Ginger_Warrior

If I'm stressed it's usually because I'm being careless and disorganised, so everything's just "piled up". In which case, go for a walk and think of a plan to solve it, maybe listen to my iPod after I'm done.

I think "hate" is just the modern thing of people describing in affirmatives: * I don't enjoy pop music, therefore I hate it. * It wasn't meant to happen, therefore it was random. * It wasn't boring, therefore it was epic. I kind of laugh on the inside at people who take Ke$ha's party gurl image seriously. She's come out about a dozen times and said it would be ridiculous to think she honestly lived the life she portrays in her songs and videos, but people I know in real life still get on her for being a skank... Actually I think her music's not bad. I mean I'm not gonna buy the album but I'll listen to it if someone else does.

I almost voted 'No' just to troll this whole thread.

Try biology and having to take saline solution for a cheek sample. Eurgh...

So in order for someone to stop being 'braindead' they must stop listening to pop music? Sorry, the more I read your post the more I'm comprehending the meaning of 'judgemental'.

You're comparing a job over the summer to a hobby in RuneScape? What the hell...

Good points, but with respect those aren't the kind of activities we're talking about when it comes to botting. If RuneScape however had more of an emphasis on these sorts of activities then perhaps casual botting (on an invidividual basis to grind skills or farm GP for non-commercial use) wouldn't be such a problem. I don't think anyone here honestly supports botting, there are just some of us who think that with the way RuneScape is so heavily structured around "skilling", it's kind of asking for it and it's certainly not misunderstandable to realise why someone who would rather be outside or playing CoD would be appealed to casual botting. I think one of the problems with RuneScape is that to do any of what you've mentioned (except friends, obviously), you have to have grinded your levels high enough for others to regard you as being 'efficient' enough to join them. Even CW--a game largely focused around tactical awareness rather than one-on-one dueling--requires you to be level 94 Magic to perform well.

It's not an excuse, it's a consequence.

Then I can understand how botting ruined their experience, in fairness, and I've no answer for it. Unfortunately they've had to pay the price for playing a system which I think fundamentally rewards botting. People shouldn't feel as though they have to be shoved down an avenue to avoid botting on a local scale.

Such as...?

WELL I GET DAT (removes crumbs from shift key) is the real reason people feel so agrieved. They spend all that time performing the same action thousands of times over and at the end discover someone else did it while spending only a couple of hours at their keyboard to make sure the bot was fine, and for them that lowers the sense of achievement and makes it almost seem pointless. It's contradictory however to suggest botting will be the death of RuneScape or that it even harms the game when, despite botting blighting the game for the past decade, it's continued to grow and people have continued to grind skills. Simply put: The same reason players have this obsessive need to hunt achievement capes, is the same reason bots find this game so inhabitable. Either lose the skillcapes and the ridiculously highly priced items, thus removing the need to farm XP and GP, or accept botting as a consequence.

See, this is what I don't understand--this idea that botting ruins your experience of the game. Surely if you enjoyed the simple act of grinding up your skills it wouldn't matter whether a bot or a human was standing five tiles away. The evidence out there suggests people aren't suddenly dropping their virtual tools because they see a bot next to them, quite the opposite in fact, so how ruinous is botting to people's experiences really?

I'm not being funny but the rule actually reads: You're not seriously saying "I cheated once" is the same as actually helping someone how to do it themselves, are you? Jagex punished them in-game, there's no need for you guys to be acting as their unpaid militia and enforcing rules on here which don't need to be enforced and only serve to kill good debate.

...So don't play runescape....? People who cheat on a game and try to run businesses off of them obviously care a lot more about RS than casual players like me. I wouldn't take the risk of downloading potential trojans or go through the effort of purchasing a bot or RWT just to enlarge my e-peen on an online video game, but a lot of people on TIF obviously would. If grinding sucks...just don't do it? I think he was making the point that if a quick buck is on the table, and you haven't got millions stashed away whilst employing someone to keep it tax-free at a dodgy bank in Estonia, you take it. Morals (wrong word) Ethics frankly go out of the window for most people unless there's a possibility of criminal liability. There are people who don't earn $25K a year, you'd be crazy to turn it down.

