The solution to insta-punishing:

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

IS133b29298f0431446349b

Senior Member

07-06-2011

In addition to the 10 regular reports, each Tribunal session contains two reports that the Tribunal has already voted to pardon (these can be reports the person in question has already voted on). Note that this vote does NOT count since a verdict has already been reached. The person's response to this is judged accordingly:

- If these reports are one-minute punished (i.e. "punish" is hit within X seconds of it being available), the account is treated as an insta-punisher and something is meted out accordingly (reduced vote weight, less review cases, etc) to give them less impact on the final result. They may also receive an IP penalty (up to and possibly including an IP fine!) for repeat offenses. If the Tribunal voted to pardon, it should NOT be that obvious that the target needed to be punished.

- If these reports are punished, but with a decent amount of consideration time, they are treated as an incorrect vote and left at that. The person considered what to vote and decided punish, so they are guilty only of being out of sync with the majority, nothing more. (The consideration time should be less than the average person uses to assess enough of the evidence but enough time to make it inconvenient to wait that long on every case as an insta-punisher)

- If these reports are pardoned, the person passes. Nothing happens to them and they get a bonus 10 IP for considering their reports properly, increasing to up to 25 IP for repeated successful pardon reports (like, +1 IP for each successful "pardon report" before this one so a week's worth of successful pardons nets you the 25 IP bonus until you mess one up).

If this system is implemented it helps with insta-punishers AND adds more of a reward for considering your votes carefully. Important things to add are not having the same name come up for someone repeatedly (at most they can receive a summoner name they voted to judge, and preferentially they receive one they haven't seen if possible, which it should be) and the amount of time between "insta-punish" and "punished, but thought about it" is not disclosed to the general public and is changed if someone figures it out without telling us about it.

Handily summed up in this tl;dr I was going to type but forgot to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baalhrezem View Post
He's saying put an obvious pardon in as a "mole" or a trap.

If they punish to obvious pardon, they are not reading it, and their punishes for the session or account will be respectively not counted for or banned from tribunal.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Serpicos

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

Senior Member

07-06-2011

So the solution to a problem that a bunch of people made up and have 0 evidence for other than some forum trolls?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS133b29298f0431446349b

Senior Member

07-06-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpicos View Post
So the solution to a problem that a bunch of people made up and have 0 evidence for other than some forum trolls?
Hey, a solution to a made-up problem still gives people peace of mind. Regardless of the current existence, this would provide a safeguard for any and all future instances of this and add integrity to the Tribunal system, so people would be less likely to ascribe banning to insta-punishing trolls and more likely to reconsider their own behaviour.

If people actually do insta-punish, then bonus!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Baalhrezem

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

Senior Member

07-06-2011

He's saying put an obvious pardon in as a "mole" or a trap.

If they punish to obvious pardon, they are not reading it, and their punishes for the session or account will be respectively not counted for or banned from tribunal.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Elanis420

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

Recruiter

07-06-2011

I like! I was going to suggest more than 1 min (takes like 2-3 min each at least) before voting, but this is definitely better.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Mayobe

Senior Member

07-06-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by EloChallenge View Post
a solution to a made-up problem still gives people peace of mind.
Actually, it doesn't. This is one of the major problems being faced in the relationship between the citizens and the government in the United States right now.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS133b29298f0431446349b

Senior Member

07-06-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayobe View Post
Actually, it doesn't. This is one of the major problems being faced in the relationship between the citizens and the government in the United States right now.
Hmm, I'm not familiar with this situation, but in this case the solution will also prevent the problem from ever arising if it doesn't already exist. Plus there is SOME direct evidence for it...


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

lbgsloan

Senior Member

07-06-2011

This would actually be a good idea, even if just for a week or two. If someone auto-punishes the fake too many times, their account is flagged to be banned from tribunal voting. Eventually only the people who actually read the cases will be judging the cases, and the system will finally work as intended.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kaedan

Senior Member

07-06-2011

First of all... the "insta-punish" myth is just a baseless assumption propogated by people who have been banned.

But even assuming it did happen with the necessary frequency to have any impact (big assumption), this idea is flawed. There are times when it`s quite clear that the person is guilty. There have been multiple occurences where in under 60 secs I have reviewed 3-4 games, all of which the person has left/afk`d. In those cases, I hit punish as soon as the timer runs out... since there is no doubt to their guilt.

Additionally, these so-called "insta-punishers" would just wait out the X amount of seconds before hitting punish anyway... that suggestion is flawed.

As for having "trap" cases... they already do. So no offense, but nothing really much more to talk about in the thread.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS133b29298f0431446349b

Senior Member

07-06-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaedan View Post
First of all... the "insta-punish" myth is just a baseless assumption propogated by people who have been banned.

But even assuming it did happen with the necessary frequency to have any impact (big assumption), this idea is flawed. There are times when it`s quite clear that the person is guilty. There have been multiple occurences where in under 60 secs I have reviewed 3-4 games, all of which the person has left/afk`d. In those cases, I hit punish as soon as the timer runs out... since there is no doubt to their guilt.

Additionally, these so-called "insta-punishers" would just wait out the X amount of seconds before hitting punish anyway... that suggestion is flawed.

As for having "trap" cases... they already do. So no offense, but nothing really much more to talk about in the thread.
First of all, this would remove that excuse from people who get punished, stopping them from feeling self-righteous and like victims of insta-punishers. There are a few people who confessed directly to it anyway.

If there's no doubt to the guilt in a case then it's not a trap case and there's no problem with insta-punishing. The trap cases are there to provide a case where it's guaranteed the person SHOULD think about it (or insta-pardon, but that loses you IP if you do it consistently), so if they instapunish that SPECIFIC case then there's trouble. The suggested system imposes no penalty on placing a quick punish on reports that deserve it.

If people wait out the duration before every punish then they're taking 2x or 3x as long as they do currently, plus they'd have to time it themselves. Ideally the waiting time would be 4~5 minutes, which would make them spend a full hour every insta-punishing session. Really, who will bother? (This would be if the "trap" cases are 7 or more reports so you'd expect it to take 5 minutes to review the whole thing. In fact, we could base the time between "insta-punisher" and "thoughtful punisher" on how many reports are in the trap case in question, which would force anyone insta-punishing to use the worst case result or they'd eventually fall for the trap).

Finally, how do you know they already put in trap cases? I'd love to see a source on that. And if they do, I'm suggesting something to do with them, so there's that.


123