Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


You won't be banned for having bad games

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Emailsupport7346

Member

11-22-2012

Quote:
Lyte:
This isn't a mistake. This punishment is deserved.


Actually this is a mistake. The Tribunal decided for punishment faulty.

We have to stop justifying faulty Tribunal decisions by saying "the ban was deserved due to pre- postgame" chat... Because by doing so you and others totally ignore the essential problem which is random punishing of a seemingly innocent from the Tribunal judges.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

RaleonNightShado

Member

11-22-2012

I ended up in a game recently with a friend, with the other 3 playing together at their own table. We had no voice comm. They would constantly separate off into three separate directions, then reconvene without any way for the other two of us to figure it out. Thus, when it came time for teamfights, the two of us were often running around as support/adc, farming our lane and roaming together for ganks/safety. Because of this (in a non-ranked solo queue), they all three decided to report us for being bad players b/c we weren't around for a couple teamfights (read: ganks on them, including a face-check) (which as I understand is NOT a reason to get banned), even though we fundamentally played SMART, and cautious, yet because of their seeming lack of coordination to us (and total lack of CC between their 3 characters) they blamed the losing teamfights they would engage in on us (instead of not engaging, pinging, and regrouping).
I'm hardly saying that either side was right...
What I am saying is that I'm pretty sure that all 3 reported both myself and my playing partner for no particular reason.

My curiosity is whether a case like this is even looked at in Tribunal in a negative light for those reported... Obviously having never gotten a ban I'm not sure there's even an issue, but it does bring up some concern for me as a player who is learning still, and makes mistakes. I'm sure that there are trolls out there reporting people, in groups, to make it seem like they're terrible people/players.
We weren't terrible, we certainly didn't feed and most definitely not intentionally, we were just not used to their disperse-and-regroup play style. Honestly it made no sense to me, but whatever, it seemed to work for them if their randoms used CC's everywhere when they got together.

Or should I be counter-reporting? That seems even more destructive to the process and game. :\


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Super Explosion

Senior Member

11-22-2012

Quote:
Lyte:
There's no correct answer here, we debate questions like these everyday.


Oh but there is--

There is a set of actions that is optimal for the most people, present and future.

"For the goal of maintaining the fun and high spirits of the majority of the playerbase, we decided to ban this person because on review he displayed evidence of damage to and willingness to damage that goal."

The Tribunal is quite simply not the final authority-- the appellate court of Riot uses the guidance and recommendation of the Tribunal on where to investigate, but they are the final determiner with a bunch more data on whether this person is causing harm.

The Tribunal is a counsel of consultants that provides a recommendation to Riot.

Riot then either upholds or overturns it based upon the evidence.

The reform card is not all the evidence. It is a tool to help players improve their behavior-- not to attempt to find loopholes in circumventing a warranted ban.

Many if not most of these players who post a seemingly clean reform card are intimately aware of just how cruel they have been in the past, and are using the fortune of a 'questionable' card to sway popular opinion for their own gain.

Hence a reason Lyte and Pendragon post chat excerpts of their "true colors" so to speak.

Again, the reform card is not all the evidence Riot has, and the Tribunal is not the final say.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ada Wong

Senior Member

11-22-2012

Okay so heres the point.

@ Lyte maybe the punish was deserved, IF they submitted snapshots in a support ticket OR a GM Banned, suspended, or warned them.

However this was improperly voted on by the tribunal.

At least the way I see it


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Fat of the Land

Senior Member

11-22-2012

Quote:
Lyte:
Let's say Tribunal Case A is 'pardonable,' but happens to be punished by the playerbase. Riot reviews the case and finds out that the player does deserve a punishment. Should we unban the player because of the Tribunal Case details and let the player damage the playerbase further? Or, are we responsible for his actions and have to say "Reform Cards aren't perfect yet and we're going to maintain this ban because we believe the player is toxic."


The Tribunal has an inherent bias because the people voting in Tribunal cases represent the specific demographic that is willing to participate in the Tribunal process, rather than the community as a whole. It's dangerous to give a subset of people sole authority, so yes, Riot should be the counterweight by having a somewhat well defined black and white intervention list; behaviour that always results in a ban (eg. racist language) and behaviour that never results in a ban (eg. playing under powered champions). The grey area in between would be the domain of the Tribunal.

It would also be beneficial if more relevant information were shown in Tribunal cases. By your own admission the player in this case had over 1,000 reports in almost as many games yet the Tribunal only revealed 7 reports in 2 games -- Surely it could do better than a 0.7% incidence rate? Even though the player deserved a ban, had voters pardoned the player (fairly, based on the information available) then someone you personally deemed toxic would be sent back into the community. If that happened would you not have intervened knowing what you do?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Magiosnik

Junior Member

11-22-2012

Quote:
Lyte:
This is why it's important to have this discussion. Let's say Tribunal Case A is 'pardonable,' but happens to be punished by the playerbase. Riot reviews the case and finds out that the player does deserve a punishment. Should we unban the player because of the Tribunal Case details and let the player damage the playerbase further? Or, are we responsible for his actions and have to say "Reform Cards aren't perfect yet and we're going to maintain this ban because we believe the player is toxic."

