I've never heard someone comparing a hacker to a cracker, I don't see why you think supporting a crack will lead to supporting hacks (you'll notice not one person is arguing for supporting hacks), and I simply don't understand the point of that post. Who the hell is comparing Gamethreat to SEN? What kind of idiot wouldn't see 'where we stand' between SEN and gamethreat? There's a difference between hurtful exploits (hacks) and helpful exploits (crack). We've been using helpful exploits for years - rectangular terrain, extended units/players, EUDs, etc. Just because someone may think that that's hacking, we should stop? Of course not.

Quote from Excalibur

Now I think we can agree GameThreat and SEN are almost nothing alike, GT being hack, exploit, and crack concerned. It is a slippery slope going from 'just the crack' to a host of other programs that SEN has never been one to support. You take one step in that direction and its not long before you start hosting other 'utilities' that we would've never supported before.

You italicized the name of the logical fallacy that you used.

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Quote from Excalibur

Now I think we can agree GameThreat and SEN are almost nothing alike, GT being hack, exploit, and crack concerned. It is a slippery slope going from 'just the crack' to a host of other programs that SEN has never been one to support. You take one step in that direction and its not long before you start hosting other 'utilities' that we would've never supported before.

You italicized the name of the logical fallacy that you used.

LOL

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Quote from Excalibur

Now I think we can agree GameThreat and SEN are almost nothing alike, GT being hack, exploit, and crack concerned. It is a slippery slope going from 'just the crack' to a host of other programs that SEN has never been one to support. You take one step in that direction and its not long before you start hosting other 'utilities' that we would've never supported before.

You italicized the name of the logical fallacy that you used.

"Slippery slope" is not a logical fallacy if you can prove that each step implies the next, similar to mathmatical induction. It is a valid argument unless one of the steps fails to produce the next.

Yes, but in this case it has to do with SEN gradually hosting more and more programs that it would generally not support. Administration can draw the line at any point in the progression it chooses. (And even that assumes that a progression would start!)

A progression can be observed now, going from cracks like rect terrain, etc. to the SC2 crack. If we don't draw the line now, it is difficult to determine when we will.

SOON WE WILL DISCUSS IF THE CRACK ITSELF IS A HACK AND SUCH

Also, I don't see why we cannot just let people get their own cracks. Ignore this crack issue and focus on the actual fruits of our efforts. This discussion becomes more and more trivial as it progresses, especially with SC2's release approaching.

btw hacks are helpful to hackers and cracks are malevolent to developers

How about instead of complaining, do something about it? Get the crack and make something worth while and post it here.