Define "numerous"

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Arushni

Senior Member

01-18-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by mackman View Post
Guys, this dude just refuses to listen to reason. Let it go.

@ Arushni: It's not always easy for Riot to tell when two accounts are linked. In fact, unless the person is really popular or just plain stupid, it's probably nearly impossible to tell. There is no fix for this. Therefore, expecting Riot to always ban smurfs when they ban the main account is absurd: There's simply no way to catch all the smurfs if the person is even a little bit clever.

The only "special" treatment pro players get is in even harsher penalties than non-professional players get. Get over yourself, dude.
That was totally uncalled for.

If they have access to IP lists, they have access to who owns what account - not definitive, but an easy tell at least (no doubt this game uses SQL). Not only that, professional players often stream, and on several different accounts. The particular player in question has done so on several occasions, apparently, so it's common knowledge about who he is.

And if you're saying this "special treatment" and "harsher penalties" is suspension from professional play... well, big deal. Millions of people don't play professionally, and to say that someone survives off such a thing that being suspended from them for a year or two and act like that is a big deal to them is just plain silly.

The facts remain; two players have been pointed out in this thread to have trolled numerous times. One of them received 8 warnings and suspensions before being banned permanently, which is 3, or 4, times more than what "normal" people get. The fact that it's easy to get around the Tribunal is no excuse - if you set a standard, the standard needs to be followed. You can't make exceptions for people that refuse to change and just do it across several accounts. That is not "no-tolerance".

So, please, if you can't act like an adult and not be offensive, then don't post here. Thanks.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

gnfnrf

Senior Member

01-18-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arushni View Post
The facts remain; two players have been pointed out in this thread to have trolled numerous times. One of them received 8 warnings and suspensions before being banned permanently, which is 3, or 4, times more than what "normal" people get. The fact that it's easy to get around the Tribunal is no excuse - if you set a standard, the standard needs to be followed. You can't make exceptions for people that refuse to change and just do it across several accounts. That is not "no-tolerance".
Normal people get 4(5, depending on how you count) or more chances, depending on the frequency of their Tribunal activity and conduct between cases. 8 is contained well within "4 or more", which is the standard policy.

I really don't see how this shows that IWD was given special treatment.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Arushni

Senior Member

01-18-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnfnrf View Post
8 is contained well within "4 or more", which is the standard policy.
I'm not quite sure I understand what this means exactly. 8 > 4/5.

And I seriously doubt IWD had been in a position where his cases were well beyond the falloff limit of when they're no longer considered relevant. As these things go, you usually keep doing it until punishment is secured indefinitely (ie. perma-banning). Being unable to play for a few weeks is not a big deal, especially if you have multiple accounts. In my case, had I known I would have been permanently banned, I would have stopped doing what I was doing well before it got to that point.

By the way, there is a difference between this "Your actions have been deemed inappropriate by the Tribunal, here is your punishment _____", and this "If you don't stop doing this, you're going to be permanently banned". One is clear cut and dry, the other is ambiguous and not fair warning of anything.

Still, I just don't see how 8 is fair to my 4, or the 4 most people probably get, multiple accounts or not. This is not rocket science; if they want to find out who uses what particular accounts, they can. I'm not trying to flaunt my superiority here (even though it's relevant), but I work in IT, and I know what is in the realm of possibility, and finding out that type of information is not an impossibility, especially if they use SQL.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say here is; not only does the Tribunal need to be fair and hand out standard punishments to everyone and all their accounts that are involved in the activity, but it also needs to be a helluva lot more descriptive when it comes to what will happen should you not cease and desist. I'm 100% certain IWD would have stopped doing what he was doing if he was simply told that permanent action would be taken. I'm also 99.9% certain that he received no such warning. No one is beyond saving, and that kind of information goes a long way to stopping it in the first place.