Cryptidian (EUNE)
: It sucks that I need to mute the chat because of all the flame when learning a new champion
I mean everybody has to learn new champs, but it always depends on what is actually happening... I am very unhappy to see someone in my Normal that is playing a possibly complex champion for the first time, not even taking the time beforehand and reading through the spells, watching tutorials or using the practice mode. Sure, it is okay if you don't get every combo right. But if you have absolutely no idea of what you are doing and that is because you do not care and just say "I am allowed to feed because first time new champ and it's only normal" then, yes, I think you should still be punished. On the other hand, if you just thought you had a clue and in the end it did not work out well, just apologize and at least show some respect for your teammates. Try your best tho. Then you're fine and hopefully no one is being negative :-D Best of luck with that new champ!
xFrosten (EUW)
: Because the system is flawed, in game actions are very hard to monitize, and therefore hard to punish as well. So if someone has a dilemma with you, he can literally go around using Syndra e on your jungle and reset your camps consecutively, but as soon as you type anything to him, or even beg him to stop, it can be counted as negativity and you are the one getting banned. Now I know that running it down mid is a thing, but some thing that most players tend to forget, is that people can have actual bad games, where they just feed and feed, they try their best, but they go 0 - 13 anyway, and in those cases I don´t feel like they deserve to be reported or punished, because there is a silver lining between feeding and INTENTIONAL feeding. Just my thoughts though ^^
So, I am Gold and when I kindly give my toplane (already 0-2) the advice to stay under turret and just farm because we win bot lane and everything is fine, he usually insults me and goes 0-5, loses his turret and then is tilt for the rest of the game. That already is intentionally feeding because he could not overcome his tilt of misplaying and just listen and give the rest of the team an opportunity to carry. It's also griefing imo. And that is the reason why I think it is super bad that Griefing and Inting is not reviewed by humans (i.e. the Tribunal) anymore. Trolling I think makes the game WAAYYY less fun than toxic ppl. I dont think that negativity is good, but I think that you can just sidestep it by using the mute function. But what are you gonna do about that inting 0-5 riven in your Top lane when having your Promos? You're stuck, wasting time, having a bad time and then you even lose your promos. RIP
xFrosten (EUW)
: MAJOR design flaws in the reward system / honor level - A in-depth discussion
The flaw is basically that even the rules of LoL say that you cannot defend yourself. I do understand this in some way, but why the heck are there less chat restrictions, no queue type which does not allow using the chat and so many perma bans for toxic behavior? I mean if someone is actually running it down 0/13 in a ranked game, they are not banned. How is this fair?
RustLord (EUNE)
: Well, I know its not equal to ''Give away my password'' but I just said that cuz somebody would ask me 100%
If you gave away your account and some of your "friends" flamed, then its 100% your fault. If you gave away your account, but actually got hacked, then probably your password is not safe, or you got a keylogger (in the latter case, you have a really big problem. maybe also other stuff like online banking could be compromised). Anyway, if you cannot access the account, open a Support ticket and start a process to retrieve back your account. You will probably be asked questions that could identify you as the respectful owner of the account and eventually you should get it back. Hope that helps. GL
Mana Pot (EUW)
: Chat Ban for nothing
Don't quite see why game 1 is even listed here tbh... But heard of occasions where people were banned literally because "they wrote too much in the chat". Just /fullmute all if they are all flaming. And generally: Turn of the all chat. It is mainly used for flaming. Good luck!
