Create Player Moderators already!

Snowman Arc··2 votes·1,757 views

Seriously, almost every game out there has PMods. I think that every MMORPG has PMods, and quite a lot first person shooters have as well. Why can't MOBAs, and in particular, League, have PMods?

Seeing how the punishment system is flawed and can't detect a lot of things, like inting, Riot should entrust players to become PMods. Apart from having instant power of muting players who verbally abuse others, they could also have their report being more powerful.

For example, let's just say there is a 0/10 player in one team. If I report that player, probably nothing will happen, because there's not enough data that this player does this repeatedly, or they can't know if they did it intentionally or if it was just a bad game. Instead, if there manages to be a PMod in that game, they can identify such a case and report that player. In this case, PMod's report should provoke Riot's employees to watch that game and figure out for themselves.

Assuming that PMods are legit and care about the community, and any of their reports are 100% legitimate and have reasons, it could help vastly. Instead of having a programmed system, which is flawed, and just a small amount of people to monitor the vast playerbase of league, Riot could instead make 1% of the population to be PMods. I do believe that it would serve the system very well.

PMods can be selected through something like the Honor system.

19 Comments

Umbral Regent10 votes

So, what you're suggesting is, we should change out the IFS (which, as you say, is flawed) for having Player Moderators...Players who, inarguably, are more flawed than the IFS?

You're suggesting that we pick however many people based on Honor Level (which is not a good indicator of actual Honor, nor a good indicator that a player cares about the community), and give them significantly increased report weighting compared to other players?

How's about instead we first try to figure out how to get players accurately and properly reporting actual cases of intentional feeding/trolling/etc. before ditching a system that works just fine in favor of giving players - who absolutely do not need it - increased report weighting, the ability to actually fucking squelch a player's chat for everyone, and the ability to trigger a manual review of a match at-will.

Because that shit would get abused fast.

Snowman Arc1 votes

Well, I've met quite a lot of PMods in other games online, and they seem to be very fair towards the player behavior decisions they take. Muting flamers, or catching other types of negativity. Rarely did I see one PMod abusing their power, and they would get demoted and punished quite swiftly. Riot can take a close look to the player who can become PMods. I don't think it's really hard to figure out who's a fair and respectful player and who's not. And in the case of picking wrong, the PMod that acts wrong will then be demoted, since they do not fit the job, and maybe even punished if they tried to abuse that power.

Imagine, for example, if in every 5 games you played, you came across a PMod. It seems like a good ratio and slowly but surely, you'll get to chop off the trolls and the flamers.

Thing is, a change can be good, because quite honestly, things can't get any worse. Every game I play, in any of my three accounts (plat / silver / bronze elo), I come across at least one guy that flames, or in slightly less often situations players who feed, and sometimes intentionally. The IFS doesn't ban quite a lot of people. I've had games where people were wishing me cancer and death to my family, I reported them and got no IFS report back. If that's not flawed, then I don't know what is.

Umbral Regent3 votes

There are a host of issues with Player Moderators that make it pretty much unable to be implemented to League. For starters, you'd have to select someone who fits roughly the following criteria:

  1. Cares about the game and wants to see it flourish
  2. Can make fair judgements about other players, can detach themselves from a situation
  3. Does not have a previous record of punishments
  4. Would be willing to judge other players behaviors and respond accordingly

And these four just make up a basic outline - there could be more requirements, but with this alone, the amount of players who fit the criteria - not being punished, caring for the game, and being both able and willing to deal with toxic players... Well, one could see pretty easily how the group of Player Moderators might be a little small.

And, this is of course disregarding the fact that there are already facets of the behavior system and other sorts of common knowledge that the introduction of Player Moderators would violate.

  • The IFS has no concept of report weighting - even the spam-reporter will eventually get a valid report through, so, considering that the IFS is generally fairly accurate in regards to sussing out false reports and punishing valid ones, report weighting doesn't exist. No one has any more weight to their reports than anyone else.
  • It's not a player's place to punish another player. The right to punishment is held exclusively by Riot, so giving players the ability to even so much as silence a player in the middle of a game is a pretty huge "no". It breaks established rules, and frankly, the ability to actually silence players sounds too abusable to leave being an "on-paper" concept.
  • Manual reviews aren't a dime-a-dozen thing - if they gave any group of players the ability to trigger manual review of a case, they'd have to consequently throw on another team or two to handle it. And most people know that that's simply not feasible.

