The Tribunal is just a lynch mob for IP Crazies

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

SimplyAlive

Senior Member

03-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exqzr View Post
Current punish/pardon rate: 1496/331
Current punish percentage: 82%

I provide you with a sample of over 1800 cases all reviewed by "good citizens" who claim they read every case and support the tribunal.

How is this biased?

Especially because I gave them their very own category. It's a self contained result that does not affect the other assumptions.

Thus, in a sample of 1800 cases at +/- 2% error rate (estimated). Self proclaimed concerned community members who as a general rule support the tribunal will find you guilty 82% of the time. If you read through you will find that this means that they find most people guilty for almost any infraction.

If you take the words of one poster who's name I forget, Riot may or may not (we just don't know) change the parameters of what does and does not require a guilty verdict.

If this is true, then it means that the tribunal not only is flawed, it's a farce. That's right. If riot changes the results to suit their needs, all the votes have no meaning. none at all.

But few of you will read this, you'll just downvote it without even realizing that it's you and everyone else that I am trying to defend.
Wait...what? You're using the results of my thread to make conclusions and statistics?

Don't do that. I am fully aware that my found statistic is far from valid, as it only involves a very small percentage of the voting community.

I just don't see how you can conclude that punishspam happens in 40% or more of the cases. What numbers do you have to support that?

Also, stop clinging on that 94%. That was from the time each case showed around 5-12 matches. Now we have 1-5. This may suggest that the pardon rate has increased, due to a higher chance of innocent cases.

I'[m not going to get into this discussion, but I just wanted to point out that you shouldn't make conclusions based off my thread. Thanks in advance.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Methelod

Senior Member

03-12-2012

So far... why are you even arguing with him? It's like arguing with a creationist over evolution. The creationist has a faulty premise (Evolution doesn't exist, everything was created instantly by a higher being) and uses biased evidence to support said premise while ignoring any evidence that dictates otherwise. Anyone who disagrees with the evidence provided is biased, while anyone who agrees is not biased. His 'logic' to him is infallible and he cannot accept the fact that he is blatantly wrong on the basis that his evidence and premise are both incredibly bias.

So my point is once again, why waste your time fighting an argument in which no matter what you say he will think he's right.

Or if you want an analogy, even if you are the greatest chess player in the world when you play against a pigeon it's still going to jump on the board, knock off all the pieces and strut around like it's victorious.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS1b3d11b18c692b

Senior Member

03-12-2012

REPORTTED OP! OMG! REPORTED!!!!!

Srsly though, I agree. Tribunal real bad for the game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Exqzr

Senior Member

03-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Methelod View Post
So far... why are you even arguing with him? It's like arguing with a creationist over evolution. The creationist has a faulty premise (Evolution doesn't exist, everything was created instantly by a higher being) and uses biased evidence to support said premise while ignoring any evidence that dictates otherwise. Anyone who disagrees with the evidence provided is biased, while anyone who agrees is not biased. His 'logic' to him is infallible and he cannot accept the fact that he is blatantly wrong on the basis that his evidence and premise are both incredibly bias.

So my point is once again, why waste your time fighting an argument in which no matter what you say he will think he's right.

Or if you want an analogy, even if you are the greatest chess player in the world when you play against a pigeon it's still going to jump on the board, knock off all the pieces and strut around like it's victorious.
Happy to play you a game of chess anytime and prove that you're the pigeon.

While some of my math could be improved upon, which I asked help for. The logic can not be refuted.

People are auto punishing and its a big problem.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Exqzr

Senior Member

03-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyAlive View Post
Wait...what? You're using the results of my thread to make conclusions and statistics?

Don't do that. I am fully aware that my found statistic is far from valid, as it only involves a very small percentage of the voting community.

I just don't see how you can conclude that punishspam happens in 40% or more of the cases. What numbers do you have to support that?

Also, stop clinging on that 94%. That was from the time each case showed around 5-12 matches. Now we have 1-5. This may suggest that the pardon rate has increased, due to a higher chance of innocent cases.

I'[m not going to get into this discussion, but I just wanted to point out that you shouldn't make conclusions based off my thread. Thanks in advance.
Why go through all the trouble to collect data and then say it's essentially useless. Your data is actually very usefull


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

powerbats

Senior Member

03-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exqzr View Post
Why go through all the trouble to collect data and then say it's essentially useless. Your data is actually very useful
You haven't followed all those blasting his data then like Onihero who then turn around and use data even more suspect than what they claim his is to prove their points.

I agree spam punishing does happen but don't believe it's as big an issue as you think, of course we'll just have to agree to disagree for the moment. (Even though I'm right and your wrong )


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Methelod

Senior Member

03-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exqzr View Post
Happy to play you a game of chess anytime and prove that your the pigeon.

While some of my math could be improved upon, which I asked help for. The logic can not be refuted.

People are auto punishing and its a big problem.
XD Pardon me, I have to go laugh at him. I refuted his logic (I showed that the premise that the data was collected and used to be faulty) and he refuses to accept this. He also refuses to accept the theory that riot may and likely does, account for auto-punishers... but the troll... he's so funny! XD


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Irongrinder

Senior Member

03-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exqzr View Post
Why go through all the trouble to collect data and then say it's essentially useless. Your data is actually very useful
Too small a base. The data was collected for his benefit, but a much larger scale would be required for everyone else's.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

onihero

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

Senior Member

03-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Methelod View Post
XD Pardon me, I have to go laugh at him. I refuted his logic (I showed that the premise that the data was collected and used to be faulty) and he refuses to accept this. He also refuses to accept the theory that riot may and likely does, account for auto-punishers... but the troll... he's so funny! XD
I believe you have no idea what a troll is. He isn't a troll simply because he has a viewpoint that you feel is false. He is hardly a troll for defending his viewpoint, even if he does so ardently.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

onihero

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

Senior Member

03-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by powerbats View Post
You haven't followed all those blasting his data then like Onihero who then turn around and use data even more suspect than what they claim his is to prove their points.

I agree spam punishing does happen but don't believe it's as big an issue as you think, of course we'll just have to agree to disagree for the moment. (Even though I'm right and your wrong )
I heard my name. Good job totally misrepresenting that other thread. I'm not surprised though.

Here is a fact for you. Its an easy one to follow.

Data is data. Nothing more, nothing less.

Data is not wrong. 1=1.

You don't debate data. You debate assumptions and conclusions built for and from that data. Data is only wrong if it is miscalculated. So no, there was no "blasting the data". It is out there and it very well can be used. So no, attempting to discredit the op simply because he used this set of data is outright wrong.