: i got permanently banned for telling my botlane they are bad
While I can understand your frustration, it's actually something you pointed out in your description: You got a chat restriction and a 14 day ban. If you carefully read the support articles, you would know the line of events related to banning. Also, it is well-known that Riot punishes consecutive actions way worse. This means: While your chat logs don't suggest a permanent supsension in the first place, it suddenly does because you were already punished twice before and didn't learn your lesson. As a tip: Just don't use the chat except for "glhf", "wp" and "ggwp". If somebody is writing bullshit, just /mute all. If someone annoys you with pings, mute them. And disable all chat because it's only used for flaming most of the time. Concentrate on your own game and not the enemys'. Good luck improving your attitude in the Fields of Justice {{sticker:slayer-jinx-catface}} Quick Edit: Someone below pointed out that you always wanted to FF@15. I know that feeling too well, but unless you are Dia2+ or so, just play the game. People in Challenger - where you see the "open mid" and "ff15" stuff - often do this professionally or as entertainers (Twitch streamers e.g.). Because their goal is to climb a lot and they play like 10 games every day, it makes a lot of sense to just ff such games and save themselves time. In low elo (Bronze to Plat) I've seen sooo many teams throw gigantic leads and although they were heavily favored a long time of the game, they eventually lost. Just keep playing, you might learn a lot from those games and maybe even win them :-)
: > But if enemy Zed isi 10/0 because your mid laner is inting, it's also bad for the teams performance, right? ^_^ But it shouldn't be a case of "but this is worse". It's a case of both are against the rules. So they should both get punished. >To be honest, I think I've hear of something like this, but I wasn't really into this whole thing ever before because it didn't bother me so much. Also, I didn't use the boards earlier xD. And, I mean, Riot can bascially just post an announcement that is was a failure, but you don't know if it was really that bad. They posted about it in detail in the player behaviour dev blogs found here: https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/player-behavior It goes over in details different updates up until a couple of years ago - but it's still relevant as this system has been in place since 2014. It's just been minor improvements since then. This current system also constantly learns, so it will get better at picking up the behaviour you're discussing over time. It' just not there yet as again, it's difficult for determine intent. >Except you work on the team that does the statistics. Let me be clear, I don't work for Riot. I don't get paid. I've just been around a while and know how things work. Player behaviour has always been an aspect of ANY game I've played that particularly interests me, so I learn as much as I can about them - purely from a self interest perspective. >Certainly true! But then again, more resources would be available to handle the stuff I am angry about, and the community would get cleaner I guess. Putting a perma chat restriction on people wouldn't create more resources to focus elsewhere. Toxicity restrictions are handled by an automated system that can review these things almost instantly. We're talking maybe reducing the processing time by a few seconds, but then creating a much larger problem with the possible consequence of it. There's literally no benefit to doing this again. It's been tried. It failed miserable. >Also, maybe a mix of both systems would be the right path to proceed. They work on the same system. Again, it's just a case of it's difficult to define intent. Especially in a community that is exceptionally unforgiving. I had a jungler fail a gank on my lane yesterday when I was playing support. It wasn't intentional, it was just a bad gank. My adc immediately called for a report for inting. They are welcome to do so, however it's now the system that has to figure out whether it was actually intentional or not. If it can't determine it, it's safer to assume it's not - the reason being that if it was intentional, it will likely be flagged again. But it's better than the alternative of falsely punishing someone who didn't deserve it. >As I said, not necessarily better, but I just dislike the majority of the IFS. Surely, both have its flaws I'm not here to dispute that. I'm just saying the current has significantly less than the former. >as I said: Counter-Strike has a replay system in place where (mechanically) good rated players can decide if a player was hacking or griefing. You could probably do the same with modern technology in League, favoring players with good Honor standings and for Ranked games, at least the rank of the suspect. The problem is with this is that the turn around time would be even slower than the current system. It would require time to upload the replay to wherever it is to be judged. It would require viewing by a physical person who is more likely to make error. It would require viewing by volunteers. It would require a multitude of viewings. By the time it gets X amount of views (lets say it decides at 1000 views based off verdicts provided, and the clip is 5 minutes), then that's 5000 minutes of review time. When a system can make that judgement call much quicker and more efficiently. You're also going to have a community reviewing it that are likely out for blood, and to have a bias to hit punish in place of innocent. That's exactly why the tribunal failed. >You can have a bad game. But not 10 or 20 in a row. In ranked. Over the course of multiple days. These people have to be excluded for a while. Even if there is just something like "hey dude, you are feeding a lot in games. whether it's intentional or not, we don't let you play ranked queues for 3 days". And they do. Report them. If you notice it is a pattern of behaviour, submit a ticket to player support where they can review the more serious cases.
