This Tribunal System..

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Luvatar

Senior Member

01-07-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Awaken Easley View Post
I'm saying that everyone will inevitably succumb to their animal instincts in one situation or another.
We get that, and this is precisely why you'll never show up in the tribunal for succumbing to your instincts on occasion. The system is very lenient, and it has been stated numerous times that it takes such things into account (Heck, even Ribbon-holders get reported often). People that show up and continue to be punished by the system are the kind where retaliation is the norm rather than the exception.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Awaken Easley View Post
Nobody in this community wants to do the right thing. The people insulting players in-game, the people banning those players for insulting them, etc... You're all in it for what you can get out of it, not to help others. They can mask it however they want, there's not a lot of depth to the lies this community presents to protect its image.
Looking out for yourself doesn't mean you don't look out for the others. See, this is the beautiful thing about the Tribunal. When I vote for someone who I personally do not wish to game with, and my peers reach the same conclusion, I also benefit the community so that they do not have to deal with such people. In the end, looking out for myself helps the community.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Awaken Easley

Senior Member

01-07-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyTheAttorney View Post
The mistake you're making is that there's a "weight" behind this crime. What is the crime? What is the definition? What are we determining here?

This is not a criminal tribunal. This is not even analogus to the criminal justice system. It is, however similar to a civil court system. A civil system which has completely different standards of reviews, rights, and even evidence.

A civil system determines "whether or not someone breached their agreement" with another party during a dispute. It does not take into account numerous reasons as to "why" it just simply determines what the breach "is" who "did it" if it was "mutual" etc.

We are determining whether or not someone breached their agreement (not following the Summoner's Code). There is no "1st degree Breach of Contract" vs. "Unintentional Manslaughter Breach." There is no "I breached my agreement because he breached it first." There are no "degrees of breaching."

Who did we make the agreement with?

We made it with Riot. To essentially "be nice" in a game with other people. If other people are breaching their agreement with Riot and "not being nice" that does not -in turn- make our own agreement null and void.

Each time we hit "accept" after a patch or update, we're reaffirming our agreement with Riot. Riot is providing a game for us (that they made) and in exchange to play this game, we agree to be subject to the Tribunal to determine whether or not our conduct is in line with the agreement that we made when we hit accept.

This is not some forum for "he did it first" because that's irrelevant. You have no agreement with the other person. Perhaps by proxy because you agree to be "nice" to that person in game (via Riot), but you're not beholden to the other rager. There are no specific consequences for antagonizing one person. To do so though, means you have accepted the risk that you could run afoul of the Tribunal.

"degrees" of "meanness" have no bearing here. You can be spectacularly mean, or just a little mean, and you're going against the Summoner's Code, and can find yourself in the Tribunal.

If you don't like that "you can get sent to the Tribunal for being mean back" then the choice is always clear: Choose to play another game.

But lets not compare the Tribunal to the criminal justice system, when we lawyers have gone through all the trouble of making a much more convoluted civil system the place to go for such grievances.
It's a grey area. There is no strict, definitive outline for "be nice." Some people will say "use common sense, hurdur."

Let's say 3rd pick calls mid, 1st pick locks in mid, 3rd pick locks in mid too. Do we ban them both since Riot refuses to take a stance on whether or not roles should be called or fall into the picking order? According to Riot they're both in the right. The team still had to suffer because of their decisions.

And why is it that people always resort to "This is the way things are!" rather than "Let's just fix the ****ing problem so that things are the way they should be?"

What would it hurt to have punishments that actually fit the crimes perpetrated by the "toxic players?"


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Sugary Jesus

Member

01-07-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneReich View Post
Hey my name is Chris, and I'm a relatively new player to League of Legends.

Well, introductions are finished so I'm going to cut the **** and go straight into it haha.

I think that the tribunal system is stupid, judgmental and too bias. Firstly, many cases are simple, roughly reviewed and unbalanced. Riot only takes into consideration what the reported player had said, even if the reported player was provoked in the first place.

Point 1: Riot states that ignoring the provoking player is your best friend.

What if the provoking player offends people that do not just include yourself? I know it's the internet and all that hogwash, and that I shouldn't take things so seriously, but if someone offends my mum for example, I don't see why I should shut up and take it the entire game.

