5 Year & $650+ Account Permabanned Because of AFK Duo

Erafumo··2 votes·5,282 views
http://imgur.com/YdQvjgI

(This is not the account banned, as I found out those accounts cannot post on boards, it redirects to an error page.)

So I have been chat banned before, which is okay. Only once in 5 years, actually. I have always been the type to get mad, usually when I am flamed first. So around a month or two ago, I was chat banned, then banned for 14 days. In both instances I was responding to flame, not instigating. Both times it was because a duo flamed and reported me, rather than a single person. Very few times have I been told the person I reported was punished, but here I am, all at once. This is obviously due to the new robot system they use to pick out the flamers, but it didn't acknowledge the afk person or anything they said.

Mostly what led to the report was him calling me adopted and me responding by calling him an autist. Now, I don't condone this behavior at all, but a logical response to being flamed is to flame back. It is human nature. But when the report system is based on just someone being rude to you, why is there a mute option? If muting removes all hostility chat-wise, why is it a reportable offense? I have been playing for five years and had over $600 dollars in this game, but now it is all to waste. It was my birthday yesterday and I bought myself Star Guardian Jinx today for my me-celebration. But a natural, human response to me being provoked led to a permanent ban. I could keep playing on a new account, which would be completely fine. However, I now lose more than half a thousand dollars, prompting me to write this.

I am specifically targeting the new system, or Instant Feedback, as Riot calls it. In real life, are instant, unresearched answers ever better than a thought-out, methodical approach? No. And I am aware there are too many players to go through. For a perma-ban, I do not think an instant system should be in use, and as much as I would like to plead for a case reviewal, I am aware Riot takes no time or effort for this kind of thing, as I researched the topic and found that many had asked Riot and pleaded to no avail, with one even having Riot Lyte respond. I am aware that due to the terms I, and we all, agreed to that I have no legal right to my account or the money value attached to it, but I do believe it should not be completely wasted. If I could choose another account to send it it to, it'd be great. Of course that would mean that there are no consequences, but what if I split it up between several friends? It is really the monetary issue bothering me.

I get that toxicity is bad. So put emphasis on the mute button, not a perma-ban for a 5 year account. With such a toxic community, one would think it would make more sense to address the issue, not every player infected by it. Imagine how many people would be banned if every person was being scanned by this algorithm at the same time. I know it would be a massive percentage, since I only have 3 offenses, and many have many more. Riot has essentially sided with the person who flames first, acts like a victim, and has a buddy with them to report with him.

I assume that there are many players who can relate to this, and I hope they respond. It is a natural thing. Riot is essentially telling us to remove our thought of freedom of speech and targeting anyone who has even mild anger issues.

I believe it would be better to have an actual in depth review on who flamed who and who the blame should be on, in the case of a perma-ban. I have no closure since it was a robot who decided me being reported by two people was a better choice than banning the person reported by only one person. They probably feel great that I was punished, but it could have just been me having an off day or, as mentioned before, just having natural human response. I would personally like to petition Riot to reconsider and revamp the ban system, especially for perma-bans, even if it does not affect the status of my beloved account.

So, finally, I am likely going to bring this to a close by calling this my official resignation letter from League of Legends. I apologize for not being the perfect role model who has only had 3 offenses recognized by Riot in 5 years, which is apparently enough to have an algorithm ban me forever.

70 Comments

EvilDustMan8 votes

I am also HIGHLY amused by the fact you say 'the mute button is there for toxic chat' when you clearly got in trouble several times for not using the mute button yourself in response to flaming.

You are eloquent now, but the fact is, you have a history of using flaming to respond to your problems when flaming is only going to ever make things worse, not better.

And if flaming is the natural response, why is the permaban rate only .06%? Seems a lot of people in the game aren't human.

vOmvbrawfU1 votes

I'd like to see an update on that number tbh.

EvilDustMan2 votes

[{quoted}](name=Sharkbait Ohaha,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4EvRREIH,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2017-04-09T13:08:12.446+0000)

I'd like to see an update on that number tbh.

