That was a horrible apology Thnikk. Try again and mean it this time. Your initial reaction was one of the most immature things I've read on this board, and that's saying a lot.
I didn't respond to that thread, so here's my $0.02.
That thread almost increased Thnikk's standing in my book, minus the post editing and initial whining. That's not saying much though, since his standing was already pretty low. ><
Mock is wrong in thinking that the color was a required part of the answer. It wasn't. No matter which way you look at the ACTUAL question, it just wasn't there.
A correct answer could have been given in the following form:
#3 can see the color of #2's hat. #4 can see both hats in front of him but still doesn't know what color his hat is. This must mean that #2 and #3 have different color hats, and thus, #3 would know the color of his hat.
Mock's question did not include a request for color, so why should it be implied that the color is required? Sculli even agreed that you can't imply in a riddle, yet we're trying to make a portion of the question implied? You don't imply a question. You specifically state it. The questions should have been written like this, "Who knew the color of their hat? What was the color of their hat and how did they know?" See the difference between that and this, "Who knew the color of their hat and why?" If not, go back to grade school.
As for why everyone was including colors in their answers, look at my answer above; it’s difficult to follow. It's much easier to follow if you specify the colors.
Having said that, it's Mock's riddle and he can award the winnings to anyone and disqualify anyone for any reason he sees fit. I do agree; however, that he needs to work on basic reading comprehension. Shame on Sculli for not noticing it either. You can't imply a question?!