No. You may be borrowing this stance from graphic design, which has a (mistakenly) rigid position on "spec work", complete with a "no-spec!" movement that generates complaints in any forum where the notion of a design contest is introduced. Graphic designers feel victimized by "contests" that were actual thinly-veiled attempts to solicit actual uncompensated work. When thinking about no-spec, you should remember that other professions --- particularly law --- routinely do speculative work in the hopes of inking long-term deals with lucrative customers.
There are exploitative contests for software developers. For instance, when a platform vendor hosts a "come up with the best new application for our platform!" contest; whether the contest is rigged or not, all those developers are doing gratis work for the platform, sinking costs that the vendor hopes will result in salable IP bound to their platform.
This, on the other hand, is a video game. The game happens to be controlled in terms of software. The best strategies and solutions for the video game have no value to anyone. Nobody's platform is being built up by gratis work generated by unsuspecting developers. Instead, time that might have been spent playing Netrek or OpenTTD is being spent on a more interesting game.
One way to tell the difference between an exploitative game and "just a game" is whether the organizer of the game gets something more than "publicity" and "stats on the people who played" (both of which are natural outcomes of running any online game). For example, in the exploitative platform game I alluded to above, the organizers got a raft of new applications for their platform that they didn't have to pay for.
I haven't looked carefully at this game, but I sure have run other games --- https://microcorruption.com is one of them --- and I'm happy to discuss them with you as long as you want until you understand that nobody is being exploited by them.