Fk it. It's too easy to get lost while replying to individual statements. I'm just going to structure it.
What I've done is twofold.
- I challenged the validity of your evidence because I have reason to believe it is not valid.
- I provided a counterargument in that Riot has said how it works before.
Main Argument
.
Claim: The report system actually works based on numbers of reports. One report doesn't equate to justice.
Reasons: The system fails to notify people about the usefulness of their input. The system fails to catch people who single out and bully specific people. The system fails to do anything about people who are in premades who will harass people and/or troll games. The system in general fails to stop intentional feeders and scripters. Riot's lack of giving statistics or information about how well the system performs.
Evidence: The accounts of multiple people on their experience with the system, including myself. Posts about people scripting/intent feeding for 20-50 games straight without punishment.
Claim 1: You are wrong, and bans work the same 9 or 1.
Reason: Rioters have said so on multiple occasions.
Support for reason: Rioters are primary sources who have direct access to the system in question. They designed it, they can see the code, they know how it views reports because they designed the ways in which it handles the reports. Primary sources trump secondary sources.
Evidence: See links provided by others earlier in the conversation.
Claim: Evidence gathered the way you gathered yours is not valid.
Reasons: Players do not have the full view of the system at work. They only see a fraction of it.
Any assumptions or claims made based off of those observations are inherently limited by the vewpoint. Smaller view point = lower quality evidence. Small enough viewpoint = invalid evidence.
That's how using data as evidence works. Sample size and viewpoint both limit the validity of the data as evidence. Witnesses with no specialized knowledge about (or access to) a system cannot testify to the inner workings of that system.
Evidence:
Link on witnesses as 'experts'
Claim: Your data is invalid.
Reasons: First off the data is limited in the ways I've outlined in the arguments above. Furthermore...
There are plenty of players reported by you who are punished but you are not told about because your game with them was not the final game they played in that triggered the punishment. Rioters have explained this numerous times: The system does not tell you if the game you played with that player was not the triggering game for their punishment.
Responses
Literally hit the character limit. My responses below are incomplete for that reason.
{quoted}
Wow, I'm glad my data is the best data possible at this current time unless Riot releases some. And no, there is not evidence to suggest aliens have been on our planet, though there is an argument to say they at least exist.
Do you have any better viewpoints? Otherwise this is what we have to work with.
The best data comes from the mouths of Rioters. They know how their system works, therefore they are much more likely to be correct than players who can't look at the code and don't know what it does.
The alien argument was an example, an analogy and parallel to your argument. It simply demonstrated how arguments are not made valid by just any evidence. The evidence has to be of quality that is above at least a baseline for valid evidence. Your evidence is of the same quality as the evidence that people have of aliens. Firsthand, witness based, and missing angles on the situation.
But I have and that's your problem. Otherwise you'd actually point out which part I did.
I explained this already, by ignoring parts of my argument that are inconvenient to argue against is fallacious. You did this multiple times by calling parts of my argument "not an argument."
"Finally you give a scenario that doesn't make sense because I've literally attacked your points head on. Anything else you said that I did not note was not an argument." As I said, it wasn't an argument so I didn't address it.
So you haven't. You've given no scenario even closely related in the slightest. You haven't disproved my argument because you have no evidence to support it. You haven't invalidated by evidence because you haven't presenting anything to overturn it.
I've shown in multiple ways (and with multiple analogies) how evidence that is gathered the way your evidence is gathered cannot be valid. Analogies are a tool of argument as well. If you choose to ignore that then that's your problem, not mine. At this point you're just wasting my time while denying valid arguments made against yours out of sheer stubbornness.
I've gone after each point and quoted the phrase that held the contradiction. Please refer to what I said earlier.
If I said it wasn't an argument, then I wouldn't need to attack it bceause it's not part of an argument so there would be NO NEED OR REQUIREMENT to do so.
Do you know what the three parts of an argument are? Claim, Reason, Evidence. If you take one out, the argument fails. The rest you gave was an opinion, thus ignored as such.
See argument section above. Also your argument is all opinion based as well. So you're really just shooting yourself in the foot by making the above statement.
Then the system should work as intended should it not? It clearly doesn't. Why is Riot considered a reliable source? They have reason to lie, unlike an entire populace as a whole. Either to hide the fact of how it works, to make players feel equal, and/or to prevent false flags. It could be any of these three, but not limited to.
See argument section above. Rioters are the best sources that we have.
Going back to the "microwaves give cancer" example. Just because I say so doesn't make it true. I need evidence.
Your claim = your job to prove. Not mine to disprove. You don't have valid evidence to support your claim, as I've expressed in the argument section above. You need other evidence to support your case. Dismissing my counterargument does not excuse you from having to provide valid evidence to support your initial argument.
You conceded by saying "more reports = you see 'player was reported' notification."
I never said that.
Then using basic logic, one should ask why does it not show up just as much by a single player report. Then you could come to the conclusion that a single report does nothing.
I flip a coin 10 times and 7 times out of 10 it comes up heads. Does that mean it's going to come up heads the 11th time? My point is this: Every player is an individual, with their own behavior record with Riot.
For example:
Say a player in your first game today has been reported in 3 previous games, they are on the cusp of receiving punishment, but have not triggered a review yet. Then they behave toxic in your game, and you report them. This triggers a review because they were about to trigger one, and so you receive a notification. If they received lots of reports this game you wouldn't know the difference in reason; from your viewpoint they played one game and got punished, and in that game they happened to get a lot of reports. You don't know about all their previous games. So logically from within your perspective, you reach the conclusion that all those reports in that one game are what triggered the punishment.
In your second game today, lets say you see a teammate being toxic and you report them. This is their second game being reported in a row, but they have not yet triggered a review. Later today they go on to play 3 more games and get reported in each of them. Finally they trigger a review, but you won't receive a notification because your report was not in the game that triggered the review. There are lots of players punished that we never find out about because we are not the triggering the report.
You are excluding the players for which you do not receive notifications from your dataset of players who receive punishment.
Of course, you could make this counter argument easier by saying: The person who is usually reported by multiple people is a huge repeat offender usually and therefore will get punished most likely due to breaking the Summoner's Code back to back. Of course this means single player reports, which may not be often, on other unacceptable behavior goes unpunished, which is where the system failed.
"a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/superstition
What I said was based on reason and knowledge, therefore is not a superstition. Just gonna ignore the rest of that because you were wrong by step 1.
See here how superstitions are formed. You've reached your conclusion about the report system in the exact same way that a superstition is formed... and without direct visibility to the system's mechanisms.
You see the trees, but you miss the forest. My assertion there was you were lacking a way to disprove me.
The rest was build on that sentence....
Your evidence was a few people's words, without even anything to back it up vs the words of much more people and their first hand experience who lack any reason to lie. Your reason was that Riot is correct because they are Riot (and any reason to do not lie was mostly cleared up). What left do you have to support yourself?
