@Lyte, what's your thoughts on Tribunal members like me?
 

I was wondering how you feel about Tribunal members which share a similar philosophy to how I pardon and punish.

I skip probably about 40% of the cases that come my way. This isn't due to laziness, or anything along those lines. I've been a member of the Tribunal since season one and always read every case unless something inexcusable occurs, and when those happen I don't spend the time to read the rest.

The reason I skip so many cases is that I don't like to select pardon or punish unless my heart is fully behind the decision. I find many cases where someone breaks the Summoner's Code, but the degree in which it is broken falls into a gray zone for me. In these cases I feel like it could be rightfully punished or rightfully pardoned.

I'm sure there are those of you who are going to say that I skip a lot of cases in an attempt to force my accuracy higher. I can see why you'd come to that conclusion. That's not the case. I simply don't like making a judgement that I'm not 100% sure I'm willing to stand behind.

Also, will this lead to my case load being reduced? I would hope not, because I put a lot of thought into my cases, but I guess I would understand if that was the case, since I skip so often.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts. I'm a big fan of the Tribunal and I love the effect the honor system has had since its been implemented.

I'm sorry I couldn't hear you over the sound of PUNISH PUNISH PUNISH PUNISH PUNISH...

In all seriousness people like you are to be commended. Not everything is a clear-cut "this person deserves a ban or not".

bump

Hmm. This is an interesting topic. OP, what would you consider a "grey zone" area? I've never heard of a 40% skip rate before so it must be pretty wide.

theres a pardon button ???

Rather be sure of your judgement then making an incorrect one. That's probably how he thinks.

I think these "tough cases" are where your vote matters most. As someone who takes the time to read everything and judge fairly, you could be the saving grace for the person who was reported or the voice of reason if they need to change their behavior...

People who click skip in any situation are incompetent.

The system is simple: if there is sufficient evidence that someone did something wrong you click Punish, otherwise you click Pardon. You do not assume guilt. If the case does not demonstrate wrongdoing then you should be hitting Pardon because (*GASP*) there's no proof of guilt.

Why is this concept so hard for morons to grasp?

Thank you very much for your post. I'm glad that there's more people than me that agree that there's a lot of subjectivity to Tribunal cases, and they not all purely cut and dry. At the same time, though, I do punish an awful lot. I share a similar mindset in many ways to JohnnyOmega and would love to hear him chime in on his thoughts on this.

Thank you for replying. I don't feel that there's an objective answer to this question, but I can certainly explain what it means to me. For me a gray zone area is when I get a case where I believe the case could be pardoned or could be punished and neither be a wrong answer. Example would be verbal abuse. A lot of people say mean things during games, but it doesn't always go so far as to be obvious toxicity. How many times do you have to call someone a dumb*** before it's abuse? I do not skip every gray zone case, but ones that I feel are very close to the line are ones I often skip. These are cases I often read two or three times.