It is an old number, sure.

vOmvbrawfU1 votes

That number was back from when you had to actually be toxic enough for a perma. Now you can be toxic enough for just a 10 game chat restriction, but if you do it enough, you'll get perma'd. I'd imagine that number is A LOT higher.

Also, what bugs me about that number, is that people just make a new account after getting banned. So the number is going to be not very accurate in it's own right.

EvilDustMan3 votes

[{quoted}](name=Sharkbait Ohaha,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4EvRREIH,comment-id=0005000000000000,timestamp=2017-04-09T14:20:30.064+0000)

That number was back from when you had to actually be toxic enough for a perma. Now you can be toxic enough for just a 10 game chat restriction, but if you do it enough, you'll get perma'd. I'd imagine that number is A LOT higher.

Also, what bugs me about that number, is that people just make a new account after getting banned. So the number is going to be not very accurate in it's own right.

Ah, no. That number is from the IFS, which works the same now as it did when that number came out.

The 4 strike system has always worked that way.

And we'd have to have a separate number for repeat offenders. Yes, people make a new account, but I doubt it is the endless revolving door people make it out to be.

vOmvbrawfU1 votes

Ah, no. That number is from the IFS, which works the same now as it did when that number came out.

Can you link that please? I was unaware they made any type of statistic after the new 4-strike penalty came out. Also, how long after the 4-strikes came out was that released?

And we'd have to have a separate number for repeat offenders. Yes, people make a new account, but I doubt it is the endless revolving door people make it out to be.

Create a new account and go play with low levels lol.

EvilDustMan1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Sharkbait Ohaha,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4EvRREIH,comment-id=000500000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-04-09T15:04:59.609+0000)

Can you link that please? I was unaware they made any type of statistic after the new 4-strike penalty came out. Also, how long after the 4-strikes came out was that released?

Create a new account and go play with low levels lol.

Can't find the direct quote, it looks like. It was probably something Lyte said in a thread but never on a website.

vOmvbrawfU1 votes

I'm not sure Lyte was still here when the new system was made. Could be wrong on that one, but I definitely don't remember any new numbers coming out about it.

I'd love for rito to update on toxicity numbers as well as daily players numbers.

EvilDustMan1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Sharkbait Ohaha,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4EvRREIH,comment-id=00050000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-04-10T09:46:24.602+0000)

I'm not sure Lyte was still here when the new system was made. Could be wrong on that one, but I definitely don't remember any new numbers coming out about it.

I'd love for rito to update on toxicity numbers as well as daily players numbers.

The system hasn't changed since Lyte left.

vOmvbrawfU1 votes

After a quick search, it seems as though the new system was in place before Lyte left. That being said, however, the posts I've found about it had other rito members, didn't see Lyte. So I'm guessing the new system was being put in place with the notion that Lyte already knew he was leaving.

EvilDustMan1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Sharkbait Ohaha,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4EvRREIH,comment-id=0005000000000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2017-04-10T10:21:31.110+0000)

After a quick search, it seems as though the new system was in place before Lyte left. That being said, however, the posts I've found about it had other rito members, didn't see Lyte. So I'm guessing the new system was being put in place with the notion that Lyte already knew he was leaving.

The first posts about it on the website were by Lyte, about a year before he left.

Zezockary5 votes

{quoted}

So I have been chat banned before, which is okay. Only once in 5 years, actually. I have always been the type to get mad, usually when I am flamed first. So around a month or two ago, I was chat banned, then banned for 14 days. In both instances I was responding to flame, not instigating.

Context does not matter, flame is flame and Riot does not want it in their game.

{quoted}

Both times it was because a duo flamed and reported me, rather than a single person.

Multiple reports in a game does not make the system check the game any harder. You get reported, your game gets reviewed.

{quoted}

(This is not the account banned, as I found out those accounts cannot post on boards, it redirects to an error page.)

This is obviously due to the new robot system they use to pick out the flamers, but it didn't acknowledge the afk person or anything they said.

If by new you mean over two years old, then yeah. Also, the other person's case is not your business, we are talking about you and your questions. You have no idea what their record of similar behavior is, and as you have said you have a history of punishments, having climbed all the way up the punishment ladder to a permanent suspension. You have no idea if the people in question were punished and have no way of finding out unless you ask them directly.

