Tip.It Times - 13th November 2011

[tripsis]

Time for a new release of the: >>>Tip.It Times!<<<

 

NEW FEATURES:

We are happy to introduce a few new features in the Tip.It Times! First of all, we have renamed articles. "Featured Articles" are now called "Editorials" and "Guest Articles" are now called "Guest Editorials." And in more exciting news, we are beginning to implement a tagging system. At the bottom of each article there will be two "categories" of tags. The first is an author tag. If you click on the author's name at the bottom of the article (not at the top) you will be taken to a page containing all the articles written by that author. The second tag category is still slowly being implemented. Each article will be tagged with a few key words that describe the contents of that article (for example: "bots," "fictional," "interview," "skilling," or "PKing"). If you click on the tag you will be taken to a list of all the articles that contain that tag! As I said, we're still working on tagging all of the articles but stay tuned and hopefully this will be fully implemented in the coming weeks! :thumbsup:

 

NOW ACCEPTING ARTWORK/COMICS:

The Tip.It Times is now accepting submissions of artwork and comics. If you would like to make a submission, please PM it to tripsis.

 

I'd like to remind people of the rules pertaining to Times threads:

 

[hide=Read these rules before posting in this thread]

Rampant flame wars have taken control of virtually every week's times discussion topics. The following guidelines must be followed when posting on this topic. Posts that ignore these guidelines will be removed.

 

1. You are invited and welcome to express like or dislike on articles and a particular author's writing style. It is not acceptable, however, to flame or personally insult an author. Posts that aren't anything but an attack will be removed from the topic.

 

2. Spelling and grammar errors can be reported to tripsis by PMing her and they will be fixed promptly. It is not necessary to post them on the discussion topic.

 

3. Off topic posts that do not discuss the content of that week's articles will be removed. This is not the place to discuss the direction of the times, how much you love or hate the times, etc. Off topic posts will be removed.

 

By keeping within these guidelines, Times discussion topics will mean more for the Panel and Administration than just a place for flame wars. Flame wars do not provide any useful feedback to the Times, which is mainly what we're aiming for with these topics: feedback.

 

This policy is effective as of now, November 17, 2010. Any posts prior to the creation of this policy may or may not be removed according to the new guidelines.

[/hide]

 

When replying please make sure to clarify the article you are replying to! Thanks!

 

If you spot any typos or mistakes in the article then please PM them to me :)

 

Enjoy the articles!

[K4ylan]

New updates keep you playing forever, but they also keep you playing forever

 

Was from the first article. Didn't really make sense.

[theoxman2]

Regarding the first article...

 

What he said about RS is true of anything. Anything in life can become too consuming if we let it. One can work too much, play too much, eat too much etc etc. Keeping things in perspective and balance is one of the keys of happiness in life.

 

Lately it seems as if a lot of tip it articles are written to make RS seem like its a horrible thing.

[Kirschen]

New updates keep you playing forever, but they also keep you playing forever

 

Was from the first article. Didn't really make sense.

 

 

Basically updates that make you keep playing just to use it. In other words, some items act as binds or shackles of maintenance (quest cape was one version of it).

 

Personally, I cannot say I agree *entirely* with the first article. I agree some might take it too far but I don't know many who would be that absorbed into that game for long. If anything is true, it's that Runescape is one of many examples of overindulgence or over-consumption in something will eat us in the long run a reverse to what was intended.

 

I'll read the other two articles later. For now, need to focus on other things. :)

[Tracy_Luna]

First Article ... Have to admit some points are accurate. I am what is referred to as a social gamer, I don't strive to achieve what everyone else does, but I do like the odd level here and there. Some of my friends, however are what you'd know as complete addicts.

 

I've known them throw sick days when they're close to levels, make excuses when invited out with friends, and even lose relationships over their abuse of whats supposed to be a pass time and an enjoyable experience that is RuneScape.

 

Some have moved on to other games and are still as addicted and outwardly unsociable to what we would call the real world. Others have seen 'the error of their ways' and given up the gaming world for the company of friends, partners and family

 

You have to understand the reasons that people are like this though. It can be as simple as they have no real life social skills and they hide in-game, where they can be popular, knowledgeable and 'a perfect 10'. They move from being the social gamer to 'I will not be beaten!' kind

 

You can play as much or as little as you want, and its your own choice whether or not to bow to the peer pressure of levels and must have items - Everyone lives their own life, and its their own choice as to whether they live it through a game or whether they go out into the big wide green and blue

 

Updates keep things new and fresh and give you goals and aims, how you get there and how long it takes is up to you, if you do it at all. I'd rather never complete and have a constant goal rather than the whole scenario become a chore and a life's work.

