Tribunal
I think we need it back now more than ever. BRING IT BACK!
I think we need it back now more than ever. BRING IT BACK!
Why? What compelling reason is there to bring back a system that's old, outdated, unreliable, and slow to the point of punishing people months after the offense?
Lets see those logs then, lmao.
Let me guess - you think you wouldn't have been punished if the Tribinal judged your case?
Boy are you wrong.
Many years ago, LoL's behavior system used something called the Tribunal, comprising player volunteers who logged into a system that showed them chat logs from reported players. Those volunteers would then vote on whether to punish or pardon the reported player's case. This system's main flaw was that it simply took far too long due to LoL's huge playerbase. Participants would often be reviewing chat logs that were several months old, with a growing backlog. In addition to that, not every participant took the task seriously: some would spam the same verdict for every case without even reading the chat log, or even invert their verdicts on purpose.
The current system, called the Instant Feedback System, or IFS, is automated software that uses machine learning to determine what behavior should be punishable and when a player's behavior should be punished. It started with data from the Tribunal, and has been learning and adapting for years. It operates on the same basic principles as a spam filter: get a corpus of data (emails/chat logs), have humans categorize each item as acceptable or unacceptable, find patterns within each category, and then finally look for those patterns to automatically categorize new items without direct human evaluation. Each report is like clicking the "spam" button. When a new pattern starts to get lots of reports, the IFS recognizes it as a new form of toxicity.
The IFS is efficient and unbiased. The Tribunal was not.
I'm kinda in favor of the return of Tribunal. Not because it works, but because you think it works. Sometimes people just need to feel at their own scale that something is done, and giving to players a mere % of the total cases to be manually reviewed without telling them the bot is still doing almost all the job would be a nice placebo.
I even suspect it was already the case back then, because the reviews were pretty straightforward, from memory you were given simple situations, with players reported on several games and usually the guilt was easy to figure out. I was doing my task at the Tribunal very seriously and I can't remember more than a couple cases where I really struggled deciding what to vote. We were far from convoluted plots that a machine would have trouble understanding.
Can't have the best of both worlds unless we get advanced AI. I would prefer humans judging the logs but its a daunting task and I don't think that Riot can afford the manpower for it. Or maybe, would be willing to spend the money on it when the 'IFS' system is just a one time software they dished out money on.
I enjoyed the Tribunal better. But there's always human error. There were some people who'd mess around, invert judgments for fun etc. Those could have been solved by manual Riot appraisal and giving the Tribunal jury spot as a chance, not giving everyone the luxury to play jury. Rewarding those who gave the right judgments etc. with special rewards. Honestly, they could have done so much more with the Tribunal than they tried. The only place I think that the IFS is better would be because of the 'instant' feedback. If the Tribunal finished judgments within a week, I'd be pretty happy with it.
No, the system we have now (which was made with data gathered from the Tribunal) while not perfect is far more effective than the Tribunal ever was. From Riot Tantram:
Actually, not.
The tribunal was pretty slow. So slow, that it couldn't keep up with the number of cases coming in. By the time we shut it down, people were being penalized many months .. maybe more .. after the behavior.
Maybe by the time the player was penalized they are no longer exhibiting that behavior?
But certainly, the feedback loop is so long that reform from a penalty is highly unlikely because the individual won't remember the game.