Riot should add monthly status cards

Saixos·Jan 2, 2016·843 votes·73,190 views

Once a month doesn't seem like it would bother anyone, and it would be quite useful. Knowing how many of our reports are labeled as false would make a lot more people trust the system, and having the chat logs of the games where the report was deemed as accurate would help us identify attitudes the community dislikes even if we haven't been punished. It would also let us send messages to Riot Support with inaccurate accurate reports, to help them improve the system.

It would probably also make people less surprised about incoming punishments - if the monthly status card says that your account is in poor standings, then people can try to reform and better themselves without even needing to be punished. Likewise, if you've been punished recently and then the monthly status card says you're in good standing, you can feel good knowing that the system has recognized your reform.

241 Comments

PentchJan 2, 2016153 votes

Mine would be like:

You reported 394 players.
Of the 394, 3 players have been punished.

This month you have been reported 1 times. Of the 1, 1 has been labeled as fast reports

Your account is in perfect standing. CONGRATULATIONS!

This month you have left an active game 0 times. Your threat of being punished by leaverbuster is low.

This is a really good idea though. I would love to see it implemented.

Also the #3 is actually the amount of people that got reported and in trouble this month. I never falsely report <3

PDE5 InhibitorsJan 2, 201612 votes

I don't think your account would be in perfect standing with that many false reports lel.

rtbf206105905Jan 2, 20165 votes

No. The reports that were against him (others reported him) out of 7 reports 6 of them were bs reports.

Joe DreddJan 2, 20163 votes

he means to say that this guy spams report on anyone and everyone

PDE5 InhibitorsJan 2, 201614 votes

I mean he has reported 400 players, and only 3 were punished lol.

SaixosJan 2, 201621 votes

That would simply mean that his reports are generally false far more often than not. What the state of the reports are is separate from what the account standing is. I guess I should've added another thing that said

Your reports are treated as highly accurate/accurate/moderately accurate/moderately inaccurate/inaccurate/highly inaccurate

pinkyblossomJan 3, 20164 votes

No!

That just might be the wet dream of Lyte's team. I like your idea above but your missing the most important variable "Number of justified reports".

What if you reported 400 players and only 3 got punished, 387 of those reports ware justified but the reported players reformed their behavior after couple of warnings? Is that not what we need?

The system learns from us, if most of the players think that "ez" is unsportsmanlike conduct and report them, the system should deem that phrase as an offense. The accuracy should depend from constancy of reports for similar cases/offences .

I'm really frustrated when I see people with your idea of how the "tribunal" is deciding on a false report: Reported + Not Punished = False Report.

It was imagined like this I believe, I mean the ideal cycle of life for a case; Reported + Not Punished = Reformed player.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying the system is working, I hate Lyte for his "5% only are toxic" claim, the fuck is that. What? I am to sensitive when my intelligence is insulted during the course of the whole game by a 10y old in every 3 games out of 10? Is the kid not trolling for spending 12 min flaming in chat of a 24 min game? I might believe that claim if it goes like this: "5% of players are toxic while wining the game and carrying their team". The system is still not working properly if you ask me. But 400 reports and 3 punished only, can go either way.

Simply put, the difference of reports submitted and punishments delivered does not equal the number of false reports. Or I hope it does not... Because I report on almost daily basis, and I really don't want a to read another message like the other day: "DIE!! GET CANCER AND DIE!! ALL OF YOU" I don't give a fuck what happens to him or who he is I just don't want another game like that.

Pantheon ForeverSep 25, 20162 votes

"The system learns from us, if most of the players think that "ez" is unsportsmanlike conduct and report them, the system should deem that phrase as an offense."

I disagree it should look to see how many % of players are offended by "ez" and consider that maybe only a small % of players (the easily offended) may report for that to allow it. If 4/5 players agree then punish for it (same standard for a surrender vote). Otherwise we could systematically remove all words and ideas from the language. Have you never read the novel "1984"?

OneSmoothDudeJan 3, 20165 votes

I think he's digging at how infrequently people are punished when reported. Which is another problem that OP's suggestion would fix---it is widely believed by players that their reports are worthless, because nobody is being punished from them.

wilsuport4coffeeJan 2, 201636 votes

I LOVE THIS.