Point 2: Riot states that it doesn't except all the 'who started it nonsense', rather the reported player will be punished if flaming occurs.

Why the hell not?! I say it bloody hell matters who the hell started the argument!

Quick example:
******* 1 : **** you your a **** ****
Reported Player: Yeah? Who the **** is feeding? Go eat a dick!

Above is roundabout one of the reasons i got temporarily banned.

I mean, WTF!?! As long as the person who rebutted to the ******* he shouldn't be punished too severely, rather in ordinance to the situation!


Secondly have a look at this link - I was surfing through the old forum files and found -
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribun.../5788168/#nogo

His KD ratio is the best out of his team, yet he got punished - why? Because he flamed.
If you read closely he was provoked first by his teammates, they called him various names - Swain in particular. I say punish Swain,not him!

#end
The report is upon that guy in particular.
Not swain.
If someone deemed it necessary for swain to be reported, they would've done so, and we, the tribunal reviewists, would have treated him in the same way.

The report is for an individual person on the team. The tribunal is accurate and the few people that do not agree with the report cards, can appeal and people will willingly look at this.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Awaken Easley

Senior Member

01-07-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvatar View Post
We get that, and this is precisely why you'll never show up in the tribunal for succumbing to your instincts on occasion. The system is very lenient, and it has been stated numerous times that it takes such things into account (Heck, even Ribbon-holders get reported often). People that show up and continue to be punished by the system are the kind where retaliation is the norm rather than the exception.




Looking out for yourself doesn't mean you don't look out for the others. See, this is the beautiful thing about the Tribunal. When I vote for someone who I personally do not wish to game with, and my peers reach the same conclusion, I also benefit the community so that they do not have to deal with such people. In the end, looking out for myself helps the community.
If I robbed a bank and gave all the money to charity.

Doesn't change the fact that I robbed the bank.

You're still doing the wrong thing, regardless of who you're helping.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Awaken Easley

Senior Member

01-07-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by PenguinKillBear View Post
You are right. Most people, even the nice ones, crack at some point. That is fine. In fact Riot employees have stated even they do at some points. That is why one game will not get you into the tribunal. So you snap and rage in one game and get reported. Oh well. No big deal. You have to do this over and over again to show up in the tribunal.

One game of rage doesnt get you in trouble. Its repeated offense.

You can certainly make all the assumptions you want to our motivations, but me personally I want to make this game and community better. That is why I do it.
Do you not understand how you're all hypocrites because of how you judge them for doing what you all do?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Awaken Easley

Senior Member

01-07-2013

I really hope I can find this thread when I wake up, but it's 10:21 a.m. and I haven't slept yet.

This is the longest I've gotten to debate this, without a thread getting closed or having literally no one to debate with.

'Night GD.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PenguinKillBear

Senior Member

01-07-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Awaken Easley View Post
Do you not understand how you're all hypocrites because of how you judge them for doing what you all do?
There is a difference from people being frequently a jerk in game, and someone breaking once. That is why it takes many games of reports to get to the tribunal. Its not hypocritical to accept that even nice, friendly players rage once in a long while, and yet punish players who do it in a large percentage of their games.

1% of games raged in does not equal 30% of games raged in.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Luvatar

Senior Member

01-07-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Awaken Easley View Post
If I robbed a bank and gave all the money to charity.

Doesn't change the fact that I robbed the bank.

You're still doing the wrong thing, regardless of who you're helping.
I'm unsure of how this analogy is relevant, or even remotely close to what we are discussing.

What I was trying to say, since you probably don't get it: is that you can do good actions for selfish reasons. I can donate to Charity to impress a girl. Doesn't take away that I'm helping. I can partake in the tribunal for the personal satisfaction of watching trolls get banned, it doesn't mean I'm not helping clean the community.

Is it unsettling? Probably, but we are humans after all, and channeling our inner demons into good outlets is probably our best bet at civilized behavior when reason isn't paramount.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BillyTheAttorney

Senior Member

01-07-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Awaken Easley View Post
It's a grey area. There is no strict, definitive outline for "be nice." Some people will say "use common sense, hurdur."

