Jump to content

Welcome to the Heroes of Newerth forums

The forums have received a complete makeover. Click the button below to read more about it.
Read more
`kei

Is it socially acceptable for SGM to humiliate player and how often do you find yourself unjustly suspended eventhough you did not violated the rules?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi everyone, this post was meant to raise community's thoughts on one of the current problems that some of us find unresolved within the management system, which is the lacking of coherent and ineffectiveness of the RAP system. For the sole purpose of example, I present here my personal experience in filing an appeal with one of the SGM.

My personal argument is that the RAP system (both decision and appeal stages) works too mechanically, in other words, the decisions on whether a person is decided guilty or not depend entirely on if the GM has observed an action which was predetermined by him to be guilty.  This mechanical process makes the whole RAP system inefficient for the set of cases where the situation require more observation than merely detecting an action which falls into the 'guilty' category. Thus, the RAP system and GM decision could clearly be wrong in such set of cases, which means the GM could clearly make a wrong decision, punishing an innocent player. And because the same mechanical-mindset applies to the appeal as well, the SGM would reject to consider any appealing cases if they found a predetermined 'guilty' action beforehand.

Of course, my personal argument is simply my thought. There are always flaws and all. So I am seeking other people idea about this to see whether this is really a problem of the system, or it is only my incompatibility with the community's belief. In case it is really a problem with the RAP system, the community's opinion could perhaps be a motivation for the revision and improvement on the RAP system in the future.

Also, for the same purpose of aligning myself with the community's point of view, I would like to ask the community's opinion. If a SGM humiliate you by calling you a liar but is unable to refute any of the points you mentioned in your appeal, do you think it is a socially acceptable situation (i.e: it's perfectly normal)? Is it a big deal to you? Do you think it is a justifiable reason to disable your appeal?

I will present below the entire appeal case between me and SGM *censored*

Did he do what was right? Should a SGM decision be final and no question asked? Should the appeal system be present at all?

 

Edited by Manu311
Censored everything about an actual case
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to let you know, you are not allowed to talk about RAP decisions publicly so by posting those pictures you are prety much asking for your ban to be prolonged (maybe even to permanent one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I did not know there is such a rule.

 

I just figure it is the era of transparency so I am disclosing all the information with the expectation that it is the same for everyone. All for the better common HoN for all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hey, Ceriss already told you. But I've already removed the information I believe to be not allowed.
I'm not a fan of just nuking away critique on the system itself, so I'm not deleting the thread (but someone else might).

Anyways, you usually don't have much of a choice to circumvent the highest instance - which in this case are the SGMs.

So now to my personal impression:
Occasionally I have offenses where I'm sad that it might not be "bad enough" yet. But most of the times my reports are quite clear and I don't recall much of them got denied. And the few that were denied got overruled by an SGM once I complained/asked about it.

I've never been banned, so I can't talk about that other side. But when I see what people ask other players to report for, I'm pretty certain that GMs don't blindly just ban people lightly.
I've probably been reported dozens of times because I got 10+ death or because I apparently didn't ward or because I intentionally fed (of course all of those were innocent). I didn't had to appeal a ban I got - since there simply never was one.
For me the system works. Thought that's only the case because I got the Top-Priority-Reporter status eventually, so my reports are always looked at.

Edited by Manu311
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you @Manu311

I posted the conversation because `Shattered says he can't and wouldn't stop me, so I thought it is part of the transparency rule of HoN but I guess I was wrong.

Is it allowed to link to a different social channel like Discord or something? Because I feel like people would not be able to see the case if they did not see the conversation.

I personally think it is for the game's good rather than just for my own good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, `kei said:

Is it allowed to link to a different social channel like Discord or something?

There already are a couple of discord-channels available where you'll probably find people to discuss it with.
E.g. there's an official HoN-server here: https://discord.gg/bqYWs5

If you want to make people understand the case, you could build a similar but fictional case. Like "imagine an SGM would respond to X with Y ....". Even if you copy 90% of the content, no one (but SGMs) will know 😉.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, why would it be against the rules to our yourself?  I can understand a rule about posting other players‘ names.


Toxicity breeds toxicity.  Break the cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MacroHard said:

Out of curiosity, why would it be against the rules to our yourself?  I can understand a rule about posting other players‘ names.

If there weren't any other people involved, that would be ok. But it involves at least on SGM which should be asked first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is generally prohibited to avoid people opening a bottomless pit. thishas nothing to do with personal information in these particular cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just mention some general stuff here and then talk just a little about the particular case briefly as it's not allowed to discuss the decision in detail. I have asked Kei to send the screenshots and he forwarded them to me. I also found the game and watched the replay.

I have been in the GM team for a while and many of my decisions were overturned (mostly due to human error or lack of experience, never intentionally banned ofc), so I have a bit of a first hand experience from the other side.

