If you are going to make a blatantly biased rule for no reason other then the fact that people don't like pirated kg, but at the same time can admit there is nothing wrong with them, then do it.
Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Don't rule in favor as bias being your premises. Otherwise, your premises is rendered null as you appeal to your own argument in favor of yourself.
Fallacies: A) Appeal to Value. B) Cherry-picking. C) Hasty Generalization.
A: You're appealing to your own beliefs above all else, regardless of the majority being against you.
B: You're poking only at "bias" and nothing else. It's your only argument which you contradict yourself with.
C: You assume it's bias under the belief that we're doing it because we don't like it rather than "you could have done it, but you chose not to."
Need I go on as a lawyer/philosopher to show you the "needless to say"?
Then I honestly think anyone who would agree to such a thing is an idiot.
Fallacies: A) Poisoning the Well. B) Appeal to ignorance.
A: Attacking the person rather than the argument.
B: Situating yourself in the limbo where, unless people agree with you, everyone is wrong simply because.
And, we have been saying what's wrong with pirated kg. Have we not? I refer you back to my racing analogy. You had the same chance of getting and fixing up a car to race and compete with. Instead, you decided to underhand your way into the competition and are stuck with a go-cart. Instead of having worked for the things the other contenders have, you decided to wait until the last minute and ask for a car on par with theirs. After all, you got in the race -- why should you have to use a car that's yours when they should let you borrow one of theirs to be fair?