Several comments on this.
First and foremost (to my mind), I don't believe in the idea of the site telling anyone what strategy they are allowed to use. I would never want to play at a site that had enforced strategies.
I also don't consider that strategy "broken." Most people who do that strategy are good players to begin with, which is something I don't think many people consider. Do you have a way to prove that player would not have 86% hits if they did a different strategy?
There are tons and tons of threads on Board Game Geek on this topic. I've never tried this strategy, and have only played against it once, when I was fairly new to the game and didn't even know it was "a strategy," and didn't catch on til too late. But I've read a lot of posts about it. People who use the strategy claim they can beat you nearly every time. And people who don't use it claim they can stop the ones doing that strategy, but stopping it requires knowing how, and I would guess takes a commitment to doing so. It's also a strategy that works better in the long-term and not so much in the shorter term. (I'd say if there's something I don't like, it's being forced into playing the only way I can in order to counter-act a specific strategy.)
I watched that game until I figured out that your strange lack of use of people wasn't a misclick. I get suspicious any time someone goes first and starts by taking the baby hut. Typically it doesn't mean anything, because often they simply spend the game jumping on the hunting grounds a lot. But the next opportunity he got, he was back on that baby hut. He predicably took hut multipliers, and got on wood, also blocking you out. You never once got on the baby hut and tried blocking him, and he's the one who grabbed the good people & hut multipliers, and you didn't much block those. By the third round, when someone is yet once again making more babies and not bothering with food, it should become obvious.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see that you made any attempt to block the strategy, and want to blame that on the strategy. In fact, you just gave up part way through the game and stopped bothering to play, and by not conceding, forced him to have to continue the game with you not really playing. Was that your way of punishing him?