Boards›Player Behavior

why not have a player driven manual review system ?

The Anivia OTP·5/13/2019, 4:15:17 PM·2 votes·2,749 views

I mean , i know you said that your bots were more effective than humans, but i'm not talking about the flaming..... you know what ? I start from the beggining:

#Few years ago Riot games introduced a new system known as the tribunal , it would allow players to manually reviews cases, Usually this involved that players with a lot of report would end up in a tribunal and can get sentenced. the fact that if you voted properly made you earn exp created a huge bias and some people ended up being banned then manually unbanned they then introduced the automated system (certainly based on neural network) to ban players.

#Now we are facing a bigger problem : players now feel that their opinion and standard doesn't matter as much, and feel like riot way of doing thing is wrong , because they have no responsibility in it aside from a little text box that almost never shows up.

Somes systems still need manual reviews however, especially the griefing/trolling ones, here come a new idea i have:

Why not copying the CS:GO overwatch system ?

the system would give trusted players (probably like 5 players across all elos) a context (pre game chat, last 50 games, Post game chat, score) then let them review the game with all the name changed, also see the in game chat.

The system then , based on these judgment would give players a little exp and honor boost and give a judgement. this could help the system for the grey areas, or the cases where there are a tons of report but nothing stands out in particular because he is tricking the system.

##My question is then what do you think of such system ? feel free to let a comment and answer the poll

#edit : Many of you don't seem to know how a neural network works.

https://imgur.com/tam9k2s

So to be precise we don't need to judge EVERY case this way only the most precise ones

28 Comments

Unker1395/13/2019, 5:32:19 PM4 votes

I need to report someone mAybe once a week. If a million players each did that, your 5 people would have to review 20 games a minute 24 hours a day 7 days a week to keep up.....and you want them to review all chat, gameplay and look at a 50 game history for each one?

Edit. If they were willing to, they could no longer be considered players.

Kei1435/13/2019, 5:25:55 PM4 votes

This is an article from Riot about the old Tribunal and the issues it had: https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/2018/08/ask-riot-will-tribunal-return/

Keep in mind that the Tribunal was for chat related offenses only. Now imagine if this was spread over to gameplay reviews, where people would have way more differing opinions on what is intentional disruptive behavior and it'll take even longer to review. The problems that the chat reviews will be compounded and more apparent for several times more.

zPOOPz5/13/2019, 6:03:46 PM3 votes

players now feel that their opinion and standard doesn't matter as much, and feel like riot way of doing thing is wrong , because they have no responsibility in it aside from a little text box that almost never shows up.

I wonder how many players we're talking about here. In any case, players opinion and especially standard does matter. That's why the IFS is not fully automated. It required reports in order to work. No report = no IFS = no review = no problem. If someone's chat is below a player's standard based on his opinion, he would report that person. Then and only then would the IFS be triggered to review that person's chat. It is a machine learning system that learn toxicity based on report pattern of player base.

If the opinions and standards of the 10 people in a particular game are that racism and hate speech are a-okay, you can spew kys and all the racist comments you want that game. If no one in that game report, no report = no IFS = no review = no problem. The 10 people's standards MATTER that game. Players' opinions and standards matter on a game-by-game basis and the IFS learn as a whole based on report pattern what the community as a whole standards are.

the system would give trusted players (probably like 5 players across all elos) a context (pre game chat, last 50 games, Post game chat, score) then let them review the game with all the name changed, also see the in game chat.

umm......5 players? Who sit for 24 hours a day doing nothing but review game play, chat, and even match history? And these 5 players do this every single day for 24 hours a day? He would not get past 10% of the total reports daily....

The system then , based on these judgment would give players a little exp and honor boost and give a judgement.

Well, if I have that kind of incentives, I could judge 1000 within 2 minutes flat.

the fact that if you voted properly made you earn exp created a huge bias and some people ended up being banned then manually unbanned they then introduced the automated system (certainly based on neural network) to ban players.

This seems very contradictory to the bonus rewards you suggested above. I played during the Tribunal era. You did not earn exp. You get a small amount of IP just for voting in the Tribunal regardless if it was properly (I guess you meant the vote is correct) or not. Rito put a stop to that quickly because players were just blindly punish or pardon without reading the chatlogs to get the bonus IP. It was not the reason why Tribunal was removed as the whole paragraph seems to imply since you didn't really fully described Tribunal. The primary reason why Tribunal was removed in favor of the IFS was because of how slow the cases are being judged due to low participation after Rito removed the IP rewards. If we had low participation just to read a simple chat log, what make you think the biggest reason Tribunal failed would be better when you want people to review game play on top of chat log and even match history?

