Boards›Player Behavior

Hey riot, why not just have the community decide whats punishable?

FOR JUSTICE··3 votes·670 views

when players get banned, their chat logs get sent to a riot employee, but it usually takes a bit for a support ticket to actually get reviewed by a riot employee, especially for false positives. my idea would be to anonymously send a chatlogs to another player, and let them decide whether or not said toxic behavior is punishable

  • ** What would incentivize players to even do this?** With the recent rune changes, I figured it would be the perfect time to do this, considering BE is particularly hard to come by to most players. 150 BE per review seems fair, or maybe a chest after you review a specified number

  • How can we stop trolls from just saying anything is bannable? you could do it PBE style, and have them meet certain requirements before they can be considered to be able to review others' chat logs such as honor 5, no current punishments, and haven't had any in the past 6 months

  • What about naming and shaming or privacy issues? the way I'm suggesting it, is to send the FULL chatlog, but with all summoner names hidden, including the name of the accused, and simply show only what champ said what, and who the accused champ is

  • Say its not toxic and ill trade you RP! to prevent this, the one who wants to contest it would also have no idea who their log is being reviewed by, so therefore, neither can have any sort of contact with one another because everything is anonymous

  • But what if people simply say its not or it is toxic just for the BE? for this you would pay them the BE just by reviewing it, BUT limit them to only being able to review up to 7 per 48 hours. this would stop people from also abusing this just to farm up BE

final notes

this way, people can actually be judged by the playerbase itself, and stop complaining about a "broken and automatonic" ban system. I would only use said idea for people escalating to a 14 day or to a permanent in order to get people who were unjustly punished back into the game faster I'm all open for questions and what not, but I also have to ask, why riot may not want this kind of system? or have they already tried something similar?

27 Comments

ModUlanopo8 votes

As someone who has been around since the early days of the behavior system, some comments:

  • The data derived from the Tribunal forms the basis of the IFS, so it really is the community's preferences being expressed through the bans.
  • The IFS adapts to what people report and don't report. Two years ago "KYS" was fairly low on the toxicity scale. Now it's almost a zero-tolerance phrase.
  • The IFS is very, very accurate. This is what happens when you have 4+ years of machine learning under your belt.
  • The punishment is structured in a very deliberate way. The chat restrictions are there for people who need to improve their chat, but anything more serious gets escalated quickly. This is because the data shows the vast majority of players will correct themselves after one or two punishments, regardless of the specific punishment being applied.
  • The main problem with the Tribunal was the slow speed of processing. It's important the system respond quickly to behavior, so as to minimize the damage from toxic players.
  • Other players' chat logs are unnecessary and a distraction. This is because no amount of toxicity justifies adding to toxicity.
  • They already tried giving people IP. It didn't affect participation very much and generally caused more problems than it solved.
The Cream Reaper1 votes

Two years ago "KYS" was fairly low on the toxicity scale. Now it's almost a zero-tolerance phrase.

i think most people suspected as much. i know i've used it more often than i should have back in the day. when did the shift happen?

The punishment is structured in a very deliberate way. The chat restrictions are there for people who need to improve their chat, but anything more serious gets escalated quickly. This is because the data shows the vast majority of players will correct themselves after one or two punishments, regardless of the specific punishment being applied.

i literally just made a thread about this but i guess i could ask you too

can you tell us what is the percentage of semibans going into permabans? is there like a statistic or something that riot has come up with?

also i'd like to know why the 100+ games chat restrictions stopped being a thing

ModUlanopo1 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Cream Reaper,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=Urrp6tHf,comment-id=000a0000,timestamp=2017-11-29T09:51:59.056+0000)

i think most people suspected as much. i know i've used it more often than i should have back in the day. when did the shift happen?

As far as I know, this was built-in adaptation on the part of the IFS rather than a deliberate policy change on the part of Riot. I started noticing a significant uptick in punishments for it early last year, I think.

can you tell us what is the percentage of semibans going into permabans? is there like a statistic or something that riot has come up with?

Riot doesn't like to hand out hard numbers, so I don't have anything for you on that.

also i'd like to know why the 100+ games chat restrictions stopped being a thing

Because it didn't work. At all.

Karunamon3 votes

It kind of is already. Someone with a red name would have to elaborate more, but aside from the hate speech triggers, there's a machine learning system that tries to figure out what the community thinks is bad behavior before the chat restrictions start piling up. This is one of the reasons it takes a while to get your first chat restrict.

FOR JUSTICE1 votes

what my idea is more reffering to is when you start getting banned for your toxic behavior, so an actual human being can decide whether or not you can still show some sign of reform

chat restricions are ezpz to work off from what ive seen, so those shouldn't really be reviewed, because in most cases unless you used hate speech or broke a zero tolerance rule, its just a slap on the wrist

Karunamon2 votes

I don't quite understand why you think someone who has been told 3 times that their behavior is unacceptable would suddenly change their ways after having a person tell them the same thing.

FOR JUSTICE1 votes

I guess I was being to optimistic, sorry, I thought people could change

Khazix

ModUlanopo1 votes

{quoted}

I guess I was being to optimistic, sorry, I thought people could change

Khazix

People DO change, just not the way you expect.

Karunamon1 votes

Snark aside, I don't get it. A computer telling you "Your chat isn't acceptable" vs a human telling you "Your chat isn't acceptable" is the same thing at the end of the day. There's no magical weight carried to someone with a red name telling you the same thing you were already told.

AraMoOse3 votes

Um, you should have been here 3-4 years ago, that is pretty much the system that was in place. Guess what people said?

