Ginger_Warrior

An interesting side-effect, if this update actually works, might be the change in the average price of RuneScape's common commodities, most of which were heavily botted which in turn kept their prices relatively low. When nature runes, amulets of fury, adamantite bars, herblore supplies and dragon bones start shooting through the roof again, I'm not convinced everyone will be so glad to see the back of them. This is before even touching on the wider issues surrounding RuneScape, other than botting.

I'm not sure that Jagex losing an award that they were perhaps always likely to lose (but still receiving plenty of publicity for doing so) is evidence of the bolded statement.

They'd also be doing what no other MMO game (not just pertaining to the RPG genre) has ever achieved, which is what makes it all the more incredulous.

Of course one interesting effect of this might be finally discovering how much of the RS population were legitimate players. A well-intentioned gesture to a loyal community could turn into a PR disaster if the problem was as bad as some previously thought.

They say seeing is believing. I'm intending to follow that advice.

It would've been misleading for people to vote in favour of RuneScape on the back of its P2P version of the game. I'm not sure how the other games stack up to RuneScape's F2P model though, since I've no real experience of either.

The official RuneScape launcher has been upgraded to its 1.1 version. I presume this is to facilitate Jagex's planned crackdown on people using old versions of Java, since I'm not noticing any difference otherwise.

I don't really believe it's the player's own fault for being scammed any more than I would believe it's an old lady's fault for being scammed in real life by rogue traders promising to do her boiler up for free. In both cases, someone has gone out to purposefully deceive and manipulate somebody else's free will in a predatory manner. That said, there really isn't anything Jagex can do. One gripe I've had with this update is the lack of indentation when the text falls into the next line. I wish it was something more like: Gingy Warr: blah blah blah text continues here Wouldn't that solve this problem?

>End all Halloween conventions >No more Halloween events >RS must die before October 2012. Official announcement that RuneScape will close within twelve months. /overanalysis

No. God no.

Is he trying to freeze you out of her life like all jealous boyfriends do? EDIT: I've got no idea of the back history here, I'm just guessing.

But it already is changing. There are girls as young as seven reaching precocious puberty. It's asinine to suggest that a seven-year old is capable of understanding the risks involved in having sexual intercourse with another person. The above parameter doesn't take into account the various emotional effects puberty has on adolescents, which lead them to make irrational and misinformed decisions. Also, I think you'd first have to examine why girls are entering puberty earlier than past generations, because some of the reasons aren't really desired (societal pressure for children to 'grow up' quicker than in the past, having sex being part of that, for example). I think our current age limit of 16 in the UK hits it about right, since that's generally the age people come out of puberty (in other words, not inclusive of pubescents as well as prepubescents), after they've matured physically and come to grips with all the changes that have happened to their bodies over the past five or so years.

Unrelated: Emma Watson is not hot. I honestly wouldn't. And yes, I am a straight, full-blooded, young male.

I doubt it, considering how the concept of informed consent is becoming more prevalent in society. No-one in their right mind would claim most victims of paedophilia were in a position of 'informed consent'. Almost all gay men can consent to having sex with another man. I could easily see the age of consent being reduced though, given it's already lower than 18 in a lot of other countries (my own included) and given that children are growing up faster, some would say too fast.

I wouldn't disagree with that. I'm just arguing the inverse... cardigans on men as opposed to jumpers or suits don't really hold any extra value in terms of practicality and have nothing to do with society's values towards women, but there's still an increase in men's cardigans being sold. There's more to it than the (slow) abolition of archaic "religion told us not to wear jeans" or "our only use was in the kitchen or the bedroom" sentiments.

I'd tie this in with a discussion on why more men wear cardigans these days. I just think fashion has become more androgynous and there isn't an expectancy for people to wear their gender on their sleeves.

...and of the warning that we should change our passwords on all other websites which had the same password from this website. Does that still stand?

Does the reason you can't cook have more to do with not knowing what ingredients to buy, or even how to buy them, more than it does with simply not having any experience of preparing food? When I went to university, three of my six housemates couldn't cook for themselves, but they knew how to use an oven for ready meals or a microwave to heat things through. They also knew how to boil pasta and rice. I often wondered why they didn't just learn how to fry meat and veg (for which there's about a zillion online guides if one needs instructions) because that was really the only thing stopping them from putting it all together and making a full meal by themselves. I kind of got the feeling they just didn't know how to put together a weekly shopping list, or even what to buy. The fact they usually bought things on an ad hoc basis was probably evidence of that, but the sad reality is while they spent upward of £40 on food/wk, I was only spending £25 and using the other £15 on alcohol and luxuries like eating out or drinking.

Vikings 10-28 up against the Cardinals with six minutes left in the third quarter. There's still time to blow it!

Erm... no. Don't twist my words. The idea that you pay disproportionately more for using a service more (which is what you're recommending) is something I argued strongly against in that post. I argued if anything, it should be disproportionately less, which would be counterintuitive to your aim. You look one way, you're punishing customers. You look the other, you're not disincentivising botters. Either way, this doesn't make sense.

20/7 = < 3, not four. Ignoring that, I could point to other services where they give 20 hours for free (forget paying at all) and only then start charging. Spotify being one example. What you're recommending doesn't make business sense, and the current economic climate only amplifies that flaw. Right now, young people generally don't have $12 a month in their back pocket so that Jagex starts treating their custom with some acceptable level of respect and good faith.

I'd say you could limit the amount of time a paying account can be online for under a "fair use" argument. After all, when I pay for my Internet and mobile phone, there's only a certain usage I'm entitled to before they can turn around and tell me I'm taking liberties, and charge me for any further services. But you have to make that arrangement up-front. If I know I'm going to need 300 minutes of calling time a month, my network provider will find me a bundle that fits. They won't give me a bundle for 100 minutes and make me 'top-up' at hyperinflated prices for the other 200. If someone knows they're going to play for x amount of hours, offer them those amount of hours, not a lesser amount which they'll expire quickly and have to pay in the neck to exceed. Anything else is wholly unfair. Furthermore, that idea recommends making repeat customers pay more for their service, when everywhere else companies offer repeat customers a better deal so they'll continue to provide their patronage. That's how businesses keep the cash rolling in. Doing the opposite is derisory and will only force honest players away. It's (theoretically) an effective measure against bots. It's also completely unfair to the honest paying customer. The problem isn't in morals, it's in how to distinguish between a legitimate player, and a cheating bot. Both may play for very long periods of time, therefore this in itself isn't 'undesirable', and it shouldn't treated as litmus paper for trapping bots.

...and you'll accomplish this by quoting the post in question and making a full post in reply to it? :huh: It's this "last-wordism" that really drags the discursive value of the boards down at times.

"Destroys the economy" was not a term often used in 2006 when people were thankful for bots lowering the prices of nature runes, flax and yew logs so they could make an easy 99 through Fletching and have an easy way of training Magic simultaneously. Perspective is a wonderful thing. The only thing bots do in terms of price manipulation is tilt the supply vs demand balance. If herbs weren't so low, all you'd have is people whining because Herblore is too expensive for people to realistically obtain overloads.

It's a 50/50 ball, he wins it. The ball's there to be won. That's an appalling decision.