And put in the report description "this player did nothing wrong, I'm just testing the system".

Theoretically this person should be pardoned because he did nothing wrong. However, it may cause him to exceed the tribunal threshold and appear in the tribunal whereas without my report he would not. Unfortunately there is this one game where he kinda raged. It was only one game but he violated the terms of service so he gets PUNISHED.

Now if I hadn't made this troll report, he wouldn't have been in the tribunal and wouldn't have gotten punished. By making a 100% fake report, I started the snowball rolling that resulted in his punishment.

That was just me trolling him. Imagine this person lives in the wrong part of elo town and every single game ends with someone threatening to report someone else for killing him or picking Mordekaiser. Chances are he'll accumulate quite a few troll reports. Maybe enough to put him into the tribunal. And that single rager game will get you hanged.






This ensures that the minimum limit for cases to appear in the tribunal exists only for people living at the right side of elo hell. For people in trash elo, it is essentually "1". Right or wrong?

correct.

A. The chances of your random report and one rage game being enough to get anyone reported are pretty slim
B. If someone accumulates 3-4 random reports and one rage game, they will be pardoned as 3-4 nothing games reviewed > 1 rage game (unless they go off the deep end with racial slurs, etc.)

System seems to be working...the trolls are not nearly as prevalent as they used to be.

From our experience with the Tribunal so far, people generally vote the right way. That is to say, if it's pretty obvious that the person should be pardoned from, say, a trolling report like "this person did nothing wrong," people will vote to pardon.

That said, what you're describing is a series of unfortunate events that might lead to someone finally snapping and getting banned. That's a tough situation to judge, but that's exactly why the Tribunal exists. It allows players to decide in aggregate, is this a situation that deserves punishment? Some people might decide that, despite the reason for raging, the raging itself is totally inappropriate and the player deserves a warning at least. Others might feel he or she was justified and vote to pardon. The Tribunal provides the community with a mechanism to decide its own code of conduct and automatically enforce those decisions.

What I said was that if you have one game where you actually raged and then you get troll reported 412381039120312 times, you will get punished for that one game. Troll reports don't result in punishment by themselves, but they may cause the person to appear on the tribunal and get punished for something else.

I love seeing Red posts +1 good sir

In my experience, the tribunal is "Punish punish punish punish." There's not enough clear nonpunishable cases, so you get in the mindset of hitting Punish.

That's called getting "baited", and it happens a lot. That's one of the many reasons why the Tribunal's flawed. Also, punishing players because someone was jerking a reaction from someone else by: gimping matches, denying surrender [after having gimped said match(es)], deliberately stealing buffs, "legal" down-talk/tantalization [ex: umad?, stop being a 'noob' and just play the (already gimped) game, (insert snide/sarcastic comment here) etc.], deliberate kill-stealing, intentionally abandonment [aka: leaving you to (die/rot)], insta-locking bad champions with bad summoner spells [or pre-gimping]... is just cruel, unfair, and only a matter of time for before it eventually happens [players experience anger, y'know...]. And [many of] these same players that do all these kinds of things also have access to the Tribunal... So for you guys to tell us everything's going just swell sounds too good to be true... and my spidey sense tells me there's a reason behind why you guys say everything's "fine and dandy": to continue automating verdicts on the majority of your cases. Knowing this is likely, I can see why you'd use the term "series of unfortunate events"... because it'd be unfortunate if these players that reacted to said in-game "baiting" got insta-punished as a result of verdict automation.

We have a strong incentive to make sure the Tribunal is actually working as intended, so we do audit the cases regularly. False punishes are very rare. In fact, our percentage of false pardons is actually much higher than false punishes.

But personally, I'd rather be in a more forgiving community anyway, even if it means letting a few bad people slip through the cracks.

I hope you have your picture on a wall in riot sir.