Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws

[OmegaZero_Alpha]

He's commenting how on how you're allowing "exploit" to slide into the defintion of "unintended.'

I am sorry if you didn't catch this but intentionally doing something that you weren't intended to do is the definition of an exploiting it.

[Hell-met]

any form of explosive jumping is intended and therefore not an exploit

triple-sticky jumping up the skybox and getting out of the map on ctf_well is an exploit

it depends what the outcome is

[OmegaZero_Alpha]

any form of explosive jumping is intended and therefore not an exploit

triple-sticky jumping up the skybox and getting out of the map on ctf_well is an exploit

it depends what the outcome is

And what their intention in doing it was.

It is only a glitch if you didn't do it on purpose.

[jerclay]

I am sorry if you didn't catch this but intentionally doing something that you weren't intended to do is the definition of an exploiting it.

No it's not. That's the whole point of that post you replied to as if he's picking Hell-met's views. Unintended covers a whole lot more ground than exploit. Heck, way back in Doom's days, rocket jumping was unintended, but not considered an exploit. Double conc jumping in QTF was unintended, but not considered an exploit. At one time, crouch jumping's features were unintended, but not an exploit.

Just because the intention is different from the result (ie, unintended), doesn't mean that it's an exploit.

[OmegaZero_Alpha]

I am sorry if you didn't catch this but intentionally doing something that you weren't intended to do is the definition of an exploiting it.

No it's not. That's the whole point of that post you replied to as if he's picking Hell-met's views. Unintended covers a whole lot more ground than exploit. Heck, way back in Doom's days, rocket jumping was unintended, but not considered an exploit. Double conc jumping in QTF was unintended, but not considered an exploit. At one time, crouch jumping's features were unintended, but not an exploit.

Just because the intention is different from the result (ie, unintended), doesn't mean that it's an exploit.

An exploit (from the same word in the French language, meaning "achievement", or "accomplishment") is a piece of software, a chunk of data, or sequence of commands that take advantage of a bug, glitch or vulnerability in order to cause unintended or unanticipated behavior to occur on computer software, hardware, or something electronic (usually computerised).

Anything you weren't supposed to do that causes unintended behavior is an exploit. Learn motherfucking English.

[sirus]

This debate sounds like America's political system...long winded and going nowhere.

[jerclay]

Anything you weren't supposed to do that causes unintended behavior is an exploit. Learn motherfucking English.

Oh please. We're not talking about "exploit" as in every definition it fits under; we're talking about it in terms of stuff that should and shouldn't be allowed. A strategy of a scout running from a heavy is an "exploit" of the heavy's slow speed in terms of strict motherfucking English, but it's stupid to see that as pertaining to what we're talking about.

And yet, here we are.

Ironically, you go into strict definition of "exploit," but ignore strict definition of "unintended." Which would mean you consider anything willfully done and not specifically preplanned by the devs an exploit. Which is just plain stupid.

And yet, as I stated, here we are.

Edit: the best part is you gave another definition of "exploit" as it's used by the servers earlier, but since that definition didn't give you the ability to retort with curse words, you opened it up to the Wikipedia definition. I guess I'll tack that opinion right along with the BLU side being unable to use the architecture to sticky bomb from outside of the secondary spawn?

[OmegaZero_Alpha]

You are inventing new definitions to fit your purpose. That definition is the one that is defined under OUR rules.

A scout running from a heavy is an INTENDED game-play feature. They stated it hundreds of times.

Find me ONE official source that ACTUALLY states your case.

There aren't multiple definitions of exploit, there is the ONE definition that associates with computer science.

[jerclay]

We're not talking about exploit in terms of simply computer science. We're talking about it in terms of allowable gameplay. For example, Robin Walker has stated Natasha is too powerful. Using your strict definitions, either (a) they intend things to be too powerful, or (b) using Natasha is an exploit.

Or (c) you could be sensible, and realize that not all unintended outcomes (Natasha's power), are an exploit when purposefully used.

[WombRaider]

ignore OZA