Few problems with Tribunal

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Judah

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

Senior Member

05-29-2011

Let me begin by saying that I do sincerely appreciate Riot's interest in finding a solution to policing the community effectively. Unfortunately, I feel like there are a few flaws which I will attempt to elaborate.

Rather than sidestepping the elephant in the room, lets begin with the supposed IP problem. Rewarding people 5 IP per case encourages hasty judgments. Yes, there is a 60 second wait before one can type in their verdict. However, there is also on average 6-12 games to be investigated in each case. What complicates this further is that the instructions only encourage the participant to examine a few games in order to reach an accurate conclusion on the player's level of guilt.

There is the contradiction: a wealth of information is provided in which we are to make our judgment. However, the guidelines suggest disregarding the majority of the reports. This paints a picture that guilt, according to the summoner's code, is black and white. There is no spectrum of inappropriate behavior; your reaction to circumstances within a game has no need to be understood.

Participants in the tribunal system have no real incentive not to buy into this assessment. If someone is clearly guilty in the primary case presented, you might as well vote punish and move on. The code says: Guilty is guilty, and for only 5 IP, why make a case for forgiveness based on additional evidence?

The bottom line: All inappropriate language cases, and most verbal harassment cases, can be solved by screening the logs before they are presented to the Tribunal. If someone uses racial epithets, or excessively swears, and someone reported them - they are guilty. If that is the policy held by the summoner's code, then there is no further investigation required. One could even suggest taking it further, and adding a script into the client which automatically bans anyone the second they type something obscene or overly derogatory.

Feeding cases - if they have over 20 deaths in 20 minutes, they are obviously guilty. Even if it wasn't intentional, anyone who dies this many times is destined to ruin the experience for anyone they are playing with. They might as well be banned or limited to games vs. AI, where they cause less damage to the keyboards and mice of others (I'm talking about raging).

Figuring that these changes are not likely to actually happen, there are only really two solutions. Either remove the 60 second delay and present only the first case, allowing participants to blaze through cases by quickly scrolling through the chat log and voting the second they see inappropriate language in purple text, or stand by a spectrum of guilt and increase the waiting time before voting so that participants actually review more than one game before making their decision. With the former, rewarding players with 5 IP is easily justifiable for the amount of work they are contributing. With the latter, additional IP could be rewarded, actually comparable to the amount of work put in while participating in actual gameplay.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

hollowpointm16

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

Senior Member

05-29-2011

you can't add script to ban for cussing. possibly racism, but many times cussing isn't used to harass someone. what if I got into a game and said eff i messed up my summoner skills. Well people who get offended should have their filters turned on. Giving more IP would just make more people who don't care about giving an honest verdict come up and vote punish as fast as they could. They should take out ip rewards entirely.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Darmon

Senior Member

05-29-2011

I completely agree. I want to read through all the information thoroughly, but theres just absolutely no incentive to be at max efficiency when it comes to quality. And considering I get the impression that absolutely no one else is even spending more than a minute reading the details (if even that much), its all very disheartening.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Nomae

Junior Member

05-29-2011

Quote:
Feeding cases - if they have over 20 deaths in 20 minutes, they are obviously guilty. Even if it wasn't intentional, anyone who dies this many times is destined to ruin the experience for anyone they are playing with. They might as well be banned or limited to games vs. AI, where they cause less damage to the keyboards and mice of others (I'm talking about raging).
With the utmost respect, sir, you are absolutely wrong. And your ability to judge cases should be scrutinized. Here is why:

I play an incredibly bad game. I try my hardest. I still get a score of 0-21-0 in the first 20 minutes.

Do I really get warned/banned for that? What part of the code did I break?

What you are doing is not abiding by the terms to judge people. They are innocent until proven guilty, and what they are guilty of with a score like that is nothing to be banned for.

This is classist and elitist behavior. Segregation.