@Riot The problem with Tribunal and how to change it

12
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Quzor

Junior Member

05-28-2011

It's very simple really. If there is proof, in chat or otherwise, of at least one game where a subject had shown malicious and intentional disruptive gameplay, like feeding or rage quitting (with evidence for it being intended), then whether or not he was provoked in the remaining 10 cases DOES NOT matter.
Keep in mind that after you vote a Riot employee will look through the same data you looked at, and will decide exactly how much cumulative punishment is required for all the undesired actions the subject had taken. And I think as long as they committed at least one glaring misconduct that impacted the game in a major and negative way, they deserve at least a warning for it. Thus, it already falls under punish vote for me.
Also, it does not matter how many "good games" they have had in between or before or after these reported ones. Fact remains that they had committed a misconduct and broke the code, as alleged by the reports of other players.
Beating up and robbing some stranger once in your life does not factor lack of prosecution. A history of perfect conduct beforehand may contribute to the severity of punishment as a context, but it does not make the violation of law committed a void case.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Sir Shudragon

Senior Member

05-28-2011

Why do people rulelawyer this so badly? I mean, I don't know a single person who plays this game even the least bit competitively who hasn't raged a couple times. I myself have fed maybe 2 games and left maybe 3 or 4 because of raging, a few more just because of emergencies etc. and maybe more from when i was low level and simple don't remember. That said, I have played over 800 normal games, so when you look at it, I have a fairly good record percentile wise. You have to understand it is a videogame so that A: some people are not good at it, and B: using crime as a comparison is really just uncalled for.

I can't see the summoner's level. I can't see the number of games they've played. I can't see what time or after what events they said what. I can't see if the team was premade. I can't see if they were duo queued. There is SO little information to make an informed decision, and that is my argument. I understand that that is how it works NOW, but I am trying to propose something that will help with it.

Yes, I understand that they broke the summoner's code and press punish, but there is too much grey in a case that 4 games are obvious violations and 3 or 4 are not legit to make that decision and be sure of what Riot would do. I certainly wouldn't want to be permanently banned because I fed/afked in a few games that I raged in, and the community apparently has this stance that by pressing punish you are immediately sending the person to the chair, when in reality Riot's reaction to most cases will be warning or single digit day bans.

I want the tribunal to work as intended, and to do that this is my proposed change, take it or leave it. I am not talking about the multiple games scenario, and this issue has obviously caused people to move to both sides of the argument before. I am simply stating that with a few changes, and a single game scenario, Judges will be able to make better informed, more accurate decisions instead of broad sweeping decisions that may or may not swing the correct way.

For example, take all games that are majority ruled by judges to be pardoned out of the rotation entirely, and only send those where the punish rule is used to the riot employees NOT to judge them for themselves as the community has already done that, but instead decide the PUNISHMENT as the system is stated to do.

I don't know if it is possible in a community as biased in this, and perhaps that is why the current system is in place. I was simply making a suggestion and am tired of hearing the arguments that have been on the table since day 1 of beta of it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

jaketronic

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

Senior Member

05-28-2011

if you've played 2000 games of lol, i'm willing to guarantee you've broken the summoners code 8 times.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Sir Shudragon

Senior Member

05-28-2011

bump, will someone please post an original and thought out response to this, maybe I can get a few Reds to at least READ it?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Sir Shudragon

Senior Member

05-28-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaketronic View Post
if you've played 2000 games of lol, i'm willing to guarantee you've broken the summoners code 8 times.
Exactly, which is one of my points I am trying to make. We don't have that information as judges and therefore think that they will be punished because they left all those games or something and thus vote punished when in reality, in a case such as that, Riot will do NOTHING.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Daearen

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

Junior Member

05-28-2011

Basing a decision on an individual game isn't the best idea. We have all had those games where we have been dc'd due to internet issues, so that would make you a leaver. Games where your opposing team is just a better make-up and so one of you may look like a feeder. What about a game where someone is trolling you and you respond back in a similar fashion, then you're accused of verbal abuse. The real point is that you can't make an accurate decision on only ONE game. You need to be able to see other games to know if the reported behavior is something consist for that player or if it was a one time occurrence. Now if you are making an argument for more information that is different. I agree having games played vs reports would be a great idea but voting fairly off of one game is not true justice.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Daearen

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

Junior Member

05-28-2011

Also, you seem to contradict your own argument. You want to judge on a single case basis that will lead to more accurate decisions by judges. How do you figure one game is more accurate than 7-12? At least in the current system I can look at multiple cases and see if the behavior is repeated, I can't do that with only one case with more information. I think that YOU need to think out your argument more and then post it if you want a more well thought out response to it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DixieNormus

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

Senior Member

05-29-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by quzor View Post
it's very simple really. If there is proof, in chat or otherwise, of at least one game where a subject had shown malicious and intentional disruptive gameplay, like feeding or rage quitting (with evidence for it being intended), then whether or not he was provoked in the remaining 10 cases does not matter.
Keep in mind that after you vote a riot employee will look through the same data you looked at, and will decide exactly how much cumulative punishment is required for all the undesired actions the subject had taken. And i think as long as they committed at least one glaring misconduct that impacted the game in a major and negative way, they deserve at least a warning for it. Thus, it already falls under punish vote for me.
Also, it does not matter how many "good games" they have had in between or before or after these reported ones. Fact remains that they had committed a misconduct and broke the code, as alleged by the reports of other players.
Beating up and robbing some stranger once in your life does not factor lack of prosecution. A history of perfect conduct beforehand may contribute to the severity of punishment as a context, but it does not make the violation of law committed a void case.
genius. Another person who thinks riot actually responds to reports.


12