The accuracy of the Tribunal.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Jezvin

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

Member

03-18-2013

I must say the tribunal has surprised me. I started doing some cases in it about 2 weeks ago with the idea that there might be a lot of false reports and I will pardon a bunch of people and not care about my rating or any of that . So after my first day I had a 70% accuracy, I was a little surprised that my accuracy was that high. Some of my pardons were punished but even then I could see that it might be deserved.

My first day being somewhat what I was expecting I continued to do tribunal for the next few weeks off and on and that's where the change happened. quite quickly my accuracy just started to shoot up within a few days I was at like 87% and Now I am sitting at 92% accuracy with about 80 cases reported. I don't consider this a significant amount of cases but I do consider it enough to make a judgment on my accuracy.

What about the 8% misses I had? well those I all pardoned but were punished. Now here is the thing though, I have yet to see a case where it is just unquestionably a pardon. Every case has something that someone who is a little more sensitive could press punish on.

So where am I going with all this? The tribunal seems to be working, and working well. If you get punished in the tribunal in any way you're a dick. There really is very few exceptions to this. After coming here and seeing the arguments by the people getting banned it makes sense that the idea the tribunal is false banning people arises. Most people getting banned are so delusional to their actions and always refuse to believe that is it their fault in any way. They just continue to spout **** that it's unjustified to any community outlet they can.

Anyway it just amazes me how many people don't know how to not be a dick. You don't have to be nice, just don't be a dick. The comment "if you don't want to get banned just never talk" starts to make so much sense when you realize the people getting banned are just physically incapable of not insulting or berating people when they talk.

Good Job Riot.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Exploding Barrel

Senior Member

03-18-2013

Yep. Getting into the Tribunal at all is not easy. You have to be reported many times, and by people who have historically been credible reporters. Lyte said as of yesterday that only the worst 0.7% of people in NA are getting into the Tribunal right now.

I can't remember the last obvious pardon I saw either. I've pardoned some (a few correctly and a few that were punished), but even they left me feeling like there must be something else going on there, or that it would come down to the community's tolerance level for borderline behavior.

People have done the math, and a positive player literally has a larger chance of being struck by lightning than falsely punished by the Tribunal in a given year.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Tray

Senior Member

03-18-2013

Just a couple things here.

If you punisht all your games, you will be accurate 90% of the time on average.

You should take anything Riot says with a grain of salt. The 0.7% number is a clear statistical manipulation, with no basis in reality. How could it be? Is it the number of new tribunal cases relative to the active population or total accounts? Over what period of time? Show me the actual stats and ill show you a lie.

As for the lightning strike math, if its literally been done, you should be able to link a source right? Id love to destroy that argument, especially since I dont believe the facts required are public information.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

RayneAU

Senior Member

03-18-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tray View Post
Just a couple things here.

If you punisht all your games, you will be accurate 90% of the time on average.

You should take anything Riot says with a grain of salt. The 0.7% number is a clear statistical manipulation, with no basis in reality. How could it be? Is it the number of new tribunal cases relative to the active population or total accounts? Over what period of time? Show me the actual stats and ill show you a lie.

As for the lightning strike math, if its literally been done, you should be able to link a source right? Id love to destroy that argument, especially since I dont believe the facts required are public information.
im willing to bet its a simple analogy not a declaration of fact


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Tray

Senior Member

03-18-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayneAU View Post
im willing to bet its a simple analogy not a declaration of fact
If so its a very bad analogy. 51 people per year die from lightning strikes in the US. Thats a 0.000017% chance out of 300m people.

Im going to guess the chance of being punished is more analogous to being in a car accident. That is about 5m accidents per year out of 300m people in the US, or a ~1.7% chance. Thats actually probably still lower.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Enterti

Senior Member

03-18-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tray View Post
If so its a very bad analogy. 51 people per year die from lightning strikes in the US. Thats a 0.000017% chance out of 300m people.

Im going to guess the chance of being punished is more analogous to being in a car accident. That is about 5m accidents per year out of 300m people in the US, or a ~1.7% chance. Thats actually probably still lower.
They meant you are more likely to be struck by lightening than be falsely banned. Not for being legitimately banned.