Basically, about the auto-pick: I don't know why the opponent needed it; I gave it without hesitation.

The auto-pick "was needed" for the same reason as it was for you the first time; you missed it in the game, as I told you.

Regarding my picks: the first time, I stepped away from the computer for a little longer than usual and missed 2.5 minutes out of 10, so I didn't have time to develop anyone, and they were loaded.

I was distracted throughout the game, either by my wife, my phone, or someone else.

The second auto-pick: it was frustrating not to be able to split the Griffins and buy Archers in the last seconds (I had already pressed the maximum button, but I didn't have time to confirm it :)). Let's leave it to the tournament judges to decide.

You were frustrated that you couldn't split the army in the last seconds, which led to your defeat. My motives are exactly the same :)

I didn't intentionally break the rules; I thought I had won fairly, but it turned out otherwise.

Added after 16 minutes

I would have done it this way: waited until all the games were played and, depending on whether I pass or not, determined the result.

But seriously, it's not good to bargain for a pick, rudely violating the rules by the opponent taking one more auto-pick when you were the first to ask for a load.

This isn't about bargaining; the person hinted that I have double standards, and that's what bothered me, i.e., "when it's in my favor, I think that an auto-pick should be given, but when it's not in my favor, I think it shouldn't."

What kind of bargaining is that?

First, I offered a draw because I was willing to offer a draw in that situation: The person "won" by violating the rules, but unintentionally.

Second, I offered a draw to see what standards he would apply to me.

A weak player "wins" against a top player, even if it's by violating the rules, but not intentionally, to increase his motivation in the tournament and interest in the game; why not just give him the win, let alone a draw?