Boards›Player Behavior

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

FOR JUSTICE·11/28/2017, 11:40:26 PM·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

ModUlanopo11/29/2017, 12:33:25 AM8 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.
AraMoOse11/29/2017, 12:05:25 AM3 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

Karunamon11/28/2017, 11:46:23 PM3 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.

Warios11/28/2017, 11:43:29 PM2 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.

nerak2311/28/2017, 11:56:01 PM1 votes

Players a!ready influence this FREE game,

nerak2311/29/2017, 12:02:07 AM1 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.

nerak2311/28/2017, 11:52:29 PM1 votes

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

Rand0mH3r0X11/29/2017, 12:06:26 AM1 votes

I don't think Riot interested in this anymore.

The tribunal may be before your time.

ModPeriscope11/29/2017, 12:09:08 AM1 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.

Jo0o11/29/2017, 12:11:45 AM1 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.

Mindspeaker11/28/2017, 11:45:15 PM1 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