Either the Tribunal members should not be voting on approvals, AND/OR the Tribunal should decide to strictly adhere to the guidelines @MOLLY O drew up in her excellent blog post. The second option is the best, IMO, but both could be helpful.
If Molly's guidelines are strictly enforced, it creates a communally shared definition of the criteria for a niche to pass muster, and our results will improve significantly. As long as they are not enforced, the decisions of the Tribunal will appear arbitrary, springing from a fount of wisdom us community members do not understand the mechanics of. Worse, from a fount of wisdom that seems to ignore or negate @MOLLY O's article. How do we expect users to follow these guidelines, if the Tribunal does not enforce them?
I agree with everything @Malkazoid states her. There is no excuse for the tribunal to not be adhering to the very guidelines for quality and redundancy that they put out. If this format does not adhere to quality, then there will be no advertisers. If there are no advertisers there will be no content. Community is here to get paid for their content, and quickly via crypto. It is very simple.
Further supporting what Malkazoid has stated, I go a step further and suggest that now that we have reputation established, I see no reasons why the original tribunal should still be in place. They should be focused on meeting the deadlines of the roadmap.
How hard would it be to duplicate the voting section of Moderator and make it active for the Tribunal? I cannot imagine it taking more than a day or two, yet would free up time for each tribunal team member to focus on the important aspect of their job, that cannot be done by community members.
Time to elect non-narrative team members to the positions of Tribunal. This should become a immediate priority in my opinion.