What if a player was exceptionally bad one game, using excessive amounts of profanity and crude language, can they get banned for that one game even if they don't have a history of offences? I recently had a game like this, ruined the game mind you, and I don't want others to have to deal with this player.

Do you think it might be a good idea to only let specific players vote in the tribunal?
There's been a few misjudged cases on here due to misunderstandings.

I have a question where do I find these reform cards to vote on exactly?

I believe that the only players voting are the ones with experience of the game and notice when someone is trolling and when someone does not deserve to be punished. Maybe if they have at least 300 wins, normal and ranked wins combined, they have the right to judge cases in the Tribunal. Can't have amateurs judging good players' cases.

Sigh, lets discuss this elitist attitude, shall we? At present the requirements to use the tribunal are to be level 20. This means that the minimum requires around 100 wins on average. Maybe even lower, I haven't been level 20 for a while so I don't know. My point is that it doesn't take that many wins to help clean up the community whereas your suggestion requires players to have most likely, triple the amount of wins presently required. My question is, why is this? What does it benefit the community? It just reduces the pool of judges by a decent amount while not actually improving accuracy.

The goal behind the tribunal system is to take advantage of the wisdom of crowds rather then having judges each decide a case by themselves. By reducing the amount of judges, you reduce the accuracy of the tribunal and how fast it can operate in it's present form.

But now then, onto your argument that " Can't have amateurs judging good players' cases." That's quite simply not true. You can have 1000 wins and still be an 'amateur' just as a person with 100 wins could be 'pro'. You have to look at the actual performance to determine a players skill rather then the amount of wins they have. But still, even if we did that we just reduce the pool down by using a manner that is quite frankly, elitist and pointless. By level 20 a player should know most of the basics of the game and don't require an advance handling of the actual game. They would know that getting six boots is trolling. They would likely recognize the person who gets boots of mobility and five zeals with a score of 0/20/0 was likely intentional feeding. All the extra knowledge adds is the nuances of the meta, which simple deviation from isn't punishable on it's own.

The core of my point is that, lower level players should know what is, and isn't acceptable by level 20.

I already heard the answer to this quetion but people might still wonder and I didn't find it in the FAQ.
What is the minimum summoner level requirement to participate on the Tribunal? As I said, I heard somewhere it's 20 but actually I didn't see that on the FAQ nor on the Tribunal site so people must have that doubt.
Maybe it is answered on the FAQ and I didn't see it but I'm pointing it out just in case.

It's Level 20. Sometimes, players have to relog on their browser to refresh the cookies to get access to the Tribunal.

Could you include these in your FAQ ? Would clear up quite a few grey areas.

question, if i was being reviewed by the tibunal can i defend myself? ie. view the case and give my own view on it, like if i made a joke that was in poor taste i can atleast admit that instead if them seeing, knowing me, a nazi joke or a rape joke.

Hello. I was wondering if all derogatory are an automatic "punish." Meaning everything that is prejudicial concerning race, sexual orientation, age, drug use (Calling someone a stupid stoner, or something along those lines), pregnancy, the list goes on but are any derogatory terms that prejudices a certain group an automatic "punish?" Thanks for your time.