The opponent has 10 minutes to do something with the miner. They do nothing but shuffle pieces around for the whole of that time. So 10 minutes no progress = guilty.
Not only is capturing pieces viewed as progress, but advancing important pieces to important areas and locations with the imminent intent to make progress is also viewed as progress. Please read the rules on draw refusal which stipulate this. Just because no pieces were captured in 10 pieces does not automatically assume a guilty verdict. You have to look at the big picture, not just glance at the graveyards and shout "Guilty!"
And then nonobadork is implied to be dishonest because the defeat screen is obscuring the miner ! The defeat screen covers 60% of the board ! What is nonobadork meant to do here ? They have already given the opponent 10 minutes and the player did nothing but shuffle around. Should nonobadork wait another 3 or 4 minutes for his opponent to move the miner to an unobscured lane ?
ok, now I understand where you got 60% from. You were looking at the defeat screen. But, since that's the case, you're looking at the wrong screenshot. Take a look at the second one. The miner is covered by the second draw refusal screen, which is decidedly smaller than the defeat screen and covers only 12%, nowhere close to "60%" of the board.
You state that "the player did nothing but shuffle around". Obviously, that is false. Look at the first screenshot and observe how both of nonobadork's pieces are free to move. And how commandeur's miner hasn't yet moved.
Then look at the second screenshot. Observe how one of nonobadork's pieces is now trapped. And how the miner has now moved and, evidently, is now in the opponent's territory. That's not shuffling around, that's playing with intent and a mind to progress.
But somehow it is not guilty because 'the miner was behind the defeat screen' and so was 'obviously' going to take the flag. Well if it was so obvious and straightforward why had the miner not taken the flag already ?
Well, I nor another MT member never said what you have in quotes, so perhaps you are attempting to paraphrase. In that case, please recognize that your paraphrase should read "the miner was behind the draw refusal screen" rather than "defeat screen" because there is a pretty huge difference.
"Why had the miner not taken the flag already" -> Again, there were several things that commandeur had to do to be able to advance the miner and capture the flag. Nonobadork had two moving pieces and commandeur needed to make that just one, in order to take advantage of the more-squares rule and advance past the colonel into the opponent's setup. Commandeur did these things. It wasn't like it was just a straight shot to the flag and all commandeur had to do was click the "up" button until he got there. His work was cut out for him, especially against a platinum player, but he did all the things that he had to in order to progress the game and make the capture of the flag possible.
That quote is 100% correct. The position of the miner at the end is not relevant to the case. The miner had 10 minutes. Time is up.
This one is really confusing. "The position of the miner at the end is not relevant to the case". Sorry, but this is coming from a former MT member? What??
The position of the miner isn't relevant? The position of the miner is everything! Toby, since you've been on MT I'm surprised I have to say this, but you can't just look at the clock and the graveyard and arrive to a conclusion on every single case. Some cases are more involved than that! This case is one of them. The position of the miner is everything in this case. In 10 minutes, commandeur was able to trap a piece of nonobadork's and, as a result, was able to advance his miner into the opponent's territory. And you tell me that it doesn't matter that the miner is in the opponent's territory? Of course it does! Progress isn't just looking at the graveyards; progress is also the positioning of the pieces and advancement of the pieces. I will again refer you to the draw refusal rules on that one.
The most annoying case I had in MT was a player that reported a draw refusal when he had a colonel, not much else, a 'tripod', but a deceptive open flag. The opponent had a colonel, no miners, but about 6 pieces to lotto with. From the board position it was clear the accused player had a clear path to start lottoing and only needed 10 moves to do so. After 200 moves they had lottod nothing. But in the defeat screen the draw refuser had a piece moving towards the flag, so my colleagues insisted this proved the player was 'progressing' towards the win. My argument was that 200 moves is more than enough time to lotto so it was unreasonable for them to be given anymore. That a piece was near the flag was irrelevant as they had already been next to the flag and then moved away. It didn't matter that the flag was open. It wouldn't have mattered if the flag had been on the front row because if you don't lotto you can't hit it .
This is a nice example... but it's not really related all that much to this case. In your example, the opponent has a clearly huge matieral advantage and has a straight shot to the flag, whenever he wants to. This is not commandeur's case. Commandeur has to make progress before he can get to the flag like trapping nonobadork's piece. He did this in the 10 minutes window. This is progress. And now he can get to the flag - but now nonobadork won't let him, because he quickly surrenders before he can and tries to claim the points.
I have encountered many players like the opponent in this game. They get into an unexpected good position against a much higher opponent where they can try for the flag, but they get scared to take the initiative and guess wrong*. When you start offering draws they will make comments such as 'but you are not doing anything!', because they would prefer to have you lotto into their bombs and take the responsibility of trying to win away from them.
*that the opponent 'knew' the correct flag placement I don't think is right to assume in any case. I played someone who was on 1000 elo that had the flag in the right side position.
That's wonderful that you've encountered players like that... but who's to say that commandeur plays the same way? Nothing nonobadork brings to us shows or proves that.
About the flag placement - that's precisely my point - 99.9999999999% of silver players would head to the corner and not to the side, because they're silver players... not 1000 ELO players.
Either way, there was loads of progress made in the 10 minutes that made it impossible to rule guilty. This includes:
1) Commandeur trapped one of nonobadork's pieces
2) Nonobadork's mobility was severely limited by this
3) Commandeur, after trapping the piece, was able to move his miner into play
4) Commandeur moved his miner down the lane and took advantage of the more squares rule against nonobadork
5) Commandeur has the potential to win the game and capture the flag, as a result of securing the advantage in the more squares rule, and appears to be taking advantage of that presently. There is a very high probability that commandeur is advancing to the flag with the intent to take it as nonobadork surrenders.