The Tribunal incentivizes punishment

123
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

1nC0NtroL

Junior Member

02-16-2013

EDIT: Thread title should actually be: The Justice Review incentivizes punishment

The user profile (Justice Review) displays "score" for the following:

  • 3 Progress: Total Cases Reviewed, Justice Rating, Ranking
  • 5 Accuracy: x% Accuracy, Cases Correct, Longest Streak, Justice Rating, Ranking
  • 2 "Punish" outcome: Toxic Days Prevented, Players Permabanned
  • 0 "Pardon" outcome: -

My suggestion is to also include "Players Vindicated" to keep score of cases pardoned (with the users support, ofc).
This can be either added on the second line of the Justice Review, or can replace the "Cases Correct" tracker, as (Total Cases Reviewed)*(x% Accuracy)=(Cases Correct).
I'm basing this suggestion on the following assumptions:
  • Some people feel rewarded when they see their score increasing.
  • Some people who get a greater reward for choosing A over B have a greater chance to choose A in the future.
  • The Justice Review shouldn't affect judgements.

Notes/Clarifications:
  • My argument is only against the current state of the Justice Review, nothing else.
  • I'm not suggesting that people do not vote "Pardon", rather that the Justice Review is biased towards punishment.
  • I don't have a problem with punishing in particular. If the only score visible was "Players Vindicated", I'd still suggest the Justice Review is biased.
  • I'm not claiming the Justice Review is THE cause for punish rates being higher than pardon rates (and I know that's the way it should be), just saying it may affect votes while, I assume, it shouldn't.

EDIT: I dropped some of my arguments, which were arguable and irrelevant. Hope my point and reasoning are clearer now.

Plea, if downvoting this, please write a reply explaining why you did so.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Qichin

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

02-16-2013

% Accuracy might not necessarily entice punishment, as the correct vote depends on what the majority of people think. The fact that the majority of cases are voted to punish is not a fault of the judges, but the whole point of the entire reporting and tribunal system. People who are pardoned rarely end up in the tribunal in the first place, as they need to accumulate enough reports first, which is difficult to do if you don't do, well, anything punishable. It's several layers of filtering, really.

That last point, not sure just how much those numbers influence voting. It sure doesn't influence my decisions when I vote, but I can't say how others feel. I'm more concerned about voting how I think a particular case should be handled. And only if a majority thinks alike do my statistics (all of them) increase.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

dignitas Rampant

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

02-16-2013

I'm not really sure how much it "incentivizes" it though. I'm not going to deny that there is going to be some sort of psychological incentive to increase your score, but to prove if a player becomes more zealous as time goes on, we'd need access to data we do not have. I do like the Players Vindicated statistic however.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Xeones

Senior Member

02-16-2013

I don't think it gives incentive, unless you need to keep a certian percentage in order to continue to judge. I mean I just look at cases like this -

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6220474/

This person was reported for verbal abuse and negative attitude (never feeding oddly) but never said a single thing that I could tell. The first game makes a claim, that I suppose happened in after game chat but without seeing any text during any of this players matches I had no reason to believe it.

They performed very poorly, but the items looked more like someone who didn't know how to play (all ap not a single health/survivial item) rather than someone intentionally playing bad.

I simply had to hit pardon due to lack of evidence.

Now don't get me wrong, it kinda makes me feel bad to see the hit to my % but it's not going to change me from trying my best to give a proper vote.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

1nC0NtroL

Junior Member

02-16-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qichin View Post
You seem to have misunderstood me. I'll edit my post tomorrow (hopefully) making it clearer. Also, please take a look at the case linked by Xeones, showcasing a new player getting punished. The system is far from perfect (though, I do think it's good overall).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xeones View Post
Happy to see you voted "Pardon". Cases such as this make me feel bad about the community getting mad and reporting instead of trying to help. Judging by the items/cs/summoners of the players in the games, it's obvious at least some of them are new. People don't understand being new is not equal to trolling.
But even more than that, seeing that a "Strong Majority" of the tribunal voted to punish the poor guy... Just imagine yourself being the new guy, learning a new game and then getting a warning... WTF.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Daemoj

Member

02-16-2013

Or just get ride of the useless tribunal?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Prevail517

Senior Member

02-16-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemoj View Post
Or just get ride of the useless tribunal?
Care to explain why its useless? People that deserve to get banned get banned. Yea... that sucks man!!!!

Let me guess, you've been banned before.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BrightNooblar

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

02-16-2013

I wasn't expecting to, but I actually half agree with the OP. When I was originally 'playing the tribunal' I would simply skip middle ground cases. There are still some super obvious pardons, which I did still pardon, but anything that makes me need to reread cases more than twice, had a good chance of getting skipped after i checked twice. Normally though, the cases I skipped, got punished anyways. I will say that all the cases I skip, did break the code, but the tribunal is actually fairly forgiving, and tends to let low levels of toxicity slide, so I wasn't sure if the consensus was going to be to let it slide, or not, for that particular case.

However, I would love to see this statistic added, though my theorized solution was to make a pardon that passes worth more tribunal points than a punish. Although there is no reason you can't do both.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

powerbats

Senior Member

02-16-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prevail517 View Post
Care to explain why its useless? People that deserve to get banned get banned. Yea... that sucks man!!!!

Let me guess, you've been banned before.
He was and is. Search his forum posts their quite enlightening.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

StylesRockman

Senior Member

02-16-2013

The problem with the logic of the OP, and by extension everyone who has made this argument, is there is little psychological, ethical, or philosophical evidence to support it. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is well documented that people are generally more supportive and kind than we often perceive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment - Relevant article

What this means is that there is equal, if not MORE, incentive to pardon, rather than punish IN CASES THAT ARE CLEAR PARDONS. This then follows that cases one pardons that are truly pardonable will fill the judge with a greater positive feeling.

The problem is that the system only catches those who have an excessive amount of reports, which, in most cases, means they are indeed deserving of punishment. In fact, it's fair to say that everyone who has ever had a case in the tribunal is deserving of some level of punishment. But, by virtue of the system which selects a random number of reported games, not all the cases are obviously punishment worthy.

So, what does that mean?

The argument that the incentive to punish is innate in the system is flawed, and has no basis. In fact, I would venture so far as to posit most judges who have majority opinions with pardoned cases feel a greater sense of satisfaction with those few cases than majority punishments.


123