[Drupon]

Yeah that would be a reasonable thing to ban for. Companies can't afford to audit every single unauthorized tampering with their software to ensure that it's benign. If it results in better cheat detection, far better to have a policy that's unobstrusive and non-applicable to 99.99% of users and something the marginal outliers will understand is a risk.

[matheusmoreira]

It's a false positive. He would get banned even though he was not cheating.

Whether it's "reasonable" or not comes down to politics. Optimizing for either false positives or false negatives is a policy decision. Do you punish innocents to ensure you catch every single cheater? Do you let cheaters go to ensure you don't punish innocents?

I don't really intend to discuss the above questions. I'm just pointing out the fact one of those so called complainers in the forums could very well turn out to be one of these false positives. That's what the system is optimized for.