Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a tonne of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out Boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


Chat restriction!!!

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Jehofi

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Quote:
Voluge:
This place is meant for discussing, not argumentating, your statement is amplifying the reason why this place is meant for discussions. You and your friends who are lurking at this part of the forum aren't discussing, you're merely stating facts, you're denying the option of being capable to reason.
Stating facts as part of an good discussion is essential, without it we could just grab numbers out of thin air. And stating facts does not inhibit or limit your capability to reason.

Quote:
Voluge:
I've already mentioned before that it may very well be better to abolish this system till it's either straightened out more or could provide more information.
And let tings be as the were a month ago, no way the char restrictions brought much improvement.

Quote:
Voluge:
Riot can't spend more than a certain amount of time at each report, so errors are bound to occur.
No system is perfect but is is better to have an working punishment system than having none.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TSMO TriForce

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Quote:
Voluge:
My bad, mixed up 2 out of 5 being 20%, it's actually 40%, that's quite the big mistake, so meet 1 out of optimally 45 people who doesn't like you all the time, you're sure to receive a "punishment" sooner or later, if you still haven't received one, then you most likely haven't played enough.


random statement not actually adressing anything anyone has said. you might as well have said "golden mushrooms cantalope jump" since what you said here does not mean anything. i can play 20 games in a row each day and not get the same person twice. or at least not soon enough that i would actually remember their name

Quote:

The quotations marks are there, in order to annoy you to such an extent that you can't ignore them, or rather, in order to clarify a thing.

yeah, i figured that out, since they certainly didnt quote me, or put any meaningful emphasys on anything
Quote:

Now then, on to your "points".
1: Person who's disheartened by the sudden warning decides to NOT use the chat again, even after the punishment has been dealt out, this very person still gets a punishment which is supposed to be used for chat misuse, despite not having used it. The very same person is left with no reason nor motivation as to why it "happened".

oh hey, more stuff you made up on the spot, also, not even remotely the issue here
Quote:

2:Riot employees have to look through A TON of reports every single day, it wouldn't be "surprising" if they tried to manage their time "effectively" even if it may lower the accuracy of their judgement. (Before you stated that the average employee had a better judgement than the average tribunal player, it might be because employees are employed for a reason, where about tribunal players could be just about ANYONE including children who believes that they are doing a "good" thing)

i also said that the tribunal had a near perfect punish rate, and since we both agree that the average employee has even better judgement, ill let you come to the conclusion of that line of tought
Quote:
3:The person in question having that many reports is enough of a valid reason to "punish" said person, because the "average" player only gets reported in 5% of their games. We have already agreed that we've different standards as to what we see as "active" players, so our views of "average" players could very well differ there as well, continuing on this point is also therefor pointless, despite it being a point of yours.
oh yes, since punishing random people for no appearant reason would look very well on the job evaluation of that riot employee. "but they had X number reports! he MUST have done something wrong" is sure to not get him fired for gross neglect
Quote:

4:That's the issue, yet you try to make it sound completely "obvious" despite giving no answer yourself.

oh man, seriously? you dont know why i didnt awnser that? i didnt awnser that because it doesnt happen, and you are the only one who likes to pretend it does. so tell me why it happens, if you feel like saving that little credibility you have left.
Quote:

Can you please try to act as a reasonable human, rather than throwing a wall of text with no facts nor with the ambition of actually standing for your words, where about even if you had facts, going by how you've reasoned so far, I don't see myself not being able to take advantage of them in that case. Facts are doubled edged weapons if not handled carefully.

I stand for what I state, do the same if you wish to discuss, an argument got at the very least one side which is wrong, while a discussion is questioning possible scenarios.


you state a lot, however, you do not actually defend your statements. you try to deflect any sort of scrutiny or challenge to your statements by making more statements. im being perfectly reasonable, since all im asking is for you to show me ANY sort of proof, any sort of justification, any sort of logic behind any of your statements at all, and you provided none of it. i come here with official statistics and statements by riot, info about how the system(s) work, and logical conclusions thereout. you come here with your own statements and still try to discredit others with nonsense like the above quote. im not sure if your english is inadaquate for you to express yourself correctly, or if you are simply being pretentious, but when having a discussion, at least try to actually discuss things


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Voluge

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Quote:
TSMO TriForce:
...

I will be blunt with you, an "average" player gets reported in 5% of their games, while you need 20% in order to get to the danger zone of being punished. The reports are based at the number of games you got reported, not the number of reports. In short, this equals to, if you get reported even once in 5 games, meaning 1/5, that means you're going to get in the danger zone, now again, in 5 games, there are potentially "up to" 50 people, but as you are indeed the constant factor, this means that you can only meet "up to" 45 people in 5 games. Now then, if even just one single of these 45 "potential" people don't like your attitude, result, playstyle or whatnot, you will be in danger. People in higher elo's are more likely to report for even the tiniest mistake, you got no experience (given your profile) in making such a claim that you're an "average" player of which "I" would refer to, which would mean, a player who plays each and every week, each and every single day.

