Boards›Gameplay

Riot needs to actually start putting control of punishments into people again and not a system

Hibeki··8 votes·557 views

Removing the tribunal was literally the worst thing this game has had so far in the behavior department.

Reporting someone for int/afk does literally nothing because riot cant 'prove' they did it on purpose, especially an automated system. They werent officially flagged as leave and disconnected? Not afk in their eyes!

Except In my eyes, I see a level 5 20 cs 2/7 kled running around base at 20 minutes.

But not them. No Riot needs coke bottle glasses to read a billboard.

It's absurd. The entire punishment system is relied upon bad words and nothing else.

Flame all you want, if you don't say blacklisted words or cuss that often, youll never be banned!

Int all you want, as long as you don't say that its intentional in chat you'll never be banned! Hell it took a manual review by a 10k upvote reddit thread to finally ban the fucks who would hold ranked games hostage for the biggest timer.

This is fucking retarded. The punishments don't effect people who actually hurt the game, hit mostly toxic people and occassionally do nothing but benefit the 'special snowflake "you hurt my feewings!"' agenda and I hate it.

57 Comments

TheTwerkinator7 votes

Tribunal was useless. People abused the system for meager rewards

not to mention people would decide someone's fate based on their own interests, not what is actually the correct call, so tribunal was a bad idea from the start. It just sounded nifty on paper.

Hibeki2 votes

It did more than the current system does.

RenownedWheat421 votes

Do you have any proof behind this statement though?

Under the new system, 90% of reports I've made have notified me of immediate punishment being issued.

Hibeki1 votes

Uh a hell of a lot more shitty practices in just inting or whatever when people dont get what they want.

TheTwerkinator3 votes

Whether that is true or not, doesn't mean it was better. I'd risk a bot over people who don't care judging someone's fate.

You see how toxic people can be in game, now have that applied to potentially removing others from the game. No thanks.

Hibeki1 votes

Yes and thats entirely why the entire US justice system has been replaced with robots

oh wait.

TheTwerkinator5 votes

That was such low quality comparison. Someone being an ass in a video game report system has far less severe consequences than someone in a real position of power.

They aren't even comparable.

Hibeki1 votes

Except they arent, not caring in a jury has no real consequence.

TheTwerkinator4 votes

But most people in a Jury aren't young teens that hand out consequences to others either.

Also, you inadvertently proved my point that people would abuse the system.

Timethief494 votes

Tribunal was too slow. The IFS is uncompairable faster and is learning from what they community thinks is not acceptable.

Hibeki1 votes

Its not efficient. It will just pull a blacklisted word out of context and say 'fuck you 15 day ban'

Timethief492 votes

Using racism in a game is not ok. Using hatespeech in a game is not ok. Using homophobia in a game is not ok. Telling someone to end his life in a game is not ok. Using mental disability as an insult towards other players in a game is not ok. Thats pretty much all the stuff that gets you an instant 14 day ban.

Iręlía2 votes

What is considered Homophobia? Seriously? I have very conservative beliefs and I dont believe in it, I voted against it, etc. and if someone asks me, do if I condone that behavior and I say "no", thats my religion, thats not homophobia, its a different way of life I live and I dont think taht sharing a simple opinion about it if someone asks should be reportable.

Im definitely not saying "all homosexuals should die in a firey pit of hell arrrrgh", its my hope that anyone and everyone comes to God and his merciful grace, but again, I just done want to be shunned for my way of life. Albiet contradictory to the majority of the youth that play League as they tend to be more liberal.

Timethief491 votes

Mainly its the use of a word that starts with f and end on got or its abreviation. It has a history of derogatory use against gay people and is kinda the homophobic equivalent of using the n-word.

Iręlía1 votes

{quoted}

Mainly its the use of a word that starts with f and end on got or its abreviation. It has a history of derogatory use against gay people and is kinda the homophobic equivalent of using the n-word.

Thats understandable/ respectable request. Its also very crude to use such language in general.

Hibeki2 votes

Thats more a part of you forcing your religious beliefs on everyone else by not allowing them to legally marry. But Im not gonna get into a political debate.

