I fully agree with this. I am all for listing the results of every titans investigation in an archive. Open a "Titans Judgments" board, and have the game post the initial complaint and results of every report. Allow commenting on the posts, but make sure the moderators are instructed to be pretty strict in policing the thread.
Are you sure of this? Isn't there the concrete risk people will just end up saying "yes but in the decision of 24/03/2011 the move of morek's capital was not sanctioned, so that's why I am doing it, as the conditions are the same!" and so on..
I still believe that if someone that plays bm with a spirit such as the one Tom looks forward to find ends up suffering a "questionable" titans decision he will just shrug and move on. Perhaps he would feel bad, but if he likes bm and is playing between friends, sometimes things are just not as you figured they would be. Like planning a nice strategy in a boardgame only to discover rules are blurry about it and the majority thinks it should be not allowed. Disappointing? yes. Destroying your game experience? only if you're a moron.
Yes it would be nicer to have an explanation from the titans, yes it would be nicer to be allowed to explain why, in your opinion, what you did was right and so on. But do we really think that those openly blaming titans would be those contributing to these potential discussion in a civil and respectful manner? To rephrase, isn't this open discussion matter going to truly improve the decisions only on a handful of issues, whereas in the majority the debate on the forum will completely be pointless, with the accused irremovable from his opinions and at the end the decision made by someone higher in hierarchy (tom or whoever)?
I have no idea how many wrong titans decisions there have been during bm history, but I truly have the feeling that whoever is complaining about the inadequacy of the titans system and believes his own game experience to be seriously damaged by unjust titans decisions to be playing without the spirit Tom wants. And it's likely that these people are hardly going to be convinced by the community through a discussion so that at the end they could say "ok then I am wrong". Clearly I am generalizing here, but a turnover of a system like the one proposed here must take in consideration the sheer number of issues that will be modified relevantly.
To summarize, is it a good idea to potentially create a ton of flames, arguments and discussions just to provide the accused with the feeling it was not out of the blue but there are shared reasons behind the decision? Ethically speaking, the answer would be yes, but I really can't possibly see someone accepting the arguments of the community in a civil fashion to be so much disappointed if he had received the titans decision out of the blue. And, actually, perhaps it's less frustrating to live with a single out of the blue titans decision than with the potential blame of an entire army of community members.