I do think the casting rule is dumb. The primary reasons given are just dumb excuses that are immediately fixed by setting up 1 STV relay server per concurrent official RGL cast, and the secondary reasons (the real reasons you have this rule in place) are unacceptable and display priorities that work against the community.

There is more than one way to cast a match. Twitch viewership is not a zero sum game. I would like to cast matches from spy povs, geared towards spy mains, which is a completely different provided experience from the traditional match casting format. You have been using the sponsor excuse for 9 seasons now, but there is nothing to show for it. You are picking up all the downsides of a big sponsor-friendly organization with none of the upsides or resources associated with actually being one, at the expense of the community.

Have you specifically been told by a potential sponsor that you will receive resources conditional upon single stream viewership? If so, it seems like you are seeking money at the expense of community involvement. If not, then your paragraph in that section is meaningless, but the community is still harmed. Doesn’t RGL claim to be a community league?

The purpose of these posts is not to get my kicks in, but to try to prevent RGL from doing something stupid. By ignoring me, you are just deciding to allow me to be dissatisfied because it probably costs less to you, and this is an unacceptable approach for a community league. I believe the things I’ve said, and I like to believe that RGL wants to have good intentions and so you believe the things you say, but this rule exposes a corruption in your intentions and I think you should address it.

I’ll tell you how I am feeling as a result of this interaction. I think that nothing will happen and that this rule, which I think is terrible, will continue to exist unchanged. I do not see any good reason to keep this rule, so I will continue to think that RGL enforces at least one terrible rule that prevents me from creating and viewing community content that I would like to exist. I feel that my time on this thread has been wasted, and I am discouraged from doing something like this again, which would result in you receiving less feedback in general and less community involvement from me. Maybe this is your goal?

This one interaction is an example of many different interactions that several community members have had with RGL. If you don’t understand this, then you are failing at doing your job well. If you do understand this, then you are ignoring it for reasons I don’t understand, but about which many will be cynical. There have been several moments over the lifetime of RGL where others along with myself have decided not to try to improve the league, because of past experiences like this one.

This is such a bad response and a good example of how RGL makes it hard to not disengage from community involvement.

It has now been 26 days since my last post on this thread and well over a month since my original post, and I have not received a response from anyone at RGL, except for the one reply near the top that didn’t address the content of my post. It seems like I was correct in my last post.

It would help if RGL could at least state in advance which matches RGL is casting, so members of the community can know which STVs they are not allowed to enter and can plan ahead of time. Either way, this rule is wrong and has no place in a community league. Clearly you don’t agree, but it is frustrating that you are apparently unwilling to discuss it.

To be clear, I am entirely against any league rule which bans players for entering or streaming the same match as RGL.

Here are your justifications for the rule given in this article:

• To help mitigate possible DDoS attacks with STV information being leaked
  – Anyone who is able to receive leaked STV info could also receive leaked server info, so this point is meaningless. It looks like you added this as the first bullet point for shock value.

• To avoid the server being affected performance-wise
  – You could host matches that are being casted by RGL on servers with resources capable of supporting more viewers. I’m sure that this is unpopular with teams who own their servers and like to play matches on them, but it seems more desirable than banning other players for entering the STV. I’m sure other restrictions exist anyways to enforce that at least RGL can enter if they please, so extending that rule doesn’t seem too bad. Preferably, RGL can provide STV relay servers to third parties, or address the STV relay bug in one of several ways discussed earlier.

• To avoid an STV slot being taken away from the production team
  – This is fundamentally the exact same issue as given above, listed a second time.

Secondary considerations:

• Promoting coverage of more invite matches happening during the same day and time rather than multiple coverages of the same game
  – Different casts provide different experiences and perspectives. For example, I have been casting exclusively from the spy POVs each match, which is entirely different content than a traditional cast of the match itself. The promotion of diverse coverage does not necessitate match exclusivity. There is very often only one interesting game per week, and having different angles of the top matches is a net positive.

