Proof that the ban system does not work

General Esdeath ·Dec 16, 2016·5 votes·1,062 views

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_OB2EOroB0&t

This video explains it all really well

24 Comments

IcyPepperDec 16, 20165 votes

If the ban system doesn't work, then how do people get banned and then go to the boards to bitch about it?

wishbone25Dec 16, 20165 votes

my thoughts exactly

IcyPepperDec 16, 20165 votes

+1 upvote for voicing thoughts

Looks like someone doesn't care for actual discussion :^)

KVbqbFsC8eDec 16, 20162 votes

Because they are being banned for chat. Chat uses a completely automated system that bans based off of certain words within a chatlog. Thats a very easy thing to have automated. An automated system cannot tell if someone is trolling though, which is why far fewer trolls are banned than people who are "toxic" in chat.

General Esdeath Dec 16, 20161 votes

If your computer plays League but turns off at random times, how are you able to play at all? Working 20% of the time is still "working" but isn't optimal.

EndlessSorcererDec 16, 20161 votes

If you know you have that problem, you avoid playing League of Legends until you have the issue fixed.

TrulyBlandDec 16, 20162 votes

You are jumping from "one single case" to "consistently not working in random cases" to "not working in 80% of the cases". And you know... computers do sometimes randomly turn off or freeze or whatever, and yet you are able to play League of Legends without any problem.

The system isn't optimal, everybody knows that. There's no need for a thread attempting to "prove" the system isn't working with a single case. It just comes off as a meaningless rant.

General Esdeath Dec 17, 20161 votes

This isn't the only case. Look at Dunkey's video where we see that Malphite intentionally feeding. Why wasn't he permabanned?

TrulyBlandDec 17, 20162 votes

Okay, now we have two cases... that still doesn't prove people elude the system consistently. But here's the thing: I'm not even denying that. As I said, the system isn't optimal. But jumping from one or two, or even a couple of hundred cases to 80% is simply bullshit.

The police isn't catching all the criminals. Programmers don't catch all the bugs. Doctors don't save all their patients.

Nothing in life is optimal.

But if you want to declare any system to be fundamentally broken, or "not working", you have to come up with more than just a number of errors. you have to come up with the entire statistic, including the number of successes.

General Esdeath Dec 17, 20161 votes

The amount of typing I'd have to do to present every case probably wouldn't fit in one post, plus if Riot reads each board every day then they can easily see the posts where people link definite proof. And I just feel like if a few passed through it would be OK, but some of these are so blatant and I don't know how Riot hasn't taken action.

TrulyBlandDec 17, 20161 votes

Every correctly caught feeder would also not fit in the post.

The thing is, you see those blatant feeders because they weren't banned and they were so obvious. This is the classical selective perception bias. It's the same problem as with unfair bans on chatlogs back in the Tribunal days. There were about ten of these (all either already lifted or punished manually due to "invisible" logs) that kept being brought up on the forums, and a lot of people deemed those a proper sample to determine how badly the Tribunal was functioning, simply by the fact how easily you could find them on the forums.

The simplified version is: The forums are a filter for drama. Boring threads, if made, die out. That's why no matter how many cases of drama (in this case: feeders that are not caught by the system) you find on the forums, you can't extrapolate that data into a bigger picture, because you do not actually have a randomized sample.

General Esdeath Dec 18, 20161 votes

I'm not saying it's a negative ratio being caught, but I feel like the system isn't enough. It's supposed to be "fast" but I'd rather wait a week with tribunal knowing the person is permabanned

Tel SaroDec 16, 20162 votes

I honestly see the ban system as a marketing strategy rather than a punitive system for curbing negative behavior.

Say over the course of several years playing my account I spend $500 on RP.

Now my account gets perma banned. If I want to keep playing league, I have to create a new account.

This new account has no skins, no champions, and no rune pages. If I want to expedite the process of unlocking the champions I want to play, I have to buy RP. Same goes for skins and rune pages.

Riot just made double the money for the same product.

Smart business model when you think about it.

IcyPepperDec 16, 20166 votes

Not enough people get permabanned to make that a reliable business model.

It takes a lot to get permabanned, and they stress reform (you get several chances before you get permabanned, as long as your behavior isn't egregious)

Tel SaroDec 16, 20162 votes

I'm not saying it's their sole source of income or even a significant source.

I do think more people than you realize get perma bans. I would be interested to see the actual figures, but doubt those would ever be available for the public.

Considering in about 30% of my games in the bronze ELO people are using racial slurs, sexual harassment, saying they hope your whole family dies in a burning car accident, ect ect.

I'm sure as you climb to higher ELO people are less likely to act in this fashion as they are more invested in their account.

Just my thoughts. Downvote if you like. It's really of no consequence to me.

Kei143Dec 16, 20163 votes

30% = 1 in 15 people.

That is 6%. They then have to go through chat restriction & 14-day bans. Where a tonne of them reform before that. So the actual percent is pretty small.

o0O Madoka O0oDec 16, 20161 votes

This is one of the harder griefings to detect.

In order to avoid false positives, intentional feeding detection is loose on purpose. The system cannot tell if you're trolling or having a bad game, or getting stompped by smurfs.

Especially with Heimer, you still do a fair amount of damage even if you're trolling because of your turrets.

There's not really a fix to this problem.

General Esdeath Dec 16, 20161 votes

He's afk dealing 0 damage to champs.

KVbqbFsC8eDec 16, 20161 votes

Its well known that the system is ineffective when it comes to trolling/feeders. If that Teemo was using chat, it would be a completely different story.

General Esdeath Dec 17, 20161 votes

He wasn't on Teemo
He was afk on Heimer letting his turrets hit Gromp over the wall and reset

KVbqbFsC8eDec 17, 20161 votes

{quoted}

He wasn't on Teemo

He was afk on Heimer letting his turrets hit Gromp over the wall and reset

What does that have to do with anything I said? Do you consider being Heimer and AFK auto resetting to not be trolling?

General Esdeath Dec 17, 20161 votes

"If that Teemo was using chat"

I don't know how chat would even change his case.

KVbqbFsC8eDec 18, 20161 votes

When I say Teemo, I mean the person trolling. The video title says 94% winrate Teemo trolling. Only if I were to view the video outside of it being embedded on the forum would I see the full title. Regardless, it has nothing to do with my point. Chat related toxicity is enforced way more strictly and is easily caught be the automated system. Trolling is not. That is why the system does not work.

General Esdeath Dec 18, 20161 votes

Or if you watched it. And why would he be toxic? He would just say he's having a bad game.