I agree that it seems a bit cheap. But trying to impose extra arbitrary rules on a game is usually a bad idea. For one thing, where do you stop, do you ban all techniques that break the level? what about solutions that accidentally break the level? what defines an "accident", and what about levels that require you to break things (Drop for instance)
There is a really interesting discussion here:
http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_ ... nPart1.htm
The jist of it is that if the game allows something either explicitly, or implicitly it then it should be considered part of the game.
You can of course design levels where breaking stuff is either pointless or counter-productive, and I feel that part of becoming a good level designer for AR (or for any game) is knowing this and incororating the full depth of the game into your work.
If PeterS (our Lord and Master) considers that ithis particular technique should be fixed then he can alter the game rules to disallow it, I can think of two fixes that may or may not be practical, depending on the implemtation details:
1. Modify the editor so that a joint can't be placed in the middle of an existing strut (in much the same way as you can't drag struts into a position that violates their maximum or minimum length)
2. Modify the physics solver so that when two beams are threatening to break one another the solver always chooses to break user placed beams in preference to the origonal ones placed in the initial level.
Don't get me wrong, I understand how unsatisfying so called "cheap" solutions are to watch, buy I just don't think you can legislate against them.
(One last example: What about the technique of tying what the designer intended to be a moving part down so that it never comes into play? Is that considered cheating?)
Cheers
Tim