As far as I know, these games were played on HP.
I read the "discussion" about it, and I can't think of a better word than "mess" to describe what happened.

Due to the lack of well-reasoned explanations from the defense, its representatives turned the topic into this very "mess." Apparently, they had no other methods of defense left. And for those who understand what is being discussed, it is not difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, ignoring arguments that are "about nothing" and missing the point.
Let me give an example. I won't talk about the trial, as not everyone attended it or saw it on TV. But everyone has taken exams in school/university. So, if an examinee talks a lot but doesn't get to the point, it usually means that they don't know the answer to the question. The examiner gives them a failing grade or a C (at least they didn't stay silent), and those who understand the question are clear about it. But for the uninformed, it seems like, "Oh! The professor remembered his tardiness to lectures! How he answered! He talked so much! And they kept asking him additional questions endlessly!" - does that sound familiar? - it was something like that.

Why was the player punished here based on that topic?
Analogy: A person violated the law in one country (1), was caught there, and punished. After that, in another country (2), he was punished a second time based on the court ruling from the first country (1).
Is that stupid? I think it is.

Just so you know, there are also international crimes and, accordingly, international criminals, and Interpol. I don't think I need to explain further.

I think the poll is not very well designed.
because no one will ever choose the second option, even if Vitalik's nickname is replaced with any other nickname. because no one will give 100% confidence in a person.

Note that question #1 about Vitalik's cheating is phrased in the same way, where even those who have some doubts about it would find it difficult to give a definitive, 100% answer. For some reason, there were no problems with this, but with the affirmative answer, considering the "presumption of innocence," it was much easier - but the result is clear.