People need attitude adjustments

xXxD3AD3CHOxXx·Nov 3, 2015·2 votes·661 views

Im honestly tired of people raging over HOW an individual plays, then report them for random and or all reasons just because THEY WANT u to play a certain way. Im swear on my families life that i have always tried my hardest to help, teach and play with honour. So if i get a ban i dont deserve im quitting LoL, and so will the rest of my friends and family as we ALL agreed. There needs to be an option in report for "false reporting" people take advantage and just report you for ONE thing they didnt like, even if its accidentally moving across a lane.

23 Comments

DaenNov 3, 20153 votes

If people are falsely reporting you, those reports will not be taken into account in regards to a restriction or suspension; false reports are discarded for exactly the reasons you outlined.

As far as GMs are concerned, I think the community is too large for it to really have a noticeable effect for the effort expended.

RueianNov 4, 20151 votes

I still question when a report is 'discarded' for being false. There is no reasonable way the automated system could do that instantly given that it cant understand context and only recognizes what is perceived as negative from its ever changing lexicon

EvilDustManNov 4, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I still question when a report is 'discarded' for being false. There is no reasonable way the automated system could do that instantly given that it cant understand context and only recognizes what is perceived as negative from its ever changing lexicon

Not instantly. And if there's zero evidence of toxicity in your chat logs, it would discard it. And if a punishment is borderline, they check it.

RueianNov 4, 20151 votes

Reform cards show otherwise. There have been cases of people with reform cards that are clean, and when questioned they are provided toxic chat logs that were not on the reform card. Which means the automated system didn't discard the false reports.

JubbinautNov 4, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Reform cards show otherwise. There have been cases of people with reform cards that are clean, and when questioned they are provided toxic chat logs that were not on the reform card. Which means the automated system didn't discard the false reports.

In theory, false reports can build a case against a player. However, a clean (or clean enough) case would be ignored or Pardoned by the system. In essence, false reports can only hurt players who are already toxic - just not quite often enough to trigger a case on their own.

What I think Daen is referring to, though, is the commonly-low report weight of players who habitually issue false reports - which keeps them from having any meaningful impact towards building a case against any given player.

RueianNov 4, 20151 votes

I'm just saying the risk is there. If a player with even 25%+ of the cases are false, is it justifable to fully judge them?

EvilDustManNov 4, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I'm just saying the risk is there. If a player with even 25%+ of the cases are false, is it justifable to fully judge them?

If it's 25%? Sure. They are still toxic a lot.

JubbinautNov 4, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I'm just saying the risk is there. If a player with even 25%+ of the cases are false, is it justifable to fully judge them?

Think about it another way - if a person is reported to the police every time they enter a convenience store, is it justifiable to judge them based solely on the fact that they only robbed 25% of those stores?

RueianNov 4, 20152 votes

This is the problem with making offline comparisons. This isn't offline, and being 'toxic' isn't the same. Punishment threshold should be met. If a person has 100% toxic reports that's fine, but its not fair to judge the person with a bunch of false reports in their case as the same

JubbinautNov 4, 20152 votes

{quoted}

This is the problem with making offline comparisons. This isn't offline, and being 'toxic' isn't the same. Punishment threshold should be met. If a person has 100% toxic reports that's fine, but its not fair to judge the person with a bunch of false reports in their case as the same

So you're saying that if a player has any number of non-toxic games in their case, we should ignore all the toxic games they had?

Sounds like a great way to ensure that nobody ever receives a punishment at all.

And sure it's reasonable to judge them the same, because here's the thing - a case is judged as a whole. If the overall case has enough negativity - regardless of the ratio of negative to positive games - then the case is punished. Otherwise, it's pardoned.

And frankly, I don't care how many times a player didn't do a thing - I care about whether that player did it enough to break the threshold and trigger a punishment.

RueianNov 4, 20151 votes

No I am saying the false reports should be discarded, and the case waits for more infractions.

Theoretically a person could get judged by having 1 true report. This system is automated. Which is why 'when' the reports are discarded matters

JubbinautNov 4, 20152 votes

{quoted}

No I am saying the false reports should be discarded, and the case waits for more infractions.

Except reports fall off. The system's already tuned to be lenient, specifically to prevent false positives - you're talking about exacerbating that, and leaving known and recognizably toxic players out in the community explicitly because they sometimes get reported even when they aren't toxic.

Theoretically a person could get judged by having 1 true report. This system is automated. Which is why 'when' the reports are discarded matters

Sure they could. If, y'know, the infraction was bad enough to warrant it. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If some dude wanders into a game and makes death threats, or starts spewing hate speech, maybe that guy should be punished - even if it's just one game.

And interestingly, most of the community agrees with me on that. The biggest complaint I saw when Riot announced that they were adjusting the Instant Feedback system to be more strict on those behaviors was people claiming they didn't really mean it, or it wouldn't work. Not complaining that it shouldn't be a thing.

And none of that addresses the point I'm making.

Yes, the system is automated. But the type of automation is pretty relevant. It doesn't just pile up reports and then issue a punishment - it reviews those cases using a fairly complicated Natural Language Processing system. That system determines punishment, in much the same way that the Tribunal did - by looking over the case, determining if there's enough toxicity present to cross whatever threshold it's been given, and handling the account accordingly.

So yes, theoretically, a player could be punished for one single extremely heinous infraction. A player could also be extremely mildly toxic in half their reported games, and be pardoned because they didn't break that threshold.

See, the threshold that you want is still there. It's just completely disconnected from the Report system.