 

Completely immersing yourself in something, in this case a game, isn't so unusual in the current climate. Kids will do the same with games consoles and Adults with work. We are all pressured into becoming the proverbial big fish in some way, RuneScape is just one of those means to an end, and a way to say 'look at me'. Sometimes its up to us, as friends and family, to make people aware that we have concerns, and we shouldn't be afraid to do this ingame either

 

I'll get round to reading the other articles right after I've no-lifed this fishing and beat my friend! (joke)

[Cow]

First article's negativity is sounding like a broken record; addiction is true of anything. With a bit of self control you can actually manage to have fun, and play RS and other games, and be sociable, without skipping school and straining relationships for games. I think it's a good thing to throw nonmembers a bone every so often (couple of months or so). I think they could also do with our outdated crap bosses (Looking at you, Mole) and perhaps ways to replace the jobs that members bots used to serve, like making an interesting ftp method of making cannonballs. Also, I'd think it would be cool if they could have some of the green dragons in the wilderness and with it dragon bones (Although this might be my selfishness. Gotta get 95 prayer somehow). Nothing wrong with nonmembers, we all were them at some point.

[Sir_Squab]

First article's negativity is sounding like a broken record; addiction is true of anything. With a bit of self control you can actually manage to have fun, and play RS and other games, and be sociable, without skipping school and straining relationships for games. I think it's a good thing to throw nonmembers a bone every so often (couple of months or so). I think they could also do with our outdated crap bosses (Looking at you, Mole) and perhaps ways to replace the jobs that members bots used to serve, like making an interesting ftp method of making cannonballs. Also, I'd think it would be cool if they could have some of the green dragons in the wilderness and with it dragon bones (Although this might be my selfishness. Gotta get 95 prayer somehow). Nothing wrong with nonmembers, we all were them at some point.

 

Lol, catch with giving F2P dragon bones is that not only could they SELL dragon bones, they could BUY dragon bones. You'd increase the supply and demand. All you can do is hope that the supply increases more then the demand; which wouldn't necessarily happen imo. Remember that, even in that hypothetical scenario, Members worlds would likely supply far more dragon bones because P2P would still have a far larger supply of dragons.

 

As for F2P having bot problems because of lack of updates... nah. That boiled down to people making throw away F2P accounts to RWT purposes.

[Troacctid]

The guest authors are tagged as "Guest", but not as their name? What if the same person submits two guest articles? Or what if a guest writer later joins the editorial team? The name should be tagged too.

[The_Fray]

The guest authors are tagged as "Guest", but not as their name? What if the same person submits two guest articles? Or what if a guest writer later joins the editorial team? The name should be tagged too.

I agree with this. If a guest writer posts something engaging I would like to follow them in case they write an article in the future.

[Alg]

The guest authors are tagged as "Guest", but not as their name? What if the same person submits two guest articles? Or what if a guest writer later joins the editorial team? The name should be tagged too.

If they later join the EP, I think their guest articles will be tagged under their name.

[Troacctid]

The guest authors are tagged as "Guest", but not as their name? What if the same person submits two guest articles? Or what if a guest writer later joins the editorial team? The name should be tagged too.

If they later join the EP, I think their guest articles will be tagged under their name.

Well, even then, tagging them when they're first posted is much more efficient, since there's no need to comb through the archives to find them again.

[Alg]

Well, even then, tagging them when they're first posted is much more efficient, since there's no need to comb through the archives to find them again.

I'm guessing they don't want to have to deal with separate tags for someone who may not have more than two articles, then.

[pal2002]

While a lot of the 1st article resonate with me, I'd like to point out that when I started rs at least, it actually had some pretty darn good graphics for an mmo... Having tried lots of things before rs, I saw the 3d tree in rs1 and was literally blown away by how pretty it looked (lol) ofc this is also not far away from text based mmo's lol.

 

Now ofc, rs looks like crap compared to almost every other game except flash ones.

[All_Is_Great]

Funny things happen when you finally do achieve something though. First, you are cynically congratulated on having a bunch of pixels. Second, you are instantly confronted with people that have done the exact same thing as you have, but better. And third, your face gets pressed on the things you HAVEN'T done.

 

QFT.

