Jump to content
Due to the significant updates that have taken place, you now need to login with your display name or e-mail address, NOT your login name. ×
Due to posts that are 5+ years old being rebuilt, some of the older BBCodes may not have converted properly but still be in the post. Most posts are unaffected but some using what was our custom BBCode (like [spoiler]) will be a bit broken. ×


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About quitthegame

  • Rank
    Bear Fur
  1. Actually, those are both grammatically sound, which likely explains your earlier question as well :) (i.e., words with multiple meanings develop restrictions on how each meaning can be used syntactically to increase clarity) (open and close both have multiple meanings, but close has more, and more pronounciations, and more syntactic restriction) (actually open has more meanings 88 to 75 in the dictionary I checked, but not in reference to stores, and in many cases open is opposed to closed, like in math you refer to open and closed sets, which distorts the comparison.)
  2. I'm not intending to take you out of context--but I'm not sure who you were accusing of censorship if not Jagex. Did you mean some other word, because it's hard to think of another word that would typo to 'censorship'? Cover-up maybe? Your explanation above is all well and good, but you did actually use the word censorship and your explanation above has nothing to do with it, which seems odd. About taking you in context--I was going to reply to something else, from your last paragraph about whether Jagex would succeed against bots longterm or not, which came from whether Jmods are downplaying, which came from Jiblix...you guys are jumping around topics very quickly. Part of the responsibility for being taken in context is with the author staying in the original context, and also using words precisely. I decided the only way I could stay in context was to not reply at all to that paragraph. I end up agreeing with most of your paragraphs, but sometimes it seems like they don't get along with each other, which does indeed come back to context. Like if I take your last paragraph literally, where you say Jagex maybe can't deal with the bots, it kinda destroys all your previous arguments about how they should fully disclose :shock: If they can't succeed long term, they should hide that and keep stalling, tbh. But if you don't like a line by line analysis then I"ll leave it general like that for you.
  3. Why are you using Islam and religion interchangeably? Islam is one religion, not equal to religion in general. On the James quote: 1. He makes a false dilemma between materialism and theism. 2. He quotes the theory of his time on how the universe would end according to cosmographers. Now there are many theories as to what might happen, rendering his interpretation outdated. 3. His assumption that man's need for eternal moral order, while clearly stated as an assumption by the compositor of the quotes, is not only not an assumption that I share, but it doesn't even seem that tenable. 4. Interestingly, the belief in a recurring physical universe, such as one with enough matter to contract into a big crunch leading into another big bang, does seem to result in an "eternal moral order" without requiring theism.
  4. You want honesty? There, they're being honest that they censor their forums. Really, I have no idea why you bring up honesty and censorship. They mention that they censor the forums like 500 times, the list of rules is longer than this thread. I wasn't supposed to post in this thread again :shame: But accusing Jagex of censorship just is so funny :oops:
  5. Happy solstice day :lol: Also it makes for a funny convo if your employed. Me - Merry Christmas Customer - Oh im not christian Me - Well neither am I, trollface.png lol I like that. What about: Me- Merry Christmas Customer - Oh, I'm not Christian. Me- Oh, me neither, -beat-, but you believe in Santa right? *Angrily stare at heathen customer*
  6. I think it actually is sufficient for you, in the sense that it covers your first example. "But it doesn't really matter to me, I simply believe it and I'm happy how it shapes my life" when it comes to your second example: "But there are people claiming their own religion to be true, not only for themselves, but for other people too, and they try to argue from a rational point of view, and that's something I'm not able to understand." Someone arguing from a rational point of view, for the positive proof of something for which they don't have evidence--they're wrong. So, that covers your second example. That covers both examples, right? If you're asking why someone would do the second example, they're either deluded or trying to deceive you, and if you're asking why that is, I'd refer you to the classic Propaganda, 1928 by Edward Bernays, and if you want to know why that book is true I'd refer you to Daniel Dennett's later work, etc. How far up the chain do you want to go? :P There's a bit of an implied false dilemma of omission in your post, as you don't mention people trying to convert other people to their religion using irrational means. Are you against that, and why?
  7. Imagine one morning you wake up, and you "just know" that the Qu'ran is correct and not the Bible, or anything else but the Qu'ran. That really is the answer to "how do you know", you just wake up one morning and you do. Or you have a similar experience at some non-morning time. :P The "what empowers one religion over the others" is a powerful logical argument. But, since the above paragraph is not really logical, it doesn't necessarily apply. It is "pre-logical", in a sense which I will develop now. If you have 20 eyewitnesses to a crime, there's a good chance they'll all give slightly different accounts. But that doesn't mean that one of them can't have the facts perfectly correct, or at least most correct. To this argument, the "which eyewitness do you believe" is a powerful logical argument that you can't trust eyewitnesses accounts. But if you're one of the eyewitnesses, and you're sure you're that one of the 20 who really saw what happened, aren't you going to believe it, despite that argument? It's difficult for logic to overpower our sense of "really seeing what I saw". Which came first--your sense of logic, or your perceptions of the universe? Were you born with a logical intuition, or did you develop a logical sense from watching the world around you behave according to physical laws which are describable with a logical system of postulates? I would argue that it is the latter. Thus, we see that perception is "pre-logical". More precisely, learning to perceive is identical with formulating a logical system for extracting narrative sequences from the configuration space also extracted from the various sensory apparatuses, but that would take too long to put into normal english. Realizing that human perception is imperfect and therefore logic should be used to recursively limit prelogic perception seems inductively true to me, but not deductively true. The fact that sensory perception and processing can be improved through systematic training has been experimentally verified, albeit more in a task-area based way than in general way. If you haven't ever had the experience of "just knowing that this religion is true, and not all the others" then it's much easier to apply the powerful logical argument "what privileges one religion to be true over all the others" to dismiss them all, in the same way in which it is easier to doubt eyewitness accounts than it is to doubt one's own sensory inputs. Investigation of the various sensory illusions is useful in the latter area, there are various lines of inquiry performing a similar function for the former.
