Cheated pokemon are very easy to catch and punish if there is a proper tournament with many EV checkers. So yes, your comparison is still invalid. And it's funny you still are arguing that EV editing is cheating, considering the next point.
I am in no way arguing that "EV editing is cheating". I am simply arguing the inapplicability of the analogy you used.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your convention used rules that are congruent with my argument. Doesn't that furthermore prove my point and make it more clear over what the community considers cheating? To even further this point, I got a PM 1 day prior to the con asking for assistance in editing their pokemon.
Again, not the subject of my posts. I was not arguing over what the community considers cheating.
At this point the argument is over semantics and not even about the original point.
Well, you are right about that.
I probably shouldn't have even stepped in to the argument, as indeed I was just making a minor point.
But, to clarify. It looked to me like you made an assertion that because a strategy is advantageous, one should implement it. That seemed to me to be basically asserting without supporting evidence that
either one should cheat,
or no possible strategies are actually cheating.
That's why I picked an action in the real world which is understood to be illegal (even though people frequently do it). If your point was the former, then my analogy illustrated that. If your point was the latter, then it didn't give a reason for it. Somebody could argue "using macros/automation/templates is cheating for <xxx> reason". And then you need to argue
that point. But your analogy didn't give a reason why using those techniques was not cheating.
So your analogy either argues that one should cheat, or it just reframes the question in different terms without giving a reason. My claim that your analogy was inapplicable was to point this out--not necessarily to take a side on whether specific strategies in Pokemon are cheating.