[...] The rule has gotten harsher as the seasons have gone on even though there have been no instances of abuse of it. From here it feels more like warnings are being given out for the sake of it, rather than any actual harm done. The admins repeatedly tell us how they have final discretion on any decision, maybe they could use it sometimes to take the edge off when no harm has been done? ;)

[...]

[...] I get your point but I was always under the impression that the rule was there to stop people being abusive or changing their names to purposefully ruin a cast which I can't actually think of an instance where that has happened in any game I've played. All the nickname warnings in prem this season have been for stuff like MUSA instead of musa_tr and it was the same last season.

[...] You have to draw a line somewhere, and if you want to create a list of all acceptable violations (trust me, people are creative) then you'll be doing it for a while. And I don't think anyone would be able to make head or tails of it afterwards. It's much easier to be super strict, although even easier to actually follow the rule .

I'm not a big fan of the way the names rule is enforced. Warnings for j@m@l instead of jamal, fanny instead of fanny_filth (even though he used the full name in the match just not the status screen) and inso instead of inso2stronk (after kkaltuu OK'd him just using inso) sucked. It didn't affect the standings at all so it's not the hugest deal, but it just feels kind of petty.

[...] But all a leader can do to 'take action' is to remind them the next time, and if the offender does it again you cant blame the leader or the team-mates, the offender is just an idiot. To reiterate and clarify my post from earlier: The admins don’t enjoy awarding point penalties - they're only doing it to deter people from rule-breaking, but the people they're catching out with these rules aren't assholes or criminals, they're just forgetful. 5 warnings before a ban would decrease the frequency of these strikes against ethical players, whilst still punishing serial rule-breakers. The leaders in prem aren’t negligent towards ensuring their team follows the rules, but the teams are still being penalised. In fact the whole team is being penalised because of one person's slip-up, which seems cruel to me. It’s like preventing an entire class of students from going out to break when the bell goes because Sorex forgot his homework again. Submitting STV demos is an individual's problem. I fail to understand why there's a blanket penalty given to the whole team when the perpetrator is fully responsible and acted alone. Isn’t the 2-week-or-so ban for repeat offenders enough? Why is there two punishments? In all honesty I'm against the point penalty entirely (for multiple minor warnings), I see 5 warnings before the pen as a happy medium. Am I being totally naïve in thinking that people just slip up, or is cheating and risking the stv demo warning more common than I think?

[...] I get your point about warnings and leaders doing everything they can do prevent them, at least most of 'em try, but EVERYONE knows that demo's most be recorded, matches have to be scheduled, and if you're in prem you have to use your actual nickname. (Not sure if they're still really nazi about that.) If a leader fails to check that multiple times, or if your teammate forgets one of these or intentionally fucks up a leader has to take action, whatever that may be. Third times a charm.