I think that the proof policy should be changed, and enforced better.
The problem is that it isn't followed for months, people get lax, then you try to enforce it and it is WAY too harsh. If there was regular proof calls, constant administration/moderation over what needs to be proven, etc., people wouldn't fall into deep holes like they have in the past.
Yes, it is the players fault for not providing proof, yes everybody knows we need proof and it is in a policy, I just think that because we have problems with it, we could revisit it.
---------
My basic idea would revolve around the following:
Administrators let players know when they need to start taping 100% of their play. This means that a player isn't shocked by a proof call, and is screwed because they weren't taping yet. This would be like a 1 month heads up for an imminent proof call.
Administrators flag players who get a good PR based on their rank (im talking about a 30th ranked player pulling an 85+ point time or something - they might not be proving 100% yet at this rank) - if the player did not tape the run, there are a few actions that may be taken:
1)Roll back the time until the run is recreated.
2)Allow the time, and the player must provide "soft proof:" a rerun that is 1 second off, IMO, is proof of ability.
3)Let the player know that he may not IMPROVE that time without proof ever again.
If the run IS on tape, and we're talking about a mid-range player, let them know it is time to send their tapes out / make videos. Give them 2 weeks, or something.
Now, when we're talking about the top 10, things are different.
A player should *always* be taping. They should be allowed a few mistakes, technical mishaps, rerecords, etc., but for the most part these players really should be required to prove ~90% of PRs within a month.
Let players know AHEAD of time that a proof call will be coming, and it would be in their best benefit to prepare. If proof is not met, recall times to the previous proven, or whatever you feel fit. If they don't fully prove their timeset, use your best judgement on what should happen. If they prove their WORST 40 PRs and leave the best 20 unproved, well thats a problem. If its the other way around, I see no problem letting the bottom 20 slip through.
Concerning WRs, from this point on, every single WR needs to proved within 2 weeks, or it is rolled back. Once a video is released, it may be reactivated obviously. For WRs, recreating a run 1 second off to "show the ability" obviously doesn't cut it. This includes Depot 26 agent. Personally, if you think people are cheating, it more likely to be some chump claiming Depot 26 than a top 10 player fudging a few PRs.
This is not a full proposal of a system, however it is the basis for ideas that I have about proof. It is possible for a mix of objective and subjective systems to succeed, but the key is constant intervention by the admins.
The updater could also use a formula and function to "flag" good PRs based on a players rank, and output those flagged times to the updater in a text file. Then the admin wouldn't need to check PRs (if they are even posted in the topic), but rather could contant a player when they claim a great time.
This system does allow for a bit of leniency. Yes, there are holes, but there are holes in today's system as well. The bottom line is, this gives players a heads up before they need to tape, a reminder to tape, and reminds players that the-elite stands hard on proof without being unfair. It relies on a basis of trust until proven otherwise, however still ensures the validity of the WRs.
A system in which the moderators are working with the players hands-on on a weekly basis would be much more successful.
I haven't proofread the above, and it isn't complete as a proposal, however I hope the general idea is portrayed in a way that could be discussed.