Iręlía2 votes

{quoted}

Thats more a part of you forcing your religious beliefs on everyone else by not allowing them to legally marry. But Im not gonna get into a political debate.

Not really, the beauty of the politcal system is the demographics mean a lot. 65% of the people in America voted against it. Obama had to make an executive order for it to happen. I believe very strongly that not everyone in a country should be satisfied in regards to the lifestyle you live. Even if the roles were reversed, I wouldn't complain, you would have the upper hand as far as demographics as that's just the way life is.

If you have a belief, its not worth anything unless you stand up for it. Basically, every man for himself in regards to political control. Who ever is lef tin the dust is left there. Again, in regards to lifestyle opinions, racial restrictions should never be violated in any means.

You can choose what orientation you want to pursue, you cant decide was race you are. (no matter how badly people might want to think otherwise)

Hibeki2 votes

All im gonna say is you dont have a right to influences someones life and people who vote against that shit are hypocritical. We know damn well that if some other religious party voted to outlaw meat than those same people would be outraged.

Religion is not a belief of others living their life. Its a practice to live by. You forcing that on me is infringing MY rights.

Iręlía2 votes

You're still harping on the fact that a demographic is dictating something you dont like.

I was speaking politically. If any faction is the leading dempgraphic and believes in a particular way of life and chooses to enforce that way of life, tough monkeys. Thats the way life is. Its not hypocritical when I literally said I would continue to feel the same way even if my role was reversed. Its the way life is. Just because you don't want to have limits on your life doesn't mean it doesn't or wont at some point.

There are no such things as rights. Just what the common man is permitted to have access to at the time. These things can all change over night.

Now enjoy this adorable video of malamutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQpq6v0qAaI

Hibeki2 votes

Just because you feel that way and would take it that way, doesnt mean you are right.

Again, you dont have a right to influence peoples life that way. It doesn't matter if 60% or whatever of people think that way, they are still wrong.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

I'm with Hibeki here, you are free to live your life how you choose, but trying to dictate how other people live their lives when their way of life doesn't affect anybody else anyways is just wrong.

Edit: and it's not about whether a larger demographic dictates something, it is about whether that demographic should have a say in the matter at all. It doesn't affect us and it doesn't even harm anybody else, so why should we care what other people do in their own relationships?

Iręlía1 votes

How is it wrong? You are approaching this very democratically. Debating a democratic philosophy with someone who believes against Democracy might be where the communication error is.

Hibeki1 votes

There's a reason Obama made an executive order.

Because there is no democracy here.

You do not vote and control how someone else lives their life. Period.

Iręlía1 votes

facepalm

I'm done here. I can see you are hell bent on the "I'm not going to be restricted because I am entitled to figment ideas called "rights" fantasy.

This is a democracy, there is almost no where I can live to suit those needs, and America suited those needs once. If anything, the conservative lifestyle of America has been invaded.

Also, to touch on your third point, I never said you couldn't take my stance on logic. I IMPLORE you to. My point, and I think you'll finally see my meaning here, is that we should all STRIVE for what we want in the future. Regardless on the effect of other groups. To strive for the progress of your faction was my MAIN POINT.

Please note I'm not angry with you, but I hope you finally see what my main point is here.

Essentially, "to each his own" is the basis on which I stand.

Hibeki2 votes

you are not saying 'to each their own' here, you are actively telling them 'you cannot have your own' by voting against it.

Iręlía1 votes

You are not understanding. Everyone must strive for their own interests, its what you must do.

I believe in a very savage all or nothing politic system. I dont believe in personal rights. Every man for himself. "to each their own" in regars to what he must fight for. Everyman for himself. If I can over shadow your beliefs, good for me. If you do, good for you. Not as in "to each their own, I will tolerate everything" but a "to each their own, survival of the fittest"

Do you understand my direction yet? I again, i'm not angry, infact I wanna thank you for having a pretty interesting conversation.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

If it were something like murder, theft, assault, or speech to incite violence, I would understand wanting to ban it. Because it can cause direct harm to you if people are allowed to do it without consequence.

But people's preference in a romantic partner doesn't affect us. Like, in any way. At all.