> [{quoted}](name=A Snarky Cyclone,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=IPpnqpEa,comment-id=0004000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-07-02T12:28:46.507+0000) > > But it shouldn't be a case of "but this is worse". It's a case of both are against the rules. So they should both get punished. Yes. But only toxicity gets punished. That's the issue xd > They posted about it in detail in the player behaviour dev blogs found here: https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/player-behavior Thanks, gonna have a look at it. > It goes over in details different updates up until a couple of years ago - but it's still relevant as this system has been in place since 2014. It's just been minor improvements since then. > This current system also constantly learns, so it will get better at picking up the behaviour you're discussing over time. It' just not there yet as again, it's difficult for determine intent. Yes, but the learning process for inting and trolling should be human-supported and fed. > Let me be clear, I don't work for Riot. I don't get paid. > I've just been around a while and know how things work. > > Player behaviour has always been an aspect of ANY game I've played that particularly interests me, so I learn as much as I can about them - purely from a self interest perspective. > They work on the same system. Again, it's just a case of it's difficult to define intent. Especially in a community that is exceptionally unforgiving. I had a jungler fail a gank on my lane yesterday when I was playing support. It wasn't intentional, it was just a bad gank. Here, it was one gank. Not 0/5 or so. Thats the difference. If someone tries hard it's just unlucky. I'm talking of different stuff. Not necessarily that people in my ELO actually could know. But as soon as I give them tips on how to play safe the start insulting me. Then they continue feeding. > My adc immediately called for a report for inting. They are welcome to do so, however it's now the system that has to figure out whether it was actually intentional or not. > If it can't determine it, it's safer to assume it's not - the reason being that if it was intentional, it will likely be flagged again. But it's better than the alternative of falsely punishing someone who didn't deserve it. Sure, that was not up for discussion. > The problem is with this is that the turn around time would be even slower than the current system. I suggested to let the IFS decide and then re-visit trolling or undecisive cases by human hand. > It would require time to upload the replay to wherever it is to be judged. It would require viewing by a physical person who is more likely to make error. It would require viewing by volunteers. It would require a multitude of viewings. I know a lot of people who would volunteer and many have been asking for the return of the Tribunal, so what makes you think that there are not enough volunteers? > By the time it gets X amount of views (lets say it decides at 1000 views based off verdicts provided, and the clip is 5 minutes), then that's 5000 minutes of review time. When a system can make that judgement call much quicker and more efficiently. I don't see why you would put 1000 reviewers on the same case. 50 would be enough I guess (I think CS:GO has 10 + 1 employee who has a quick look at the aggregated results from the Overwatch case and flags it as plausible or reviews the case themselves). > And they do. Report them. If you notice it is a pattern of behaviour, submit a ticket to player support where they can review the more serious cases. C'mon, it's the case for almost all of my (ranked) games. I have to assume that if I press "report" something actually happens. What's it good for otherwise, if i have to report everybody manually?
: I've been playing since Season 2, I've been around almost as long as you have. >Honestly, I still don't have a problem if people are being toxic. You can easily mute them and Riot could just give out (permanent) chat restrictions. By the time I have to utilize my mute button, you've already negatively impacted my game. Not to mention, if one person is toxic, it usually drags someone else into the mix, which further impacts game play as people are too busy hurling insults at eachother, and just generally tilting everyone. It's a team game, that requires team work. Not flaming. Riot already tried permanent chat restrictions. If you've been around as long as you claim, you'd also know that this program was a disastrous failure, which is why it was scrapped. People who had these restrictions resorted to trolling or inting in place of flaming, as toxicity is rarely a case of "I can't stop saying bad words" as it is a "behavioural problem". Doing this, in effect, would make the problem you're complaining about _**worse.**_ >So why does Riot bother so much about toxic people? The trollers and inters are the problem because you cannot just mute them, they lose your promos and if you report them Riot says "they just had a bad game". Because both are bad. One is just significantly easier to punish than the other, which is why the turn around is quicker. You've not explained how tribunal was better at all in this post. You've just complained about toxicity being punished faster than trolling, which as explained is just because it's easier to do so. > So yes, I woud like to go back. To the days where you received a punishment for _**legitimately **_ having a bad game? Not just the "lul bad game" comments we see today, but legit. Again, the reason tribunal was scrapped was because the false positive rate was _**obscenely high.**_ A system that fails more than it succeeds is not an effective system.