{quoted}

Mostly what led to the report was him calling me adopted and me responding by calling him an autist. Now, I don't condone this behavior at all, but a logical response to being flamed is to flame back. It is human nature.

Really? Because mine is to mute them, report them at the end of the game, and move on with my life. I have never told anybody that they have autism before, and I have been flamed before.

{quoted}

But when the report system is based on just someone being rude to you, why is there a mute option? If muting removes all hostility chat-wise, why is it a reportable offense?

Because by the time somebody knows to use the mute option you have already had a negative impact on the game.

{quoted}

I have been playing for five years and had over $600 dollars in this game, but now it is all to waste.

You paid for content that you received, not for immunity from the rules.

{quoted}

It was my birthday yesterday and I bought myself Star Guardian Jinx today for my me-celebration.

Happy late birthday.

{quoted}

I am specifically targeting the new system, or Instant Feedback, as Riot calls it. In real life, are instant, unresearched answers ever better than a thought-out, methodical approach? No. And I am aware there are too many players to go through. For a perma-ban, I do not think an instant system should be in use, and as much as I would like to plead for a case reviewal, I am aware Riot takes no time or effort for this kind of thing, as I researched the topic and found that many had asked Riot and pleaded to no avail, with one even having Riot Lyte respond.

The answer given in this case was not unresearched, in fact you have admitted to performing the action that got you punished. The IFS is in place for cases such as these because of its very high success rate compared to humans and its unrivaled speed. In the past Riot has been open to overturning or lower punishments that were issued in error or were too harsh. Also, your statement about Riot not taking time or effort to fulfill requests to check for erroneous punishments is false. The accounts you speak of have had their accounts reviewed and it was determined that their punishments were not an error.

{quoted}

I am aware that due to the terms I, and we all, agreed to that I have no legal right to my account or the money value attached to it, but I do believe it should not be completely wasted. If I could choose another account to send it it to, it'd be great. Of course that would mean that there are no consequences, but what if I split it up between several friends? It is really the monetary issue bothering me.

If you have issues with losing the money you put onto your account then you should not have continued your behavior even after being warned multiple times.

{quoted}

I get that toxicity is bad. So put emphasis on the mute button, not a perma-ban for a 5 year account. With such a toxic community, one would think it would make more sense to address the issue, not every player infected by it. Imagine how many people would be banned if every person was being scanned by this algorithm at the same time. I know it would be a massive percentage, since I only have 3 offenses, and many have many more.

Every game that is reported gets reviewed. Your argument contains misinformation. The only way currently for people to not be punished after behaving this way is not be reported by even a single person in the game in question, or to not have a history of this behavior when behaving this way. Riot is only siding against people who show toxicity, if both you and the other person are then they will punish both of you.

{quoted}

I assume that there are many players who can relate to this, and I hope they respond. It is a natural thing. Riot is essentially telling us to remove our thought of freedom of speech and targeting anyone who has even mild anger issues.

Freedom of speech only protects you from the government, it does not prevent private organisations from having rules targeting your speech. It also does not protect you from the consequences of your words.

{quoted}

I believe it would be better to have an actual in depth review on who flamed who and who the blame should be on, in the case of a perma-ban.

There was an in depth review of your behavior that lead to your punishment, the fact that it was done by an automated system changes nothing.

{quoted}

but it could have just been me having an off day or, as mentioned before, just having natural human response.

Except that you have been punishment multiple times in the past, and based on what you have said show no signs of improving your behavior.

{quoted}

So, finally, I am likely going to bring this to a close by calling this my official resignation letter from League of Legends. I apologize for not being the perfect role model who has only had 3 offenses recognized by Riot in 5 years, which is apparently enough to have an algorithm ban me forever.

I hope that you are successful in your future endeavors.

TrulyBland4 votes

In both instances I was responding to flame, not instigating.

Then you should have learned, through those instances, that you shouldn't do exactly that.

