Take any statistic lyte brings up with a grain of salt, its pretty well known he makes/exagerates most of them on the spot. You can find him contradicting himself practically everyday

And your proof of this is....?

So how about pardoned players? They get in tribunal for receiving a large amount of reports, right? So following from your words chances are good that they are grievers that were fortunate to get false reports in their tribunal case and be forgiven.

Im not saying pardoning is wrong Im simply giving a further example based on Lyte's logic

Also what are those "chat logs" of pre- and post-game chat you always talk of when there isnt enough evidence? It sounds so vague whenever you mention *checking* chat history which happens outside of the game whether its about honor trading or tribunal. If its actually possible to check that kind of chat history why players in tribunal are not *allowed* to see it?

We've mentioned this before, but pre- and post-game chat are located on a separate tech stack than in-game chat. Getting PvP.net client chat into the Tribunal is a significant amount of work and we've been busy working on features like the Justice Reviews, Reform Cards and Halls of Justice instead. I think we can all agree that getting those 3 features out was a higher priority than pre- and post-game chat logs.

In the future, we may revisit pre- and post-game chat and determine if getting them into the Tribunal are the current highest priority, but they aren't yet.

This is terrible logic, the tribunal banned this kid in a case that basically had no violations of the SC, just b/c said player happened to need the ban anyway doesn't mean the tribunal didn't mess up and punish a completely pardonable case.

I actually have say that it is incorrect (which would have to be the first time I've ever disagreed with Lyte). Correctness is based on knowledge, and knowledge is a belief that is both true and justified.

If what you say about his behaviour is true, then they deserve to be punished, but not from this case.

EDIT:
Ah, I see what you mean now. Let me clarify my own thoughts.

I definitely don't mean to suggest that that player should be unbanned. I was merely talking about procedure. I agree entirely with the final outcome. IMO, Case A should have been pardoned, but then a separate ban should have been given out, explained as a Riot manual audit. This avoids confusion over the reasons for the ban, thus avoiding giving players false feedback on their behaviour and alleviating the need for these threads.

This is why it's important to have this discussion. Let's say Tribunal Case A is 'pardonable,' but happens to be punished by the playerbase. Riot reviews the case and finds out that the player does deserve a punishment. Should we unban the player because of the Tribunal Case details and let the player damage the playerbase further? Or, are we responsible for his actions and have to say "Reform Cards aren't perfect yet and we're going to maintain this ban because we believe the player is toxic."

There's no correct answer here, we debate questions like these everyday.

Sending a more personal Email to these edge cases that explain that "while the report card was borderline, their pre and post game chat was unacceptable" would at least be a nice gesture. Only for ones where it is audited by Riot of course.

But Lyte.

What if...

Let's say Tribunal Case A is 'pardonable,' but happens to be punished by the playerbase. Riot DOESN'T review the case.
...

Should we unban the player because of the Tribunal Case details.

Idk how they aren't high priority, I have been in soo many games where the people will be extremely toxic in pre- and post-game chats while doing nothing ban worthy in game. I don't report the players who are toxic in pre- and post-game chats because that case would probably get pardoned if my report was in the tribunal.