Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

So, here's an attempt at an answer, although it's not entirely straightforward, as the concept of fairness is still based on subjectivity:
After the aforementioned actions, the game as such was essentially "killed" in that match.
There was neither unfair play nor fair play; there was simply no game at all.
Instead, there was an exploitation of an infinite resource advantage gained through a subjective interpretation of the rules' shortcomings.
And no actions by the opponent could prevent this.
The game implies competition, until the very end, until one of the sides achieves the game objective, equivalent to victory, or someone surrenders.
But where was the competition?
And since there was no game, there's no point in talking about the result.
What turned the game into a mockery? It was due to actions that were supposedly not prohibited, although their legitimacy is highly questionable even from the point of view of the rules in effect at that time.