You jump through a lot of hoops and use a lot of fallacies to justify your behaviour, but the bottom line is: You knew that what you did was punishable. And if you cared enough to actually read the email they sent you for your 14-day ban, you also knew that you would be permanently banned if you continue.

Erafumo1 votes

Actually, no, the message that popped up on League for the 14 day ban only said the next punishment would be a 3 month ban, not permanent. And also, my argument is not that I am infallible and the behavior is good, it is that the system for reviewing permanent bans is inherently broken and I believe it should be fixed to prevent others from this.

TrulyBland4 votes

Really? The automated non-customized message that popped up on League, which says the next punishment is a perma ban for literally everybody else, managed to tell you that the next punishment would be one that has never existed in the entire history of League of Legends? That seems like a massive oversight on Riot's end... /sarcasm

Also, how is the system broken? You admitted your behaviour. What is the mistake the system did in your case?

Erafumo1 votes

I have explained the anti argument to this several times, please read elsewhere

TrulyBland1 votes

No, you really haven't. You're making vague assumptions, that are neither based on any tangible evidence, nor explain actually in detail what the system according to you is lacking.

Edit: With the exception of time between punishments (which it takes into account), the time before punishments (which Riot manually also doesn't take into account because it bears no significance) and "what was actually said", which once again is taken into account exactly the same way a manual reviewer of Riot would take it into account, and largely the same as Tribunal did.

SrbLud3 votes

10 games chat restriction 25 games chat restriction 14 day ban Permanent ban

There is no such thing as a 3 month ban.

Erafumo2 votes

Ah, I see. I tried looking it up. Do they skip steps sometimes?

SrbLud2 votes

If you are extremely toxic or intentionally feeding trough multiple games you can skip tiers.

SrbLud4 votes

It was your choice to respond to flaming. If someone is toxic it doesn't mean you have instant immunity to be toxic as well. You didn't get banned because of them flaming you. You got banned because you chose to become the part of the problem.

o Maui o2 votes

Mostly what led to the report was him calling me adopted and me responding by calling him an autist. Now, I don't condone this behavior at all, but a logical response to being flamed is to flame back. It is human nature.

You understand that what you said isn't acceptable. It's understandable, because people who get upset sometimes do unfortunate things, but that doesn't make it okay, and I think you know that. And I think you also understand that your response wasn't logical. Logic tells you to ignore the provocation; emotion tells you to respond. In this case, you let your emotions get the better of you. Again, understandable--but not acceptable, and there are consequences for those actions.

But when the report system is based on just someone being rude to you, why is there a mute option? If muting removes all hostility chat-wise, why is it a reportable offense?

The function of the report system is to ensure the health of the game in the long term by identifying players who are routinely creating a toxic environment for their teammates. The mute button exists to give players a short-term solution to finding themselves in a toxic environment. They serve very different functions.

Erafumo1 votes

I would agree with everything you said, except that this minor, single event along with two minor offenses is enough to perma ban and the others in that game had no repercussions.__

EvilDustMan4 votes

{quoted}

the others in that game had no repercussions.__

That you know of.

Erafumo1 votes

No, if someone is punished due to reports, it tells you that immediately, hence Instant Feedback.__

EvilDustMan1 votes

{quoted}

No, if someone is punished due to reports, it tells you that immediately, hence Instant Feedback.__

It should. It hasn't for a long while unless that is the report that did it. Riot has acknowledged this and is working to give the system more transparency and feedback.

ModUlanopo2 votes

Only receiving the notice when your report triggered the ban is "working as intended" according to Riot. It was always intentional. Riot believes that too many notices would make people frustrated with them. They also believe the number of people who want an opt-in is really small.

TrulyBland7 votes

It's called the instant feedback system because people instantly receive the feedback for their own behaviour (in form of punishments), rather than after a long period of processing the case (like back in the days of Tribunal). It does not refer to the pop-up that you get when somebody reported has been punished, which btw only shows up when your report was the "final straw" that got them a punishment.