Of course : "RIOT how can you have a system that lets idiot players choose what is punishable?"

Regardless of the system, there are always people who will complain, as you are demonstrating

FOR JUSTICE1 votes

yeah its kinda funny though imo, considering most people that complain about the automated system actually were toxic in their logs :/

now that I know this existed, I can imagine the same happening

but I thought 3-4 years ago, the honor system didn't exist as it does now, so I thought that could limit it to non-trolls, who might legitimately want to clean up the game

PresBushDid7111 votes

{quoted}

yeah its kinda funny though imo, considering most people that complain about the automated system actually were toxic in their logs :/

now that I know this existed, I can imagine the same happening

Well from what I've read about the IFS, they used data from tribunal to help it find toxic materials. For example, racial slurs, homophobic remarks and insinuating mental disabilities (aka downs); were consistently punished. So that was built into the system. It of course has been more and more refined since it's inception.

The only advantage to the tribunal was that the people that voted in it frequented this forum. So if you had a question you could get real answers from the real people who voted on it, even those that voted not to punish. With this system we have a feeling for how it works and decides, but we don't know the algorithms.

AraMoOse1 votes

{quoted}

yeah its kinda funny though imo, considering most people that complain about the automated system actually were toxic in their logs :/

now that I know this existed, I can imagine the same happening

Yep. There was also the same behavior of people coming to the boards complaining about how unfair Tribunal was, and then when pressed, they submitted their chat logs, which were just as full of vitriol as today's.

For what it's worth, I actually thought the old tribunal system was the better way of handling trolls and jerks, so I'd be in favor of the change you're suggesting, but don't let's believe that people will find it any fairer : If they're getting punished, then the system is completely unfair.

Warios2 votes

7 reviews at 150 BE each would equal 1050BE every 48 hours, that's more the a majority of the player base get for playing the game itself.

FOR JUSTICE2 votes

your right, that is a lot, but the exact number you can do per 48 hours or the amount you get, they could change to a lower amount. maybe 50 instead, which would yield 350 per 48 hours

Mindspeaker1 votes

They did that before it was called "tribunal" I spent a lot of time in it . It was a good sense of accomplishment being able to help clean up the community. they canned it long ago and from my understanding its not coming back .

it should not be rewarded either IMO

PresBushDid7111 votes

{quoted}

They did that before it was called "tribunal" I spent a lot of time in it . It was a good sense of accomplishment being able to help clean up the community. they canned it long ago and from my understanding its not coming back .

it should not be rewarded either IMO

Lol, aye, I spent a lot of time on tribunal too. It was kinda nice to browse while waiting for games and such.

If I am not mistake in the early early stages of tribunal they did reward with ip if your vote matched the overall consensus. However, I believe they found that it caused "hive mind" with everyone voting punish so they would get ip, so they dropped it soon after.

Though I could be mistaken on that, it has been a long time since tribunal.

ModUlanopo1 votes

they canned it long ago and from my understanding its not coming back .

There are no plans for its return.

nerak231 votes

Why not just follow the rules of the game ? It's simple !

nerak231 votes

Players a!ready influence this FREE game,

nerak231 votes

If players want a manual review, they send in a ticket. If everyone wants a human to review each report then expect to pay for that. I and most players are fine with the system.

Rand0mH3r0X1 votes

I don't think Riot interested in this anymore.

The tribunal may be before your time.

ModPeriscope1 votes

There is at least some player review, particularly when chat is posted here.

It's pretty rare that the community disagrees with a punishment, and rarer still when those are acted upon to reverse the punishment.

Jo0o1 votes

"False positives" are virtually nonexistent from what I've seen. And when they DO arise, once in a blue moon, support tickets successfully recover the account.

I like the idea in theory, but I'm not sure what it accomplishes in practice that isn't already handled.

FOR JUSTICE1 votes

well I was more aiming at the fact that if you were to see the player behavior thread, someone is saying that they were unjustly banned because of a "broken" automated system that only seems to target them, so I figured a player run punishment system would help.

Jo0o2 votes

Yes, and those players are consistently shown the error in their reasoning.

The only innocent chat logs I've ever seen on these boards were edited, and the closest I've seen to a "false positive" all year are a handful of people questionably using "kys" for strategic value in an ARAM. The vast majority of threads are people with logs full of harassment, bickering, hate speech, calls for self-harm, and other clear-cut examples of toxicity.

PresBushDid7111 votes

{quoted}

well I was more aiming at the fact that if you were to see the player behavior thread, someone is saying that they were unjustly banned because of a "broken" automated system that only seems to target them, so I figured a player run punishment system would help.

Lol, well even in tribunal times people complained. Though I have to admit you saw a lot less of "This is BS" and a lot more of people asking what was bad. Also, cases had 3 to 5 chat logs each. It was a lot easier to point out the toxicity, you could be like game 1 and 3 were real toxic bc of x,y,z and game 2 was boaderline because of x,y. Games 4 and 5 wouldn't have been punishable by themselves so try to react more like that. So I guess in that way it was better to. Though Riot claims it was terribly slow at punishing and backlogged... which makes sense with all the input needed.

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 FOR JUSTICE

when a zilean ults you, but dies 3 seconds later
Memes & Games19 comments
126
votes
PSA: DO NOT use the "none" option when choosing your bans.
Gameplay210 comments
101
votes
ok... im starting to have doubts on how inters are detected now.
Player Behavior152 comments
82
votes
QoL: can we ping passives?
Gameplay23 comments
44
votes
PSA to tank mains/Carries
Gameplay16 comments
38
votes
ya know, when someone gets fed....
Gameplay25 comments
27
votes