Understanding the Tribunal

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

Altace

Junior Member

10-26-2012

Does ignoring/muting a player change his weight/risk in getting sent to the Tribunal? There has to be a direct correlation.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Augratafier

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

Senior Member

10-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Altace View Post
Does ignoring/muting a player change his weight/risk in getting sent to the Tribunal? There has to be a direct correlation.
I'd imagine they have metrics that measure it, but i doubt it would influence the Tribunal, since there are people who just mute everyone at the beginning of the game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Juke For Jesus

Senior Member

10-27-2012

I would think it would be harder to get a troll banned who doesn't say anything and purposely ruins games, then a guy who is chatting up obscenities at other players. Lack of hard evidence in the former.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ThereRnoIDs

Member

10-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Altace View Post
Does ignoring/muting a player change his weight/risk in getting sent to the Tribunal? There has to be a direct correlation.
The more often to get sent to the tribunal the higher the chance of getting a ban.
Refusing to communicate, unorthadox pick or even a good fairy tale saying how you afked, taking farm from other lanes or taking jungle could get you banned in the comment section.

It's really up to luck on who's judging your case.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kayleorfeed

Senior Member

10-27-2012

would prefer a 10-0 ****** to a 0-10 friendly guy


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Akesgeroth

Senior Member

10-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayleorfeed View Post
would prefer a 10-0 ****** to a 0-10 friendly guy
Cool story bro.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Madman Reborn

Senior Member

10-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akesgeroth View Post
Lyte, if I may make a comment.

This situation hasn't happened often. I probably have close to 3k games played, and I think it has happened three times so far, but it HAS happened. Let me explain.

I'll join a game, no one says anything in the lobby. We pick our champions. The game starts, the rest of my teammates speak nothing but portuguese. I tell them that I only speak english and french, no response. They don't ping, they don't call MIAs. I go 5/0/8 or something like that, and suddenly I die and I get all of my teammates going "OMG u suck stop playing" or "stupid fck pig", followed by actual coherent phrases in english. They understand english, they speak it, they can write it, they just don't want to do it unless it's to insult other players. Hell, the last time it happened, I just went "Oh, so you do speak english! Just not to do anything but insult me. Bye." and left the game, because I wasn't going to subject myself to a 4-man premade doing this to me.

So yes, I do think "Refusing to communicate with the team" should be taken into account. Not often, but it should.
THey should not be banned for not communicating, they should be banned for verbal harrasment/offensive language. ;-)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Xander756

Member

10-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post

1) What's the point of having a language filter if I can get banned for 'adult' language?
a) We aren't out to punish players who use adult language; in fact, very few players are ever banned for saying stuff like "f***, I missed that skill shot" or "damn, f***ing close game!" However, the language filter is not an excuse to verbally abuse someone in the game. When you verbally abuse or harass someone by calling them "f***ing ******" or "n*gger noob", that's when you've crossed the line and will be punished by the Tribunal. I've said this before and I'll say it again, we aren't trying to clean online games of adult language; we're trying to reform or get rid of jerks who like to verbally abuse and harass other players.
Didn't you once claim I got banned for talking about **** *** as part of a conversation with someone I know? If you "aren't trying to clean online games of adult language" then me casually talking about it with a friend should have no bearing on my punishment, right?

Quote:

2) I only have 1 bad game in my Tribunal Reform Card, why am I banned???
a) The Tribunal verdict is not based on a 'majority' rule; there is also no requirement that all games have to be toxic for it to warrant a suspension. Depending on the case, sometimes 1 game is all that is needed to show that the player deserves a suspension. To Tribunal reviewers, decisions like these are up to you. When you view a Tribunal case, the questions you should ask yourselves are, "Is this player's behavior appropriate in League of Legends?" and "Would I want to play with this player?"
Then why are games that did not get us in trouble shown on the reform card? Why aren't games voted on an individual basis rather than grouping three non-related incidents together? The biggest complaint here is having a case where 2 games were pardonable and then you're punished anyway.