AlienPrimate2 votes

This is why I want the tribunal back. Having multiple people review the chat logs in each game you were reported in leading up to your ban ensures that the context of each situation is considered. When you have people reporting each other left and right you need an actual person to decide who is actually at fault and not a machine.

o Maui o2 votes

If there are three people flaming each other and being toxic in chat, they are all at fault regardless of who started it. One person's extreme toxicity does not excuse another person's mild toxicity.

AlienPrimate2 votes

Which is for the tribunal to decide. I had 100% accuracy in my verdicts using the tribunal. I know a toxic player when I see it and honestly, I saw a lot of stupid reports in the tribunal. A lot of people get reported for maybe being a little rude for 2 comments in defense of themselves or someone else and that's it.

ModUlanopo7 votes

A lot of people get reported for maybe being a little rude for 2 comments in defense of themselves or someone else and that's it.

I think there are two things going on here:

  • It's never okay to respond to toxicity with more toxicity. If you can defend yourself without causing more toxicity, that's cool.

  • The IFS doesn't just say "hey, there's some toxicity here. WHAM, TAKE THAT BAN AND LIKE IT!!!! While the context of the toxicity is irrelevant, the IFS takes the frequency and intensity of the toxicity into consideration, along with account history.

AlienPrimate2 votes

I said rude, I didn't necessarily say toxic. Here is an example. Someone is flaming a teammate for having a bad game and I respond to them with something along the lines of "you are just too good for us to be on your level."

Would you consider such a statement to be toxic?

ModUlanopo4 votes

I consider it unnecessary, but it's not toxic by itself. On the other hand, just having a spat in chat can be toxic. In the days of the Tribunal, there was a strong correlation between number of lines of text and likelihood of punishment. People don't care for arguments and rightfully so. They want everyone to concentrate on the game.

Scary Door1 votes

I like how you're getting downvoted despite the fact that you're being reasonable.

What used to be so appealing about League of Legends was that the community set the standard for what was acceptable behavior. I had a 95% Tribunal accuracy with around 6,000 cases... In almost all of them, the instigator would be punished. I had numerous cases in which someone would report the guy that finally cracked and said "fuck you" as a single response (or maybe a couple of lines of response) and invariably, that person would be overwhelmingly voted "Don't Punish".

I can't tell you how many games I see someone get absolutely destroyed in chat for making a mistake or, often, not playing the way someone thinks they should and after 25 minutes of this I might chime in and say "hey, just leave them alone already, shut up and play" -- is that toxic? maybe, but when I started playing this game that was what the community thought was an appropriate response.

Players policing themselves, not some silly computer that is easily outwitted by 10 year olds to avoid saying the "keywords" that get them banned. It's pretty easy to outsmart a machine, much harder to outsmart an entire community.

AlienPrimate1 votes

People now days don't like reasonability. All they want is conformity. If someone doesn't agree with them, they hate them for it. This is getting a little bit into politics but the tribunal is politics. I'm a hardcore conservative who is totally against the things that conservatives are against like welfare programs. Liberals immediately label it as hate and then close their ears to very reasonably arguments just because I don't agree with what they think is their perfect utopia.

I don't want foreigners from countries that are against everything the western world is for coming into the country so I'm a hateful racist. I think abortion is murder so I'm hateful towards women. I think the wage gap is a crock so I'm hateful towards women and minorities. I think perpetual welfare should be done away with so I'm hateful towards the poor (lazy). I think marriage is between a man and woman so I'm hateful towards homosexuals.

All this talk from liberals about conservatives being hateful is really just liberals being hateful themselves and closing out any kind of reasoning.

/rant (until the liberals come crying)

EvilDustMan1 votes

{quoted}

I think perpetual welfare should be done away with so I'm hateful towards the poor (lazy).

You are hilariously ignorant.

AlienPrimate1 votes

Then inform me instead of insulting me. Typical liberal tactic. Don't like what I have to say so you insult me instead of using reasoning. I have no problem with helping people for a couple months WHILE THEY LOOK FOR A JOB. Let's be honest. If you are on welfare for more than a couple months you flat out don't want to work or are doing things that make it so no one will hire you. My biggest problem with welfare is that when someone who does have a steady income suddenly becomes unable to work, they are declined any kind of assistance. I know this for a fact because my parents were denied assistance when the housing market crashed in 2008. My dad is a carpenter who didn't make a dime for about 8 months and was denied help because he made too much money the previous year.

