Tip.It Times - 11th December 2011

[tripsis]

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

 

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!

[ForsakenMage]

In case anyone is wondering, The Lost Night will continue. I'm just in the middle of exams. :P So next week! I promise! <3

[Steph]

Where is Skeptic's article?

[deskjethp]

At first when I was reading the main article, I thought the bit about Salmoneus meant something else and I didn't quite connect the dots...

Other than that, I think the clan worlds with territories would be really cool. I'm sure there's some opposition by a small clan somewhere that will say something about worlds being dominated by like, 3 large clans each or something but the idea has merit. It would be neat to have more player-run shops or tolls or something. More of that all around world wilderness feel.

[Assume Nothing]

Where is Skeptic's article?

 

It is, unfortunately, not submitted. We shall see whether it'll be published within the foreseeable future.

[wotmania505]

Well, I liked "Critique of pure efficiency" - I just wrote a paper on Kant, and this just made me laugh :)

 

I agree with the points made though.

[zlcoolboy]

I'm replying to "Critique of Pure Efficiency"

 

In the past, before 2010 I was more into "pure efficiency", but I quit for a while and realised that the only way to stay interested in the game and actually like it was to start using the "practical efficiency" method as you call it, now I never do a skill that I don't want to do, and I also don't do anything on rs that I don't want to do. I stop playing if I feel that I want to do something else as well. That keeps runescape fun for me.

[Platinum_Myr]

I liked both articles. The one about clans is so well thought through. Jagex can't rest on their laurels because there are so many minor issues that could destroy the things they've created. The clan chat system is fiddly to get right, and can be hard to figure out. The clan citadels need some sort of update to make them feel useful to the clan as a whole (make it worth while to continue updating without just showing off.. And make it take less than 2+ hrs to max out the resources, or decrease the overal clicks needed to get max resources)

[Thus]

The did you know is more useless this time than last time. Soon it's going to be "you can click on the minimap to walk there"

 

Quote me if you plan on using it.

[Blyaunte]

If we hold the opening premise to be true, the whole concept of 'pure efficiency' must come across as a tad strange. One does not go to a restaurant and gobble the food down to minimise time spent eating: one takes time to savour each bite, each burst of flavour, each whiff of bouquet. To gobble the food down would be to go against the whole idea of enjoying the food: the delightful piece of art cannot be fully savoured. Yet, the purely efficient aspires to be the impatient gourmet. He seeks to minimise the (fun) time spent playing the game, as if the game were a chore. What are we to make of this? I suspect that most proponents of 'pure efficiency' enjoy the game much less than they enjoy being good at it. Not being purely efficient would be to lose ground on others. Why not put more effort in if it means gaining a few more ranks?

 

Trolling for dollars anyone? :rolleyes:

 

Seriously -- you folks are still so pissed about this to the extent that you publish this rubbish under Tip-It Times now?

 

I realize that most of you cannot wrap your head around the idea that "fun" is subjective, and one could attempt to explain it to you once again, but in the end we cannot understand it for you.

[tripsis]

If we hold the opening premise to be true, the whole concept of 'pure efficiency' must come across as a tad strange. One does not go to a restaurant and gobble the food down to minimise time spent eating: one takes time to savour each bite, each burst of flavour, each whiff of bouquet. To gobble the food down would be to go against the whole idea of enjoying the food: the delightful piece of art cannot be fully savoured. Yet, the purely efficient aspires to be the impatient gourmet. He seeks to minimise the (fun) time spent playing the game, as if the game were a chore. What are we to make of this? I suspect that most proponents of 'pure efficiency' enjoy the game much less than they enjoy being good at it. Not being purely efficient would be to lose ground on others. Why not put more effort in if it means gaining a few more ranks?

 

Trolling for dollars anyone? :rolleyes:

 

Seriously -- you folks are still so pissed about this to the extent that you publish this rubbish under Tip-It Times now?

 

I realize that most of you cannot wrap your head around the idea that "fun" is subjective, and one could attempt to explain it to you once again, but in the end we cannot understand it for you.