Freedom is what America is all about dude, it's why we fought a revolutionary war, and it's why we have fought wars all over the world. If you are against people being free to do what they like (provided it doesn't hurt you) then you're being really un-American.

Iręlía1 votes

I have another opinion about the purpose of America's foundation of Freedom. I believe It was meant to be Freedom Of God and not so much the modern Freedom From God.

Just my take. Again, all must strive for total control, those that dont live in complacency and will inevitably fail. Which is why America is the way it is now with the excessively corrupt government, unrestricted capitalization, and extortion of markets.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

No the whole reason they fought the revolutionary war was for freedom from the British Empire. That's what the founding fathers stood for. And nobody has to control anybody. That's the point of freedom.

You can happily enjoy being a follower of God over there, while another person can happily enjoy believing in a different version of him, and another person is free to not care about God at all. It's not freedom from God, plenty of people still believe in him in many different religions.

No, what you are referring to is tyranny. Controlling an unimportant aspect of everyone's lives. Apparently, "just because." Fuck that shit.

It's not just religious freedom, but also freedom from tyranny in general.

Iręlía1 votes

I expect someone of your disposition to call it tyranny. Fanatics are always the villain aren't we?

HalcyonDweller1 votes

tyr·an·ny:

cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.

Nope, it looks to me like the word fits quite well. "Unreasonable and arbitrary use of power or control."

Edit: and we're out of reply space. I won't be notified when you reply here anymore. Comment farther up in reply to me if you wish to discuss this further.

Iręlía1 votes

Did you see what you did? The gist of what you said is, "just because you feel that way and would take it that way, doesnt mean you are right."

I can reverse that on you as well.

Hibeki1 votes

The difference being im not forcing my lifestyle choices on you.

I can take your stance on logic and say its my ''belief'' that you shouldn't dictate how others are, and that you need to follow that. Then you cant be against that without being against yourself.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

In what way would allowing those people to marry affect you and I? More competition for wedding venues? I'm serious. I cannot fathom how another person's choice of romantic partner affects you or I in any way.

Iręlía1 votes

Doesnt have to affect me personally, but if given the choice, I have the right to vouch to live in a place without that for myself if that's what I would prefer. Same could be asked backwards.

Hibeki2 votes

Except you can, without actually changing how people live their lives. You go live in a place that shares your belief.

Right now, you are moving into someone elses home and demand they abide by your rules.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

If it doesn't affect us then why do you care in the first place? It's not even affecting your life in any way whatsoever.

And you can do that, one of my coworkers moved out of CA out to the midwest because his wife didn't like the culture out here.

Buck Berserk1 votes

{quoted}

Thats more a part of you forcing your religious beliefs on everyone else by not allowing them to legally marry. But Im not gonna get into a political debate.

Nobody needed OPs permission to marry.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

Technically the OP and people who think like them managed to finagle the laws so that certain people couldn't marry. So in a way, yeah people did.

Sona Ping2 votes

{quoted}

Removing the tribunal was literally the worst thing this game has had so far in the behavior department.

Reporting someone for int/afk does literally nothing because riot cant 'prove' they did it on purpose, especially an automated system. They werent officially flagged as leave and disconnected? Not afk in their eyes!

Except In my eyes, I see a level 5 20 cs 2/7 kled running around base at 20 minutes.

But not them. No Riot needs coke bottle glasses to read a billboard.

It's absurd. The entire punishment system is relied upon bad words and nothing else.

Flame all you want, if you don't say blacklisted words or cuss that often, youll never be banned!

Int all you want, as long as you don't say that its intentional in chat you'll never be banned! Hell it took a manual review by a 10k upvote reddit thread to finally ban the fucks who would hold ranked games hostage for the biggest timer.

This is fucking retarded. The punishments don't effect people who actually hurt the game, hit mostly toxic people and occassionally do nothing but benefit the 'special snowflake "you hurt my feewings!"' agenda and I hate it.

"Flame all you want, if you don't say blacklisted words or cuss that often, youll never be banned!"

Well, that's clearly not true.

