Review my case...

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

LittleDi

Senior Member

10-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teamslash View Post
@Little Di

I know you're not a fit judge. Your post on page 3 is an example of why I know. You comment on Gunflame's masteries and then presume that it was his intention to troll just because his pages were sub-optimal. You could not be more wrong for this.
Sub-optimal masteries have a direct effect on your abilitys in game. It either hinders your ability to play your class or directly makes you useless to your team.

Quote:
I got to page 4.. and you keep talking about it as if it had a bearing on his case or behavior in any way.

Hypothetical question. If a level 4 summoner plays mid, would you report if he had 4 points in utility? If so, why?
Level 4 with 4 points in utility would mean to me that they're likely to be using teleports to shop, and get back to lane faster. Possibly even to have more mana which would be great if they're a mage. It's a good choice for a mage character to use utility masteries. Now if they were a character with no mana abilitys using expanded mind then they're either not knowing the uselessness of that for them or they're intentionally trying to use the worst possible skills for the team. A Katarina has zero use for mana for example. I've yet to see a tank Heimerdinger with any success. And as of yet I have never seen a mana dependant tryndamere. There are vast amounts of open to interpretations settings with a level 4 summoner mid with full utility masteries based on the combo of champion and which masteries build they picked. Thus your question does not have an answer. It can't because there's too many paths to follow. But the following champions would be very likely to be least useful with utility mastery to 4:

Tryndamere, Dr. Mundo, Mordekaiser, Renekton, Garen, Rengar, Katarina, Riven, Rumble, the three ninjas, and Vladimir. Depending on in game purchases they might be intentionally trolling the match and masteries would only accent it. Knowing the masteries and runeset used in a match would help jury come to a better decision as well.

Quote:
PS: That ryze item build is completely off-topic, take it to the appropriate forum.
Considering the OP's actual game play is probably what was landing them into the tribunal then a better build would help them avoid being punished by the people who consider the build alone.
Quote:
PSS: The skip button is for when you can't decide if behavior should or should not be punished. It's not for fencesitting on the player's innocence or lack thereof. If you don't see sufficient evidence to punish, then you're supposed to pardon unless your inability to make a good judgement is what is holding you back. Skip is for YOU, not the player in question. Good reasons to skip: You can't read the player's language. Bad reasons: Well the player isn't super-inspiring, so I'll just leave him to dry to other votes. You don't have to like the player to vote Pardon.
I'll repeat #13 again.
Quote:
13. Skip is a great option
If for whatever reason you don't want to vote on this case (but you want to continue voting on cases), feel free to skip the case.
This case was not clear to me. Allies were complaining about it but not all the pieces fit together for me. I vote pardon when the person has nothing against them. I also vote pardon when the person is being given the troll smash treatment. After review of the reform card I wouldn't have been able to click punish or pardon. This is a 50/50 chase and if I can't decide one way or the other then I skip to the next one. Either they were an intentional troll, or just not so great at the game. Evidence exists pointing both ways to me. I am left in a situation that was in a movie I once saw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2y40U2LvKY

I choose not to drink.
Quote:
Long story short: Uninstall Life is right. What you do with skip is wrong.

If you cannot discern the difference with what Tribunal gives you, why skip instead of presume innocence? For all I know, a 20/2/5 player could have intentionally fed twice during the game. What's my vote if nothing else could be wrong: Pardon.
What I do with skip is my choice. It is neither right nor wrong to skip a case you can't decide on. If you can't read the player's langauge, load google chrome up and have it translate it for you. Or do it thru http://translate.google.com yourself. By this same token I could say your skips of cases because you're too lazy to translate anything is also wrong. I won't blame you for not doing so though. Why you are unable to extend the same is not something I wish to find out.

Now back to the OP's situation. I had the option to spectate a match of this player. They have taken the vs bots challenge up and learned more about their game play. I could understand how allies would consider the persons play intentional feeding. They just need practice. They're a bit divebomber style, need a bit more map awareness, could use some help with runes and masteries, but are not intentionally feeding. They needed the advice and because nobody was willing to give it they reached a point where their game had to change but never did.

