Game policy (player action) X Game policy (game system)

A complicated topic, but as most people know, the game has been undergoing changes and more changes will come. The staff has been trying, as a significant portion of the players know, to avoid interfering in the game mechanics, thus only acting to fix bugs and respond to complaints, thus having implemented few suggestions that were not or did not help solve the errors pointed out in the complaints.

While this is happening, it was noticed that some of these complaints are not due to bugs but rather to player actions that could be considered anti-game, but would be legal because they act within the limits of the rules without circumventing the code, just using it in an unconventional way, thus “breaking the game” without breaking the code.

After a discussion between the staff and the players, it was understood that the measures were already adequate in terms of mechanics, the functioning of the code, what was happening, and that this strategy had put one group at an advantage over others, so that there was a change in the mechanics.

So after this somewhat long-winded monologue, I ask you readers:

Did you know that the embargo mechanic was being avoided?

Do you know how it was implemented?

Do you know that the embargo will become stronger after this?

Do you think this is good or bad for the game?

What do you think of the choices made by the staff?

Do you think the staff has done a good job?

What do you think of those who broke the embargo?

I don't expect my questions to be answered, but I leave them as a thought for development; who knows, maybe this might be useful to the community.

NOTE: While comparing the translation with my native version, I realized that there is no obvious way to differentiate the comparison on the topic, so I chose to make it more explicit.