Once and for all: The tribunal, a Scientific Experiment

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Reinami

Senior Member

01-20-2012

EDIT: This is put on hold for a bit, because of some possible job opportunities, then today when i decided to get it underway my father was unjustly banned by the tribunal. However this situation may make me move forward with this. I'll try to keep you updated.


Hi I'm Typhon66! You may remember me from such posts such as http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=1590322 and http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=1590322.

Lately there have been many many MANY posts about the tribunal. People claiming to be unjustly banned, riot claiming that the system is fine. Even famous players, i am sure you all remember Grackis getting banned. He claims he did not rage for 8 months but was still banned. Riot claims he either "did, or he built a reputation as a rager so people reported him." In either case, who is right?

Riot claims that the system is fine, that they do checks, and that they have yet to come across someone who has been unjustly banned.

Many players claim that the system is broken, that it is abusable, and that the fact that it automatically suspends players makes the system flawed.

I have a friend who swears up and down that the tribunal unjustly banned him, i'll post a story about that in the next post for those who care to read it.

So, how can we decide who is right and who is wrong? Is riot right and are these people just ragers who can't get over their punishments? Or are there in fact people out there being unjustly banned when they really are trying and maybe are just bad at the game?

Well that's what we are going to find out. Using a concise methodical scientific method. We are going to prove, ONCE AND FOR ALL, if the tribunal runs perfectly, or if it unjustly punishes people who don't deserve it. So how are we going to do that?

First an explanation.

Quote:
The Experiment:

Quote:
The experiment is going to go as followed. We will test a small sample, and then, if i can get people on board to help AFTER the small scale experiment, perhaps we can do a large scale one.
The Hypothesis:

Quote:
The tribunal works correctly and does not unjustly punish players who did nothing wrong.
The Setup:

Quote:
There will 3 accounts, and for the purpose of this experiment, they will all have similar account names to insure the different account names do not have a different psychological effect on the players in the game, and be created on the same day.

Each account will be played by the same player, "me."

Each account will be played an equal number of times, each day, with rotating times. I.E.( Day 1, account 1, account 2, account 3, get played in that order starting at 2 PM) (Day 2, account 3, account 1, account 2, get played in the order starting at 2 PM) {While this won't be 100% the same circumstances, it is as close as we can get, especially given the variation on game times and players playing}

The experiment will last exactly 30 days.

Each account will start the experiment after reaching 1350 IP, i think you know where this is going. Before reaching 1350 IP, each account will behave as though it is the "control"

Each account will play Evelynn in every game, in the event that Evelynn is played, a queue dodge will take place.

Each account, the player, "me," will try his absolute hardest to win the game.

Account 1: The control (Neutral)
Account 2: Test 1 (The angry one)
Account 3: Test 2 (The Polite one)

Account 1 will be the control. This account will not say ANYTHING in chat, that does not pertain the the game. This account will only call mia, enemy positions, jungle times, calling for ganks etc.

Account 2 will be the angry one. This account will, when provoked, rage constantly at the teammates. When someone says "**** you eve" he will respond in kind.

Account 3 will be the polite one. This account will start the game by saying hello to everyone and being extremely polite. Telling his teammates, and even his enemies "good job" and just being overall a really polite player.
The Theory

Quote:
So, why Evelynn? Well, the general concensus is that Evelynn is a "troll" pick, but what about players who genuinely like her playstyle, and may or may not, do well with her, but have fun playing her? If indeed the "polite" account is banned, than obviously we have a problem. Should players be banned for picking eve and trying but not doing so well? I don't think so.

According to the things riot has said about the tribunal. Account 2, The angry one, should be banned very quickly. Account 1, the control, should also not be banned, because this player is contributing to the team while not being rude. Account 2, the polite one, should also not be banned because they are being very polite.

So, if i play eve, who i have some experience with, as hard as i absolutely can, with some fresh brand new accounts, and act accordingly based on the account. We should see a decent result.
The Expectations:

Quote:
Account 1 (Control) will not be banned.
Account 2 (Angry) will be banned, likely in a short amount of time.
Account 3 (Polite) will not be banned.

So, the next post i will post updates about the experiment and how it goes. I am considering streaming the experiment in the interest of the people, however I may not because some people would say that "riot is watching this post and will make sure my non-angry accounts don't get banned so they can keep up the charade that is the tribunal" or something to that effect. I may do both! We shall see.

