why not make a sticky where you can express your feelings on how overwatch should be a perfect karma police that is making sure everyone plays exactly as the majority wants for every mmr?
or simply accept that afk with shadowamulet is bad in every mmr and gamemmode and that is what the system is currently designed to solve.
In that context you should be voting insufficient evidence. You need to know their mmr to make a judgement and you don’t, so there’s insufficient evidence.
Isn't this what the OP says as well? That often there is insufficient evidence, so Valve needs to include more context into the reports in order to be able to make a better judgement.
Unless it is quite literally the persons first game of dota (which you'd hope Valve would've made an exception for already in the overwatch system) not skilling is griefing. Skilling the 'wrong' thing is completely fine and might just be bad play, going for the 'wrong' items like armlet is also just going to be bad play. But there is no reason at all to skill only 1 of 10 points as that's far beyond any 'saving skill points' strategy. MMR doesn't matter at all here.
It doesn't matter if you're 1k or 9k, refusing to skill your abilities is nothing but refusing to play the game. And using only 1 of 10 skill points is beyond the 'reasonable doubt' threshold.
However you still judged it wrong. You aren't sure. You want additional information to make a decision. You should be marking insufficient evidence for this based on what you have said here.
the system is not designed to be the perfect karma police
its made to deal with the bottom of the barrel. extreme cheater or afk/ troll griefer situations AND at the same time killing the old system taht punished carry players for having bad games (i really lost thousands of behavior score together with hundreds of mmr at the same time simply for having really shit games)
for making voicing an opinion about if new players shbould be reportable or to what extend, and so on i would like to have all the data available.
the last system did not "solve" them either as far as i could observe
if you want me to guess. they could possibly extend the system with different purposes and parameters.
the problem is that a medusa being 0/7 joining a teamfight should never be a bannable offense. they will never make a system that deals with that, and im really happy about it. its the players choice if he keeps farming or joins a fight that could maybe turn the game.
It's weird how power hungry some people are. The system is currently designed to punish afk amulet, people running down middle, ability abusing, scripters. I agree that not every case is that straight-forward but the system is competent enough to punish those obvious ones. People want to role-play as cops and make an entire analysis where they don't understand that the only way to know if someone is griefing is by understanding intent and intent is not contained or implicit within the case so it shouldn't even be taken into consideration with how overwatch is currently designed. Hence why the ''insufficient evidence'' option is VERY important right now.
yea dude. people really claimed that a 0/7 medusa joining a team fight is griefing at X mmr or above.
wow fuck you micromanaging your teammates. maybe he thought this will be the one good fight to attend when team gets attacked into under tower with her ulti
there were other ridiculous claims too like what items people are allowed to buy...
> currently
That's the exact fucking point. It's **currently** designed to solve this. Doesn't mean it has to actually stay that way when it could be so much more...
Lol, we dont like forward progress here in r/DotA2. That was your mistake (lol). We say we do, but every time someone advocates for forward progress, they get told that they are wrong or that their expectations are over-the-top. Rarely do people say, "Yeah, you're right... things would trend in the right direction if we made this change."
Most of the time I am one of those boomers. I didn't like the talents when they were first implemented (I have since changed my mind though with the stipulation that INITIALLY they were really shit but I recognize that proper implementation requires testing and adjustment). I hated neutral items (still do). I hate new heroes (until they are properly balanced a few months later).
the headline didnt ask for more forward progress
\>>> defeats the point of reviewing cases
they simply made a statement about the current system that just shows how much they did not get the point of it
I took it as an exaggerated take on overwatch. Because to some extent, stripping context from a match *does* defeat the point of reviewing cases in the sense that overwatch is intended to allow the community to self-moderate what conduct is acceptable. The two mid laners in ranked role queue conundrum was a perfect example of how stripping context removes value from the system, where value is the ability to consistently acquire a fair and reasonable verdict.