 

RS never ruined my life though, and I met several new friends from it instead of losing some like suggested in the article. It was a good experience and tons of fun :shades:

[Assume Nothing]

It's very rare that I disagree so much with an article. There's a lot of confusion between cause and effect here. To explain the figures pertaining to addiction - perhaps the audience group is simply more predisposed to these symptoms anyways, so whatever way you present them, it'll be skewed due to addictive personalities of teenagers.

 

This article makes far too many assumptions too - it assumes that it's not the player's choice to play, but the fault of an addiction.

 

I don't like this quote either, it's loaded with rhetoric - "[...] the worst of human conditions will set in: wondering what might have been." [sic] It's self explanatory why that's hyperbole...

[la la la]

Should rename it to "How RS gave me something to do other than getting drunk and making stupid decisions on my weekends, and doing others, more boring, pointless crap on weekdays."

[Jonanananas]

Well, even then, tagging them when they're first posted is much more efficient, since there's no need to comb through the archives to find them again.

I'm guessing they don't want to have to deal with separate tags for someone who may not have more than two articles, then.

 

Interestingly enough, one of my articles is tagged under "Jonanananas" and two under "guest" O.o

 

 

Regarding the Article by Makoto: I agree that F2P is underserved, but I don't really think it has that much to do with bots. Sure, having nothing but levels making up the game makes a good precedent for bots...but it works almost the same way in members.

 

Re:How Runescape ruined my life - I kind of agree here, I have to say I often was a bit shocked how easily people would say "I'll skip school" or "I'll be too ill for work that week". I've found that grinding really ruins the fun for me. I can't stand it no matter what and I've decided some time ago that I'll stop immediately once a certain activity isn't fun for me anymore. That means that despite quite some playtime my levels are still low and I can't access everything I'd like to, but so be it.

 

 

Re:Fictional article - Sorry but I couldn't be bothered to read the third installment here after the first two. I started out but stopped soon enough. I think you have a nice base story, but the way it's written makes the whole thing very confusing, especially in terms of how the dialogue is scripted. If actions happen in between, please add those. The huge number of factions doesn't make things easier either. Please try to rework that story.

[quitthegame]

I don't like this quote either, it's loaded with rhetoric - "[...] the worst of human conditions will set in: wondering what might have been." [sic] It's self explanatory why that's hyperbole...

 

Amusingly, not only is referring to a quote containing one rhetorical device as "loaded with rhetoric" itself an example of hyperbolic rhetoric, but you're also arguing rhetorically by saying you don't like the quote due it containing a rhetorical device. That equates to a rhetorical slur on both the quote and a slur on rhetoric itself, so that your short quote contains 3 instances of rhetoric even as it denounces it. A disparity that I'm sure all those on this forum with a truly skeptical bent will keep in mind.

[Kaida23]

Well, even then, tagging them when they're first posted is much more efficient, since there's no need to comb through the archives to find them again.

I'm guessing they don't want to have to deal with separate tags for someone who may not have more than two articles, then.

Interestingly enough, one of my articles is tagged under "Jonanananas" and two under "guest" O.o

It's a new system that we're working hard to implement and get straightened out, there's bound to be a few inconsistencies. :wink:

[Assume Nothing]

I don't like this quote either, it's loaded with rhetoric - "[...] the worst of human conditions will set in: wondering what might have been." [sic] It's self explanatory why that's hyperbole...

 

Amusingly, not only is referring to a quote containing one rhetorical device as "loaded with rhetoric" itself an example of hyperbolic rhetoric, but you're also arguing rhetorically by saying you don't like the quote due it containing a rhetorical device. That equates to a rhetorical slur on both the quote and a slur on rhetoric itself, so that your short quote contains 3 instances of rhetoric even as it denounces it. A disparity that I'm sure all those on this forum with a truly skeptical bent will keep in mind.

 

I was meaning to say that the article was loaded with rhetoric, rather than the small quote - I should've taken that into account when pasting the quote. Then again, 'exaggeration/hyperbole' is open for debate in this context.

 

I don't quite see your second point though, care to enlighten me?

[quitthegame]

I don't like this quote either, it's loaded with rhetoric - "[...] the worst of human conditions will set in: wondering what might have been." [sic] It's self explanatory why that's hyperbole...

 

Amusingly, not only is referring to a quote containing one rhetorical device as "loaded with rhetoric" itself an example of hyperbolic rhetoric, but you're also arguing rhetorically by saying you don't like the quote due it containing a rhetorical device. That equates to a rhetorical slur on both the quote and a slur on rhetoric itself, so that your short quote contains 3 instances of rhetoric even as it denounces it. A disparity that I'm sure all those on this forum with a truly skeptical bent will keep in mind.

