Ginger_Warrior

As sick as that crime is, I wasn't too happy with North West Tonight's reporting of it. They made it sound like he deliberately stole the phone *in order to* kill her. Murder has to be premeditated, but in this case it clearly wasn't, so to make parallels with murder is dangerous in this case. I think as far as saving lives goes, the vast majority of people lack basic first aid skills: how can you make an offence that the majority of the population could already be in potential guilt of at any given moment?

Though parents still have a right to decide on what medical procedures their child should go through until they are competent enough to decide for themselves. I don't think many doctors will claim circumcision is a good idea, but they aren't many who would refuse a parents responsibility to decide what is best for their own baby.

A 'lack of understanding' which is being clarified by Jagex, right? So let's sit tight and wait before making any premature claims to innoncnce.

If you can prove any other potentially rule-breaking website would've been treat any differently I'd be interested to know. Are you suggesting Tip.It shouldn't remove links to such websites?

The main concern amongst most of the gamers I know is a lack of third party games to play. Sure, we all know Nintendo's games have a special charm and many of them are console sellers in their own right, but it's still an issue that needs addressing. Perhaps there's scope for them to produce a console that allows them to experiment with new ideas and concepts like usual, but provides enough conventionality for third party developers to produce a game that follows a tried and tested formula, which they know will sell commercially and make money. We can't spend our whole lives playing Mario and Zelda, you're right, and when people go into a games store wanting to buy a new console, that's a factor in their decision.

At least once every two days, preferably every day, and always once a day for hair. Anything less and I just feel... Horrible.

You won't be seeing their faces since you're dead. ;) You'd have been right all along and you wouldn't be able to savour the moment. Course if you believed in the afterlife and were right in doing so, at least you'd get to enjoy it. Logical conclusion: Believe in heaven, if only for brownie points.

They serve the same purpose every other thread on GD serves: to discuss. Even if we're all united in thinking bots are a bad thing we can still discuss why they are there, what effect they have on us and what could be done to challenge them. There are those who say botting isn't bad. To them, I say I disagree, but your opinions make the forum all that more diverse and interesting.

Ooo a floppy disc... Must be an old one!

Oh here we go again. 685 replies in and we're still in the 'us vs them' mentality. Yay... This isn't PMQs, it's a RuneScape forum run by volunteers FFS.

The Met must feel like they've hit the jackpot. So basically, stay 50 miles away from London for that fixture then?

There is a requirement for crewbies to hold good background knowledge about RuneScape and I agree with that since their role is primarily focused around in-game content and documenting this on the main website. Moderators have a different role within the Tip.It staff. People skills and dispute resolution are more relevant to their roles than in-game experience. If they're good at the former, then it makes no sense to look past those talents because they don't happen to play RuneScape any more.

As harsh as it sounds, I'd have through America would've learned its lesson from Saddam's trial. You don't give people like him a platform to make martyrs of themselves. Britain would have made the same mistake with Hitler, but thankfully he solved that problem for us.

Hmm... From the looks of things, it's being relived anyway regardless of what I say or don't say, sadly.

I notice you're not using that "fuel to flames" analogy to the past ten or so pages with people asking for proof that needn't be given because a more formal process is currently ongoing.

Those are some pretty scandelous accusations, I hope you're also prepared to show proof.

Uniracers? If I'm right someone else claim my go because I swear my laptop will break the moment I turn it off so I might be inactive for a while... :-?

Point is, you're arguing over misinformation. This really has just become a weak excuse for a flame war, nothing more, nothing less. If it wasn't, this thread should've been locked pending Jagex's decision

Who told you that? Not everything has to be referenced. So seriously, where did you get that from?

Port, I'd say. Seems like a waste of money when there's cheaper things to get drunk on though... maybe I'm taking this too efficiently. Then again you could get a whole bottle of wine for £2.50 at my local once so, maybe not.

I'm not sure why anyone would need a specialist knowledge of scripts to understand what Tripsis wrote, to be honest. There are bits for which specialist knowledge would be required for a contested interpretation of the rules (i.e., knowing what "rule-breaking content" means as is being clarified in TEF's case) but the actual principles don't require anything special. Since I don't have said knowledge (hence "lay person", which you so kindly gave a definition for in case anyone else didn't know what that meant), I'm trusting an authority figure which does have that knowledge: Jagex, whose opinion will come soon, I hope.

When they do that thing in Family Guy of repeating the same word over and over again with slightly varying lengths of pauses. I'm yet to meet a single person who finds those bits funny... :-?

So you're going to block TEF because you could potentially break the 1;1 rule by making a script for yourself (assuming wicked's scripts are the ones you have a problem with, that hasn't even been made clear.), but you won't block sites that allow ads for bots/buying runescape gp that directly break the rules? None of wickeds scripts as far as I can see break the rs rules unless the user themselves makes it more than 1 output for 1 input (read wicked's well written post 1 page back.) Edit for sonic's post: It's in metagame development now seeing as it's more about developing scripts than discussing them. (I assume, dunno who moved it.) As a lay person in all of this, it seems pretty easy for me to understand what's happening. The adverts on YouTube etc. are not counted in this rule because they're not part of the website's content and are more or less transposed onto the page by an external group. Therefore it's the advertisers' fault, not the website's. Hell, Tip.It itself has inadvertently had links to RS gold websites via adverts in the past, and these have had to be dealt with retrospectively. The difference here is that the thread in question isn't being put there by an external website, it's part of the forum's content. Because Tip.It think there's a question mark over whether the scripts are illegal, they've formally got in touch with Jagex to see if it does. Until then, it appears TEF has been put on a kind of "probation" until Jagex can clarify the matter. Until then, patience is a virtue, but I'm sure if Jagex officially agree with Wicked and say there's nothing wrong with the scripts then I'm sure links to TEF will be allowed again. Poking questions at admins here isn't going to get Jagex to answer any more quickly though, not least because it's a weekend. The only grey area I can see in what appears to be a sensible set of rules there, is what happens when a website deliberately puts (or knowingly leaves) an advert to a questionable third party? If I made my own forums and put a signature-like banner at the bottom of the index page, for example. It's an advert, so it's not content according to those rules, but I've deliberately put it there.

Uh oh... somebody's drunk TIFing. ;-) EDIT: Actually, RPG's posting in other threads and making (relatively) perfect sense so maybe there's an inside joke I'm not in on.

Yeah... You're not seriously going to do this by phone are you? :s