KVbqbFsC8e1 votes

Why post a link to Player Behavior where 99% of the punishments are for chat? That does nothing to help your point. The fact is, trolling/inting is never banned except for when done in the most obvious ways. This will never change with an automated system.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

I understand your sentiment, but the issue with it is the accuracy/efficiency of tribunal and the tech required to automate int-feeding punishment.

Also the "snowflake agenda" as you call it is not a Riot thing, it is a societal shift. You're going to see it more everywhere anyways, and mislabeling people who stand up for common decency as being snowflakes is not going to help you convince anybody that your way is right.

Hibeki1 votes

Im just going to point out, its not decency.

Me saying "Do you have no eyes? Can you pay some attention next time?" Is mean, but its criticism.

But league, and ONLY league, is the only competitive environment where at the slightest negative connotation people will REEEEE at the top of their lungs for not being endlessly praised. Even when they are at fault.

No other competitive environment is like this.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

You're refusing to acknowledge the fact that there are actually two different types of cases.

  1. The cases where people REEE for not being endlessly praised.

  2. The cases where a person is unnecessarily abusive and people call it out.

There is a difference between these two situations.

Also, "Do you have no eyes?" Is not constructive. While, "Can you pay some attention next time?" is constructive. Verb tense plays a big part in how your text-based feedback will be received.

Hibeki1 votes

It doesnt matter if its not constructive. I dont need to be polite to you. You have an expectation in a competitive game and me being unsatsified/angry/frustrated that you are not meeting that expectation is usually warranted and not uncalled for.

That is snowflake mentality.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

You misunderstand. I couldn't care less how you treat me. This is about what is efficient and useful for working on a team. It is literally about what is most practical and efficient.

People nowadays tend to be more reactive. Becrying how woeful it is that people have become that way is pointless, it's just the way things are now and if you don't adapt then you suffer for it. If you tilt them by being a dick to them, then they are going to play worse, increasing your chances of losing.

It makes practical sense to make use of basic leadership and communication skills to get teammates to trust you and listen to you. Giving them feedback by being a dick doesn't even work half the time, while providing good leadership for a team can go a long way towards getting their cooperation.

y0r1ck1 votes

You're right. But being a dick shouldn't be punishable by riot. It'll be punished by a loss of lp or less enjoyment in your games. Eventually dicks will realize the problem or they'll stop playing. RIOT's punishments don't allow dicks to learn that being a dick is bad for everyone.

But I do also get that riot doesn't want dicks to ruin games, so they want a punishment system. I think automated is ok until they stop taking context into consideration. Someone afks? Why? Was there a troll? Feeder? Server issue? Looking at context will help riot solve the problem at the core instead of just banning people who won't learn.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

I agree that context should be taken into consideration, but it is a very deep rabbit-hole indeed when you consider how people might attempt to take advantage of such a system to get away with griefing.

I don't want to go into detail because I don't want to give anybody ideas, but I can think of a few different ways people could take advantage of such a context-based system to get away with leaving games or feeding. You see some of the problems arising in the current system already with people who "soft-int" in their matches.

y0r1ck2 votes

Continuing with my afk example, the afk would still be punished. But looking at context would allow RIOT to punish the flamers and feeders that caused the afk. Right now, only the afk would be considered for punishment.

HalcyonDweller1 votes

{quoted}

Continuing with my afk example, the afk would still be punished. But looking at context would allow RIOT to punish the flamers and feeders that caused the afk. Right now, only the afk would be considered for punishment.

Oh I see! Well I think that is a great idea and I would be 100% on-board with it. Hopefully Riot can develop some tech that allows them to do this without slowing down the system.

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes

More by Hibeki

If riot wants to stop allegations of game states they need to start providing actual info.
Gameplay120 comments
246
votes
Its official boys, the Reddit has admitted to fascism and censorship
Gameplay233 comments
230
votes
The matchmaking system actively works against you climbing
Gameplay132 comments
136
votes
Lets outline the most important issues for the game right now
Gameplay139 comments
122
votes
Removal of macro play is actually killing this game.
Gameplay96 comments
100
votes
Neace said it well when he described the game is less about personal skill but more about who sucks
Gameplay192 comments
96
votes