I would love if we could make this happen! Pls rito.

[zombie-brand-mindblown]

RiotRiot TantramOct 20, 201631 votes

I agree.

My team actually played around with some cool ideas for delivering something like this during Thunderdome. So, we're on the same page.

I don't think I'd want to show the number of reports that were labeled as false though, in order to keep people from gaming the system. While only displaying something monthly could help with that, I'd rather that players can view this information on-demand.

Kei143Oct 21, 20161 votes

Ohh ohh ohhh !!

sneak peak of when we can get new features ? My guess is after the Beta Client complete, but sneak peak pleaseeeeee~~~

Also sneak peak of new behavioral features we can see? hopefully a increase in visibility or a more detailed reform card? Maybe even an easier way for people to find information of the behavioral system (instead of me having to google articles from a year back)?? SNEAK PEAK PLEASSEEEE~~~

[slayer-jinx-wink]

RiotRiot TantramOct 21, 20167 votes

Not a sneak peak, just that I totally agree with this, as a player myself.

Jesus is SaviorJan 4, 20172 votes

[{quoted}](name=Riot Tantram,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=aFmEtAVK,comment-id=006400000000,timestamp=2016-10-21T17:58:04.952+0000)

Not a sneak peak, just that I totally agree with this, as a player myself.

The problem with this is that you'll think "wow I'm in good standing"

But you might actually be a toxic asshole, and if a manual review is triggered for any reason you're fucked. And then you'd get these people rage-posting on the forums "I was in good standing why the fuck am I permabanned?"

Ultra Rapid FyreJan 21, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Riot Tantram,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=aFmEtAVK,comment-id=0064,timestamp=2016-10-20T17:48:05.948+0000)

I agree.

My team actually played around with some cool ideas for delivering something like this during Thunderdome. So, we're on the same page.

I don't think I'd want to show the number of reports that were labeled as false though, in order to keep people from gaming the system. While only displaying something monthly could help with that, I'd rather that players can view this information on-demand.

why would you not want people to see reports labeled as false? mainly because no such thing exists?

What a farse

RiotRiot TantramJan 23, 20177 votes

If there was no such thing as a false report, everyone in the game would be banned ... A very very small percent of people ever see any sort of league penalty.

Deep Terror NamiJan 23, 20172 votes

Since you're speaking about PB systems at the moment, I'd like to mention GC's "announcement" that a new Tribunal is not in work and will not be in the foreseeable future; Since that says nothing about other player behavior systems I'd love to know what, if anything else is coming our way.

We get plenty of updates on skins, gameplay, client etc. but not a peep about the subjects I'm most invested in as a volunteer here.

aZ3R0nApr 9, 20173 votes

[{quoted}](name=Riot Tantram,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=aFmEtAVK,comment-id=006400060000,timestamp=2017-01-23T21:39:55.524+0000)

A very very small percent of people ever see any sort of league penalty.

Trust me, we know.

BruisingPruneJan 2, 201610 votes

this is actually a terrible idea, lyte has talked about this on the old forums

giving people an indication of how "toxic" their account is viewed by the system just allows players to adjust their behavior to remain toxic to a degree but avoid bans

if a troll/flamers account is in "good" standing, then they can say to themselves "great, now i can troll and do whatever i want for x amount of games before I have to be good again. then when its back to good standing ill just do it all over again"

SaixosJan 2, 201635 votes

That may have been true with the old system.

With the new instant feedback system Riot claims that any amount of 1-3 games where you get reported accurately can already give you a punishment, depending on how severe the flame is.

Additionally, this card would be once per month about the past behaviour. That means that people would only know what standing their account is in for maybe 2-3 days after the card if they started flaming for a game or two. Having a toxicity meter give instant feedback would indeed make the problem described appear, but once a month wouldn't.

Finally, as we've seen from people on the boards, people who are toxic often can't control themselves. The amount of people intentionally trolling and flaming who can control themselves is pretty small I'd say.

If the toxicity indication is still a bad thing after trying it out, then it could be easily removed without harming the rest of the status card.

TractJan 2, 20167 votes

Ya know, this is actually a really good idea. Like really, this would help alot of the people I see on this section of the boards.