> [{quoted}](name=A Snarky Cyclone,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=IPpnqpEa,comment-id=00040002000000000000,timestamp=2018-07-02T11:37:12.124+0000) > > I've been playing since Season 2, I've been around almost as long as you have. Cool to hear! I'm courios of your answer... > By the time I have to utilize my mute button, you've already negatively impacted my game. > Not to mention, if one person is toxic, it usually drags someone else into the mix, which further impacts game play as people are too busy hurling insults at eachother, and just generally tilting everyone. > It's a team game, that requires team work. Not flaming. Yes, there is no doubt it DOES negatively impact the games. For me, it still is not as bad as the rest, because I have a (temporary) "cure" for it. And yes, it also negatively impacts the team's performance. But if enemy Zed isi 10/0 because your mid laner is inting, it's also bad for the teams performance, right? ^_^ > Riot already tried permanent chat restrictions. If you've been around as long as you claim, you'd also know that this program was a disastrous failure, which is why it was scrapped. To be honest, I think I've hear of something like this, but I wasn't really into this whole thing ever before because it didn't bother me so much. Also, I didn't use the boards earlier xD. And, I mean, Riot can bascially just post an announcement that is was a failure, but you don't know if it was really _that_ bad. Except you work on the team that does the statistics. > People who had these restrictions resorted to trolling or inting in place of flaming, as toxicity is rarely a case of "I can't stop saying bad words" as it is a "behavioural problem". > > Doing this, in effect, would make the problem you're complaining about _**worse.**_ Certainly true! But then again, more resources would be available to handle the stuff I am angry about, and the community would get cleaner I guess. > Because both are bad. One is just significantly easier to punish than the other, which is why the turn around is quicker. Also, maybe a mix of both systems would be the right path to proceed. > You've not explained how tribunal was better at all in this post. You've just complained about toxicity being punished faster than trolling, which as explained is just because it's easier to do so. As I said, not necessarily better, but I just dislike the majority of the IFS. Surely, both have its flaws. You cannot compare the Season 2/3 Tribunal (or whenever it was closed) to a modern system like the IFS. It was certainly underdeveloped and far from perfect at the time, but as I said: Counter-Strike has a replay system in place where (mechanically) good rated players can decide if a player was hacking or griefing. You could probably do the same with modern technology in League, favoring players with good Honor standings and for Ranked games, at least the rank of the suspect. > To the days where you received a punishment for _**legitimately **_ having a bad game? Not just the "lul bad game" comments we see today, but legit. > Again, the reason tribunal was scrapped was because the false positive rate was _**obscenely high.**_ A system that fails more than it succeeds is not an effective system. You can have a bad game. But not 10 or 20 in a row. In ranked. Over the course of multiple days. These people have to be excluded for a while. Even if there is just something like "hey dude, you are feeding a lot in games. whether it's intentional or not, we don't let you play ranked queues for 3 days". Would not be a ban and if someone is getting emotional (tilted, angry etc.) it's a protection for their ELO and their potential teammates. Surely you wanna climb and grind, but you can still be normal/ARAM/RGM in the meantime and focus on the game instead of just spamming a lot of Rankeds and feeding.
: > [{quoted}](name=XpEll1,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=7Y0fh5sG,comment-id=00080000,timestamp=2018-07-02T10:53:25.813+0000) > > The point he was making is that he didn't even get a chance to prove himself during/after a chat restriction - instead he got a 14-day ban and then failed to reform before he was permanently banned. > Furthermore, it's also about others not being punished or being punished more mildly as he was while they "wish him cancer". > > Surely, you have to admit that Riot's machine learning stuff is only a machine, and I personally don't know if it correctly issues all bans (false positive-rate and the other way round). Imagine being judged IRL by a machine instead of a judge, you would be worried, right? You are safe man, no perma bann is issued by a machine, they are looked at and given by live human beings that are getting paid for that. He had all the chances to read the terms and rules, to make a mistake, be warned and AFTER ALL THESE CHANCES get the perma ban. So what's your point again? And people being more toxic than he is will get their punishment sooner or later. That's why this forum is full of threads - Rito unban me im not guilty i reformed !!!
