You can also time items by using:
Proxies
The /exec command
...

Basically, if you want to time stuff you're going to time stuff, with determination you can do it. Getting rid of the application (that is, ban any forum posts about it and don't mention it in general) would be better than the false security and partial "fix" a ban of /packet would be, IMO /packet hasn't done anything wrong at all to have any motivation of banning it.

There are ways to detect proxies. Sure there are ways to avoid such detections, but those are more advanced. Exec command can be exploited but it requires some advanced programming skills. Of course that to those who know exactly how to do it every such exploit seems easy, but that's not the attitude you should have I think.

Coding an app that receives simple info and sends some other info back is trivial.
It's not really a good attitude to say "this is possible with some other way too".
You should make a list on how every exploit is easy to use and how hard it's to prevent it (some sort of score for each exploit). Then sort this list by the score, make a line somewhere, and try to make protection against all the exploits that are above the line and not care about the exploits under the line. Exploiting packet is easy, creating the prevention is easy. Packet gets big score, ban him. BTW, do you really need to control your mp3 player or IRC plugin during the match? Can't you wait till the match is over?

I just don't like the false security it creates, maybe that's just me though but I think it's better if people understand the real deal: Cheating is possible even with the "security fixes" and should watch out for players using them (not that anyone does anyway). Something like "partial timer restriction" would be a better word for it, I could accept such a response from f_ruleset myself.

Updated the 2nd post, regarding ruleset-checking.

Your argumentation for "creates false sense of security" is exactly the same as the argumentation of the other member of the FTEQW team, which I tried to understand many many times. Extending that logic more further we should make a big red screen when any QW client start saying "YOU ARE GOING TO PLAY A GAME WHERE ANYONE CAN CHEAT IN ANY WAY AND STAY UNDETECTED FOREVER, CLICK 'SCREW THEM' TO CONTINUE".

I like the idea of server setting the ruleset, let's settle some standard here how exactly it would work, I'm sure ezQuake will adopt it too, I hope server developers too.

I didn't say "screw them", I said the exact opposite: watch out for them (again, not that anyone in QW cheats). The main issues IMO are the false sense of security and blocking (reasonable) interactions with outside apps. The first one can be solved by not saying that the fix covers "timers", but rather "packet-related timers".
Let's say someone finds another way of timing for the team and spreads it to friendly clans:
If the clients say that they prevent timers, people will not be any wiser when a clan gets perfect timing on all items, the clients say that they prevent it!?
But if the clients instead say that they only block a specific timer, people will be suspicious when they see such perfect timing from a clan because they know that other timers can be achieved somehow (hard though) and possibly find out that they indeed use timers (for example they see no human factor in the timing) and report it to admins for demo-investigation.
So to sum it up, sure I think the packet-command could be banned to prevent the easy-and-available apps, but I would never say that it prevents "timers" as a full solution. Therefore phrenics request from FTE to ban timers is impossible to fix. Certain timers can be restricted yes, but banning all timers is never going to happen.

Regarding the serverinfo: I'm thinking either use up any remaining or unused bits in FPD or create a new serverinfo that contains bits for different rules, like smackdown, anti-frj, etc. The mod could set these so the rules can be toggled by players/admins on the server. I'm not well-read in FPD though, other thoughts?

Documentation says smackdown ruleset blocks "packet command". Not saying anything about timers or whatever. Disallow packet command during the match, topic is over.

FPD might be good for specific things like scripts and maybe a few more (fb skins), but for ruleset there should be sth that can support more rulesets (one bit for each ruleset is not enough). So yeah, new serverinfo entry sounds better. So the server has this serverinfo, and before client becomes fully connected, it changes the ruleset to the appropriate one.

Also, before all servers adopt this (that is going to take a long time), you will still need to implement the ruleset support independent on server settings, same as other clients do.

Are the other NQR admins reading this, waiting for the discussion to finish, or what's happening?

Well as I understand it, here's how it works in FTE:

"serverinfo strict 1" will disable stuff like particles, drawflat, etc (this serverinfo could be a "base" for rulesets, like to include the models check and such).
The server will then set different cvars to customize the ruleset however it wishes, for example it can set cl_yawspeed to 1. Those cvars then become latched and impossible to change to anything other than what the server set them to.

You will still need to implement a check independent on the server as I've said before. Therefore it seems unnecessary (you haven't provided any motivation or reason for your model) to do it by two completely different ways.

Clients get updated more easily then servers so it'd be better if the server required some client version and a ruleset, while the limitation of the ruleset would be still defined in the client. Then it's ensured the definition is up-to-date, because clients will be up-to-date.

Let's compare efforts required to update client ruleset VS server ruleset.

Client ruleset update:
Everyone that wants to play in the tournament needs to download the new version of the client (even if they liked a previous version better) or they will be banned from the tournament because of outdated rulesets.

Server ruleset update:
The admins patches their respective server mod with the new one and the tournament is allowed on that server for anyone with a client that simply supports server-side rulesets.

Now which one of these options would be better in the long run?

It's been shown time and again how hard it can be to get a server updated. You don't want to render any server unusable with minor rule changes. Especially for international tournaments it's good to have as many server options as possible.

As long as servers like Wargamez, which lacks an active admin, remains the most popular ones, the server option is probably a no-no.

Servers shoud really give access to more active admins to update the mods etc, this is not only a problem regarding these ruleset-changes but for so many more things...

Anyways, implementing both of the options would probably be the best solution as I see it:
On old and outdated servers, you can still play like it works today, checking everything with f_checks before each match starts.
On newer and actively updated servers, you can play with more client version options and a more convenient way of enforcing rulesets, probably NO f_checks would be necessary. A relief for admins and guaranteed fair games, the ultimate solution IMO.

I have an idea: How about the server admins just put up a cron job that checks for new mod versions, totally automated.

Only _one_ EQL/NQR admin has replied here? I'm soon going to close the discussion since EQL is starting very soon...

Would appreciate it if some admin, NQR or EQL can say that FTE will be allowed with these modifications, or if further are needed.

the discussion is up in EQL molgrum!
thank you for the information.

I doubt there will be another NQR. At least, I haven't even been approached about setting up a website for NQR11, and there's been no activity on the admin forum. I haven't been in the IRC channel for a long time though.

sassa:

Can't find any discussion in EQL about this, why start another thread?

gaz:

Long time since I saw you around here Too bad if there's no more NQR, but that can't be helped I guess.

we use priv irc channel and you are not welcomed there

well that's a bit rude. :/

NQR11 is scheduled for January. Been idling on #osams for ages too trying to get a hold of you, although I haven't checked the window too much lately as I have been pretty busy myself. Please stop by on the NQR channel so we can perhaps make some arrangements.