You're welcome to disagree with an article or a person's views, Blyaunte, but you do have to be respectful. Challenge the ideas but do not just call it rubbish or trolling. And the articles in the Tip.It Times do not reflect the view of the site, staff, or entire Editorial Panel. The articles only describe the author's opinions.

[Alg]

The did you know is more useless this time than last time. Soon it's going to be "you can click on the minimap to walk there"

 

Quote me if you plan on using it.

There are only so many obscure yet useful techniques in the game, and we've covered quite a few. It doesn't help that people seem to want to keep theirs to themselves :twss:

[Blyaunte]

If we hold the opening premise to be true, the whole concept of 'pure efficiency' must come across as a tad strange. One does not go to a restaurant and gobble the food down to minimise time spent eating: one takes time to savour each bite, each burst of flavour, each whiff of bouquet. To gobble the food down would be to go against the whole idea of enjoying the food: the delightful piece of art cannot be fully savoured. Yet, the purely efficient aspires to be the impatient gourmet. He seeks to minimise the (fun) time spent playing the game, as if the game were a chore. What are we to make of this? I suspect that most proponents of 'pure efficiency' enjoy the game much less than they enjoy being good at it. Not being purely efficient would be to lose ground on others. Why not put more effort in if it means gaining a few more ranks?

 

Trolling for dollars anyone? :rolleyes:

 

Seriously -- you folks are still so pissed about this to the extent that you publish this rubbish under Tip-It Times now?

 

I realize that most of you cannot wrap your head around the idea that "fun" is subjective, and one could attempt to explain it to you once again, but in the end we cannot understand it for you.

You're welcome to disagree with an article or a person's views, Blyaunte, but you do have to be respectful. Challenge the ideas but do not just call it rubbish or trolling. And the articles in the Tip.It Times do not reflect the view of the site, staff, or entire Editorial Panel. The articles only describe the author's opinions.

 

Don't you think it gets a little "old" to see someone, time and again, attempt to make the same insipid argument against emergent/efficient/meta game play, based entirely upon their misbegotten notion of what efficient game play actually means -- and then have them assail such concept as not being "fun"?

 

Personally, I could care a tinker's curse about what someone else thinks is "fun", but I am not about to attempt to deny whatever it is they consider to be fun as "not being fun" -- and then attempt to further qualify such an absurd point of view with some ridiculous epicurean non sequiturial metaphor.

 

Not to mention the fact that efficient game play is more about the reasons "why" the game falls down the way it does, which unto its own self is considerable fun for those people who love to tinker with how games "play" -- but also that efficient game play means that while one spends less time grinding skills, one also has more time to attribute to those other things that one finds "fun" to do.

 

:rolleyes:

[Steph]

May I ask what the requirements are to have a guest article published? Not the literature requirements, but what does the editoral staff like to see in order to say, "Yes, we should publish this."

[The_Fray]

If we hold the opening premise to be true, the whole concept of 'pure efficiency' must come across as a tad strange. One does not go to a restaurant and gobble the food down to minimise time spent eating: one takes time to savour each bite, each burst of flavour, each whiff of bouquet. To gobble the food down would be to go against the whole idea of enjoying the food: the delightful piece of art cannot be fully savoured. Yet, the purely efficient aspires to be the impatient gourmet. He seeks to minimise the (fun) time spent playing the game, as if the game were a chore. What are we to make of this? I suspect that most proponents of 'pure efficiency' enjoy the game much less than they enjoy being good at it. Not being purely efficient would be to lose ground on others. Why not put more effort in if it means gaining a few more ranks?

 

Trolling for dollars anyone? :rolleyes:

 

Seriously -- you folks are still so pissed about this to the extent that you publish this rubbish under Tip-It Times now?

 

I realize that most of you cannot wrap your head around the idea that "fun" is subjective, and one could attempt to explain it to you once again, but in the end we cannot understand it for you.

You're welcome to disagree with an article or a person's views, Blyaunte, but you do have to be respectful. Challenge the ideas but do not just call it rubbish or trolling. And the articles in the Tip.It Times do not reflect the view of the site, staff, or entire Editorial Panel. The articles only describe the author's opinions.