  8. It wasn't going on, you necro'd it.
  9. It has a spammy effect, as 80% of the people who don't read the thread post the same thing. Whatever floats your long-haired boat.
  10. pointing out tldr'ing happens all the time. Why point it out? :-o
  11. the thing is ring_world, if you posted that only pretending you'd tldr'd the entire thread as a troll, it'd be even funnier than if unintentionally. How rare is that?
  12. I said I was done with this thread, because at this point the central disagreement is out there, and it's better to agree to disagree. But, there's no way I can let a statement that bots are rationally good for RuneScape go unchallenged. RuneScape is a bit of grindy game, I think we can all agree on that. Whether one personally agrees or disagrees that this style suits their gameplay, I think we can all agree that this makes using bots more advantageous than it would in a less grindy game. In this short run, this leads to more profits for Jagex, but in the medium and long run my rational forecast is that nonbotters would stop playing in large numbers because of the unfairness, and that this would remove the market for RWT bots, and remove the incentive to play for those whose only reason for playing was to be better than those who played legitimately. All you'd have left would be those pkers and bossers who would use bots to get their stats up high enough to pk/boss, obviously they would stop botting once they had enough gp/skills to do that. In a rational and detached manner, I doubt that this would be a profitable situation for Jagex, although the possibility is out there that perhaps it might be. The possibility is slim, because even if that situation were theoretically profitable, there's a strong possibility that it would just lead to the stolen credit card problem again, where the credit card carriers would threaten to disallow CC payments to Jagex again, or whatever happened before that led to free trade removal. (a lot of botters paid for their memberships by rwt gold for cash. If all the legit players quit RS, then there's no market for rwt. Then the botters use stolen CC's to play. The questions of what % of legit players you need to make the system work is a complicated one, but I assume Jagex knows.) Seriously though guys, think about agreeing to disagree at this point. When it comes to forums, if you're not going forwards, then you're going backwards.
  13. Not exactly...you can prove sometimes prove causation even with a correlation below one. The problem is that correlation is not always causation in the desired direction, or even either direction, even if the correlation is 1 to 1. I.e., long greasy hair on a man, society's dislike of men with long hair, which is the chicken and which is the egg? The rest of your post is basically working out that the causation goes both ways, which points us in the direction of thinking that perhaps we're looking at a proximate cause here, and looking for a deeper cause that explains the two-way causation. Correlation/causation: Every person taking anti-baldness medication is bald. Therefore, taking anti-baldness medication causes baldness. -- example of correlation of 1, but causation goes one way only. The first ship headed to a particular island sinks, the only ship that sinks in the world that day. Being on a ship headed to Island A, and being on a ship that sunk on Date B, have a correlation of 1. Yet, causation doesn't go either way. It's just a coincidence, despite being perfectly correlated. Men are generally taller than women. This is a correlation much less than 1, and yet being a man rather than a woman does have some causative factor on your height. Again, the point is that the argument above is not strictly false, just that it doesn't capture the whole picture.
  14. Like I said, I was unsure what you meant, and gave one scenario and asked you if it was correctly describing what you meant. It seems like it wasn't precisely. This is really the only thing we disagree on. I think the RSOF gives a completely insane projection of what people in general are feeling, and I think there are multiple other things that could be done. 1. Not base your article on people's general opinion, because it's difficult to obtain a representative sample. 2. Take surveys ingame, even though this is difficult to do. 3. Not write an article, and go fishing instead. 4. Worst option of all, base an article on RSOF. If you choose to believe that RSOF is a reasonable source for anything, we should just agree to disagree on that then. (TIF is a much more idealistic crowd than the average player, with many retired posters, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but means it's not perfectly representative--whereas RSOF is a cesspool.) I enjoyed the parts of your article that were your own opinion. p.s. quote from a developer of Asheron's Call 2, from his article on eldergame.com "Taming the forum tiger": :P
  15. It seems like you're proposing that there's a group of highly idealistic and emotionally volatile players who dominate the forums, and which most of your friends belong to, and then the vast majority of nonidealistic players who you think aren't representative of anything because they're not highly idealistic and volatile. The fact is, those players are representative of themselves, the majority of the players of RS. They may not matter to you, but I guarantee you that they matter to Jagex. If that's not what you're proposing, and you think that the highly opinionated forum group is the majority, then I'll look for some 3rd-party surveys on that issue, see what I can find. I definitely recall seeing some surveys for WoW about how only 1% used the official forums there, not sure if I ever saw any for RS. Blizzard has definitely made some statements in their o-forums about how they know how few people use the forums, and that they value the forum input but also take it in perspective. They actually moved their main developer-to-player statements out of the forum and onto a link on the game launcher, because they felt it was nonproductive on the forums. Pretty sure there was a reference by a J-mod to the "echo chamber" effect on the forums, I'll see if I can hunt that down. --nope, didn't see it. apparently can only search by words in title, which was unhelpful.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.