[tripsis]

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

EDITORIAL PANEL DISCUSSION THREAD:
This thread is for discussing and debating the week's articles. If you would like to comment on the overall structure or direction of the Editorial Panel, please use the discussion topic in the Website Discussion forum.

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

Read these rules before posting in this thread

Cowman_133, on 18 November 2010 - 12:20 AM, said:

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.

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 tripsis

Enjoy the articles!

[Thus]

In the first article, I read all the way up to banning people for being AFK: "If someone else is training their skills without even being at their computer, they have an advantage over you." No they don't. I don't care if someone is at LRC and not at his computer. They can do whatever the hell they want with their spare time.

[Dexek]

In regards to the article "Rebooting RuneScape (On a Few Servers)", I just have to say that I've discussed this idea with friends multiple times when I used to play RS and I still think it would be an amazing experience. I would literally come back to play Runescape if an opportunity such as this arose, because in a nutshell it's the problems that this idea removes that caused me to quit Runescape in the first place. I felt that Jagex wouldn't be able to wrap their heads around the idea, so I just decided I would wait until a new MMORPG was released that I could find interest in. However, maybe it is a possibility now.. I can only dream.

[Turtles]

The second article described something that I think would be a really great idea and very interesting to see. I've always wondered how things would have gone if I'd had to start from scratch in a completely new RuneScape with everyone else at the same level as me and how I might go about progressing through the game without the aid of the Grand Exchange and other richer players to buy my flax, yews and various resources from me. Currently as you approach endgame which is the case for many people, everything becomes about killing ganodermic beasts or cave crawlers for effigies, using those on runecrafting and maybe doing a farm run, or afking some ivy here and there.

What if thieving was actually a viable source of income? What if you could get the first pair of dragon claws in the game? What if making your own yew longbows from scratch and alching them with your own natures was all the rage again?

Another game that I play has this system already, with two servers running side by side and the second server being a temporary server that resets every 3 months. At the start of each season you get to see the winners from the previous season in various categories as well as all-time highscores with small prizes being given out to winners that may be used to get a small head start in the next round. The game I'm referring to is far, far simpler than RuneScape, yet it's still interesting to see how various different strategies develop for getting ahead as fast as possible, but with RuneScape being so much more complicated the possibilities would be truly endless and introduce a whole new kind of game. I really would love to see Jagex do this and if they did I could see myself playing this extra server very frequently, and not only that, but no more bankstanding!

[jrhairychest]

Can we blank our memories too? I'd love to be a beginner and have to learn the game again.

[deskjethp]

Surprisingly enough, I'm not all that opposed to the rebooting concept. I think it would be kind of neat... Kind of like the rs2 beta, but actually longer...

This article also highlights an important issue: Content addition, not content replacement. As said in the article, if they implemented such an update over all the serves, it wouldn't be met with the happiest of responses. If they considered leaving older content in the game when updating, it would give people who wanted to do things the new way the option to do them the new way, while leaving the old ways around for the people that like them better.

regarding the second article:

"Why you should care: If someone else is training their skills without even being at their computer, they have an advantage over you."

...(!)

"And should we report people who are "AFK?" How do we tell if they are AFK? If they don't talk, maybe they just do not want to chat."

I agree with Thus on this point.

[Jeit_Thorne]

I would jump onto a new rs server with everyone starting from level 3 in a heartbeat. I think that would be fantastically fun. As to the first article, I read about half of it, and the closing arguments and can sum my thoughts up very concisely: I do not agree. Language is not a problem with the option of turning the filter on and off, if you don't want to hear it, turn the filter on. No one does the million ways around the censor anymore since the people that swear have the filter off. I'm not going into each rule, however the feel I got from what I read was way to strict to ever actually be implemented, and if it was I would expect riots in fally again....where they would likely all get banned.

[Arceus]

Jeit_Thorne, on 05 February 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

No one does the million ways around the censor anymore since the people that swear have the filter off.

Judging by personal experience, I see more swearing via avoiding the censor than a straight out four letter word, so at least where and when I play, this is not the case.

[stonewall337]

Thus, on 05 February 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

In the first article, I read all the way up to banning people for being AFK: "If someone else is training their skills without even being at their computer, they have an advantage over you." No they don't. I don't care if someone is at LRC and not at his computer. They can do whatever the hell they want with their spare time.

Agreed. The first article was just opinions without any logical backing for most of the stances. Not surprised this is in the Times though lol. Inb4the "warning" for "badmouthing our pretty articlesz."

[tripsis]

stonewall337, on 05 February 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

Thus, on 05 February 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

In the first article, I read all the way up to banning people for being AFK: "If someone else is training their skills without even being at their computer, they have an advantage over you." No they don't. I don't care if someone is at LRC and not at his computer. They can do whatever the hell they want with their spare time.

