Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


Review my case...

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Teamslash

Senior Member

10-13-2012

Quote:
LittleDi:
The game says to me that they could be an intentional troll. But they could also be bad at the game.
If you think the bolded is true, vote punish. If you cannot distinguish it from bad play, vote pardon. These things look different. You shouldn't be finding both unless your mind is playing tricks on you and hallucinating both. For all I know, every player in tribunal pings the map as often as possible and runs around in visually obscene paths. Maybe I should skip all my cases because of unseen phallic symbols that might be there.

Quote:
LittleDi:
You're very cute at trying to prove your idiocy. I'm still going to stay with undecided given the case as it was. Deal with it.
and I'm still going to consider you a bad judge. You're calling me an idiot now. Running out of substance?

Quote:
LittleDi:
And here's where you lose sir. I can't confirm this was bad play. Nor can I confirm it was trolling. It looks like both. To vote trolling is to click punish. To vote bad play is to click pardon. This you can not deny. I was not comfortable with either vote.
I don't vote that way. If I vote punish, I'm confirming that there was bad behavior. If I vote pardon, I'm stating that there is insufficient evidence to support a bad behavior claim. If there were sufficient evidence, I'd be voting punish. A person doesn't have to be saint to get my pardon vote. Put another away, If I'm not comfortable with a punish vote, it's almost certainly a pardon vote.

Quote:
LittleDi:
I actually DO pardon cases as well. You just assume I never have and never will. Feel free to make more of an ass of you, leave me out of it.
No I didn't. I deduce you pardon less often than a judge should from your reasons to skip/punish. Here you call me an ass. Would you punish someone who called another player an idiot and an ass? Be honest now.

Quote:
LittleDi:
Feel free to vote your own way. Don't demand others to fall in line with your views. This isn't a dictatorship.
I will. You can feel free to be a bad juror. I don't feel that asking you to be fair to the people you are judging is an unreasonable demand. You're not being a fair juror.

Quote:
LittleDi:
In other words completely ignoring the human element of the tribunal? Yea, I could do it that way. I choose not to. It would make me less human to do so.
It's nice that you decided to attack an imaginary^ argument that I was not going to make. I'm not saying to ignore the human element. If anything, that's what ignoring the possibility for bad play does, but that's neither nor there for my stats comment. What is relevant is this:

Do you know what a null hypothesis is?

^It's a lot like imagining someone is trolling when they really are not. Burn straws, down with scarecrow.

Quote:
Blafon:
I would have chosen "punish." I don't believe that many people would complain about "always going in 1 vs 5" or variants thereof without some bad behaviour on that part. You saying just the right thing to avoid suspicion isn't good enough. Sorry, I'd ban.

I've seen far too many cases where the reporters are looking to blame someone to believe that way. What has been seen (by me) cannot be unseen for me to support such a belief, if you indeed have an examined belief there.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

LittleDi

Senior Member

10-13-2012

Quote:
Teamslash:
If you think the bolded is true, vote punish. If you cannot distinguish it from bad play, vote pardon. These things look different. You shouldn't be finding both unless your mind is playing tricks on you and hallucinating both. For all I know, every player in tribunal pings the map as often as possible and runs around in visually obscene paths. Maybe I should skip all my cases because of unseen phallic symbols that might be there.
I must be hallucinating to see how people could of voted punished and pardon on this now? You're telling me it's a pardon, the card itself says it was punished. It's too much in the grey area for me to call it one way or the other. To say I am not able to vote on the given evidence makes me a bad juror to you. I'm not allowed to decide for myself. And that makes you another dictator.

Quote:
and I'm still going to consider you a bad judge. You're calling me an idiot now. Running out of substance?
I didn't call you an idiot. You seem to be trying to prove it though. I'm also still not a judge.
Quote:
I don't vote that way. If I vote punish, I'm confirming that there was bad behavior. If I vote pardon, I'm stating that there is insufficient evidence to support a bad behavior claim. If there were sufficient evidence, I'd be voting punish. A person doesn't have to be saint to get my pardon vote. Put another away, If I'm not comfortable with a punish vote, it's almost certainly a pardon vote.
And given the evidence I'm not comfortable with the pardon vote. But you're saying that I don't have the right to choose not to vote.

