Trial by your peers?

[Traak]

Originally Posted by Kouza

Or Simple Solution... Have an Admin online... Who can spot the hacking himself.

Yeah, shouldn't be hard to "be" the offending player, and see his screen, when he reloads, how much damage he takes. Or better yet, face off against him and see IF he takes any damage.

Or better still, one dev for each. Wouldn't take long.

[SKYeXile]

I think most of you underestimate just how popular PS2 will be as a F2P game.

[Hamma]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

I think most of you underestimate just how popular PS2 will be as a F2P game.

Naw it will be easy to have a an admin logged into the server all the time.

As I've said a thousand times, hacking and cheating is on the forefront of the devs minds as well as Smed's. I know this because I have talked to them face to face. They are focused on making a quality game and will do all they can to insure cheating does not go unpunished in the game.

It's impossible to completely stop cheating, it's also impossible to have enough GM's to watch everyone.

I for one am fairly confident they will get it right. But this isn't a perfect world like everyone thinks it is - there will be ways to bypass it but it will not be on the same scale as the original PlanetSide.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

I think most of you underestimate just how popular PS2 will be as a F2P game.

I'm expecting 10x the numbers that PS1 had in it's prime, and hopefully I'm underestimating it by a long shot as well

I also expect it to retain high numbers for years to come.

[Talek Krell]

This would be a great system for a game with populations of the size that PS2 needs to have. The larger the population base the larger the number of potential participants, so it amplifies in measure with the number of complaints that will come in. The workload for the GMs would be significantly reduced, allowing them to spend more time and effort on each case and reducing the resources that have to be devoted to keeping swarms of admins on staff. The GMs also retain ultimate control, and could easily identify and appropriately punish cases of attempted abuse.

I only see two possible legitimate problems with it, one at the top and one at the bottom. If the GMs aren't reliable then of course the whole thing collapses. Given that this is true of every system it will have to be dealt with by SOE and they'll have to deal with it regardless. Participation of the playerbase, though, seems like a harder problem to solve. You can't just have a popup appear on somebody's screen while they're in the middle of a fight. How does LoL convince people to participate in this?

[Effective]

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

How does LoL convince people to participate in this?

You earn IP (in game money which can be used to buy characters and runes).
But you only earn it IF, everyone agrees on the same decision on a person (whether it be yes or no).

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Effective

You earn IP (in game money which can be used to buy characters and runes).
But you only earn it IF, everyone agrees on the same decision on a person (whether it be yes or no).

i think its you get the IP if you decided the same as the final outcome.

[Effective]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

i think its you get the IP if you decided the same as the final outcome.

Close enough

[The Desert Fox]

Should I be expecting my PS2 Jury Duty Letter in the mail or email?

[Sifer2]

I don't play LoL so I don't understand how this Tribunal works. But it looks like the basic intent is to make the workload easier on GM's by letting them just sit there an ban people with lots of complaints on them. And it pays the players some currency for it?

My first question would be what's to stop the players just voting guilty to get paid? An second what's to stop just singling out someone your outfit doesn't like an showering them with complaints just to get them banned. Though the second wont be an issue if the GM is required to observe an record offending behavior before taking action. But in a free 2 play overrun with idiots an hackers that will be harder to take that time.

I also still wonder about punishment. In a F2P where you can just make new accounts when one is banned what is the real punishment? Sounds like Higby is trying to find a way to make it time consuming at least. Though this is far less effective than the good old hit them in the wallet where it hurts. I think options would be:

Require Credit Card to make account
Lots of IP,Hardware info gathered to try to keep the banned out
Don't be F2P or have Premium only areas/servers

Ideally all 3 IMO.

[Effective]

Originally Posted by Sifer2

I don't play LoL so I don't understand how this Tribunal works. But it looks like the basic intent is to make the workload easier on GM's by letting them just sit there an ban people with lots of complaints on them. And it pays the players some currency for it?

My first question would be what's to stop the players just voting guilty to get paid? An second what's to stop just singling out someone your outfit doesn't like an showering them with complaints just to get them banned. Though the second wont be an issue if the GM is required to observe an record offending behavior before taking action. But in a free 2 play overrun with idiots an hackers that will be harder to take that time.

Here.

Originally Posted by Effective

Let me describe it.

Player X is a douche bag and griefs people in a variety of ways, tking, etc.

