To make their final decision, each member of the MT takes into account all the factors involved in a report: their knowledge of the game, the evidence provided and the background of the players. Based on the above, each member casts their vote along with their reasoning. If the vote results in a tie (for example, 3 MT members vote for Guilty and another 3 vote for No Case), the most beneficial option for the accused will be taken.
To change the vote, it would be necessary to have new evidence to justify it. You now provide new information about the accused setup, but we only have your word, no solid evidence. Of course we do not doubt your word, but you will understand that something more is needed to justify a change in our decision.
On the other hand, in a report the evidence provided must be public. What would a conviction based on evidence received by PM look like? How would you feel if we punish you based on evidence received by PM, without you (or anyone but the MT and the plaintiff) having the option of knowing the evidence presented in order to defend yourself?
Nice points MT member Verti_Go. I have been trying to skirt the issue about flag and bombed off lane to TRY and give the accused a tad bit of respect. Respect that they have not shown in kind to myself-- DC and wasting my time as they have done in the past. Additional time I have now used with report and request to reopen case. As to evidence please re-review the other cases on this player. The Flag is in the back right corner area. The bombed off lane is the left. Your correct no PM needed no other evidence. This person has DC two other times in 2020-guilty ! Now this case you the MT wants to vote NOT guilty due to the amount of pieces ? The player DC and did not return to the match. I have provided what I can you-the MT can vote again. IF you are choosing to take in all evidence then look at their other accts as I suggested. As to ya point Verti_Go on PMs I believe the MT has a case were PMs are involved and are not being shown-- do as you please with the available evidence and as required by the rules is just my thought.