Let's say 3rd pick calls mid, 1st pick locks in mid, 3rd pick locks in mid too. Do we ban them both since Riot refuses to take a stance on whether or not roles should be called or fall into the picking order? According to Riot they're both in the right. The team still had to suffer because of their decisions.

And why is it that people always resort to "This is the way things are!" rather than "Let's just fix the ****ing problem so that things are the way they should be?"

What would it hurt to have punishments that actually fit the crimes perpetrated by the "toxic players?"
Good question. There is never any 100% solution to any form of societal corrective measures ever. Because all people and their opinions generally fall on a bell curve when someone asks them "what's acceptable?" The only thing you can make a play for is the averages.

I suppose I should amend my "be nice" statement. I was writing fast and not carefully (shame on me). What I should say is "not be mean" rather than "be nice" is the standard. You don't have to be polite or nice to the trolls that are trolling you - but you don't have to be mean right back to them either.

As for what's acceptable? I'm not smart enough or good enough at sociology to delve into that topic of conversation. The only thing I took issue with in the thread was the comparison of the criminal system of the "punishment fitting the crime" but we have to step back and determine "what is the crime?"

The "crime" is whether or not someone violated the summoner's code.

okay, what is the summoner's code?

It's what we expressly agree to follow each time before we play this game.

If Riot institutes a system whereby they determine the severity of "breaching the summoner's code" - then we can talk about whether or not someone falls into one of the more severe categories. As it stands right now though, there's only a Tribunal system with what it says in place in the FAQ and some helpful stickied posts from Reds with their interpretations (which are also open to interpretation).

However, while people can be punished or pardoned seemingly (and weirdly) at random - we have all agreed to abide by these standards to play the game. We agree to such things every single day:

i.e. I'm in a suit right now waiting for a client. I hate wearing suits. What does wearing a suit have to do with anything I do? People go into court all the time in sweat pants and dirty t-shrits. There's nothing in my skill set I can't also do in my PJs.

But I've made an agreement - that in order to represent myself, my colleagues, the court and whomever that I should wear a suit every day I have a court day. By making this agreement I choose to accept this "wearing of a suit" in exchange for not being talked down to, being employed, etc. There's nothing illegal for me to not show up in a suit, but I cannot then turn around and say "You can't reprimand/fire me for not wearing a suit! It's not illegal for me not to wear one!" They can though, if I have agreed to wear one during the day as part of my contract. We put self-limitations on our absolute freedoms each and every day.

The Code and the Tribunal are there to determine whether or not we've violated our agreement with Riot. It's a unilateral agreement you and them. Whether or not you uphold your agreement with someone rarely involves 3rd parties.

Lets say I show up wearing a denim suit. People react in horror, but I say "what? I'm wearing a suit, just like I said I would" If enough people say "that's not a suit" I may subjectively disagree with them, but I know that if I continue to wear this denim suit - other people can say I'm breaching my suit agreement. Perhaps I face a reprimand for the day, and I might be mad and say "wtf! It's a SUIT" but I know that by continuing to wear that "suit" I can further face reprimands.

I have a choice. Everyone has a choice. And heck, I don't think the Tribunal in it's current state is perfect, and it can be more accurate.

But I also know that I made an agreement. I'm held to that agreement. Even if other people around me are breaking it, that no longer makes my agreement null.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Luvatar

Senior Member

01-07-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Awaken Easley View Post
Do you not understand how you're all hypocrites because of how you judge them for doing what you all do?
No, because we understand the system. When somebody gets into the tribunal, it means they already bypassed the many different security checks. It means that the person we are investigating isn't here because he lost it once. He is here because he has lost it more often than not.

At that point, the system makes one more security check: It takes a random sample of the players numerous reports for the players to scrutinize. It is the equivalent of a statistical Acceptance Sampling, in which the numbers of offenses where it is statistically safe to reject the lot (Or in this case, to punish) is 1. So basically, when tribunal voters read the cases, they are encouraged to hit punish if they find even just one instance where the voter would not like to play with said player (In other words, being a Jerk).

Again, occasionally losing it has nothing to do here. You wont get into the tribunal for it.