Agreed. The first article was just opinions without any logical backing for most of the stances. Not surprised this is in the Times though lol. Inb4the "warning" for "badmouthing our pretty articlesz."

The fact that you said that expecting a warning is just downright disrespectful. You are perfectly entitled to any constructive opinions and criticisms but comments like "Not surprised this is in the Times though lol" (implying that you think the Times is just crap) are completely unnecessary.

[Baffler]

Reading the first article, I kept thinking along the lines of 'Jagex doesn't care that much' or 'it's too hard for them to enforce'. Knowing the rules is one thing, but knowing how they are enforced (if they are at all), is another thing and while I'm sure some players have no idea, other people know exactly what they can get away with.

The second article is something I would really enjoy if implemented, starting fresh in a new game where everyone is level 3 with nothing (but perhaps knowledge) would be something I'd consider. The article parallels such a server to classic, but I think Jagex treats classic as a mistake or something they would do different so I'm not sure if they'd go with something like this.

[Kimberly]

The first article has a pretty big and obvious point where it's incorrect:

Quote

Why this is important: Players should be able to read each other's names without seeing offensive material, according to Jagex.
The current solution: You can report a player for "Offensive username," but only if they spoke or traded with you recently.

This is untrue. You can toggle right-click reporting and report someone even if they haven't spoken recently. And for every one they miss, they hit another and revert name changes. But the biggest problem with the Offensive Username is directly related to the mishandling of the Offensive Language rule and reports in general.

I do like the solution suggested for website advertising, because it'd make it easier for clans and fansites.

[MonkeyChee]

Kimberly, on 05 February 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

The first article has a pretty big and obvious point where it's incorrect:

Quote

Why this is important: Players should be able to read each other's names without seeing offensive material, according to Jagex.
The current solution: You can report a player for "Offensive username," but only if they spoke or traded with you recently.

This is untrue. You can toggle right-click reporting and report someone even if they haven't spoken recently. And for every one they miss, they hit another and revert name changes. But the biggest problem with the Offensive Username is directly related to the mishandling of the Offensive Language rule and reports in general.

Actually, even with right-click reporting on, it still says the rule only applies to players who have spoken/traded recently.

[Kimberly]

MonkeyChee, on 05 February 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

Actually, even with right-click reporting on, it still says the rule only applies to players who have spoken/traded recently.

I just did it ingame with no problems to someone I stood next to and made sure they didn't talk for a period of time. They were fletching. I got the "Thank-you, your abuse report etcetc" message.

[MonkeyChee]

Kimberly, on 05 February 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

MonkeyChee, on 05 February 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

Actually, even with right-click reporting on, it still says the rule only applies to players who have spoken/traded recently.

I just did it ingame with no problems to someone I stood next to and made sure they didn't talk for a period of time. They were fletching. I got the "Thank-you, your abuse report etcetc" message.

Hmm, I just did the same thing a couple of times and was told it only applies to people who have spoken/traded recently, I also checked when looking over the article with the same result, not sure why then.

[Kimberly]

I guess he traded then, the fellow I tried it on. My apologies.

[MonkeyChee]

Kimberly, on 05 February 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

I guess he traded then, the fellow I tried it on. My apologies.

Ah that was probably the reason, no worries.

[Arceus]

Hmm, thanks for pointing that out. I was unaware that they patched it.

[stonewall337]

tripsis, on 05 February 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

stonewall337, on 05 February 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

Thus, on 05 February 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

In the first article, I read all the way up to banning people for being AFK: "If someone else is training their skills without even being at their computer, they have an advantage over you." No they don't. I don't care if someone is at LRC and not at his computer. They can do whatever the hell they want with their spare time.

Agreed. The first article was just opinions without any logical backing for most of the stances. Not surprised this is in the Times though lol. Inb4the "warning" for "badmouthing our pretty articlesz."

The fact that you said that expecting a warning is just downright disrespectful. You are perfectly entitled to any constructive opinions and criticisms but comments like "Not surprised this is in the Times though lol" (implying that you think the Times is just crap) are completely unnecessary.

My view of the times has been espoused numerous times. I'm expecting the moderators to suspend normal logical behavior to defend the Times, as they have in the past, even when its obvious that the pieces (in the past) have been poorly written or just downright wrong.

Don't get me wrong, the Time's has had a few amazing pieces, and some downright well written works. But then you publish an article like the first one. Let me go more into detail to explain why it is illogical and flawed writing. Note, none of this or the past has been any type of flame or personal attacks. I'm pointing out an issue with the Times as a whole, and with this piece in particular which should have been addressed years ago.

