EDIT: The title should be «Tribunal is far from broken» rather than «not broken at all»
Critics say: duh you can just punish-spam and get above 85% accuracy
I say: True, but I use the tribunal very seriously, reading the logs of all 5 games before judging. A vast majority of cases are worthy of punishment.
The Tribunal isn't perfect, but here is one important point: judges gain nothing (35 IP is nothing) from the Tribunal, so I think it's fair to state that most of the people who use it are well intended.
So if you want to troll the Tribunal saying it's broken while still getting good scores, go ahead and enjoy your empty life.
But there are measures to compensate for people who do this: a case is reviewed by more than 1 judge
Most of the time (it's nothing scientific, but I'd say 80% of the time), the players's reasons for reporting are legitimate and therefore, the result will be a punishment. So 80% or more punish-spam isn't broken, it only shows that the Tribunal is generally used in a correct way
Plus, one measure I highly appreciated when I began judging is the «skip» option. I was sure when to punish, but not sure when to pardon, so I skipped some cases, saw the sentence and it gave me some reference poles for other cases. You can even keep track of all your cases to be fair and compare your votes. Genius !
Tribunal is one of the features I like the most on all time in my video game record
Now, what measures could make the Tribunal better ? In my opinion (and this is completely debatable) when a sentence is only decided by a «majority» of judges, it shouldn't be applied. I'd say only «strong» majority» and «overwhelming majority» should be applied. There should be some sort of «tie» option, but that's just an opinion dont mind it too much