Boards›Player Behavior

false reports and flamebaiting

scazzman··1 votes·554 views

a problem exists that i feel riot NEEDS to address. FLAMEBAITING. or the act of deliberately riling players up for the purpose of getting banned. riot's policy of "context doesnt matter" brings out people who abuse the report system as another tool for bullying. while being just passive aggressive enough to fly under the radar if the player reports them back.

NOW supposedly, the system is designed to ignore the occasional slip up, and supposedly false reports are thrown out. however

lets say hypothetically, the IFS filters reports as "valid" or "inconclusive" reports arent considered "false" until a manual review, and therefore even false reports stay on a players account until manual review.

the report system takes 5 "toxic" games within 20 games to trigger a punishment. "hypothetical number" and it takes fewer games each tier on the ladder.

games reported are treated as "toxic" until manually reviewed to be false, and after 5 "inconclusive" reports, a manual review is triggered. OR. the automated system gets a real report. and the "inconclusive' games are treated as toxic. ignoring manual review.

lets say a player gets false reported 4 times. on the 5th game. he gets flamebaited, and takes the bait. and tells the flamebaiter "fuck you" he now gets a chat restriction "assuming it was his first punishment, and no hate speech was used" those false reports, actually contributed to that player's ban more then the real report

even more hypothetically, lets say the flamebaiter was trolling in a way to where even a manual review would not detect it, such as banning an ally champ on purpose, or a tank baiting allies into engaging and then recalling at full health. or watching people die. or the classic "pretend to be a bad player"

now. that player is free to continue trolling and baiting people into telling him "fuck you" while the person who got trolled is now chat banned. locked out of loot for x games. and now. he has less room for the normal slip up. making him even more vulnerable to flamebaiters

16 Comments

FurriesAreHot9 votes

If you are "baited" into flaming, you were probably going to flame anyway

scazzman1 votes

{quoted}

If you are "baited" into flaming, you were probably going to flame anyway

says the person who doesn't believe in false reports

èGirl Nami1 votes

I'm probably in the same boat as he is then.

FurriesAreHot5 votes

Why believe in something that we have evidence to disprove it?

Joseph V Stalin2 votes

Looks like that pent up aggression has been rationalized into a conspiracy of grandeur.

EvilDustMan7 votes

Another week, another 'people are trying to get me banned' post.

Cocho4 votes

mute them, report them, and false reports to nothing.

How long does a person need to flame you before you mute them? Are you a masochist?

scazzman1 votes

{quoted}

mute them, report them, and false reports to nothing.

How long does a person need to flame you before you mute them? Are you a masochist?

read the whole post please

RallerenP3 votes

Your entire complaint is with a hypothetical system which does not at all resemble the system League uses.

lets say hypothetically, the IFS filters reports as "valid" or "inconclusive" reports arent considered "false" until a manual review, and therefore even false reports stay on a players account until manual review.

That is not how the system works. Here is how a report is reviewed:

Player gets reported. The system does it checks. There are 4 outcomes:

  • The system determines that there was no indication of toxicity so the report is disregarded. The game has not been logged for future reference.

  • The system determines that there was some toxicity but no offence severe enough to warrant a punishment. It then checks for offences it previously logged and determines that the player was still not as toxic as to recieve a punishment. The game is logged for future reference though. This is what usually happens to a reported game.

  • The system determines that there was some toxicity but no offence severe enough to warrant a punishment. It then checks for offences it previously logged and determines that the player has been toxic enough over time to recieve a punishment, and then punishes the player according to the punishment ladder*. The game is logged for future reference. This is usually what has happened for players that recieved a punishment.

  • The system determines that there was the player is toxic enough to recieve a punishment solely for that game and so punishes according to the punishment ladder*. The game is logged for future reference. This is rare, and only happens to the douchiest of douchebags and can skip punishment tiers.

Keep in mind this is a heavily simplified explanation and I probably missed some scenarioes, but games where no toxicity was displayed will never be logged for future reference and it also doesn't take a manual review to flag a report as false.

