As I doubt you will read this post I won't pour much time in it, however if I am being one sided, why am I accepting the logic and the conclusions other people reach? Why have I stated that I think the tribunal is a good idea but people break it.

oh the irony

For one, extended testing shows that 78% of the people who go to the Tribunal never show up again. I can't exactly place where I saw these numbers, maybe on one of the notes while loading a game, but I have no reason to refute a statistical number given to me by Riot. This tells me that punishing players who were in the Tribunal actually reforms them. And last I checked, 22% of players punished by the Tribunal is not a majority.

Also, while muting players who have a problem with communication (as you yourself had) could be considered a viable solution, this means you have no way of communicating to your team about how mid lane is wandering, or how top lane snuck into your jungle to gank. Communication is vital to actually doing anything well in this game, and having that taken away not only acts to be a detriment to yourself but a severe handicap to your team. It leaves you with your team attacking you because you didn't say "top mia", and now you have no way to defend yourself. Is that really what you want? You should have enough self-control to not be a jackass in game with massive amounts of harassment. If you have a player doing the exact same thing to you, don't respond to it. Mute them and report at the end of the game, and they'll inevitably get punished for the same behavior that you exhibited.

I see what you are saying, and to tell you the truth I don't know how most people vote. I'd hope that most people vote by their interpretation of the SC.

However I do know that people are usually more lenient than I in making a judgement, so it isn't a matter of the Tribunal being too strict at all. A lot of people who participate in the tribunal would laugh at my methods and say that I'm an uptight ***** trying to ban people needlessly.

If it is any help the blitz and others you feel antagonized you probably do have their own cases against them if they continued their behavior like they did.

Just found this comment, If I was a troll would I be willing to reply and wait for reply's? Why not simply resort to the most basic of all tactics and post flame on whatever you post?

UmadBrah? it's not hard see? however I take the time to read and the I analyze what you say and try to respond in a somewhat normal demeanor and try to not be biased in my replies unless it's against someone I don't like, I don't like you btw, you seem to be one of the know-it-all's that think they're superior and you seem to act as if you're free from all wrongdoing's and the model example of a denizen of the league of legends society & community.

Btw that was me trolling you, just to let you know so you can tell in the future when I decide to troll.

What you say is true, and I won't deny I would be furious if someone wouldn't say the things that you put into perspective, however most people unless it's a pre-made don't do that, even in ranked, I normally only play with a pre-made as I can't stand the people I get on my team and I get banned even more then.

However on other games that I have played they have implemented a "quickchat" system to fix the problem with communication, you simply press enter and then another button combination you've chosen and you can say something along the lines of what you've said that will probably explain the situation at hand. I can't see that being something hard to code in, and it would solve many problems in my eyes. I know several people who get banned all the time just like me, and we don't change our ways or review upon our decisions, we simply curse the tribunal, the people who use it, wait the time period, and go back to what we do. Some of us(me included) even make smurf accounts and continue to play.

Banning people does nothing but breed rage IMO and muting people would be a better alternative as long as a secondary chat system was implemented.

Alex, I'm not saying the Tribunal isn't broken.

You're the one that believes the Tribunal is broken. You feel so strongly that the Tribunal is broken that you decided to open a thread to talk about how the Tribunal is broken.

I'm not taking a stand for or against the Tribunal. I'm trying to understand your point.

So, if the Tribunal is broken, I'd like you to clarify how it is broken and what evidence, if any, you have that the Tribunal is broken. If you have no evidence, that's fine too, but if that's the case, I'd like for you to admit that.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. It's just that your case is unclear. I'm trying to help strengthen your case, because right now, it's weak. Maybe because it's unclear, unfocused, and spread across numerous posts. Hopefully, a dialogue with me can strengthen your case that the Tribunal is broken.

So again, can you clarify in what way it is that you feel the Tribunal is broken, and share with us any evidence you have to support this.

not once do I say I'm superior to others or do I mean to intend it, I simply to speak down to people as that's how I was raised and that's how I speak. I use big words and most people can't understand my big words and that aggravates me.

I am sorry if I've made you feel like a inferior life form, as I'm sure you are of human species since you can read and spell...somewhat.

Do you mean alternate channels? Adding more in-game channels only serves to complicate an already complicated code. Perhaps you don't have any background in Programming, but I can say, as an aspiring software engineer, that even doing a simple command such as typing out text to display something on a simple DOS screen takes hours to make. It would take weeks to program an alternate channel for chatting, and even more to implement it into already existing code, not to mention the debugging, the playtesting, the fixing...the list goes on. That said, if you were muted, you wouldn't be able to even use them, as nothing you say would go through. Otherwise, what's the point of muting? The only way you could convey information was in pings, and those do so little that often, they're neglected or forgotten altogether.

And, fine, maybe banning will breed rage, but muting people will only keep the snowball rolling. Refusal to Communicate is a very common report that shows up in the Tribunal, and guess what you're doing by getting muted?

Thank you for the understanding and not raging more, I am sorry I raged on you as I have a tendency to do that and I have a short temper.

This is most likely be my last post as I am leaving my house.

I do not have any evidence to the tribunal being broken, as it is not that big of a concern to me because I've come to accept it a while ago when I already thought it. I simply felt like voicing my opinions and why I think it's broken.

My whole basis on why I think it's broken is some of the reason's and cases I've been banned, as you can see I'm not one to deny that I'm a ass or am I one to say I shouldn't be punished, however in some cases I say absolutely nothing but maybe 1-2 lines after I've been antagonized, and then I mute the person because I think to myself "don't want to be banned again" and then a week or so later I'll be banned. I just don't think every person using the tribunal is being 100% biased on the cases, and that people who are "rage reported" get banned for no absolute reason because of people being biased.

I also can't see people not insulting each other and changing their whole attitude or way of thinking because they were banned on a video game, if it affects you this much then you should find something else important to you. This is why I did not agree with "RockLobster88" if you want to find his post be my guest.

I doubt this will be enough to satisfy your question however I am extremely pressed for time and that's all I could come up with in 5 or so minutes.