Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.


How to improve the Tribunal

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.




It's late for me, yet I still want to share a few thoughts with my fellow keepers of justice.

1) I do not agree that a 'majority' vote should decide whether or not the individual should be punished. If 6 out of 10 decided that they should be, but the other 4 found it non-deserving, I am not sure if that decision is correct. I suggest that punishment for the offender only be laid down upon him if the agreement from the Tribunal is of 'overwhelming majority'.

2) As per point number 1, I suggest that we open up the number of judges per case to 25. Still sticking with the need have over-whelming as the deciding factor, I feel this would help very much in weeding unjust punishments.

3) We need pre and post game chat. As much fuss as you are making about trying to make the Tribunal just and honest, we are not properly equipped to do so in certain cases. We need this information in some cases to make just decisions. We know that capturing all that with 2 different clients involved might be a bother to figure out how to do it cleanly, but it is something that is needed to make valid decisions on some cases.

4) People who consecutively make false judgement are banned from the Tribunal, much like the current punishment/banning is in play. If an individual punished 3 cases in a row which received pardons, that individual need a temp or 3 day ban from the Tribunal. He can play all he wants, but he isn't allowed to 'play' on the Tribunal. Perma-bans are still enabled.

5) False Reporters: As an active Tribunal member, I would like to have the option to click a button that calls out the reporter for a false report. "THIS REPORT IS OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE I'M MAD AND THE GUY BEAT ME TOO HARD OR FAILED ENOUGH THAT HE NEEDED TO BE REPORTED!!!" Sorry, caps. IE: An enemy player who falsely reports an enemy for verbal harassment even though that person did not speak in AllChat all game; They reported because they got destroyed or annoyed by the other player. On the other side of the coin, an ally who coached, all be it roughly, toward a winning game and was reported for 'helping', needs the same scrutiny.

Personally I have a case count of 106 correct out of 136. Most of the cases that I did not win were the ones I felt pardon should be issued. Yes, we actually do read them. I'm all out of steam now and Blitz is mia.

TLDR- Tribunal broke, must help fix.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


1) A majority is still the bigger portion of the community.

2) No issues with raising the limit, only downside I can see is that it would require even more time when you come across a foreign speaking language.

3) They are aware of the pre-game and post-game chat issue. It is just not on thier priority list.

4) They have a solution implemented already, thier votes count for less. Eventually thier votes count for nill if they are constantly wrong.

5) Copy n paste: 15. On August 22, 2012, it was announced that players that abuse the report option by sending false reports will be punished. A number of suspensions were placed on player accounts guilty of this abuse.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


1) So you believe the non majority should decide? At what & threshold do you allow the majority to determine a judgement?

2) Is the number of judges a known number? If it's below 25 I agree that's not a good situation. IMO you need at least 500 people to get a true average of votes.

3) Pre and post game chat does nothing but help prove guilt. It will rarely prove that someone is innocent. So what's the goal here? I think the real weight of a persons character comes from the match itself. I myself have gotten into arguments and acted trollish in pre game lobby yet gave 100% effort and considered strangers my brothers during the match.

4) Your idea seems harsh. People should be allowed to vote based on their own personal beliefs. It's rough to punish someone for making consecutive wrong decisions. I do agree with the system of lowering vote weight for low accuracy.

5) False Reporters already lose their vote weight over time. They are technically punished. Not everything deserves a ban or visible punishment to be effective.

I have an 82% accuracy at the moment and am aware of the Tribunals shortcomings and their efforts to improve it. It's a step in the right direction.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


1. The community is already more lenient than Riot is, so why would they make it more so by require a 7/10 majority?

2. If this is the case than it needs to be done, however I 've never heard about the number of judges used in a case,

3. Agreed.

4. No. Not at all. The whole point of the Tribunal is to vote how you would think the case should be handled. On top of that why should a person who got 3 wrong in a row but the other 17 right be banned over someone who got 6 wrong but the wrongs were spaced out among their cases?

5. I agree false reports can be a problem, however Riot has two solutions for it.
A. People who abuse the report system are periodically banned en masse.
B. People who abuse the report system have their voting weight dropped to near 0 after a certain number of false reports.
Is this enough? Maybe. At least there is some system in place.

85.6% (was higher, but did some cases when I was tired like a moron) 673/786.