Boards›Player Behavior

"League Watch" (Nightblue3's Idea... w/ a few tweaks)

Elite4Runner·10/26/2018, 2:20:52 AM·1 votes·1,569 views

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN2Chf7VyRY

So Nightblue3 might be onto something here.

I'm submitting a version of his idea with a few of my own adjustments.

Beyond a certain amount of reporting for griefing / trolling behavior that is not suitable to be detected by an automated system, a flagged match is submitted to a number of randomly selected (10 - 20) players that meet a minimum behavior / performance qualification. ..

I think having a minimum honor level and activity is probably more important than Rank in my opinion

... These players are given a set amount of time to review and submit an evaluation on the match from within the client. At the end of the review period, the reviews are submitted to an arbitrator at Riot. Based on the reviews, they are able to more quickly determine the outcome of the player.

Full gameplay, chat, and pings visible, Summoner IDs are not visible.

Participants who submit a recommended decision that matches the decision of the arbitrator are rewarded with BE or something else suitable.

I think this would be good because it is utilizing community members that have a history of good behavior in their games. The arbitrator can get a quick overview of the respective evaluations, simply based on which recommendation has the majority. They can also read the more detailed responses in order to determine more difficult cases. If the players are able to provide specific times and examples of why they feel the player is behaving inappropriately, the arbitrator can even review these specifically.

This does all seem pretty complicated, but I do think it would be a good way of making a fair decision.

I have also seen a lot of community members lately that feel like Riot is currently doing nothing about this. By making community members part of the process, I think this would help to put these concerns to rest.

Please discuss in comments

14 Comments

Inkling Commando10/26/2018, 2:25:47 AM2 votes

this league watch would do a whole lot more than what riot is doing about it. (fight me) [slayer-pantheon-popcorn]

zPOOPz10/26/2018, 2:32:25 AM2 votes

Beyond a certain amount of reporting for griefing / trolling behavior that is not suitable to be detected by an automated system, a flagged match is submitted to a number of randomly selected (10 - 20) players that meet a minimum behavior / performance qualification. ..

Once this is globally known (this is the internet so you know...won't take long), everyone will be reporting everybody at the slightest annoyance at the hope of "flagging" someone. We know this because even as of right now, people already called people who have a bad game an inter and a troll. Knowing report will get manually reviewed will just make the number of report frequency sky rocketed.

... These players are given a set amount of time to review and submit an evaluation on the match from within the client. At the end of the review period, the reviews are submitted to an arbitrator at Riot. Based on the reviews, they are able to more quickly determine the outcome of the player.

There is not enough employee of Rito to review the reviews due to the sheer number of reports that will be generated once manual review went viral.

Participants who submit a recommended decision that matches the decision of the arbitrator are rewarded with BE or something else suitable.

This will go about as well as when people get rewarded IP for participating in Tribunal. If no reward, most people will not bother to conduct a proper review which would most likely entail watching a full game to even determine trolling/griefing. Eventually you will have no participation or people just write yes he is trolling without actually do any review to get BE or to make review go away.

I think this would be good because it is utilizing community members that have a history of good behavior in their games. The arbitrator can get a quick overview of the respective evaluations, simply based on which recommendation has the majority. They can also read the more detailed responses in order to determine more difficult cases. If the players are able to provide specific times and examples of why they feel the player is behaving inappropriately, the arbitrator can even review these specifically.

This will go about as well as the old Tribunal with backlogs out the ass and frankly I don't see how this is any difference than the old failed Tribunal. Except this idea entail watching a game (which takes longer than reading chatlog in the old Tribunal) and with limited participants (with requirement being honor level and activity), which means the backlogs will be worse than the old Tribunal.

I have also seen a lot of community members lately that feel like Riot is currently doing nothing about this.

Define "a lot of community members". This board and reddit are merely a very small portion of the entire player base.

Imperial Pandaa10/26/2018, 3:13:48 AM1 votes

{quoted}

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN2Chf7VyRY

So Nightblue3 might be onto something here.

I'm submitting a version of his idea with a few of my own adjustments.

Beyond a certain amount of reporting for griefing / trolling behavior that is not suitable to be detected by an automated system, a flagged match is submitted to a number of randomly selected (10 - 20) players that meet a minimum behavior / performance qualification. ..

