Alternative Systems for Toxic Behavior

12
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Donnylicious

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

Senior Member

08-23-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Methelod View Post
Why do you insist that this is black and white? It's not. You can have the tribunal, and quite frankly, only a naive person thinks that positive reinforcement will stop trolling. Trolls lose elo in ranked, they get less IP overall, they are already losing out when they troll so when they lose out the chance for an optional reward, they won't care.

Overall a positive reward system would be nice but how do you prevent it from being abused? What about bot games as well? Something has to be done about premades and excluding them from the system outright is unfair, while limiting their vote if done incorrectly is also unfair. Of course you could say that the premades are allowed to vote for each other but this creates an issue where they could use four people, troll the fifth and barely lose anything.

Fairness is subjective, and overall it wouldn't be fair in my opinion to use this kind of system.
A) It takes away the potential of multiple trolls in a game.
B) It takes away the players ability (The one in game) to determine what is and is not offensive. This is a problem because what might not be offensive to the player could be construed as offensive to the judge, meaning that a person would be 'falsely' punished because they were not actually toxic in their teammates opinions.

I'm not sure why you are so adamant against a negative reinforcement system and delude your thinking into believing that a positive reinforcement system hinders negative actions. There is a reason why throughout history negative and positive reinforcement have been used, rather then everyone and thing adopting a positive reinforcement system.




I think it doesn't need that much refinement, the concept is excellent, the implementation works well enough with room for improvement. Riot clearly isn't too proud to realize this, and the fact that you imply that they are makes me think that you haven't done enough research because they have stated, repeatedly, that the system is far from perfect.
Pessimist much?

Premade teams could have an IP penalty, similar to the current one, where they get reduced IP if they vote on their friend. I don't play bots much, but if people are raging at bots, they have a serious problem lol. Therefor the MVP system could be excluded from bot games.

A) Not sure how this would work seeing as how a judge can vote on multiple people.
B) Erm, how is this different from the current Tribunal? lol Also, toxic behavior is toxic behavior; it doesn't matter who it's coming from. If a judge sees any sort of toxic behavior, even from the person who reported it, they will punish whoever is doing it.

I'm not sure why you're so adamant for a negative system.

Seems like you're either just being disagreeable or you're just trying too hard to earn them browny points.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

JohnnyOmega

Senior Member

08-23-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnylicious View Post
Pessimist much?

Premade teams could have an IP penalty, similar to the current one, where they get reduced IP if they vote on their friend. I don't play bots much, but if people are raging at bots, they have a serious problem lol. Therefor the MVP system could be excluded from bot games.
An IP penalty is pretty much nothing. There is very good reason to be pessimistic. As long as this game remains free to play, which it definitely will, that means that players with negative personalities will be included with the rest. It's just not realistic to assume that a positive reinforcement system can significantly change anyone's bad behavior. People in reality can be very stubborn in their ways, especially the sort that get suspended for repeated bad behavior.

Without a system of suspensions, the number of toxic match ups would skyrocket as badly behaved players remain unpunished until they get hand-reviewed by a limited number of Riot employees who are themselves unable to devote enough time to take on such a daunting task. It would be unrealistic to hire enough extra employees to handle the increased workload as well.

It would be wonderful to have a positive reinforcement system, but it would just not be realistically practical to implement.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Methelod

Senior Member

08-23-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnylicious View Post
Pessimist much?
Insult much? You realize that it's not being pessimistic to point out that the optimist is being incredibly stupid.

Quote:
Premade teams could have an IP penalty, similar to the current one, where they get reduced IP if they vote on their friend. I don't play bots much, but if people are raging at bots, they have a serious problem lol. Therefor the MVP system could be excluded from bot games.
And then you are punishing premades, they don't have an IP penalty to my knowledge. Besides, that just takes away the benefit of playing with friends. For bot games, then you are being unfair to people who primarily play bot games (Quite a few of my friends, and by association myself) by negating that.

Quote:
A) Not sure how this would work seeing as how a judge can vote on multiple people.
B) Erm, how is this different from the current Tribunal? lol Also, toxic behavior is toxic behavior; it doesn't matter who it's coming from. If a judge sees any sort of toxic behavior, even from the person who reported it, they will punish whoever is doing it.
Against a, fair enough. Against b, did you even read my post? It's not 'toxic' if the player in game didn't find it toxic. I could call my friend a worthless piece of **** and it wouldn't be toxic because we know each other, yet if someone reported another person a judge could punish me for that.