EvilDustMan1 votes

{quoted}

Then inform me instead of insulting me. Typical liberal tactic. Don't like what I have to say so you insult me instead of using reasoning. I have no problem with helping people for a couple months WHILE THEY LOOK FOR A JOB. Let's be honest. If you are on welfare for more than a couple months you flat out don't want to work or are doing things that make it so no one will hire you. My biggest problem with welfare is that when someone who does have a steady income suddenly becomes unable to work, they are declined any kind of assistance. I know this for a fact because my parents were denied assistance when the housing market crashed in 2008. My dad is a carpenter who didn't make a dime for about 8 months and was denied help because he made too much money the previous year.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-paradox-of-poverty-is-almost-impossible-to-escape-2014-11

http://www.wnyc.org/story/who-deserves-to-be-poor/

http://www.demos.org/blog/3/14/16/how-family-poverty-works

http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/11/why-poor-people-stay-poor

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/it-is-expensive-to-be-poor/282979/

http://wilsonquarterly.com/stories/why-rich-kids-become-rich-adults-and-poor-kids-become-poor-adults/

Do yourself a favor and read. I used to think this way, but poverty is a pit with massive sides. Hell, I milk the system for all its worth because I have a brother who will never get better, a mother who is borderline psychotic, and I can't get a 'real job' because I have to take them to appointments all the time.

Unfortunate to hear about your dad, I'm sorry to hear you didn't have enough in savings.

EvilDustMan1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Scary Door,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4EvRREIH,comment-id=000a00000000000000000001,timestamp=2017-04-08T23:23:05.226+0000)

I can't tell you how many games I see someone get absolutely destroyed in chat for making a mistake or, often, not playing the way someone thinks they should and after 25 minutes of this I might chime in and say "hey, just leave them alone already, shut up and play" --

Shut up and play might not work, it would probably escalate the situation. I'd say 'just focus and play'. Not that shut up and play is SUPER OFFENSIVE, but you gotta think 'if I'm all heated up and someone tells me to shut up, is that going to make me be reasonable?' And just saying that won't get you punished.

Look, the OP doesn't have chatlogs, but anyone who uses the word 'autist' in response immediately is not going to have simple clean chat logs. If this were just 'hey, can you guys just focus on the game', it would be a completely different story.

TrulyBland1 votes

Nice that you would share your own accuracy before attacking Riot's current system. And with such a convenient number, too.

The current system had roughly an error every 1 in 6000 punishments, as opposed to your 300. And that was when it was still being calibrated.

Also: The blanket statement that a "silly computer" can be outwitted is extremely ignorant. The system neither uses specific keywords, nor does it exclusively ban people who are younger than 10 years old. People regularly come onto the forums to complain about being punished despite not using any "bad words".

Scary Door1 votes

Speaking of convenient numbers---how do you know that the error rate is 1-in-6000? Because Riot told you so? If their system was so incredible then there would be far fewer instances of toxicity in this game, period.

It's not ignorant to say that the current system can be outwitted. Any system that is primarily devoid of human oversight can be easily circumvented. I won't link the Summoner here (due to name-and-shame rules), but there is an individual that feeds intentionally every five games or so and has participated in that activity since 2015... I've played a game with this person and they openly laughed in the post game about "reports doing nothing", while looking at that individual's match history it was very clear to see that they had been doing this every few games for two or more years.

In the Tribunal system, that individual would have been easily punished by the community, but because of how this person intentionally feeds they are clearly beating the system.

I've played with exceptionally toxic people who are still playing today. I have numerous profiles of the worst offenders saved. This also includes profiles of easily to spot MMR boosted accounts. The garbage automated system doesn't catch that either.