I also played with Shattered in the past too, so I tried my best and hopefully succeeded in keeping this without any preconceptions. I have also explained everything very detailed in a private message I sent you, which I hope would make you understand the decision better. I still wanted to post this message in the forum to not leave this unanswered.

There are more to the way GMs review cases than known which I obviously cannot disclose, but I agree with the things said above: that the GMs don't simply ban someone without enough evidence that the action is against the rules and the values their processes are based on. There are always disagreements between players whether an action is bannable or not, but those processes within GM team are set to prevent those decisions from being subjective.

In general but especially in appeals, they are very careful about that there is no conflict of interest, no human error or anything which may cause an unjust situation. Also that another person taking a look at the case might provide a different point of view. All of this is to ensure that the case is not reviewed in favor of the GM and the actual aim is to conclude it with the right thing to do.

As they are still humans, and mistakes can rarely happen. However, in this particular case, I am afraid I won't be able to say you have been wronged.

The information you provided after the decision does not justify your ingame behaviour and I believe they do not align with what you did either. I understand that you thought the game is already over (which I kinda agree, the difference was quite high between teams), it still does not justify intentionally dying.

You have presented excuses for every point of the decision but ultimately some of them are either subjective, wrong or irrelevant from each other. It would be understandable if you wanted to avoid fights/stood behind/went jungle to farm/did not engage with pushing enemies due to the huge level and gold difference, but it's not ok that you would let yourself die multiple times -which looked like intentionally, just because enemy team are dominating the game, your team plays very bad and the other reasons you provided.

I understand you are particularly offended about being called a liar, but I believe what you mentioned here is only one part of the conversation and not the whole thing. While I absolutely respect that you felt offended by it, I don't believe it was used to insult you in any way. I am trying to give as little detail here as possible so far due to the rules, but I have sent you a PM with a further explanation as well.

The GMs can't go around and ask whether players did something intentionally or not, everyone would of course deny their intentions in order to avoid a ban. So maybe you have not done it intentionally and you believe it, but there are many and enough evidence that points to the violation of the code of conduct.

 ... I'm sorry about the ban, but I hope my PM was able to explain it to you a bit further.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks sjolnick for commenting on both this thread and sending me a very detailed and constructive explanation regarding the situation. Much to which I fully understand and in consensus with, there are a few things I remarked which justify my belief of my innocence. I have replied to them in our private message.

My main point of argument is that playing poorly should not have been treated as intentionally feeding. Since the borderline between these two concepts is vague, there is a necessity for the participants (e.g: the RAP conductors) to be very specific and study the context well in order to determine the decision in a way that brings justice.

2 hours ago, sjolnick said:

In general but especially in appeals, they are very careful about that there is no conflict of interest, no human error or anything which may cause an unjust situation. Also that another person taking a look at the case might provide a different point of view. All of this is to ensure that the case is not reviewed in favor of the GM and the actual aim is to conclude it with the right thing to do.

As they are still humans, and mistakes can rarely happen. However, in this particular case, I am afraid I won't be able to say you have been wronged.

On the points you mentioned here, could you please share with me your impression with the way the SGM has responded to my appeal?

(Did you think that the SGM has refuted to any of the appeal points? Did you think he was constructive in helping the appellant see an alternative point of view? Did you think the SGM was treating the case carefully?)

Personally, I did not think he was 'very careful' about what he said, nor was he trying to avoid 'conflict of interest'. From the context of the case I have a feeling that the SGM have not studied the case well, avoided giving any explanation nor refuting to any appeal points, the whole conversation was just like "you have done wrong and hence you are suspended, you don't need to know why". There was an instance of human error when one mentioned a hero was a 'carry' and pointed out that my GPM was higher than this carry, while in fact the hero was evidently not a carry role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, `kei said:

Thanks sjolnick for commenting on both this thread and sending me a very detailed and constructive explanation regarding the situation. Much to which I fully understand and in consensus with, there are a few things I remarked which justify my belief of my innocence. I have replied to them in our private message.

My main point of argument is that playing poorly should not have been treated as intentionally feeding. Since the borderline between these two concepts is vague, there is a necessity for the participants (e.g: the RAP conductors) to be very specific and study the context well in order to determine the decision in a way that brings justice.

On the points you mentioned here, could you please share with me your impression with the way the SGM has responded to my appeal?

(Did you think that the SGM has refuted to any of the appeal points? Did you think he was constructive in helping the appellant see an alternative point of view? Did you think the SGM was treating the case carefully?)

