Compilation of Tribunal upgrades:

12345 ... 6
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Orion69

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

Senior Member

06-02-2011

I'm unaware if anyone has started this yet, but I would like this thread to be an brainstorm/idea bin for those of us that actually look at cases. Please don't forget to bump for sticky, as I keep this updated. My suggestions are:

1.)Add a notes section for Riot to read our recommendation.
2.)Allow before and after game chat (I know this will be difficult).
3.)Show summoner spells.
4.)Show summoner level.
5.)List all allies and enemies names and champ. As well as KDA/Build.
6.)Add something additional if you only think a name change is necessary (Pardon/Punish/Skip/Namechange).
7.)Allow the reviewers to report inappropriate behavior by people in the chatlogs (I've seen plenty of cases when the reporters should be banned more-so than the reportee).
8.)Raise the IP earning. Or remove it altogether.
9.)Game type (i.e. 3v3, 5v5, ranked, normal, solo queue, team queue).

Any more suggestions (as I'm sure they are out there) please add them, and I'll try and keep this updated for the mods.


From Barooky (on another thread):

Quote:

5 IP per case isn't really worth the additional time investment once cases get harder.

I would prefer a lower number of cases with a higher minimum time (let's say 2 or 3 minutes) and equally higher IP rewards. In that way, you actually get rewarded for getting a case right instead of spamming Punish.

5 IP for 30 cases on a 1 minute bases or 15 IP for 10 cases on a 3 minute bases. Both end up in 150 IP in ~30 minutes.

Just lower the number of people required to vote for each case, same speed as before. We don't need thousands and thousands of people recycling the same case over and over again. Otherwise we wouldn't be stuck on the ~500 same cases since the beginning.
From Shaytalis (on another thread):
Quote:
We *need* the tribunal reports to *show* who was premade on the team. That would help a lot to establish credibility. 4 premade players ganging up on 1 solo queue happens *very* often.
From SPEKTR1986 (on another thread):

Quote:
1.)Who is who and total played games stats
for example:
TEAM red: PLAYER1(GAREN) Win-120 Lost-100 Left-10; PLAYER2(SHEN) ...
TEAM blue: PLAYER6(SOROKA) Win-115 Lost-116 Left-2; PLAYER7(SHEN or SION - depending game type) ...
So in chat we could see in chat who played what hero (champ)
(if too much LEFT - AFK probably on purpose)
(if too much LOST - FEEDER probably)

2.)(for feeder/assist report) who killed whom
If player died too often - probably it was GANK or FEED
for example: Janna - often get GANKED

Message could be like
[time] PLAYER1 - PLAYER9 (PLAYER7, PLAYER8 - ASSIST in bracket; who killed in bold)

3.) COUNTER how much PUNISH (PARDON), SKIP and TOTAL CASES was reviewed
and HOW MUCH PUNISH (PARDON) was correct

for every 100 CORRECT - RIOT can give some bonuses (XP, IP boost, RP or something)
If person made 90% CORRECT from total cases (at least should have 100 total cases, SKIP doesn't count) - RIOT can give him (her) title YOUR HONEST and this member voice will count as 2 (not as 1 as usual)
From antiara (on another thread):
Quote:
What about Riot creates a few "Control Cases" hidden between the real cases. Those Controls would be absolute Pardon cases.

Players that Punish those cases would be flagged and if too many flags, banned from tribunal.

Of course cases would need to change once in a while to avoid people from learning them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyfoo15 View Post
My suggestions...

1) Change the time clock to game time, not server time.
2) Punish is too broad, there needs to be brackets for what you think he should be punished for...just like there is for when reporting. The only difference, should be able to select multiple reasons to punish.