My end conclusion is that it's a waste to continue discussing with you, as you want to argument and I don't. You can't even trust your own words and if you do, how pathetic isn't your life, that you have to be negative every single day, day in, day out. In all honesty, the OP's thread was made with the thought of joking around, as which can clearly be seen in the choice of his/her words. I'm done with you.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KiwiGeneral

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Getting reported once in 5 games doesn't get you restricted.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Voluge

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Quote:
GiraffeColonel:
Getting reported once in 5 games doesn't get you restricted.

You're not tri, so I will be short, I did mention "danger" and "danger-zone", you're neglecting important details, and what "good" will being negative all the time with harsh cold reasoning do? People aren't meant to have discussions without feelings.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Cobaltmotari

Senior Member

06-02-2014

Quote:
Voluge:
you want to argument and I don't.


I call BS on that statement - if you really genuinely didn't want to argue with him, you'd have ignored him.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

GangrelCat

Senior Member

06-03-2014

Quote:
Voluge:
I will be blunt with you, an "average" player gets reported in 5% of their games, while you need 20% in order to get to the danger zone of being punished. The reports are based at the number of games you got reported, not the number of reports. In short, this equals to, if you get reported even once in 5 games, meaning 1/5, that means you're going to get in the danger zone, now again, in 5 games, there are potentially "up to" 50 people, but as you are indeed the constant factor, this means that you can only meet "up to" 45 people in 5 games. Now then, if even just one single of these 45 "potential" people don't like your attitude, result, playstyle or whatnot, you will be in danger. People in higher elo's are more likely to report for even the tiniest mistake, you got no experience (given your profile) in making such a claim that you're an "average" player of which "I" would refer to, which would mean, a player who plays each and every week, each and every single day.

My end conclusion is that it's a waste to continue discussing with you, as you want to argument and I don't. You can't even trust your own words and if you do, how pathetic isn't your life, that you have to be negative every single day, day in, day out. In all honesty, the OP's thread was made with the thought of joking around, as which can clearly be seen in the choice of his/her words. I'm done with you.


You misunderstand, the 5% and 20% are over all played games, not only recently played games.
But those where thresholds for the Tribunal. We can't be sure that the same are being used for this system. It is faster and does seem to need less then what Tribunal needed to form a verdict, not just one game though. The new Tribunal is also stated to be allot faster.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

karathon

Junior Member

01-11-2015

Guys this is my first post here on the foruns, sorry if i type something incorrectly.

"Please enjoy your future punishments"

Well i did it, twice. And i admite i may flamed those times, things like "Play Safe dude" or "Please dont hit my creeps" its considered flame here in silver lands. It is probably only an opinion but in low elo, the player/flamer ratio are a lot higher. So the chance of get reported for no reason is a lot higher to.
So i finished my second chat restrition(just a few games) and played like 5 games, won a honor badge, won a mistery skin from riot, and a surprise, 26 chat restricted games.
Its ok get punished when i talk to much, but without reson its not that fun. If i have a bad game, if i dont gank as much as they wont, i'll get reported, its as easy as a click.
So i dont think this new "Auto tribunal" is efective, at least in low elo, I really want the old tribunal back.

Best of luck on the fields of justice!!!
Enjoy your punishments!!!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Cobaltmotari

Senior Member

01-12-2015

@karathon
Don't necro threads.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Input

Member

01-12-2015

So an average player gets reported approximately 5% of all their games? And if you get 20% you're in the danger zone?

How come this makes no absolute sense at all? The 5% whom achieve the 20% are those which gets this 'restriction' as for a different perspective, if I were to be reported for 5% of all my games, it would still have the same effect as to be reported for 20% of all my games.

People say 'the more reports, the more likely it is that you will be restricted', I concurr and state that this is non-sense. The system itself allows players to report other players for behaving negatively or obnoxiously in a way that they should be banned to improve their bad attitude, but however the system will only restrict those whom deliberately force themselves to progressively flame nearly 40-50% of their games, why do you think "only" 5% of the community gets banned? Because they're especially obnoxious, compared to how big of a percentage this is I would say about 1/1000 players gets either a chat ban or a ranked restriction.

With this being said, why is it that people who seem so dandy on the forums are more likely to be the ones whom tends to be banned from the game itself. Often those people are the ones which state the most oblivious facts in this community. I mean my post is mostly an assumption or even a large statement, but at least it makes sense to more than just me, so yeah I guess that concludes my post.

Have a nice Monday,
Summoners