The experiment will start Next Wednesday January 25, 2012.
Why next Wednesday?

2 reasons,

1, it gives me enough time to prepare the accounts, get them 1350 IP, during this time the accounts will NOT behave outside of the "control" groups behavior. They will act as though they are the control.

2. On Tuesday i find out if i have a job or not. If i do, then i will have to do the experiment in the evenings after work, if not, then i can do it longer each day and get results quicker (Hopefully).

We will do this in 30 days, because i think that is a reasonable amount of time where someone can be given "chances" to see if they deserve to stay in this community.
Oh, and i should note this.


In the event that, before the experiment is over either.

A) Someone discovers something with Evelynn causing a meta shift to the point of her being considered "viable" or even "overpowered"

B) The stealth remake comes out and Evelynn is remade

Then the experiment will continue but a different champion will be used, likely Hiemerdinger.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Reinami

Senior Member

01-20-2012

Accounts have been created and am beginning the trek to getting 1350 IP for evelynn. For the purposes of the experiment these games will again, be played as though the account were the "control" and will use whatever free week champion that i personally am best at. They will be recorded however, and perhaps posted after the conclusion of the experiment.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Reinami

Senior Member

01-20-2012

reserved for any notes/after thoughts.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Fubgun

Senior Member

01-20-2012

sounds interesting


watch riot BAN him the day he proves tribunal is broken


EDIT: LMFAO RIOT IS SO SCARED


Quote:
It's pretty cool that you're doing an experiment like this, but I should warn you that if your experiment is successful, all your accounts are likely to have some punitive action taken, not just the extra accounts you've made for the purposes of this experiment.

I'd advice against actually following through with this. I love experiments, but I wouldn't want you to get banned in the name of Science.
they know there tribunal is broken and they wont say it so they are threatening him not to do it lmfao priceless





EDIT2:
Quote:
I liked the idea I saw the other night where friends all reported their friends smurf every game for 3 weeks and he didn't do anything bad but that smurf go banned. I would like to see more people try that because if you get reported alot illegitimately, you shouldn't be banned.
dude if you had pics of this. it would of proven that tribunal IS BROKEN


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Diagnosis

Senior Member

01-20-2012

bump, seems interesting.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ChileanDead

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

Senior Member

01-20-2012

You would have to provide complete chat logs, replays of all the games played and SS's of pre and aftergame chat.
You know . . . for science!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

FrozenXylaphone

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

Senior Member

01-20-2012

I liked the idea I saw the other night where friends all reported their friends smurf every game for 3 weeks and he didn't do anything bad but that smurf go banned. I would like to see more people try that because if you get reported alot illegitimately, you shouldn't be banned.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Painful Dream

Senior Member

01-20-2012

Kind of flawed imo. You think there is no gray area? Not talking / raging / being polite are not the only factors. You need another who is rude, BUT DOES NOT BREAK THE SUMMONER'S CODE. Because that is probably the problem in the first place. People get butthurt from constructive criticism and report them for it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Nyx87

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

Senior Member

01-20-2012

Good luck!

Quote:
You need another who is rude, BUT DOES NOT BREAK THE SUMMONER'S CODE
Being rude is breaking the summoners code, #2 and 3 in particular.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Reinami

Senior Member

01-20-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Painful Dream View Post
Kind of flawed imo. You think there is no gray area? Not talking / raging / being polite are not the only factors. You need another who is rude, BUT DOES NOT BREAK THE SUMMONER'S CODE. Because that is probably the problem in the first place. People get butthurt from constructive criticism and report them for it.
Of course there is a gray area, that is the purpose of it being a small scale test. We are going to test the neutral right in the middle, then both extremes. Then we can move on to testing 10 different kinds of players or 100 different kinds if need be.

However i do agree with you, like i said this is just a preliminary, small scale experiment that shouldn't take much time in order to get done.

Basically, if things go right and only Account 2 is banned, then its looking good for the experiment, and larger scale testing should be done.

However, if all accounts are banned, then, in scientific terms, the hypothesis would be abandoned, and we obviously would have shown that there is, at the very least, SOME flaw with the system that would probably need larger scale testing to prove without a doubt.

The purpose of this is to get some data and come to a conclusion, then test further to see if the conclusion is indeed a fact, or was merely a coincidence or an outlier.