thats an A, im jelly XD

Bump for your thread and an update from me.

Justice Rating - 33831
Accuracy - 93.4%
Cases: 965 correct out of 1033 cases reviewed
Ranking - 4

Happy New Year everyone

My tribunal accuracy is 40%
Justice elo - over nine thousand
ranking - numbre uno

Its this particular thread that makes me quite worried about the unintended consequences of justice rating and in particular % correct on voting.

They make a tribunal user's goal become "guess what others will say" versus "select what I think is right".

Mine is 84%, I am more lenient on some things, and harsher on others. I see no problem with this.

Golden words from a wise man...

There have been numerous cases that I got correct with only a majority or where my punish resulted in a pardon from others and vice-versa. The guideline I tend to follow and find most reliable is "Don't be a jerk". The Tribunal isn't a contest on who's most accurate or how you think others would vote, it's a place to decide whether or not YOU would want to play LoL with this person based on YOUR opinion.

What we were saying is ,unfortunately, most players do not seem to share that point of view.

I agree with you completely and as Derpshot has pointed out, that is sort of my point.

The % accuracy and Justice rating as the only feedback works specifically against this.

Let me give you an example.

Derpshot feels a lot more raging should be considered completely okay. He has a much higher pardon rate (let's say 60%). His accuracy will be horrible. His justice rating would be horrible. By the notion of those in this thread, he'd be considered a bad tribunal user. Likely by the tribunal algorithm, he'd be considered a bad tribunal user. I would not consider him a bad tribunal user.

At worst, he's better than a person who spams punish (who would end up with a higher accuracy than him). And that is not reflected in ANY WAY in the current Justice Review.

Now, all that being said.

1) I think a Justice Review is important to have.
2) I think the current % correct and Rating are likely the incorrect way to do what they want to accomplish.
3) I have no clue what a better metric would be.
4) I think as it is right now, it is better than not having it. - This one would be the one that Derp and I would disagree on.

Actually, here's the quesiton for you which may tell us where we are fundamentally opposed to each other on accuracy rating.

In this thread, we see the majority people putting up their high %.
When these people see their high accuracy percentage, do they think 1) I am really accurate and much more accurate than most other people or 2) My idea of moral ethics for LoL is exactly average with most other people.

Obviously, my opinion is 1).

Every case is judged by more than one person. Some judges are more lenient than others while some are more harsh. Some of the cases that end up here should be punished, and there will be some absolute pardons as well. Then there are the bulk of borderline cases that I think define your effectiveness as a judge. Just because you are more lenient than others in these cases doesn't make you a bad judge. By being accurate, you are just looking at the facts given to you and supposedly making a "good" decision out of it based on your opinion, not the correct one. The final verdict just happens to depend on the majority of the judgments made by the pool of judges.

In response to those who think the Tribunal is unfair because people auto-punish, I do believe some people should lighten up in response to being called f**king noob because they do it themselves on occasion. However, ragers should think about putting themselves in that situation; you can do so, but don't have to nag everyone the entire game about it.

TLDR: Everyone has their share of bad games, and I think if people handled their frustration better, it would make everyone a lot better off.