Dear everybody at Riot:

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

Dracorya

Senior Member

11-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribunalconsp View Post
Yes, the art of psychology.
Ha. Ha,

In other words. No, you have no idea what you are talking about.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

tribunalconsp

Member

11-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracorya View Post
Ha. Ha,

In other words. No, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The art of psychology.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

LittleDi

Senior Member

11-13-2012

Well tribunalconsp as you have nothing to say on the topic please stop posting in this thread. We're here for civil discussion and not here to cater to your trolling needs.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AlwaysUsesAnivia

Member

11-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribunalconsp View Post
The art of psychology.
Is there something wrong with art? Science itself is an art.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AlwaysUsesAnivia

Member

11-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribunalconsp View Post
No. It's a formalized methodology.

Axiom => Logical operation => Theorem (Corollary etc.)

Hypothesis ~ Data => Mathematical operation => Inference
Hypothesis generation is the part where art comes in. Performing experiments is not what science is all about--anyone with training and patience can do that. Conceiving of the experiment to be performed is the heart of scientific inquiry. All deduction must begin somewhere. There's an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to studying science as a process in which parallels to art are often invoked.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

tribunalconsp

Member

11-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlwaysUsesAnivia View Post
Hypothesis generation is the part where art comes in. Performing experiments is not what science is all about--anyone with training and patience can do that. Conceiving of the experiment to be performed is the heart of scientific inquiry. All deduction must begin somewhere. There's an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to studying science as a process in which parallels to art are often invoked.
Philosophy past first order logic != Science

Science isn't about generating hypotheses, but finding methods to gather and manipulate data to get convergence to a probability from which to make inferences.

The hypothesis part isn't bound to any kind of consistency, so it's not scientific.

Since psychology is based on inference, it isn't scientific.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AlwaysUsesAnivia

Member

11-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribunalconsp View Post
Philosophy past first order logic != Science

Science isn't about generating hypotheses, but finding methods to gather and manipulate data to get convergence to a probability from which to make inferences.

The hypothesis part isn't bound to any kind of consistency, so it's not scientific.

Since psychology is based on inference, it isn't scientific.
Judging by your remark about philosophy, I don't think you read my last comment quite carefully enough. If you think that mechanical deduction and rote processes are science then you have a fundamental misconception of science on a philosophical level. You also seem to be wholly ignorant with regards to psychology as a field of study, and with its methods in particular.

The amount of ignorance here is so profound in depth and so wide in scope that it's difficult to know where to begin educating you. I recommend reading Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations, or perhaps The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Both works provide insight into what science is by examining how it is conducted both by the individual and collectively within the field. The former is more accessible, but the latter is arguably more influential.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Inevitablybanned

Junior Member

11-14-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlwaysUsesAnivia View Post
Judging by your remark about philosophy, I don't think you read my last comment quite carefully enough. If you think that mechanical deduction and rote processes are science then you have a fundamental misconception of science on a philosophical level. You also seem to be wholly ignorant with regards to psychology as a field of study, and with its methods in particular.

The amount of ignorance here is so profound in depth and so wide in scope that it's difficult to know where to begin educating you. I recommend reading Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations, or perhaps The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Both works provide insight into what science is by examining how it is conducted both by the individual and collectively within the field. The former is more accessible, but the latter is arguably more influential.

Consider yourself honored, or annoyed, but I am circumventing my second ban just to respond to you.

The concept of formal science lies in its structure: There are axioms and consistent, logical operations i.e. ways to manipulate the axioms to preserve consistency and get new statements.

The reason why Psychology et al. aren't exact sciences is that their laws rely on statistical inferences implying some probability of them being entirely incorrect, while every consistent statement in an exact science holds EXACTLY.

In fact, it is impossible for an inference to ever be as strong without it essentially being a statement in an exact science:

From a probabilistic point of view, the exact statement must hold true for every value in the sample space, while the strongest an inference could theoretically get is with probability 1, which is a weaker statement, since the set of measure zero need not be empty.


Furthermore, by the virtue of it relying on a hypothesis, it is non-constructive (although there are consistent axioms in ZFC that are non-constructive as well), but that is something that plagues everything that requires empiricism.

In a nutshell, you use a looser definition of science than I do. By the way, neither of those are formal mathematical works and that is precisely what I am concerned with and nothing else.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

RazerNagaPlx

Member

11-14-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
We would love to present more and more data in the future, but these things take time because they are actually quite complicated in a way that is completely separate from player behavior or data. For example, if a company posted exactly how many players are banned every month I could easily reverse engineer their numbers to figure out a lot more than they want to reveal. It's surprising how much you can predict/project off seemingly independent and trivial factoids

Policies also change over time at companies. A long time ago it was much more prevalent for Rioters to post exact chat logs of players but we're learning that that isn't ideal--in fact, in some territories it might even be illegal without explicit consent. Many of you have probably noticed that recently I just post language 'trends' and patterns instead of exact chat logs and timestamps. So the data we can present today might be completely different than what we can present next year.

We'll just have to roll with the punches and try to share as much as we can, when we can. As a side note, one of the most amusing misconceptions I see is that the Tribunal is 'my design' and therefore I will defend it at all costs. Little do players know I spent over 3 weeks with a full research team analyzing every aspect of the Tribunal to determine its flaws and whether we should shut it down and build something else instead; during that analysis I proposed to completely re-do Tribunal feedback loops which is why we have Reform Cards and Justice Reviews now. I've said this before but I'll say it again--if any Tribunal data suggests it's a net negative on the player experience, I'd crush it tomorrow. It's that simple.
But it IS a net negative on player experience. These banned players turn around and make new accounts, where they become toxic to brand new players to the game. Even MORE toxic because they get frustrated by the new players lack of skill. You guys even said yourselfs that this was an issue.


Banning players for being moderately toxic is not the answer. Atleast one better solution is to group toxic players with other toxic players. They then have to deal with possibly longer queue times due to their negative behavior. They also have to "get a taste of their own medicine" so to speak. The only thing Riot can do that would encourage me to be a less toxic player is to force me to play with other people like myself. Only then would I realize "Hey, this sucks...I'm going to improve my behavior". It then becomes possible for a player to truly become less toxic.

There is simply no down side to this option. You get to keep the players revenue, you make other players happy because they no longer have to deal with them. You get to show your stockholders your numbers of active players and income revenue.

To clarify, when I say moderatley toxic I mean "gg noobs" "bg" "learn to play" sort of behavior. This does not include racist/sexist remarks, threats, ect.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

LittleDi

Senior Member

11-14-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazerNagaPlx View Post
There is simply no down side to this option.
Actually there's a huge down side to that idea. This ends up with a giant hole of poor behavior going on permanently. Anyone who lands in this by accident or once would then be tempted to leave forever. Resulting in net negative accounts of the people who wouldn't return to acting as jerks because they were once.