Even if they did add Player Moderators, it would take quite a while for Riot to prune the abusers and get the group down to an actual, serviceable moderation team. And, knowing the League community...No disrespect, but, the team would likely be so small that you'd be more likely to see an Instant Feedback Report than to run into a Player Moderator.

And, thinking of the Instant Feedback Report, I may as well touch on that, too, since you brought it up:

You're nowhere near guaranteed to get the Instant Feedback Report, and really, it's a horribly inaccurate method to try and gauge who all got punished. It shows up very, very rarely, and even then it won't tell you who.

The best way I can put it is; just because you don't see it happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen. You may not think that the players you've reported are getting punished, but if they broke the rules, I can just about guarantee you they got some form of punishment.

Of course, some cases (depending on severity and frequency) may be approached more cautiously by the IFS than others. Sure, that ultimately means more games that a player low-key ruins by being an asshole, but, the IFS tries to accommodate in case it's just a bad game or two, rather than a constant flaming problem.

Sure, the IFS is flawed, but it's a hell of a lot better than Player Moderators would be.

Snowman Arc1 votes

I, for one, would like to have a job as a Moderator to be honest, and I can see why there would quite a lot of other players who genuinely care about the community. I'd like to, for example, spectate bronze games and actually see who's trolling or flaming and red-flag that match for someone higher up to see. Obviously, I wouldn't flag someone for dying once, even if it was stupid. Also, cases of verbal abuse could be handled by me with a soft chat ban to start with (next 10 PvP games for instance).

Umbral Regent4 votes

Noted, but, you wanting to be a Player Moderator doesn't address any of my points.

Silent Gravity1 votes

In 5 games, you'll play against only 45 other people.

With the size of League's player base you're asking Riot to spend a significant amount of time and money investigating and moderating ....over 1 million individual players.

Snowman Arc2 votes

That's why you wanna have PMods. 1% of the playerbase being PMods for example would be enough.

Silent Gravity4 votes

Your 1 per 5 games would set the percentage at 2%, and that's well over one million players.

Reducing the percentage to your new 1% of the playerbase in now just well over five hundred thousand players.

We can round down and just call it 500k for the sake of this exercise.

Now, a full time job is considered to be 40 hours of work round here. That's 5 days of 8 hours. This does exclude lunch time, but paid breaks are the norm, and bathroom breaks are required by law to be paid. But there's also vacation days, and federal holidays. Let's exclude those for shits and giggles.

So, we have around 7 hours a day (35/week/person) of a mind-numbingly boring and repetitive task of monitoring the quality of decisions and checking for abuse of power.

How often do we want someone to give a once over for all these mid-game mutings and enhanced reports? 6 times a year? Maybe. They'd have a lot of opportunities to abuse their power in that time span. And you could go over ALL of their decisions, but that would take forever, so you take a random sampling of the times they've exercised their authority and hope that the threat of being caught abusing the power keeps everyone in check. Even a random sampling will give us too big of a number. Let's cut it down a bit.

So, 6 review times a year for 500k people is 3m check-ins per year. Let's have the supervisors pull up just 1 (one) replay of a game where the PMods gave an enhanced report for feeding/trolling and just 1 (one) game's full chatlog with timestamps for when they applied a mute.

That will be ....25 minutes average gametime viewed, and 3 minutes reading the chatlog and noting when/where/why the mute was applied. Now, if the enhanced report of trolling is correct and the mute was applied at what is considered the perfect time, you still have to do a bit of paperwork. Let's say it takes just 6 minutes to log. And 1 minute to blink your eyes and load up the next case.

So that's now 35 minutes x 3 million check-ins per year. That's 105 million minutes or 1,750,000 hours. At 35 hr/week and 52 weeks a year (also rounded down) that is 961 full time employees.

Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, and the highest State minimum wage is $11.50 in Washington State. (California is $10.5, so that's towards the upper end, if they go near headquarters) That's ~$12.6 million to ~$20 million per year. But, many states require health insurance for full time employees. There's also "the employer's contribution to social security" and the hardware costs to give them enough computers to do the job and desks and chairs and electricity and heating/cooling and plumbing and parking space, and the bandwidth for all the data they're sending/receiving, and code monkeys to design and maintain all the software, and you'll need some servers to hold the data.

An MIT article has an estimate of 2.7 times the base salary generally covers the costs associated with having an employee. So, we can just sorta crunch that together as $34 million to $54 million a year in recurrent costs.