There's no correct answer here, we debate questions like these everyday.


Hello Lyte,

I am from EUW but writting in the NA forum because it looks like I cannot get help neither in the EUW part of the forum or the support email.

I have been permanently banned on Monday, with no reason provided, except being in the 0.2% most toxic players in the game. A template email with no explanation what I have done wrong, how many reports I have received or anything.
It is stated that these players have not gone through Tribunal, and this is why they have been banned with no card provided. What worries me is that it has been a template email - if all these players were banned by hand, why the emails were not cusomized (like you said for the previous banwave)? Is there any chance that I get some information why it was decided to permanently ban me? What have I done wrong?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dazrix

Senior Member

11-22-2012

Quote:
Super Explosion:
Oh but there is--

There is a set of actions that is optimal for the most people, present and future.

"For the goal of maintaining the fun and high spirits of the majority of the playerbase, we decided to ban this person because on review he displayed evidence of damage to and willingness to damage that goal."

The Tribunal is quite simply not the final authority-- the appellate court of Riot uses the guidance and recommendation of the Tribunal on where to investigate, but they are the final determiner with a bunch more data on whether this person is causing harm.

The Tribunal is a counsel of consultants that provides a recommendation to Riot.

Riot then either upholds or overturns it based upon the evidence.

The reform card is not all the evidence. It is a tool to help players improve their behavior-- not to attempt to find loopholes in circumventing a warranted ban.

Many if not most of these players who post a seemingly clean reform card are intimately aware of just how cruel they have been in the past, and are using the fortune of a 'questionable' card to sway popular opinion for their own gain.

Hence a reason Lyte and Pendragon post chat excerpts of their "true colors" so to speak.

Again, the reform card is not all the evidence Riot has, and the Tribunal is not the final say.


The OP is the only one arguing his ban..

The rest of us are arguing the tribunal's effectiveness. And in that regard, you're totally ignoring the big picture. The fact that no evidence is brought forth upon this guy breaking anything of the summoners code, or any terms of service/use agreement. Nothing in their screams intentional feeding to me. His allies called it feeding - but then when I cross reference with previous statements, brand was playing overly aggressive (his team mates requested him to play less aggressively) and then you have the enemy team saying 'the throws' meaning a poor play. Intentional feeding isn't considered throwing. Throwing is a bad play that led to a very disadvantageous situation that may have swayed the game. In 80% of games, this will happen atleast once.

@Lyte: As I've pointed out previously, your statistics are 100% bias. The fact that the statistics often released show the % base of the tribunals AGREEMENT with the decision issued by Riot. What that would mean, is if Riot suspended/punished 90% of reports, and pardoned 10% on their own, and the Tribunal voted to punish 100% of cases, your statistics would show there to be a 90% accuracy.

How is that accurate? Thats a 100% spam punish.

Now, again, this case is clear evidence that people don't care about what evidence is provided. Once again, you argue previous incidents, and you use evidence never provided to the tribunal.. Thats nice.... But the TRIBUNAL does not see that evidence, yet has the same agreement as Riot's decision to punish? Not only that, but it's a STRONG agreement. In majority of my personal cases, I've not had all that many strong agreements, only maybe 1.

Now, Lyte.. I would ask that you argue for the tribunal, as a Tribunaler in this case. And not as a riot employee. Through purely that tribunal outcome, tell me why YOU would punish, and why it would be JUSTIFIED. Then, I might start considering the tribunal to be accurate. (You once told me you were just trying to get me to think this stuff from a different perspective, now I want you to review this trial from the tribunal perspective, only.)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ada Wong

Senior Member

11-22-2012

I agree that the Tribunal ban was false based on the evidence provided to me in the games with no chat at all?

What I do not agree with is what lyte says if he was cussing his mates for example or something pre game then they absolutely deserve it.

My arguement is that the Tribunal itself isn't accurate in quite a few cases and arguements I am seeing including the answers I got from Riots customer service recently saying that the Tribunal is accurate, and they gave me all the info they could and all this.

The Tribunal needs fixing major, I hope it comes soon for the sake of the community.

I know a couple of times I lost it on some players and im not afraid to admit when I know I am in the wrong, but sometimes I feel that I am not in the wrong given the fact that I have been in matches where I get trolled by my mates I inform them they are being muted because they constantly ping spam, and then I get suspended or time ban for that by tribunal because of refusing to communicate.

I hate trolls, and this is why I want to see improvements.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

SC Handsome Aces

Recruiter

11-22-2012

Lyte, I'm assuming you've hit the hay here, but for the most part, this player simply performs poorly and then tries to guilt others into surrender by convincing them the game is hopeless. He doesn't seem to flame, and while he does seem to have a high number of deaths overall...isn't it simply possible the guy is just plain bad at the game?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dazrix

Senior Member

11-22-2012

Dunno how you get the guilt thing. But I do believe that this particular incident is clear proof that the tribunal isn't working as well as Riot likes us to believe it is.