• RGL is in talks with different sponsors and selling the brand is difficult when the official RGL stream has low viewer counts
  – Twitch viewership is not a zero sum game. Given any two streams, a viewer might watch both, one, or neither. A viewer of one stream may choose to not watch at all rather than watch the other stream. Since every other reason given is bogus, this seems like the only real reason for this rule, and it puts the interests of the league above the interests of the community. At what point do the upsides of a sponsorship get outweighed by the downsides it pressures onto the community? Would you drop HL if a potential sponsor would consider a league that only supports 6s? Or if that potential sponsor demanded a certain whitelist, or wanted to put in place some other ridiculous rule banning players for something stupid? If you truly are in talks with a sponsor that refuses to support your brand unless you ban anyone in the same STV as you, then you should drop that sponsor and look elsewhere.
  – Why then are players in the very same match allowed to stream their own POV? Why are other matches allowed to be casted at the same time? Do these things not take viewers away from the official cast? You claim to want coverage of more invite matches, but here claim that you want more viewers, at least somewhat acknowledging that less important matches are less desirable to viewers.

The one response to this was a sentence stating that STV relays in TF2 have a bug. That seems like an RGL problem that should take precedence to be addressed above plenty of other things that RGL is doing, and certainly above banning players for streaming matches or sitting in STV. The way these issues have been presented and feedback has been ignored comes across as extremely scummy. You clearly think that RGL has made the right choice if you will go so far as to ban players over this, but I hope that I have demonstrated by now a certain level of investment in this issue to warrant a good response.

i am IP banned on this website. I have to post this from a VPN. Mothership told me to DM his discord. I can’t DM mothership on discord because it says he is not accepting friend requests. I cant join the RGL discord to message him there because I am banned from that. Can an admin please help me.

kindest team mate? Odb
kindest in general? Banny
best team leader? Giraffe
team mom? Bowl of Mayo
sends cutest pictures? Karl
the artist? Vryktion
best pets? Oblivion
best stories? Pablo
best coms? Dave
funniest coms? Chubbz
funniest? Dimento
helped you the most? Arzt Hispanian
mvp? Lenny
who do you think is going to make it to the top? Carcin
best team mate? Hunter
best music taste? Niko Jimms
most reliable? Habib
who is just cool? Slemnish
most likeable? Jerry
fanciest setup? Syath
worst setup? Alto
the one person that games in bed? Zuchima
the kind drunk? Sully
the back bone? Vipa
funniest names on steam? Jarrett
most confusing? Lary
best quotes you have? Moose in a Suit
funniest dropped uber? Sandblast
funniest death? Barycenter
most impressive moment? Andrew

@scaredy-bat said in RGL Conduct Survey #4 Results, Global Rule Edits, & 2021 March/April Bans:

@shotaway This is getting a bit inside baseball for me, who’s relatively new and not privy to whatever histories or whatnot that are shaping this conversation. Why is it a bad response to point out that there is a bug which makes relays a non-solution?

It’s a bad response because it’s just a deflection of the issue. “Sorry, there is a bug that lowers STV relay quality, so instead we will ban you for casting our matches.” Is this bug well-known? Does it occur 100% of the time, or are there preventative measures that could be taken? Is it possible to build a workaround? Why not have the official casters in the STV while providing the relay server to third parties? Instead of putting any thought into solutions at all, RGL instead decides to offload this problem onto the community and ban anyone entering STV.

If the problem really is about issues that arise with too many people in STV, which never really seemed to be a problem until a few seasons ago (but I’ll believe you), then why not just have a measure for dealing with this when it happens, instead of blanket banning in all cases? Why not host RGL casted matches on servers with more resources? Why are “casting organizations” allowed to broadcast the same match? Why does this rule only exist for the official RGL casted matches if it affects the playability of the server regardless? The DDoS line is asinine, because anyone using STV info for an attack can get the server IP the same way. The first of the secondary considerations is narrow minded, because different streams provide different content regardless of which match is played.

The last bullet point of the secondary considerations is obviously the main concern, and the existence of the STV relay bug doesn’t address this at all. It should be unacceptable for a community league to take this stance. Refer to my first post.

It is obvious that RGL does not want to find a way for the community to stream the same match as them. I could sit here and write essays, but I don’t want to waste my time when the response is like what was given in this thread. Nobody wants to waste their time, and this is why it becomes hard to not disengage.

Every member of the community wants cheaters to be banned from the league. Does a single member of the community want players who cast the same match as RGL to be banned?