Now, you can say "but but but, what about the people that come to the Boards that ARE banned", in nearly every case they claim innocence but looking at their chat logs they all use the same key words, calling another player a sexually pejorative term, using racial slurs, etc. Once in a while you'll see the guy that just spams the same messages 300 times in a game and is banned for that... all very easy algorithms for a machine to pick up on. Passive-aggressive play or the issues I mentioned above are clearly not detected by Riot's neat gizmos, and subsequently, human oversight is required, period.

EvilDustMan1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Scary Door,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=4EvRREIH,comment-id=000a0000000000000000000100020000,timestamp=2017-04-09T12:46:36.167+0000)

Speaking of convenient numbers---how do you know that the error rate is 1-in-6000? Because Riot told you so? If their system was so incredible then there would be far fewer instances of toxicity in this game, period.

It's not ignorant to say that the current system can be outwitted. Any system that is primarily devoid of human oversight can be easily circumvented. I won't link the Summoner here (due to name-and-shame rules), but there is an individual that feeds intentionally every five games or so and has participated in that activity since 2015... I've played a game with this person and they openly laughed in the post game about "reports doing nothing", while looking at that individual's match history it was very clear to see that they had been doing this every few games for two or more years.

In the Tribunal system, that individual would have been easily punished by the community, but because of how this person intentionally feeds they are clearly beating the system.

I've played with exceptionally toxic people who are still playing today. I have numerous profiles of the worst offenders saved. This also includes profiles of easily to spot MMR boosted accounts. The garbage automated system doesn't catch that either.

Now, you can say "but but but, what about the people that come to the Boards that ARE banned", in nearly every case they claim innocence but looking at their chat logs they all use the same key words, calling another player a sexually pejorative term, using racial slurs, etc. Once in a while you'll see the guy that just spams the same messages 300 times in a game and is banned for that... all very easy algorithms for a machine to pick up on. Passive-aggressive play or the issues I mentioned above are clearly not detected by Riot's neat gizmos, and subsequently, human oversight is required, period.

You realize your experience is such a small fraction of your own history of games. Which in turn is a tiny fraction of games played, right?

TrulyBland1 votes

How do I know you have 95% accuracy in Tribunal? Frankly, you have more reason to lie about it than Riot. Why would Riot go with an objectively worse system and then lie about how good it actually is? Besides, what evidence do you have that would suggest it's false? It's rare to find a "real" unjust case on the forums... and you'd think that people who actually know that they are innocent would be more likely to come here to complain.

Btw: That 1 in 6000 is the false positive rate, which is a measure of specificity. My bad, should have specified that. But I feel like specificity is the more important subject given that OP claims to have been unjustly punished. Deterring people from being toxic (or removing them from the community) on the other hand requires a high sensitivity. Those are two entirely different (and often conflicting) attributes. Depending on whether you want to look at the sensitivity per case or the sensitivity "per time" the Tribunal was also way worse in this aspect, since it took ages to actually punish people.

There's definitely a problem with automated detection of feeding... But Tribunal had similar problems since people often simply lacked the information to accurately determine whether or not somebody was intentionally feeding. But once again, this is a different subject. You were clearly talking about chat toxicity, as otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned keywords.

And once again: People do get banned for sarcasm and passive aggressive behaviour. You focus on what is easy for a machine to pick up and directly assume that it is the only think it can pick up. And that is exactly why I called you ignorant. The most critical part of your entire argument is backed up by nothing but handwaving.

Scary Door1 votes

You have no evidence as to the accuracy of your assessment. You have the word of the company that has repeatedly provided false information, or more aptly, lied to it's customers regarding various other projects. Quite infamously, of course, is where they said that reverse camera implementation would take place in a "couple weeks" in 2009. Let's not even get into everything about solo queue from last season, the equally infamous Warwick update from 2012 or other well documented and chronicled misleading statements Riot has provided.

I think most importantly is that they stated the Tribunal would return in 2014/2015 and it never did...

If someone is willing to lie to you about one thing, what is to make you believe them regarding something else? Maybe they're telling you the truth, maybe they're not, but I think the best way to demonstrate how effective their system happens to be is simply by experiencing it yourself.

I challenge anyone to play 20 normal draft games of Summoner's Rift (or ranked for that matter) in any MMR under Master tier (I say under master tier because you're likely to get different players every game) and see how many games/players violate the Summoner's code.

