The difference between this game and WoW is the size of the investment. A vanilla account with just a 60 on it was frequently worth $500-600 because of the cost of software, membership and the time sink. I quit WoW this summer and looked into the value of my account as a lark (I had been playing since release). The low offer was $2500.

I mention this because it's my belief that misbehavior in LoL will be more prevalent because there's so much less to lose.

Which changes exactly nothing, except that Riot throws away a bunch of money looking for unicorns (the mythical multiply-punished player that has no idea why and is genuinely looking to change their behavior).

I would like to know what you use as the basis for that judgement.

Incorrect, because that sort of individual would likely have a mountain of evidence against him laid in front of him immediately, and there would be no further room for anything but pointless justification, which Riot has no obligation to listen to. They could then send out one of those nice form-letters they currently send to everyone.



Incorrect. In my response to Kiddington I laid out in a concise manner exactly why I think that this change would affect a much larger group of people positively, including Riot Games themselves. Even so, it's always better to err on the side of protecting the innocent, than the side of punishing the guilty (which in this case I firmly believe is the side of weaponizing the Tribunal for use by trolls at least part of the time).


In short, I don't respect that particular Rioter's opinion. He doesn't discuss anything. He simply lays out the "fact" that he is always right and then calls it good. It is impossible to reason with the unreasonable.


In part, this is true. In part this is also you taking something as fact without ever seeing any evidence. In my case, I choose to go on what I have seen with my own eyes numerous times rather than the word of people who already have proven themselves to be unreliable on more than one occasion.


The more I vote to pardon people in the Tribunal, the less IP I receive. What does that tell you?


And nothing they have said to me about the situation constitutes evidence, either. We are speculating on both sides, as far as I have been shown and am concerned. Again, better to err on the side of protecting people, and of backing up your own past words about respect, than to treat people like a profit calculation or to disrespect them outright.


Ever heard of the term "independent fact checking" ? You seem to take everything said by a Rioter as fact. That's your problem, and not mine, but you can't construct arguments around anything but evidence, or personal experience if the evidence is withheld.

Any comments made about other games are made based on my own personal experience with the companies in question. Valve, Blizzard, Turbine, Sony Online Entertainment, and many others use the very system I am suggesting be implemented here.



http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ - There is the concurrent player numbers for the Steam platform. Enjoy.



Prove it. I have had bans removed, as well, when it became apparent I had done nothing whatsoever to deserve it. And on Steam, my ban was only on forums, for posting a thread criticizing Wizards of the Coast for their horrible policies with their MtG games.

Again, prove it. You have no evidence or basis for stating I am a griefer, beyond that my viewpoint and opinions apparently enrage you. Very shaky ground that you stand on, there.

Never going to happen unless I or others like me CHOOSE to leave. Riot Games has no way of keeping people from playing this game; keep living in that dream world, my friend.

No, and several of my responses have made it clear why I think others cannot exploit it, as well. Did you actually read everything I said, or are you just trolling/raging at this point?

Here's that accusation of me being a griefer, again. Prove it. Until you can, stop spewing that textual diarrhea.

As for your last statement in the above quote - I never claimed Riot has an obligation here. If you had bothered to have reading comprehension, or to read my posts at all (whichever of the two it obviously is), then you'd know I said they are not obligated to do anything. It is their sandbox to play in, so to speak.

But if this is how they choose to behave, it renders all their nice talk about commiseration and respect and caring for their fans as an absolute lie, or self-delusion at best.

Quite likely, but what with Riot's ****ed up policy of not saying what you did, I wouldn't know.

Chat logs alone are hardly enough to get the full and complete story, unless of course someone says "IM FEEDING LOLOLOL GG" in chat. With the current system a player could be intentionally feeding ingame but avoid detection by saying normal things in chat and avoiding troll builds. There would be no evidence at all that they weren't just bad.

If the accused in the Tribunal meet any of these criteria, I punish. Otherwise I pardon.

-stated directly or implied in chat that they are feeding/trolling/assisting enemy team
-racist attacks towards other players
-verbal attacks towards the family members of other players
-troll build
-Left the game/afk'd and didn't reconnect.

I dont punish things like


Accused: **** you **** feeder mid **** fed kat **** ****


Because frankly, the mute function exists for a reason. Verbal abuse cannot directly impact the overall outcome of the game, any form of feeding or disruption of the intended gameplay process can.

Amen. Sounds like you handled it about the same as I do, only over time I've stopped clicking for chat anything.

You seem to be under the impression that Riot has a duty to try and reform people. This is not the case. People who violate the terms of their agreement with Riot are subject to the consequences laid out in that agreement.

Also, as someone who is so concerned about protecting the unicorns, why do you so seriously downplay the risk to the reporters in your scenario? The chance that a reporter will be harassed is almost certainly more probable than finding a wrongfully convicted player.