I can appreciate the intention and your dedication towards map improvement, but anything that changes gameplay shouldn’t be passed off so lightly and tossed right into the season. There is a difference between the visual feel and “creator’s vision” of the map (it was added in 2008 and last updated in 2013; the map should be considered out of the original creator’s hands) and its functional gameplay topology. Removing a sightline that doesn’t feel like it should be there might be a small fix in terms of aesthetic or QoL, but it could change the way the point or the whole map is played. For instance, if that sightline is no longer viable then teams might position completely differently, placing emphasis on different points altogether.

That soldier spot above B has been considered a legitimate gameplay option for years. Removing it eliminates that gameplay option entirely, reducing the map to something else. Severing a gameplay option is probably never isolated and will change the weights of other gameplay options. Spots like these either exist or they don’t and the fact that it might be an unintended pixel walk doesn’t change its existence as a gameplay option. If the goal is QoL, you could easily add some other prop up there to address it while also attempting to keep it functionally the same. If the goal is larger than this, then it should be dealt with as a gameplay changing update and not passed off as if it were a set of nonfunctional changes as it seems to have been implied. Maybe they are justified improvements, but if so then I think there should be more talk before it’s implemented.

I’d like to add that I think adding another instance of separation from the vanilla game by creating a new map file for cp_steel is probably not the way to go, but this is besides the point and I’m sure many would disagree with me.

I haven’t fully read through this thread, but someone mentioned that there are no gameplay changes. However, cp_steel is well known for its many quirks that involve weird clippings and wall surfs that open up the map to a lot more movement options. Anything that affects clipping, particularly on this map, can be a big deal. That sniper window on B being filled in is a big change. Moving props around is a big deal. “Small changes” can change the dynamic of a point, cut off or add routes around the map for a subset of classes, or alter sightlines which seriously affects gameplay.

Maybe these changes are justified, or maybe they aren’t; but I’m not a fan of passing it off as some small non-gameplay affecting, minor bug fix “refresh” update.

Maybe I’m out of the loop, but who in invite outside of this thread is even aware that cp_steel got changed?

I know how frustrating this rule has been for me, and it’s a shame to see it affect others, especially those whose streams have a much wider appeal. The casting restrictions and strict adherence to it with no exceptions despite how well many people in this community know each other is just bad. I talked about it in another thread and got no official response, but hopefully this thread displays more community figures against the restrictions.

RGL should want the MCM cast to take place, even if it is concurrent to their own official cast; and so RGL should try to help it happen. Instead of pointing at obstacles as excuses to have these restrictions, RGL should internally want to see these obstacles as issues that need to be fixed. However, it sounds like this isn’t the case. For RGL to not want MCM to be able to cast is antithetical to a major point for many in HL to move from UGC to RGL, the “community league” aspect.

I see that mothership linked the thread with my posts. Thanks. I would love for more discussion to exist in there because I genuinely want this rule to change. I think many others do too, but so many people disengage from this kind of activity. “I have years of pent up frustration over casting restrictions.” is a sentiment that chinatown shares with so many people.

what got changed

let’s just make it 10 slots and the whiny babies can deal with it lol. we need to solve the roster riding problem.

i tried to buy the pink scattergun shirt but I noticed that 4XL was all sold out. when will these be back in stock?

trelan was one of three players (iirc) permabanned at the start of RGL HL when several admins+players coordinated to move HL from UGC to RGL. these bans were mirrors from UGC. now, he has been unbanned from UGC for a long time, but his mirrored ban still exists here.

share them with each other here

@b4nny said in RGL Conduct Survey #4 Results, Global Rule Edits, & 2021 March/April Bans:

I am also not an admin responsible for the decisions made on this topic, but it does annoy me when I see this argument so I want to chime in. My understanding is that RGL is a “community league” because it is grassroots, built by players and members of the community, and isn’t owned by a major corporation, NOT because any decision it makes must empower every member of the community or that every decision must be made by community vote. Sometimes catering to the community is good, sometimes it is detrimental. In navigating that, the league admins should make decisions that are in its best interests that will benefit the success of the competitive scene, even if they may be unpopular with some members of the community.

I understand your point, and maybe this is the thought process that goes into a decision like this. If so, it would be better for someone at RGL to say so instead of ignoring the discussion. I’m not owed a response, but the alternative is that I disengage and discussions like these don’t exist. This argument exists on a different level from mine, and I still argue against the rule for the reasons I’ve given in this thread. I don’t think this rule is something that fits into a decision like you describe. I think it’s a bad decision for the league because it is a bad decision for the community; and I think that the idea that RGL should make unpopular decisions for the sake of the success of the competitive scene is not so strong that it justifies a decision like this.

