Boards›Player Behavior

Give us Back Tribunal - Reworked

ALittleBlueGuy69·5/5/2019, 3:43:21 AM·5 votes·1,869 views

The top post in Player Behavior currently is spot on - Riot puts so much focus on punishing people who are keyboard warriors that it completely neglects the kind of behavior that create the environment that everyone complains about today. I can mute the guy that uses naughty words, I can't do anything about the laner who hard ints his lane and says "sorry, bad game" when any person with the IQ of a potato knew he was inting.

So give us back our tribunal and fix it. One of the commentors in the other thread claimed that bringing back the tribunal was a bad idea, and he's incorrect. The tribunal is a beautiful idea, but needs a tweak. Anyone who has played CS:GO has seen a well-functioning system in action. The system should be anonymous and replay based, not chat based. Let multiple players who view the case vote to decide whether or not a person should be punished and restrict the population who can view and decide on cases to non-toxic players with at least a particular honor ranking, as well as a "time played" so you don't get new accounts right off the bat.

I get that a program can't easily determine a bad game from a true intentional feeder, but so help me we can. Why don't we fix this?

Thanks guys for the discussion!

10 Comments

rujitra5/5/2019, 4:14:14 AM5 votes

Anyone who thinks CSGO is an example of a well functioning system...

zPOOPz5/5/2019, 3:46:34 AM4 votes

Old Tribunal already had low participants and it doesn't even take long to read a chat log. Restricting the potential participants pool even further and it will take about 5 months to punish someone. Meanwhile, you have to disable FeederBuster because there would be no point turning that on on top of Tribunal, so now you have people able to int free of punishment for months regardless of how many reports he gets. I don't think it will have the effect you seem to think it will have. In fact, there will be even LESS inter getting punished in a timely manner than now.

Umbral Regent5/5/2019, 4:27:04 AM3 votes

The system should be anonymous and replay based, not chat based.

Define "anonymous". The old Tribunal already was anonymous on the part of the voters, and IIRC (It's been 5~ years, so my memory's hazy), even the case subject was anonymous. I could have that wrong, though, so, again, pardon.

Beyond that, if it's a replay, the anonymity would only go insofar as hiding their screenname; the Champion they play would have to be known at the least for a review to actually be held.

...and restrict the population who can view and decide on cases to non-toxic players with at least a particular honor ranking...

Here's where we start running into more legitimate problems; for one, one of the major reasons the Tribunal was iceboxed is that, while League's population exploded, the amount of active Tribunal members declined. Restricting the pool of players who can use the Tribunal would naturally limit its efficacy, which, again; too few participants == a bad system.

Beyond that, using Honor Level as a means to gate participation is a bad idea for a few reasons, first and foremost; Honor is not reliably indicative of whether or not a player is toxic. There are certainly toxic players out there who will still eventually wind up at Honor Level 5, and so Honor Level isn't a valid metric for determining whether or not players are toxic.

On top of that, gating Tribunal participation behind Honor Level leaves the Tribunal basically defective for a number of months. Even if you restrict Tribunal participation to Honor Level 3, you're keeping the Tribunal inactive until at least late March/early April, roughly, and worse if you're restricting participation to higher Honor Levels like 4 or 5.

If the system isn't going to be active until a few months into the year, going down around the time of the yearly Honor Level reset, then what's the point of having the system in the first place? It's either always active, or not at all.

I get that a program can't easily determine a bad game from a true intentional feeder, but so help me we can.

Surprisingly, even people have an extremely hard time discerning intentional feeders from players who just get their asses handed to them.

Believe it or not, humans are actually more flawed than an automated system, even if, in this regard, that margin is a small one.

PandaskinBen5/5/2019, 4:05:01 AM2 votes

Because that solves one of the biggest issues of the Tribunal! That fact it runs at a snails pace.

Also, I don't trust peoples input. If it was peer reviewed, my Camille ARAM game earlier on main account probably would get punished. Why do I think that? Because I got a mother fucking D+. I tried though.

9055/5/2019, 4:49:49 AM2 votes

Agreed. The chat box in the report thingie is just so they can later print it out and wipe their asses with your complaint. The system right now is broken and punishes good players, while leaving all sorts of trolls etc. untouched.