[jerclay]

I haven't bothered to install the SDK yet on this computer, but how hard do you think it would be to find something either you feel is legitimate and has that same issue (slats on the bridge), or doesn't have that same issue (BLU roof, battlement side)?

Go ahead.

Wit certainly won't help your case.

The door frame (doorframe002C.mdl), to the opening of the battlements for each side have the same collision property. The slats in the bridge roof - which I've been shot multiple times by snipers, including Ibby and Skyrider - have the same physics as the slats on the BLU battlement roof.

If you want to say you think it's unfair, or that the unsaid intention of Valve was to disallow these, I think it's ridiculous but your perogative. Don't act as if there's some mapping property that says scenario A is ok and scenario B is not, though. For the issue you point out in a map architecture perspective, there are examples of map objects having the same properties and perfectly fine to shoot through.

my wit is the cause? what

The fact that you don't like me is the cause. I was highlighting the fact that you won't explicitly state the issue is merited by the map properties, since that's easily refuted.

Killing people through setup gates gets you kicked. Why not this?

Because setup gates are supposed to give safe havens. You don't have a problem with the safety of the locations; only the method in which the risk is delivered. That's completely different from setup gates, which are supposed to be safe regardless of how the risk is delivered.

It's the exact same situation on the other side of the battlements, except there's the addition of a roof. Are you honestly trying to state the difference between shooting from behind that wall and shooting through setup grates is a roof?

You CAN do all of these things and more. You also know that you shouldn't, but you mentally justify the actions by attributing developer intention to obvious oversights. People called you on your bullshit after they got tired of it.

Look, it's an open window. It's ridiculous to think that someone should know it's illegal to shoot through an open window. I saw it - and still see it - as a unique piece of architecture just like the missing slats in the bridge roof. And as I've stated, two of the admins have utilized that before on me. Heck, you act as if it's "obvious," when the fact of the matter is there was discussion on whether or not to ban. Obvious things do not need discussion. Obvious things aren't ignored for months, insinuating it's ok. Hence the word "obvious." If I was doing truly "obvious" things like speed hacking or aimbotting, do you think it would have been ok for months, or had a discussion about it?