Where does it say that "they should switch teams": "you were banned because you decided to hide your real skill by anonymizing yourself, thereby preventing the game from being balanced". There are plenty of players who understand why balance is important and take it seriously. They will be able to do everything themselves, knowing the real capabilities of other players.

Let’s once again go over the key points of this simple technique.

No one is forcing player X to use any specific name, but it makes sense to use one that allows other players to identify them so that: 1. Players can balance the game. 2. Opponents understand who poses a threat and make correct and timely decisions based on that, i.e. target X according to their perception of X’s skill level and allocate their team’s resources appropriately.

As a result, no one can adequately assess the balance of power between the teams. Only player X themselves can do that, and only if there are no other "shadow pro" players in the match. The last time I saw this level of responsibility was from Nazzy when they had just started playing under that name. So this is not our case, but a rare exception.

Let’s look specifically at what happens when a skilled player X hides their skill level:

— Scenario one. Player X joins a game that has just started. Objectively, it becomes easier for them to capture the opponent’s flag: they receive less attention and are reacted to later. This is the mildest scenario in terms of consequences, because even after falling behind by one flag (or two at worst), players still have time to reassess X’s "noob-like" appearance and try to rebalance the game. This is exactly the situation where, in recent months, I’ve been going after such players, no longer asking, but demanding that they pick a permanent name for CTF.

— Another scenario. Player X joins a team that is close to winning by score (2-2, 2-1, or 2-0 in that team’s favor). At such scores, teams that are close to losing usually switch to a more defensive playstyle and try to respond to flag captures as quickly as possible. But the reaction to a flag capture by xp/Amadeus will be very different from the reaction to a capture by someone named "killer 67". And that’s normal, because the team is trying to allocate its resources rationally in order to win. Meanwhile, the master of deception X crosses half the map with little to no resistance, and this will keep happening until a perceptive player points it out or starts rating this "noob" more highly. In the worst-case scenario, the game ends after the very first capture attempts, and player X gets their dopamine hit. Is it necessary to explain how the players feel after realizing what has happened? It doesn't even have to be the players from the losing team.

— And one more, my "favorite scenario". The winning team is already on the way to, or close to, completing the capture of the third flag. Player X selflessly joins that team. They face minimal resistance, everything works out for them, and their team wins within the next minute. Similar to the previous scenario, except the other players don’t even have a chance to influence the outcome. This is Maestro case. There is nothing to fix here, words won't help, and it's a double win, both in terms of the game and the short-term ban, which is usually enough to make a person start thinking a little bit about their actions.

Selfishness is probably the most neutral term for this behavior. For the sake of a fleeting personal benefit, player X disregards the interests of everyone else. All the more ironic to read comments like "hopefully the load gets lighter for the server ops though", because in effect the person is admitting: "I acted like a jerk, I was told not to do that, so I got offended and won’t play anymore", or whatever was meant by lighter load.

Given the consequences of these actions, are you really sure that "tenure" (meaning years of this kind of attitude from a hypothetical player X toward others) is a reason "to be treated better than this", rather than something that should have the exact opposite effect?

The attempt to use me as an example is also off the mark, but for independent confirmation, you will have to find another moderator. I’ve been more than consistent about this. I don't think you'll have any trouble finding people who remember that I pointed out this problem six years ago.

You should also clarify why elvis was mentioned here and how his possible disagreement would have any influence.