 

Don't you think it gets a little "old" to see someone, time and again, attempt to make the same insipid argument against emergent/efficient/meta game play, based entirely upon their misbegotten notion of what efficient game play actually means -- and then have them assail such concept as not being "fun"?

 

Personally, I could care a tinker's curse about what someone else thinks is "fun", but I am not about to attempt to deny whatever it is they consider to be fun as "not being fun" -- and then attempt to further qualify such an absurd point of view with some ridiculous epicurean non sequiturial metaphor.

 

Not to mention the fact that efficient game play is more about the reasons "why" the game falls down the way it does, which unto its own self is considerable fun for those people who love to tinker with how games "play" -- but also that efficient game play means that while one spends less time grinding skills, one also has more time to attribute to those other things that one finds "fun" to do.

 

:rolleyes:

We really need a "like" kind of option here. I agree with this wholeheartedly. We have been through this argument so many times. "Fun" is subjective, yet some here believe that their way of playing is the only way of playing that is "fun". It is my opinion that some articles belong on the Times while others don't. Any article that is being posted on the main website is inherently a part of the website. As such as much as tip.it insists that all players are welcome here, you are alienating a group of players by allowing such articles to make their way on to the main website.

[tripsis]

May I ask what the requirements are to have a guest article published? Not the literature requirements, but what does the editoral staff like to see in order to say, "Yes, we should publish this."

Well above all we look for an interesting, unique idea that is well supported and argued. Ideally something that hasn't been done time and time again, but if you are able to put a new twist on an old idea - that's good too.

 

If we hold the opening premise to be true, the whole concept of 'pure efficiency' must come across as a tad strange. One does not go to a restaurant and gobble the food down to minimise time spent eating: one takes time to savour each bite, each burst of flavour, each whiff of bouquet. To gobble the food down would be to go against the whole idea of enjoying the food: the delightful piece of art cannot be fully savoured. Yet, the purely efficient aspires to be the impatient gourmet. He seeks to minimise the (fun) time spent playing the game, as if the game were a chore. What are we to make of this? I suspect that most proponents of 'pure efficiency' enjoy the game much less than they enjoy being good at it. Not being purely efficient would be to lose ground on others. Why not put more effort in if it means gaining a few more ranks?

 

Trolling for dollars anyone? :rolleyes:

 

Seriously -- you folks are still so pissed about this to the extent that you publish this rubbish under Tip-It Times now?

 

I realize that most of you cannot wrap your head around the idea that "fun" is subjective, and one could attempt to explain it to you once again, but in the end we cannot understand it for you.

You're welcome to disagree with an article or a person's views, Blyaunte, but you do have to be respectful. Challenge the ideas but do not just call it rubbish or trolling. And the articles in the Tip.It Times do not reflect the view of the site, staff, or entire Editorial Panel. The articles only describe the author's opinions.

 

Don't you think it gets a little "old" to see someone, time and again, attempt to make the same insipid argument against emergent/efficient/meta game play, based entirely upon their misbegotten notion of what efficient game play actually means -- and then have them assail such concept as not being "fun"?

 

Personally, I could care a tinker's curse about what someone else thinks is "fun", but I am not about to attempt to deny whatever it is they consider to be fun as "not being fun" -- and then attempt to further qualify such an absurd point of view with some ridiculous epicurean non sequiturial metaphor.

 

Not to mention the fact that efficient game play is more about the reasons "why" the game falls down the way it does, which unto its own self is considerable fun for those people who love to tinker with how games "play" -- but also that efficient game play means that while one spends less time grinding skills, one also has more time to attribute to those other things that one finds "fun" to do.

 

:rolleyes:

We really need a "like" kind of option here. I agree with this wholeheartedly. We have been through this argument so many times. "Fun" is subjective, yet some here believe that their way of playing is the only way of playing that is "fun". It is my opinion that some articles belong on the Times while others don't. Any article that is being posted on the main website is inherently a part of the website. As such as much as tip.it insists that all players are welcome here, you are alienating a group of players by allowing such articles to make their way on to the main website.

If someone wants to write a pro-efficiency article we would gladly publish that as well. People shouldn't be alienated by differing viewpoints and criticism. If we write an article criticizing the firemaking skill are we alienating all the people who love firemaking?

