Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: to anyone who belives he was muted for no reason

  1. #21
    Basic Member erik-the-red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    4,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Automedic View Post
    So what was your point again?
    You point to the <1% statistic as "evidence" that it's just a vocal minority complaining about this. But <1% describes the percentage of active players CURRENTLY muted. Nobody but Valve knows the percentage of players EVER muted, which I think is much, much, much higher than <1%.

    Are you really surprised that with very few reports per player per week, <1% of active players get muted?
    We need a player review system like Overwatch for DotA 2. Get real people to judge communication abuse, intentional skill abuse, and intentional feeding.



    merci fenix

  2. #22
    Basic Member erik-the-red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    4,682
    Quote Originally Posted by blash365 View Post
    the number of reports doesnt have any correlation with muted players if there is a proper report threshold in place.
    I don't disagree with this. What I think is that it isn't easy to determine what the threshold should be. More on this later.

    if you rank players from disruptive to non-disruptive the report distribution of the whole community on them will be similar to a gauss curve.
    disruptive people will have a lot of reports, non-disruptive close to none.
    Are you saying that you think half of the community could be muted?

    if you increase the number of reports, the absolute values of that curve will increase, but the relative distribution will not.
    what a proper report threshold does is to select the most reported part of that curve (the disruptive players).
    this system works the same way with 1, 2, 4 and a thousand reports per person.
    Here's the "later" part. What you say is right. But it appears that in practice, it's not so easy to implement. That, to me, is why we went from a (bugged) unlimited number of reports per week, to 4, and now to 2. Valve couldn't figure out what the "proper" threshold was for the old 4 a week system; my guess is that the false positive rate was too high.

    If you think Valve DOES know what it's doing regarding the selection of thresholds, then I don't think you can answer why we only have 2 reports per week when we used to have 4.

    the only difference is that 2 reports per person allows valve to manually check some cases if they see fit alot more time efficient than if there were 10 reports per person (you know, because they have to read less reports).
    They can manually check regardless of how many reports per person there are. My guess is that during their manual checks, they realized that the false positives were too high under the first two systems of reports per week, and that with two a week, "typically," most muted players "deserve" it.
    We need a player review system like Overwatch for DotA 2. Get real people to judge communication abuse, intentional skill abuse, and intentional feeding.



    merci fenix

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by blash365 View Post
    as already stated in a different thread (which you were active in). the number of reports doesnt have any correlation with muted players if there is a proper report threshold in place.

    if you rank players from disruptive to non-disruptive the report distribution of the whole community on them will be similar to a gauss curve.
    disruptive people will have a lot of reports, non-disruptive close to none.

    if you increase the number of reports, the absolute values of that curve will increase, but the relative distribution will not.
    what a proper report threshold does is to select the most reported part of that curve (the disruptive players).
    this system works the same way with 1, 2, 4 and a thousand reports per person.
    Bloody this; why do people refuse to accept this? It's not a fairy tale.
    Balls and holes

    Regarding the OP: Very very unlikely for the mute system to (not be automated/rely entirely on manual inspection of every report). No chance actually. (that does not mean that they may not be able to selectively re-review some reports after the system has done so)
    Last edited by CloisterBlack; 06-04-2013 at 01:02 PM.

  4. #24
    Basic Member erik-the-red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    4,682
    Quote Originally Posted by CloisterBlack View Post
    Bloody this; why do people refuse to accept this? It's not a fairy tale.
    Balls and holes
    Your "balls and holes" example is totally, completely, irrelevant to what blash said.
    We need a player review system like Overwatch for DotA 2. Get real people to judge communication abuse, intentional skill abuse, and intentional feeding.



    merci fenix

  5. #25
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by blash365 View Post
    i share your general notion though. in dota close to everybody deserves a penalty for bad manners if you look at the right games. almost every dota player has a huge tendency to be rude, mean, aggressive, arrogant, etc. that simply comes with the game.
    what buffles me is that just currently 1% (or let's assume the 15% alltime are correct) are affected with a mute penalty. i would find something close to 50% alltime or even more much more realistic.
    The numbers are misleading. Most people only play a few games a week, even if they're complete jerks they probably wont get muted. While people who play a huge amount are far more likely to hit whatever the report threshold is to get muted. Also Valve doesn't take into consideration smurf accounts.

  6. #26
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    63
    While I am not advocating doing this, I would like to point out that in response to a LOT of crying from their community, Riot (specifically Pendragon) did a review of a large number of cases that went through their report system.

    http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=1626725

    My favorite response was probably this one:
    Pendragon Edit: Had I reviewed this case instead of the Tribunal, the outcome would have been: Punish // telling people to go kill themselves, racism, general poor sportsmanship

    "Player" edit: Worth it.


    A cursory glance at the first page reveals that a good majority of people who appeal their punishments deserve it and more. I would not be surprised in the slightest if a similar exercise conducted in Dota 2 revealed what we pretty much already know: Many players feel the need to abuse people that they don't know for doing things they don't agree with. Furthermore, there are those who have the attitude of "It's just a game, get over it". If their idea of having fun is abusing someone who can do barely anything in retaliation, I would suggest reevaluating their mental health.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •