Ginger_Warrior

I think 90% of all Americans have eating disorders. When you think about it, I want to eat food right now, so I must be right. ^ That's essentially the fragile logic used by the OP here. You've not even bothered to check what addiction actually means. If addiction to gaming actually exists, it has psychological origins. Addiction to drugs is more likely to be physiological, including characteristic symptoms of dependence (withdrawal symptoms) and tolerance (need to consume increased amounts over time for same original effect). Therefore, even if we assume you're right about RuneScape's potential for causing addiction, it's nothing like the addiction seen in illicit drug/alcohol use.

U fail at BA. Thought not as bad as some I had on that team. And not as much as PC bots. :unsure:

The Ignore List when private mode is 'ON' logically holds the same purpose as selectively adding to (or removing from) your Friends List when private mode is 'FRIENDS'. Else there'd be no point to the Ignore List. So no, they can't see if you're online.

The chance of finding the ruby necklace in the pile of rocks holds roughly a 1:100 chance. I suppose it would be made less painful if they just allowed you to 'run' 25 rocks at a time to the table, but keep at it and you'll eventually find one.

97 thieve? Crazy...

I don't understand how you can say, "Each to their own playing ways" in a conversation that essentially attacks the basis that training 'efficiently' is a form of 'play'. Efficiency is something I do at work or in education to make sure I'm reaching my targets in the fastest possible way. What enjoyment I may possibly receive on that journey is purely a coincidence of the method I have taken, and hasn't been sought after. The only thing that matters is that I get from point A to B in the quickest possible time, wasting minimum materials. In reality, the only balancing act is not of "Enjoyment vs productivity", it's actually more "Time (hrs) vs loss (GP)". In terms of human experience, should you achieve said goal, the only sensation of 'playing' you'll actually feel is a small flutter of pride in your stomach, and that will quickly dissipate once you realise you have to set yourself a new goal and work like a Trojan to achieve that target too in order to maintain interest in the 'game'. Good luck finding any concept of 'play' in that equation. 'Play' by definition is a voluntary and conscious decision to interact with something in one's environment in order to gain pleasure. If you happen to enjoy cooking 100,000 lobsters for 99 Cooking, then fine, but for the vast majority who don't, how can anyone make a voluntary and conscious decision to do something they gain no personal satisfaction out of time and time again in almost compulsive fashion, all in the name of 'efficiency'? Given Jagex's initial surprise when players started gaining 99s, subsequent "nerfing" of games like Pest Control and the large recent emphasis on D&Ds, I'll second guess they never intended for the game to be played 'efficiently' in the first place.

My whole Photobucket account seems to have been deleted for inactivity so I'd count yourself lucky you even have one still. Reading your own blog is the ultimate sign of vanity btw :rolleyes:

grats on dirt-digging cape. ...whose mind was stolen btw?

But I *am* getting more levels/hr than you at the moment. IDC if they're level 60s, it makes me the better player. I can get a full level at TOG - can you? U no it makes sense. Don't even bother saying "Barrows gloves"... old news boi.

The first half of this article is essentially needless commentary that would fail even the most basic English Lit paper. So you went for an Indian? Nice... who hasn't? I don't get what that has to do with RuneFest. And then, when I think you're about to give an opinion of RuneFest and move out of descriptive mode, you open some huge tirade about people who stereotype gamers conventions. An issue that has about as much to do with RuneFest as Classic.FM does to a Muse concert, an issue based on social pseudo-paranoia, and an issue which frankly I find ridiculous. People judge other people. It's a fact of life, and thank goodness it is or else our existance would be pretty damn boring. If you go to a convention for an MMORPG with loads of people dressed as Elves and Dwarves, be prepared for people to laugh at you and suggest you're not completely grounded in reality, or that you don't necessarily fit into the 'norm' of society. It's a common sense association. You may as well argue that the Sun shouldn't rise in the morning, because you're fighting against a naturally-occuring inevitability. Aside from this, it has nothing to do with RuneFest and I don't understand why felt a need to write about it, except maybe a deeply-embedded fear of people judging you for gaming that was brought out by the experience of being at a convention and no one there apparently judging you, which actually, you mentioned in about paragraph two. Can I suggest maybe removing that chip off your shoulder?

