Alternative to permabans!

Best PC Gamer·Oct 20, 2018·1 votes·1,944 views

Just a simple idea: what if riot would, in stead of "perma banning" accounts (which is not improving anything), just move these players to "bot only" servers, meaning all games are filled with AI players with random names from your database.

They don't have to know they have been moved (keeping the amount of players jumping to freshly bought accounts low) AND no one else (except their premade friends) have to deal with their nonsense anymore!

WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN (WIN?)!

26 Comments

Imperial PandaaOct 20, 20186 votes

Uh huh...

They would need the ai's that beat that one team in... Dota? I think it was. Otherwise all the sudden "I'm Rank 1 Challenger!"

And this is still prisoners island.

Best PC GamerOct 20, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=Imperial Pandaa,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=caPb480U,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-10-20T14:19:49.015+0000)

Uh huh...

They would need the ai's that beat that one team in... Dota? I think it was. Otherwise all the sudden "I'm Rank 1 Challenger!"

And this is still prisoners island.

It is a variation on the prisoner island, yea.. I remember the folklore about the consequences that type of punishment from earlier posts here, but in this case people wouldn't have to know they are on the island to begin with.

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter!

Imperial PandaaOct 20, 20182 votes

But it feels like you are focusing solely on a normal queue and not ranked. That is where I feel the biggest hole is for the idea.

Umbral RegentOct 20, 20187 votes

...but in this case people wouldn't have to know they are on the island to begin with.

Yeah, except for the fact that they'd know they're playing against bots. I'm pretty sure after enough matches, it'd become glaringly obvious that they've been thrown into a reverse-4/1/2016 kinda deal.

ExpStealerOct 20, 20181 votes

The AI isn't good enough to simulate real players.

But why no prisoner's island? Why does anyone care if all the toxic [insert insult here] drown in their own toxicity and eventually quit? No sane person wants them around anyway.

Umbral RegentOct 20, 20182 votes

Riot has explained their stance on the Prisoner's Island approach in one of their Ask Riot posts.

Shorthand is this:

Reason One: We believe in a real shot at reform for unsportsmanlike players

Reason Two: Prisoner’s island is a truly awful experience for the “prisoners” in more ways than one

But the post of course goes into more detail.

SonicAFOct 20, 20181 votes

Both points are outrageously stupid and hypocritically stupid, because they are multiple times more relevant to permabans. Permabans are removing the player instead of taking a shot at reforming him and are much more awful experience.

ExpStealerOct 20, 20182 votes

Which is why they get banned for 14 days first. It's their last/only warning to behave if they want to keep playing (meaning reform).

Umbral RegentOct 20, 20187 votes

Permabans are removing the player instead of taking a shot at reforming him...

Permabans are Riot's last resort against players who refuse to play by the rules over multiple punishments. In fact, the Ask Riot post even has a line;

We get that this can read as a bit naive. That’s why we keep the banhammer handy for players who just aren’t interested in being relatively sportsmanlike and playing the dang game.

If someone works their way to a permanent ban, they've used up their shot(s) at reforming, and have forced Riot to give them the boot.

...and are much more awful experience.

And how many other players has the permabanned player ruined the experience of to deserve a permanent ban?

To quote Spock from Star Trek; "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

~~Or the one.~~

So, tell me, whose awful experiences are more relevant? One permabanned player, or the dozens of other players they've ruined the experience of?

You have yet to outline how the policy against Prisoner's Island is hypocritical, and, even if it is hypocritical, I'd rather deal with a hypocritical policy than a bass-ackward one that favors the experience of one asshole over everyone else.

SonicAFOct 20, 20182 votes

Replacing permabans with the permanent prisoner island is more humane than what we have right now without interfering with interests of the many.

Riot in that article is somewhat justifiable(and it's a big stretch anyway) only if they respond to the idea that all punishments have to be replaced with the prisoner island. That is not the idea.

Umbral RegentOct 20, 20182 votes

Replacing permabans with the permanent prisoner island is more humane than what we have right now without interfering with interests of the many.

You're either implying that permanently banning players is inhumane (it isn't) or that (more plainly) it's less humane compared to Prisoner's Island. And, in the likely case that it's the latter, please refer to Riot's Ask Riot post:

Reason Two: Prisoner’s island is a truly awful experience for the “prisoners” in more ways than one

If we ship unsportsmanlike players to their own queue, they’d face a swath of issues that basically make League miserable by default. The queue would face higher rates of negativity in game, sure — but the diminished pool of players would also result in terrible queue times and lopsided matchmaking. It’d be emotionally satisfying to say they deserve it, but it’s squarely against our values of putting player experience first.

Beyond that, building and operating a service for a prisoner’s island would suck Rioters and resources from efforts we truly believe in, like improving Instant Feedback, intentional feeding detection, and reworking legacy systems like Honor.

What's more humane, making someone suffer horrible matchmaking, terrible queue times, etc. - even for continuous minor offenses, or god forbid, the scant few players that break the zero tolerance policy once and never do again that you've tried to argue for before - or straight up removing them?

I don't understand how Prisoner's Island is "more humane" than permanent bans when it pretty much amounts to torture. Abstract, videogame-mechanic torture, but torture nonetheless.

Riot in that article is somewhat justifiable(and it's a big stretch anyway) only if they respond to the idea that all punishments have to be replaced with the prisoner island. They shouldn't.

Why does it matter what tier of punishment they refer to? They're addressing the concept of Prisoner's Island as a whole, not as a stand-in for any given punishment tier.

SonicAFOct 20, 20181 votes

Being straight up removed is also an abstract torture, as you live with realization that everything you achieved is lost. Not enough of a torture to end your life(for most people) and make it stop, but a torture none the less. Do you see where it goes? Not every alternative to the torture is more humane than the torture itself.

