If you were logged in you would gain 3 XP for posting a reply.
You are replying to:
An unprotector is not a hack, first and foremost.
Second, you need to think about the precedent you're setting. If you're going to punish people for what they do outside Nibbits, it can't be conditional. Either your policy is that Nibbits' rules apply to member conduct on Bnet as well, or they don't. And how would you properly police this if so?
You may not like hackers or their hacks, but that doesn't make it the sites problem nor should their policy be built around what you do or do not like. This fact is one of the reasons I come here so seldom, because in a lot of ways Nibbits just doesn't work for me. I think you need to ask yourself how important this issue of hackers is to you, and if it isn't that big a deal, accept that site policy is not yours to dictate and move on. If its such a problem, go somewhere where the policy is to exclude any known hackers. I'd be interested to see how the accomplish that as well.
An unprotector is not a hack, first and foremost.
Second, you need to think about the precedent you're setting. If you're going to punish people for what they do outside Nibbits, it can't be conditional. Either your policy is that Nibbits' rules apply to member conduct on Bnet as well, or they don't. And how would you properly police this if so?
You may not like hackers or their hacks, but that doesn't make it the sites problem nor should their policy be built around what you do or do not like. This fact is one of the reasons I come here so seldom, because in a lot of ways Nibbits just doesn't work for me. I think you need to ask yourself how important this issue of hackers is to you, and if it isn't that big a deal, accept that site policy is not yours to dictate and move on. If its such a problem, go somewhere where the policy is to exclude any known hackers. I'd be interested to see how the accomplish that as well.