I wish more information were given on the In Other News sections. Saying the chances of a contruction rock have been 'slightly increased' could mean just about anything I want it to. If a 1/10 chance increases to 2/10, it's only slight, but it's a huge difference (10% to 20%). If a 1/1000 chance increases to 2/1000, it's only slight, but you'd be an idiot to suggest it makes much of a difference (0.1% to 0.2% is still negligable). Can't complain about the bag though. Nice surprise there.

Well firstly, your issue as an editor is what I believe about your article so it really is your concern as well. Secondly, I never doubted your honesty. I'm sure 70% of the people you asked said others had access to their account. All I'm saying is that I don't believe 70% of the general RS population participate in account sharing, and until a scientifcally accountable survey tells me otherwise, I'll continue to believe that. It's about data interpretation; you've not released any data or information on how you gathered it, therefore I refuse to believe any interpretations you've drawn from it. If you thoroughly surveyed about a thousand people, that's very different to PMing ten people from the Tip.It community.

I don't actually believe 70% of people give others access to their account. In fact, I'll make a point of refusing to believe that 'stunning fact' until a large-scale survey is conducted which actually proves that claim. The fact is, people falsely associate in-game achievements with real life characteristics. First impressions count for a whole lot, in real life as well, but especially in RuneScape where information about the other person is even more limited to simply an avatar on a computer screen. Which is why when we see a level 138, or a person with a Fire cape, we instantly assume they have killed many thousands of slayer beasts, or defeated Jad respectively. This leads to a false presumption that whoever is in control of the account at that moment has fulfilled those tasks successfully; the philosophical reality is that the person controlling the account is simply that - a puppeteer controlling an avatar that could just as easily be controlled by anyone else, which bears the collective hallmark of all those who have played it before. Only the account has performed exceptionally well, there is nothing linking the account to the player, except the hope that the account owner has integrity. Jagex only cares about account sharing for the same reason sports governing bodies care about the conduct of their members: They want to make the game as "pure" as possible. The non-idealistic reality is that unfortunately, not all players in a game are necessarily "pure", and it's very difficult for Jagex to prove account sharing isn't happening without sticking 1984-esque cameras into every player's room and restricting the account to one computer, which begs a difficult question. Personally, I'm someone who has been falsely accused of twice attempting to account steal/share; the second time, Jagex accused me of commiting a real-world crime without offering any evidence to support the claim, and perma-banned my account - interestingly I still haven't heard from the police. I would never share my account with anyone, but why 'criminalise' innocent people, when apparently so many people who are genuinely sharing are getting away with it, and there's an moral argument to suggest it's their account to do what they like with anyway so long as they're paying hard cash for it?

no it does not, in runescape exp is the highest valued commodity, not gold. Agreed, but at the same time, you've missed the point by merely stating how things are right now. What the article questions is whether that's the right way round. In a 'game' that is supposedly played for its enjoyment factor, or its escapism, why should the act of behaving like mindless drones be more highly valued than the simple act of enjoying the game for what it is? The attitude is comparable to that of people who work in high-rise, competitive careers (law, banking, accountancy, in some cases even medicine) in real life. Such people will typically only care about the career path that will get them to their next promotion fastest, and along the way, forget why they ever got themselves involved in that career in the first place. Some RuneScape players have turned the game from something that is meant to be experienced for "fun", into a second career where only the fastest XP route to the next level (promotion) matters. I'd be interested to see how that attitude would be changed if there were no such things as Hiscores, Skillcapes, or Quick Chat.

