The solution to insta-punishing:

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

Kaedan

Senior Member

07-06-2011

You said that only those who punish within X seconds would be penalized... not 4-5 min.

I will admit, I read your post wrong. I thought you were saying that every case where you punished within X seconds would be penalized. But still... my point about the "insta-punishers" just waiting it out stands unless you penalize for pushing within a longer period.

And a Red stated they already have trap cases. It was a couple weeks ago, so the post is probably lost by now.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS133b29298f0431446349b

Senior Member

07-06-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaedan View Post
You said that only those who punish within X seconds would be penalized... not 4-5 min.

I will admit, I read your post wrong. I thought you were saying that every case where you punished within X seconds would be penalized. But still... my point about the "insta-punishers" just waiting it out stands unless you penalize for pushing within a longer period.

And a Red stated they already have trap cases. It was a couple weeks ago, so the post is probably lost by now.
Huh, interesting. Well, they are probably doing something similar already then, I guess. Although the Tribunal forum doesn't have THAT many posts, so it might still be findable.

The penalty would be tied to the number of reports in the trap case. So punishing a trap case with 12 reports within, say, 6 minutes might result in the trap being triggered. This would ensure a time delay of 30 seconds (with a little bit of randomizing to prevent gaming the timer, say +-6 seconds per report) per report being reviewed, and one of the first penalties for setting off traps would be items with larger numbers of reports. (Which are more likely to require punishment AND serve as a "clean up your act" type warning).

Nevertheless, thanks for the info about traps =D

EDIT: Oh, and I never said X couldn't be 240~300 :v


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kaedan

Senior Member

07-06-2011

lol True, true.

Unless the offenses are obvious, I spend an average of probably 5 min on a case (I go through nearly if not everything), so I could see a system like this. But I wouldn't make the "minimum" too high. Some people can read very fast.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS133b29298f0431446349b

Senior Member

07-07-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaedan View Post
lol True, true.

Unless the offenses are obvious, I spend an average of probably 5 min on a case (I go through nearly if not everything), so I could see a system like this. But I wouldn't make the "minimum" too high. Some people can read very fast.
Yeah, if this were to be implemented what you'd want to do is use a certain time and cross-check all the other votes of people who get caught by the traps, kinda like how customer service reps currently review all the cases. Then they can fine-tune the numbers until it only catches insta-punishers.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Alopix

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

Senior Member

07-07-2011

I still firmly believe that "auto-punish" is a rare thing.
I would still LOVE to see, at least one game a day, that I can actually click Pardon on.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Mísanthropic

Member

07-07-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alopix View Post
I still firmly believe that "auto-punish" is a rare thing.
I would still LOVE to see, at least one game a day, that I can actually click Pardon on.
What's the difference between clicking punish a minute from now, and waiting a minute and few seconds longer? If you click punish, regardless...? So yeah, maybe clicking punish at 1 minute on the dot might be rare, but clicking punish in general [as you've just admitted] is common? See, this is why I don't believe in the player base. There's just no infallible proof that players are indeed not casting judgement sadistically, and with bias and vengeful intent. Also, the standards, while expressed in the their guidelines, can be overlooked, misinterpreted, disregarded completely, etc.. In a normal court of law, a jury is usually hand-picked. In the League of Legends Tribunal however, even twelve year olds and younger [who generally tend to lack in knowledge, wisdom and life experience] can hop on and cast judgement on other players and threaten their account/game time?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS133b29298f0431446349b

Senior Member

07-07-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus In A Speedo View Post
What's the difference between clicking punish a minute from now, and waiting a minute and few seconds longer? If you click punish, regardless...? So yeah, maybe clicking punish at 1 minute on the dot might be rare, but clicking punish in general [as you've just admitted] is common? See, this is why I don't believe in the player base. There's just no infallible proof that players are indeed not casting judgement sadistically, and with bias and vengeful intent. Also, the standards, while expressed in the their guidelines, can be overlooked, misinterpreted, disregarded completely, etc.. In a normal court of law, a jury is usually hand-picked. In the League of Legends Tribunal however, even twelve year olds and younger [who generally tend to lack in knowledge, wisdom and life experience] can hop on and cast judgement on other players and threaten their account/game time?
The idea is that you don't tell people how long they need to wait, so they have to wait the longest time possible. A max delay of five minutes is reasonable (assuming people only get negative consequences for hitting MULTIPLE traps, which insta-punishers will), and people not adhering to that are the ones who get their votes reduced.