Quote:
No I didn't.
Yes, you did. You directly said... oh wait. lets quote it shall we?
Quote:
You aid those toxic players by not pardoning.
If I find someone who's worthy of the pardon button then I press it. I've seen swearing, rude players, and people I'd punch in the face all get a pardon by my vote because they did not break the code.
Quote:
I deduce you pardon less often than a judge should from your reasons to skip/punish.
Your deduction is incorrect.
Quote:
Here you call me an ass. Would you punish someone who called another player an idiot and an ass? Be honest now.
While you are an ass telling someone you consider them to be an idiot or an ass is not against the code. It still isn't polite. But by this point in time you're already not worthy of being polite to. You are giving an ultimatum to change my voting to your way. You are adamant about this and are unwilling to accept that I think otherwise. I'm still responding to you to clarify how I see things though.
Quote:
I will. You can feel free to be a bad juror. I don't feel that asking you to be fair to the people you are judging is an unreasonable demand. You're not being a fair juror.
I look at a case, determine if I'm clicking punish or pardon, and if I'm unable to decide I continue on to the next case. How is it unfair if I did not help punish or pardon them. This isn't a case where either the gun is loaded or not and you must pull the trigger. That view makes you an unfit juror in my eyes. That is the dictatorship showing your totalitarian voting style. "See things my way... OR ELSE!" doesn't sail in my boat.

Quote:
It's nice that you decided to attack an imaginary^ argument that I was not going to make. I'm not saying to ignore the human element. If anything, that's what ignoring the possibility for bad play does, but that's neither nor there for my stats comment. What is relevant is this:

Do you know what a null hypothesis is?
The null hypothesis is the proposition that implies no effect or no relationship between phenomena. The null hypothesis is popular because it can be tested and found to be false, which then implies there is a relationship between the observed data. By your statement this case was a pardon. The card says you are incorrect. Enough people who voted on this case felt it was a punish.

In direct relation answer the following null hypothesis. The tribunal has no grey areas at all.
Quote:
^It's a lot like imagining someone is trolling when they really are not. Burn straws, down with scarecrow.
You've been declared a troll by others. Your opinion of my voting style is that I am not fair. You have based this on one case. It looks like we're going to have to wait for the tribunal to finish it's upgrades before either of us gets data on it. Lyte could probably give the information right now but I'd rather his time be used getting it to all rather than just comparing your vote method to mine. See you in the Justice Review.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

EndlessDeath

Senior Member

10-14-2012

bump because this needs to be dealt with


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

GunflameSmurf

Senior Member

10-15-2012

Any additional comments


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

UninstaII Life

Member

10-15-2012

Given the volume of insults and toxic behavior that LittleDi has been exhibiting lately, I'm going to assume that he'll be banning himself from the forums due to his repeated violations of the Summoner's Code.

Because surely he's not just another self-righteous, hypocritical douch ebag. Surely.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TPOTK1NG

Senior Member

10-15-2012

Just going off of your last thread made a bit ago.

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=27612922#27612922

26% is pretty high and they had stated that the tribunal and reform card did not pull any extremely toxic games.

Now this is a post in which WookieCookie did a review.
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=27617370#27617370

The percentage of your reported games was high and did show signs of being a toxic player. BUT WookieCookie did make this comment.
"Many of the reports in the 60 or so days following your previous suspension highlights a refusal to work with your team in matches, especially in ranked play. When you felt disrespected by your team you would often turn to different methods to troll them in game rather than work with them as a team.

These reports were very consistent across the games you played following your suspension, putting you back on the Tribunal’s radar."

Here we find Lyte telling you to tone down the attitude and even warning you to change the behavior or you could be punished again.
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=27627272#27627272


So following what Riot had posted, they gave you a forewarning. The fact that you landed in the Tribunal again was probably enough to flag yourself and while Riot normally allows the Tribunal to handle this it is also possible that Riot felt you were dodging punishments and went with a punishment from their point of view since they have more information than do the normal voters of the Tribunal.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

LittleDi

Senior Member

10-15-2012

Quote:
UninstaII Life:
Given the volume of insults and toxic behavior that LittleDi has been exhibiting lately, I'm going to assume that he'll be banning himself from the forums due to his repeated violations of the Summoner's Code.

Because surely he's not just another self-righteous, hypocritical douch ebag. Surely.

Considering I have no power to actually disable my account from posting on the forums and no affiliation with riot... I'm not sure how that would be possible except to log off and stay that way. Also I appear to still be able to log in and post right now.

Win me?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Teamslash

Senior Member

10-15-2012

Quote:
LittleDi:
You're telling me it's a pardon, the card itself says it was punished.
Of course the majority said punish. I'm not disputing what they did. I'm saying the majority was WRONG to do so. Big difference.

Quote:
LittleDi:
It's too much in the grey area for me to call it one way or the other. To say I am not able to vote on the given evidence makes me a bad juror to you. I'm not allowed to decide for myself. And that makes you another dictator.
Absence of evidence is not a grey issue. What you're trying to tell me is that you saw evidence for trolling yet skipped. Otherwise you're spouting nonsense about skipping when there's no such evidence and skip is indeed the right choice as far as you''re concerned, but not for the reasons you proposed.

