At the moment, given the status of the tournament, this is the most controversial tournament of its kind on an international level. Its conduct, the rendering of decisions, and the explanation for those decisions must be as transparent as possible and clearly formulated (it is possible that a resolution will take several months).
Otherwise, there will be a Schism in the Community, toward whose union many figures and those wishing these figures well in their work have strived.

This topic of conversation is very important, and it is even better that it appeared at an early stage of interactions with the Chinese side. The plus side is that even if they play with an open map, they see how we play on equal terms with a closed one, and therefore there is something to learn from, meaning it is not profitable to lose this instructional guidebook. The fight against cheating has already essentially been streamlined; over time, as organization improves, it will likely become even more difficult.

I carefully examined the miner; 215 is missing for a projection of the ideal trajectory, taking into account the jump at start 214.

Essentially, it's a very strange move on 211, but on 214, looking through the air shows 4 arts in the dark; personally, having 2 jumps, I would most likely have jumped up toward where the Dragon Utopia is, then down. You need to have 215 to see how much mana is left—if rebel was looking at the ground, the air, or jumped blindly, it makes a big difference. But even jumping blindly when you see an advantage in the tavern is quite explainable as a way to find something somewhere by chance when you need to jump.

In short, a person is not required to prove their innocence; the judges are required to PROVE his guilt, and do so in such a way that it cannot be justified. If the evidence does not have such substance, then it is merely circumstantial.

Personally, I am for banning all cheaters, and if rebel cheated—it must be proven; if it's not proven—then he didn't cheat.

I really appreciate rebel's manner in requesting that absolutely all the cooked-up evidence be provided to him and the public (although personally, I consider this grasping at straws while falling off a cliff). He has every right to know who, for what, and in what manner and on what basis a verdict was reached, just as everyone else does.

Cheating must be fought with more than just the nonsense I read from ja's link; there, a gang of buddy-opponents (except for a couple of people) were talking rubbish. Poor billy-cheater, he was out-cheated; there are already realistically 7 wt (censorship)shniks who once played with an open map (willy, billy, dilli, gayka, rockfor, chip and dale)

In general, to have a proper analysis of situations, it is necessary to create direct online interview conversations with recordings of the judge and the player; otherwise, everyone will find something to answer each other. Then everything will be much clearer