It appears that 1300 ELO is a stepping point that play changes at. A red could probably confirm this or someone who feels they've been stuck near it for eternity. Without actually watching the person play I wouldn't of ever known.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Teamslash

Senior Member

10-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
Sub-optimal masteries have a direct effect on your abilitys in game. It either hinders your ability to play your class or directly makes you useless to your team.
Yes... This is not behavior though. It's BAD PLAY. It's NOT PUNISHABLE in tribunal. You are that guy that says "report syndra for feeding," aren't you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
Level 4 with 4 points in utility would mean to me that they're likely to be using teleports to shop, and get back to lane faster. Possibly even to have more mana which would be great if they're a mage. It's a good choice for a mage character to use utility masteries. Now if they were a character with no mana abilitys using expanded mind then they're either not knowing the uselessness of that for them or they're intentionally trying to use the worst possible skills for the team. A Katarina has zero use for mana for example. I've yet to see a tank Heimerdinger with any success. And as of yet I have never seen a mana dependant tryndamere. There are vast amounts of open to interpretations settings with a level 4 summoner mid with full utility masteries based on the combo of champion and which masteries build they picked. Thus your question does not have an answer. It can't because there's too many paths to follow. But the following champions would be very likely to be least useful with utility mastery to 4:

Tryndamere, Dr. Mundo, Mordekaiser, Renekton, Garen, Rengar, Katarina, Riven, Rumble, the three ninjas, and Vladimir. Depending on in game purchases they might be intentionally trolling the match and masteries would only accent it. Knowing the masteries and runeset used in a match would help jury come to a better decision as well.
That's a nice pile of stuff right there, really (Hook, line, sinker, Mr Gullible. It was a trick question. The worst part is you realize it and then still deliver a pile of garbage text). One could just reason that the level 4 is a newb and is trying stuff out. Case closed. Masteries and runes are irrelevant to Tribunal. Level 4 shen with mana per level, who cares?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
Considering the OP's actual game play is probably what was landing them into the tribunal then a better build would help them avoid being punished by the people who consider the build alone.
More explicitly: Avoid being punished by bad judges like you. Disagree? Look at your extraneous pile above. Now look at the above quote. Now look at your pile. THAT'S YOU that YOU're talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
This case was not clear to me.
Obviously. Bad judge comment from previous post stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
Allies were complaining about it but not all the pieces fit together for me. I vote pardon when the person has nothing against them.
Hypothetical: Let's say you see a case where I reported someone for verbal abuse with adjoining comment. Let's also say that you see no chat from the reported player that's consistent with said report. You're telling me you would skip because the person might have spelled a word on the map with wards (not mentioned in comment) that you don't know about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
This is a 50/50 chase and if I can't decide one way or the other then I skip to the next one. Either they were an intentional troll, or just not so great at the game. Evidence exists pointing both ways to me. I am left in a situation that was in a movie I once saw.
No. NO. NOOOOO. Presume innocence. If there's no reason to suggest that trolling is more likely than earnest (50/50 does not qualify), but bad play, then the correct verdict is PARDON. If you cannot discern the difference, then skip is presuming he could be guilty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
Snip. You're treating the report as if it were genuine and factual. It may not be so. More to the point: You should see evidence of such within the tribunal case. Otherwise, IT MAY AS WELL NOT EXIST for all intents and purposes. You know about "Blame the Jungler" syndrome right? Well intentional feeding reports often are "blame and hope to ban the player with the most deaths because I made no contribution to our loss and neither did the enemy, no sir..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
What I do with skip is my choice.
Right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
It is neither right nor wrong to skip a case you can't decide on.
Why can't you decide?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
If you can't read the player's langauge, load google chrome up and have it translate it for you. Or do it thru http://translate.google.com yourself. By this same token I could say your skips of cases because you're too lazy to translate anything is also wrong. I won't blame you for not doing so though. Why you are unable to extend the same is not something I wish to find out.
*facepalm* I'm going to attribute this one to sheer ignorance. Google translate is not that good. There's only a few expressions I would trust a machine translator on. It's not laziness on my part. It's a healthy respect for linguistic nuances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
Now back to the OP's situation. I had the option to spectate a match of this player. They have taken the vs bots challenge up and learned more about their game play. I could understand how allies would consider the persons play intentional feeding. They just need practice. They're a bit divebomber style, need a bit more map awareness, could use some help with runes and masteries, but are not intentionally feeding. They needed the advice and because nobody was willing to give it they reached a point where their game had to change but never did.
Long story short: The reports were wrong. It was bad play. Here's the thing: I don't need to spectate him to surmise this was the case. I have that experience and am willing to apply it (vote PARDON) rather than skip a case. Why can't you do that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
It appears that 1300 ELO is a stepping point that play changes at. A red could probably confirm this or someone who feels they've been stuck near it for eternity. Without actually watching the person play I wouldn't of ever known.
Irrelevant except for the last part, which I took the liberty of bolding. If I cannot distinguish a score/build derived via bad play from one derived via intent to ruin the game with the Tribunal, then I give the accused the benefit of the doubt and PARDON (provided no other unrelated infractions were present). I don't equivocate based on paranoid suspicions of what he could possibly have done if in the end it achieves the same result as having played an honest, yet bad game. To tip the balance against the player, I have to see something that indicates he was not trying:

Examples:

54 wards, why not?
no items, what?
chat admission, lol.
DPM consistent with right-click to enemy base, die, res, repeat. saw a 0/23 teemo in a 20 minute game. It takes skill to die fast.

A 7/13/5 Ryze in a 40 min game? Give me a break. Pardon. Next.

Now sure. He could have done something. Problem is: where's the evidence? You obviously don't see it because you hit skip instead of punish. What's the equivalent of this for a jury? Being selected out of it. Most jurors would acquit with reasonable doubt. You opt to strike yourself for cause.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ulanopo

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

Senior Member

10-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teamslash View Post
Irrelevant except for the last part, which I took the liberty of bolding. If I cannot distinguish a score/build derived via bad play from one derived via intent to ruin the game with the Tribunal, then I give the accused the benefit of the doubt and PARDON (provided no other unrelated infractions were present).
That's the criteria you use. LittleDi thinks differently. Now, if he was starting from a position of punish, then you might have cause to be angry with him, but he starts from a pass. He's following the instructions given to him and passing if he doesn't feel he can come to a proper verdict.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Niilaga

Junior Member

10-13-2012

I would have pardoned. You weren't intentionally doing anything wrong, you are well-mannered even when your team are a bunch of ******s. Unban this man!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Teamslash

Senior Member

10-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulanopo View Post
That's the criteria you use. LittleDi thinks differently. Now, if he was starting from a position of punish, then you might have cause to be angry with him, but he starts from a pass. He's following the instructions given to him and passing if he doesn't feel he can come to a proper verdict.
So?

Here's what I do. Start on Pardon. {Look at game 1's chat if short (reports are unnecessary if insta-punishes are found) or Look at reports.

Skim chat.

Read player's chat in full.

Gather context if needed.

I'm actually done with game 1? Do the reports match? No? Move to next game.
Rinse, repeat.

If I reach the end of my cycle for the last game in the case

The player has not been punished yet? Pardon pending an appraisal of the case as a whole (something not reported, a pattern the reporters missed, decisions regarding borderline actions)

Still no punish?

Any reasons to skip (Language, haven't decided on a behavior and don't feel like spending a significant bit of time hashing it out, etc)?
}
Pardon.
Any time within the curly braces: If I find one, and one is all that's needed, reason to punish, then I click the red button.