Personally, I did not think he was 'very careful' about what he said, nor was he trying to avoid 'conflict of interest'. From the context of the case I have a feeling that the SGM have not studied the case well, avoided giving any explanation nor refuting to any appeal points, the whole conversation was just like "you have done wrong and hence you are suspended, you don't need to know why". There was an instance of human error when one mentioned a hero was a 'carry' and pointed out that my GPM was higher than this carry, while in fact the hero was evidently not a carry role.

First of all SGMs aren't allowed to handle appeals for players which they themselves banned (at least for when I was a SGM) When SGMs handle appeals they simply look to verify if the gm in question was correct or wrong in his/her initial decision. I have overturned many decisions during my reign as a SGM and given many players the benefit of doubt due to the case in question being very borderline and there being no right or wrong decision. Regardless I do believe some things were not fully explained by on both sides, will not go into detail as I don't want to write a wall of text. I however think that shattered still handled the appeal as best as he could, there might have been room for benefit of doubt from what I read in the screenshots but I didn't watch the replay so can't say.

Edited by swagggmaster
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, `kei said:

On the points you mentioned here, could you please share with me your impression with the way the SGM has responded to my appeal?

(Did you think that the SGM has refuted to any of the appeal points? Did you think he was constructive in helping the appellant see an alternative point of view? Did you think the SGM was treating the case carefully?)

I won't discuss the decision made further, as I explained you again in a message, I still believe it was correct.

I believe the SGM responded the points you mentioned in your appeal. He did not respond in a long and detailed way like I did since they have limited resource and time as they need to reply other players too, but he explained the actions which led to the decision. 

 

19 hours ago, `kei said:

Personally, I did not think he was 'very careful' about what he said, nor was he trying to avoid 'conflict of interest'. From the context of the case I have a feeling that the SGM have not studied the case well, avoided giving any explanation nor refuting to any appeal points, the whole conversation was just like "you have done wrong and hence you are suspended, you don't need to know why". There was an instance of human error when one mentioned a hero was a 'carry' and pointed out that my GPM was higher than this carry, while in fact the hero was evidently not a carry role.

I don't agree with your comment where you are saying "you have done wrong and hence you are suspended, you don't need to know why". You have done the same in the original post too:

 

On 6/28/2020 at 5:08 PM, `kei said:

If a SGM humiliate you by calling you a liar but is unable to refute any of the points you mentioned in your appeal, do you think it is a socially acceptable situation (i.e: it's perfectly normal)? Is it a big deal to you? Do you think it is a justifiable reason to disable your appeal?

I can see that in every message he had sentences where he explained his point of view while giving an example of an action you did, so I think you're exaggerating the whole thing in the two quotes I mentioned above.

If he made a human error and called a non-carry hero a carry, or even wrongly said your GPM was higher, these still would not change the decision.

As I mentioned in my PM too, there were many points and you had a diffferent excuse for each of them, which may have lead him to think you may be lying. So I understand why he thought that way, but would I use the same words he used? maybe not. I have a corporate background but this is a game and the written language here is less formal, so when I look at the whole sentence I see that he does not mean it to harm you or insult you but says that simply because of the reason I mentioned above. He even starts with saying he has respect for high rank players (such as yourself, as you mentioned you are a high rank player).

I think I have given more details than I should have, but I'll end here, I really don't think this case needs to go further than this :< 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this thread is not about me but it should rather about the SGM behaviour with example draw from my case.

Sjolnick did give me a very comprehensive explanation regarding why the SGM come up with such decision. It implies that the decision was made to the best of the observation that the SGM has on the case. But since I saw a clear difference between the SGM response and Sjolnick response, as well as a distinct difference in attitude, I am not fully convinced that the SGM was actually as careful as Sjolnick.

Truly, the SGM was very short and concise on his comments, to the point that there was no elaboration on any explanation whatsoever. When you see one sentence for every decision, such as 'you did this at this time, so you are guilty' then it is apparently not convincing nor sound caring at all. The fact with calling madman a carry may not affect the decision outcome (if what Sjolnick explained to me is what the SGM actually conducted to reach his decision), but the decision outcome does not matter in the sense that we are discussing the SGM attitude to detect any problem. In this sense, a caring respondent would have studied the case well (prerequisite for the idealistic attitude that Sjolnick mentioned), but saying a madman is a carry, among many other weird questions, is what makes it suspicious that the SGM might have not been as careful as an the case Sjolnick told me.

Anyhow, please forget about my decision outcome now, I have accepted the punishment because of exhaustion and also because of the belief that the decision-maker has tried his best (according to Sjolnick) to make a decision given the observation he had. But let's keep the RAP discussion of the SGM attitude going on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at your screenshots and it's a case of Occam's Razor. 

 

You wrote so much to explain your actions - if you had to explain yourself so much, perhaps there are other factors to consider, such as maybe you're in the wrong after all.

 

Just do better in the future. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...