---
Side note.
If the proof mod goes to sleep, I don't think people want the rankings to be held hostage until he wakes up.
I specifically suggested that any member of the site should be able to vouch for a video, not just the proof moderator, for that reason. There is a warm fuzzy feeling available especially for lower ranked players knowing that someone actually looked at their time and said "hmm, seems reasonable" and clicked a Verify button when they got a ping just seconds after the time was submitted. Imagine being DuskyLW and seeing that Karl Jobst verified your Streets Agent 1:14. As it stands, many low ranked players get no mention at all and their times are filtered out of the PR feed that many users watch. That entire idea is separate from the discussion here, though.
---
It seems like my interpretation of what this poll is asking doesn't line up with what others seem to think. Requiring a link to be present at the time of submission does not prove that the link leads to a valid proof submission.
Assuming this new rule was put in place *with* all the other rule changes needed to make it at least reasonably sound (changing all rules about monthly proof calls, backrolls, etc.):
1. It makes the proof mod's job significantly easier.
I disagree. This rule would increase the proof moderation workload. If a time requiring proof is posted, the proof moderator will need to review the video thoroughly within days or even just hours. Instead of being able to schedule a time to verify all videos on a convenient date near the end of the month, the proof moderator will need to be constantly ready to verify all submissions. This might require the addition of more proof moderators. Otherwise, proof moderators will be afraid to go more than a day or two without looking at the rankings for fear of public outcry over their slow actions and poor choices. People have been very rude to proof moderators here in the past....
So at least be aware that a different process will be needed.
2. ...There will no longer be a burden on the procrastinating runners to remember to make a video three weeks after they submit a time.
This sounds more like a separate rule change -- removing all rules about one month, proof calls, backrolls, etc., and requiring proof upon submission. The poll and OP here don't make it clear whether or not such a rule change is planned or wanted. Reframing this link check rule as a way to help enforce a change in the policy would be way more appropriate than making a new rule first then going back and fixing the other rules the new one affected.
Adding a "must include video link" validation rule to help enforce such a change is probably reasonable, but still doesn't actually stop someone from intentionally breaking the rule. It should only be seen as a helpful reminder to the person posting the time, rather than an actual validation that adequate proof was submitted.
4. It makes our leaderboards more legitimate and simpler at the same time.
Requiring a link to be present when submitting a time does not in any way stop someone from innocently accidentally claiming an untied WR from Perfect Dark XBLA or maliciously taking over the entire rankings. It seems like people have extremely strong reactions whenever something like that happens, even if it is just for a few hours.
Is the "legitimacy" issue here that proof moderators feel like they're handcuffed by the one month grace period and can't take down questionable times before that has passed? A change to the proof policy that modifies the proof call rules could help with that.
Poll