Sub-year tour bans are inherently unfair. The severity of a blanket x-month ban is completely dependent on the point in the tournament schedule at which it is administered and what tournaments the person is currently playing. As Hogg said, the rationale behind punishment beyond a WCoP ban was to cover the corner case of a player whose WCoP participation was contingent on successfully cheating. For this hypothetical cheater, the consequences of getting caught are missing out on Tour, Classic, and any ongoing unofficials. If we say this is a fair punishment for this player, then it is overly harsh to undisputed, who must miss WCoP in addition to those tournaments. In reflecting on this situation, I am reminded of the common saying, "Don't treat everyone equally; treat them fairly." I think undisputed's ban should be adjusted to a WCoP-related punishment to more appropriately match the nature of his offense.
My suggestion: undisputed's ban is adjusted to a permalock to the WCoP team matching his current TD-verified location. He will not be allowed to play for other teams even if he does move, region rules change again, new teams form that encompass his current region, or his current team rejects him. To me, this is the most appropriate punishment for attempting to abuse a procedure intended to enhance player experience: taking the option away from them. It reduces the need for deterrence because as soon as someone tests these rules, they cannot try it again. As a bonus, the TDs will not have to worry about undisputed potentially trying this stunt again next year and likely succeeding because he won't be dumb enough to ask a TD for an IP check this time. If this is deemed too lenient, then I believe undisputed should simply be banned from this year's WCoP, possibly in conjunction with the aforementioned proposal.
I understand that this doesn't cover the case the original ruling sought to cover, but I think erring on the side of leniency is the best choice in cases in which we cannot devise completely fair solutions. Prioritizing deterrence may make WCoP an objectively better tournament in the short term, but unreasonable punishments damage the community's trust in the TD team in the long run, and WCoP is a tournament that so heavily relies on trust and goodwill to function. We must trust, of course, that people are honest about their residencies; even if we kick undisputed from this tournament, there will be savvier characters who will fake their IPs without needing to ask Hogg if their VPN is working. We must trust that teams will manage to end up balancing themselves, and players don't organize and form one or two super-teams that dominate the field. We must trust that people from weaker regions actually bother to participate in this whole spectacle despite the fact that the tour experience will favor only a handful of teams on average. I'm not saying the TDs shouldn't make serious efforts to try and uphold the integrity of this tournament, but I don't think it's a worthwhile tradeoff to try and enforce these policies through excessively harsh measures when so much of this tournament is contingent on people willfully participating.
While I understand that the nature of these punishments and what the TDs choose to prioritize is subjective and ultimately up to their discretion, I hope they will choose to act benevolently and, despite this incident and others, trust that the majority of its constituents will respect the integrity of WCoP without needing the threat of consequence to scare them into behaving.
