SDC weren't the first and have hardly been the only people to notice that Frontier's negligible consequences haven't been enough to mitigate the issue.
Sorry, but I don't see this anywhere. Like I stated in earlier posts, no one other than SDC is making an "issue" of this and SDC's "evidence" is laughable. Is there another group who has been raising concerns and providing reliable evidence? I'm not talking about complatins about combat logging in general, there are various posts about that issue on the forums, I'm referring specifically to the claim that FD "isn't doing anything" about combat logging.
That is a very strong claim to make, and such a claim needs suitably compelling evidence to back it up.
I'm not making assumptions. My statements are based on multiple, repeat, observations of my own.
When someone comes into a CZ where I'm fighting, picks the opposite side, proceeds to engage my CMDR, disconnects five times in thirty minutes when I get close to stripping their shields, and, after submitting a report, with a complete video account of the scenario, I see this same CMDR still flying around in Open several times a week for the next month...it's pretty clear Frontier hasn't done much of anything.
When someone who has openly admitted, to cheating, on video, attacks my CMDR, loses badly, deliberately disconnects to save his ship, is reported (again, with corroborating evidence), then is still encountered in Open, it's pretty Frontier hasn't done much of anything.
How do you know what FD has or hasn't done? You don't. If you were expecting a ban of some sort that's just not realistic. FD doesn't ban longstanding cheaters who persist in using an exploit for over a year. What do you expect FD to do because someone combat logs a few times on you in a CZ?
Because I encounter parties that have admitted to combat logging rather frequently, in Open, and none the worse for wear...nor do they seem any less inclined to cheat in the same manner if they find themselves outmatched.
I have to ask, why aren't they on your block list? The block list works well (I've used it myself on many occasions) and you're under no obligation to continue interacting with that CMDR. Why are you choosing to interact with them if you believe they are breaking the rules? Is it simply to "gather evidence" against them? If so that could be considered harassment if you are specifically targeting that player. If not, then why continue to interact at all with them when you don't have to?
Lenience in one area doesn't imply lenience in another.
It wasn't really "lenience". It was what FD considers an appropriate response, i.e., removal of the exploit and basically no punishment at all. They didn't announce "we're letting the Engineering exploiters get off easy this time". They announced why they made the decision and how it was implemented. I actually felt that it was a good decision at the time in the sense that it restored confidence in FD's ability to monitor and eliminate exploits and cheating. I wasn't really looking for FD to deliver "punishment" anyways, I was simply wanting Open to become a level playing field again by removing the exploits so I was happy with how they handled it. The issue here is that sets a very clear precedent and FD has to take that into consideration going forward. They've set the bar very high for delivering actual "punishment" and it shouldn't surprise anyone that combat logging a few times doesn't result in players being given immediate game bans.
There are also piles of exploits that haven't been explicitly forbidden where it's not reasonable to expect offenders to be punished, but deliberate disconnections were clarified as explicitly against the rules a long time ago.
FD is very clear about what an exploit is even if they haven't specifically spoken out on every single possible exploit in the game. They clarified this again at the time the Engineering exploit was addressed. If a player is knowingly cheating using specific means that are clearly not intended game behavior then the player is responsible for their behiavior. There are some "grey areas" where FD has specifically allowed certain actions, i.e., mode switching, using a mutlicrew AFK account for bonuses and so on. Unless FD has told you that something you're worried about is OK then you should assume that it isn't. The only "confusion" here is for some very specific edge cases and FD has already addressed these issues. There is no one who could have "accidentally" carried out the Engineering exploit, it was a very specific set of behavior to exploit a very specific bug and everyone who did that knew exactly what they were doing.
I think the old way massacre missions stacked and the original incarnation of long range transport missions were at least as blatantly cheating as the 5 for 1 Engineering exploit
That's utter nonsnese. Mission stacking and accepting long-range cargo missions is intended game behavior and simply involves taking on multiple missions in the regular course of gameplay. The Engineering exploit required a very specific set of unusual steps to reproduce and could not have been considered "intended" or done "accidentally". They are such completely different things that you seem to be profoundly confused about what an exploit is and what constitutes cheating. I would suggest reading some of the dev comments about what FD considers an exploit because you are confusing normal gameplay with blatant cheating here.
...which is precisely why I avoided abusing any of them (if it doesn't make sense, and isn't explicitly allowed, it should be against the rules, IMO). Most of these sorts of things haven't been, and may well never be, denounced by Frontier, and whenever they have been, it's been long after the fact.
Accepting a mission (or multiple missions) and having those missions stack is normal game behavior. You can still stack data delivery missions or cargo missions right now if you want.
Experience has taught me not to expect anything at all!
You could chain interdict my FDL with a T-9, record yourself with a web cam as you reset your router fifty times in a row, and we could both report you, both provide video, and I'd be astonished if you got more than a warning, even if you begged for punishment.
That's the issue again, you're looking for "punishment" when we know FD doesn't generally "punish" cheaters. They try to address the consequences of the exploit whenever possible but they aren't going to go around "punishing" players just to make you feel "better".
Someone breaking the rules isn't license to do so yourself.
Exactly. Which is why someone who is being targeted by griefers repeatedly and is then shown to be combat logging should have some consequences for choosing to combat log, but so should the players who were harassing the individual who combat logged. I suspect that many of these "combat logging" examples that are provided as "evidence" are part of a larger problem that FD needs to address systematically. Combat logging is only one part of the larger problem.
Either someone cheated, or they did not. It's not always immediately obvious if someone is cheating (I can provide nearly as many examples of non-menu disconnections that weren't deliberate as I can deliberate ones), but if someone is cheating, the circumstances are completely irrelevant.
They are relevant in the sense that everyone who broke the rules should have consequences for their behavior.
The best way to decrease it's occurrence is to make the punishment much worse than the loss of a ship.
The same could be said about griefers who target and harass individual players.
I want them to be categorically barred from interacting with, or from acquiring/preserving assets that could be used in, the same game as those who aren't cheating.
It's not up to you to decide how FD handles cheating. It's up to FD. In the meantime you have been given the means to avoid those interactions with those specific players who you feel are cheating. You can choose not to interact with them by placing them on your block list. It works quite well, I have several griefers on my list and it keeps me from instancing with them.