In the last year, I have reported someone in AT LEAST 25% of my games.

If this system was so effective, why are intentional feeders still occurring? Why am I told to "kys" several times a week, why am I encountering someone that says "good job" after someone on their own team gives up first blood? I see this with a fair degree of frequency, far more than I ever did when I started playing in 2011. Sure, there are more players now than back then, but your magical machine-learning technology that you so vigorously and seemingly blindly defend as the panacea is CLEARLY not working... or is inefficient and only eliminates extreme cases.

There is no counter argument to that, period.

TrulyBland1 votes

This, precisely this, is why Riot is among the very few companies that are willing to communicate with their playerbase directly, rather than through the proxy of PR experts. Every wrong ETA, every honest mistake, every change of mind is turned into a lie by people like you.

And you still keep trying to diver the discussion. How effective the system is was never the point. The question is how effective it is compared to Tribunal. And your personal memory of how it used to be does little to show that, given how prone to bias personal memory is.

And once again: There's no counter argument to that, because it's a handwaving argument. Anecdotal evidence followed by the statement that something is "clearly" the case has no substance that could be countered.

I mean how about you try to counter the following argument: I personally remember toxicity being worse during Tribunal times. So CLEARLY the current system is working better.

Scary Door1 votes

{quoted}

I mean how about you try to counter the following argument: I personally remember toxicity being worse during Tribunal times. So CLEARLY the current system is working better.

As I said before, play 20 games... or, if you like, I'll record my next 20 games and show them to you unedited and unfiltered so you can see the system (that you are strangely defending) at work. It's not really anecdotal if it can be easily proven by real world examples time and again. As I stated (and you ignored), I can easily link you to many accounts of individuals that intentionally feed, are proven and admitted MMR boosted accounts and individuals that are toxic on a consistent basis that have not and likely will not be banned.

I'm just curious why you're defending them so vigorously? What's with the fanboy behavior?

TrulyBland1 votes

Once again: How effective the current system is means jack shit if it was worse during Tribunal. Because that's what we are arguing about: Whether the current system is better than Tribunal.

Also once again: I personally remember toxicity to be worse during Tribunal. Playing 20 games won't change that. Your 20 games won't change that. Now stop dancing around the issue: How do you counter my "argument". How do you counter my personal experience and memory?

That's what anecdotal evidence means. It cannot be countered, but it really doesn't add anything substantial to the discussion either.

Oh, and I can claim that it can be "easily proven by real world examples time and again", as well. But simply claiming that is the equivalent of saying "studies would show I'm right". You can't back up your anecdotal evidence by using fictional statistics, that are based on your anecdotal evidence.

Your point about linking accounts is honestly just grasping straws. Being able to link me to "many" accounts doesn't even remotely prove anything. Many accounts in this context would probably still be only about a millionth of the player base. Claiming they "likely will not be banned" is once again you trying to use a piece of evidence you yourself made up. MMR boosting is banned in waves to avoid them figuring out the exact detection algorithms... but hey, MMR boosting is not even covered by the instant feedback system (or Tribunal) to begin with. And none of that, once again, backs up the claim that Tribunal was any fucking better.

AlienPrimate1 votes

He voted 95% with the majority. The ones that he wasn't with the majority were probably close to 50-50 and minor penalties like x game chat ban would be implemented. In 2-week ban and permaban cases, he likely had 100% accuracy. The tribunal was just a jury with a majority vote instead of the unanimous decision we have in the United States. Most cases were easy punish votes and few were easy don't punish votes but sometimes you came across something that was borderline and majority rules. In an automated system there is no borderline taking a second opinion. It is just if you pass a certain threshold that a person programmed you are immediately found guilty with no look at context.

If you haven't seen the movie 12 angry men I highly suggest watching it. One man creates a hung jury because he believes the defendant is innocent. It was a 1/11 vote and the 1 was actually in the right. Not voting with the majority doesn't mean that you are wrong.

Chønklord1 votes

Tribunal doesn't exist anymore bud and it ain't coming back.

More from Player Behavior