Could you please send me a reliable source of where it is stated that perm bans are issued manually? Pretty sure that's not the case.
: Tribunal was significantly less effective than the current system, and had a false positive rate that was absurdly high in comparison to what we have today. People rarely actually read it and just hit punish - this was essentially why it was removed in the end. If you'd like to go back to a system that is significantly worse than the current one, I'd been keen to know as to why.
I'Vve been playing since season one and don't see a problem in going back. Honestly, I still don't have a problem if people are being toxic. You can easily mute them and Riot could just give out (permanent) chat restrictions. So why does Riot bother so much about toxic people? The trollers and inters are the problem because you cannot just mute them, they lose your promos and if you report them Riot says "they just had a bad game". So yes, I woud like to go back.
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
> It was never a thing... Pretty sure there were some tutorials with the input.ini file in the old forums (like the shitty-looking one). Don't know how long you are playing league or if this was a thing for you, but I am certain there was a possiblity season 1/2/3. > The Tribunal that took months to punish someone? Eh. Yeah, okay you make a point with that. Would still be good to have some of the difficult cases decided by the IFS and afterwards reviewed in the Tribunal, huh? So players are preemptively banned, but at least if the system is wrong or too harsh the Tribunal can decide. Surely, Riot Support currently has this option if someone is _wrongly_ banned, but I never hear of them adapting the punishment if the ban was too harsh. That could be a good thing > [{quoted}](name=XpEll1,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=7Y0fh5sG,comment-id=000000000001000000000000000000000000000200000001,timestamp=2018-07-02T10:48:23.051+0000) > I mean, how is that fair? Also, your oppinion on this?
: >Will there ever be effective in game options to report these type of players ? >Will Support ever take these type of concerns seriously and actually do something about it ? Creating a system that automatically detects trolls, without punishing players who legitimately have bad games is harder than you think. In the meantime you can send the extreme cases with evidence directly to the player support, that's your best shot. They already take the issue seriously. >Why are trolls protected by this company ? Legitimate trolls aren't protected. They are just, as I described above, hard to detect. The way you are describing it makes it sound like Riot is using active means to keep trolls in the game, when in fact they are not. Trolls simply slip through the system.
Bring back the Tribunal. CS:GO also has a reviewing option, while Riot justs bans all more or less "toxic" people with a machine learning tool (called IFS) and lets inters and trollers continue to play. But the IFS is Riots reasoning for removing the tribunal. Doesnt make sense to me.
: The fact you are perma-banned means that you paid the prize for being toxic AFTER being given number of chanses to reform. That same fact is why you reformed ( if it's true ) I believe people can do it if they mature after they pay for the mistake they did. But if Riot start unbanning accounts, this will mean nobody will be afraid of the punishment they can face and the number of people actually reforming will drop even more. Riot have terms and you should read them...you are in a contract with them, using something that is FREE and it's theirs. You never actually owned that account, nobody does, it's their account. You , spending money on it means nothing, it's your own choise. Move on mate, be friendly stay positive and mute people that offend you ( and report them but dont ask others to report them ) ypur report is enough if true. Good luck on the fields man !
The point he was making is that he didn't even get a chance to prove himself during/after a chat restriction - instead he got a 14-day ban and then failed to reform before he was permanently banned. Furthermore, it's also about others not being punished or being punished more mildly as he was while they "wish him cancer". Surely, you have to admit that Riot's machine learning stuff is only a machine, and I personally don't know if it correctly issues all bans (false positive-rate and the other way round). Imagine being judged IRL by a machine instead of a judge, you would be worried, right?
