Having multiple games at our disposal in cases gives us a better idea of the individuals attitude on a game in and game out basis. I don't think voting on individual games would increase or decrease accuracy at all. If I see 5 games in a case, and the person is helpful 3 or 4 out of the 5 and the other one or two he doesn't do anything EXTREMELY over the edge but still questionable, I typically pardon. Everyone has rough games/days. But that's just me.

As always, the people who deserve to be punished always end up being punished. The system works, the only people who question that are the one's who got banned and are too delusional to admit they were at fault.

there have been many cases where the player was punished due to one game(and this case was often game number 1). People have been punished for saying nothing but "gg noobs". I am too lazy to find cases to back this up, but anyone who has been around can confirm. The person in my case threatened to go AFK and called his teammates noobs repeatedly, along with the usual negative attitude.
One game is enough for the player to get punished. To merely arrive in the tribunal means the person has a number of reports that are more than the average players

anyway, the real debate is not this one case, it is the value of judging on a game by game basis, instead of a number of the entire case at once. This case clearly demonstrates what might happen in the former setting. For those who are saying the tribunal is already accurate, it can't hurt to make it a little more accurate, can it? It'll at least stop the QQ about wrongfully pardoned

I would have to agree with the tribunal on this particular case. with the evidence shown, it would still be a close decision though. If there was evidence of a 6th or more games reported, I would have to tip to punish.
in all the cases listed, there is evidence of the subject being antagonized, if that was not there, punishment would be an easy choice.

No it wouldn't.

By voting on a persons entire case, whether all games shown are bad or there is a mix of good and bad it shows a persons whole persona on average.

Players seen to be bad in all games are more likely to get punished for consistency, however it only HAS to take 1 case of violation of the SC to be punished, so be it by game or by case makes no difference you would still reach the same conclusion

sigh, this is the third time i repeated this point -
the problem is, the voters only read the first two or three games to reach a conclusion. This works only if the person is guilty in those games, unlike the case i have shown where the person is guilty is the 4th and 5th games, but he is pardoned probably because the majority did not read them.
3 false reports and 2 legit reports means the person SHOULD be punished. The fault has been specified, i hope you understand my perspective

I wouldn't want to increase the workload by that much. As much as it sucks, that person will end up in the tribunal again - most likely very quickly as well. I personally, don't see this as a consistent enough issue to warrant increasing the volume of work placed on tribunal doers.

- That said, I probably would have pardoned this case. 3 perfectly fine games, 1 game where he calls his Elise a noob twice and 1 game where he was kind of a dick but nothing "crazy." Over all, I see 4 pardons and 1 maybe. For me, that's a pardon.

When you quote me, make sure anything i've said directly affects what you have been saying in the forum, as you'll clearly see, what i replied to was a quote made by someone else.