This is their opportunity to talk to Riot employees directly, if we are willing to talk and discuss issue(s) in a civilized and rational manner, it would be a waste if only way they can deliver their opinion is by saying something like: “tribunal sux!!!!!111!1!!”.

Don't you agree?

Are you saying that you'll consider a feature for the other percentage of users? If so you should take a look at a thread I posted a little while back.

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=1669229

In short, Rewards both good and punishes bad behavior, starts off from a small percent of the community, full community involvement, non-farm-able. The thread is a gigantic wall of text, and it would mean a lot to me if you would take the time to at least read it. It isn't a perfected system, but it can change with a little testing.

To be factually correct: Riot does check bans, and we have many “checks” to make sure the Tribunal system works. The main issue discussed in this thread is that are we releasing enough information regarding the ban itself.

I can’t comment on your spending habits, but I can tell that when Riot permanently bans someone, it is in Riot’s opinion that the banned player did more harm than good to the community, regardless of how much money that person has spent or will spend.

Actually, I think he's saying exactly what he wants to say. Maybe they would do the right thing anyway (I would certainly hope so), but he's actually coming right out and saying it's in their financial interests to appease the great majority of their player base. Their reviews and checks reflect the desire to please that overwhelming majority. He's not asking you to trust him, he's just saying it's in their interests to ban players that are pissing off the majority of the community, by their definitions.

Fortunately, if the Summoner's Code is any indication, their definitions are directly in line with what I feel are a good set of guidelines for behavior in-game.

There is a simpler reason to trust Riot’s internal audit: PROFIT.

Riot want to make profit, and more people it bans the less potential profit Riot will make.
So it is in Riot’s best interest to only ban players that Riot deemed harmful. Based on this logic, there are motivation and financial incentive for Riot to make sure the Tribunal work as accurately as possible. It is also why Riot places so many additional internal checks.

I don't understand why people always have such a big problem with the tribunal / fear of being banned. Just follow the rules like you would in any other game and in real life and you will have no problem.

The summoners code is there for a reason!

Thank you for taking the time to come in here and reply and read this thread. I appreciate it, regardless of outcome.

As for the philosophical opinions and discussions, they are mostly irrelevant; I simply enjoy them. The only one that does matter is this: the subjectivity of rules and interpretations does require more response to perceived wrongdoing than "you was wrong, fix it or go away, and no I won't tell you what you did", unless you intend to implement a 600 page list of transgressions that covers nearly every possible behaviour your company perceives as unacceptable. That is the problem with the Code, and the problem every other company like yours has faced when putting rules for behaviour into place - and the majority of the companies I have dealt with in the past (in a VERY long history of online gaming) have taken the path I suggest - providing more information and interaction than a copypasted email (which in my case had nothing to do with my problem, if you read my original post).

This is a good point, but I guess it depends on what you consider "impactful". Let's address that next.

I would posit that a great deal more than 0.7% of players would be impacted by Riot showing themselves to be as good as their words about their concern and care for their playerbase, by taking the time and resources to deal with us in a less faceless and totalitarian manner. Taking the time to implement a better system can only look good for your company, and show that you mean what you say, and that you do want to take the time to deal with us as if we are people and not a statistic representing projected quarterly income. I know it would certainly create a better impression than the daily, hourly threads about unfair bans, about copypasted emails in reply to legitimate concerns, and the "I'm always right" responses other of your representatives have unfortunately felt compelled to post in your name have.

This part is the part I am unsure about. To a large portion of your playerbase, new features do not seem to be incoming, or to be coming at a reasonable rate, anyway. Yet we get a new champion to spend RP on every two weeks like clockwork. Again, it is about the perception of your fans. I don't know how I would go about convincing them, except by the arguments I have used previously and am using now in my reply to you. Right now, a lot of people feel that Riot is more concerned with making money on champions than with a new UI, a timer, new maps, improved matchmaking, friend notes, new AI bots or any of the rest. It is about what we are shown - and this goes right to my point about your statistics.

No offense to you, of course, but many of us (I don't know if it is a majority or not, because those who are unsatisfied tend to be the loudest) don't feel particularly comfortable with taking Riot at their word right now, for various reasons. You state that 0.7% are repeat offenders - but I state that I use the Tribunal regularly, and that on most cases there is not nearly enough information to even make a case. There is no indication of what actually happened in the game beyond the chat log and the scores and builds, and there is no indication of what happened in pre and post game chats. If I had to make a guess, I'd say some of those repeat offenders are victims themselves, of a severe lack of focus on policing actual ingame behaviour rather than focusing on the chat box.

This has led to me personally passing on or pardoning any case that is solely chat related, or that is not a cut-and-dry guilty verdict based on the small amount of information provided. And the more my inclinations have led me to pardon people, the less IP I have got from judging in the Tribunal, which leads me to believe that the above is true, and people who are victims themselves end up on the receiving end of the same punishment and copypasted non-information I myself received. The reception of which did nothing to help me to change behaviour to suit Riot's interpretations of the Code.

Simply put, I don't have confidence in the Tribunal system to begin with, and the fact that the accused are handled the way they are doesn't bolster my confidence at all.

So I'd posit that for general public perception, bolstering of confidence in this Tribunal system (that your company insists on using despite most other successful game companies taking the route I and others have suggested of handling it yourselves without allowing players a hand in it), and most likely a better attitude from those who do find themselves in the system but who do happen to be logical and mature, that the way I and others have suggested would be a far better way, all around, to handle these issues, and that in the end this change would positively affect far more than 0.7% of people - and that some of those people would be you yourselves at Riot Games.

Thanks for your reply.