So the reports from (mostly) emotionally charged players creates the list of words the system looks for... The system itself isn't actually using machine learning, just the list of words.
I am not going to pretend that I am an expert on the subject because I am most certainly not. But when what's considered banable or otherwise offensive isn't pre determined but the result of an automatic system assesing the data it's being presented with and that adjusts such parameters by itself, I would say that it's a little more complex than you present it to be.
In one of the responses that I'm sure you bothered to read it was actually mentioned that the system has base contextual differences between servers to attune for cultural differences. I believe the example given was how offensive a particular type of insult is considered in Korea in comparison to other places, so the system from the get go was tuned to give more weight to such things in that particular server.
There's no context, and the people who influence the edge cases of the list are the most emotionally charged players coming out of bad games. How is this better than having uninvolved and unbiased 3rd parties vote on cases?
You use "emotionally charged players" as if it was not relevant to the whole point of the system.
If somebody had a negative and emotionally charged experience because of the behaviors of someone else in game then that's exactly what this whole thing is trying to prevent and this system should at least in theory weed out the bad reports, as in "I had a bad experience because our top feed but he never said anything that could reasonably be considered offensive", compared to "I had a bad experience because out top was flaming me all game, calling me names and asking for reports on me." In the former case, if the person didn't talk at all or said things that are otherwise not cause for report in any meaningful number of cases then logic says he wouldn't be considered as "toxic" in that particular game.
You also seem to have an idealized view of what the Tribunal was, it was nothing but a relatively cheap way for them to try and filter out the really evident false positives that somehow got in. It really didn't do much besides it since almost anyone that displayed any signs of "toxicity" in their case got punished anyway (I did over a thousand cases back then), given that most of those who judged cases were aware of how much you had to be reported to even get placed there.
If the system really does work the way they claim that explains why things like GGEZ are not ok anymore, along with all the people who are getting banned for lashing out at a troll.
People got banned for lashing out to trolls long before this system came to be, even since the Tribunal days it was a well known saying that "he started first" was not considered as justification for your own negative behavior.
Both of those were considered up to the community in the tribunal days, and I know I for one always pardoned both cases if that was the only offense, and my accuracy was always around 95%.
Just about everyone's accuracy was around that. The Tribunal was ultimately barely relevant since everyone that landed there already had such a high probability of being guilty anyway.
As I said before the Tribunal barely provided any actual community input since the vast majority of cases were incredibly obvious. And even if that wasn't the case, the community input was still limited to a very small subset that decided to involve themselves into the process for any given reason.
With this system essentially every single players contributes to it, every time they decide to or not to report someone for any given behavior.
Finally, they have also stated many times that they will bring the Tribunal style voting back in some form to work in conjuction to these systems and give another layer of community input in regards to what it's acceptable and what's not:
So again, you could have avoided this long diatribe just by doing some basic research.