Permed for this, there's harsh and there's ridicolous.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BillyTheAttorney

Senior Member

01-28-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by YueienGato View Post
Curious Billy, did you spend some time during your undergrad period lurking amongst the Greek logic and rhetoric classics? The way you approach certain arguments reeks of a familiarity with the humanities, but you strike me more of a rhetorical student.
I have had a bit of a more classical background than most. Boston College undergrad (a long time ago now), we had a requirement for theology and philosophy (Jesuit thing), but for electives I did classical rhetoric and logic. I actually majored in History and English. I thought I'd go onto being a teacher somewhere, but my idiot friends convinced me to apply to law school. I knew I shouldn't have listened to them.

But I only got a C+ on my Logic final because it was the day after my roommates and I invented "drunk nighttime wiffle ball" So don't be fooled, I'm just a Brolaf with a dictionary.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

GOOOOOSE

Member

01-28-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyTheAttorney View Post
That's the kind of discussion that the Jesuits would spend a whole class going back and forth on. It's very interesting, and you're right. In a metaphysical sense faith is one of those strange things that cannot be proven or disproven.

Unfortunately, to settle a more tangible dispute two conflicting parties have a different version of "true" events. One person says "this person did that" and the other person says "I did not do that" and then we are given a set of "known data" or facts. However, while we all strive to find that "concrete intent" or "smoking gun data point" rarely are we presented with an opportunity.

In the case of whether or not you were trolling we are presented with a set of facts - the items purchased by you in game, and in-game behavior as given to us by the chat log. Can they prove you were trolling by themselves? I don't know. But can they DISPROVE that you were trolling either? I don't think so. So you are on equal footing. What we are left then with "your word vs. their word."

unfortunately your argument of "I wasn't trolling" wasn't decided by the Tribunal. Rather the whole sequence of cases were. So I don't think we will know for sure whether or not other people think you were trolling, and we will never know if you weren't.

The same as you make the accusation of "I lolking'd you, and you clearly do not know what you're talking about" to someone else. We won't know if said accusation is right or wrong. It is, however, a bit of a hypocritical accusation to make after you go to lengths to make this point about an inability to prove or disprove things.

I don't know if you're trolling, people saying you are can't prove it, but nor can you disprove it. However, because one instance is inconclusive as a singular case does not mean it's not factored into the whole set of games levied against you.

And a "burden of proof" is actually different depending on the situation. Unfortunately, you agreed to abide by the Tribunal every time you click accept after a patch. I don't know enough about your own personal case history to know if you warrant a Permaban on your account...

But I also don't have enough proof to know that you do not warrant one either.
OK, the main problem here is as I stated earlier " the burden of proof" as you put it.
A quick note for you to help in further discussions ( I'm genuinely trying to help you here)
Proof : A proposition that can be verified absolutely ( in a non philosophical sense)
Evidence: Something that suggests a proposition.

OK, basically your main point is the " she said, he said" circle, and in some ways that comment has merit. We don't know If I was trolling or not.
When you said " we are presented with a set of facts" was actually incorrect, we were presented with subjective evidence not actually proof( something that should be mandatory for a permanent ban). Therefore my argument still stands as yet to be falsified.

"unfortunately your argument of "I wasn't trolling" wasn't decided by the Tribunal. Rather the whole sequence of cases were. So I don't think we will know for sure whether or not other people think you were trolling, and we will never know if you weren't."

This is why I'm here, arguing my case. What the tribunal decides is often absolute ****, to claim the Tribunals decision is in any way relevant to whether or not I deserved this is, in itself a logical fallacy.

Sorry if it looks like I'm being pedantic, but it's important stuff.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

GOOOOOSE

Member

01-28-2013

"That's the kind of discussion that the Jesuits would spend a whole class going back and forth on. It's very interesting, and you're right. In a metaphysical sense faith is one of those strange things that cannot be proven or disproven."

Also I want to quickly fix this. Discussing whether or not god can be proven to exist is pretty much irrelevant, we might aswel argue whether or not you can prove I don't have an invisible elephant on my lap that weighs nothing. Faith is not one of those strange things that can't be proven or disproven, because, by definition faith cannot be proven or it wouldn't be faith it would be observation. It really isn't strange at all, it's just a very simple thing overcomplicated.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

YueienGato

Senior Member

01-28-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyTheAttorney View Post
I have had a bit of a more classical background than most. Boston College undergrad (a long time ago now), we had a requirement for theology and philosophy (Jesuit thing), but for electives I did classical rhetoric and logic. I actually majored in History and English. I thought I'd go onto being a teacher somewhere, but my idiot friends convinced me to apply to law school. I knew I shouldn't have listened to them.