3) Show when a player disconnects/reconnects.
From another thread, reiterating the need to show Leaver when they left.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurei Fullbuster View Post
It's possible we're talking about a single same case in Tribunal, but I've seen this in multiple cases, not just one. Also, I can't recall ever seeing a "game result: leave" or whatnot. (although I think if the player was a "LEAVER" then it should be denoted seperately and always note elsewhere whether or not the game was a win or a loss for the other players on his/her team.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verovia View Post
1.Battle Logs - I do believe in regard to feeder cases, there is no way to follow the frequency of said player dying in battle. I mean on a 20 minute game it is easy to follow but in 30-50 minute games the user really has no logical way of being able to tell if the player was doing nothing but dying and wasn't contributing assist,kill, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayuchii View Post
5 ip per case s realy low
i woluld find it more rewarding fir we got even 2 rp per case
that means in 195 cases corectly solved u can buy a 390 skin
that means 19 days , it say its quite fair
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetaCosm View Post
An additional one is show how many wins the player has (already public info). If I see 10 reports on someone with 30 win... that is very different than 10 reports on someone with 3000 wins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPEDpunk View Post
humpty bumpty

-Post game graphs? to evaluate tanks, healers, dps etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Manuelo View Post
2 more ideas that I believe would make us have a better "view" to what happened on the game, since LoL do not have replays yet.

The second one refers to players that go AFK, or keep connecting and disconnecting. We have a Time Played on Statistics, but we do not have the Total Game Time there, so we don't know if the player just reconnected in the end of game or what. So, a Total Game Time statistic would be really helpful, and I think Riot already keep this data, so it's kinda easy to implement.
This has already been said, but I like the idea of no IP. Would stop the spam punish prolly. Or at least give IP daily like they said.

From Reifer
Quote:
Prompt reward distribution or just remove it altogether, and if keeping it, at least raise it to ~10 IP per case. There have been quite a few times this week where all I needed was a little IP from the tribunal to buy me my last tier 3 rune to complete a page or something along those lines.

It's Monday. And I still haven't gotten my IP. Yes, I'm cleaning up the community, blah blah, shouldn't be doing it for the rewards, but I'm doing it for both, so get over it. I clicked punish on the offenders, now give me my reward for my correct rulings
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRazoth View Post
Another Suggestion:

A check box system that would allow us to indicate which game(s) we see offenses in (only allowed to mark those games viewed) as well as which offenses we saw.

I recommend check boxes (over just a generic comments box) because that would make it much easier on the back end to observe reporting patterns (ie. only ever checks one game) as well as saving the time for the riot reviewer in punish cases from having to sift through the 6 games where nothing particularly bad happened.

Also can we get this or a similar thread stickied so that we don't keep seeing all the same suggestions reposted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpank View Post
Allow reported person to write something to tribunal to defend himself
This link from Xenodyne lists a lot of his ideas.


Also, this thread has a good list of suggestions. As well as a reply from RED. These threads are useful and appear to be looked at.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Llwynn

Member

06-02-2011

Not to mention, the game itself reflects things like whether or not the person was marked as a leaver or not, yet in the last 48 hours alone i've reviewed about 14 Leaving/afk cases where the person did actually leave/dc (not just stood on the pedestal /came back to dodge the leave marking) and it didnt show in th e log.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Orion69

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

Senior Member

06-02-2011

Bump


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Crazyfoo15

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

Junior Member

06-02-2011

My suggestions...

1) Change the time clock to game time, not server time.
2) Punish is too broad, there needs to be brackets for what you think he should be punished for...just like there is for when reporting. The only difference, should be able to select multiple reasons to punish.

Edit: Ops forgot 3) Show when a player disconnects/reconnects.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Orion69

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

Senior Member

06-02-2011

Bump


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Orion69

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

Senior Member

06-03-2011

Bump


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Orion69

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

Senior Member

06-04-2011

Bump


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Verovia

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

Recruiter

06-04-2011

1.Battle Logs - I do believe in regard to feeder cases, there is no way to follow the frequency of said player dying in battle. I mean on a 20 minute game it is easy to follow but in 30-50 minute games the user really has no logical way of being able to tell if the player was doing nothing but dying and wasn't contributing assist,kill, etc.

2. Disconnect/Reconnect Logs - Especially in regards to Leaver afk, there is no way of seeing whether the user is logging in or out. I mean there is blatantly obvious moments where it is obvious but there is game where it is not obvious comparing champion level vs match time.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Lighstagazi

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

Senior Member

06-04-2011

So many bad ideas. I will try to explain why these not only will not be implemented, but should not be implemented. There are some good ones too, but mostly terrible, terrible ideas >_<

Good ideas:
- Summoner spells
- Disconnect/reconnect timestamps

Reasonably useful ideas:
- Death times
- Game type
- Pre- and Post-game chat

Bad ideas:
- Comment box for Riot to read.
No, Riot does not want to read our comments on every single game. There's already a comment box for the in-game reporting tool, they don't need to multiply the volume of data when they send the cases through crowdsourcing. The CS agents aren't idiots, and they'll be getting paid to do this. They can figure out when someone is falsely accused over the course of hundreds of games.

