I feel most people agree that banning for hacking in a multiplayer setting is not rage worthy but rather commended by the community. EULA's and DRM by themselves are not bad things, but rather how they've become giant **** yous in terms of ownership, do you actually own what you've bought? The question is how far should a developer, and then publisher, go to protect their sales and service?
I come from a standpoint that if a single player experience is included with a game leave that to the gamer. Let it be able to be played offline or messed with or (remember when games came with cheats and you were given a cookie when you found them?) come with cheats that don't punish you for wanting to have fun.
During the competitive part of the game (any time you are playing against or with someone online) a games "official" rules can and should be enforced. Whether these are in custom games, with agreed upon rules, or standard play.
That is why I'm apart of this community that aligns with my own beliefs. I love the work that is done here. Maybe in the end we are talking about the same thing. Developers should feel free to create games that blur between online and offline, but they shouldn't make it dependent on an online status. The developer has already made an experience (largely single player already) why not let us use it when we want.
God I miss offline lan play...