It's also unethical when they use bots as profiles. You get a 1,100 rated player playing a 1600 disguised as a human profile rated at 1000. The chess.com crew are unethical, immoral people who only care about profits.
You know, except for the fact the site doesn't do that. 
What's disgraceful is that Chess.com refuses (absolutely refuses) to add a classical rating system on the site and stop focusing on entirely speed chess. Danny holds the site hostage with his weird speed fetish while anyone serious about Chess just winds up going and playing elsewhere. What remains here are all of the non increment speed chess casuals.
@erik has posted that they are planning on a more classical pool, but said the way the DB was architected makes non-trivial to do.
bear with a process , even if it leaves you left out at present , it can in the future include you and what you want from the site , be patient do not alienate those who can put in place the changes you desire , of course offer feedback even if that is critical but do it in a way that gets folk onside mate , esp those who are the ones making the decisions ,
It's easy to implement as all of the other sites were never constructed any other way. Why he decided to make a bullet rating here but no classical in the first place is just baffling. The man has a weird, bizarre speed fetish ...which is fine. But he needs not hold the rest of the site hostage with it.
The site started in 2007. Early on I believe it was just blitz and standard (now called rapid) and they likely figured that there wasn't a large demand for really long time controls, and the demand that may be there wasn't sufficient for a separate pool.
I know through the years there have been requests for a more classical type of pool, and apparently up until relatively recently, that was something the site decided not to do. Pretty sure it wasn't some arbitrary decision.
I did an arena today, a blitz (rated) one, and I managed to destroy all my opponents because I was 300 in blitz when I joined, I only got low opponents when my highest opponent was 1000. I am rated 1000 in rapid, so other then winning against the odds, (1000 and 850 elo player). If you were to show my games and tell others that I am 1000 in rapid, it makes sense. I feel like I am going to get banned just for using a technique, which just works and allowed me to win and not face against anyone above 1000. I need reassurance about this, because I did join the arena without knowing if it would have worked.
Those may be training matches! I did some games with a 2700+ rated player so he could teach me skills recently
I did an arena today, a blitz (rated) one, and I managed to destroy all my opponents because I was 300 in blitz when I joined, I only got low opponents when my highest opponent was 1000. I am rated 1000 in rapid, so other then winning against the odds, (1000 and 850 elo player). If you were to show my games and tell others that I am 1000 in rapid, it makes sense. I feel like I am going to get banned just for using a technique, which just works and allowed me to win and not face against anyone above 1000. I need reassurance about this, because I did join the arena without knowing if it would have worked.
As long as you're playing fairly, you have nothing to worry about.
https://support.chess.com/article/648-what-do-i-need-to-know-about-fair-play-on-chess-com
I have no problem with GMs and high rated players in general. For as much as I care, they can smack lower rated players for fun as much as they like. More power to them, all my respect considered for their skill. However, in this very moment, there is a big problem. Arena rules are idiotical, considering the ongoing Leagues tournament. If you allow some people to win 95-100% of their matches, then your competition is a joke. Just say from the start that there is no fair play involved and that's that.