A 100 Cases Experiment

1234511 ... 20
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Tolinar

Senior Member

12-31-2012

Today I was worried by the bad case outcomes I have seen from the Tribunal... so at the suggestion of a fellow forumgoer we are going to take a cross-section of recent cases, randomly.


===

I did it! And I have my findings. I've put them here for 'easy reading'.

All 100 cases are here for review, if you want to make your own opinions.

Now, before I go back through, review everything I have seen and compose my personal findings and comments, there are some things I want to reflect on.

  • In every situation, every case call, every reaction - I went with my gut. It's what I think is right and wrong.
  • I'm aware my opinion isn't the only one. And it isn't any better than someone else's. I never believed it was and I still don't.
  • By the same effect, no 'little rules' you think you know, can shake what I know to be right and wrong. The tribunal is judged by peers specifically so people can't use those 'little rules' as a shield to get their way. i.e. your opinion isn't better than mine. No matter how well informed you THINK you are.
  • When I started this little experiment, I had some expectations. Some were met, some were not, and I learned a few things I was not expecting. My opinion on "this case" or "that case" is less important to me, than the health of the Tribunal as a whole.


After reviewing 100 cases of the Tribunal, I have reached a few conclusions.
I'll give each one its own space to breathe and be replied to separately.

1. There seem to be about as many TIME BANS as there are WARNINGS.

This is most troubling due to the published statistic that says "78% of players punished by the tribunal reform after the first time and are never punished again." Anyone out of middle school can do the math. 78% is almost 4/5ths. How can there be a 4/5ths reform rate, and have just as many people coming back for additional punishment as there are getting warned?

EDIT: a kind fellow poster helped explain the math in another way. I admit I was probably wrong on this.

Somehow, it feels... off, though. Like it just doesn't add up.


2. Pardons don't show the potential punishment avoided. This I feel is important. It makes it very hard to know whether someone was due for a Warning, or was due for a Permanent Ban. I'm currently player level 19, so I can't participate in the Tribunal - it's entirely possible that the peers simply aren't informed of the punishments the players may or may not receive.

Which is probably good.

But it also makes it very hard to know whether someone was due for a warning, and was absolved, or whether they were due for stricter punishment and was absolved.



3. No date stamps.

A lot of people seem to complain about the lack of pre and post chat in the Tribunal and I agree this is an issue, but another issue I would like to point out is the lack of date stamps on cases. Just how old of a game is getting punished here?

In many of this review's cases, people were telling each other "Merry Christmas" - aha! This lets us know that those particular games, at least, were extremely recent. But we have no way to know or prove that all the reports are equally recent, and I will bring that up later in a separate point.



4. The most common issue I see in case outcomes, is inconsistency towards verbal abusiveness.

If you are verbally abusive to teammates, you will be punished, if the tribunal feels like it.


I cite cases #5, 15, 45, 51, 70, 83, 84, 87, 94 where the player is pardoned and maybe shouldn't be
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090580/
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090569/
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090538/
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090532/
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090511/
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090498/
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090497/
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090494/
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090487/


And cases 24, 29, 33, 37, 41, 76 where the player is punished and maybe shouldn't be
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090560/
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090555/
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090551/
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090547/
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090543/
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090505/


In particular, as long as you're a nice jerk this community seems fine with you being verbally abusive. And in some cases, if you are in a bad mood then you don't have to be especially abusive or even curse at all. Heck, speaking another language will do it.

Still a couple more important things.



5. Punishments don't always fit the crime.

The most important case to cite here, is Case 55.
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090527/

Threatening people like this is no joke, and this player appears to be nothing but bad news for this gaming community. A Time Ban is not sufficient, at all. This player needs to leave.

In other news, the concept of the "Permanent Ban" is not one I am especially pleased with.
We had 2 permaban cases in the 100 logs I checked.

One, I agree with.

And one I agree should be punished - but does that punishment need to be a permanent ban? This brings up an issue that another person mentioned.


We, the voting Tribunal, act as the jury, but the JUDGE - Riot Games - hands down punishments. Let's say someone steals cookies in Philadelphia and is put on trial.