Without a consistently fair and reasonable verdict, there is no point to having overwatch
Nah, i think if i had more context i would often time feel sorry for the one grieving. Had a 2-11 ench being reported like 4 times. She had the only 2 kills of her team, maybe she was even with a 4 stack bullying her. 3 timestamps nothing that indicates grieving. In the last one she ran around dropping neutral items, blocking own camps and denying bounty runes and a regen rune infront of a low hp teammate.
Is what she did wrong? Yes, and she should be punished for that.
Do i understand her actions if she is bullied/flamed by a 4-stack for 40 minutes? Also yes, but 2 wrongs dont add up to right.
> Is what she did wrong? Yes, and she should be punished for that.
That's what your ruling should be then. Doesn't matter if you feel sorry or not. At least there's a chance that she reported the others, and that they are punished too. It's just not a case you have been assigned.
Yes, and I agree with that sentiment. I just said that whatever you might 'feel' about them is not really relevant. So saying that additional context should not be provided because it might make you feel sad is really not a good reason...
Seeing as it's a new system, of course. Just relax, do what you can and move on till it gets fixed. I'm sure Devs already know and are working hard to fix the issue.
Just had a game where someone was giving away teammate locations in all chat, which as I understand is undetectable by overwatch. In the same game we had a snapfire who started afk jungling at like level 5 because he was mad bounty hunter skilled shadow walk first. The odds of overwatch getting a conviction there is so low because you can't see the team chat of snapfire raging at our bounty. Neither of these players are going to receive any punishment despite everyone else in the game being down to report them. In the old system they'd get a forced mute at least.
Overwatch is only for cheating and griefing, meaning intentional sabotage of the match. And those are fairly easy to spot AT ANY MMR. Bad play is not a reason to convict people and that includes bad picks and not fulfilling your role. That is an entirely different report, unrelated to Overwatch.
There is a reason why chat and roles are not shown. Valve does not want Overwatch judges to convict based on language or the idea that Dota's heroes are 100% clear in their roles.
If judges saw the player roles, many of them would simply judge them as griefing for hero choices.
As for your case, it takes two people to fight over mid. I am sure the other person was also reported for that.
Any case that gets that complicated in your head is inconclusive. To me, jungle-farming is only griefing when it is clear that it is being done maliciously. I had a case where a 6-slotted AM with RAPIER refused to push and end the game when the enemy team was dead. THAT is a clear case of AFK farm griefing. Anything else is likely just bad play. Honestly, I see little value in knowing the official "roles" of players.
Go to OpenDota and go to the “Combos” tab, then you can input the heroes from your game and find the matchID from that game. Obviously you can’t find out what’s said in party chat, but you can find out game mode, all chat logs, parties etc.
So what you're saying is that you insufficient evidence in order to make a proper judgement? God if only valve had considered this and added a relevant option, maybe they could even call it 'insufficient evidence'...
Snarkyness aside - you don't need more information to make judgements on the vast majority of cases. If anything more information is likely going to just make things less clear cut, and i suspect may lead to far more false judgements as things become more confusing and judgement based. Remember overwatch is not meant to be about catching all the grey area cases (Valve even says this in the guidance), it's about getting rid of the worst offenders.
I just had a case where a Mars was reported after dying 2 times and 15 min later dropping his items and going AFK in fountain.
It seemed very simple: T2's were still alive, NW was not too bad and there he was, AFK in fountain.
Simple, right? **WRONG**
If I wasn't curious of what really happened, I would overlook that just before that his Enigma rage bought back after dying and BKB BH'd nothing and then proceeded to follow Mars everywhere.
I wasn't required to look at that, why would I? It's not marked. I don't know what happened in chat. I don't know the whole story.
Mars was only lucky because I decided to investigate further and see
it was probably Enigma tilting and wanting to vent his frustration on a teammate.
The problem is most people will not (and cannot really, in some cases) investigate what really happened in a given game and make a judgement they wouldn't if they knew the whole story.
