No, my statement was, If something is allowed (I.E legal) then you may aswell do it because someone else will and ultimately bend you over with it.
"Getting away with it" wasn't anywhere in the post.
... I'm having trouble discerning whether you are attempting to debate the syntax, or the issue. An implication (as I stated you made) ,
by definition, is a conclusion that is suggested... as opposed to being bluntly stated, which we can both agree you did not.
That said, I maintain that your argument is hinged on the mentality that it is OK TO DO IT IF YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT. You throw around the phrase "legal" as though it provides you some immunity; stating that if the system allows for it you should do it, because you would be a fool not to. AND I again say to you, this is a game not a war...
Were it a war Sun Tzu himself would acknowledge that your choice is the correct one; stating that if victory can be made easier by any means, it is then your responsibility to pursue it.
HOWEVER, I again say that this is a game, and as such while the system might allow for it, the system also allows for many things, which are frowned upon. I am aware some have played this game for a long time, and I do not mean to lecture in this regard, but in the time you took to read that last sentence I would imagine several examples had already occurred to you.
Furthermore, while something may be recognized by law or rule, that does not necessarily bind it to equity. And I believe all reading this can agree that much, regardless of whether you pay to win or not.
Should one choose to respond directly to this, they should bare in mind that I do in fact have a subscription, but even my p2p 20s abide by f2p restrictions.