ModUlanopoJan 3, 20166 votes

Things like this get suggested a lot, but there are some reasons why they aren't implemented:

Much of the toxicity in League is from people who aren't normally toxic, but are having a bad day. Reporting people is a good thing, but people would feel angry when their reports don't result in punishment as often as they believe they should. This is one of the hardest things for me to remember because I think I feel like most people: I don't report for nothing and I expect a response. It doesn't always work out that way, however.
When you give people a thermometer for how close they are to punishment, it gives them a way to maximize their toxicity while remaining safe. That's not cool.
People are already unsurprised by punishments - they receive warnings in advance. That or they're super-toxic and they get what they deserve
As far as "false reports" tallies go, that's a highly grey area. A low-weight reporter might report you correctly, but not have much affect on your account. Conversely, the checking systems might nullify a report by a high-weight reporter. Both of those are "false", but mean vastly different things. The thing is, unless you're seeing the warning popup, you shouldn't be worried about reports at all.

KaeblenJan 2, 20165 votes

Can we get it attached to the summoner profile pages too? I could see myself checking this ALOT.

SaixosJan 2, 20163 votes

I personally think having it update once per month over the previous month would be better than having it update in real time, but I think there could be a collection of previous status cards on your profile with an "all time" status card or something.

LeadpaintchipsJan 2, 20162 votes

But if we did that, it would introduce another type of griefing, and I don't think Riot would want that. I'm all for people checking their own status.

KaeblenJan 2, 20161 votes

I don't know what you mean by this. What new type of greifing would it be?

just did more reading. Yeah, with people checking it every day there would be a potential for trying to get very close to the line. Even with that potential, I think more people would change their behavior even at the slightest warning of punishment than those who would flirt with disaster that way.

LeadpaintchipsJan 2, 20161 votes

not only that, but people giving someone grief over the amount of reports given/received.

iHerringJan 3, 20161 votes

I agree that attaching it to a public profile is a bad idea (if that's actually what you were saying, not 100%).

But the OP pretty easily addressed that by making it a monthly report. Every month you get a snapshot, so you can try and toe the line all you want but it's just as much a guessing game as it is now.

LeadpaintchipsJan 3, 20162 votes

That was my issue, attaching it to your public profile.

Keeping it so that only the user can see their own status, I would fully stand behind.

lolptwoJan 2, 20164 votes

Amazing idea

biobirbbyyJan 2, 20164 votes

I would love to see this implemented. That way we can see how many of our reports aren't punishable acts.

IGotScuttleCrabsJan 2, 20164 votes

Personally I think a quarterly review would be more likely to happen. But I love the idea regardless.

LOL SpammerJan 2, 20164 votes

Why is this not already a thing.

SammystormJan 2, 20164 votes

This actually is a good idea.

qetzelJan 2, 20163 votes

I am not sure this will be done because it could lead to players deliberately trying to toe the line.

Hyrum GraffJan 2, 20168 votes

{quoted}

I am not sure this will be done because it could lead to players deliberately trying to toe the line.

That's why we shouldn't give info like "You are 3 reports away from being punished."

However, a 4-category system of Good-Neutral-Warning---Being_punished should be fine. Not to mention, if players repeatedly fall into the warning zone, they could be punished for that.

In general, I believe in a system that is transparent, but works because it makes sense, than a system that only works because people do not understand it.

PDE5 InhibitorsJan 2, 20163 votes

Really good idea!

Only thing is, 4 afks in a month should be higher than "medium" on the risk of punishment scale lol.

SaixosJan 2, 201614 votes

It depends on the amount of games you play per month really, for some people 4 afks in a month is extremely little if you play 4 games a day on average, for some it's a lot if you only play a game every 2-3 days.

The punishment scale should depend on the % of games you leave, not the amount per month :)

PDE5 InhibitorsJan 2, 20164 votes

I don't. I think it should be based on the amount of people you fuck over lol.

SaixosJan 2, 20162 votes

That would be nearly the same thing. Most people play 5v5, so you'd be screwing over 4 people on average.

However if we play TT 3v3, or someone is already afk in our 5v5, then we're turning it into a 3v2 or a 5v3. I'd argue that both of those situations are much worse than leaving a 5v5 since your presence has a bigger impact.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, % games left in recent times is the way to go.