RueianNov 4, 20151 votes

That idea goes entirely against the intent of the system.

'Everyone has a bad day' is being ignored by the way the community wants it.

Also I know reports drop off, but not quickly. False reports should be entirely discarded because the system is becoming more strict. But the system can't justify false reports all the time.

JubbinautNov 4, 20151 votes

{quoted}

That idea goes entirely against the intent of the system.

'Everyone has a bad day' is being ignored by the way the community wants it.

If your idea of a single bad day is death threats and hate speech, I'm frankly terrified of what you consider "normal."

Again, the threshold you want exists. It just doesn't exist where you think it should.

Which is probably good, because this way saves time, minimizes the number of consistently toxic players who "get away with it" because they're below the report threshold, and ensures that all players are judged based on the same criteria.

Let's try a few examples for your system, shall we?

Player A is a pretty positive player. He gets reported a lot, though, so the Instant Feedback system has actually had quite a few cases for him. Each time, the vast majority of his games have been thrown out, because the reports were false. In his case, your system is not meaningfully different than the current system.

Player B is an absolute douchenozzle. He throws constant fits about absolutely everything that doesn't go exactly the way he wants it to. Because of this, he gets reported frequently - although, as with anyone, some of those reports are false. He's bounced off the system a few times because of those false reports, but he is eventually punished. In his case, the only meaningful difference between the current system and yours is that it takes longer for this player to be punished.

Player C is on the barest edge of toxic. He has a bad habit of retaliating against those who - in his opinion - are "attacking" him. Still, he often has games that this isn't true, and has earned quite a few false reports. Because of this, he bounces off the system regularly, but his case is always thrown out, despite his evident toxicity, because those false reports are the only things that send him over the threshold. In his case, the biggest difference is that he never learns that his behavior is problematic, because he is never issued a punishment.

This is why I prefer the threshold existing where it is - because as it stands, it doesn't matter where the reports came from. The reports are entirely meaningless in and of themselves. The only thing that matters is the player's behavior, and the standards by which all cases are judged.

RueianNov 4, 20151 votes

I never said what a bad day was. But really everyone expresses themselves differently when they've reached that breaking point.

They arnt being judged by the same criteria if you don't have all your reports true.
Any non-discarded false reports shouldn't count against you ever. Reports don't decay that fast, if a person is truely toxic, they will generate a full case, and at that point they should be judged. Given how strict the system is now. You want it absolutely accurate and fair.

JubbinautNov 5, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I never said what a bad day was. But really everyone expresses themselves differently when they've reached that breaking point.

I think it's safe to say that there's a limit to what can be considered acceptable, even on an occasional basis.

And no, you didn't say what a bad day was - but the presumption of your entire argument is that any case which includes hate speech or death threats (y'know, those extremely heinous infractions I mentioned) should be tossed back if it includes false reports - even though they are considered so bad as to be punishable in-and-of themselves.

They arnt being judged by the same criteria if you don't have all your reports true. Any non-discarded false reports shouldn't count against you ever.

That's rather the point - they don't count against you. Once the case is built, all the reports are ignored, and only the games themselves are looked at.

The only thing reports do is build a case. Nothing more, nothing less. So false reports that do trigger a case don't actually hurt the player in question.

In fact, it's possible they may help - after all, seeing 3 games of mild toxicity out of a 100-game case looks much better than seeing 100 games of mild toxicity (dating back most of a year) out of a 100-game case.

The first shows toxicity as an uncommon-to-rare behavior. The second shows a possibly-false indicator that the toxicity is a common behavior.

Given how strict the system is now. You want it absolutely accurate and fair.

Absolutely. But reports have nothing to do with accuracy or fairness. Judging a player's behavior accurately and fairly means ignoring reports, and looking exclusively at the evidence contained within the case.

And that evidence is judged - with no consideration towards the reports themselves - by the same criteria.

EvilDustManNov 3, 20152 votes

Given the volume of matches, this will never ever happen. And if you didn't do anything, the report won't stick.

Yikes Im badNov 3, 20151 votes

Riot is already doing it's best to manage this kind of mess. Plus, why would you get banned? Did you break the summoners code or any other legal agreements(EULA, TOU,Etc.)?

I invite you to read this: http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/legal/tribunal

wormNov 3, 20151 votes

{quoted}

So if i get a ban i dont deserve im quitting LoL, and so will the rest of my friends and family as we ALL agreed.

Why are you trying to threaten riot? If you get banned, you probably deserve it. Enough said.

Captain AishiNov 4, 20151 votes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui9egS_0PQ8

this is the attitude adjustment that false reporters should get!

seriously, false reports have absolutely no impact on getting banned

Sona PingNov 4, 20151 votes

"false reports have absolutely no impact on getting banned"

People keep saying that, but saying it more doesn't make it so. Especially because people can and HAVE been banned/suspended falsely before! As others have demonstrated on this very forum.

Captain AishiNov 4, 20151 votes

the only instances i've heard of people being wrongfully banned all had to do with riot misinterpreting their own data and mistakenly identifying people as elo boosters or as using prohibited 3rd party programs, i've never heard of someone being wrongfully banned because of in-game reports by peers

Sona PingNov 4, 20151 votes

Well, it's happened. For instance, I remember two threads where the player was banned and the chat log of the game they were banned because of was included in the email as standard; a game with a toxic, abusive player. In both instances, the player was pretty much just fine, the offensive content that they were banned for was them talking about what the abusive player said to them. Going by what we have been told about how moderation works, we have to assume that they were banned because of in-game reports by other players. Even presumably, from those very same abusive players themselves.