The only time I try to assess whether I personally care to be on the same team as the accused if I reach the end of the last game. If not, I have to explain to myself why not. Not all such assessments are punish-worthy.

*~*~*

Now if littleDi's method is to start at Skip, then IMO, his pardon process is more of a compatibility test than an line-crossing test, whereas I'm looking for a place where the 'line,' whatever that may be, is crossed.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MyLittleTutu

Junior Member

10-13-2012

after reviewing your card.
You clearly had a some bad games and sadly paired with some angry players.

I woulda pardon you there.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

LittleDi

Senior Member

10-13-2012

I'm starting to wonder if Teamslash is really Siri in disguise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teamslash View Post
Any reasons to skip (Language, haven't decided on a behavior and don't feel like spending a significant bit of time hashing it out, etc)?
So you rag on me for thinking that this was a skip but then validate that if I couldn't decide I should skip it? Congratulations Mr flip/flop artist. By chance are you a politician?
Quote:
Now if littleDi's method is to start at Skip, then IMO, his pardon process is more of a compatibility test than an line-crossing test, whereas I'm looking for a place where the 'line,' whatever that may be, is crossed.
I start at pardon, look for punishable behavior, and click that punish button when I'm sure it's there. In these cases it's hinted at often. But the only people in game complaining are berserk rage level players. There are more reports than them. The build is saying there's a problem. KDA doesn't agree with everything but is higher than everybody else on every team for deaths every single match. My verdict?

Not sure if intentional trolling or just bad player. 50/50 with everything that's there. I'm not going to toss a coin and vote. I can't see if the runes and masteries push this towards intentionally trolling. I can't see if the purchase order of items is changed or not. It looks like it could be intentional. Can I confirm or deny it? No. I could spend another 15-20 minutes re-reading this and still come to the same wall of it doesn't show me if it's intentional or not. I get blocked thanks to #4 from making a vote here.
Quote:
4. Punish bad behavior, Not poor playing
Being bad at the game isn't a punishable offense. You should be looking at more than the score or item build to determine a verdict. A player purchasing flagrantly bad items is another thing entirely. Use your judgment to discern between bad players and trolling.
So because I can't decide if this is intentional or not I skip.

Quote:
That's a nice pile of stuff right there, really (Hook, line, sinker, Mr Gullible. It was a trick question. The worst part is you realize it and then still deliver a pile of garbage text). One could just reason that the level 4 is a newb and is trying stuff out. Case closed. Masteries and runes are irrelevant to Tribunal. Level 4 shen with mana per level, who cares?
The team does. A Shen with mana per level is literally throwing away an advantage they could have. Doing this in one match would be enough to confirm it's not a good idea. Repeating this in more matches would be using your masteries to troll your team. I expect my allies to use their masteries and runes to improve their chances of victory. If that makes me wrong to you then all we can do is agree to disagree.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Teamslash

Senior Member

10-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
I'm starting to wonder if Teamslash is really Siri in disguise.
So you rag on me for thinking that this was a skip but then validate that if I couldn't decide I should skip it? Congratulations Mr flip/flop artist.
No. I skip less than once a week. Perhaps maybe twice a month. There are just not that many times where "I can't decide." I'm confident enough to pardon people when I have insufficient reason to think they're trolling. When I skip, it's because I cannot assign even a tentative probability to a player's behavior due to some unknown factor. I'm not validating your reasons for skipping, quite the opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
The build is saying there's a problem. KDA doesn't agree with everything but is higher than everybody else on every team for deaths every single match. My verdict?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
Not sure if intentional trolling or just bad player. 50/50 with everything that's there. I'm not going to toss a coin and vote.
Do you understand the concept of reasonable doubt? Do you understand presumption of innocence.? If you did, then 50/50 is a slam dunk for pardon. You have to prove (to yourself) that player should be punished. You do not have to prove that the person should be pardoned. IF (and you're not) you were starting at pardon, and your odds remained no worse than 50/50, then innocence bias (that which is presumed) leads to a pardon vote. You're biased to skip/punish for some reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
I can't see if the runes and masteries push this towards intentionally trolling.
You don't need to see them. THEY DON'T MATTER. AT ALL. Let me rephrase that. If you saw them, then you would be BIASED to punish because of bad play factors. You presume bad play is trolling. That's why you had to spectate. You seem to be unable to curb your bias without it*.

