CatalystProve the rule is either, unenforceable, inconsistent, or burdensome to comply with. While also not giving the league any tangible benefit. RGL bad, but actually demonstrate to them why they're bad so they stop it.
I'll try to talk about this then.
1.) This rule is proven unenforceable. Players have and continue to submit fake demos while getting away with it because RGL requests so many they can't check them all. Considering that players have submitted fake demos even recently I have to assume RGL has not made any progress on developing a tool to automate sending and checking random demo requests. This rule can be considered ineffective at providing benefit to the league because players already can sidestep the intended effect of the rule (i.e. not record demos)
2.) There is also something to be said over not every div admin actually bothering to send demo checks. It has a certain kind of irony that div admins can't be bothered to request demos like they are told to, and then proceed to punish players for not recording like they are told to.
3.) Lets do some math and figure out how burdensome the current rules would be on average players.
A player who plays HL+6s regular seasons would have an average of
[(1/6)*(16) + (1/9)(7)] = ~3.44 demo checks per season, or ~10.33 demo checks per year.
Over 4 years this would come out to an average of 41 demo checks. I can easily believe this number because I have been demo checked 5 times over ~20-30 officials.
This player with a 90% pass rate over 4 years of average demo checks would be permabanned from the league, and with a 92.6% pass rate would incur a season long ban towards the end of that 4 year period.
If somebody responds to this post with some shit like "Imagine If You Ran 10% Of All Red Lights You Encountered" or something similar ill be disappointed and not likely to engage in discussion any farther.
I think a big disconnect for the ETF2L players posting in this thread is that ETF2L likely requests a magnitude less of random checks from them, so failing 3 or 4 demo checks is a noticeably harder ordeal. Given that etf2l still has a handful of players banned from missing demo checks, if you increase the magnitude of checks tenfold, I imagine it would be noticeably more than just a handful. You consider it reasonable for warnings to expire after 4 years, but also probably receive 1/4th of the warnings/checks or less. I'm not an ETF2L player so I might be speaking out of my ass, but I don't really see this being discussed.
4.) As I talked about in earlier posts, anticheat can still do their job effectively even with warnings expiring in, say, a year. Atempts to abuse that system could easily be punished in a multitude of ways, and practically speaking nobody who is going to cheat in this game will wait for the free demo check fail whenever they decide to. Demo check warnings expiring to give leniency for the occasional mistake is never going to be deciding factor on whether AC can determine if a player is cheating anyways.
If you believe that no mistakes should go unpunished except the first over a 4 year period, I think that is absurd given that for the average player missing a demo check is completely benign. The normal player is still incentivized to record demos if they receive 10 demo checks per year, making a failed check expire after 1 year is not going to change much in practice besides making it much easier for players to avoid 3month bans / Permabans.
5.) When considering the impact this rule has on the anticheat team- they have operated with this system of warnings not expiring since the 6s league's inception and have still been completely ineffective in multiple circumstances.
The anticheat team has probably gotten 1 permaban on a suspected cheater for 4 demo infractions and uses that as justification for the rule existing in its current form- as if they need it to be this exact way to accomplish that instead of just idk, requesting multiple demos at once shortly after the first failed check.
Ultimately my opinion basically boils down to:
I do not think a rule being consistent justifies it being absurd. No matter which way you spin it average non-cheating members of the community will make benign mistakes and forget to record demos / setup configs improperly / what have you. I myself missed my 2nd demo check because I had done a reinstallation of the game and discovered that the valve autorecord feature turned off when I did so despite no other option in the advanced option menu doing so to telegraph to me that I needed to check this. Obviously with hindsight I know why this happened, but in the moment its not something you think about. The idea of getting 41 checks and only have 1 miss be free, a second being a stern warning with a 2 week ban, and then major seasonal/permabans after seems like overkill to me personally. This isn't something like driving a car where running 1/10th of your red lights will kill pedestrians, it isn't something like slur bans where you need to make an active decision to say hateful things. This is a rule designed to encourage players to record demos for an anticheat team, that's all. People should be allowed to make infrequent mistakes, and suspected cheaters looking to abuse that avenue can still be gotten at with a bit of brainpower.
None of this post relates to antler's case specifically, so do try to tie any of this to his circumstances thank you.