While this wont stop Inting or trolling, it would be great to have players muted to the point where they can't say anything at all! This will definitely stop flaming or saying unnecessary things and allow people to reflect on themselves and to be included they should have a smaller limit on pings like 1-3 times.
the only people who deserve perma bans are people who aren't willing to change or they use scripts
ModThe Djinn6 votes[{quoted}](name=Armored Yokai,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=IvHGHslh,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-02-15T03:26:41.639+0000) the only people who deserve perma bans are people who aren't willing to change or they use scripts
I think Riot agrees with this to a large extent, which is why they give several chances for all but the most egregious behavior. Even hate speech at least gives you a second chance to show you're willing to change your behaviors.
The reason players receive permanent bans is that they are not willing to change their behavior, or at least not to do so in the way Riot requires. It is at this point that the permanent ban typically kicks in: after Riot has seen that the warnings are not sufficient to create the needed behavioral change.
They legitimately did experiment with chat restrictions and chat muting in the past, and found that it did not help reduce toxicity enough for them to implement it as a long-term plan
AeroWaffle5 votesRiot already tried something similar. Players could constantly stack ever increasing games of chat restrictions.
They found that when such players with upwards of hundreds of games of chat restriction, they would just resort to different means of pissing off other players when they couldn't talk. Chat is just the easiest outlet for their abuse. Plugging it up just changes the outlet
BoostedMessiah1 votesRiot already tried something similar. Players could constantly stack ever increasing games of chat restrictions.
They found that when such players with upwards of hundreds of games of chat restriction, they would just resort to different means of pissing off other players when they couldn't talk. Chat is just the easiest outlet for their abuse. Plugging it up just changes the outlet
Then you ban them for griefing by some other method when they start engaging in those other methods. Assuming your punishment system is effective at punishing players when they engage in such activity. Also, how is this any different than the current state of affairs? I run into intentional feeders and ragequitters more often than people who just go off in chat. They recognize that it's far less likely that they will be punished for those forms of misbehavior. Frankly, this response just screams, "our approach is ineffective at detecting genuine game ruining behavior, but we're great at parsing text, so let's really stick it to them for that, and pretend we've solved the problem."
AeroWaffle3 votesParsing text will always be easier to do than attempting to determine intent from gameplay using machine learning. You are always responsible for what you say because you are in 100% control of what you say. How well you play game though, not so much.
If banning someone's chat permanently doesn't actually remove their toxic behavior and instead just moves it to a location that's harder to detect, what has Riot accomplished by chat banning them?
BoostedMessiah1 votesParsing text will always be easier to do than attempting to determine intent from gameplay using machine learning. You are always responsible for what you say because you are in 100% control of what you say. How well you play game though, not so much.
If banning someone's chat permanently doesn't actually remove their toxic behavior and instead just moves it to a location that's harder to detect, what has Riot accomplished by chat banning them?
If punishing people for expressing frustration through text only teaches griefers to game the system by never speaking, and intentionally feeding, or going full AFK split push mode, or actually going AFK, etc., then what exactly is the point of permabanning for text exchanges, anyway? The current system just makes misbehavior into a shell game, but apparently enough people find the proxy cathartic that Riot doesn't address the need for better systems to detect griefing playstyles. Or to bring back the Tribunal, which in addition to being very effective at determining who's playing to lose, added the weight of peer evaluation to the legitimacy of any punishment handed down. That would certainly be a viable option as well.
AeroWaffle2 votesIf punishing people for expressing frustration through text only teaches griefers to game the system by never speaking, and intentionally feeding, or going full AFK split push mode, or actually going AFK, etc., then what exactly is the point of permabanning for text exchanges, anyway?
To get them out of the game.
If a player is unwilling to change their behavior Riot would just rather them be gone. If Riot just removed the chat of someone who was unwilling to change their behavior, they'll just troll. It's better to just encourage them to leave entirely.
The current system just makes misbehavior into a shell game, but apparently enough people find the proxy cathartic that Riot doesn't address the need for better systems to detect griefing playstyles.
