I think we've reached some kind of grey area with this mod, especially when linking it with the current wording of the ruleset:
If we talk about "real" cheats (gamechanging cheats or whatever you'd like to name it) like aimbots or autoblocks, it is way easier to determine a real advantage that was gained. An archer found using aimbot and making 15 ranged kills with 12 headshots in that match, probably even being recorded by someone, gives us a way better basis to work with when making a decision about "advantages", punishments and in general evaluating any cases like this. Same with someone found using autoblock and winning two flag melee fights without a shield in that match.
But now, with this mod, it is really difficult. There is no definition or detailed information given about what kind of advantage we talk. Is a theoretically possible advantage enough to punish someone? Or is at least a certain persuasion and certainty based on evidence necessary to punish someone? (like in my above mentioned examples). Even if anyone would actively use the class composition given on his screen in a match, would anyone of us be able to confidently distinguish whether this information created an advantage or not? Especially if there is no recording? This might be the case once in 1000 rounds being played.
I personally just can't ascribe any possible advantage anyone might gain using that mod enough significance to be punished for. (Why?: As I tried to explain above: I think the probability to really gain an advantage is close to 0)
Right now all that the admin team can base decisions on is a screen with 3 numbers on. It just shows that Donut (or me back in WNL6) played with the modification, but not that he used the given information. There is no further evidence that shows any case in which we reacted to the enemies composition in a way we could only do if we would have had additional information. There was no situation in which this would have been necessary at all. Therefore I think you can not even punish him based on the current ruleset, as I said at the start: I believe this mod revealed a "juridical" grey area in our Warband ruling, as it simply is **** hard to get proper evidence to base a decision on.
@Watly:
I can just assume, but the admin team might have chosen this way as they have similar thoughts as I have:
"...using game modifications in order to gain an advantage..."
Judging this case is based on nothing than a big big assumption about Donut
MIGHT having used the information to gain an advantage. And there is no way for the admin team to get closer to any certainty without getting further evidence. And now they had to make a decision with this in mind, with the discussion about possible advantages AND with consequences in mind, which this decision could lead to. Horrible...