We cannot seriously think these bots are worth the hassle.
I'll get back to this in a moment, but let me just point out that, looking at it holistically, the IFS will always come up preferable over the Tribunal, every day of the week.
The bot will ban people if they're just generally unlikable not even toxic just blunt or abrasive.
And do you have any evidence for this? Because a claim without evidence to support it is largely pointless.
The worst part is, if one of the games that the bot banned on would even be considered on the fringe of toxic, then Riot will stand behind this automated Gustapo and will ignore their own Terms of Service which is beyond disgusting.
First of all, you mispelled "gestapo", and second, trying to make sociopolitical comments about stuff is a pretty good way to get a discussion closed early. Especially ones with the implications you're making.
In other words, please read the Boards Universal Rules before making comments like that. For your sake, if nobody else's.
Beyond that, of course Riot is going to stand by the punishment system when it comes to correctly placed punishments, and I don't get why you're vaguely referring to them "ignoring their own ToS". The IFS works in-line with their ToS. What's there to ignore?
Bring back tribunal so real humans can see and comprehend real situations.
See, here's the problem; you're looking at the Tribunal with rose-tinted glasses, thinking that having the ability to have direct human input on punishments would somehow magically make the system better. It'd certainly feel better to a degree, but the fact of the matter is, it would drastically reduce the effectiveness of the system in actually delivering punishments.
The Tribunal was iceboxed because it was slow, inefficient, and couldn't be incentivized without radically skewing the verdicts on cases. Couple that with the playerbase exploding into the millions, and you have a system that is just too outdated to function.
So let's look at those drawbacks. To start with, it was inefficient; in a smaller, more tightly-knit community, a community-based judicial system would be feasible, but as the playerbase increased, the amount of people playing compared to the amount of people voting in the Tribunal started to stack disproportionately. If efficiency were to be measured in people vs. cases, having a measure of around 200:10,000 is a pretty bad system overall. That's too many cases for too few people to handle, and that's not even meant to be accurate in relation to the Tribunal.
And, of course, with crap efficiency comes crap speed; with so many games being played and so few people actually handling Tribunal duty, punishments would often get doled out months after the offense had already passed, where the punishment just gets brought up out of the blue for something the offending player likely doesn't remember.
And then you have the problem of trying to counterbalance that disproportionate ratio of Tribunal members to Tribunal cases, where in comes incentives. And what happens when you place an incentive on something is that people will tend to look towards that incentive in such a singular manner, that they ignore the process of getting to it altogether; I.E, simply voting to "punish" on cases to get free Influence Points. That incentive was pretty quickly reversed.
So, all told, the Tribunal System was quickly becoming useless, and Riot needed something to actually punish players to improve player retention. Enter the IFS. Taking data from the Tribunal, Riot created a machine-learning system to read and punish players behavior in accordance with the community's feedback and the rules of the game. It was made to be faster, more efficient, and largely less reliant on player input to operate, and it accomplishes all three of those things in spades.
(Note; I say "largely" here because it still requires player input in the smallest degree; reports to trigger a review. No report = no review = no problem, both in the perception of the player and in the IFS.)
So, unless you can somehow rectify those issues that got the Tribunal iceboxed in the first place (and also give a really compelling reason to step down from using the IFS), the IFS is here to stay until Riot develops something that improves on it.
And stop forcing people to take your bot survey in order to talk to a real person, We should be able to talk to a real person as we are real people and we give Riot real money.
I'm going to assume this refers to Blitzcrank Bot; look, dude, Riot Support Agents are people, and they don't have infinite hours in a day to handle every individual request that comes up. Yes, you should be able to talk to a real person, "should" doesn't mean it's universally feasible.
Also, why is permanent muting not a thing? if I am toxic and you perma mute me I'll just forget that I ever could type in chat or even if I didnt I wouldnt be able to. Amazing!
Permanent chat muting isn't a thing because it doesn't work. Toxic people will continue to be toxic even in the absence of chat; and the only avenue left for toxicity without chat is gameplay toxicity. So, do you really want an uptick of trolls and intentional feeders in exchange for a personally satisfying band-aid solution to a problem that you should realistically solve yourself?