Shiwah (EUW)
: ***
Honestly, why did Riot remove the possibility to key bind the Chat? People who are in bad standings could just un-bind the Chat easily in earlier versions of League and anyone with a brain would do it. But let me take an example of yesterday: Playing ARURF, I _always_ pinged, when my midlaner was missing. Then I got flamed from top lane and was told to shut up. I mean I only pinged my lane SS, where is the problem? He is still playing despite a report. But I instead are flagged by the IFS and uneligible for Honor progress (not that I got a ban or so) because its apprently toxic to say "0/4 taric talking". I mean, how is that fair? I know you are not Riot, but talking to them is utterly useless because they always think they are right and don't actually care about anything... good old times of Tribunal.
KEVZTOR (EUNE)
: Any way to check how old your League account is?
: Basically im not from EU and a student,i dont have a credit/debit card of my own and my parents dont have one for international transactions either.It was my bad though i though it was possible to gift champion with ip.Asking someone to buy me something with thier hard earned money pretty much makes me a begger and i dont want to fall that low so i'll just grind more ip no matter how long it takes
There are Riot Points prepaid cards in stores available ;)
: Thanks for response. But how do I not get dragged in when I go for harass?
Focus on farm first, then try to trade. Low elo/below level 30 its not too important to trade, but not to die and to farm well. If you want to harass, try to do it as he is walking sidewards/backwards and u have the maximum distance to him. Otherwise a kiting tutorial might help a bit.
: I need help against Darius
As others already said: {{champion:17}}
Anders (EUW)
: Looking to mentor 2 players (bronze-gold) Free
I don't quite meet your requirements, because I'm not playing a lot atm. BUT: I will have time in 1 or 2 month and wanna go into this with the best start I can possibly have. So it would be could if you'd find some major mistakes in my playstyle/certain situations/itembuilds that I could avoid. Quick data: started Season 1, currently 60 games S7, Silver II, no specific roles, but I think I play too inconsistently in ADC or mid role (so the other 3 would be alright I guess). Thanks in advance ;-)
ChaosMourn (EUNE)
: Fun picks to play when bored?
Morgana in ARAM/or SR Mid/Support with {{item:3158}} {{item:3116}} {{item:3151}} {{item:3157}} {{item:3135}} {{item:3089}}
AF XpEll1 (EUW)
: You call it insanely accurate, but haven't you experencied cases where summoners were showing off that they behave wrongly and are still not banned? Have you seen above's poll? Although it's not representitive, it seems that at least some people think it needs improvement. I may ask if you even know how machine learning works. Teaching once, improving over time is what such a system looks like. But this does not guarantee making the correct decisions while still learning (meaning: now). Providing additional training data on cases where the system does not accurately know what to do is absolutely the right thing, but you have to make sure that these data are fully correct (that's why it is very important that "judges" stick strictly to the rules, as I said). Once more and more of these cases, which slip through IFS by now, are detected correctly by the IFS, humans should be removed from the process. Imho the initial feeding of the IFS did a good job, but it's not enough. You will see that every single day on the rift. it's as simple as that {{sticker:slayer-jinx-wink}}
Replying to both, Robindino14 and Sander599: Your example of "Damn" would most probably not work. I don't know Riot's implementation details, but they said they used a large training set for the IFS. That means that the threshold under which it recognizes "damn" as toxic will probably not raise by upcoming reports (even im they are quite a few) because the system has been training with a very large amount of data from the past years and also consolidated its decisions made since the implementation of the IFS. I guess you are thinking of the system in a way too simple matter ;-) I totally agree with you that the IFS is learning and it must keep learning and some day it will be near to perfect. But you simply cannot say, when this day will come and you just cannot deny possibilities of acceleration the learning process in corner cases, the rare reports where the IFS spares the summoner because it cannot decide accurately enough from its existing data set. That's why I suggested "making the system learn faster" with a bit of human help ;-) I totally agree on Sander's anwer, with negative biases; they are undenyably there and influnce the summoners' behavior reception a lot. Nontheless, I think that when being totally honest with yourself and re-evaluating the matter you still come to the result that League has more toxic games than it should. Even an improved IFS would not keep players from starting to behave negatively but it can take action earlier. This could be - for example - combined with a more detailed punishment sytem, like excluding "feeding" players (like avg. 10+ deaths/game) from the ranked queue until their normal game stats on this concern have decreased for like 1 or 2 weeks. What do you think of that? Have a nice day, guys! {{sticker:slayer-jinx-catface}}
