Normal games are kind of dangerous now if you're an unskilled/new player..

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

Weswhat

Senior Member

11-08-2012

wait... so the tribunal isn't fair?!
who know?! xD


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Grim Reaper

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

Senior Member

11-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornchowdar View Post
Hate to be the bringer of bad news, but it's over. Riot has made it clear by its silence and Lytes reply that pretty much dodged all of the pertinent issues that it is not intent on doing anything about the false positives.

To anybody who has the same risk aversion as I, LoL is basically dead.

Buyer beware. I guess this is the final bump; this thread has gotten as many views and replies as it's ever going to get. What does it even matter, when the people in charge don't even want to acknowledge that this issue exists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte
I saw your original thread with those links and I hand-reviewed almost all of them during one of my lunch breaks. I wouldn't really overturn a single one.

You have to remember that to even get to the Tribunal is pretty difficult; right now, the average player sent to the Tribunal is in the bottom 0.6% in terms of toxicity in the NA territory. This is also one of the reasons we decided to manually review a handful of cases in the bottom 0.7% to 0.8% of accounts and escalate accounts where necessary.

In saying this, I can see which accounts are smurfs and which account are newbies, I can see which accounts are trying to 'fake' innocence and pull up pre- and post-game chat. There's maybe 1 case in that thread where I'm ambivalent, but the player only got a warning that I believe will make a difference in that player's behavior so I wouldn't overturn the warning anyway.

I know you're probably thinking, "Well, give us that extra information that you have then!" However, it's not that simple. There's privacy laws and related issues that vary from region to region and what's OK in North America might not be OK in a country in Europe. Each additional piece of information also requires development work and we have to constantly weigh our priorities and determine what's the best value we can provide to you, the players. Ultimately, for some reason or another, players came to the same decision we would have if we manually reviewed the case with all the extra information that we have at Riot--even though players had less information to begin with.
Lyte reviewed the cases and found that they were deserving of their bans. Go find actual proof first.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

cornchowdar

Member

11-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reaper View Post
Lyte reviewed the cases and found that they were deserving of their bans. Go find actual proof first.
Lyte claimed that he found them deserving but was unable to show any proof due to privacy issues, even when the very guy who he claimed had been deserving of it was offering to waive any privacy.

That thread was almost immediately locked afterward.

He was just blowing smoke up your asses, but I clenched my cheeks tight and saw the light.

Of course you conveniently ignored the point about guaranteed ban review, which Lyte also happened to not address.

Anybody who isn't severely mentally challenged understands what was implied by his answer: It's mostly automated and a human review is not guaranteed.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Grunt666

Senior Member

11-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornchowdar View Post
Lyte claimed that he found them deserving but was unable to show any proof due to privacy issues, even when the very guy who he claimed had been deserving of it was offering to waive any privacy.

That thread was almost immediately locked afterward.

He was just blowing smoke up your asses, but I clenched my cheeks tight and saw the light.

exactly he showed no proof, and instead he actually LIED. He made up some total lie about privacy and not being able to provide the information which is 100%lies. If you can provide the in game chat logs without breaking privacy then it is impossible to not be able to provide pre and post game chat,

Here is the real deal though, WHO CARES WHAT LYTE had access too that might vindicate these awful decisions...

THE POINT IS THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED PUNISH DID NOT HAVE THAT INFO. All they had is what you see and yet they still voted punish....rationaize that MR lyte and pelase reserve your lies to cover up a broken currpt abused tribunal system.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

cornchowdar

Member

11-08-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt666 View Post
exactly he showed no proof, and instead he actually LIED. He made up some total lie about privacy and not being able to provide the information which is 100%lies. If you can provide the in game chat logs without breaking privacy then it is impossible to not be able to provide pre and post game chat,

Here is the real deal though, WHO CARES WHAT LYTE had access too that might vindicate these awful decisions...

THE POINT IS THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED PUNISH DID NOT HAVE THAT INFO. All they had is what you see and yet they still voted punish....rationaize that MR lyte and pelase reserve your lies to cover up a broken currpt abused tribunal system.
YES, indeed. THAT IS THE POINT and furthermore there is NO GUARANTEE that the faulty tribunal ban process is EVER reviewed.

They claim to review a subset and that probably is true, but some is not equal to all; there will always be a few sacrificial lambs because of it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Xaephros

Senior Member

11-08-2012

Bump.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Orenin

Senior Member

11-08-2012

bump


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

jsgnextortex

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

Senior Member

11-08-2012

keep this bumped


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Glove426

Senior Member

11-08-2012

bump for justice

Some of these might have been intentional feeding, but you can't really say for sure. A decent solution might be a third tribunal option for 'Not Enough Evidence', which would red flag them or something...just a thought.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Grunt666

Senior Member

11-08-2012

eh they will just lock it once they figure out what it is, just like they lock every thread when they are caught striaght up for backing a flawed unfair abused aspect of thier game.

DERP we can't explain those travesties, and derp i willmake up some lie about privacy, and then derp finally i wiill just lock it.