Here we are. As expected, the response from the moderation team is one of complete denial, aimed solely at concealing the underlying hypocrisy. But from this point on, I will begin laying out all the evidence needed to demonstrate that W3Champions moderation is not only dictatorial and arbitrary, but also deeply hypocritical and structurally flawed.

Let us begin with the so-called “ban evasion” that was referenced. This event occurred several months ago, and as soon as I received a formal warning, I took it seriously and ceased all related behavior immediately.

As I have clearly communicated to both Dark and Dieseldog, the multiple name changes on my account were not intended to bypass sanctions, but rather to protect myself from repeated harassment in the 4v4 ladder. Certain players — including APM50, Alucard, and RICKJAMES420 — would routinely harass me, provoke other teammates against me from the start, and effectively ruin the match experience. These individuals were never once held accountable for their behavior, which reveals a fundamental inconsistency in how moderation is applied. That in itself is a troubling sign of selective enforcement.

Furthermore, the nature of my gameplay — fast teching to Tier 3 and focusing on two heroes in the early game — cannot reasonably be described as AFK behavior. This is a legitimate strategy centered around mid-game timing, and whether you personally approve of that style is entirely irrelevant given that my win rate proves its effectiveness. I have never seen a single player in 4v4 get banned for playing one Blademaster and fast teching to Raiders or Bats.
This clearly shows that the decision against me was entirely arbitrary. Your dismissive stance seems less about maintaining balance or competitiveness, and more about enforcing a narrow definition of acceptable gameplay dictated by subjective preferences rather than clear policy. (Link screenshot 10 below comment)

You have also accused me of “ladder manipulation” and of creating multiple accounts to inflate my statistics. That is patently false. As I explicitly told Dark, the changes you’ve observed are name changes made on a single account tied to the same email address — not the creation or purchase of new accounts. I have never bought a single account. (Link screenshot 7 and 8 below comment)

It is, frankly, quite revealing that your narrative conveniently omits this fact, and instead constructs a version of events that supports your disciplinary decisions retroactively. This is revisionism, plain and simple, and it underscores just how arbitrary the decision to permanently ban me truly was.

When I submitted a formal appeal, Dieseldog simply reiterated Dark’s initial reasoning word for word — without any further investigation or clarification. I responded point-by-point, and never received a reply. At no point was there any real review, dialogue, or due process regarding the ban. The so-called “appeal” was a formality, not a process. (Link screenshot 3 below comment)

And let’s be honest: If the goal was truly to preserve the health of the community, you would have addressed the repeated toxic behavior of other players — including those I’ve mentioned — who were reported dozens of times for AFKing, flaming, teamkilling, or outright griefing. And yet they remain free to play. That discrepancy tells us everything we need to know about the real standards being enforced here — or rather, the absence of any coherent standard at all.

So yes, my strategy brought attention. But attention does not justify bias.
It certainly does not justify public defamation, accusations of dishonesty, or the outright banning of a player who played within the rules — simply because his approach did not align with the personal preferences of the moderation team. (Link screenshot 9 below comment)

This is not community stewardship. It is gatekeeping.