Right I do see the difference. Thanks for clarifying. Well again at this point in time, I presumed the Seeding Event post doesn't necessarily have to be self-contained -- meaning one could just go to our jsfiddle on site (from our FAQ popup) to retrieve that piece of information.
It doesn't need to be self-contained, but people need to be sure the methodology was decided
before the seed was found. (otherwise you can change the methodology of interpreting a hash, if you didn't like how it looks).
And yes, we're not hiding anything, why would you say "I couldn't find it [jsfiddle] on their website." to make it sound like we're hiding our jsfiddle/code? You didn't look closely then!
You're 100% right. Somehow I didn't realize the "help" had a drop-down. (I actually clicked it to try, but i never noticed the drop down). But I did a really bad job at looking, so I'll give you that. The jsfiddle link is quite obvious in hindsight.
More precisely it seems you brought the issue up, as a Seeding Event (from your definition) should prove the fairness of *GAME RESULTS* and *GAME HASHES* in the same post, whereas my assumption/definition has been that it's the main objective of a Seeding Event post to prove the fairness of the *GAME HASHES* (and all addenda are extra), as the community here is already an accustomed one. Hence this argument. Is this reasonable to say?
People
only care the games are fair, and the hash chain is used to do that. You did prove you didn't grind, the hashchain (since you did the seeding event otherwise correctly) and you're also not doing anything weird (it's just BaB's v1, with a few constants changed) to convert a hash into a game result. So personally I am reasonably convinced the game seeding was done fairly, but I'm not sure it's done well enough to say it's provably fair (maybe "probably fair" is more appropriate?)