- Show summoner level
What does this have to do with anything? The Tribunal very specifically says it is not for punishing bad play. It shouldn't matter if you're level 1 or level 30, it is not acceptable to rage, afk, feed, leave, or throw racial slurs around. Summoner level has nothing to do with it, and only encourages bias in the review.

- Show all players KDA/build
- View all players total games played, and specific win/loss records.
Again, this has nothing to do with it. You are not judging the entire game. You are judging the specific player in question. Unacceptable behavior is unacceptable all the time. Even if someone is getting trolled, they should keep control of themselves. If they _occassionally_ lose control, then they will be _occassionally_ punished. The system not only takes a while to ramp up severity of punishments, but it also ramps back down if you go for time between incidents.

If a case is really borderline, you can already see the chat from all players. It's not like the trolling player won't get called on it, and if he ISN'T trolling, won't be defended by at least one other player.

- Allow reviewers to report other players
So very much "no" to this. It isn't like you are limited to reporting only one player after a game, you can report all nine if you want. Let those other cases worry about themselves. Instead, focus on this case. Even if it wasn't a technical nightmare to implement, and even more problematic for falsified reports, it shouldn't be implemented to keep you focused on what matters: the person on trial.

- Name change voting button
This would be nothing but obnoxious UI clutter. The Tribunal already don't give us users with primary reports of "bad play". Do you think they can't filter "reported for offensive name" + punish to it's own bin? Just vote punish, let the tech in the background filter it to the right bin. Make sure you report for the correct category in-game, but I'm sure there's enough people who do this to get it flagged anyway.

- Multiple types of punishment voting
Again, UI clutter. The harshest offenses will be reported the most often, and found guilty most readily. It won't ban someone for hate speech the first time around, but the system is built around two tenets: everyone deserves a second chance (which is why the first round is a warning), and judgement is not instantaneous. Reports are gathered, cases are queued up, and then eventually judged. Extreme cases will have more time to dig a deeper hole for themselves, so to speak. If it's punishable, hit punish. You don't need to vote severity any more than you need to know if a user has been warned or suspended already. Let the CS agents and the system sort that part out.

- Who is premade vs who isn't
Do you think that a single person is getting picked on regularly by multiple premades over time? Even if that initial criteria is met, do you think that person _only_ behaves that way when a premade is picking on them? I don't. Even if it THAT criteria is true, there is no reason for them (repeatedly over the course of many games) to rage/feed/etc just because people are picking on them. Keep your cool, and report them for inciting you after the match. Let the tribunal sort out those other people after the fact, like it's supposed to.

- Increasing the rewards
I see this one a lot. It's supposed to be a reward for doing unpleasant work, not payment to accelerate you in-game. If you don't like doing the Tribunal, or you find it boring, then don't do it. You can't complain about people "clicking through for their IP" and ask for increased IP rewards in the same breath, which I see a lot of in these threads. Making the IP a payment instead of a reward will only encourage the unwanted click-through behaviour. Let the people who want to do the Tribunal do it, and those who don't, don't.

- Increased voting power for high "correct" rates
I put this in the bad idea box because it's already implemented, just not this way, and implementing it this way because it would be TERRIBLE. Definitely the worst on the list.

If you often vote incorrectly, your tribunal access will be restricted until you get blocked out entirely. If you often vote correctly, your voting power will increase by virtue of having less competition for your vote. You don't need to have multiple votes, as that would make it harder for you to be wrong, further entrenching yourself as always voting correctly.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MetaChasm

Member

06-05-2011

2.) Allow before and after game chat (I know this will be difficult).

It might be hard, but ABSOLUTELY VITAL.

An additional one is show how many wins the player has (already public info). If I see 10 reports on someone with 30 win... that is very different than 10 reports on someone with 3000 wins.


12345 ... 6