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.
You may feel it's too narrow, but what you "feel" doesn't matter. Seeing as that is the ONLY article from BW on exploits, well that's what we're gonna have to go on. If you've got something from BW saying otherwise, please show me.
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.
It is not irrelevant. EA has nothing to do with banning people inside SWTOR. They are just a publisher that wants zee monies. Like I said, that ToS is a generic thing EA has for all their games/services. That's why there's random crap like "no uploading images in chat rooms" in the ToS. We can't even do that in SWTOR.
It's up to Bioware to enforce what they want, and it's BW who we all should be scared of receiving a ban hammer from.
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.
Nope. They do acknowledge exploits w/o having a resolution in place. For example, there was a bug that allowed people on PvE servers to flag enemies by standing in their companions AoE. People were exploiting this bug to flag people and kill them. BW acknowledged that exploit way before it ever got fixed. They also acknowledged the "getting more than 8 people" in a WZ exploit way before it got fixed too.
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."
I never claimed BW bans everyone who exploits, but they DO BAN a few. Some people got banned for Ilum exploits, some got banned for "8+ people in WZ" exploit. NOBODY has ever gotten banned for staying 49.
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.
Doesn't matter WHAT YOU believe to be the "natural" cycle of this game is. Dude, if I wanted to stay level 10 forever and leave WZs as a level 10 because I want to be a dick and gimp my WZ teammates, I can.
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.
Proof would be linking us an article where BW says this is unintended or a bug or an exploit, or anything.
All you've done is merely the armchair philosopher's SWTOR version of trying to prove God's existent using Intelligent Design.
*ring ring ring*
/picks up phone
Hey Doom, it's the furniture store. They're calling me to let you know that you've got no legs to stand on.