Here's the thing, it still needs to be a system to not ban anyone for just playing poorly. It's not even remotely a simple problem to fix.
Or to bring back the Tribunal, which in addition to being very effective at determining who's playing to lose, added the weight of peer evaluation to the legitimacy of any punishment handed down. That would certainly be a viable option as well.
Tribunal had both problems of being as inaccurate as the players reviewing and also proving to be incapable of keeping up with the workload.
BoostedMessiah1 votesTo get them out of the game.
If a player is unwilling to change their behavior Riot would just rather them be gone. If Riot just removed the chat of someone who was unwilling to change their behavior, they'll just troll. It's better to just encourage them to leave entirely.
Except they don't leave. They just make a new account (which suits Riot fine, they'll buy boosts and champs to get back to where they were) and this time express their toxicity in a less actionable way.
Here's the thing, it still needs to be a system to not ban anyone for just playing poorly. It's not even remotely a simple problem to fix.
Good thing they're a billion dollar international conglomerate with more than enough resources to address such a problem. Kind of weird that they still haven't. Oh wait, no it's not. They want to proliferate toxicity because it increases account turnover.
Tribunal had both problems of being as inaccurate as the players reviewing and also proving to be incapable of keeping up with the workload.
You literally just made this up.
HalcyonDweller1 votesGotta put a newline in between the quote and your own response to it, otherwise it just looks like more of the quote.
BoostedMessiah1 votesThanks! [slayer-pantheon-thumbs]
HalcyonDweller1 votesHappy to help, I'd like to respond to that now:
To get them out of the game.
If a player is unwilling to change their behavior Riot would just rather them be gone. If Riot just removed the chat of someone who was unwilling to change their behavior, they'll just troll. It's better to just encourage them to leave entirely.
Except they don't leave. They just make a new account (which suits Riot fine, they'll buy boosts and champs to get back to where they were) and this time express their toxicity in a less actionable way.
In some cases but not all. Plenty of people genuinely do leave out of frustration after a few times of this happening. You don't get to enjoy the game as much if you're constantly having to start over unlocking characters and leveling a new account.
Here's the thing, it still needs to be a system to not ban anyone for just playing poorly. It's not even remotely a simple problem to fix.
Good thing they're a billion dollar international conglomerate with more than enough resources to address such a problem. Kind of weird that they still haven't.
Fuck I need to go find the post I saw a while ago about this. I'll do some digging and see what I can find. Somebody did the math out. It's not as affordable as you make it out to be. Also Riot is a game company, not a international conglomerate. They are owned by Tencent, who is an international conglomerate. But Tencent is under no obligation to fund anything for Riot, as Riot is responsible for their own revenue.
Oh wait, no it's not. They want to proliferate toxicity because it increases account turnover.
That's pure speculation, and it is certainly not fair to accuse every Rioter of this.
Tribunal had both problems of being as inaccurate as the players reviewing and also proving to be incapable of keeping up with the workload.
You literally just made this up.
Actually they didn't make that up. It is information that was well documented and discussed by Riot back when they removed the tribunal. They had an ever-growing stack of cases to deal with that the tribunal had been unable to keep up with it. And players showed bias when judging cases in the tribunal.
Edit: found the post with the math in it.
In 2014, League of Legends had 27 Million daily players. I think it's safe to assume this number has grown, but we'll use it as a baseline so that we'll have a conservative estimate.
Now, let's assume that each player only played one game each (obviously not the case). That means 2.7 Million games per day.
Now let's assume that a player is reported for trolling in a tiny 1% of games (Again, super conservative). That means 27,000 reports per day.
Trolling rarely can be determined by stats or speech, because anyone with half a brain can pretend to be trying to win, while actually trying to lose. So let's estimate that reviewing a match and exacting punishment takes 5 minutes (Again, it probably takes closer to 30 minutes, but we're being super conservative here.) That means it takes a whopping 2,250 hours per day to review all of the reports.
