Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo
Can't leave it to the Tribunal to determine whether or not to punish for AFK. And giving a reason for leaving? No.
1) Hardly anyone will be honest for their reason for leaving. I mean, c'mon. They won't. Intentional feeding is already a bad enough case to try judging in the Tribunal. Whether or not the leave reason is legit is even worse. Now, if I leave for a legit reason when my team is losing, I get punished, but if I leave for any reason at all when my team is winning, I get pardoned.
2) If you're leaving for the only legitimate, excusable reason (an emergency), you don't have time to stop to type out a reason for leaving.
As for 2, it's not really about whether or not players WILL leave when harassed. It's the fact that using this system, players on a losing team have good incentive to try getting their teammates to leave game. Riot doesn't want players leaving games. Riot doesn't want players harassing teammates. Riot doesn't even want you to leave in order to save your teammates the Elo loss if you feel guilty for playing bad. Riot wants players to finish games.
The ONLY amount of time that'd really be acceptable is if the player simply never connected in the first place, in which case there's no incentive for anyone to leave a game they can see will be a loss anyway, and there's no incentive for anyone to harass anyone into leaving. But if you're not going to give the team with 4 players a loss, then you need to not play the game at all. You don't need to award the other team Elo, you don't need to give the 4man team a shot a free Elo if they somehow manage a win. You need to simply abandon the game if the disconnected player hasn't connected by X minutes into the game (1:30, 3, 5, 10, I don't care).
There's already system in place to deal with people who habitually disconnect/afk/idle games. It's called leaverbuster. It issues warnings and bans. This is the best way to deal with the issue and deal with people who are intentionally leaving.
Sorry, but neither of those reasons seemed good enough to me. Because the main goal of the system I'm proposing is to make the game more enjoyable for people who are stuck in a losing battle for 20 minutes only to have it end in the same marks a normal fair game would have. I don't really want the punishment to be harsh, but it's incentive to stay in the game, or to not start a game you might not be able to finish. (I agree with you that the best way players can not have to deal with this is not to join a game they don't have time for in the first place.)
1) Of course people who leave on purpose to troll or whatever won't be honest, but with every foreseeable issue that might come up (I might have not thought of 1 or 2), I gave a gear in my proposed system that deals with it. First leave in a while? Auto no punishment, it was probably an emergency, or internet issue, and you can still give a reason. History of leaving bad games, 3 to 5 in a week/month? (People who leave games constantly WILL exceed this in a day.) Then Tribunal Judgement kicks in, and those judging will know this, (If you think they won't, then remind them in a header in leave cases.) Tribunal isn't really all that difficult to judge, and if people are given the tools they need to figure out what's going on in the game before the leave happens, the judgment will be quite simple. Not foolproof, but accurate by a wide margin, and that's the point. Well, besides the main point being making the game more enjoyable for those who play and don't leave, as well as prevention of leaving/incentive to stay in game in the first place. If you think harassment will make players leave, then coupled with knowing how harsh it is to leave in the first place, it balances out to what it is now. As for things that are foolproof, you'd need to record every game, and that isn't really possible unless you're Blizzard or something.
2) Addressed in 1).
As for the issue of guilt making people leave... That wouldn't really affect anybody. Anecdotal evidence is bad evidence, but I personally can't remember a game where someone left because they felt bad for playing bad, or were harassed by people. It happens already, and people still stick around. They merely ignore the jerks and surrender at 20. And besides, this isn't for people who play bad, it's for people who leave on a constant basis. Once the line is crossed, the games start being loss forgiven for the victims and these people who constantly leave get that much more punishment.
(Granted, again, I agree with how harsh this system is. I'll also point out a problem in people creating multiple accounts to try and work around it. They'll all get banned, but trolls rarely care. However, a system that finds and stops this kind of behavior quickly makes it rather not fun to troll in the first place.)
Remember, the point is coming up with a system that HELPS players fighting a losing battle for 20 minutes not to feel like they're being punished for something beyond their control, while not jumping to punish those who have real life bad luck beyond THEIR control, but dealing with players who do this on a constant basis. Leaverbuster doesn't do these things. It's merely a punishment system.
As for your second to last paragraph, I'm not too sure what you were trying to say. But if we're still talking about my system; if everyone ducks out, it's just a normal 1 loss for everyone and the game ends quickly. Next game commence! However, if they stick around and try to win? They get loss forgiven if they lose. If they win? It's a normal win for everyone except the leaver, and a normal loss for the enemy team because who loses a game that much in their favor? (Barring the kind souls that let a team down a guy win.)
Anyway, this was just one idea I put forth. I have others
1a) If a player DC's in the beginning of a game (anywhere between 1-5 minutes), the other 4 players have the option of an early loss forgiven surrender, so everyone can get to a more fun, fair game. If they want to risk staying in the game in hopes that the DC'd player comes back, or that the other team will just suck that much, it's on them if they lose.
1b) If a player leaves before the 20 minute mark but after the 1-5 minute mark, an early surrender can commence that doesn't loss forgive, merely ends a crummy game so people can move on to a better one. (These two are my favorite possible coupled systems, for while I'd personally stay, I would understand why people would want to leave. And it's still more forgiving for those games when someone might be gone the whole time and you'd rather not chance it.)
2) Leaverbuster logs all players in games with leavers and will later loss forgive if certain circumstances are met. Among which can be; Surrender at 20, multiple reports against leaver, tribunal cases passing guilty verdicts against leaver. (Issue with this one is ELO inflation, but honestly, ELO inflation is an inevitability anyway. Only way to combat it would be a constant ELO decay at all levels of ELO regardless of whether you're constantly playing ranked or not, perhaps coupled with an ELO ceiling, but that's another discussion entirely, and I'd hate to see a system like this implemented anyway.)
3) A vote in the champ selection screen to ditch a game before it starts if you get the feeling someone is a troll. This one is the least effective because effective trolls are subtle until people get stuck with or without them for 20 minutes. But it's something.
If you have any better ideas, please bring them forth. That's not me being snide, I mean that. This is all really a discussion of ideas that most likely will never get implemented anyway.