...and it seems he messed up this tournament, so he had no reason to get upset.

Timeline
May 26 - my third game with Pit ended.
May 28 - Neo contacts me on ICQ at the initiative of "foreigners" (black_knight) regarding saves with Pandora, Craig, and Ivore.
May 31,
16:32 - Sticky publishes the saves on HW.
16:37 - Sticky writes to me on ICQ, asking for clarification on my reasoning, with a focus on the saves of Tazar with the dungeon, Utopia of Orange, and he already read about the others (i.e., from Neo).
June 1, 21:42 - Sticky informs me on ICQ that he is banning me from the championship with the wording "I really don't like your explanations."
June 2, 00:11 - my "freakout" began. It was already after that.

Judges/Judges, list on the organizer's website
StickyFingaz - 465786677
black_knight - 418200606
Pit for LM - 471401475
Tiamath - 604764851
Spell5632 - 641391788

Questions to the organizer.
1. If there was a vote among the judges regarding my question, what were the results and the final wording (why is this information closed)?
2. Did interested parties - black_knight and Pit for LM - participate in the decision to ban me?
3. If the opinion of "not the least important people in the community" was used in making the decision to ban me, then again - who and how expressed their opinion, and with what conclusions?
4. If the saves were published on HW, was it assumed that the discussion would be linked to the decision to ban me?
5. Even if it's post-factum, how (criteria, characteristics) were the judges selected? (I'm almost afraid to ask) Who is Spell5632?
A general question, regarding the regulations of all tournaments. Why are some players punished with technical defeats for in-game violations (red-rush, using a banned hero...), while others are given rematches? Who decides this, and what is the motivation? After all, the cost of a minor violation is far from comparable to the result of an entire game.