Quote:
3) This player should have been banned, but he was pardoned. The Tribunal is broken!
a) The Tribunal was inspired by 'crowdsourcing' research. When I was still a student, I worked with labs that developed games such as "Foldit" that took advantage of crowdsourcing to find solutions to extremely tricky tasks--when you read this research you truly appreciate how accurate crowdsourcing systems can be. In fact, the Tribunal is far more accurate than traditional Player Support.

However, the Tribunal isn't perfect. The design is based on statistical probability and random sampling and every system like this has outliers. This means that sometimes, a player has an egregious Tribunal case but is still pardoned because he happened to get a lenient set of voters; however, if the player is truly toxic, he actually is re-sent back to the Tribunal in a handful of games and is usually accurately punished in his second visit to the Tribunal.

Because the Tribunal is designed to identify frequency and consistency of toxic behavior, this is why it doesn't take into account the severity of the offense. If a player is extremely toxic he will quickly get banned multiple times by the Tribunal until he is permabanned; in fact, extremely toxic players end up permabanned significantly faster than players who are 'less severe.' In the future, we may want to brainstorm ways to improve on the Tribunal so that it does take into account severity and adjusts punishments accordingly... but we're not there yet.
Just throwing out scholarly terms such as "crowdsourcing" and "random sampling" is only going to make you sound like you know what you're doing to the untrained ear. Crowdsourcing is not a good system with many critical flaws. You have a Ph.D so I expected you would have known this already, though right?

Crowdsourcing data can be horribly inaccurate for several reasons, one of which is malicious intent of those involved to skew the data. In this case, it would be the intent for Tribunal judges to intentionally punish people because they themselves got picked on. Another is that those involved often don't have the requisite knowledge or skill to properly complete the work (one theory as to why this is, is because the people who could actually do this work well don't have the time to commit to work for token wages). This also applies to the Tribunal because you have 12 year olds deciding cases as if they were a Supreme Court Justice! These have been the problems people have been complaining about all along. Why would someone as highly educated as yourself need to be explained the problems with crowdsourcing on an almost daily basis?

Another major problem with crowdsourcing is the immorality of having people complete work for token wages. Yet Riot doesn't even pay people to do this work for them. They toss a little bit of IP their way. In fact, I think you even ended that. Now you just have people working for you for free. Gee, I wonder why this company has an F rating with the BBB...?

Quote:
4) That player in my game was far worse than me. Why am I banned???
a) I'll keep this one simple: retaliation isn't OK. Reacting to a toxic player by being toxic just incites that player to be even worse--it also ruins the game for up to 8 other players. It is far, far worse to watch two people yelling at each other all game than it is to watch 1 player ranting into blank space. Almost everyone in the game can find someone out there that behaves worse than they do--but so what? Finding someone worse doesn't justify your behavior or justify retaliation. We expect more out of our players. What players often don't realize is... those other players in your game that you thought were worse? Nearly 100% of the time, those players were banned even before you were. If someone is being toxic, just report them and move on. If you retaliate, both of you will be banned. It's really that simple.
Yes let's teach kids to allow people to bully them without retaliating. This is a great life lesson, Lyte. And claiming "if you retaliate, both of you will be banned" is not a correct or accurate statement. The Tribunal does not have the power to ban other people in the game, only the person who was reported. Therefore, if you were retaliating to someone else and then YOU get reported YOU are the one who is banned. Not them. You then have to just hope the other person also got hit but you'll never know.

