The admin team has examined this case and here's the verdict:
Rule #4 clearly states that smurfing is not allowed. The term smurfing is understood to be playing under a different identity (unknown accounts, newly-made accounts) so as to conceal or manipulate one's past achievements and reputation and thus gain an unfair advantage against an opponent. It seems that some people understand the term differently and define it only as "playing under two accounts, playing someone else's games in the same tournament, or sharing an account". There are also several cases from the past where smurfing was only understood as the latter definition and people under unknown accounts were allowed to play on (eg. CsK_Newborn). For this reason we will be amending the rules for future tournaments with a clearer explanation of what we define as smurfing.
Regarding Dziamdziak's case, signing up under another identity (Marillion) was a violation of CoT rule #4. Dziamdziak's justification was that he wasn't aware of breaking any rule but at the same time he agreed that "smurfing is where u r acting to be lower rated than u rly are". His Marillion account had a higher rating but his past achievements would have seeded him much more differently, which is the factor he might have underestimated. Despite that, however, he seems to have been aware of the essence of the definition.
The CoT rules (rule #4 in particular) were written with the intent to have every player participate under their known identity and thus guarantee fair seeding and an exciting experience for viewers. As this has been compromised, it is necessary for us to step in and enforce this rule.
Edie was in this case burdened with an unfair disadvantage as Dziamdziak played under an unknown account and was seeded incorrectly. Edie therefore receives an admin win for this match and advances to next round. For Dziamdziak this tournament ends unfortunately but it is our hope that we will see him participate in future tournaments and that the rule #4 will be understood correctly from now on.
You guys would make sh*tty lawyers, this interpretation of the rule is ridiculous, it really hurts to see something like this. I'm not saying he didn't smurf, but you simply can't enforce a rule made after the crime committed, well of course if you want to be fair, but that doesn't seem to be the case here (you didn't stated what will be considered a smurf, and it is obviously not clear, so those who wrote the rules are equally responsible for this, IMO).