Tiddlywinks (EUNE)
: What we have here is actually two different things: a) The actual reform effectiveness of the report system and b) The _perceived_ effectiveness of the IFS. Case a: Riot has ran the numbers and tell us an overwhelming majority of players do not so consistent toxic behavior after measures are taking following reports. this brings us to case b: There's a lot of people who are not toxic consistently enough to be handled by the automated system; they simply do not gather enough reports over a relevant span of time. When they _do_ flame, however, it's completely understandable that the person reporting them afterwards is disappointed for not seeing a "A player has been punished" notification. As the OP said, the tribunal isn't an effective enough system to handle the sheer number of games being played daily, but it's basic human nature to find some sense of "justice being done" when offenders are publicly exec... I mean, punished. :P So yeah, bringing tribunal back would maybe boost the community morale somewhat, heck even I'd like to see some of that action, but as far as handing out punishments effectively, it's hardly the best tool. Just my few silver serpents there. {{champion:41}}
Really cool comment, thanks for writing it! {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-thumbs}} I hope that you read all of my comments and the post carefully, as it turns out I had to clarify the content of my post: Tribunal was not good and not fast enough for what happened and is happening in the League of Legends community. That's why the IFS is well-suited, but I think it needs some additional training by something like a "human courthouse" that is influencing the final decision on only **SOME** cases (oh god, not all :P). Would you think that this would improve the IFS? What should Riot instead do to improve summoners' satisfaction with the IFS?
: I don't really see how human input would improve the tribunal. It already is much more accurate that humans, so why would you want to interfere with its performance as a human being? But more importantly, IFS already works like you suggest, to some extent. When it was created, it was fed with data and was taught by it what behaviour is toxic and what behaviour is not. And it is still based on player input. Every time a report is submitted, the tribunal learns that the reported behaviour is not tolerated. If certain kinds of behaviour become untolerated over the course of time, it will learn that, as it will get reported more often by the players. In short, it is taught by humans what behaviour is toxic and with that knowledge, it handles every case equally and accurately.
You call it insanely accurate, but haven't you experencied cases where summoners were showing off that they behave wrongly and are still not banned? Have you seen above's poll? Although it's not representitive, it seems that at least some people think it needs improvement. I may ask if you even know how machine learning works. Teaching once, improving over time is what such a system looks like. But this does not guarantee making the correct decisions while still learning (meaning: now). Providing additional training data on cases where the system does not accurately know what to do is absolutely the right thing, but you have to make sure that these data are fully correct (that's why it is very important that "judges" stick strictly to the rules, as I said). Once more and more of these cases, which slip through IFS by now, are detected correctly by the IFS, humans should be removed from the process. Imho the initial feeding of the IFS did a good job, but it's not enough. You will see that every single day on the rift. it's as simple as that {{sticker:slayer-jinx-wink}}
: I agrea, ones your above plat having a smurf is just needed if you want to expand your champion pool on a competive level. We don't care smashing low levels. We just want to level that shit so we can play ranked (got leveling is awfull). We useally are getting quick to the mmr (useally higher) from playing roles & champions we don't play on our main account. Mechanically we useally are in a disadvantage since we don't play those champions very often. We have more game knowledges that useally get ignored by the team so we don't care sharing it.
