Ginger_Warrior

I dispute that relationships are that predictable in the first place. For all the money chucked at psychological research, there's barely been any consistent, let alone useful, results whatsoever in the field of relationships. Perhaps individuals tend to fellow their own individual pattern of relationships with remarkable predictability without drastic intervention, but from one person to another there's a whole load of variable factors.

Personally, I've never understood what a tablet can do that the combination of a decent smartphone, plus a laptop of any description can't. At least, I've certainly not seen enough of a difference between tablets and smartphones to warrant me getting both.

Here is, of course, one of the ways that “one person's RWT’ing negatively affects the game”. Inasmuch as Jagex has determined that RWT is against the rules, and therefore has undertaken to employ staff and/or devote time, money and other resources to thwart such individuals from conducting RWT, then that staff and those resources are tied up doing prevention, and not spent or otherwise devoted to game improvements or other more useful tasks. Hell, for that matter, if you want proof that RWT negatively affects the game, I got two words for you: “trade limits”. ‘Nuff said … ... This fallacy, again? We've already established that we're not talking about RWT as though it's against the rules, like it currently is. We know it's against the rules, and Jagex therefore commit some level of resources to fighting it. If RWT wasn't against the rules, Jagex would no longer need to police it. So the question, which I think everyone else here would appreciate you not trying to muddle every five posts, is: If RWT was allowed, would there still be negative effects from RWT on other players? Please read the question again, just for the avoidance of any confusion: "If RWT was allowed..." And again: "...allowed..."

The salaries alone would probably set Jagex back about quarter of a million straight off the bat, and we've not even begun to talk about company benefits or training (etc.). It probably would be more effective, although there'd be practical issues around it, but even if you resolved them, you can understand why Jagex might look for cheaper alternatives. Especially when, these days, it's not just "Jagex", it's "Jagex plus all the people that pump money in and expect returns from it."

I think each individual person is exactly that. There are models you can use as tools to generally help you understand them but, at the end of the day, the mould you're talking about doesn't fit to everyone when it comes to giving them personalised advice, and it causes me great frustration when I see people (almost always males, it has to be said) desperately trying to apply it as a "one size fits all" cure. I shared your annoyance with the OT board around the time so I can understand that, but it seems to be less caustic now, although there's a lot less activity. Maybe those two events aren't mutually exclusive. Mel... we were friends on Facebook but I looked now and she's not there any more. Tried FB stalking, couldn't find her.

My interest in MC had died completely, but then 1.8.2 came out on the 360 and I'm head over heels again, perhaps more so than ever. So, I was mining today for cobblestone to smelt and use in some construction projects I've got going on, plus looking for rare minerals as a side-quest. Did my normal shaft mining... came across a cave with some lava. "Sweet, let's see where this goes." Cleared out a few enemies, discovering that Endermen really hate water (I genuinely didn't know). Then I noticed a purple-orange light suddenly descend slowly down the walls of this cave. "That's strange... we're so far down that there shouldn't be any natural light here." So I look up... "WHAT THE HELL!?" It was a very deep underground ravine, the first I've ever seen, and I was standing right at the bottom of this massive pit, looking up at all its ledges and twisting side passages. I know it's only a game, and a very pixelated one, but it was one of those few moments in life when you're completely dazzled by the magnitude and the complexity of the sight in front of you. I imagine it's how someone might feel if they saw the Grand Canyon for the first time without seeing it in a book or Wikipedia. Only a very, very few games have ever made me feel that way. It's incredible that a game which is so graphically dumbed-down managed to, but it's a sign of good game design.

Which brings me to a question I've been meaning to ask... why did you come back all of a sudden? Don't get me wrong, you know I like you, but you've been as good as dead for years... I'm sure you're just giving personal reflections, though, as we all do to some degree. I miss you and Mel being on here.

You clearly don't understand the meaning of a 'war chest' if you think it's spent on relatively trivial investments such as server upgrades, unless there's some aspect of upgrading servers that combats RWT which I am not aware of. (I'm not a computer technology expert at all, but I can't see how...) A 'war chest' in business refers to an amount of money specifically set aside to acquire resources in the event that something which may cause danger to the company's continued success arises, such as a sudden change in the economy which might threaten the company's financial health.

I'm glad someone eventually got round to moving this argument forward. Thank-you.

Though they would no longer be underpopulated if the game became more popular, would they?

No, I can't understand why a business would want more potential customers using its (by far) leading product either. What a ridiculous sentiment that would be. It's not like they could put on more servers if the game, God forbid, did become more popular or anything.

