To Vigo or not to Vigo? That is the question.

7z, meaning that the collected evidence is not enough to claim that someone else was playing for Vigo, especially considering he often played with map hacks?

To determine guilt or innocence, one confirmed violation is enough. That's why I chose the statement that is 100% true. All other points can be debated for a long time (which is already happening over 25 pages), discussing whether he is a good person or not, etc. But for me, one fact of violating the rules is enough.

Anyone who writes anything similar again will be added to the AK archives under the heading "adolescent surrealism syndrome."
Stop rambling based on your own limitations, pull yourselves together, and think twice before writing anything!

I am not belittling the work of the AK. I haven't seen such a thorough analysis of the situation before. But I don't see the point in continuing the discussion about "whether he is guilty or not." We can only discuss whether his actions deserve a ban.

Of course, we can talk about his psychological profile. Find out if his actions are related to his childhood, problems with his parents, etc. But why?