The tribunal is not based solely around judges, the community inserts it's own opinion as well. If someone feels that the other four people in the game were toxic, they are allowed to report them, if not, they don't. You also run into the issue of a different form of stacking punishments. A person is punished for one game, then they are punished for a completely different one, now they have two punishments when in the present system they would only have one. Overall this doesn't help the person if they are going to reform, and it doesn't advance them much quicker to a permaban if they aren't.

Quote:
I'm not sure why you're so adamant for a negative system.

Seems like you're either just being disagreeable or you're just trying too hard to earn them browny points.
I'm a realist, I recognize that a negative system gets results, I also know that if used properly with a positive system (Which I haven't argued against, just YOUR positive systems and their implementations) that you will get more results.

It seems like you do not understand the concept most people learned as they grew up. Positive reinforcement only goes so far.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Donnylicious

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

Senior Member

08-23-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFaces View Post
I agree with the first option... Kinda...
the 2nd one is kind of Arrogant. Thats too much power. Think if you were RIOT.

the fellow troll comments behind it kinda destroyed the whole integrity of the thread. To have an actual thread that RIOT will particapate in. I would suggest doing it in a more Constructive format.
First off, I'm no "fellow troll." Unlike most people who are just complaining and voicing their negative opinions, I'm actually suggesting options. How you equate that with not being constructive is beyond me.

Also, it wouldn't be that much more power than what the judges on Tribunal already have.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Donnylicious

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

Senior Member

08-23-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Methelod View Post
Insult much? You realize that it's not being pessimistic to point out that the optimist is being incredibly stupid.
You take being called a pessimist an insult? You are seriously very touchy. The point was that if you look at your comment, you're assuming nobody would care or want extra IP. I find this warranting of pessimism; oh and I didn't have to use real insults like stupid or naive.

Quote:
And then you are punishing premades, they don't have an IP penalty to my knowledge. Besides, that just takes away the benefit of playing with friends. For bot games, then you are being unfair to people who primarily play bot games (Quite a few of my friends, and by association myself) by negating that.
Premades are always going to happen whether they get reduced IP or not because people like playing with their friends and it gives them an advantage. If you're in a premade, you're more than likely to vote on your friend rather than a stranger. This reduction would simply make you think twice about just default voting on your friend and not considering your other allies. And the same would apply to you when you solo queue.

If your friends want the extra IP they could just play the normal games. Nobody is forcing them to play bots.

Quote:
Against a, fair enough. Against b, did you even read my post? It's not 'toxic' if the player in game didn't find it toxic. I could call my friend a worthless piece of **** and it wouldn't be toxic because we know each other, yet if someone reported another person a judge could punish me for that.
How would a judge know that you are his friend? How would a judge know that someone wasn't your friend? They don't. All they see is a report. That's how it is even now so there wouldn't be much of a difference. Besides, in Riot's view, toxic behavior is toxic behavior no matter what circumstance. Also, there is the comments section.

Quote:
The tribunal is not based solely around judges, the community inserts it's own opinion as well. If someone feels that the other four people in the game were toxic, they are allowed to report them, if not, they don't. You also run into the issue of a different form of stacking punishments. A person is punished for one game, then they are punished for a completely different one, now they have two punishments when in the present system they would only have one. Overall this doesn't help the person if they are going to reform, and it doesn't advance them much quicker to a permaban if they aren't.
As I said earlier, "They could just make it so, if multiple people report on the same game, it counts as one report."

Quote:
I'm a realist, I recognize that a negative system gets results, I also know that if used properly with a positive system (Which I haven't argued against, just YOUR positive systems and their implementations) that you will get more results.

It seems like you do not understand the concept most people learned as they grew up. Positive reinforcement only goes so far.
I've never argued that my ideas were the best nor the only ones. They are simply ideas because as of right, the Tribunal has made it's condemnation evident.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ðetöx

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

Senior Member

08-23-2012

Point 1 is hilarious for duo que, two pals just constantly vote for each other and nobody else ever.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Rasja

Senior Member

08-24-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnylicious View Post
I've never argued that my ideas were the best nor the only ones. They are simply ideas because as of right, the Tribunal has made it's condemnation evident.
You did. In this thread, no less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnylicious View Post
Agreed. The reporting feature was just getting out of hand. This is Riot's way of making it loud and clear that report bullying will not be tolerated. However it also does make a lot of enemies. My solution is far superior.
Best: adjective, superlative of good with better as comparative.