But I only got a C+ on my Logic final because it was the day after my roommates and I invented "drunk nighttime wiffle ball" So don't be fooled, I'm just a Brolaf with a dictionary.
Interesting. BA in English and History, with a focus on Lit. Theory and Disarmament Studies respectively.

Right now finishing up my MA in English Lit and Rhetorics while working towards a more secure position at a Game Theory Thinktank (Why I am here). Some folks are nudging me towards a PhD but, for now, I like my sanity.

My interest in this (aka the concept of a community-driven system that is the Tribunal) is the shifting dynamics of communicating a digital ethos and cognative dissonance . . . aka I should have tried out for law school : /

Eitherway, just wanted to do a shout out to your postings: always a pleasure to read something as well thought-out as your posts often provide. I thoroughly enjoy the ethos you project


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

GOOOOOSE

Member

01-28-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xianio View Post
You're not going to be let off of this permaban. Sorry, but that's simply the way it is.

First: There has only been 1 special case where a permaban was overturned and that was due to Pendragons "contest." That contest has been removed and no one has ever had one overturned since.

Second: To even HOPE for a chance at overturning this you would need to be basically spotless. You are not. This isn't a case where people honestly don't even consider you punish worthy.

Third: You're making an appeal to the very people who looked over your recent game history and said "you're out." Not us, Riot.

If you're spending your time justifying your behaviour to us you've already lost the battle. The ONLY argument you have is that you're behaviour is a million times better than it used to be and you can show continual improvement WITHOUT "slips."

We didn't permaban you, Riot did. You got personal attention from them and your recent history told a compelling enough story to remove you. Your best and only option is a support ticket - just don't hold your breath.
1. Your first point is meaningless, historical background has no place in a logical discussion. That's like justifying voting for party B because everybody voted party B last year, this is almost dogma and is dangerous beyond description.

2. I pretty much am spotless, and that's why I'm arguing this.

3. I know, but there should be either reconsideration or a new set of eyes looking at the case.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

GOOOOOSE

Member

01-28-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by YueienGato View Post
Interesting. BA in English and History, with a focus on Lit. Theory and Disarmament Studies respectively.

Right now finishing up my MA in English Lit and Rhetorics while working towards a more secure position at a Game Theory Thinktank (Why I am here). Some folks are nudging me towards a PhD but, for now, I like my sanity.

My interest in this (aka the concept of a community-driven system that is the Tribunal) is the shifting dynamics of communicating a digital ethos and cognative dissonance . . . aka I should have tried out for law school : /

Eitherway, just wanted to do a shout out to your postings: always a pleasure to read something as well thought-out as your posts often provide. I thoroughly enjoy the ethos you project
Sorry, not letting you get away with such a poorly written, arrogant text. How on earth is this cognitive dissonance? Digital ethos? are you serious, this is the tribunal filled with people that wait on the the thirty second timer and click punish, that is this community's ethos.

ALSO: best of luck with your degree


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

RQ Kiwi

Senior Member

01-28-2013

Can you just explain to me how game 3 is not a punishable case by itself?

You've got Lux saying you picked mid after she had already picked mid. You don't even deny this, which is what most players would do, if they were being framed for something like that.

You've got Darius asking you go to top.

You've got another player then reporting you at the end, saying you locked in mid after mid was picked.

You then use some choice words to belittle Lux throughout the game.

Honestly, if a player was banned 5 times previously, then went into ranked after all those bans and started doing this, why would they not be permabanned? Thats ignoring the dubious second game, as well as the 5th game.

That's enough proof for me.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BillyTheAttorney

Senior Member

01-28-2013

Your point is not off Goose. But the problem when you argue "burden of proof" you have to define the burden. What is it? 51% guilty? 75% guilty? 99.9% guilty? I can only speak of law (because it's what I know) but there are essentially 3 standards: "preponderance" "clear and convincing" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"

The latter only applies to criminal (as we see in Law and Order and such). When you have the potential of having your fundamental freedom's deprived, do we reach that "burden of proof."

If the Tribunal actually WERE a legal system - it'd be a civil one. We would be determining "whether or not you broke the summoners code" or a.k.a "in breach of contract" To determine breach, we only need to reach a 51% or "preponderance of the evidence" standard to "carry our burden of proof."

