This to me highlights the issue I, and I'm sure others, have with the wider discussion about bot prevention. One can be a player in a game, or a referee. You can't be both- something about conflicts of interest.
Just stop it - there's no proof of bots being available, there's no proof of the imaginary bots being used on even a small scale, but there's plenty of evidence of confirmation bias amongst 'anti-botters' based off of their 'we're losing so it has to be bots' mentality
Simply pointing out these ideas here to illuminate a serious issue on the community side: being the referee is a major part of the strategy of the people behind these proposals.
Let's call it what it is: corruption.