PDE5 InhibitorsJan 2, 20164 votes

It isn't the same thing though. 5% of games afk for someone that plays 4 games every day negatively affects A LOT more people than someone that afks 5% of their games while only playing 2-3 a week.

SaixosJan 2, 20168 votes

Ah, that's what you mean. Still going to disagree because the more games you play, the more likely it is something will come up in the middle of a game. Stuff like internet issues, fire drills, and the like.

Being in greater risk of punishment due to devoting more time to league just seems wrong to me.

OneSmoothDudeJan 3, 20163 votes

Every instance you leave a game, you fuck over teammates.
Punishments should scale according to the severity and frequency of the crime.

If you agree with both of these statements, you shouldn't logically think that the ratio of games played to games AFK'd in matters. Percentage should be completely irrelevant.

If you AFK in a game with me, I don't care if you do it in other matches too or if you play a large number of matches with people other than me (...?); I'm still gonna report your ass and I hope Riot punishes you for it.

It just sounds like you're trying to justify AFKing "because there are so many games where I don't!" Is this incorrect?

PeponiPoroJan 3, 20164 votes

All the millions of players that play league have lives. That means shit happens, such as power outages, fires, flash floods (and they don't even have to happen where your playing, it could happen where you receive your internet from). Those people that make excuses that they didn't have time to play? I can understand reporting their ass. Those people who just suddenly disconnect? You can't always know the full story. I think Saixos has a valid point in that the amount of games you play as compared to your percentage of AFK should be a factor in how you are punished.

I realize my thoughts are scattered but they are somewhat related!

ntbcoolJan 2, 20164 votes

It's just an example, at riot they have professionals who would be much better at actually making it fair, through some complex algorithm.

pablowaJan 2, 20162 votes

Tbh, i disagree. Lets see why.

I really like your idea actually. I think myself as a "nice" and "healthy" player for the game and therefore i would love that the game would say at the game of every month: "Hey pablowa, you are a nice player, heads up keep doing so." I also like the idea of someone who gets a "bad" report beeing like: "Hey, maybe i am actaully doing something wrong i should change."

BUT BUT BUT (and these are very big BUTTS :P )

Let's be honest we dont live in a perfect world. Just look at the Forum and look at players who got banned. 99% is just like: that wasn't fair, i am not toxic etc. The chance of someone who gets a "bad" report actually changing is faaar faaar less than them saying: "Pff, thos reports where those premade kiddies, that reported me without reason". So i actually doubt it will help if bad players get a bad card. But, whenever Bad players get a good card... oh boy. Thats jsut horrible. Thats a card that comes from "Riot personnaly" telling htem, they are doing everything right.. Thats a card, saying : You can leave like 3 more times, without beeing at risk. It's saying: Falme 2-3 games without any risks.. do it.

So lets see

GOOD PLAYER gets GOOD CARD -> Nice feeling +1 GOOD PLAYER gets BAD CARD -> Bad feeling -1 BAD PLAYER gets GOOD CARD -> Absulutly Horrible -5 BAD PLAYER gets BAD CARD -> PRobably nothing +0.5

So iin my Opinion the COns are way higher than the PROS. Us, seeing a nice card at the end of the month is just not worth the risk in my opintion.

SOLUTION: THe part about how much % of the players you reported giot banned is fine. Saying players with under some percentage reports that they are fine, is great. Cut everything else.

Just my opinion :D

SaixosJan 2, 20163 votes

Your assumption is that players who are negative will get good cards, and players who are positive will get bad cards. I believe in Riot's system, I believe them when they talk about how accurate their system is now. Riot does as well, obviously.

I think the only edge cases would be players who are moderately negative or rarely flame - with these players the reform card part would come into play. That part is Riot telling them "Your attitude is fine most of the time, but the attitudes shown in these 2 games are not accepted by the community, steer away from them."

That way players who are skirting the edges also have a possibility of improving their attitudes. Also, those who claim "They are just premade kids trolling me" will have a monthly card calling them out on their bullshit. I've often heard players talk about reading what they said in past games and thinking "Did I really say that? Damn. That's not good."

Basically I think the edge case scenario you're describing is so extremely unlikely I highly doubt it's ever going to happen. And I think the benefits and more important the transparency is very important.