Superior:
  • showing a consciousness or feeling of being better than or above others
  • displaying a conscious sense of being above or better than others; supercilious

Usage : Superior should not be used with than: he is a better (not a superior ) poet than his brother; his poetry is superior to (not superior than ) his brother's

First word in the Thesaurus when looking up superior: better

Definition of Better:
  • of superior quality or excellence: a better coat; a better speech..
  • morally superior; more virtuous: They are no better than thieves.
  • of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable: a better time for action.

Taken from http://dictionary.reference.com

But do NOT use me picking apart your words to mean that I was not reading and understanding your main point and idea.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Donnylicious

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

Senior Member

08-24-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasja View Post
You did. In this thread, no less.



Best: adjective, superlative of good with better as comparative.

Superior:
  • showing a consciousness or feeling of being better than or above others
  • displaying a conscious sense of being above or better than others; supercilious

Usage : Superior should not be used with than: he is a better (not a superior ) poet than his brother; his poetry is superior to (not superior than ) his brother's

First word in the Thesaurus when looking up superior: better

Definition of Better:
  • of superior quality or excellence: a better coat; a better speech..
  • morally superior; more virtuous: They are no better than thieves.
  • of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable: a better time for action.

Taken from http://dictionary.reference.com

But do NOT use me picking apart your words to mean that I was not reading and understanding your main point and idea.
I'm flattered that your did research to post this, lol but I simply said it was better, not the best. There is a difference.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Donnylicious

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

Senior Member

08-24-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by NnoitraBeast View Post
Point 1 is hilarious for duo que, two pals just constantly vote for each other and nobody else ever.
But they get reduced IP.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Methelod

Senior Member

08-24-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnylicious View Post
You take being called a pessimist an insult? You are seriously very touchy. The point was that if you look at your comment, you're assuming nobody would care or want extra IP. I find this warranting of pessimism; oh and I didn't have to use real insults like stupid or naive.
You are finding quite a few strawmen. I'm not assuming no one would care or want. THAT IS HALF THE PROBLEM! Bolded, underlined and italicized to get the point across. People will try to find a way to abuse the system if it gives IP, the question is how many will try? With the tribunal it's not that easy to find for most people and takes more effort then they get in their opinion so 'abusing' that isn't as likely to get them rewards that they want. No, what I am saying is that Positive reinforcement does not, and will not ever be an effective system on it's own. Only children think it is.

Quote:
Premades are always going to happen whether they get reduced IP or not because people like playing with their friends and it gives them an advantage. If you're in a premade, you're more than likely to vote on your friend rather than a stranger. This reduction would simply make you think twice about just default voting on your friend and not considering your other allies. And the same would apply to you when you solo queue.
The issue with that is balancing it out so that way it's FAIR to the premades. Yes, you could say premades have their voting privileges disabled for each other, but you want to make sure that people don't FEEL like they are being punished for playing with their friends, it is a tricky balance.

Quote:
If your friends want the extra IP they could just play the normal games. Nobody is forcing them to play bots
.>_> ...

Quote:
How would a judge know that you are his friend? How would a judge know that someone wasn't your friend? They don't. All they see is a report. That's how it is even now so there wouldn't be much of a difference. Besides, in Riot's view, toxic behavior is toxic behavior no matter what circumstance. Also, there is the comments section.
No. You sir are completely wrong. Riot has said that if you are joking around with your friends, it's not toxic. Do you even know what toxicity is in reference to the game? Clearly not since you are throwing it around as a casual word. No, if I call my friend a bunch of expletives and he has no problem with that, it's not toxic because no ones game is getting ruined.

Quote:
As I said earlier, "They could just make it so, if multiple people report on the same game, it counts as one report."
I'll clarify and if you give me the same response again, you aren't reading my posts. No, it's not about a person getting punished multiple times for the same game, it's a person getting punished multiple times for games that occurred in a short period of time. Now this doesn't mean that their behavior is acceptable, but when you are punishing them for multiple games and therefore multiple punishments you are going to confuse the person as their bans start to add up and they do not even know why. Of course unlike the current form of the tribunal you can't wipe the persons cases when they get banned because of way you want it implemented that if one person gets punished the others will be getting off scott free which is another reason the system won't work.

Quote:
I've never argued that my ideas were the best nor the only ones. They are simply ideas because as of right, the Tribunal has made it's condemnation evident.
Nor did I, you are simply putting words in my mouth. No, what you are doing (Similar to that of a child after he has been punished and learned the difference between a reward and a punishment) is claiming that rewarding people will negate their bad behaviors because people will want to behave to get said reward ignoring the fact that the world doesn't work like that.


12