[The_Fray]

May I ask what the requirements are to have a guest article published? Not the literature requirements, but what does the editoral staff like to see in order to say, "Yes, we should publish this."

Well above all we look for an interesting, unique idea that is well supported and argued. Ideally something that hasn't been done time and time again, but if you are able to put a new twist on an old idea - that's good too.

 

If we hold the opening premise to be true, the whole concept of 'pure efficiency' must come across as a tad strange. One does not go to a restaurant and gobble the food down to minimise time spent eating: one takes time to savour each bite, each burst of flavour, each whiff of bouquet. To gobble the food down would be to go against the whole idea of enjoying the food: the delightful piece of art cannot be fully savoured. Yet, the purely efficient aspires to be the impatient gourmet. He seeks to minimise the (fun) time spent playing the game, as if the game were a chore. What are we to make of this? I suspect that most proponents of 'pure efficiency' enjoy the game much less than they enjoy being good at it. Not being purely efficient would be to lose ground on others. Why not put more effort in if it means gaining a few more ranks?

 

Trolling for dollars anyone? :rolleyes:

 

Seriously -- you folks are still so pissed about this to the extent that you publish this rubbish under Tip-It Times now?

 

I realize that most of you cannot wrap your head around the idea that "fun" is subjective, and one could attempt to explain it to you once again, but in the end we cannot understand it for you.

You're welcome to disagree with an article or a person's views, Blyaunte, but you do have to be respectful. Challenge the ideas but do not just call it rubbish or trolling. And the articles in the Tip.It Times do not reflect the view of the site, staff, or entire Editorial Panel. The articles only describe the author's opinions.

 

Don't you think it gets a little "old" to see someone, time and again, attempt to make the same insipid argument against emergent/efficient/meta game play, based entirely upon their misbegotten notion of what efficient game play actually means -- and then have them assail such concept as not being "fun"?

 

Personally, I could care a tinker's curse about what someone else thinks is "fun", but I am not about to attempt to deny whatever it is they consider to be fun as "not being fun" -- and then attempt to further qualify such an absurd point of view with some ridiculous epicurean non sequiturial metaphor.

 

Not to mention the fact that efficient game play is more about the reasons "why" the game falls down the way it does, which unto its own self is considerable fun for those people who love to tinker with how games "play" -- but also that efficient game play means that while one spends less time grinding skills, one also has more time to attribute to those other things that one finds "fun" to do.

 

:rolleyes:

We really need a "like" kind of option here. I agree with this wholeheartedly. We have been through this argument so many times. "Fun" is subjective, yet some here believe that their way of playing is the only way of playing that is "fun". It is my opinion that some articles belong on the Times while others don't. Any article that is being posted on the main website is inherently a part of the website. As such as much as tip.it insists that all players are welcome here, you are alienating a group of players by allowing such articles to make their way on to the main website.

If someone wants to write a pro-efficiency article we would gladly publish that as well. People shouldn't be alienated by differing viewpoints and criticism. If we write an article criticizing the firemaking skill are we alienating all the people who love firemaking?

I do not have a problem with criticism, if it is objective. This is hardly criticism but rather an attack on the way other people enjoy the game and what others deem as "fun". I have a problem with people preaching efficiency. I also have a problem with people attacking those who play a certain way just because they deem that method to be less "fun". We all enjoy the game in our own way, none of us have deluded ourselves into believing something else. Assuming that someone playing in a certain manner is not enjoying themselves is wrong. And all is see are assumptions and speculation in that article.

 

"He seeks to minimise the (fun) time spent playing the game, as if the game were a chore. I suspect that most proponents of 'pure efficiency' enjoy the game much less than they enjoy being good at it. Not being purely efficient would be to lose ground on others. Why not put more effort in if it means gaining a few more ranks?"

[ForsakenMage]

I personally invite those who have a different opinion to write a guest article and submit it to be published on the websites. I do sense the frustration of seeing a lot of the same opinions being put out without opposing arguments, so please, do write an article. I personally am not able to adequately write one supporting the opposing argument, and would like to see one who has a strong opinion for this side to do so.