The first article, contrary to popular opinion on here, is actually excellent as far as I'm concerned. Engaging writing style, clear and concise opinion. The use of sarcasm only emphasises the peurile nature of those who complain about updates being delayed, and in actual fact suits the topic quite well. My only problem is the lack of an original opinion. It's not really good enough to say the people who whine are wrong, regardless of whether I as a reader agree with you. I want to know why you think they're wrong. Give a little explanation into the psyche of the people you're opposed to, and point out their flaws. Personally, I think the real issue here is that BTS raises anticipation to obscene levels unnecessarily, in a community where 'promises' of future personal development are toxic and should be handed out with extreme caution. RuneScape, despite ironically being called an MMORPG, remains a very "me me me" game. Minigames are played largely for personal gain (BA for torso, SC for tools, Dungeoneering for skill rewards, and so on), not communal fun. Whole boards on fansites, Tip.It included, are dedicated to RuneScape players who want to brag ostentatiously about their own supposedly incredible achievements. Apart from leading to a community of "1-upers", it's comprised of people who have no real empathy for their fellow counterparts, unless those counterparts are useful for their own means, least of all whether some other person thousands of miles away using an old-end processor will struggle to play the game. Selfishly, they only want their new, overloaded TT weapon *now*. Hence, when that has to be delayed so everyone can enjoy the new TTs, those who only care about themselves kick off, and start talking drivel about false 'promises' and supposed 'rights' they hold against Jagex. It actually reminds me of Veruca Salt in the squirrel room. I frankly think it's a group of Ms. Salts you've offended here.

And it's been taken off the front page already... EDIT: It's back on again. Was dreading the r-r-rollback.

Pfft... I'm not joining a clan community that can't remember its own URL. Jeez. -Will wait until all melees are 70 before retracting above statement-

Aw... adorable. Congratulations to your sister. :shades:

Grats on 75 The i g e e!

Great blog lowc. Much better than it was two years ago. If you stopped playing now though, you know I'd catch you up... if you don't mind waiting three or four years? pl0x

I left here eight months ago (I don't regret it either), but whilst I cancelling the subscriptions I still receive from here, I decided to check this thread. Can I speak out against this pseudoscientific term 'oneitis' please? I remember when it first used on here, and it was in reply to someone who was desperately trying to get back with their femme after a break up from a long relationship. He was struggling to cope with the intense emotions that kind of thing brings on a person, seemed to genuinely believe she was his "One" (hence the term) and he needed to be told to isolate himself from her otherwise he'd only be adding to the anxiety. Since then, people seem to have taken this term to mean that only "fancying" (or whatever term you use depending on geography) one person is a bad thing. Yes, it's a good idea to experiment with your emotions with lots of people at a young age so you're properly experienced to deal with those situations later on in life, and I'm not suggesting that the girl you first fancy at the start of puberty is destined to have your kids fifteen years down the line. But please stop being ridiculous! The vast majority of successful relationships in most countries are entirely monogamous. Yes, we guys look at other attractive women even when we're with girlfriends in town (or other guys, depending on sexual orientation), but at no point would we ever seriously consider starting a relationship with that other person. It would devalue the relationship between your actual girlfriend, not to mention the pain she would feel if she knew you'd been doing it with someone else. It is entirely natural, for mostly religiously inspired cultural reasons, for a person to have the intense feelings we call 'love' for one person only - indeed, it is regarded the social norm. When mixed with a little bit of realism (most relationships don't last until "death do us part"), that's perfectly healthy, so long as you accept that if the relationship falls apart, it's probably not your personal fault - it was just never meant to be because of conditions surrounding the relationship. If you're struggling after a relationship falls apart, then see a counsellor, and don't be ashamed of having this 'oneitis'. The vast majority of them are trained, are bound by the same confidentiality rules a doctor or a nurse has to abide by, and most importantly, have a warm interest in other people. There is nothing wrong with grief, and there is nothing wrong with feeling grief.

I see mcneil's post wasn't removed, despite me reporting it. I would appeal to an admin, only, it would rather seem pointless given the post was essentially sucking up to an admin.

Please, accept this from an agnostic. I do not believe the chances of a God existing come down to the toss of a coin. Agnosticism is quite literally the belief that the logical value of claims like, "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are uncertain, and thus no logical conclusions can be drawn from such a statement apart from "it is uncertain whether God exists or not". Uncertain =/= 50%, it means the percentage is unspecified.

I don't think warri0r or I ever called for the thread to be locked, either. As I said, I'm all for light-hearted threads, I just think this one specifically is pointless. But if the admins want to meddle, it is your site after all. Do what you like. I still maintain that this would have been locked long ago had some TIF newbie posted it. Reputation speaks here, whether you like it or not.

Oh God. That's just awful. :?