Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

First, he asks not to engage in demagoguery, and then he writes lengthy posts about the loss of moral values in the younger generation.

I like the numerous expert opinions that, formally, the rules were not violated, but again, these are just subjective opinions. They've watched too many American movies about courts and lawyers, and now everyone thinks they're a successful lawyer, but has even a tenth of them even looked at the civil code? Not every lawyer can explain the rule of law, the hierarchy of laws and regulations, the principles of how norms work, the difference between notes, recommendations, and explanations, but all the protesting forum users definitely know that a note is not more important than the rules and have definitely determined which of the rules has the highest authority. Well, never mind, it's not that important anymore. If you think so, think so.

Well, what else is left besides subjective opinions? Given the vagueness of the wording of the decision issued by the Arbitration Committee. In this thread, there are two questions from the participants themselves. The first was asked by Nitro at the very beginning: did Redwhite violate the fair play rule? The second, from Redwhite after the decision was published: according to which rule was a rematch ordered? The Arbitration Committee did not provide an official answer to either of these questions; it looks as if the Arbitration Committee did not follow the rules at all when making the decision. It seems to me that if the answers to these questions had been given immediately, many further discussions could have been avoided.

And regarding "If you think so, think so" - I would like more details. We still have to play by these rules, and I would like the understanding of the rules to be the same for ordinary players and representatives of the Arbitration Committee. Do you think that the comments on the rules have more weight than the rules themselves? Or will we twist these norms depending on the situation? How does this dismissive attitude towards the rules that apply to everyone relate to high moral qualities?