The way I see it, botting will always be a blight on RuneScape and most other MMOs because grinding is so fundamental to extending the gameplay and keeping the subscriptions rolling in. The game's central mechanism to keep people hooked produces a necessary evil, therefore they'll never try too hard to eradicate it. If anything, the presence of bots proves the game is still working, from their perspective at least, in that players are still hunting achievements, even if cheating is going on.

I'm not doubting the importance of people skills for a job in telecoms. I mean it's in the name really. But you weren't at his interview so how can you call it less than 'half-decent'? Seems pretty derisive. For all you know he could have had a good interview, but his friend simply had a better one. He might have had a bad day when normally his interviewing technique is good--lord knows we've all had bad job interviews in our time, it's a skill in itself that needs learning. You're making all sorts of broad judgements on very anecdotal evidence. In a way, it's useful your friend got the job because now you've got contact with the winning candidate, as well as the company's feedback. You can ask him what answers he gave; what he was doing that you weren't and how you can improve your technique for the next interview. Most important thing is not to let your head drop. I've seen too many people I once knew from high school go to job interviews, get rejected and then not bother going for another one for fear of the same thing happening.

Alcoholism, clearly. As I said, keep it up Tim. :thumbup:

I'd look at it this way: If they're going to pick someone who needs training up over someone who can already do the job capably, what does that say about them as employers? Not much. Keep going, the right job's out there.

A sweet, sweet moment. Hopefully a win at Wembley against Barca just to complete a fantastic season.

In fact many of them are destitute; 50% unemployment if you believe some people. Of course that and terrorism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Anyway I'm sure lighting candles will fix the problem either way.

Because the No campaign hasn't got any responsiblity for those people who didn't vote, yet you guys seem happy to blame them for the referendum's defeat.

that is wrong, from the result we can say people didn't want AV but i know several who voted no because they thought that doing so would mean it would be more likely that a more radical reform, such as PR could enter the debate using the result of a referendum between 2 bad systems to lock out any talk of all other options is not the way forward OK, I'll accept that. I worded it ambiguously. I'm just not going to sit here and listen to people basically alleging that 40% of those who voted were idiots, believed any old nonsense shoved in front of their noses and were subsequently incapable of researching anything for themselves before definitively casting their vote. You're making it sound as if No campaigners barricaded the stations and walked people into the voting booth. Of course the reality is the majority of the electorate couldn't be bothered voting either way and couldn't have been more oblivious to electoral reform had the referendum not even taken place last Thursday. Not much the evil No campaign can do to people who simply didn't care in the first place.

Look there is some degree of lying in every election and if you honestly believe otherwise or even believe the opposite will ever happen then I make no apology for calling you naive. I'm not proud of how the No campaign conducted itself, but are you seriously saying that a 40% victory margin in a low-turn out referendum was down to one of the two sides making up some lies? I'd say you're doing a pretty good job of patronising the electorate there. The fact of the matter is people can decide for themselves, there were plenty of impartial news websites which explained it without any bias for them to research, and not enough voters were convinced that going out to their polling station and voting Yes was worth their time.

Knowledge of video games brought you more success in a video game. Einstein would have been all over this one like a rash. :rolleyes:

Yes, but the legal precedent set in other cases is because they were tightly contested elections and the lies made a significant difference to the result. This election wasn't tight, it wasn't even close; 70:30 really is as comprehensive as a public vote gets, and the turnout was the second lowest ever seen in a British referendum. Put simply: people just didn't want change. Of course the irony is that Clegg has been so badly damaged by this, Cameron will wonder whether the lies were even beneficial to the coalition now that we know a Yes vote was never likely to win.