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


@Lyte Tribunal has become too lenient again

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Lyte

Lead Social Systems Designer

Follow RiotLyte on Twitter

02-03-2013

Quote:
Lyte:
Actually, this is a special case.

When a case has majority or higher vote to punish but has "None" under punishment, it actually means our special Player Support teams intervened on the case and punished the player before the Tribunal case closed.

In many cases, players like these are permanently banned by Player Support before the Tribunal case closes, so when the Tribunal case closes the punishment is "None" because no Tribunal punishment was applied. We have a tweak planned to make these cases more understandable in the future.


Just to add to this, sometimes the same thing happens to "Pardon" cases that deserve punishment. However, for those the Punishments always show up as "None," so it's even more confusing because the reality is Player Support intervenes and applies a manual punishment, but it doesn't reflect in the Reform Cards.

The above planned tweak should help make both situations more understandable.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

WarlordAlpha

Recruiter

02-03-2013

Quote:
Lyte:
Just to add to this, sometimes the same thing happens to "Pardon" cases that deserve punishment. However, for those the Punishments always show up as "None," so it's even more confusing because the reality is Player Support intervenes and applies a manual punishment, but it doesn't reflect in the Reform Cards.

The above planned tweak should help make both situations more understandable.


So, instead of "none" it will display something like "Custom" or "Manual," right?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Super Explosion

Senior Member

02-03-2013

Quote:
Lyte:
Just to add to this, sometimes the same thing happens to "Pardon" cases that deserve punishment. However, for those the Punishments always show up as "None," so it's even more confusing because the reality is Player Support intervenes and applies a manual punishment, but it doesn't reflect in the Reform Cards.

The above planned tweak should help make both situations more understandable.


I now have evidence of a Rioter quoting himself for the Scavenger Hunt.

Next up, the Ghost Helm.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

YSRS

Senior Member

02-03-2013

Quote:
Lyte:
Just to add to this, sometimes the same thing happens to "Pardon" cases that deserve punishment. However, for those the Punishments always show up as "None," so it's even more confusing because the reality is Player Support intervenes and applies a manual punishment, but it doesn't reflect in the Reform Cards.

The above planned tweak should help make both situations more understandable.


Yay! Thanks for Clearing that up. Any ETA on when the tweaks are due to become operative?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ShawNuff

Member

02-03-2013

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6169963/

look at game two and tell me with a straight face that this player is a constructive member of the community.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ari

Member

02-03-2013

Quote:
Lyte:
Actually, this is a special case.

When a case has majority or higher vote to punish but has "None" under punishment, it actually means our special Player Support teams intervened on the case and punished the player before the Tribunal case closed.

In many cases, players like these are permanently banned by Player Support before the Tribunal case closes, so when the Tribunal case closes the punishment is "None" because no Tribunal punishment was applied. We have a tweak planned to make these cases more understandable in the future.


Oh, I see. Thank you Lyte ^^


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

slamor

Senior Member

02-03-2013

Quote:
ShawNuff:
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/6169963/

look at game two and tell me with a straight face that this player is a constructive member of the community.


Looks like the community was understanding and saw darius took top from kat.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ShawNuff

Member

02-03-2013

Quote:
slamor:
Looks like the community was understanding and saw darius took top from kat.

Quote:

"stupid noob"
"stupid troll"
"fail jungle"
"worthless jungle"
"you 3 just qued together and like to stroke each others c****"
"f***ing f**s"


Because that makes the behavior acceptable right?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

sporkify

Junior Member

02-04-2013

If a person spam votes for "punish" is eventually discounted by the tribunal, does that indicate a mechanic that increases or decreases vote weight? Does a person with a higher Justice Rating have a vote worth more?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Zielmann

Senior Member

02-04-2013

Quote:
Lyte:
Just to add to this, sometimes the same thing happens to "Pardon" cases that deserve punishment. However, for those the Punishments always show up as "None," so it's even more confusing because the reality is Player Support intervenes and applies a manual punishment, but it doesn't reflect in the Reform Cards.

The above planned tweak should help make both situations more understandable.


"More understandable"? What exactly does this mean? Similar to what the other people suggest about some extra outcome like "manual" or "case cancelled" or something?

For Tribunal's sake, wouldn't it make the most sense for that specific case to be forced closed and marked with the outcome that player support took? Player A was up for evaluation. Player A goes through, say, half the voting required for a case. Player support ends up looking at that player and determining that he/she is deserving of a punishment. Player A banned. Of those people that voted to punish on the open case, is it really inaccurate to say that their vote didn't correspond to the action against that player?

I guess I don't see why player support couldn't manually set the outcome of a case prematurely in situations where they do take action against a player before their tribunal case reaches a conclusion.