@smmenen You obliterated the meaning of the word "unfairness" in using it to refer to both defects in the thing being tested by a process (ex: skill in Magic, due to inexperience for example) as well as defects in the testing process (ex: one player has a room full of professional players giving them advice)
It's correct and wise to say that a court where you can't face your accuser is unfair
It's incorrect and foolish to say that a court where overwhelming evidence of your guilt is presented is also unfair
Your post suggests that fairness is a black/white or objective idea, when it fact, it has subjective elements. Think about trades - some trades people think are fair, and others inequitable.
Is it unfair that some people have larger collections or more money for cards to enjoy a strategic advantage over their opponents? Probably. Is it unethical? No.
Is it unfair that some basketball players have height advantages? Possibly. But is it unethical? Definitely not.
Even ethics, a branch of philosophy, depends upon premises and values, which people disagree on (see, for example, how Rawls constructs starting principles in Justice as Fairness).
I don't pretend to have an answer here, but I felt my role in the podcast was to complicate the issue a bit by introducing elements that could be seen as unfair from some perspectives.
I think Boxian gets it right or close to right when he says that twitch has the capacity to exacerbate existing unfairnesses, but I don't necessarily see that as unethical.
I think we were talking about ethics in the podcast, and you are talking about fairness.
Let's not confuse fairness with ethics.
I agree that enforceability is a concern, but since a perfectly enforceable rule has never been created in the history of humanity,
Yeah - but rules that inherently unenforceable are especially problematic because they foster disrespect for other rules. If people feel they can violate one rule with impunity, then it undermines a culture of rule following. See Wall Street.