Several players report/appeal him for his griefing behavior.

The Player X is put in the tribunal system.

Regular players may access the tribunal once they obtain a certain in-game level (usually max level).

Player X's file case is RANDOMLY assigned to players as they view/vote on these tribunals cases. The number of case files an individual player may view (which is still COMPLETELY RANDOM) is 10 cases which he may vote on.

If enough players agree that Player X should be punished by a GM, the case is forwarded to a GM, where upon the GM will make a FINAL JUDGEMENT on whether or not to ban/suspend/punish him.

The system isn't meant to deal with hackers. It's more along the lines of dealing with griefers. As it's easier to get that kind of information via various logs.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Sifer2

I don't play LoL so I don't understand how this Tribunal works. But it looks like the basic intent is to make the workload easier on GM's by letting them just sit there an ban people with lots of complaints on them. And it pays the players some currency for it?

My first question would be what's to stop the players just voting guilty to get paid? An second what's to stop just singling out someone your outfit doesn't like an showering them with complaints just to get them banned. Though the second wont be an issue if the GM is required to observe an record offending behavior before taking action. But in a free 2 play overrun with idiots an hackers that will be harder to take that time.

Simple, just read the rules... Here ya go: LoL Tribunal Rules

How Does Voting Work?

Once a Tribunal member has reviewed the Report Page, he or she has an opportunity to vote to “pardon,” “punish” or “skip” the case. Each Report Page will be reviewed and voted on by at least twenty (20) different Tribunal members before any action is taken.

Your Tribunal Performance

Each member initially has the opportunity to vote on up to thirty (30) cases per day (this number is subject to change at any time in Riot Games’ sole and absolute discretion).

Your performance as a Tribunal member is automatically evaluated as you participate in The Tribunal and cast votes on the Report Pages that come before you. If your recommendation on a given report, whether it be to pardon or punish, matches the final verdict on the report, you will be notified by email and will receive a reward in the form of Influence Points (“IP”). If you frequently succeed at voting with the majority in The Tribunal, over time, you will also slowly be granted the capability of reviewing and voting on more Report Pages per day. If, however, you frequently and consistently vote against the majority, or otherwise disrupt or hinder The Tribunal process, you will have access to fewer and fewer Report Pages, and eventually your account may be temporarily or permanently banned from future participation in The Tribunal, at Riot Games’ sole discretion.

If you recently participated in The Tribunal and voted with the majority on at least one case, Riot Games will notify you via email of the amount of IP that was deposited to your Game account. If you do not wish to receive these email notifications, please do not participate in The Tribunal.

[Furret]

Duke you claim to understand that the 'tribunal' won't actually blacklist someone, but you still post with contradicting wording.

Perhaps you've said it yourself in a previous post, but I think you're very biased in this issue. You seem to be the type of player who gets drunk and griefs, and would therefore be likely put on trial for being an asshat, even if you only grief once every few nights.

I personally think this sort of 'tribunal' system would work. No power is actually being put in the hands of the players, except to pardon players. (When reviewing a case, they're given two options: Forward to GM, and Pardon player)

A few examples.

Case 1
Player X accidentally teamkills Player Y
Player Y reports player X for griefing because Player Y was on a 24 killstreak and needed one more kill for an achievement.
Tribunal receives report, and decides that Player Y was just annoyed that he'd been so close to a cool award, and had been killed by a friendly.
Player pardoned, one less case the GM's have to worry about.

Case 2
Player X teamkills Player Y.
Player Y decides to get revenge and spawn camps Player X three or four times, and the two teamkill each other on sight.
Tribunal receives case and is undecided, some blame Player X for the initial teamkill, some blame Player Y for going over the top with revenge, some blame both players because they're intentionally teamkilling each other and who the hell cares who started it.
Case gets forwarded to a GM.

Case 3
Player X gets a lot of kills from long distances with an inaccurate weapon and is reported by 500 members of outfit Y, who have been incited by Player Y in outfit Y who was recently fired from his job, got drunk, and is generally having a bad day.
Tribunal receives case and can't tell whether Player X is using hacks, or is lucky.
Case is forwarded to a GM.

I honestly don't see how that system can be abused, unless (in the third example) outfit X ends up with 15/20 members on the tribunal and pardons their own hacker.

But so what? Player X gets reported again a week later, and a different tribunal is selected, preferably excluding all members of previous tribunals for Player X.