 

I was meaning to say that the article was loaded with rhetoric, rather than the small quote - I should've taken that into account when pasting the quote. Then again, 'exaggeration/hyperbole' is open for debate in this context.

 

I don't quite see your second point though, care to enlighten me?

 

Well I don't want to simply repeat myself. Let's try to strip the rhetoric from your first clause, and leave only the relevant arguments.

 

"I don't like this quote either, it's loaded with rhetoric"

 

First we change it to "I don't like this quote either, it contains one rhetorical device." to remove the part you agree with above. Then, to strip the slurs out, we simply remove your unsupported slur of rhetoric, leaving us with "It contains one rhetorical device." (Technically it's unclear which is the primary and which is the secondary assertion here, but you've clearly rhetorically slurred both the quote and the idea of rhetoric itself. Compare to "I don't like Steve, he's a runescape player. I've clearly slurred both Steve and players of runescape with that rhetorical statement.) Now the clause is redundant, as your clause following the quote doesn't just tell us it contains one rhetorical device, but also names it specifically. So we can shrink your clause down to " ". That is to say, stripped of rhetoric its informational content becomes zero bits of information. So we see that your statement condemning rhetoric was itself purely rhetoric. Are you sufficiently enlightened yet?

[Assume Nothing]

I don't like this quote either, it's loaded with rhetoric - "[...] the worst of human conditions will set in: wondering what might have been." [sic] It's self explanatory why that's hyperbole...

 

Amusingly, not only is referring to a quote containing one rhetorical device as "loaded with rhetoric" itself an example of hyperbolic rhetoric, but you're also arguing rhetorically by saying you don't like the quote due it containing a rhetorical device. That equates to a rhetorical slur on both the quote and a slur on rhetoric itself, so that your short quote contains 3 instances of rhetoric even as it denounces it. A disparity that I'm sure all those on this forum with a truly skeptical bent will keep in mind.

 

I was meaning to say that the article was loaded with rhetoric, rather than the small quote - I should've taken that into account when pasting the quote. Then again, 'exaggeration/hyperbole' is open for debate in this context.

 

I don't quite see your second point though, care to enlighten me?

 

Well I don't want to simply repeat myself. Let's try to strip the rhetoric from your first clause, and leave only the relevant arguments.

 

"I don't like this quote either, it's loaded with rhetoric"

 

First we change it to "I don't like this quote either, it contains one rhetorical device." to remove the part you agree with above. Then, to strip the slurs out, we simply remove your unsupported slur of rhetoric, leaving us with "It contains one rhetorical device." (Technically it's unclear which is the primary and which is the secondary assertion here, but you've clearly rhetorically slurred both the quote and the idea of rhetoric itself. Compare to "I don't like Steve, he's a runescape player. I've clearly slurred both Steve and players of runescape with that rhetorical statement.) Now the clause is redundant, as your clause following the quote doesn't just tell us it contains one rhetorical device, but also names it specifically. So we can shrink your clause down to " ". That is to say, stripped of rhetoric its informational content becomes zero bits of information. So we see that your statement condemning rhetoric was itself purely rhetoric. Are you sufficiently enlightened yet?

 

Whoa whoa, slow down. How did we jump from "It contains one rhetoric device" to "", in layman's terms? Do note that as I've explained earlier, it ought to have been written as 'I don't like the article, as it's loaded with rhetoric devices', which should be taken into account for the analysis of my analysis.

 

EDIT - Actually, the primary assertion were the first part, which implied that it's undesirable to have such a level of rhetoric in an article. I do see how my error in language affected the implications though.

 

How would you suggest that idea should be written in order to be articulate and precise?

 

On topic; Under-Served seems like an interesting twist to the standard article. Is it possible to argue that by updating f2p, there comes a point where players are no longer incentivised to buy membership in the first place (since they are already content with what they've got), instead of the implied idea of subtly allowing hooked players to eventually purchase membership?

[quitthegame]

EDIT - Actually, the primary assertion were the first part, which implied that it's undesirable to have such a level of rhetoric in an article. I do see how my error in language affected the implications though.

 

How would you suggest that idea should be written in order to be articulate and precise?

 

Broadly speaking, you have four options:

 

A. Baldly state that it's undesirable to have such a level of rhetoric in an article, which statement, lacking any accompanying evidence or argument, becomes rhetoric itself--which is pretty much what I called you on here. Even phrasing it mildly, such as "It's a good article, but for my own personal standards, I prefer less rhetoric"--still ends up being a self-contradictory rhetorical statement.

