Yes, it seems arbitrary and also really harsh for a first time for this kind of offense. Shouldn't it at least be a warning at first then escalating punishment for repeated violations, no?Problem is that the rules are too vague. What constitutes a warning, versus a direct prize pool reduction? Out of all the possible rule breaks, I feel like missing a ~5 minute interview is one of the least problematic ones there is. Yet apparently it was severe enough to skip the warning completely and go straight to the prize pool reduction
Also, why $300? Why not $50? Or $500? Seems super arbitrary. There needs some kind of pre-established guidelines on what kind of rule breaches are severe and what kinds of rule breaches are minor.
I also don't see the real problem, personally. Nicov may not have played in the set but he's trained with the rest of the team and practiced with them so of course he would have ability to provide information.