As an aside, I wanted to discuss the whole finite vs. permaban thing for cheaters. I actually tend to disagree with some of the hardliners here, and am ok with like a 2-year ban for first offense. Part of that may be believing in the capacity of people to change, especially if they're very young when they cheat; however, I am also sympathetic to the utilitarian idea that banning them benefits not just 1 person, but many.
The more convincing argument for limited bans, however, is that we're talking about subjective reviews done by humans, and not actual VAC/anti-cheat for the most part. Don't get me wrong, I think that the various anti-cheat teams do a great job in being certain before laying down the banhammer (and have definitely improved in the past decade or so; you almost never see scandals about unfair bans anymore). Still, as long as it's humans deciding these things, you will always be 99.9% sure, not 100%.
I think a mechanism by which a hypothetical unfairly banned player can prove how dedicated to competitive they are by coming back and playing legit, with a ton of scrutiny on them, is somewhat reasonable. Like, didn't that happen to a couple of guys in EU, like quad or Beavern? And I know there was rky in AU, but maybe the consensus is he really did cheat earlier- someone with more information on that would need to let me know. Either way, if the person was high-profile the first time around, there's always going to be tons of eyes on them, and if they're still cheating it gets found out pretty quickly (see: this thread).
Like, correct me if I'm wrong, but elijah is still arguing that his FIRST ban was unjust, and he never cheated, right? If i'm wrong about that, let me know, but given his gameplay looks pretty identical to how it did before, I figured that was his argument. Obviously, few of us believe him, but that's his story, and we gave him another chance to prove it. He failed to do so, and now, IF we can once again agree he is cheating for sure, a permaban seems in order.