While most people were innocent victims, there were some players who were knowingly using this to rise in the rankings.
This was referred to as an exploit rather than a bug, because it was a bug that could be exploited. This is of course not the same for all errors that we find in the game.
OK here's little nitpicking. As a generic term, the meaning of:
exploit (n.)
late 14c., "outcome of an action," from O.Fr. esploit (12c.), a very common word, used in senses of "action, deed, profit, achievement," from L. explicitum "a thing settled, ended, displayed," neut. of explicitus, pp. of explicare "unfold" (see explicit). Meaning "feat, achievement" is c.1400. Sense evolution is from "unfolding" to "bringing out" to "having advantage" to "achievement."
As a computer security term it is also rather well
defined. In the context of games its meaning is somewhat similar.
In all cases an "exploit" refers to intentional, premeditated series of actions,
or instructions (written in computer or human language) to carry out such actions
or the results of such actions. You may "fix" the third meaning, but how do you "fix" those 2 previous meanings? You can only fix the underlying bug, vulnerability, or as in this case, an apparent design flaw. If you "fix" only the exploit, the underlying problems have not been fixed. Surely this is not what you meant?
Adopting this microsoftesque manner of speaking you are only downplaying your own credibility - possibly even as an attempt to shift part of the burden to players - some of who (how many? 3%?) indeed had the nerve to exploit the flaw to their temporary advantage - although even that can not really be
proven, only
assumed.
My main point once more, friendly advice:
Call spade a spade. It was a bug (or rather - do I guess correctly? - a flaw in initial design that allowed bug
to manifest). Just admit it honestly, learn from it, don't euphemise or downplay it by language tricks. Doing so gives a slightly dishonest outlook even though you might not mean it at all.