The office space required for 961 employees is around 150 sq ft per person, that's 144k sq ft. If they put that near West LA, where Riot Headquarters is, Avison Young puts the cost of office space in West Los Angelas as $3.63 per sq ft. per month. That's only $6.2 million per year! Practically free!

So, we're at ~$60 million per year now. That doesn't cover the startup costs. But it's getting late, and I'm running out of steam.

Now, what did we gain from this expense?

You set the % at 1, so one game out of 10 on average will have a PMod in them. The games without a PMod would probably as a side effect be slightly worse than now.

These PMods can forcibly mute others, but If someone is bothering a person, it's well within everyone's capabilities to mute them individually. So we gained absolutely nothing on this front.

These PMods can also create enhanced trolling reports with more weight. You seem to want these reports to lead directly to punishment. You said that you want an employee to review every single one, but the 3 million check-ins per year from the hypothetical situation above costs $60 million dollars per year. That means that every report that is checked by an employee costs $20. There is no way to give 500k people the ability to make Riot pay $20 every time they think someone is trolling.

That is if every single report is validated as true, without a second thought about edge cases, or correcting an invalid report. So that is completely unreasonable.

So, instead, we have these PMods going around giving out punishments, with such minor oversight that it's laughable. That would be abused. The time and money spent investigating and correcting that abuse would be more.

This suggestion is unrealistic. It provides no benefits. It would be horrible.

fatherdarius1 votes

i love it when someone else does the math! :D

archerno11 votes

[{quoted}](name=Snowman Arc,realm=EUNE,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=mGlAoEPy,comment-id=0000000000010000,timestamp=2018-04-23T12:34:41.109+0000)

That's why you wanna have PMods. 1% of the playerbase being PMods for example would be enough.

You are aware that 1% of playerbase is roughly million people? How do you give power to million of people?

Azure Hamster2 votes

[{quoted}](name=Umbral Regent,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=mGlAoEPy,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-04-23T10:28:55.447+0000)

You're suggesting that we pick however many people based on Honor Level (which is not a good indicator of actual Honor, nor a good indicator that a player cares about the community), and give them significantly increased report weighting compared to other players?

Yeah, most people think "honorable" means "carried". One guy carried hard, but wasn't particularly honorable (or dishonorable, for that matter). He bitched about how many games in a row he'd gone without getting honored. When I told him it wasn't about just carrying, he acted like he'd never heard that idea before.

Caitlyn

AeroWaffle6 votes

I believe that amount of trolls that the Mods could deal with would be outweighed by the risk of giving so many people power that's easily abusable. It would generate it's own set of problems.

Arisha the Dark4 votes

When machine judges your behaviour, it's impartial. It judges based on set rules.

With humans, all we need is for 1 troll/white knight to get that power and way to many actually innocent people will get punished for no reason.

No, we do not need that.

Kaioko3 votes

We already tried that kind of system -- it was called tribunal and it did not work. Having them in game is also just not feasible -- not only that but former tribunal judges have proven themselves to not be trustworthy.

comedybingbongs2 votes

I think its a great idea. There is so much inting in this game that goes unpunished because the player didn't literally buy 6 tears and run down mid. Knowing that there was some low % chance that someone in your game's reports were taken extra seriously would cut down on toxicity.

Arisha the Dark1 votes

Dude, to have 1 Pmod in every 5th match, you will have to make every 50th player a Pmod. With an actual amount of people playing this game, it's an insane amount of Pmods.

This won't work mostly because you can't compare fps and mmorpg to moba. In mmorpg all you need is 1 guy in world chat. That's it. In fps games population usually isn't as high as here and many of them have more then 10 players in a match.

Trying to apply Pmods to this game, if you can find a way to avoid abuse of power, will be or overwhelming with Riot needing to moderate so many Pmods or ineffective with not enough Pmods in game to do much.

Snowman Arc1 votes

Well, even if there were like 1k PMods in each server, that's still not a lot, but they could do so much more work than Riot currently does.

Kanzler1 votes

The last thing you want is an army of moderators with actual power over your account. Just ask yourself if you are 100% confident with every boards moderator having that much power.

To use your trolling example, there are some moderators here that will go to the end of the earth to find an ounce of plausible deniability that someone is trolling.

Arammus1 votes

what a HORRIBLE idea. most mmorpgs i played have 2 sites. and usually only player mods can chat with both. and the majority of player mods was favoring one side ALWAYS. it was shit.

More from Player Behavior

More by Snowman Arc