 

=P Just make sure it's readable so that editing doesn't hurt our heads and I'll love you just for that hehe.

 

Some people have to bear in mind as well that sometimes opinions that are stated (as in, objective ones, not the subjective ones that have been described) can hit a nerve and come off as more offensive that intended. So please do make sure that when you do read these articles that you try to take it with a grain of salt as well. We all don't need to agree, but be able to at least see the different view points being presented.

 

Again, I personally would be happy to see another article showing this "other side" that many are mentioning already, and will even be happy to communicate further on the matter as well should you provide us with an article that you want some feedback on before sending. :)

[Crocefisso]

Some additional things that need to be established:

 

a) The Times has always been a subjective publication - people may wish it to be otherwise, but it's not.

 

b) 'Appropriateness' is something that only those with some knolwedge of the Times' Editorial Policy can really claim to be fit to speak on. Anything else is just a judgement, not some sort of concrete statement of the sort that we often see thrown around these threads. (Eg: "That shouldn't have been published.")

[The_Fray]

Some additional things that need to be established:

 

a) The Times has always been a subjective publication - people may wish it to be otherwise, but it's not.

 

b) 'Appropriateness' is something that only those with some knolwedge of the Times' Editorial Policy can really claim to be fit to speak on. Anything else is just a judgement, not some sort of concrete statement of the sort that we often see thrown around these threads. (Eg: "That shouldn't have been published.")

If the Times is subjective then we should be able to give our subjective opinion on whether something should be published or not. "That shouldn't have been published" can just as easily be in interpreted as a subjective opinion.

 

I personally invite those who have a different opinion to write a guest article and submit it to be published on the websites. I do sense the frustration of seeing a lot of the same opinions being put out without opposing arguments, so please, do write an article. I personally am not able to adequately write one supporting the opposing argument, and would like to see one who has a strong opinion for this side to do so.

 

=P Just make sure it's readable so that editing doesn't hurt our heads and I'll love you just for that hehe.

 

Some people have to bear in mind as well that sometimes opinions that are stated (as in, objective ones, not the subjective ones that have been described) can hit a nerve and come off as more offensive that intended. So please do make sure that when you do read these articles that you try to take it with a grain of salt as well. We all don't need to agree, but be able to at least see the different view points being presented.

 

Again, I personally would be happy to see another article showing this "other side" that many are mentioning already, and will even be happy to communicate further on the matter as well should you provide us with an article that you want some feedback on before sending. :)

If this is the case then why cannot some writers manage to take opinions posted over here with "a grain of salt".

 

I do agree that the Times needs a wider range of writers though, it seems to have the same feel every time. I do not know where we will find such writers though. I am just a reader, like many other simply does not have time to write articles for the Times. I appreciate those who put an effort into writing these articles but when I see something published that I find lacking to my taste then I am more likelier to make a post. There are other weeks when I like the articles being published but I do not comment because I see no point in making posts such as "Good article, I agree." as they seem increasingly repetitive.

[Crocefisso]

Some additional things that need to be established:

 

a) The Times has always been a subjective publication - people may wish it to be otherwise, but it's not.

 

b) 'Appropriateness' is something that only those with some knolwedge of the Times' Editorial Policy can really claim to be fit to speak on. Anything else is just a judgement, not some sort of concrete statement of the sort that we often see thrown around these threads. (Eg: "That shouldn't have been published.")

If the Times is subjective then we should be able to give our subjective opinion on whether something should be published or not. "That shouldn't have been published" can just as easily be in interpreted as a subjective opinion.

There's no logic to that conclusion. The Times' content is wholly subjective, what it publishes is subjective only in relation to the aforementioned Editorial Policy. By making statements such as "That shouldn't have been published", you imply knowledge of this private policy. Thus "I wouldn't publish that" is, though petty, acceptable, whereas absolute statements such as "That shouldn't have been pulished" are downright wrong.

[The_Fray]

Some additional things that need to be established:

 

a) The Times has always been a subjective publication - people may wish it to be otherwise, but it's not.

