Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

"Grounds for exemption from proof.
Facts recognized by the court as common knowledge do not require proof... Facts that, according to the law, are considered established are not proven when considering the case."

There was only one court – the subject of disputes on the forum, and before this "court," no "common knowledge" had been established. Therefore, all that remained were assumptions that needed to be either proven or refuted. Incidentally, formally, neither was done.

The entire body of evidence is based on the assumption of illogical player behavior on the battlefield from the point of view of mathematical statistics obtained by reviewing his previous games, as well as taking into account generally accepted methods of scouting on the map (i.e., atypical player behavior was established – such as "dwarves at the elevator" and so on), which is indirect evidence of a "possible violation of the rules of the game," but is not grounds for a final verdict.

And in general, did anyone from the AC take on formal advocacy obligations to defend the player – as is generally required? Were there any attempts to find even the slightest grounds for accepting this method of play as permissible? Just a question. I don't know what the decision-making mechanism is in the AC.

Guided by the above, Vitalic has only one way left – to refute the accusations in "general order," i.e., to prove the fairness of his brilliant game in reality or to correct it in future online games.

An unfinished sentence. It should be completed with the words: "...after which the Committee will reconsider its decision to punish the player with a black mark, offering all sorts of apologies and placing a "golden non-cheater mark" in the player's profile for life, etc." I understand that we can easily punish everyone, but we haven't yet figured out what to do with it.

Conclusion:

1. The body of evidence is based on probability theory.
2. The general mood of the players regarding the issue under consideration was taken into account.
3. The decision is based on a completely raw document that has come into force, "adopted unanimously, and no objections were received from the players." (Now, as you can see, objections have been received).

"We all know how to play, and our gaming experience shows that something is wrong with this player. What's there to think about, it's all clear to everyone, especially considering all the complaints. Let's create beautiful rules, approve them, and punish him on a legal basis. The matter is resolved and not subject to appeal."

Why all the farce with the impeachment procedure? A simple statement would be enough: "We believe that you are a cheater until you prove otherwise. Therefore – you're banned!" This method, by the way, would be much clearer because, from the point of view of probability theory, this is exactly how things usually happen in life.

P.s. I fully agree with the opinion that it is practically impossible to prove map hacking. This is an unsolvable problem at the moment. If the AC has definitively completed the consideration of this issue and does not intend to return to it, our conversation is simply sophistry. Well, at least it's in a polite form, thank goodness.