Again, even if (in the first example) player X is reported by 500 members of outfit Y, and 20/20 members of the tribunal are from outfit Y, all they can do is forward the case to a GM, who will see what happened, and dismiss the case.


I think the main thing duke hasn't quite wrapped his head around is that the tribunal doesn't do ANYTHING, other than weed out the bullshit/butthurt/spam cases that the GM's don't need to be bothered with.

-------------------------------

Wrote this at 3 AM, so if I missed something point it out and I'll explain my reasoning.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Furret

I think the main thing duke hasn't quite wrapped his head around is that the tribunal doesn't do ANYTHING, other than weed out the bullshit/butthurt/spam cases that the GM's don't need to be bothered with.

-------------------------------

Wrote this at 3 AM, so if I missed something point it out and I'll explain my reasoning.

Yes, you can read the entire thread, but in every one of his posts he does not seem to grasp it and some other for that matter, they seem to think than an outfit can mass appeal somebody and then force their hand in the tribural system by voting against a particular appeal...even though the appeals are assigned randomly.

The fail to think that they could do the same in planetsides current system(if they were read) whats to stop some butthurt OL leader getting hsi guild to mass report somebody now? nothing...all those appeals would go straight to a GM, at least with the tribunal system some of those appeals would get thrown out with no proper evidence.

[sylphaen]

TLDR summary:
Devs set the rules. We play by the rules.
Devs detect those who circumvent the rules and ban them.
We detect those who did not get detected and Devs ban them after human verification.

Human intervention is key at the action level since players will generally detect and report detrimental activity.

Annoying in-game behavior (i.e. stupidity in most cases) is kind of a gray area to me...


____________

Originally Posted by The Desert Fox

Should I be expecting my PS2 Jury Duty Letter in the mail or email?

Kind of how I thought too.

I skimmed over the thread and I do not think any of you mentioned motivation/involvement level of the players. Nor the pace of action.

Just a few ideas I do not have time to structure properly:
- the game is fast and only a PS1-like grief system is reactive enough to punish "direct-griefers".
- in a game with thousands of players, only the players motivated enough to get someone else punished will expend give away time and exhaust energy to report someone else.
- the easier/faster it is to report someone, the more casual will reported issues be.
- in the event, of a player reported by many other players. What threshold is acceptable ? What about outfits who will have the power to use or abuse that process in a powerful way ?
- how long will it take for a group of players to validate a complaint and then have a GM reprocess it ?
- what about "very-indirect-griefers" ? GeneralVega was mentionned but how can you prove or judge that his incorrectly placed AMS on a bridge (which happened to be blocking the advance of all friendly troops trying to cross it because it was the most efficient ground-path to reach the next base) was griefing ? If it is proven to be, what about a friendly player who deploys an AMS at a non-optimal location and blocks the set-up of another AMS at a perceived better spot ?
- could tribunals generate vendettas/sour communities ?

While it's basically a pre-screening of the complaints/reports from players which I like, I am not too fond of that tribunal system.

One reason is that I fear it might justify that PS2 will need less GMs. I also hate the idea of players judging the behaviors of others through peer pressure.

Devs want to speed up gameplay and at worse, we may end-up with a system that:
- reports too easily (Do you want to punish player X ? yes/no)
- reports in a biased way (Explain your complaint: "this guy totally ...blablabla...")
- gets approved by the tribunal in most cases (players who reported someone already want that guy's neck; out of the thousands of players left, most of them will likely be clueless or acting with biased/incomplete information)
- gets GM swing the ban hammer too easily and too late (because investigations take time and 50 players cannot be wrong and there might not be time to reinvestigate so just ban or not)


Either way, the only positive item I see in the tribunal idea is pre-screening reports. This could simply be done by tracking complaints per player and getting a GM on their case after a certain threshold of abuses.

By classifying complaints, GMs could also choose to get on some cases faster (hacking vs. annoying behavior).


Overall, I still believe that the most important thing needed will be GMs.

Now there is a big difference between "direct-griefing" (i.e. abusing FF which can be dealt with the grief system) and "indirect-griefing" (i.e. passive aggressive behavior like GeneralVega's or racism/harrassment/pressure/etc...). Both should not be categorized together because they cannot be detected and taken care of in the same way.


I cant believe I always end up writing so much...