Ruling on
Michielleus vs
Lechen
Situation:
In Game 4 of the series between Michielleus and Lechen, an incident occurred on Turn 2 in which "Lechen" logged out and subsequently logged back in as "lechen." This action triggered an automatic forfeit, as Pokémon Showdown (PS) recognized the change in capitalization as a name change, resulting in disqualification. This behavior has been confirmed: PS does in fact disqualify you for changes in capitalization.
Typically, forfeits are always treated as a loss, no matter the reason. "Tough luck, you shouldn't have accidentally forfeited." On the other hand, disconnects are handled on a case by case because disconnecting because of say, your internet connection, shouldn't mean you lose the game. Fundamentally, things out of your control are given more leeway.
While this was a literal forfeit, the forfeit was forced by PS. In spirit, the circumstances are more akin to a disconnection caused by an external factor, and as such, it merits a case-by-case evaluation.
Ordinarily, disconnects are managed by utilizing PS features to recreate the battle with identical teams and resuming at the point of interruption. However, in Random Battles, such an approach presents complications, as it is possible to get a player’s entire team from the battle replay. In the worst case scenario, one person knows how to do it and they gain a huge advantage, and even if both players know how to do it, at that point you're not playing Random Battles, you're playing Random Battles + Team Preview. Recreating with same teams is not a viable option.
(It's been long enough that we can't recreate it using PS in-built features anyway, but it would've raised some interesting questions).
The decision ultimately comes down to either awarding Michielleus the win based on the technical forfeit or voiding the original Game 4 and scheduling a new Game 4 entirely.
On the concept of "precedence": one could argue that if this game gets replayed, then any player can simply trigger an auto forfeit on turn 2 if they feel that they have a bad team/matchup. However, that issue can be solved easily by acknowledging that this one time was a freak accident and should be replayed, and moving forward it will always be a loss, to avoid exploitation of a ruling. The root is finding a solution that is fair in this context, and trusting our successors to use common sense in the future.
Is it unfair for Michielleus to have to play a new game? He didn't make his opponent log out and log in again. He didn't make PS cause a forfeit. If he had some sort of perceived advantage by Turn 2, no matter how small, that advantage is gone through no fault of his own.
Is it unfair for Lechen to lose the game? While he did make the actions that led to a forfeit, could anyone have foreseen that changing from "Lechen" to "lechen" would lead to an auto forfeit? How much personal responsibility do you attribute to Lechen?
Both perspectives are reasonable. No one is unsportsmanlike for appealing for a win. The key here is that what happened was not a simple accidental forfeit, it was an issue with PS itself. What happened deserves a more nuanced treatment than, "Unfortunate, but you did forfeit so you lose." Given the context of the original game, Michielleus would not be wronged by playing a new game and would not be receiving any sort of real disadvantage.
Decision:
Given these considerations,
the ruling is to void the original Game 4 and replay it. This approach maintains fairness for both players, acknowledges the unusual nature of the situation, and ensures that the outcome of the match is determined by skill rather than an unexpected technical quirk. Additionally, establishing a rule to treat name-change forfeits as losses in future cases will help prevent exploitation and set clear expectations moving forward.