No one gives a damn sh** if help is offered tbh. That makes me think that everyone thinks they are perfect and don't need to improve. But once they realize that listening to advice by even higher ranked people, they can start improving. I totally feel with you my friend (although I am not a high ranked player, I still have better knowledge of the game than it seems, as I am very actively following good SoloQ players and Pro players on Twitch and YouTube, unfortunately I don't have much time to play {{item:3070}}) {{sticker:zombie-nunu-tears}}
KerberosFi (EUNE)
: Original tribunal was simply far too slow. Usually the cases took far too long,few weeks at shortest and as such it was impossible for the punished to see link between punishment and his actions,and he was probably getting new case during this time before the initial punishment would be solved. While it's really natural to have no trust in machine as case solver, it's the only possible way to get cases solved in decent time,possibly stopping the negativity asap. While it could feel like handling punishments is taking too long,in reality the machine judgment is pretty close to what average rioter would do. Riot's policy as far as I have understood has always been to give chance for bad days and as such it takes some reports before the ispecting of the case takes place. This is something that's not affected by if the reviewer was human or bot. In terms of bots they ban those accounts in waves to make as unclea to the botter as possible what gave them away. While it's unclear atm when will the next wave take place it will eventually ban all the recognized bot cases at once. edit:damnit,once again my net was lagging and the same post was posted twice.So,kindly ignore the delted message below,it was only copy of this one. ^^
No problem about the double post :-P Absolutely, it was too slow. But I didn't wanna discuss the Tribunal as an instrument, I'm just bringing forward a complementary solution for what already exists (the IFS). You are right with the banning in waves, although tbh, I don't see what Riot should hide (internals) when banning bots instantly. Running it down mid - player or bot - is banworthy. And I'm pretty sure, detecting such linear movement (in the midlane) could easily be detected and instantly punished. Of course, the bots could be re-adjusted to try and hide such patterns, but until then at least this running down and feeding the AI-Midlane stops^^ Do you agree on that one?
: > The Instant Feedback is a good system, but it's not human and machine learning is not as far as being totally fair when it gets to banning people. The IFS is actually much more accurate *and* consistent than humans. On top of that, its feedback is nearly instant.
Of course, involving humans means involving errors. If the humans deciding over a case stick strictly to the rules, the error is almost none. I didn't mean to abolish the IFS, I said it needs to be complemented by a human decision system, like the Tribunal. Also, complementing means not replacing, but the IFS decides, is not sure, asks the Tribunal and makes a final decision based on what it calculed earlier and the tribunal's result. How could my approch be inaccurate in any way?
nextg3n (EUNE)
: LOGIN ISSUE ON WIN10
Did you try the Hextech Repair tool? If not, you can find it [HERE](https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/224826367-Automated-Troubleshooting-Hextech-Repair-Tool). Hope that helped :-) {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-thumbs}}
Rioter Comments
: I love LoL but I think I can't play anymore... really... enough is enough...
Although I have to agree with you, there is one flaw in your post: you think that Normals are not competetive. Please keep in mind that some people just don't want to play Ranked because a rank doesn't mean anything to them and the want a bit less competetive environment than ranked queue. Only bc it's a Normal, ppl are not allowed to feed or do utter bs. If someone wants to troll or learn a champion, they should start in Bot and Traing mode. After they learned how the spells work and got some hands on experience with pro-active enemies it's ok to try stuff in normals, if they have a solid base to play with. So please don't make it sound like people are allowed to have a free pass on feeding, trolling or doing anything else disgusting in a Normal game ;-) Have a nice day everyone! :-)
Tufio (EUW)
: had a freeze on "match accepted", got promotion loss/5 min penalty due to afking picks... never happened before
Sorry to hear but... this thread is intended to collect oppionions on the changes itself. Bugs should not occur, I agree, but the bugs are not intended by the developers. So I thought of this thread as a collection of oppions on the EXPECTED state - without bugs. Nevertheless, gl that you bug will not occur again ;-) {{sticker:slayer-jinx-wink}}
: Any1 have a problem updating the client?
I did not obiously, but if you have problems, I think there is quite a good description in the support section or even here in the boards :-) GL with the patching {{sticker:slayer-jinx-wink}}
Rioter Comments
: I'm new to LoL
Hi :^) I don't have much to add to especially the Calibs answer, but if you are willing to play and chat with someone, feel free to add me on "Prime Lucian". best regards and the best of luck improving in the fields of justice :-)

AF XpEll1

Level 137 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion