic Motivation in the Recruitment of Blood Donors", Cornell Uni., 1973.

Edit: and now I'm off to work.
Lyte's comment:
(a) Is posted in response to my comment contrasting people donating blood given incentive vs. people donating blood not given incentive;
(b) In no way mentions repeat donors in particular.

So I'm still confused as to how we got to the point of discussing effects of monetary incentive in the RE-recruitment of blood donors, as opposed to simply the recruitment of blood donors, the latter being what the title you give appears to be talking about, and what I was talking about.


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

So is this new system going to count older cases or is it going to be a completely new slate?


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

The new system will track stats starting from when it is implemented. However, people will retain their vote weighting from before (so people banned from Tribunal should still be banned, etc).