Part of your perspective on "weaponizing" the Tribunal is your unwillingness to understand that different people come to the game with different expectations. Look up my post on "Two Tribes" for an explanation of this.

You're welcome to that opinion, but you should know that it makes you the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterback. He gave you an explanation of their policy. He doesn't owe you (or anyone else) a dialogue on the subject.

Oh, yay. The old "my anecdote is awesome" argument.

That you pardon the wrong cases (at least from the community's perspective)?

I'm kind of curious how it is disrespectful to identify the bad actors (0.66% of active accounts in a month is a very low rate) and punish them. The failure rate with numbers of this magnitude has to be astonishingly low (less than one in a billion).

This is a terrible argument. Riot does not have a duty to share their trade secrets with you. Anyone who believes that they have been unlawfully deprived of their property is more than capable of filing with small claims court.

And how many of those are F2P games?

... and it looks as though you gave up on the rest.

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=1606880

Just like every single person facing a punishment worth getting excited about, yes. They do not ban or suspend based on single or even a few incidents.

I don't care. The reality is, this is a measure to benefit people facing severe punishments in the Tribunal, which is a tiny sliver of the player base, and it would only change things for a tiny sliver of that sliver. Not concerned in the least with your convoluted attempts to expand the concerned body.

Have you kept a tally of the number of people in this thread who have said the same thing about you? What Pendragon did, is tell you straight up that the purpose of the Tribunal is not rehabilitation. That's not his opinion- it's him telling you how HIS DEPARTMENT is doing things. Since then, you've gone on at least twice to talk about how the Tribunal needs to change in order to better at helping people reform. You can not like Pendragon all day, whatever, but what position does it put anybody trying to have a conversation with you in when you're attributing functions to the Tribunal that the director of community relations has stated it doesn't have? I'm to take your word for it what the Tribunal is for because you don't like Pendragon?

Riot staff stating the number of people that are put through the tribunal is evidence of the number of people that are put through the tribunal. YOU stating you don't like those figures or wish to ignore them is not counter evidence, because you aren't in a position to know anything.

Which again, puts you in an impossible position with regards to anybody else. Like I said above- I simply don't give a **** what you've seen with your own eyes because you're just some griefer on the internet. We can each have our own opinions and go our separate ways....BUT WAIT, you're actually advocating change- you NEED to get people to listen to you. Specifically, you need Rioters to listen to you.

So here you are, trying to convince Rioters to do something differently, and your standard of evidence is "You Rioters are liars, you should base your decisions on my personal experiences and not what you say your own data shows".

See how preposterous that sounds? No matter how you feel about Riot or their data, if you want them (or anybody else that isn't related to you) to listen to you, you need to use their figures, not your intuition.

That the majority of people who are reported did the thing that they are reported for. Is that supposed to be surprising?

Hahaha. Even if that's true, you're trying to get Riot to change the way they do things. Or trying to get other people to believe that Riot should change they way they do things. No sane business is going to change a policy because somebody speculated something.

Nope. "Better to err on the side of protecting people" sounds nice, but in reality, the cost effectiveness of protecting a tiny number of people from a small degree of inconvenience is a factor. You're asking a business to behave in a hardline idealist manner, based on speculation, and with a backdrop of moral subjectivism. This makes no sense.

So when Riot says they have a million concurrent users, I should assume they're probably lying to me because it might benefit some guy in some internet conversation making a tangential point months after the fact despite there being absolutely no evidence to that effect?

Riot posting data on how many players they have counts as evidence of how many players they have.

You seem to take everything Valve tells you as fact. That's your problem, not mine. What's more, steam isn't a game. What's your point?

Prove what? You were banned from other games that provided you with the data you say League should provide. Then you went on to get punished for acting out in other games, for example this one. The reasonable conclusion is that it did nothing to reform you, and that all you're asking for is a tool to use in getting out of punishments- a tool you've apparently become talented at manipulating in other games since you're a habitual bad egg that has to be punished all the time.
You want me to prove things about you to you? What do you think I'm doing, trying to change your mind? You've demonstrated that to be impossible. What I'm doing is laying out a basic case for why nobody should take what you say seriously, and I'm using your own words to do it.

Your confession that you've been banned from multiple games and that you keep the company of many many griefers is evidence that you're a griefer. As is the stance you're taking in this conversation, for that matter, but I'm ignoring that for the sake of argument.

Your true colors are showing.

You've claimed they have a duty at least twice. I'm a 4th year philosophy student, and 'duty' and 'obligation' have been synonymous in every context I've read them. If you're using them in some non-standard way, you should elucidate.

Not at all. Since all ethics are subjective, it can be completely consistent from their point of view to respect and care for their fans, while not providing their fans the specific reasons why when they are punished. Your assertion that full disclosure is a criteria of respect/caring is you attempting to assert a moral absolute.

I am talking about under the current system.