Yew trees took 17% longer to grow at a rate of 472 minutes to grow instead of 400. It was annoying wasting xp to wait for trees. But then you are getting almost twice as much XP per time, or half the cost in GP per XP, depending on which way you look at it, so... *shrug*. You still benefit. By quite some margin. Perspective is a wonderful thing.

It only annoys me when I ask somebody politely to move out of my way, they make the absolute minimal effort to move, and so when I have to shove through them to get through, they get all annoyed. Usually it's younger people with their earphones in and the music too loud than fat people, to be honest.

They lie to you all the time. As part of their work, information comes to light which would be damaging if it were released into the public. Please don't argue against this, it's a very well accepted day-to-day reality, and a necessity so they can continue doing their work effectively. What I'm really astounded by, is that you placed more trust in the input of those who ran to the papers under the guise of anonymity (assuming these people are even true/exist at all), rather than those who follow proper whistle-blowing procedures when they discover serious misconduct. That cannot be a healthy relationship between the state and media.

I want to get this... I really do. But there's so much stuff coming out at the moment 'coz Christmas. And I want Halo 4 more. First world problems.

Pack all the players in for BXPW... piss them off with lag when they get there. Seems legit.

"Sources on the ground"... "sources familiar with... "sources said". Doesn't exactly weigh up against a "fact" test does it?

Political jailbait... priceless ref: http://ricochet.com/...nflection-Point Let's even these odds: [hide=Romney Campaign Exaggerates Size of Nevada with Altered Image][/hide]

Since your post was liked by someone who shops at Lidl, and Lidl is a fantastic supermarket when you're a student like me, go on then... Logdotzip (LDZ) claimed that real world trading (RWT)--by this we're talking about players buying off the big gold-selling websites rather than trading directly to each other--is only bad because Jagex say it's bad, and that if RWT was allowed to happen under RuneScape's rules, there wouldn't be any negative effect on other RuneScape players in reality. When it occurs against the rules currently, LDZ implies there are no real victims (see: victimless crime). Therefore, nobody can really claim that RWT is necessarily bad in all cases, if any at all. Blyaunte has countered that by claiming that when LDZ ticked the box to say he agreed with RS's terms and conditions, he agreed in principle to follow those rules. LDZ replied that just because he follows rules does not mean he agrees with them. Logically, and for the sake of the natural flow in this argument, Blyaunte now needs to prove why RWT has a negative impact on other players and therefore why it shouldn't be allowed. Instead we've been talking about social contracts and personal conscience which most of us are struggling to understand the meaning of in relation to the original topic.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" I'm not religious to any degree, but without that rule, interpersonal relationships on every level fall apart. Whether they're business contracts, or society as a whole. You mentioned this was leading to a point... what is it?

Given my occupation, yes. I would find it very difficult if I made decisions which only served myself, wouldn't I? Take the Palestianian conflict, for example. Do I see the way Palestinians feel they've been trodden on throughout the course of human history as "right"--yes. Do I feel they have a right to kill people over that--no. Killing in the name of that cause may be morally right, if you're Palestinian or support Palestine, but it's not ethically right because purposefully setting out to kill someone any context is wrong, unless there's very extreme mitigating circumstances (eg, a last resort in self-defence). You need to separate, and clearly define, morality from ethics if you want continue anywhere in this discussion. What is right in one will never be necessarily right in the other. Hence, both you and LDZ can have differing opinions on the morality of RWT.

Do you mean what I personally see as right and wrong, or what I feel is right or wrong by other people in terms of the impact it has on them? That's a bit of a "when did you last beat your wife" question.

Generally, an intuition of what is "right" and "wrong", mixed with a slight helping of "how far out does this put me/how much does this benefit me". As I imagine is the case with the vast majority of people.

There was nothing in RuneScape's rules which my personal conscience objected severely enough to not to follow them. Had those rules changed, and I objected to them, then I'd choose not to follow them any more, and I'd leave (if I was still playing, obviously). My point was that your comparison of that decision-making process, to the much larger concept of a "social contract" between citizens of a country, the law of that country, the law-making and law-enforcing entities of that country was unmerited and simply blown out of proportion. As part of my social contract with the rest of British society, for example, I have a right to be judged in front of a jury who have no previous prejudice of me, and that if I feel justice has been miscarried on me, I have a legal right to appeal a sentence passed on me. I can't say anything similar happens with Jagex, and I doubt you can either. Hence, we have no social contract between us, spare the fact both I, and Jagex, are British, of course. What we have a plain and simple contract. They get my money, I follow their rules. Should either fail, the contract is void. It's as easy as that.

I'm not sure what relevance this line of questioning has. Aren't they arguing as if what they're hypothetically suggesting would be within the rules of RuneScape, not out of them? You appear to be trying to sully names more than prove points.