In order to employ such a team, Riot would need to employ a team of 282 employees full time. At minimum wage of 7.25/hour, that's a cost of $4.25 Million a year.
...
HalcyonDweller3 votesI found the math to prove my point. See my other comment.
BoostedMessiah1 votesI found the math to prove my point. See my other comment.
Good find.
So, if it would take a full-time staff in the order of magnitude of hundreds to review trouble reports from tens of millions of players, a part-time crowd sourced solution that engaged tens of thousands of volunteers (again, a very conservative estimate, assumes only 1 in a 1000 players participating) could handle the task trivially.
HalcyonDweller2 votesI agree, however there is also more than just man-power involved. We're talking about watching replays, which requires hardware (servers) and infrastructure to leverage that video-data to the volunteers.
I want this too but we have to find a way to make it efficient.
BoostedMessiah1 votesWe're talking about watching replays, which requires hardware (servers) and infrastructure to leverage that video-data to the volunteers.
Good point. But it's worth noting that replays aren't video files. They're basically lists of commands. That's much less data to push around than video would be. And Riot already has added the ability for everyone to review replays of their games from their match history. Holding on to 1 or 2 replays from problem players would be a drop in the bucket relative to that.
HalcyonDweller1 votesThat's a great point, they already store the players' replay files somewhere with their match history, so ideally it should be possible for someone else to be given access to that replay data.
Ok I agree, although I would like to point out that 'a drop in the bucket' is not good rhetoric to use when you're talking on the scale of millions of data points. At that scale even drops add up.
AeroWaffle1 votesExcept they don't leave. They just make a new account (which suits Riot fine, they'll buy boosts and champs to get back to where they were) and this time express their toxicity in a less actionable way.
Oh? Every player comes back after being perma-banned? Not every person who loses all their progress, skins, and rank like having to restart it.
There are other games out there simular to League that doesn't have as strict of behavioral rules. Dota 2 Smite HotS
Good thing they're a billion dollar international conglomerate with more than enough resources to address such a problem. Kind of weird that they still haven't. Oh wait, no it's not. They want to proliferate toxicity because it increases account turnover.
Too bad AI is not something you can just keep throwing money at to make better. It takes breakthroughs of understanding how to program such learning algorithms to make it better at learning.
You literally just made this up.
There's a team at Riot working hard on the Tribunal, and we realize it's been down for 6 months now. One of the biggest problems of the system was the speed of its feedback loops, as it would often take longer than a week for a player to receive their punishment.
And I don't really need to prove the accuracy thing. A machine is always going to have a more consistent accuracy than a group of randoms voting.
BoostedMessiah1 votesOh? Every player comes back after being perma-banned? Not every person who loses all their progress, skins, and rank like having to restart it.
Pretty much. Even Tyler1 was playing while he was Ultra-Super-Mega Banned. Riot can't stop it, and they understand that players will very often come back (and spend real money to "catch up"). It's pretty much a meme in the community at this point, "reformed" players even boast about how many accounts they've gone through.
Too bad AI is not something you can just keep throwing money at to make better. It takes breakthroughs of understanding how to program such learning algorithms to make it better at learning.
Like I said, bring back the Tribunal. They can handle it easily. And if you add Tribunal contributions to the Honor system, you'll have many hands to make the work light.
Riot Lyte [sg-lulu]
And I don't really need to prove the accuracy thing. A machine is always going to have a more consistent accuracy than a group of randoms voting.
You should look into research done into crowdsourcing with respects to problem solving. You might learn something. That aside, if you don't feel the need to offer any proof, I don't need to take your opinion seriously. Fair tradeoff.
AeroWaffle1 votesPretty much. Even Tyler1 was playing while he was Ultra-Super-Mega Banned. Riot can't stop it, and they understand that players will very often come back (and spend real money to "catch up"). It's pretty much a meme in the community at this point, "reformed" players even boast about how many accounts they've gone through.