'course, that doesn't stop people who consider cases and then punish for the lulz, but really who does that? You just hit punish straight off. Most importantly, you don't tell someone if their Tribunal vote is being reduced so they go on their merry way thinking they're making a difference and getting innocently reported summoners banned instead of attempting to game the system. The basic idea behind this system is that the time delay will mean people either just won't bother waiting it out or their votes will be discounted as pointless. It will have to err strongly on the side of caution so no-one legitimate is caught, but it could still thin out the majority of the "sadistic" voters.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Mísanthropic

Member

07-07-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by EloChallenge View Post
The idea is that you don't tell people how long they need to wait, so they have to wait the longest time possible. A max delay of five minutes is reasonable (assuming people only get negative consequences for hitting MULTIPLE traps, which insta-punishers will), and people not adhering to that are the ones who get their votes reduced.

'course, that doesn't stop people who consider cases and then punish for the lulz, but really who does that? You just hit punish straight off. Most importantly, you don't tell someone if their Tribunal vote is being reduced so they go on their merry way thinking they're making a difference and getting innocently reported summoners banned instead of attempting to game the system. The basic idea behind this system is that the time delay will mean people either just won't bother waiting it out or their votes will be discounted as pointless. It will have to err strongly on the side of caution so no-one legitimate is caught, but it could still thin out the majority of the "sadistic" voters.
My thing is this: How would the judge's privileges be reduced if the majority of cases receive mass majority votes of "punish"? If cases are being labelled "punish" by the majority of judges, and the Tribunal's [automatically] awarding suspensions based on that, then I don't see how Riot can catch potentially sadistic votes unless Riot manually checks all the hundreds to thousands of cases. How will they catch those cases? How many of those cases will they NOT catch? Where's the evidence to support their claims of "oh, we check all cases manually"? I highly doubt that they check cases manually. I. Doubt. IT. Why else would they've created the Tribunal if not to automate their work so that they don't even have to check cases anymore? Just pay the players pennies or peanuts, and let their vengeful grudge-filled and bias judgement rain on the players via the Tribunal. Talk about a hole in one!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS133b29298f0431446349b

Senior Member

07-07-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus In A Speedo View Post
My thing is this: How would the judge's privileges be reduced if the majority of cases receive mass majority votes of "punish"? If cases are being labelled "punish" by the majority of judges, and the Tribunal's [automatically] awarding suspensions based on that, then I don't see how Riot can catch potentially sadistic votes unless Riot manually checks all the hundreds to thousands of cases. How will they catch those cases? How many of those cases will they NOT catch? Where's the evidence to support their claims of "oh, we check all cases manually"? I highly doubt that they check cases manually. I. Doubt. IT. Why else would they've created the Tribunal if not to automate their work so that they don't even have to check cases anymore? Just pay the players pennies or peanuts, and let their vengeful grudge-filled and bias judgement rain on the players via the Tribunal. Talk about a hole in one!
The idea I'm trying to promote is that people who spam "punish" tend not to think about what verdict to render and therefore tend not to spend as much time voting. Most importantly, the whole point of the Tribunal for them is it's a quick, easy grief: if they were forced to spend as much time as those of us who consider verdicts, most of them just would not bother.

The connection between vindictive punish-spamming and lower time spent considering can be exploited to determine who is thinking and who isn't (to a reasonable accuracy standard) and thus weed out a decent portion of the people skewing the votes.

Oh, and Riot stated that a MASSIVE majority is needed for a punish to go through. Not just a 50% one.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Punishersfury

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

Junior Member

07-07-2011

honestly sometimes the guilty party is that easy to figure out most tribunals withing the first 3 seconds of reading i can tell you if it the person was really acting like a jerk or not or has broken the Eula just by what he says


123