Sep 21, 2010, 08:59 PM
This argument is just devolving into semantics. In an ideal scenario, here's what happens:
1. Hell-met sees you doing potential exploit
2. He consults DF/server rules and assesses whether this qualifies as an exploit
3. He asks you (jerclay) to stop (warning might have been better than ban without notice)
4. He bans you if you keep doing it
If DF and Hell-met determine that shooting through that window is an exploit, then you have to obey that rule, whether or not it is fair/true. Yeah it sucks, but there needs to be a rule on this to prevent additional confusion. Plus in the grand scheme of things, it's not gonna make you quit the server in rage- you'll just have to be more exposed when shooting stickies at snipers.
1. Hell-met sees you doing potential exploit
2. He consults DF/server rules and assesses whether this qualifies as an exploit
3. He asks you (jerclay) to stop (warning might have been better than ban without notice)
4. He bans you if you keep doing it
If DF and Hell-met determine that shooting through that window is an exploit, then you have to obey that rule, whether or not it is fair/true. Yeah it sucks, but there needs to be a rule on this to prevent additional confusion. Plus in the grand scheme of things, it's not gonna make you quit the server in rage- you'll just have to be more exposed when shooting stickies at snipers.