I think having a minimum honor level and activity is probably more important than Rank in my opinion

Honor level honestly doesn't mean anything except mayne neutral and plays frequently. Also, how would it factor if someone got a punishment during or after a review? Does my review (and all before) get thrown out because I gor punished?

... These players are given a set amount of time to review and submit an evaluation on the match from within the client. At the end of the review period, the reviews are submitted to an arbitrator at Riot. Based on the reviews, they are able to more quickly determine the outcome of the player.

When you say set amount of time, I'm not filled with confidence. I'm picturing a case popping up and being told "you have 30 minutes to review and vote" which may make someone feel rushed and not review thoroughly. Alternatively if no limit, you remember how Tribunal cases got published? Now we have live Twitch Broadcast of reviews and letting rhe audience decide.

So it gets sent to someone at Riot who then has to go through the game and make their own decision. Like it already does at a glaciers pace?

Full gameplay, chat, and pings visible, Summoner IDs are not visible.

Yet it is timed?

Participants who submit a recommended decision that matches the decision of the arbitrator are rewarded with BE or something else suitable.

So why even have participants if their decision doesn't actually matter?

I think this would be good because it is utilizing community members that have a history of good behavior in their games. The arbitrator can get a quick overview of the respective evaluations, simply based on which recommendation has the majority. They can also read the more detailed responses in order to determine more difficult cases. If the players are able to provide specific times and examples of why they feel the player is behaving inappropriately, the arbitrator can even review these specifically.

History of neutral behavior*. The arbitrator should actually be making their decision without any prior bias. "50 say guilty and 100 say inno?" Starts looking for possible excuses when an actual situation comes up. There is a reason why judges and jury's are meant to be unbiased and only look at only evidence provided.

This does all seem pretty complicated, but I do think it would be a good way of making a fair decision.

Bias influence is not fair.

I have also seen a lot of community members lately that feel like Riot is currently doing nothing about this. By making community members part of the process, I think this would help to put these concerns to rest.

Not the route to be taken imo. Maybe with other tweaks.

Please discuss in comments

Sure thing buddy.

Voldymort10/26/2018, 5:52:22 AM1 votes

You realise that high honor doesn't equal "i'm never toxic, now will I ever be", right? Neither is account age, money spent on skins, elo or mastery points on Heimerdinger

CharDeeMcDenniz10/26/2018, 12:49:29 PM1 votes

the only good idea he had in this whole video was making IGN's invisible

Elite4Runner10/26/2018, 1:08:58 PM1 votes

Lol I'm not sure why I thought that a lot of people would be in support of something that a minority of the player base would even be able or willing to participate.

Sarutobi10/26/2018, 6:44:44 PM1 votes

While in theory this could work, i don't get how some of these things could be implemented.

The fact its down to activity and honor level tells me that at the start of the season there is going to be a HUGE backlog of reports. Since Honor reset i don't see how this would be a good thing. Let alone as with other people have said, Honors doesn't really mean much, let alone should it mean that said person is right to judge others.

The set amount of time is another factor. One complaint that i see (from the old tribunal and even now with the IFS) is time. Its too slow, etc. I don't see how reporting someone and getting a week+ to review just leaves it so that these people who do break the rules loads of time to continue to break the rules till they are finally punished. This is one reason why the old tribunal failed. It took too long to actually get legit people punished, and by that time they had already damaged a lot of players in numerous games.

Now with the Rewards. I think one of the reasons why the tribunal failed was the fact that it gave out rewards. I understand people probably wont use a service if they don't get something back, but at the same time, things like this can be heavily abused as with the old Tribunal. People took advantage of the free rewards you got when the right choice was made. And because of that people spammed the punish option to get it done faster, and most of the time it was right. So i can see that happening again where people wouldn't actually review the case and just spam the punish options just to get rewards faster. With that it will just make the Rioter who is reviewing the case work extra hard to make sure those people who spam punish actually mean it, thus making the process much more difficult especially time wise.

While i think its a good start, its not something I would want. Honors should have no bearing on how someone could judge another person. Especially if that is all it takes (along with time playing the game) someone could easily just make a new account, spam-play vs AI, and get accepted into this program. Let alone the fact that Honors reset, how will this combat the start of a new season? If people are already upset that it takes too long to get people punished, why would we want to make it longer?