I think we're saying similar things here but approaching it from different sides. I'll see if I can try to bridge it.

I don't necessarily understand different people's semantics or word choices. I apologize, I use common words as they pertain to my background which have different meanings. I'll try to explain as best I can what I mean with my words.

Facts are what are known. We submit facts as evidence. We use evidence to obtain proof. That's the best way I can explain my word choices. Not all facts are evidence, not all evidence is proof, (you know, squares and rhomboids stuff).

To look at what you were accused of by someone "trolling." I assume the "AD Gragas" game. The thing is, people who look at it also have different versions of trolling. To me, trolling is not "building different items on a champion" (with the Exception of like, AP Garen, where none of his skills scale off AP damage. AP pen probably, but not AP damage), but it can be a warning flag. What you say in chat can be a "warning flag" too. Think of it as a series of checkboxes. To me, building an AD Gragas bruiser is not trolling by itself, but it can weigh against it if there are other factors involved like, you're ruining your teammates lanes, feeding, and not trying.

Now, is "I'm smurfing" as the only response to people (being much more toxic too you, than you were I agree) a fact? Yes. Is it evidence? Maybe, is it proof? Probably not by itself. But we're taking in the circumstances.

This game I'd need to see a replay. If someone is trying to win, they're not trolling. If someone is trying to win, gives up first blood and proceeds to not care as he wastes time for surrender trolling? Yes, to me. So I don't know. But I didn't judge that case.

You're right, there's no proof that you're trolling. But there's no proof that you're NOT trolling. And there is no statute that says "the accuser must carry a burden of proof when accusing someone of trolling." So, people are free to make the conclusions in a vacuum.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AFK in lol ftw

Senior Member

01-28-2013

Clearly the system isn't working. Your smurf somehow got to level 30!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

GOOOOOSE

Member

01-28-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyTheAttorney View Post
Your point is not off Goose. But the problem when you argue "burden of proof" you have to define the burden. What is it? 51% guilty? 75% guilty? 99.9% guilty? I can only speak of law (because it's what I know) but there are essentially 3 standards: "preponderance" "clear and convincing" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"

The latter only applies to criminal (as we see in Law and Order and such). When you have the potential of having your fundamental freedom's deprived, do we reach that "burden of proof."

If the Tribunal actually WERE a legal system - it'd be a civil one. We would be determining "whether or not you broke the summoners code" or a.k.a "in breach of contract" To determine breach, we only need to reach a 51% or "preponderance of the evidence" standard to "carry our burden of proof."

I think we're saying similar things here but approaching it from different sides. I'll see if I can try to bridge it.

I don't necessarily understand different people's semantics or word choices. I apologize, I use common words as they pertain to my background which have different meanings. I'll try to explain as best I can what I mean with my words.

Facts are what are known. We submit facts as evidence. We use evidence to obtain proof. That's the best way I can explain my word choices. Not all facts are evidence, not all evidence is proof, (you know, squares and rhomboids stuff).

To look at what you were accused of by someone "trolling." I assume the "AD Gragas" game. The thing is, people who look at it also have different versions of trolling. To me, trolling is not "building different items on a champion" (with the Exception of like, AP Garen, where none of his skills scale off AP damage. AP pen probably, but not AP damage), but it can be a warning flag. What you say in chat can be a "warning flag" too. Think of it as a series of checkboxes. To me, building an AD Gragas bruiser is not trolling by itself, but it can weigh against it if there are other factors involved like, you're ruining your teammates lanes, feeding, and not trying.

Now, is "I'm smurfing" as the only response to people (being much more toxic too you, than you were I agree) a fact? Yes. Is it evidence? Maybe, is it proof? Probably not by itself. But we're taking in the circumstances.

This game I'd need to see a replay. If someone is trying to win, they're not trolling. If someone is trying to win, gives up first blood and proceeds to not care as he wastes time for surrender trolling? Yes, to me. So I don't know. But I didn't judge that case.

You're right, there's no proof that you're trolling. But there's no proof that you're NOT trolling. And there is no statute that says "the accuser must carry a burden of proof when accusing someone of trolling." So, people are free to make the conclusions in a vacuum.
You came off as a pretty smart guy until the last bit, and I think you know you faltered a bit there aswel.

" And there is no statute that says "the accuser must carry a burden of proof when accusing someone of trolling." So, people are free to make the conclusions in a vacuum."

I won't explain it because I don't really want to have these discussions on league forums, but just reread what you said and you'll find out why this argument falls flat and discredits the rest of what you were saying.