I followed your link and read your post. While I see your logic where unfortunately many others did not you yourself missed a critical part of my post. All of your examples cited "opening the letters simultaneously". You cited it that way, whether purposely or not, for a reason. Ethically speaking if all letters were opened at the same time one could conclude that anyone opening an envelope has some personal vested interest in what is inside. My only question to you with that roll you made is...when did you decide to give the gloves to your friend? Before you rolled and won or after? Ethically it makes a difference.

My post points out the possibility of an unethical roll where guildy B didn't decide to roll until after he saw guildy A lose. Since the game does not allow for simultaneous rolling it opens the door for unethical rolls.

Recite your last example with the envelopes but instead don't have them opened simultaneously. Have them opened one at a time with 1 person not wanting to open their envelope cause they are on a diet and don't want the cookies anyhow. Calculate the odds of winning for everyone. Now...have that person change their mind after seeing who lost and who won...and then decide to open their envelope as well. Not because they had a vested interest of what was inside...but instead because the didn't want the person who should have won...to be the winner. Recalculate the odds of everyone winning now. The odds are now different because of an unethical decision.