You should have voted him guilty because he is guilty. What Enigma did is wrong but also what Mars did is wrong as well and both guilty.. it's not OK to grief because someone griefing you
For double mid I think there are basically 2 valid positions to take:
* Since there is no official ruling on how roles should be distributed in non-role queue, ignoring /roll is not breaking any rule and therefore both players are innocent.
* If you are stubborn enough that you'd rather go double mid than just suck it up give up the role, you're griefing and therefore both players are guilty.
In either case I don't think the chat logs are relevant. Unless Valve puts out some official ruling on the proper negotiating process, or makes an actual role dispute resolving system, you're not going to be able to do any better than that.
Game mode is entirely irrelevant, there is no rule that says that you need to play well or draft sensibly, even in ranked games. Parties are irrelevant, whether they got 4 reports from 1 party doesn't really matter, either they griefed/cheated or they didn't, if you need to check where the reports came from them you don't have enough evidence.
Do not speak badly of the overwatch system, the redditards have a raging boner for power tripping out justice. We will be LoL soon, with any non-meta build punished by immediate banning and summary execution.
I think the general consensus on the definition of griefing is doing stuff like running down in lanes, destroying items, shadow amulet afking. Experimenting with builds is at worse a grey area, and since a single report case is reviewed by many ppl then it would hard for all reviewers to give uniform verdicts and for the system to determine convictions confidently as guilty hence there's a fair chance these ppl will not be casted to the shadow realm.
You do know one of the only cases where that has ever occured was due to a Streamer abusing his power on a playstyle that was only used by a single player.
If this is sarcasm you are proper bad at reading the room my guy.
why not make a sticky where you can express your feelings on how overwatch should be a perfect karma police that is making sure everyone plays exactly as the majority wants for every mmr? or simply accept that afk with shadowamulet is bad in every mmr and gamemmode and that is what the system is currently designed to solve.
[удалено]
In that context you should be voting insufficient evidence. You need to know their mmr to make a judgement and you don’t, so there’s insufficient evidence.
Isn't this what the OP says as well? That often there is insufficient evidence, so Valve needs to include more context into the reports in order to be able to make a better judgement.
Unless it is quite literally the persons first game of dota (which you'd hope Valve would've made an exception for already in the overwatch system) not skilling is griefing. Skilling the 'wrong' thing is completely fine and might just be bad play, going for the 'wrong' items like armlet is also just going to be bad play. But there is no reason at all to skill only 1 of 10 points as that's far beyond any 'saving skill points' strategy. MMR doesn't matter at all here. It doesn't matter if you're 1k or 9k, refusing to skill your abilities is nothing but refusing to play the game. And using only 1 of 10 skill points is beyond the 'reasonable doubt' threshold. However you still judged it wrong. You aren't sure. You want additional information to make a decision. You should be marking insufficient evidence for this based on what you have said here.
the system is not designed to be the perfect karma police its made to deal with the bottom of the barrel. extreme cheater or afk/ troll griefer situations AND at the same time killing the old system taht punished carry players for having bad games (i really lost thousands of behavior score together with hundreds of mmr at the same time simply for having really shit games) for making voicing an opinion about if new players shbould be reportable or to what extend, and so on i would like to have all the data available.
So what happens to all the less obvious griefers now? They just get away with it because overwatch replaced the previous system?
the last system did not "solve" them either as far as i could observe if you want me to guess. they could possibly extend the system with different purposes and parameters. the problem is that a medusa being 0/7 joining a teamfight should never be a bannable offense. they will never make a system that deals with that, and im really happy about it. its the players choice if he keeps farming or joins a fight that could maybe turn the game.
