Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

There can be different types of unseemly victories: an unplayable situation for the opponent, exploiting loopholes in the rules in a losing situation, some kind of cheating using shrines in a situation where cheating is pitted against control, and so on. Not all victories are beautiful, especially in tournament games, where the result is more important.

Speaking for myself, I don't consider using a bug to be normal, and it's good that it was banned. But since in November there was a case of using a bug, and some members of the Arbitration Committee commented on it in such a way that everything was legal and correct, then to be consistent, we need to either acknowledge Redwait's victory, or acknowledge that they overlooked it in November and deduct points from/annul the result of that game between Maydak and Svarog. The absence of an official appeal from the "affected" party should not bother anyone; the members of the Arbitration Committee are aware of the situation anyway. After all, if one player openly cheats/looks at the opponent's screen and writes a report about it on the forum, and another confirms it, will the Arbitration Committee, knowing about the situation, remain inactive until the "affected" party writes a complaint to the Arbitration Committee?

And most importantly, regarding the rules. I believe that the most important meaning of any law is that everyone should be equal before it. The decisions of specific judges may vary from situation to situation, may be unfair to someone, etc. Judges are also people. But the rules must be the same for everyone. And the purpose of the rules is to minimize the intervention of judges in game situations and, conversely, to regulate most situations through the rules, so that there are fewer appeals to the Arbitration Committee. In the end, it is less offensive to be a hostage to the general rules for everyone than to be a hostage to an individual judge's decision, which, as we see, may not be based on the rules, but may have in mind some mythical "common sense."

If we use the current version of the rules, then prohibited bugs and "what is not prohibited is permitted" are written in the rules, and what is permitted is in the comments. It seems logical that the legal weight of the rules is greater than that of a comment on them? I am only talking about the formal side of the issue. From this point of view, Redwait did not violate anything. The only question that Nitro initially raised remains: was the rule of fair play violated? There has been no answer yet.