This is kind of right, but it dances around the point. It's not that theory would rather I cheat one way than another, it's that theory chose to change the rules to make a certain action not cheating. Since he is the tournament organizer, I took all actions he declared non-DQable to be, by definition, not cheating. I really cannot figure out why I have to say this so many times.
There's a number of reasons you have to say it so many times, the largest being that it makes no sense.
Particularly when you tried to take the "principled" stance in regards to theory telling you not to make the e-mail chain public.
In that case there also would have been no consequences had you disregarded what theory told you, yet then you said you didn't want to publish the conversation because you respect theory and want to do as he requests.
I'm still curious why you think his request for you to not use the PCE is not the same. In both cases there would have been no consequences, yet in one case you acquiesced and in the other you did not.
Did you not respect theory when he made the first request and found that respect when he made the second? Does there being a prize override the ethics that guided your second decision?
Why did you take the noble stand of listening to theory's request one time and the noble stand of not listening to theory's request the other?