And 5 people??? I know you're just spitballing number and not meant to be exact, but League player base are in the millions. I don't think you even spit anywhere in the same planet as a reasonable number.

RavenHusky5/14/2019, 1:35:59 AM2 votes

The automated system we have now is much more efficient, and can punish people within 15 minutes of a game ending in extreme circumstances.

rujitra5/13/2019, 7:01:17 PM2 votes

I'm sorry, but anyone who uses CSGO and their punishment systems as an example of a well-run behavior system is not someone I can take seriously. I don't mean that in a mean way. Simply put, CSGO's level of toxicity and trolling is not what League should be trying to emulate.

Umbral Regent5/13/2019, 9:12:15 PM2 votes

On top of the drawbacks mentioned in the Ask Riot post Kei143 linked, your idea also has some other drawbacks of its own;

players now feel that their opinion and standard doesn't matter as much, and feel like riot way of doing thing is wrong , because they have no responsibility in it aside from a little text box that almost never shows up.

...

the system would give trusted players (probably like 5 players across all elos) a context (pre game chat, last 50 games, Post game chat, score) then let them review the game with all the name changed, also see the in game chat.

For starters, if your goal is to help the community as a whole feel like their opinions and reports matter, picking all of five "trusted players" from all elos would not help that, at all.

Let's assume that the Ranked ladder accurately encompasses every skill level, meaning you'd have Tribunal tiers of five Iron players, five Bronze player, five Silvers, five Golds, five Platinums...Etc, etc.

So you'd have 45 Tribunal reviewers total; (5 x 9 for each Ranked tier) now compare that to the millions of players playing the game on average. That is a drop in the ocean, and it would do absolutely nothing to help those other millions of players who aren't part of the 45 most trusted Tribunal reviewers feel like their opinions matter.

Additionally, you'd still have the aforementioned problem of the Tribunal system being too slow, what with only 45 people to handle millions of gameplay-related cases daily. And, of course, these are supposed to be five "trusted players" from a given skill range, so they'd have to go through an absurdly thorough vetting process by Riot to determine whether or not they can handle said cases.

The system then , based on these judgment would give players a little exp and honor boost and give a judgement.

I'm just going to copy/paste from the Ask Riot post on this one.

2) It’s sometimes wildly inaccurate (especially when there was an IP reward per “successful” penalty, leading to a super innate bias in the system).

Giving rewards for a certain outcome would skew the process towards that outcome by default; incentives are a bad idea if you're looking for an unbiased system, which is what we need when it comes to punishing players.

Why not copying the CS:GO overwatch system ?

Unrelated to the criticism of the idea, I'd like to ask if you could explain what CS:GO's Overwatch system is. I frequently see people referencing it when discussing the idea of a player-based manual review system, but it's always off-handedly referenced, with the assumption that anyone reading it would know what it is.

And, as someone who doesn't play CS:GO, I will unfortunately be counted amongst the people who don't recognize the system right off-hand.

Midg3t5/13/2019, 5:39:03 PM1 votes

OW system is good (personally using it now that I got to GN1) but then you would need something in case people start abusing it like Tribunal. And I would only leave it for gameplay offenses, automated system is good enough for chat offenses.

And in OW you're watching only a portion of the game (around the time The Suspect got reported). And it takes a lot more people to make a judgement. (dunno how much tho).

Either that or Riot should actively notify players about players they reported. For example, once a week we should receive a report card that says

"You reported X players this week." " Y of those reports were valid and punishment has been given." "You were reported X times for Y/Z thing." "Insert specific message based on number of reports you received"

U Ratchet5/13/2019, 8:57:53 PM1 votes

Tbh I got perm banned for someone banning my champion and I banned his and it was my last straw so I’ve been thinking about just inting on all my games and acting like I’m bad, basically I’m going to just troll all my games and act like I’m bad to piss people off because I think perm bans are ridiculous, I wasn’t punished for 5 months since my 14 day ban and all my good behavior didn’t pay off in the end so. I’m going to troll with all my friends and start a bunch of smurf with them just to hurt riots player base. #makenoobsquit. #nonewplayers.