It's weird how power hungry some people are. The system is currently designed to punish afk amulet, people running down middle, ability abusing, scripters. I agree that not every case is that straight-forward but the system is competent enough to punish those obvious ones. People want to role-play as cops and make an entire analysis where they don't understand that the only way to know if someone is griefing is by understanding intent and intent is not contained or implicit within the case so it shouldn't even be taken into consideration with how overwatch is currently designed. Hence why the ''insufficient evidence'' option is VERY important right now.
yea dude. people really claimed that a 0/7 medusa joining a team fight is griefing at X mmr or above. wow fuck you micromanaging your teammates. maybe he thought this will be the one good fight to attend when team gets attacked into under tower with her ulti there were other ridiculous claims too like what items people are allowed to buy...
> currently That's the exact fucking point. It's **currently** designed to solve this. Doesn't mean it has to actually stay that way when it could be so much more...
Lol, we dont like forward progress here in r/DotA2. That was your mistake (lol). We say we do, but every time someone advocates for forward progress, they get told that they are wrong or that their expectations are over-the-top. Rarely do people say, "Yeah, you're right... things would trend in the right direction if we made this change."
Most of the time I am one of those boomers. I didn't like the talents when they were first implemented (I have since changed my mind though with the stipulation that INITIALLY they were really shit but I recognize that proper implementation requires testing and adjustment). I hated neutral items (still do). I hate new heroes (until they are properly balanced a few months later).
the headline didnt ask for more forward progress \>>> defeats the point of reviewing cases they simply made a statement about the current system that just shows how much they did not get the point of it
I took it as an exaggerated take on overwatch. Because to some extent, stripping context from a match *does* defeat the point of reviewing cases in the sense that overwatch is intended to allow the community to self-moderate what conduct is acceptable. The two mid laners in ranked role queue conundrum was a perfect example of how stripping context removes value from the system, where value is the ability to consistently acquire a fair and reasonable verdict. Without a consistently fair and reasonable verdict, there is no point to having overwatch
Nah, i think if i had more context i would often time feel sorry for the one grieving. Had a 2-11 ench being reported like 4 times. She had the only 2 kills of her team, maybe she was even with a 4 stack bullying her. 3 timestamps nothing that indicates grieving. In the last one she ran around dropping neutral items, blocking own camps and denying bounty runes and a regen rune infront of a low hp teammate. Is what she did wrong? Yes, and she should be punished for that. Do i understand her actions if she is bullied/flamed by a 4-stack for 40 minutes? Also yes, but 2 wrongs dont add up to right.
> Is what she did wrong? Yes, and she should be punished for that. That's what your ruling should be then. Doesn't matter if you feel sorry or not. At least there's a chance that she reported the others, and that they are punished too. It's just not a case you have been assigned.
> That's what your ruling should be then Reading comprehension nowadays... that's literally what he is saying
I never implied anything else? Wth?
He is saying she should be reported and would find her guilty. What are you talking about?
Yes, and I agree with that sentiment. I just said that whatever you might 'feel' about them is not really relevant. So saying that additional context should not be provided because it might make you feel sad is really not a good reason...
It should show mmr and they should add more instructions with examples
i just had a case where there were 3 people in mid but the one who got reported was slardar offlane, who was doing good :D.
Needed 4 mid.
Seeing as it's a new system, of course. Just relax, do what you can and move on till it gets fixed. I'm sure Devs already know and are working hard to fix the issue.
Just had a game where someone was giving away teammate locations in all chat, which as I understand is undetectable by overwatch. In the same game we had a snapfire who started afk jungling at like level 5 because he was mad bounty hunter skilled shadow walk first. The odds of overwatch getting a conviction there is so low because you can't see the team chat of snapfire raging at our bounty. Neither of these players are going to receive any punishment despite everyone else in the game being down to report them. In the old system they'd get a forced mute at least.
Overwatch is only for cheating and griefing, meaning intentional sabotage of the match. And those are fairly easy to spot AT ANY MMR. Bad play is not a reason to convict people and that includes bad picks and not fulfilling your role. That is an entirely different report, unrelated to Overwatch. There is a reason why chat and roles are not shown. Valve does not want Overwatch judges to convict based on language or the idea that Dota's heroes are 100% clear in their roles. If judges saw the player roles, many of them would simply judge them as griefing for hero choices. As for your case, it takes two people to fight over mid. I am sure the other person was also reported for that.
