Originally Posted by Methelod
I'm fully against this idea. It is something that goes completely against the idea of the tribunal. It was designed to give the people the ability to help administrate the community. It was not designed to give a select few the ability to oversee millions.
If the sudden influx of people pardoning is truly an issue and is not just a large amount of people who are extremely lenient then the solution would be to raise the amount of pardons needed to pardon a case and de-value those caught spamming at a quicker rate.
The argument that "only the top 1000 Tribunal justices" should do the cases, because "they know better" is similar to the discussion that you see on GD all the time:
"I'm plat/diamond noob, you have no idea what you're talking about therefore your opinion is invalid because I saw your lolking. You are wrong"
Tribunal Rating =/= "knowing better" just as high elo =/= "authority"
And even just today, I accidentally hit the "punish" button when I meant to hit "pardon." I felt bad. I made an accident. (Luckily the case came back with a "Pardon" verdict just a little while ago with an overwhelming majority. So I didn't affect this person's gameplay). I'm top 1000 and I didn't get one right due to human error.
Hell, I'm also educated and trained for applying statutes to real life cases of breach (criminal and civil) and I still wouldn't want to be one of the small percentage of people solely responsible for handing down a judgment. That in and of itself is unjust. That's why juries consist of laypeople that keep judges in check.
EDIT: As for the "sudden influx of pardons" Actually, I've pardoned a few more in the past few days than I had for the past couple of weeks. I felt they deserved pardons. And I certainly back Riot's decision to ban IWillSpectate from the competition.
Judge on a case-by-case basis according to your belief. Don't judge because you "think the consensus will think that"