*It's a shame too. Toxic players can and do report bad (at the game) players. You aid those toxic players by not pardoning..

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
I can't see if the purchase order of items is changed or not. It looks like it could be intentional. Can I confirm or deny it? No. I could spend another 15-20 minutes re-reading this and still come to the same wall of it doesn't show me if it's intentional or not. I get blocked thanks to #4 from making a vote here.
So because I can't decide if this is intentional or not I skip.
You're unable to confirm it's intentional ---> That's a pardon. Inconclusive is a pardon. You're unable to deny it's bad play --> pardon.

(Side note: Have you had a basic stats class?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
The team does. A Shen with mana per level is literally throwing away an advantage they could have. Doing this in one match would be enough to confirm it's not a good idea. Repeating this in more matches would be using your masteries to troll your team. I expect my allies to use their masteries and runes to improve their chances of victory. If that makes me wrong to you then all we can do is agree to disagree.
Level 4. Not ranked. Likely a new player. Whereupon was this player expected to optimize his masteries? That's unreasonable. This player is not picking mana per level to troll the team. This player might be picking mpl simply because they do not know the champ has a different resource mechanic. Maybe they forgot to change their masteries in champ selection. Who knows otherwise. I certainly don't. Benefit of doubt -> pardon. If you want to disagree, that's fine. I disagree because your posts give me every reason to think you're too eager to punish and too timid to pardon someone when you have no way of showing of how they were trolling (most likely because they weren't).


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

LittleDi

Senior Member

10-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teamslash View Post
Do you understand the concept of reasonable doubt? Do you understand presumption of innocence.? If you did, then 50/50 is a slam dunk for pardon. You have to prove (to yourself) that player should be punished. You do not have to prove that the person should be pardoned. IF (and you're not) you were starting at pardon, and your odds remained no worse than 50/50, then innocence bias (that which is presumed) leads to a pardon vote. You're biased to skip/punish for some reason.
The game says to me that they could be an intentional troll. But they could also be bad at the game. You're very cute at trying to prove your idiocy. I'm still going to stay with undecided given the case as it was. Deal with it.
Quote:
You don't need to see them. THEY DON'T MATTER. AT ALL. Let me rephrase that. If you saw them, then you would be BIASED to punish because of bad play factors. You presume bad play is trolling. That's why you had to spectate. You seem to be unable to curb your bias without it*.
And here's where you lose sir. I can't confirm this was bad play. Nor can I confirm it was trolling. It looks like both. To vote trolling is to click punish. To vote bad play is to click pardon. This you can not deny. I was not comfortable with either vote.
Quote:
*It's a shame too. Toxic players can and do report bad (at the game) players. You aid those toxic players by not pardoning..
I actually DO pardon cases as well. You just assume I never have and never will. Feel free to make more of an ass of you, leave me out of it.
Quote:
You're unable to confirm it's intentional ---> That's a pardon. Inconclusive is a pardon. You're unable to deny it's bad play --> pardon.
Feel free to vote your own way. Don't demand others to fall in line with your views. This isn't a dictatorship.
Quote:
(Side note: Have you had a basic stats class?)
The science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability, imposes order and regularity on aggregates of more or less disparate elements. In other words completely ignoring the human element of the tribunal? Yea, I could do it that way. I choose not to. It would make me less human to do so.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Blafon

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

Senior Member

10-13-2012

I would have chosen "punish." I don't believe that many people would complain about "always going in 1 vs 5" or variants thereof without some bad behaviour on that part. You saying just the right thing to avoid suspicion isn't good enough. Sorry, I'd ban.