Originally Posted by PoinTBlanK86

Ah, but the fact of the matter is they say they want the COMMUNITY to be the judges, yet they do not allow the community to judge what is actually worth and unworthy of punishment. They set their own guideline which they expect every Tribunal 'judger' to have, which is 'punish punish punish' no matter how slight or minuscule the incident. No matter if the person that reported them reports someone in almost EVERY single game they are in, no matter if the person was clearly the victim from the beginning. The Tribunal is a system of judgement, yes. It clearly is a not a system of any form of mercy or expecting integrity from players that berate other players.

Originally Posted by Kirska

The only thing your case shows is that you're a toxic player that deserved to be banned.

Further the only things your posts show is that you're someone who refuses to take responsibility for your own actions.

Originally Posted by Kirska

How dare someone be judged by an anonymous group of their peers? A system like that surely could never work in real life.

Originally Posted by PoinTBlanK86

The clear fact that I have presented MULTIPLE points of weakness in the current system and you have no rebuttal besides basically saying, 'you've been banned, I won't listen to you, I'm putting my fingers in my ear holes.... LALALALALAALA not listeninggggggg.', is a clear cut case of who really doesn't have any thing to contribute to making this 'community' better.

Originally Posted by PoinTBlanK86 Adapting to specific terms that are expected isn't going to be the same amount of time for each person..... And honestly it is harsh. This is the harshest punishment system I have ever seen, heard of, or encountered in ANY game. "Don't be a jerk to others, that's basically it" doesn't cover it. You better not even speak in chat, and you surely better do at least decent and not have even one bad game where you are more than 0/3 because a random person who is trying to farm IP from the Tribunal is surely going to press that Punish button, as they do so every few minutes without even looking at cases.

Originally Posted by ThisDúcklingGúy

When 90+ percent of the tribunal cases are strictly about language related issues, I think you need to use your brain Riot and just add a feature that permanently mutes accounts with issues sent to the tribunal. I just finished reviewing 20 cases and every single one was language related.

Instead of banning people you need to change what player have access to certain chat features. This would a) remove almost all need for tribunal and b) improve in game play. Which the tribunal does not. If you remove a summoner they just remake on another account with the same issues... This chat feature would actually change things.

Not everyone is the same. In fact most humans think differently depending on the individual. So you need more than a one size fits all model.

Last I would suggest you still allow people at max chat ban to still issues a certain amount of pings and indicators. Anyway a model like this would correct play instead of just force it onto other accounts where most people might actually be more malicious.



If they implemented this you would not get banned, the tribunal would be revamped and most likely taken back to a company based decision and not automated.



They have a mute function. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. By that same argument the person who muted the other person should also be banned for not communicating.



The issue is if it truly is an issue where the liability is based on your decision to mute someone there should not be an option after the game to punish based on language. I have long discussed this issue about language liability.



As I stated they would have options for a spectrum of disabled features and limits. Mia features, pings, target pings, and retreat pings would very likely never be disabled.



To the first part I would just like to say the rest of the team would not suffer, more than likely you would focus on the game more so as well never know there was a chat disable on the person at all. Many games I play people do not type in chat for the duration of the game and my game experience is not effected in a negative fashion.

The second part about pushing them less "Is True". Most times when a person commits a wrong doing or foul both in life or in a game it could have been prevent by better organization or measures. What I am suggesting is one of many measures that could be in play to greatly reduce negative environments on all players.



I would like to highlight this comment because it is one of the main reasons this should be implemented. The better off with out them is both a narrow minded view but more so you would be incorrect at thinking they have left the game. People will always find ways to comeback to a game. Especially if it is free accounts. So why not address the source, improve their (the offenders) environment so they do not harm others and potentially change. People can have a lot invested into any game or object and when you take it away it is the same scenario as backing a dog into a corner of giving a person nothing to lose. Eventually you will get bit.

Originally Posted by Getsuei

Care to list a few of them? The only one I can see is this:



My argument to this: Riot thinks the community should judge what is and is not acceptable. When the majority of the community thinks that what you did was wrong and is punish worhty, then it was not just one person.

Can you link some more so I can see if I can refute them or /bow my head at somethings that I can not answer?

Edit: Found another one:



You failed to research it, since the Tribunal quit rewarding IP awhile ago. And adapting to specific terms is what you do in every game that you have to accept a EULA, ToS, etc. Why is this one different? The other spam punish is a feeling you have, rather than a fact, so I will ignore that.

Originally Posted by PoinTBlanK86

They are all clearly listed in this thread. What you have said about Riot thinking the community should judge has already been presented, and I have already responded to how that is not the case. It's on page 4 of this thread. They don't let the community 'judge', they set very specific guidelines that you HAVE to judge by, and if you don't then they have a report that comes back that tells you that you aren't 'judging' (which is supposed to be up to you on what IS and ISN't punished....right?) correctly, and shows an accuracy report telling you how much you have supposedly judged 'wrongly' (notice, there is apparently a wrong way, even though it's supposed to be up to the community to make the decision.). So yes, I do have a problem with the current system that basically tells you the power has been given to the 'community' to make the choice, yet regulates and forces you to 'judge' how they want everything to be judged, which again, is 'punish punish punish' no matter how slight or minuscule the offense or they will take away your 'right' to judge cases altogether!! It's laughable that that they actually even try to uphold this and think that people don't see what they are doing!!