Quote:
LittleDi:
I didn't call you an idiot.
Exhibit the second-to-last post on page 7:
Quote:
LittleDi:
You're very cute at trying to prove your idiocy.
Any more bald-faced lies you'd like to state in this thread?
Quote:
LittleDi:
Yes, you did. You directly said... oh wait. lets quote it shall we?
You removed the ellipsis and relevant context. Statement referred to toxic players making false reports and you not pardoning in scenarios where you skip because you take these reports as genuine and get stuck in a "grey area" as you so rephrased. I did not state that you never pardoned a single case ever. I'm surprised you use this distortion when you should be aware that I've also read your responses in the Chewn thread and that even you can find a reason to pardon... sometimes.

Quote:
LittleDi:
Your deduction is incorrect.
So, after "grey area" skips take place, what's left? Exercise left for you.

Quote:
LittleDi:
While you are an ass telling someone you consider them to be an idiot or an ass is not against the code.
The code itself is wonderfully vague. According to some such flames would be a violation. Good for you that you don't see them that way.

Quote:
LittleDi:
You are adamant about this and are unwilling to accept that I think otherwise. I'm still responding to you to clarify how I see things though.
I accept that you think differently. I have my opinions on the quality of that difference, which is where the adamance is found. You're arguing for diversity whereas I'm arguing for higher-quality judging. You're avoiding the "What if your way is worse" argument, probably unintentionally, but in the end...

Quote:
LittleDi:
I look at a case, determine if I'm clicking punish or pardon, and if I'm unable to decide I continue on to the next case. How is it unfair if I did not help punish or pardon them.
People who judge in the way you do skip more often. People who judge in the ways troll do... I'll let you ponder that for a moment. Hint: Sometimes not voting is a problem of its own.

Quote:
LittleDi:
This isn't a case where either the gun is loaded or not and you must pull the trigger. That view makes you an unfit juror in my eyes. That is the dictatorship showing your totalitarian voting style. "See things my way... OR ELSE!" doesn't sail in my boat.
When a player gets a tribunal case, one of two things will eventually happen, that player will be pardoned and go on merrily playing, or that player will be reprimanded with a warning or a ban of some duration. Some players deserve that reprimand, do they not? Others do not, and giving them a ban is injust by itself, let alone the mark on their record. Skipping alleviates exactly 0 of those concerns, and one should aim to avoid it if reasonable standards are met. Put another way, you skipping is a statement from yourself and to yourself that you feel you are not qualified to provide a response to the question of whether of particular player is deserving of a punish verdict. If you thought yourself qualified, you'd be voting pardon/punish instead.

Quote:
LittleDi:
The null hypothesis is the proposition that implies no effect or no relationship between phenomena. The null hypothesis is popular because it can be tested and found to be false, which then implies there is a relationship between the observed data. By your statement this case was a pardon. The card says you are incorrect. Enough people who voted on this case felt it was a punish.
Wikipedia to the rescue, or not A null hypotheis (at least in statistics) is the default assumption based on prior estimates. It gets rejected if sufficient evidence is found to do so. What constitutes sufficient is a tricky subject, but for this discussion it's key to know that the hypothesis is NOT rejected (note we do not say 'accepted') when there is not sufficient evidence. The tribunal guidelines clearly state that players are to be presumed innocent until shown otherwise. In this scenario, a tribunal skip vote is akin to saying the hypothesis test was invalid because of flawed data collection (the test's conclusion is made functionally irrelevant due to outside factors).

Quote:
LittleDi:
In direct relation answer the following null hypothesis. The tribunal has no grey areas at all.
Reject. Not everyone is multi-lingual, and it's hard to follow a conversation in a language one does not understand. The language barrier constitutes a gray area in tribunal jurisprudence.

One must take care to distinguish actual gray from high-resolution mixes of black and white that appear to be gray without sufficiently good lighting and eyesight.

Quote:
LittleDi:
You've been declared a troll by others.
One can declare anything and use differing amounts of veracity to do so. For example: none at all.

Quote:
LittleDi:
You have based this on one case. It looks like we're going to have to wait for the tribunal to finish it's upgrades before either of us gets data on it. See you in the Justice Review.


No, I have based it on your description of your own judging process. If you're stating it honestly, I can safely assume you apply this process to a multitude of cases, and I can infer the results of that from there. I wouldn't get too comfy with the proposal that justice review will bring new revelations --> accuracy is determined by how well one votes with the crowd, not with how one evaluates cases. The highest ranked judge will be one who knows how the majority will vote and will also vote that way, ignoring any intervening considerations. There's a supremacy of the majority argument open if you want to take it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

GunflameSmurf

Senior Member

10-15-2012

Quote:
OhNoNotAgainv2:
Just going off of your last thread made a bit ago.

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=27612922#27612922

26% is pretty high and they had stated that the tribunal and reform card did not pull any extremely toxic games.