You do realize that we get a fair amount of people going through this board that also scream that they'll never come back to this game right? "Because Tyler1 kept creating accounts" is not proof that every person who is perma-banned sticks around. He's one dude that had a huge incentive to keep creating accounts. People literally donated money to him. He received more donations while he streamed League.
Riot Lyte
Such rebuttal, much wow.
You should look into research done into crowdsourcing with respects to problem solving. You might learn something. That aside, if you don't feel the need to offer any proof, I don't need to take your opinion seriously. Fair tradeoff.
You might want to look into your own "proof". At least we can share sentiments on each other's thoughts on the opinion bit though. I don't take you seriously.
ModPrandine1 votesExcept they don't leave. They just make a new account (which suits Riot fine, they'll buy boosts and champs to get back to where they were) and this time express their toxicity in a less actionable way.
Some return, some don't. Riot can't stop players from making new accounts without negatively impacting innocents, a lesson they learned the hard way many years ago when they accidentally banned an entire college dorm when they IP banned one problem player who was playing from there. What they can do is continue to punish the consistently problem players and if need be apply an ID ban to them like they did to Tyler1.
Good thing they're a billion dollar international conglomerate with more than enough resources to address such a problem. Kind of weird that they still haven't. Oh wait, no it's not. They want to proliferate toxicity because it increases account turnover.
You act like this is such a simple thing to fix when in reality it's not. With many players equating unintentional poor play as intentional feeding/trolling Riot has to make sure they don't punish poor performing players accidentally and also make sure that if that does happen that their punishments are removed or reduced depending on their punishment history. If you can come up with a system that effectively punishes gameplay trolls while not punishing those who are just having poor games then we'd love to hear it.
You literally just made this up.
As someone who participated in the Tribunal AeroWaffle is correct. The Tribunal while helpful also had its fair share of problems, namely trolls spam voting punish/pardon (mostly punish though), a huge backlog of cases to the point where players could get punished for something that happened months ago and not enough cases to review allot of the times. The IFS while not perfect takes the lessons learned from the Tribunal into a system that does a much better and efficient job of punishing players in a relatively short amount of time. No system is or ever will be perfect and while the IFS definitely needs some work and improvements (such as showing pre and post game chat) currently it gets the job done.
BoostedMessiah1 votesWhat they can do is continue to punish the consistently problem players and if need be apply an ID ban to them like they did to Tyler1.
Tyler1 kept playing. And, it must be noted, despite all of Riot's efforts to marginalize him, his streams pull in more viewers than the LCS does. Seems fitting.
You act like this is such a simple thing to fix when in reality it's not.
Never said it was.
If you can come up with a system that effectively punishes gameplay trolls while not punishing those who are just having poor games then we'd love to hear it.
Already did mention it. Bring back the Tribunal.
As someone who participated in the Tribunal AeroWaffle is correct.
So was I, and I disagree.
No system is or ever will be perfect and while the IFS definitely needs some work and improvements (such as showing pre and post game chat) currently it gets the job done.
You know, it's not an either-or dichotomy. You can have IFS screen players and issue chat bans, but suspensions should pass through something with a pulse. You can have this (much smaller) subset of problem players escalated to a new Tribunal, which could reward participants through the new Honor system (or something similar) to increase community interest, and ensure reliability by offering better/more frequent rewards for those who "get the correct answer" by voting in accordance with the majority.
ModWulf Helhammer4 votesThey essentially had that before the current system. People used to earn stacking chat restrictions such that they were basically infinite. However, the players just turned to causing toxicity through gameplay, such as trolling or intentionally feeding.
Xidphel2 votesTake a shot everytime someone mentions "permanent mute".
Modi2 votesDude, I can't drink like I used to. No way can I handle doing that
[slayer-pantheon-rainbows]
HalcyonDweller1 votesWay ahead of you, hey did you know there is gum on the underside of the table? It's amazing what a new perspective can show you.
[sg-zephyr]
Colgate Gator1 votesNo, thank you.
