I was using the grammar of some programming language ("==" is equal and "!=" is not equal). If I exploit I am using the game mechanics to get an advantage (e.g. climbing on a steep rock as per the video above, or using the above-the-shoulder view to see enemies): if I cheat, I am altering the game mechanics to get an advantage (e.g. editing the game assets to increase the head size). Both provides an advantage of course but there is a universe of difference. Read carefully the EULA: you wont' find any reference to exploiting, since everything I can do within the game boundaries is playing, because the game has been designed to allow me to do it (macros are mentioned in the EULA however). But besides this semantic discussion, my point is another: whereas cheating can be fought (without much success) by adding layers of data encryption, 3rd party checks, monitoring and so on, exploiting can be prevented mainly by designing software in a proper way and most of all, testing it in depth. I will make a real-life example of what I mean: when NSO were introduced the implementation was buggy (it still is, but let's not dwell on it). An NSO character could drop anti-personnel mines inside the spawnroom and when the base was captured the mines (not belonging to the losing faction) were not automatically detonated. I killed in this way tens of players (side note: this bug has been reported and fixed since a while).