Originally Posted by RiotMontag
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.
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.