I want a league to play highlander in. If RGL’s sole purpose is to grow the competitive TF2 scene, then there may be an argument for doing things like dropping HL to focus on 6v6 or disbanding a top team that is too dominant. RGL can certainly do these things using a similar justification, but I wouldn’t like these decisions and would be against them, even if they actually did somehow contribute to the success of the competitive scene.

Maybe a rule like this would be beneficial for 6s like you say, but I think the “community league” approach to HL is (or at least should be) different, and this might be where the disagreement is. Regardless, a “community league”, however you define it, shouldn’t be laughing off the idea of community content creators. RGL was started by community content creators.

@nabla said in RGL Conduct Survey #4 Results, Global Rule Edits, & 2021 March/April Bans:

If you want to make spy POV only casts of specific matches, just grab the STV demo later and cast from that. Nothing is stopping that in the RGL rulebook.

Sure, but this isn’t the show I’m trying to put on. I don’t think that it’s the same to do things like this from an STV demo as it is live, and this restriction exists unnecessarily.

It isn’t like admins haven’t considered other alternatives. Do you really think they just ignore that people are upset? I doubt it.

If they did ignore that people are upset, how would you expect people to respond? Like me? It seems like they have ignored me. What alternatives have they looked into? That’s the kind of discussion that I am looking for on this thread.

1.) Servers struggle with higher spectator counts. In the end, you will always have to resort to favoritism in terms of who gets access because giving it to too many spectators will have a detrimental impact on the gameserver/spectating experience.

I think that if RGL wanted to encourage things like this then they would look into ways to deal with the logistical issues. That could be better servers, investigating the relay issue, or even just setting up relays so that third parties can deal with the bugs while the official cast can sit in the base STV. Instead, RGL is giving up here and banning players for entering STV.

2.) Even if you bypass logistical issues, holding people accountable for match servers being ddosed / casts disrupted because of leaked info is always a worse solution than removing opportunities for that to happen in the first place.

That’s literally it.

I think that holding people accountable for casts being disrupted is not as hard as it’s being stated. Server operators can give STV info to players with high trust. If those high trust players give it out to lower trust, then RGL can talk to the server operator. The server operator knows who was given STV access, so the right person can be held accountable. Otherwise, the server operator would be held accountable and this fear would raise the bar of personal trust that the server operator requires for potential STV viewers.

I think that this is a moot point when the server IP and much more is essentially public in several ways:

1. The in-game server browser has built in search, favorite, and history functionality.
2. Game info can be viewed from the steam friends list. As far as I’m aware, it is not a requirement in RGL for players to hide this info.
3. Servers are constantly reused, and anyone can compile a list of frequently used servers.

Additionally, anyone willing to give STV to someone willing to ddos something is also willing to give the server IP to someone willing to ddos something. This includes server operators.

You also need to understand that this rule exists in such a harsh form purely because its an issue thats not just an isolated case and seems to always happen whenever a ‘popular match’ comes about.

Server ops would give their stv info to Bowl, vryktion, and other randoms who want to cast. Magically that info would then end up in the hands of people who want to disrupt the match. Crazy how that works.

Players have had to move servers because their original started to lag once enough STV clients connected.

Blanket restricting STV is a very simple solution to an annoying set of problems you would otherwise forever play a game of whack-a-mole with, and removes an avenue for admins to abuse their power with favoritism.

I think that it’s too harsh and that there are better and smarter ways to prevent these things while still maintaining a culture of community content creation. Blanket banning anyone who enters STV might be a simple and easy solution for league admins, but that doesn’t justify it.

@Maven said in RGL Conduct Survey #4 Results, Global Rule Edits, & 2021 March/April Bans:

I also want to add that nobody in RGL wants to ban anyone. Ideally nobody does anything that gets them banned.

This is a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t mean anything. RGL does want to ban some players, but that’s a discussion for a different thread. “Ideally the players we want banned don’t exist.” RGL should want to ban cheaters. RGL should not want to ban players for entering STV.

It takes a good amount of time to make these posts, and it seems like the answer is just “no”, and I’m wasting my time. So, I probably won’t be posting much here unless there is a significant post. Thanks for the discussion so far.