 

b) 'Appropriateness' is something that only those with some knolwedge of the Times' Editorial Policy can really claim to be fit to speak on. Anything else is just a judgement, not some sort of concrete statement of the sort that we often see thrown around these threads. (Eg: "That shouldn't have been published.")

If the Times is subjective then we should be able to give our subjective opinion on whether something should be published or not. "That shouldn't have been published" can just as easily be in interpreted as a subjective opinion.

There's no logic to that conclusion. The Times' content is wholly subjective, what it publishes is subjective only in relation to the aforementioned Editorial Policy. By making statements such as "That shouldn't have been published", you imply knowledge of this private policy. Thus "I wouldn't publish that" is, though petty, acceptable, whereas absolute statements such as "That shouldn't have been pulished" are downright wrong.

"That shouldn't be published" can easily be a subjective opinion as in, "That article was so awful that it was not worthy of the Times". You are taking this too literally maybe you should take ForsakenMage's advice and take things with "a grain of salt".

[RU_Insane]

Here's an idea: if, when reading, you find you don't like something, stop reading it. Or offer some thoughts on how the article could have been improved. Not simply "it shouldn't have been published." No, you have no right over that. You are the reader, not the publisher. Your only right is to offer criticism of the content being published.

 

"It shouldn't have been published" isn't a criticism, it's a vacuous complaint that doesn't tell anyone what was wrong with the article that could have been dealt with in other ways besides removing it/withholding from publication. If the article in question was libelous, your objection might actually hold some ground, but in that case I'd figure that issue would have been pre-emptively dealt with. Just, really? <.<

 

With regards to the other interpretation of the statement. Fine, I see your point. Then again, is it hard to click the back button? Also, the Times is by no means a professional publication. Professional writers are salaried. The Times is a weekly series of editorials largely submitted by unpaid volunteers who may or may not work on the EP.

 

I'm not saying anyone's calling the Times professional, but that in a place where virtually anyone can submit an article and have a high chance of being published, you can't really claim the Times has standards. I've seen articles that have been largely welcomed by the community, that, in my opinion, were not so worthy of praise. I simply mean it's a fallacy to assume that whatever is published automatically surpasses the bare threshold for a certain level of quality.

 

The Times has standards for publishing, but those standards don't translate directly to audience taste or level of quality. Plenty of excellent articles may have been withheld from publication at one point because the quota for the week was already filled. Some decent articles may never have gotten published. Likewise, some terrible articles get published, some don't. Now, some articles are objectively bad.

 

I remember one titled "The Skill Cape killed RuneScape" or something to that effect, and it ended with a doom and gloom message to its wary readers. It really was terrible to anyone who had half an iota of experience with literature. Does that reflect on what the Times considers to be quality, though? No, since it's a fallacy to assume that Tip.it's publishing criteria is concerned solely with the supposed literary quality of a candidate article. Yes, some of that does factor in, but I don't think it's wholly concerned with it.

[Crocefisso]

Here's an idea: if, when reading, you find you don't like something, stop reading it. Or offer some thoughts on how the article could have been improved. Not simply "it shouldn't have been published." No, you have no right over that. You are the reader, not the publisher. Your only right is to offer criticism of the content being published. "It shouldn't have been published" isn't a criticism, it's a vacuous complaint that doesn't tell anyone what was wrong with the article that could have been dealt with in other ways besides removing it/withholding from publication. If the article in question was libelous, your objection might actually hold some ground, but in that case I'd figure that issue would have been pre-emptively dealt with. Just, really? <.<

:thumbup: :thumbup:

[Phthartic]

regarding "The Sisyphus Effect:"

 

I'm afraid I don't have much to say about the main topic, other than to agree with the general idea that Jagex tends to release too many different (or related) updates too close together. I would be much happier if they spaced them out and used the effort put into getting several ready at once into working the bugs out of the LAST update they released. As happened with their latest moneypouch/toolbelt update. Both features needed more testing and tweaking before release, and releasing them simultaneously just compounds the frustration and confusion.

 

But the real reason I posted:

 

"I am not trying to infer that the efforts to improve clans have been futile."

 

I'm a bit hesitant to correct someone who is obviously my superior in writing ability, but the word you wanted there was "imply" not "infer."