Boards›Concepts & Creations

Nightblue's Punishment System Idea: "Targonian Summit"

iiGazeii·11/2/2018, 5:25:30 AM·13 votes·6,812 views

Nightblue3 posted a video about a week ago about a punishment system similar to the Overwatch system in CS:GO.

Here's the problem: There aren't enough Riot employees to comb through every report and administer punishment, and an automated system has difficulty judging something as subjective as griefing, causing griefers to fall through the cracks, and occasionally, for undeserving people to get punished for no reason, eating up more of Riot's time going back and lifting that punishment after the person submits a ticket.

Here's the solution: Put the judgement of reported players in our hands by allowing us to review the replay of a game and vote on what should happen.

Here's how it would work:

  1. When a player gets reported, a replay of that game is saved, but all in-game names are replaced with their respective champion names.
  2. Players of a high enough level/rank unlock a special mode called "Targonian Summit" (just a little lore tie-in; the summit of Mount Targon is where people go to be deemed worthy by the Targonians) that allows them to view a limited number of these replays per day. They can pause, rewind, fast-forward, control fog of war, etc., and they know which champion was reported (but not what they were reported for) as well as the ELO (but not their name). A player cannot get a replay of a game they participated in, either.
  3. Once at least 10 minutes' worth of the game has been viewed, the player viewing it may Pass Judgement on the reported player. Were they griefing? Were they cheating? Both? Neither? Leave your vote.
  4. This replay continues to circulate through the Targonian Summit until ten players have Passed Judgement on it. If the majority of those players believe the report was legitimate, then the punishment system takes effect. If the majority believes there was no transgression, then they are not punished. In both cases, the replay is then removed from circulation. In the case of a tie, the replay is returned to circulation for three additional players to Pass Judgement in order to break the tie.
  5. Once all the votes have been tallied, all players who were in the majority (i.e., voted for the action that was taken) receive a lump sum of Blue Essence for their time. The players in the minority receive nothing.

This would pretty much completely fix the punishment system. This would create a fine mesh sieve that strains out the vast majority of punishable activity in a way that is fair. The participants are unbiased, since they don't know who you are or what you were reported for, the gameplay is judged by real people and not a machine, and the people voting are motivated to make the right call so they get BE out of it.

People need at least some experience/skill to take part, so newbies aren't judging the actions of others, and with a limited number of replays, people can't just sit there playing the lotto and randomly voting all day to eventually get some BE payout. You also have to watch a good portion of the game before you can vote, so you can't just guess and get back to your regular gaming.

The mechanics are also all there. We have a replay system. We have a way to record player votes in-client. It's just up to Riot to put all the pieces together.

18 Comments

Jamaree11/2/2018, 6:47:28 AM5 votes

It would have to work in tandem with the current one we have, we saw first hand that having JUST a system like this would fail because of the trolls who would use the system as well as just not enough players doing it.

Zardo11/2/2018, 12:18:12 PM4 votes

I have a feeling that the whole "only get BE if you're in the majority" thing willlead to everyone just voting yes regardless of guilt.

CorruptedScythe11/2/2018, 2:53:46 PM4 votes

This was already tried. It didn't work.

Aionius11/2/2018, 5:32:45 AM2 votes

I like this idea. It's realistic, and seems like fun too. Also the unbiased part plays really well.

WoΘxer11/2/2018, 6:03:01 AM2 votes

Exactly what we need, shows the actions done on the reported suspect, if he ints and ppl see it was intentional bum 14 days ban for first offense and thats it. Now this garbage automated trash system literally checks keywords and throws the punishment without validated reason.

Friendly Ram11/2/2018, 4:26:57 PM2 votes

Will they get the chat with names censored?

Papa Andrei11/2/2018, 6:02:27 PM2 votes

Get rid of the BE part and its good imo

Halloween Kitty11/14/2018, 10:43:57 PM1 votes

This is similar to what the tribunal was like. I voted on particular reported players, reading through chat on the tribunal. It's been a long time since the tribunal. I think its something that is going to forever remain untouched.

Besteal11/2/2018, 6:19:31 PM1 votes

Ahem Tribunal ahem Riot wtf bring Tribunal back

minorhacks11/2/2018, 7:03:06 PM1 votes

10 minutes is kinda short isn't it? I mean you play ok for 20 minutes and then troll because how many people will watch 30 minutes if the reward is the same for 10.

If there was some way the video was tagged by the reports ie they ran it down mid around 35 minutes,might help.

Shazzbot6911/3/2018, 3:14:02 AM1 votes

They done it before and they removed it for a reason. If this idea was so simple as to be perfect, they would not have removed it.

Shazzbot6911/3/2018, 3:16:10 AM1 votes

Besides not everyone's definition of griefing/trolling is the same. I have no doubt that people will call me a griefer even though I try my best every game and just end up doing badly because of my lack of skills. How can we prevent that?

ZaFishbone11/2/2018, 3:47:38 PM1 votes

There are lot of cases where the offensive behavior is not subjective and clear cut, but the tribunal would judge innocent anyway.

LuaDotExe11/3/2018, 5:13:17 PM1 votes

Although it's a neat idea, this has a lot of issues:

  • A lotta high ELO players can be toxic. You'd have to gate it behind Honor or something-- and even then, just because they don't say anything or do it doesn't mean they won't be like "hah hah yeah inting is funny let's not ban this guy." I've met plenty of toxic Honor 4 and 5 players, who simply got there from not saying anything and chat and receiving Honor from people feeling inclined to Honor after every match.

  • As Tyler1 has shown us (back when he was toxic-- I highkey hate having to bring his name up in this kind of discussion), along with an Overwatch player I'm forgetting the name of, you can create large movements of people and encourage toxic behavior. Considering there's such a small pool of high ELO players, eventually you're gonna get into something like this, but for letting toxic people go.

  • You'd have to hide the Summoner's names. People can recognize somebody and go "oh hey I hate them I'm gonna vote against them" or go "oh hey this person's my buddy ahahah I don't want him to get banned."

  • You get into issues of severity, and how ready somebody should be to ban somebody. I've noticed that I had gotten really eager to report people at some points and call them toxic due to my rapid climb to Honor 5-- which I realized and said "hey wait a minute no that's shitty." League of Legends players already have a mentality that if they're a higher rank you shouldn't even be allowed to talk. People whose jobs are in player behavior, meanwhile, are more than likely specifically trained to treat each case with the appropriate severity.

  • You get the possibility of somebody not even putting that much effort into something that could determine a permaban. For all we know, people could just hit "yes" and be done with it, without even looking much at the replay.