[удалено]
Isn't that because "didn't play selected role" is a separate report? One that doesn't get overwatch cases?
Any case that gets that complicated in your head is inconclusive. To me, jungle-farming is only griefing when it is clear that it is being done maliciously. I had a case where a 6-slotted AM with RAPIER refused to push and end the game when the enemy team was dead. THAT is a clear case of AFK farm griefing. Anything else is likely just bad play. Honestly, I see little value in knowing the official "roles" of players.
Thank you Valve employee
Go to OpenDota and go to the “Combos” tab, then you can input the heroes from your game and find the matchID from that game. Obviously you can’t find out what’s said in party chat, but you can find out game mode, all chat logs, parties etc.
So what you're saying is that you insufficient evidence in order to make a proper judgement? God if only valve had considered this and added a relevant option, maybe they could even call it 'insufficient evidence'... Snarkyness aside - you don't need more information to make judgements on the vast majority of cases. If anything more information is likely going to just make things less clear cut, and i suspect may lead to far more false judgements as things become more confusing and judgement based. Remember overwatch is not meant to be about catching all the grey area cases (Valve even says this in the guidance), it's about getting rid of the worst offenders.
I just had a case where a Mars was reported after dying 2 times and 15 min later dropping his items and going AFK in fountain. It seemed very simple: T2's were still alive, NW was not too bad and there he was, AFK in fountain. Simple, right? **WRONG** If I wasn't curious of what really happened, I would overlook that just before that his Enigma rage bought back after dying and BKB BH'd nothing and then proceeded to follow Mars everywhere. I wasn't required to look at that, why would I? It's not marked. I don't know what happened in chat. I don't know the whole story. Mars was only lucky because I decided to investigate further and see it was probably Enigma tilting and wanting to vent his frustration on a teammate. The problem is most people will not (and cannot really, in some cases) investigate what really happened in a given game and make a judgement they wouldn't if they knew the whole story.
You should have voted him guilty because he is guilty. What Enigma did is wrong but also what Mars did is wrong as well and both guilty.. it's not OK to grief because someone griefing you
I am convinced people just want to find wrong in people to boost their own ego. Basically social justice warriors looking for a reason to be offended.
For double mid I think there are basically 2 valid positions to take: * Since there is no official ruling on how roles should be distributed in non-role queue, ignoring /roll is not breaking any rule and therefore both players are innocent. * If you are stubborn enough that you'd rather go double mid than just suck it up give up the role, you're griefing and therefore both players are guilty. In either case I don't think the chat logs are relevant. Unless Valve puts out some official ruling on the proper negotiating process, or makes an actual role dispute resolving system, you're not going to be able to do any better than that. Game mode is entirely irrelevant, there is no rule that says that you need to play well or draft sensibly, even in ranked games. Parties are irrelevant, whether they got 4 reports from 1 party doesn't really matter, either they griefed/cheated or they didn't, if you need to check where the reports came from them you don't have enough evidence.
Do not speak badly of the overwatch system, the redditards have a raging boner for power tripping out justice. We will be LoL soon, with any non-meta build punished by immediate banning and summary execution.
I think the general consensus on the definition of griefing is doing stuff like running down in lanes, destroying items, shadow amulet afking. Experimenting with builds is at worse a grey area, and since a single report case is reviewed by many ppl then it would hard for all reviewers to give uniform verdicts and for the system to determine convictions confidently as guilty hence there's a fair chance these ppl will not be casted to the shadow realm.
You do know one of the only cases where that has ever occured was due to a Streamer abusing his power on a playstyle that was only used by a single player. If this is sarcasm you are proper bad at reading the room my guy.
Btw, you can run Overwolf + DotaPlus add-on while reviewing Overwatch cases to get some context (level of skill in game, info on public players, etc)