1.) The problem: Offensive language.
First off this isn't a problem per say. There is a filter, use it or don't. Report those who offend you. Simple as that. There is no "problem". Words are inherently neutral. Its the meaning them that matters. I can call someone a "noob" as an insult and it be way more "mean" or "harsh" then calling my IRL friend a Fing a-hole, because the later knows it is meant as a joke, and takes no offense, whereas the former does not. Offensive language aimed at you, report or use the ignore list. This shouldn't have been even been listed, its just this simple.

2.) The problem: Offensive username. Seriously, " Players should be able to read each other's names without seeing offensive material, according to Jagex.". First off, he's wrong. Offensive names are against the rules, but not because of some "right" that players have to "not be subjected to offensive names" as if RS has some Bill of Rights. That ruins credibility. Also,

"Why you should care: If this is a "rule", and people break it without being punished, they may have the courage to break other rules you may feel more strongly about." This is just a stupid statement. For one, logically, its wrong. Just because someone has stolen a candy bar does not mean they will steal a car. Because I punch my friend does not mean I will murder a professor. As well, even if some contrived correlation could be derived, (A person with an offensive name scams someone) Correlation does NOT create causality, at best it simply implies it. As well, offensive names are in every game. You either have to not play, or deal with it as the rules allow, through reports or such. Not sure what a wiki page would do to prevent or inform people. An stats on how many people even read the wiki pages?

3.) The problem: Spamming. WELCOME TO THE INTERNET. The problem actually isn't so much spam as it is Jagex's asinine chat system. Could be much better like WoW's, where you have a /2 (trade) but limited to 2 messages per 30 seconds or whatever. Can enter/leave it easily. In addition, where is the brightline? The author provided no brightline, he just says "Spam r problem." His solution might help a bit, but the F2P model and ease of spam will only go away when Jagex fixes their end.

4.) The problem: Solicitation. WELCOME TO THE INTERNET. So what? /ignore! Problem solved. Honestly, who sees this as a major problem? Going into the "real world info" part is again interesting. I know personally many of the people I raid with on WoW. I've spent the night at a few of their houses. (I'm 21, they were slightly older) and visited another. The threat is overblown, statistically. The real threat w/ online info is between scam (identity theft) or an employer disliking things you post. (Underage drinking on FB, posting pictures of illegal activity, etc) I don't see solicitation as a problem, at least not a major one.

5.) Multiple logging-in. Flawed premise. The system should be able to integrate accounts, like WoW does. Toons should augment and enhance each other. My pure (twink) should be able to be funded by my main. Any evidence the author posts is unreliable. "A friend told me he heard from a jmod..." Really? That'd stand up as evidence anywhere...

6.) The problem: AFKing. Why does this matter? If you are botting, ya. Unfair advantage. But I should be able to go AFK to get a soda. Who bloody cares?

I could go on, but I honestly am getting tired of pointing out the illogical and downright stupid stances taken, no offense to the author intended.

I mean, things like " Many people "AFK" and it therefore concerns them." Is just illogical. It doesn't follow. If he said "many people AFK, in order to complete IRL work, whilst leveling skills in game, enabling them to level without spending as much time actively playing the game, thus giving them an unfair advantage, and as such concerns them and all other active players." That follows. That is logical.

All I ask is good writing and logical stances. Is that so hard?

[tripsis]

stonewall337, on 06 February 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

tripsis, on 05 February 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

stonewall337, on 05 February 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

Thus, on 05 February 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

In the first article, I read all the way up to banning people for being AFK: "If someone else is training their skills without even being at their computer, they have an advantage over you." No they don't. I don't care if someone is at LRC and not at his computer. They can do whatever the hell they want with their spare time.

Agreed. The first article was just opinions without any logical backing for most of the stances. Not surprised this is in the Times though lol. Inb4the "warning" for "badmouthing our pretty articlesz."

The fact that you said that expecting a warning is just downright disrespectful. You are perfectly entitled to any constructive opinions and criticisms but comments like "Not surprised this is in the Times though lol" (implying that you think the Times is just crap) are completely unnecessary.

My view of the times has been espoused numerous times. I'm expecting the moderators to suspend normal logical behavior to defend the Times, as they have in the past, even when its obvious that the pieces (in the past) have been poorly written or just downright wrong.

There's nothing illogical about insisting that all comments are respectful and follow the forum and thread rules that have been clearly and explicitly laid out. That is all we have ever asked. If you have any more "Issue[s] with the Times as a whole" you can PM me or post in our Times Discussion Thread:

tripsis, on 05 February 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

EDITORIAL PANEL DISCUSSION THREAD:
This thread is for discussing and debating the week's articles. If you would like to comment on the overall structure or direction of the Editorial Panel, please use the discussion topic in the Website Discussion forum.

Or dare I suggest it, you can show us how you think it should be done by writing an article yourself.