Quote:
Q: How much IP can I receive from voting?
A: It depends on whether or not you vote correctly. If you vote on a case, and the majority disagrees with your assessment, you’ll receive no rewards; however, if you help decide the outcome of a report, you’ll be compensated with a small amount of IP. We haven’t decided on the amount that will be allocated per case, but the maximum that you can earn per day will be comparable to the amount you would gain after playing for a few hours online.
|
"Vote correctly" RTFLOL.
Seriously that's sound so awful, plz dont reward ppl for voting in any particular way it goes squarely against the concept of impartial peer review, and it make this whole tribunal look like a joke.
I realize there will be some checks and balances and that serious punishment go to review but this is flawed just the same and will effect ppls votes, yes even if they cant see the other votes. The best check for this is dont do it, have IP bonus be attendance based or something.
Quote:
* Accounts that accrue a large volume of player reports are much more likely to be reviewed.
* New accounts are judged more stringently than veterans.
* The reputation of the player who is reporting you will also be taken into account. Reports made by level 30 summoners with clean record will be weighed more heavily than those submitted by newer accounts and/or those whose reputation has been tarnished by frequent harassment reports.
|
Point 3 here is a really refreshing nothing has made me more upset in my experience with LOL than having to deal with ppl who threaten to report you back. I hope this is something that gets a lot of focus.
Quote:
|
We will also be taking into account the frequency with which a player votes against the majority in order to weed out those players who are either voting excessively erratically, out of touch with the general will of the community, or deliberately attempting to disrupt consensus.
|
Not so sure about this one. Again kinda leads ppl to vote towards what they feel others would say rather then what they actually feel.
Perhaps weight votes based on the voter's leniency, IE ratio of [out of consensus punishes VS out of consensus pardons]. And maybe a scaling factor based rep. Like the one talked about under Point 3 above
-------------------------
On a final note I feel it would go a long way towards comforting some of us if we had the ability to say something in our defense first hand. Like being notified of a tribunal against you and having the option to add a defense statement.
All critique aside I really do think this is an outstanding idea. I post because I want this to work and would hate see something like miss-implemented incentives ruin it.
??
Junior Member
