Using League of Legends' new peer-review system to judge griefers (and the ridiculous things they say)

Prepare to be judged. Yesterday morning, Riot Games released the Tribunal --a peer-reviewing system that's supposed to help curtail bad behavior in their huge free-to-play MOBA. Our two resident LoL experts, Lucas and Josh, don their black robes and powdered wigs and jump into the judge's chair to test-drive the new system. Can we save the innocents of League of Legends from the hatred-spewing trolls? Can we discern misunderstandings from malice? Will our eyes ever recover from reading that much profanity in a single sitting? Read on for our harrowing tale (plus some ridiculous quotes from these people being banned).

First, the details: the Tribunal is only open to level-30 players who have not been banned. In it, players are presented with a heap of well-formatted information that lets them review the complaints reported against a particular player, and the information of the match in which the report was made. Then, the player can vote that the accused person deserves to be punished or not (but cannot specify a particular punishment--Riot reserves that power entirely). The judging players must view the information for at least a minute before they can render a verdict, only get rewarded if Riot agrees with their judgment, and can only review 3 cases every 24 hours.

Meet the Judges

• LoL worldview: In DotA, I was always the dude yelling at allies—then I realized that demoralizing your own teammates accomplishes diddly-squat. So when people yell at me, all I can do is laugh (after confirming that I'm superior to them based on creep kills). Troll me, and I'll troll you back—but I refuse to take the first punch.
• Most likely verdict: This nerdy (likely white) dude just dropped a racial epithet? Oh HAILLLLL no! Release the guillotine.
• First impressions: After months of people assuming that their reports were disappearing into wisps of thin air, Riot rolls out the Tribunal system—and knocks it out of the park. Everybody wins: average players get to see that proper reporting gets results (and even earn some IP on the side), and jerks get a reason to do something productive with their lives when they can't log in, provided they don't default to just weeping impotently at their keyboards. My favorite quote from the Tribunal FAQ? "Once The Tribunal has spoken, you'll have to live with your punishment."

Case #1: The Feeder

Judge Josh presiding

• First sign of guilt: 15 deaths in 16 minutes. That's actually fairly impressive--I'm not sure I could die once per minute, even if I was trying to.
• I hope he's trolling because: He has 3 Boots of Speed purchased, and the bonuses don't stack.
• How he defends his actions in the chat logs: "stfu. i said i was getting high. idiot."
• Best insight into the accused's mind: Other-player: "No im jsut pissing you off to test you." Accused: "incorrect. and i don't get tested. thats for highschool kids."
• Why he'll be surprised by his ban: "lol u only get baned from leaving games. everyone knows that"

Verdict: GUILTY!

Case #2: The Weirdo

Judge Lucas presiding

• Why you should pity him: Despite going 0 and 19 and telling the enemy Karthus when to use his ult, his team still ending up winning. Does it get any more pathetic than a griefer who can't even make his team lose? Answer: no.
• Telltale signs of a griefing: Stacking Zeals means more movespeed—now they can run up to enemies towers even faster. Although I once saw mass Zeals own on a Sion.
• His favorite fun facts: Stated immediately at the start of the match: "Morde...big skin little dick." Um...what?
• He's got a bright future ahead: Accused: "im going to become a truck driver. and be alone. just so i can think on my own"
• Why he'll be surprised by his ban: He seems to believe that once he puts his allies on /ignore, he turns into Superman of the Internet.

Verdict: GUILTY!

Case #3: The Potty Mouth

Judge Josh presiding

• Most depressing accusation against him: "i was playing a new character and this player constantly told me hes going to report me and im a bad player."
• The most reasonable response: "You should play ranked matches if you're so serious about this game"
• Catch phrases the accused unsuccessfully attempted to launch: "Welcome to the Poppydome, muthaf***a!" and "Would you f*** me? I'd f*** me. Hard."
• Number of times he insulted teammates in a single game: 103, most of which involved the terms "fail", "kiddo", or "motha*****"
• Why he'll never get a date: "Oh so you're a female? No wonder you're bad at games." and "D**n, typical woman. F***ing terrible at math, too."
• Why he'll be surprised by his ban: "LOL offensive language. Like reporting does anything...OH WAIT! it doesnt. Shut the f*** up. They wont give a sh**."

Verdict: GUILTY!

Case #4: The Blamer

Judge Lucas presiding

• He doth deny too much, methinks: "i will go afk. i dont cry"
• His grasp of language: "kennen gault, he didnt came" Later: "kennen sux, i cant gols alone" It's dangerous to gols alone, dude! Take this.
• His not-so-intimidating warcry: Playing as Garen in every single game: "DIE PLS...IN QUITE!"
• What's he thinking? IF dead, THEN it is teammates' fault. IF alive, THEN why are you in my lane, [Ally X]? OMG, I can't lane with this noob.
• Is he requesting a carry, or in need of a comfortable bra? "i want a pro top, to support me."
• Why he'll be surprised by his ban: He believes that without his presence, entire teams will be helpless. "boored. i click none here. nvm play. you will loose without me."

Verdict: INNOCE ...just kidding he's GUILTY!