I think the tribunal is overly harsh with their punishing. People have bad games and sometimes they are provoked by enemies or teammates. I'm not saying everything is justified when provoked, but instead I'm asking for people to consider it when they weigh the reported player's actions. I don't think most people realize this or take into account.
Sure, some cases are so blatantly obvious that punish can be clicked in the first 10 seconds. Others require at least 2 minutes to figure out what went on in the game. I give the benefit of the doubt to the player until something changes my mind. I feel like most people are looking for the first sign of bad behavior to punish someone and move on to the next case. This shouldn't be the mindset.
Example (I was one of "very few" who pardoned, yet the guy got a time ban):
Game 1 thoughts:
He says the enemy mid is stupid to his teammates. This can be interpreted as he can outplay him on his own or that the Malz is a good target for a gank and a kill. He is not insulting his teammates. The teammate fiora provokes him so much, and the worst thing he says is trash, where he is being called an "annoying ****", he still offers constructive criticism, although not sugar coated, but he generally keeps his cool throughout the game to try and continues trying to coordinate with his teammates.
The fiora was the problem of this game and if someone like that wasn't there. He would have been a good teammate...
Game 2 thoughts:
Elise says stfu to him. he says stfu back. w/e. she calls him a ***** and he calls her an idiot.
Same thing as previous, Elise should have had the ban imo. And if the elise wasn't in the game he wouldn't have a problem here.
Game 3 thoughts:
really nothing bad...
Another problem is the current accuracy statistic doesn't show how accurately you judge a case. Instead, it shows how similar you judge to the majority. If the majority is punishing for minor provoked offenses. I get my statistic punished for it by not feeling that. I still have a 94% accuracy rating atm, but its cases that I'm "wrong" on, yet still feel like "I'm right" that irk me...
TLDR: If I'm having my accuracy statistic dropped for judging a case that I still feel should have been a pardon, It makes me feel the system is broken and alienates players like me who give the benefit of the doubt to the reported player. The current system tells me I'm wrong for forgiving minor offenses that are provoked, and if thats the case then I shouldn't be doing tribunal because I'm apparently "wrong"
Another case here: http://na.leagueoflegends.com/tribunal/case/5925117/
I would appreciate feedback with reasoning as to why these people are being punished.