Anastasios
<Member>
<Member>
He has valid points and i agree with what he says, but i think he made a mistake in #4. Offensive Language is not only for cussing, but also for racist/sexist/discriminatory/offensive comments of any kind. As for Unskilled, as far as i know, you don't get banned, you just get matched with lower elo players. Maybe the guy who was reported had Griefing reports?
Clu Gulager
<Member>
<Member>
Anastasios wrote:
he made a mistake in #4. Offensive Language is not only for cussing, but also for racist/sexist/discriminatory/offensive comments of any kind.
nailed it.
and unskilled is not a banable offense, it just decreases said players normal elo.
It's to help the normal matchmaking become better.
It's to help the normal matchmaking become better.
Ty MM and Blood for the sigs :3 | Rammus is comming back - heard it here first!
"Carrying"-guide | My reviewservice
"Carrying"-guide | My reviewservice
A surprising amount of his argument actually hinges on #5. The real issue is that he does not believe that the LoL community can be trusted to make intelligent decisions regarding the behavior of other players. Most of the rest is about trying to make the system more robust so that the community doesn't need to be as intelligent in making their decisions, or is complaining about the lack of ability to make sure that community is making intelligent decisions.
While I don't disagree with his premise, not all of the author's suggested solutions are realistic. For one thing, consider how long it takes for some cases to get resolved. There have been times where I haven't done anything on the Tribunal for about a month, and am still receiving emails telling me that some of my cases have been resolved. Most of these are cases that were at least two weeks old when I reviewed them, as well. Any measures taken to shrink the population of eligible voters in the Tribunal will likely cause backlogs of cases, which defeats the purpose of the Tribunal. If the Tribunal punishes an offender, that punishment needs to come soon enough that the offender can remember what they did to provoke the punishment and quickly enough that they do not have much time to continue the same offenses, so that ignorant but nonmalicious offenders are not punished disproportionately. Moreover, barriers to entry into what should be open communities always result in the stagnation of those communities, so it's generally a bad idea to close things off from all but a few people.
Also, without a massive change to how the Tribunal operates, the author's solution for #6 is highly unrealistic. It would easily lead to cases where users who are simply new and have not yet learned the ropes end up being punished. Besides, the current Tribunal has measures in place to devalue the votes of those who, for any reason, consistently disagree with the community, so I'm not convinced that any changes are strictly necessary.
While I don't disagree with his premise, not all of the author's suggested solutions are realistic. For one thing, consider how long it takes for some cases to get resolved. There have been times where I haven't done anything on the Tribunal for about a month, and am still receiving emails telling me that some of my cases have been resolved. Most of these are cases that were at least two weeks old when I reviewed them, as well. Any measures taken to shrink the population of eligible voters in the Tribunal will likely cause backlogs of cases, which defeats the purpose of the Tribunal. If the Tribunal punishes an offender, that punishment needs to come soon enough that the offender can remember what they did to provoke the punishment and quickly enough that they do not have much time to continue the same offenses, so that ignorant but nonmalicious offenders are not punished disproportionately. Moreover, barriers to entry into what should be open communities always result in the stagnation of those communities, so it's generally a bad idea to close things off from all but a few people.
Also, without a massive change to how the Tribunal operates, the author's solution for #6 is highly unrealistic. It would easily lead to cases where users who are simply new and have not yet learned the ropes end up being punished. Besides, the current Tribunal has measures in place to devalue the votes of those who, for any reason, consistently disagree with the community, so I'm not convinced that any changes are strictly necessary.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
You need to log in before commenting.
As a disclaimer I will say that I have not been personally banned, suspended, or anything of that nature so this is not an article induced by rage. As someone with a bachelor's degree in criminal justice who is also professionally certified in security administration, the many shortcomings in the current system feel incredibly obvious to me. Listed below are several problems with the current tribunal:
Read the rest -
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-problem-league-legends-tribunal-11704988.html?cat=19