That article may be old, but it's also the only article I can find of an official BW person talking about exploits. So until BW comes out with something else that contradicts it, it's the letter of the law.
EA is only the publisher. They don't enforce anything inside the game. They have a say in what BW should do (for example, I'm very sure EA made BW go F2P), but EA doesn't have anything to do with the actual going ons of the gameplay.
But yes, SWTOR is BW's empire, and it's at their discretion whether they should punish you or not. And that is exactly why I don't hold much stock on EA's ToS vs. BW's definition.
You seem to have missed the part where I challenged the definition you drew from that article. That article is specifically about bugs and exploits that come from bugs. It doesn't exclusively say all exploits are bugs. It is too narrow an article to draw "Bioware's" definition of an exploit from.
Secondly, whether or not the ToS comes from EA or BW is irrelevant. If Bioware or EA is looking for a way to justify banning/punishing someone, they will draw upon the ToS and not an article from way back in 1.2.
You seem to consider yourself a logical man. Then you should be familiar with something called the "burden of proof", yes?
Seeing as how BW hasn't made any comment for staying 49, banned anyone for staying 49, has systems in place that allow you to stay 49, it is on YOU to prove that staying 49 is in fact an exploit. Until such times, please refrain from calling it an exploit.
I believe I've done a fair portion of my "burden of proof."
First I showed that Bioware will not acknowledge something as an exploit openly until it is fixed, thus dissproving that we need a Bioware stamp of Exploiting to determine an exploit.
Second I proved Bioware doesn't ban everyone who exploits, as evidenced by the massive amount of people form Ilum who remained unpunished, while only the worst offenders were. It is just bad business sense to ban everyone who miss-uses the system, especially in anything that is either "not that bad" or a "grey area."
Third, I proved through a logical path way that believe/saying the "Leave Warzone" feature was intended to be used to dodge rewards is illogical, and goes against every other legitmate intenion in the game. The game has a natural cycle pre 50 (Particpation > Completion > Reward > Level). Leave Warzone has other legitimate reasons to exist, other than to intterupt this cycle.
Considering the number of articles, dev posts, and even the ToS that myself and others have brought to the table, including the refuting of the one article and one dev post you brought, your assertion I am not meeting my burden of proof is pretty laughable. =P
Just like science, we can never be 100% sure of anything. I feel confident to say I'm 99% sure without bioware confirmation these things can be considered exploits, and I've brought articles, posts, and logical reasoning to prove it. If you wanna stick to the 1% uncertianity be my guest, but it's kinda like those folks who still think evolution is fake without their sky daddy coming down himself and smacking them with a textbook.