This isn't touching the point of the post you quoted. There is no authority involved whatsoever. If you wanna keep to that analogy, then a more precise version would be that the co-workers are having an internal, binary argument (2 possible outcomes) - no boss, no authority whatsoever is involved, just the co-workers alone as a collective.
Each co-worker is then, under peer-pressure, forced to take a polygraph test while giving their opinion. If they refuse, then they are already automatically branded indifferent.
Possible authority in our case if we were to break the analogy is Blizzard, which is not involved in this (or we would have seen action from them).
The co-workers in this analogy are the twinks.
This is the point.
This is a fallacy. Your 3rd party software will not be a tool of necessity in order to compete in some specific league or similar (unlike ESEA), nor will it be an anti-cheat tool, unless you want to contradict your previous statements of you not seeing the jump macro as cheating in the first place.
Moreover, ESEA is well known and still not without its doubters / controversies. There are quite a few people who sees this as invasive spyware and feel like its a breach on their privacy, and with good reason...
https://www.pcgamesn.com/esea-pay-1...eir-users-and-farming-bitcoins-their-machines
Installing a 3rd party software just to please a few doubters who don't know better is a big deal...
It feels like that either:
1) You are against the jump macro but not being open about it.
2) You got lied to about whether a certain player is using it or not and that somehow shapes your opinion of the macro rather than the player that lied to you.
In either of these scenarios, the outcome is a lot more likely to have a damaging effect rather than a positive one.
You definitely don't seem unbiased, judging by the amount of posts by now.