Having a choice of playing your valuable account or considering it permabanned because of terrible matchmaking or queue times is a simple straightforward choice(unlike "growing a thicker skin" or "not typing anything on your next account") and Riot can afford giving it to them without spending any significant resources.

They could even allow sportsmanlike players(like me) to willingly play in that queue, in case they want a relaxed gaming experience, where they can whine and not risk getting punished for chat.

Why does it matter what tier of punishment they refer to? They're addressing the concept of Prisoner's Island as a whole, not as a stand-in for any given punishment tier.

It matters because their response does not apply to permanent bans, which is arguably the worst experience you can have in any online videogame and overwhelming majority of people who experienced it would prefer prisoner island over losing their account(which would still protect sensitive majorty[?] from them), considering every Riot's argument in their post insignificant.

I have to stress it again - cloning soloqueue doesn't require any effort and their claim that implementing it would suck any significant amount of resources is a lie. It doesn't have to be complicated. It doesn't require any research or calculations. It requires straightforward coding and some server power to support permabanned players(which, according to Rito themselves, is not that much).

SarutobiOct 20, 20184 votes

Except most of the time people aren't just straight up removed. They have chances to see what they done. If you cannot learn after multiple times being told what you are doing is wrong/against the rules why would you keep giving these people chances?

Riot has made their stance on a prisoner island. They want people to reform but if they cannot be mature enough to change the only other option is to remove them!

Having a Prisoner island isn't going to work with that in mind. People aren't going to reform nor will there be a chance to reform if they use something like the honor system to dictate that because I doubt people would use honor system if they are in prisoner island.

SonicAFOct 20, 20182 votes

Prisoner's island instead of permaban is not about giving chances. It's an alternative to permaban that is just as good at removing those who wasted their chances from the pool of "good" players, but is also more humane to the offenders.

Riot's stance on prisoner's island as a system could be applied to permabans:

It doesn't reform people(they are removed)
It is cruel(it is cruel)

Best PC GamerOct 20, 20181 votes

What I find more troublesome is that Riot will not permanently ban IP/Mac addresses in cases of "perma" bans (which would protect these vulnerable individuals from themselves and others). In stead, they allow these vulnerable people to create / buy new accounts so they can keep getting those sweet micro transactions coming in, as many gut wrenching "I had my 3rd XXX$ account permabanned"-posts are illustrative of. On that note, why not ban someone's IP for a period of 3-6 months, to actually force a break to maybe get some perspective and (if needed) help, when in some cases it is so painfully clear this is necessary? This way people might actually have a shot at "reforming", since they will have a chance of breaking some patterns.

In any case, it is in poor taste that all this happens under the guise of "humane treatment" / giving people the opportunity to reform, when it is really just a matter of revenue, plain and dirty.

I am not sure I can understand people defending Riot's current policy in light of the fact that negative behavior is still an enormous problem and that things like "soft-inting" and uncooperative "afk-farming" are strats people employ to be disruptive/obstructive without getting caught by the "baaaaad word" bot. Some people even dress up the act with over the top sweet comments throughout the game, leave it to a human to come up with original ways to act vile.

SonicAFOct 21, 20182 votes

Banning an IP potentially bans a town. And it's easy to bypass by using proxy. So it would really inconvenience less educated people who did nothing wrong.

Best PC GamerOct 21, 20181 votes

Mac =/ IP

Best PC GamerOct 21, 20181 votes

Yea man, totally makes sense.

Someone is "out of chances", can create / buy a new account immediately and proceed with no consequence whatsoever. No one is ever removed.

Your / riots argument would perhaps hold, if this were not the case. Then again, if my horse were a cow, I would have some nice fresh milk to put in my coffee.

The mind bending argument in a nutshell: people need a chance to reform, except when they don't, then we remove an account with no obstacle to relog whatsoever. (??????????)

SarutobiOct 21, 20182 votes

The point being no one wants to keep having to make a new account. Its suppose to be irritating to the point where they stop. Plus a prisoner island wouldnt help in this case as well. As you say people will make/buy a new account if they realize they are in this prisoner island and not actually solving the problem!

ExpStealerOct 20, 20181 votes

Reason One is correct, but doesn't work. People just make or buy new accounts and keep doing what they previously did (most of them anyway).

Reason Two is stupid. As I said, why would anyone care if all the toxic people drown in their own toxicity? Hell, if they know this awful place awaits them they might actually have a greater incentive to avoid punishment. Unless they're masochists like Mundo and they actually enjoy it. Not to mention some people would prefer toxic flamers to inters just because it means they win regardless. Well, let them play with toxic people only and see if they like it as much.

Best PC GamerOct 20, 20181 votes

I think it should be noted that a well trained AI could outperform average plat players, judging by openAI's performance vs actual professionals in DOTA.

ExpStealerOct 20, 20181 votes

True. But it's gonna be a long time before we get that level of AI in League I think.

Speaking of this. Has anyone beaten an AI playing chess?

Best PC GamerOct 20, 20181 votes

These architectures are rather flexible (see note below), so I don't think time is a big factor anymore.

On chess AI: Not sure, last thing I read was on Alphazero (re-purposing AlphaGo, developed for Go) beating another chess AI "Stockfish 8", which I think was already unbeaten by any human.

Imperial PandaaOct 20, 20181 votes

Yes, and unless there is another case besides the 2017 case, more detail should be given about this case.

The bot could only do a specific champ/hero in a 1v1. It also got beaten by things it hadn't encountered before, such as; Unusual Builds, lack of vision, odd pathing, etc.