Quote Originally Posted by Ronduwil View Post
Context matters. The point, in the statements leading up to it, is that harassment is easy to verify, so they ban more frequently for that. ACT usage is not so easy to verify for them because they don't want to invade your privacy and install detection software to determine what else is running on your computer. He never said that they don't ban for ACT. He said that it's harder to prove. In that same interview, he also explicitly said not to use ACT. The reason the streamers are being banned for their use of the software is because they provided video evidence that they're using it, so SE was able to verify that they were breaking TOS without having to infect anyone with spyware. Regardless of how you misinterpreted previous statements, there's a big difference between, "We're looking the other way, so go for it," and "We're not going to invade your privacy to verify that you're not doing it, but please don't do it anyway because it's not allowed."
ACT used without harassment is also not a problem. It's the most victimless crime possible. Harassment on the other hand isnt. He is saying that you get banned for harassment before you get banned for using ACT is because the relevant part is the harassment not the third party tool usage. Additionally it covers non ACT related harassment over performance because lets be real, if someone is exceptionally dogshit at the game I dont need ACT to notice. ACT is entirely irrelevant in the conversation about harassment over performance.