Ignoring the fact it was a rather artificial double chase that you allowed because you could have won that game at any time*, Napoleon, the chase you showed was broken after 21 chasing moves in your video, not 25. Plus it ended in a victory for you.
Why the first condition of draw refusal should hold is an arbitrary matter but seemingly acceptable considering no one ("noone" still wrong
) has spoken against it. Why the second condition of draw refusal should hold is because the MT has been of the opinion that draw refusal needs to be of a severe enough level to warrant the awarding of win/loss points for it since we cannot enforce the matter in a live way like a live arbiter or hard programming.
In those circumstances the award is merely the cessation of the behavior (Nortrom's exception noted). Here we operate after the fact and cannot stop minor infractions in real time. Because of this, we must ignore all very minor cases of d/m chasing, where a block of the movement would be the only proper response, and only look at those cases where the behavior is bad and would deserve the ELO/ban kinds of punishments that we can apply.
To this end we have felt a victory by the victim meant, by definition, that the d/m chasing wasn't bad enough to warrant any kind of MT action.
On the other hand, it was argued by TheO that the chase should be independent of the victim's actions once the double chase threshold has been crossed. While a fair point, I would contend we have a new rule here and should maintain the conservative approach. We've made a concession to accept tie screens in d/m chasing cases, and perhaps we can expand this enforcement even more later to include victory screens**, but for now I think we should require the game to end in a defeat or tie screen for the victim before the MT accepts the case.
Another problem with accepting victory screen cases would be the penalty schedule. What penalty would you like to see in victory screen cases? If the penalty now is "loss of game plus a warning" for the first two levels, then what would you have that change to since the culprit has already lost the game? What would you want to see happen, penalty-wise, for a 1st and 2nd offense?
*We will have to include in the rule a provision preventing any guilty decision in artificial situations like that.
**The 5/25 plan needs to be put through the rigors of actual game cases for awhile before moving to accepting victory screen cases.