We the jury find evidence that he was very hungry and did indeed steal 2 cookies from the jar. The judge sentences him to execution by lethal injection. Is this the fault of the jury? or the judge? In other words, I am not sure enough time and effort has been put into deciding the punishment half of this system. Sure, someone who has having a bad day needs to be reprimanded - but losing several hundred dollars of RP in champs, skins and rune pages, permanently?

The second case I saw, the player was just plain mad. He needed a break from the game.
I am not so sure he needed to be banned forever. League of Legends is the only game I know of that permanently bans paying players for being unsportsmanlike, and it should be examined more closely for a number of reasons.

But that's all separate issue. My issue here is, the Tribunal doesn't get to choose how bad someone's wrist gets slapped ... and it could be a problem.



6. Reports are being used as a weapon.

I think this is a huge problem with the Tribunal system.

Players are clearly, consistently and frequently reporting one another, and threatening to report one another, to harm one another beyond the battlefield. The #1 thing to point to as a major reason it's going like this - is the linear progression of the Warning->TimeBan -> Permaban system. All punishments are exactly alike, there is no separation of light and heavy punishment, it is one size fits all.

So if you can get someone angry, and get them to yell back, you can destroy their account. It's a massive flaw and it needs to be fixed. If it CAN be fixed, then I believe the Tribunal will function much better as an entity of justice.
EDIT: I was notified that you, can, in fact, back up along this progression with time. It doesn't completely invalidate this problem, although it does take away a little of the absolution.



And my last primary finding.

7. Cases that pass by lighter majorities, tend to be lighter crimes in nature.

This was NOT absolute, but speaking generally, punishments that pass by overwhelming majority were punishments for very severe behavior and punishments that pass by soft majority were often borderline cases where a player lost their temper.


I think this may, or maybe not, be usable. But If we tie this to points 5 and 6, it becomes apparent that people that can be trolled into getting 'just a little mad' now and then, and being found by soft majority, guilty,

Will start taking TIME BANS for it and will lose their account on the 4th time.
It's the #1, most obvious, most critical flaw of the Tribunal, and this study makes it apparent. The biggest problem of the Tribunal isn't necessarily 'corrupt reports' - which I NOTE there were a couple of SERIOUSLY questionable calls.

It's the total lack of differentiation between losing your temper and yelling at someone who was yelling first,


and threatening to shoot people with a gun while AFKing.
Thanks for reading.

====
(original post)
Does anyone have a link to a very recent case from the Tribunal? Today would be ideal but that is probably impossible.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Shiister

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

Senior Member

12-31-2012

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090586/

Start with this and work your way, post each case link.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Mitey Oosik

Senior Member

12-31-2012

100 out of thousands won't tell you much.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Tolinar

Senior Member

12-31-2012

#1
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090586/
Time banned by overwhelming majority
Claims have many other accounts, strongly trolled players.

And let's back it up


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

LittleDi

Senior Member

12-31-2012

I recommend starting here:
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6095000/
As there are no cases over 6096000

Pardon, no completed cases over 6096000 decided.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Tolinar

Senior Member

12-31-2012

#2
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090584/
Reported 3 times for inappropriate name. Warning issued. We can't see the player's name though.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ILLTROLLTHEWAY

Member

12-31-2012

I can tell you right now what you'll learn from this experiment. Nothing. The tribunal is completely fair. There is never a case of somebody being banned "unfairly" or somebody not being banned despite their "bad behavior".


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Shiister

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

Senior Member

12-31-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tolinar View Post
#2
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090584/
Reported 3 times for inappropriate name. Warning issued. We can't see the player's name though.
Can't see the names in reform cards only when reading the case in Tribunal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tolinar View Post
#1
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090586/
Time banned by overwhelming majority
Claims have many other accounts, strongly trolled players.

And let's back it up
Correct choice


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Tolinar

Senior Member

12-31-2012

#3
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6090583/
The player seemingly did nothing wrong in games 1, 2 and 3, (except allegedly steal someone's buff) went AFK in 4,and was again reported for doing nothing wrong in game 5. Note, in game 4 he was not disconnected by leaverbuster.



Warned by majority vote.
I moderately oppose this decision but it's a warning so it's k.
Let's keep going.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ILLTROLLTHEWAY

Member

12-31-2012

Having an inappropriate name is against the summoner's code.The second link shows a player reported by many players once again for appropriate reason. The chat gives plenty reason why the player should be banned.


1234511 ... 20