Quote:
5) Low skill players should be banned from the game! The Tribunal should only ban Leavers/AFK and intentional feeders, those are the only types of players that really ruin games!
a) No. Just no. Jerks ruin games. League of Legends is for everyone whether they are 500 Elo or 2500 Elo. It's not a game for jerks.
This is the only thing I've agreed with you on thus far. Low skilled players should not get banned. That being said, the Tribunal and reporting system are still broken in this regards. People report players for doing badly for "intentional feeding." Then someone looks at a 2/15 game and says "oh well, they MUST have been feeding" and clicks punish. It seems people do not really understand what INTENTIONAL feeding means.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

NecroticBinder

Senior Member

10-27-2012

This would be funny, were it not so sad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander756 View Post
Didn't you once claim I got banned for talking about **** *** as part of a conversation with someone I know? If you "aren't trying to clean online games of adult language" then me casually talking about it with a friend should have no bearing on my punishment, right?
Why do I get the feeling you are talking out of context? Oh, that's right. Because you are.



Quote:
Then why are games that did not get us in trouble shown on the reform card? Why aren't games voted on an individual basis rather than grouping three non-related incidents together? The biggest complaint here is having a case where 2 games were pardonable and then you're punished anyway.
Because the tribunal works in that way, so reform cards just take what the tribunal judges are given and then hands it to the person in question. As for individual cases, that just wastes time. Either a person is going to be punished, or they aren't.


Quote:
Just throwing out scholarly terms such as "crowdsourcing" and "random sampling" is only going to make you sound like you know what you're doing to the untrained ear. Crowdsourcing is horribly inaccurate. You have a Ph.D so I expected you would have known this already, though right?
Bravo. You took one persons opinion, and proceeded to assume it was correct. Well, at least we know talking with you is likely to get absolutely no where.



Quote:
Yes let's teach kids to allow people to bully them without retaliating. This is a great life lesson, Lyte. And claiming "if you retaliate, both of you will be banned" is not a correct or accurate statement. The Tribunal does not have the power to ban other people in the game, only the person who was reported. Therefore, if you were retaliating to someone else and then YOU get reported YOU are the one who is banned. Not them. You then have to just hope the other person also got hit but you'll never know.
That's like saying that if someone steals something from you, and you steal something from them and they call the cops on you, only you will be punished. Yes, that's going to be the result! Yay! That's because the system isn't omnipresent, it's YOUR fault if you don't report them. And yes, it is a great life lesson. The real lesson is "Don't retaliate when you don't have to" the internet is a place, where you really, really don't have to retaliate.



Quote:
This is the only thing I've agreed with you on thus far. Low skilled players should not get banned. That being said, the Tribunal and reporting system are still broken in this regards. People report players for doing badly for "intentional feeding." Then someone looks at a 2/15 game and says "oh well, they MUST have been feeding" and clicks punish. It seems people do not really understand what INTENTIONAL feeding means.
Yay! More false information. So, you are trolling. Desperately. I'd give you a six out of ten.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Xander756

Member

10-27-2012

Quote:
Why do I get the feeling you are talking out of context? Oh, that's right. Because you are.
Nope. It was part of a conversation with a friend of mine about a girl I was dating. I said that when making up after a fight I should punish her with some violent ****. Clearly this wasn't "verbal abuse" to anybody in the game. It was just adult language - something Lyte just claimed they aren't trying to "clean up." Wonder why he claimed I was banned for this then?

Quote:
Bravo. You took one persons opinion, and proceeded to assume it was correct. Well, at least we know talking with you is likely to get absolutely no where.
The article I found was just something I quickly grabbed from Google. It is a fairly well known concept that crowdsourcing is crucially flawed. Look it up yourself. The information is often inaccurate and there are serious ethical and moral problems with utilizing crowdsourcing systems to begin with.

Quote:
That's like saying that if someone steals something from you, and you steal something from them and they call the cops on you, only you will be punished. Yes, that's going to be the result! Yay! That's because the system isn't omnipresent, it's YOUR fault if you don't report them. And yes, it is a great life lesson. The real lesson is "Don't retaliate when you don't have to" the internet is a place, where you really, really don't have to retaliate
No it is more akin to a situation in which someone punches you, so you punch them back. You aren't going to be arrested for assault. They are.

Also, in your example, based on the Tribunal you WOULD be the only one who got punished. They would not.