EDIT: This is put on hold for a bit, because of some possible job opportunities, then today when i decided to get it underway my father was unjustly banned by the tribunal. However this situation may make me move forward with this. I'll try to keep you updated.


Hi I'm Typhon66! You may remember me from such posts such as http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=1590322 and http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=1590322.

Lately there have been many many MANY posts about the tribunal. People claiming to be unjustly banned, riot claiming that the system is fine. Even famous players, i am sure you all remember Grackis getting banned. He claims he did not rage for 8 months but was still banned. Riot claims he either "did, or he built a reputation as a rager so people reported him." In either case, who is right?

Riot claims that the system is fine, that they do checks, and that they have yet to come across someone who has been unjustly banned.

Many players claim that the system is broken, that it is abusable, and that the fact that it automatically suspends players makes the system flawed.

I have a friend who swears up and down that the tribunal unjustly banned him, i'll post a story about that in the next post for those who care to read it.

So, how can we decide who is right and who is wrong? Is riot right and are these people just ragers who can't get over their punishments? Or are there in fact people out there being unjustly banned when they really are trying and maybe are just bad at the game?

Well that's what we are going to find out. Using a concise methodical scientific method. We are going to prove, ONCE AND FOR ALL, if the tribunal runs perfectly, or if it unjustly punishes people who don't deserve it. So how are we going to do that?

First an explanation.

Oh, and i should note this.


In the event that, before the experiment is over either.

A) Someone discovers something with Evelynn causing a meta shift to the point of her being considered "viable" or even "overpowered"

B) The stealth remake comes out and Evelynn is remade

Then the experiment will continue but a different champion will be used, likely Hiemerdinger.

Accounts have been created and am beginning the trek to getting 1350 IP for evelynn. For the purposes of the experiment these games will again, be played as though the account were the "control" and will use whatever free week champion that i personally am best at. They will be recorded however, and perhaps posted after the conclusion of the experiment.

reserved for any notes/after thoughts.

sounds interesting


watch riot BAN him the day he proves tribunal is broken


EDIT: LMFAO RIOT IS SO SCARED

they know there tribunal is broken and they wont say it so they are threatening him not to do it lmfao priceless





EDIT2: dude if you had pics of this. it would of proven that tribunal IS BROKEN

bump, seems interesting.

You would have to provide complete chat logs, replays of all the games played and SS's of pre and aftergame chat.
You know . . . for science!

I liked the idea I saw the other night where friends all reported their friends smurf every game for 3 weeks and he didn't do anything bad but that smurf go banned. I would like to see more people try that because if you get reported alot illegitimately, you shouldn't be banned.

Good luck!

Being rude is breaking the summoners code, #2 and 3 in particular.

Of course there is a gray area, that is the purpose of it being a small scale test. We are going to test the neutral right in the middle, then both extremes. Then we can move on to testing 10 different kinds of players or 100 different kinds if need be.

However i do agree with you, like i said this is just a preliminary, small scale experiment that shouldn't take much time in order to get done.

Basically, if things go right and only Account 2 is banned, then its looking good for the experiment, and larger scale testing should be done.

However, if all accounts are banned, then, in scientific terms, the hypothesis would be abandoned, and we obviously would have shown that there is, at the very least, SOME flaw with the system that would probably need larger scale testing to prove without a doubt.

The purpose of this is to get some data and come to a conclusion, then test further to see if the conclusion is indeed a fact, or was merely a coincidence or an outlier.