K so, we only can't deduct one stock magically, because there's no in game means to do this, so players suicide.
Correct.
That doesn't change the intention of the rule, which is that pausing should never be used to advantage oneself. Obviously this is very subjective, so to make it simple, you take a stock loss when you pause, or two if pausing causes your opponent to die.
That doesn't mean anything. Judo did not intend to use pausing to give advantage to himself, I can say that, and subjectivty of the matter aside, this is concerning the ACTUAL ABILITY TO TAKE JUDO'S STOCK OFF BEFORE GAME APPEARS. Game appeared before Judo could possibly do anything, AND Logic was dead garunteed.
Therefore, the pause rule CAN NOT be enforced; i.e.; "deduct one stock; player suicides", because it was impossible during the time frame.
Not seeing why that's a problem, he wasn't forced to pause, the simple solution to this problem is....don't pause.
It's a problem because his match was
invalidated, instead of looking at the possibility or impossibilty of him even being able to remove his own stock by conventional means. It's already been ruled that it was impossible for him to kill himself in the time frame between using his kill move on logic and "GAME" appearing on the screen.
Why is the verdict wrong may I ask? If someone quits the match even after they're to our knowledge guaranteed to win, should they still win? If someone suicides while their opponent is flying off the top, should they still win?
It's wrong IN THIS CASE because the rule states stock loss, while Judo simply had his match invaliadated and a rematch was schedule, which is incredibly unfair and not anywhere in the realm of enforcing said vague rule
in the FIRST PLACE.
Ok, first thing's first, the pausing rule isn't that vague.
In this case, it's pretty clear that Judo loses according to the rule.
No, in this case, it's pretty clear that Judo loses a stock by means of SD or KO by submission according to this rule, and not magical means or invaliadation. No where in the rule does it say that pausing cases you to lose your stock via any other means, NOR does it say your match didn't count. The latter is the case in this matter.
The rule isn't a problem, when it's pretty simply solved by not pausing, we don't need to care about people accidentally pausing, because that's their fault really.
Otherwise we'd have a page just on the pausing rule, describing what situations you can pause in, what the consequences are, etc.
It's a problem when their isn't amendments to said rule regarding situations such as this where it's clear the TO didn't have an easy decision based on the factors given to her, and simply did something completely unrelated to the rule on her own accord. Giving Judo the loss OR making him rematch Logic BOTH invalidate his win against Logic, instead of attempting to make him lose a stock, like the rule states.
TL;DR: Judo's match was invalidated, instead of his stock being at least attempted to being taken away. "Herp derp, I paused, I better go SD, oh look I can't,
because my opponent is already dead, would you look at that! GUESS THAT MEANS I WIN LIKE IM SUPPOSED TO BECAUSE THE RULE DIDN'T COVER THE WHOLE "LOSE ONE STOCK" by some OTHER arbitrary means"
EDIT: I argued my reasoning for this, I guess if you want to make it black-and-white the rules should read
"If Player is to pause mid-match, they are to SD once, or, let the opponent take one stock from Player. If player pauses with one stock, that player has lost the round."
But it doesn't.
None of this was actually enforced and Judo just had to have his round invalidated and restart at game 3.
I think I'm going to go lay down now, I may think about this some more later, especially after seeing the stream footage.