There is zero consistency in RAP

[Drauis]

So, let me get this straight: it's unacceptable that your tickets are judged along a set of written rules by trained and impartial GMs in a system with a built-in appeals process, so your proposed alternative to to simply let players rage ban each other? I don't really want the guy that fed all game to be able to vote to ban me from the game. The kid who just spent 20 minutes running around behind the fountain, avoiding AFK detection while raging about how I lost mid because I didn't win his lane for him as well--he gets a say on me getting banned?

Wouldn't you be using your vote to ban him? And if he did vote against you, you would need to have votes from another 2 games for anything to happen. Really at the end of the of the day how likely is that (if you are a respectable and not a troll)? Limiting to one vote per day means that this cannot be abused easily as with teh initial RAP system.

Your system basically guarantees that if I have three bad games (or even one bad game while grouped with three guys who are friends), I get banned--and not because I broke any rules, but only because a mere three people got angry at me. No thank you, I'll stick to letting the GMs handle things through a system of rules with checks and balances.

You would need at least 3 different games, not 3 from one. What are the chances you would get the same group of friends in 3 different games on the same day. I don't delieve match making has that kind of flaw in it. Also I don't believe I have ever been reported or been threatened to be reported for having a bad game or two. It is pretty obvious when someone is just having an off game and I would hope that most players don't currently submit tickets under RAP for this.

I've never had an unsuccessful ticket (at least since the change to RAP 2.0), and frankly, there's very little excuse to. The rules are pretty clear cut, and there's several threads on this very forum explaining exactly what is and isn't a rules violation. And if you're unsure, you're completely free to ask. And if, after all that, your ticket still comes back unsuccessful, you're allowed to appeal it as well.

Again RAP would still be available and so would ban appeals. The target is not the 50% of the tickets that are currently being dealy with by GM's, it's the other 50% which are not technical offenses for GM's but the type of trolling behaviour that isn'y being addressed.

[[H4S]MurdoctheMad]

Also I don't believe I have ever been reported or been threatened to be reported for having a bad game or two. It is pretty obvious when someone is just having an off game and I would hope that most players don't currently submit tickets under RAP for this.

MacroHard already addressed this, in this very thread:

This is an unfortunate consequence of trying to weed out clueless reporters (we still get tons of tickets for playing badly, stealing mid lane, backdooring, picking scout, etc).

So yeah, tons of people are still reporting for "playing badly" and other nonsense under the current system.

Again RAP would still be available and so would ban appeals. The target is not the 50% of the tickets that are currently being dealy with by GM's, it's the other 50% which are not technical offenses for GM's but the type of trolling behaviour that isn'y being addressed.

So this actions aren't offenses and aren't breaking any rules, but you want people to be banned for them in a system that has no oversight. How does that make any sense?
Additionally, if 50% of tickets are getting marked innocent, that means 50% of the people using the system can't even be bothered to read the rules or construct a decent report. These are the people you want to give the power to ban people without explanation?

[Drauis]

MacroHard already addressed this, in this very thread:

So yeah, tons of people are still reporting for "playing badly" and other nonsense under the current system.


So this actions aren't offenses and aren't breaking any rules, but you want people to be banned for them in a system that has no oversight. How does that make any sense?
Additionally, if 50% of tickets are getting marked innocent, that means 50% of the people using the system can't even be bothered to read the rules or construct a decent report. These are the people you want to give the power to ban people without explanation?

If 50% of all tickets being submitted are not being submitted 'properly' in accordance with the S2 requirements to address an issue, that incidicates that there is still a massive issue witihn the Hon community that needs to be addressed, but cannot under the RAP system. It is completely unrealistic to think that GM's can address or even define all issues.

Heroes of Newerth is an extremely complex game and as such no rule is 100% black-and-white. There are lots of exceptions, lots of special cases, and lots of considerations.

If not all matters are black and white how do people expect GM's to be able to help? Simple answer is that they can't and shouldn't be expected too. They can look into the 50% of issues that are clear cut and deal with them accordingly. Out of the other 50% some reports may be completely false, however I would wager that at least 30% more of player behavioural issues can be address by implementing a player initiated banning system to allow the community to be in a way self policing over bad behaviour.

Or do you honestly think that the 50% marked innocent do not include false negatives?

[[S2]MacroHard]

Or do you honestly think that the 50% marked innocent do not include false negatives?

Of course I do not think that. I would not have created a thread dedicated to rectifying those if I had.

[Drauis]

Well I really hope you take the concept on board at least. By S2 giving players even a limited amount of self-governance would go a long way in reducing a lot of anger and frustration from trolls. It's not fair on GM's to be dealing with the same issues over and over when they are limited to what they can/cannot do to help.

Really a win, win all around. Less RAP tickets for GM's lead to more quality decisions through RAP and more time for those who are also players to get a few more games in.

I'm sure there is may be room for improvement in the idea of player initiated banning, and would have liked to see more people post suggestions.