*Punishment ladder:

  • 10 Game chat-restriction
  • 25 Game chat-restriciton
  • 14-day ban
  • Permanent ban

Players can skip steps on the ladder if the offence is severe. This is rare though and usually comes in the form of a 14-day ban and very rarely a permanent ban.

Also, flame baiting is not a thing. If you feel like you are being 'flame-baited' simply mute the guy you feel like flaming or unbind the enter key, whatever stops you from flaming that person. Toxicity is not displaying emotion, it's display a lack of self-control.

Hope this cleared some things up :)

(This post may have sounded harsh which was not my intention. I simply wish to provide accurate information. I am simply writing this as my comments has been misinterpreted as harrasment in the past).

DrCyanide2 votes

Actually, he's right about the false reports staying in the system in some way, shape, or form. Number of reports was evidence Riot brought up in both the Support Singed and Support Nunu cases. Those reports weren't enough to punish the players via the automated system, despite an immense build up, but were used in a manual review.

I think there OP isn't applying that information correctly in their scenario (the manual reviews happened after about a hundred similar games), but they do stick around.

RallerenP1 votes

Hmm, you're right.

But I also wrote that completely untrue reports were not kept, while reports that lead to a toxic finding but not warranting a punishment were kept for future reference. Riot has different systems dealing with intentional feeding and chat toxicity.

While OP's case was mostly about chat toxicity, the FeederBuster/TrollDetector (unofficial names anyway) system dealt with the Supported singed and nunu cases. With chat toxicity the system can easily detect toxicity, but detecting trolling is very hard. This is also one of the scenarioes I left out as they werent relevant to OP.

But they do have similarities. I think after a giant buildup of reports where the system werent sure if the person was trolling or just off-meta, Riot is notified and will try to deal with it manually.

The system learns from feedback from the community, so it punishes based on what the community finds acceptable. With the Singed and Nunu cases the community was very split on how to deal with the situation and the system reflected this divide in opinions to the point of needing Riot to manually review the cases.

scazzman1 votes

{quoted}

Actually, he's right about the false reports staying in the system in some way, shape, or form. Number of reports was evidence Riot brought up in both the Support Singed and Support Nunu cases. Those reports weren't enough to punish the players via the automated system, despite an immense build up, but were used in a manual review.

I think there OP isn't applying that information correctly in their scenario (the manual reviews happened after about a hundred similar games), but they do stick around.

it was a hypothetical number. but the question remains. if a report is in "limbo" is it treated as false or valid until it's manually reviewed?

DrCyanide1 votes

From what Riot has said, their detection system errs on letting the guilty go free rather than punishing the innocent (it's a big part of why Feeder detection requires very blatant feeding to catch someone). That would imply it's marked "false" if a system can not validate the report true, but the total number of reports and their categories is still saved in the database for future manual reviews.

Jo0o2 votes

Those are a whole lot of hypothetical numbers.

Doesn't the simple adage of "don't feed the troll" answer all of these concerns?

General Esdeath 2 votes

Just ignore, mute, report

Glory971 votes

FLAMEBAIT... Do you know that story where an lawyer tried to argue that the enviromental influences and living conditions forced the defendant to inevitably commit that crime? You sound like someone of a cult that believes in fate and human beeings not having a free will...

More from Player Behavior

The indefinite banning of Tyler1
Player Behavior4,799 comments
2,942
votes
14 day ban because playing Nunu Support with Smite is "stealing other people's roles"...?
Player Behavior1,525 comments
1,086
votes
Riot should add monthly status cards
Player Behavior241 comments
843
votes
Reminder that we haven't gotten our Summoner report cards yet :/
Player Behavior145 comments
619
votes
I'm not "triggered" by you throwing insults.
Player Behavior361 comments
548
votes
Black Alistar, King Rammus!!!!
Player Behavior462 comments
503
votes

More by scazzman

please add a "report for trolling "option
Gameplay70 comments
82
votes
"I give up" "gg" "im done"
Player Behavior30 comments
19
votes
autism as an insult
Player Behavior29 comments
14
votes
apology post
Player Behavior8 comments
9
votes
"im done"
Player Behavior19 comments
8
votes
Things silver players do that bronze players dont
Gameplay14 comments
7
votes