 

B. State that it contains a given amount of rhetoric, without making any positive or negative associations based upon that whatsoever. Of course, this lacks a certain amount of impact, but that's the entire point of the division between rhetoric and logic...rhetoric is the art of achieving impact briefly, which is pretty much antithetical to logical methods.

 

C. Respond to every instance of rhetoric with a 3 page essay on why logic is superior. I suppose you could provide that in a link form, which is still a bit crank-ish but at least more compact.

 

D. Refrain from pointing out that essays that contain rhetoric do in fact contain rhetoric, applying the common sense rule that anyone who would object to rhetoric in the essay might reasonably be expected to be perfectly able to discern it for themselves.

 

 

Since you asked--personally in an informal forum such as this one, I'd go with option D. If you go with options B or C for everyone who uses rhetoric for a non-deceitful emotional effect or merely as a shortcut, then you run into the 'boy-who-cried-wolf' problem when it's finally most appropriately used against a real troll. Of course in a more formal setting, option A becomes usable if the rules of the setting preclude rhetoric. I would argue that many formal settings actually do not preclude it, although obviously many others do.

 

 

On topic; Under-Served seems like an interesting twist to the standard article. Is it possible to argue that by updating f2p, there comes a point where players are no longer incentivised to buy membership in the first place (since they are already content with what they've got), instead of the implied idea of subtly allowing hooked players to eventually purchase membership?

 

Not only is it possible to argue such, but I've seen that argument thousands of times on the official forums. Moreover, I've seen J-Mods make that exact argument many times there as well, usually in reply to someone saying some subset of what was contained in Friday's article. More germanely perhaps; "Or worse - the same community that gave Jagex widespread success will turn their back, and find more compelling games to play."

 

Did that already occur? I haven't been f2p for a long time, but based on those foggy recollections, I'd say yes. Can't say it seems like Jagex cares, either.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Disagree with the under served article. It reads like another why cant F2P have.... . The most laughable point is I believe that the majority of F2P doesn't feel that Jagex is meeting their demands for entertaining and engaging content. Who the hell is in a position to make demands when theyre getting freebies in the first place?

 

Why give players incentive to stay F2P unless you want to encourage them to stay F2P? Anyone who consistently stays F2P isnt remotely interested in paying for membership. Those who are interested will join members when theyve exhausted much of the content, or sooner so it doesnt actually need fresh content. Its already fresh to those who try out F2P.

 

Anyone can pay for members if they really wanted it. Pre-pay cards are easily available. Theyre not expensive by far. Most kids get enough money to easily pay for it.

 

At RuneFest this came up in the combat insider session. A couple of people asked these types of question about stuff for F2P. My eyes rolled at these questions until the Jmods plainly firmly answered the questions by stating Get members if you want that. There were enough nods around the room to suggest the majority supported it.

[Cow]

First article's negativity is sounding like a broken record; addiction is true of anything. With a bit of self control you can actually manage to have fun, and play RS and other games, and be sociable, without skipping school and straining relationships for games. I think it's a good thing to throw nonmembers a bone every so often (couple of months or so). I think they could also do with our outdated crap bosses (Looking at you, Mole) and perhaps ways to replace the jobs that members bots used to serve, like making an interesting ftp method of making cannonballs. Also, I'd think it would be cool if they could have some of the green dragons in the wilderness and with it dragon bones (Although this might be my selfishness. Gotta get 95 prayer somehow). Nothing wrong with nonmembers, we all were them at some point.

 

Lol, catch with giving F2P dragon bones is that not only could they SELL dragon bones, they could BUY dragon bones. You'd increase the supply and demand. All you can do is hope that the supply increases more then the demand; which wouldn't necessarily happen imo. Remember that, even in that hypothetical scenario, Members worlds would likely supply far more dragon bones because P2P would still have a far larger supply of dragons.

 

As for F2P having bot problems because of lack of updates... nah. That boiled down to people making throw away F2P accounts to RWT purposes.

Yeah, I realised that high level free players would start using them, but I didn't think that the majority of free players would use very many dragon bones, as there's not much point to high level prayer in free to play, and that it'd be very expensive. I thought, realistically, if ftp had ten green dragons, they'd be camped on every world nearly 24/7. I think a lot of members don't kill dragons as there's better things to do; but green dragons would be excellent money for many of the free players. Idk lol.