Now this is a post in which WookieCookie did a review.
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=27617370#27617370

The percentage of your reported games was high and did show signs of being a toxic player. BUT WookieCookie did make this comment.
"Many of the reports in the 60 or so days following your previous suspension highlights a refusal to work with your team in matches, especially in ranked play. When you felt disrespected by your team you would often turn to different methods to troll them in game rather than work with them as a team.

These reports were very consistent across the games you played following your suspension, putting you back on the Tribunal’s radar."

Here we find Lyte telling you to tone down the attitude and even warning you to change the behavior or you could be punished again.
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=27627272#27627272


So following what Riot had posted, they gave you a forewarning. The fact that you landed in the Tribunal again was probably enough to flag yourself and while Riot normally allows the Tribunal to handle this it is also possible that Riot felt you were dodging punishments and went with a punishment from their point of view since they have more information than do the normal voters of the Tribunal.


Here's something you are not taking into consideration. It is a simple as REVIEWING MY PREVIOUS CASE and COMPARE IT TO THIS ONE!


http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/en/case/5629924/ (old)
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/en/case/5756146 (new)


A few of the things I changed:
- Lets start by saying: I SHOULD HAVE NOT BEEN PUNISHED THE FIRST TIME! That's why my suspension was overturned
- To this lets add: I HAVE IMPROVED MY BEHAVIOR! Even when what I did was not breaking the code, I still took it upon myself to improve my behavior.

- I'm VERY comunicative pregame chat. I talk about my skills and my preferences specially if I'm planning to play an unorthodox pick. Notice how in none of these reports I get reported for unorthodox picks. I still pick jungle blitz/zyra, mid AD yorick, mid ap yi and other unorthodox picks. But people seem to be more accepting about my champion choices as I talk about it and find a middle ground with my teammates in pregame chat.

- I BARELY joke around in chat. If at all. I think in none of these games you can find jokes because I'm always in fear of being called "a troll" from my jokes in chats. So the part were it says in the summoner's code that "playful rivetting" is allowed... is practically gone for me.

- Notice how Wookiecookiee say "different methods to troll them in game", but they still believe I wasn't supposed to get suspended. I don't know why they removed my suspension if I really did something to break the code.

- I never troll my team in game (neither before not after that suppension)... I never die on purpose, I don't steal buffs, I dont go AFK. I sincerely have no clue what are those methods he mentions. Other than... well dying more that I would like to die.

- This suspension is because I played poorly... I made bad decisions in game, that got me killed a lot more often than it should've and got me reported for "report this baddie feeder".


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

EndlessDeath

Senior Member

10-15-2012

Quote:
OhNoNotAgainv2:
Just going off of your last thread made a bit ago.

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=27612922#27612922

26% is pretty high and they had stated that the tribunal and reform card did not pull any extremely toxic games.

Now this is a post in which WookieCookie did a review.
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=27617370#27617370

The percentage of your reported games was high and did show signs of being a toxic player. BUT WookieCookie did make this comment.
"Many of the reports in the 60 or so days following your previous suspension highlights a refusal to work with your team in matches, especially in ranked play. When you felt disrespected by your team you would often turn to different methods to troll them in game rather than work with them as a team.

These reports were very consistent across the games you played following your suspension, putting you back on the Tribunal’s radar."

Here we find Lyte telling you to tone down the attitude and even warning you to change the behavior or you could be punished again.
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=27627272#27627272


So following what Riot had posted, they gave you a forewarning. The fact that you landed in the Tribunal again was probably enough to flag yourself and while Riot normally allows the Tribunal to handle this it is also possible that Riot felt you were dodging punishments and went with a punishment from their point of view since they have more information than do the normal voters of the Tribunal.


I usually side with riot assuming they banned him for something he said pre or post game chat or did (assuming maybe they even have a replay system) but the fact is they haven't stated specifically why he is being banned, last time he was banned they were very ambiguous, saying he "turned to different methods to troll" but still said NOTHING about what those methods were, furthermore "rather then working with them as a team" to be able to do that requires coordination, coordination requires communication, how are you supposed to coordinate with player who are verbally abusing you? how are you supposed to communicate with players who you've muted?!

The whole suspension doesn't seem to have any particular released reason connected with it, nor did the last one! This is why I'm worried about this and the last case, they most likely see it, but haven't released any reasons as to why he was banned other then unusable ambiguous reasons. The only reason I could see riot doing this is if they're either A) holding some information from us, particularly that they can watch replays of the game and they don't want players to know about this so they can easily catch players who are intentionally greifing their team, or B) [and this is what scares me the most] they're banning players because of the large volume of reports he has, and because the majority of tribunal users voted to punish, I have been afraid of this scenario for some time now, I still don't have any solid evidence against it, and these kinds of cases only make it more plausible.