I have a question about the honesty policy.
If I report players but they aren't toxic often enough to get banned, but my report was truthful nonetheless, how is that reflected on me? How does the system know I was being truthful if the account reported was never manually reviewed and never auto-punished by the system?
The system is built to handle such situations. I supposed if there was a short period where you reported a bunch of people who were borderline but ended up not banned, it's possible that your report weight might take a slight and brief dip before going back up to full weighting, but I also feel like that's probably pretty unlikely. The players who end up with all of their report weighting removed are the ones who heavily abuse the feature.
I haven't seen much information about the specifics of how report weights work.
So it takes a certain number of reports for a person to even be reviewed. So to me the most logical way to do it would be to have reports remain neutral until the person you reported gets reviewed at which point it would change to either invalid or valid.
I'm also not sure how important report weights even are anymore. It was extremely important back in the day because the system heavily relied on report volume for accuracy. If the average person gets reported in say 5% of games then the further you get over that the more confidence that you can have that the person is doing something wrong. Now it seems like the only real purpose for report weights is to cut costs by avoiding scans based on frivolous reports.
