If the issue is just about who wins a competition, then it does not even need be discussed here.
Underneath of it all, there has been a philosophical difference in how you reward/encourage technical innovations and challenging more difficult elements. And, it has not been settled, which gives an excuse and a legitimacy for this crap about Plushenko which is just a symptom of it.
The philosophical difference is being brought -- again -- to the ISU after the World, like it or not, because they do not limit the issue to Plushenko. They understand the fundamental issue here and want to do something about it. The system is to evolve, which is what is happening.
I agree in general to philosophy behind the current one. But, it needs a better compromise for the sake of the long term stability of the system as I believe there will be more controversies on this issue in future. And, there is a good chance that the philosophy behind the system itself will be challenged unless a better compromise is achieved.
Just don't limit this to a symptom, namely Plushenko the loser (or the imaginary Mao crap).