quitthegame

I explicitly spelled out what the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium was, but your reply to me is nothing but you committing that fallacy over and over. Though we clearly have nothing left to say to each other, I wish you the best of luck in the future. Although dropping it here would probably be best, any further replies will be via PM.

Puzzle Pirates has a healthy and thriving poker community. And yet Runescape cannot? No one is saying RS "cannot". They are saying they don't want to. Then they point out that it's illegal. I have yet to see a Jmod say that it is completely impossible to break the law, because as your example shows, it's not. Is Puzzle Pirates a UK based company? Do they have memberships?

No you haven't. Sorry, that's you committing the fallacy there. You are making the initial, or positive claim, therefore it's your responsibility to provide evidence first. "Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made." What fallacy were you accusing me of committing, btw? Seems a bit rude to accuse me of it without being specific.

If that's your point, then your point is based on bad memory and unsupported assertion. If you'd asked anyone 10 years ago who would be the biggest online gaming company now, they would have said Blizzard or Sony. Surprise! Everyone (but you) was right all along. You haven't supported your claim that Jagex is currently one of the worst at all, either. You've yet to say one concrete thing that Jagex does badly now that some other company does better.

So, Jagex is the worst gaming company in the world because they're not making games that you can appreciate for a lifetime. I'd ask you which other company has made a game that one could appreciate for a lifetime, but MMO's haven't been around for that long, have they? I guess that makes all MMO companies equally the worst in the world, by your standards. Doesn't seem all that interesting of a judgement, then, but you go on and enjoy it.

That's too bad, a 2000$ oven is actually the appropriate tool to bake a potato. A million-dollar oven intended for the creation of synthetic diamonds? That would be a waste, yes. I never advocated for naive 'realism', I argued for specific useful elements of realism to help balance the economy. No, it helps the economy more than that. All that is a gold sink, degrading items is a gold sink and also provides a differentiation of differing item levels for differing costs, allowing lower tier items to still be viable and allowing the gold sink to balance with high level item acquisition. More is more.

Not using super-expensive gear for daily mundane tasks due to decay costs? Working as designed. Not using super-expensive gear for daily mundane tasks because of repair and fuel costs? Real Life. Copying aspects of real-life economies to make RuneScape's economy more realistic and have more longevity? Common sense. Your rant fails.

Statistically, it makes no sense for either of us to start our sentences with "statistically, it makes no sense for...". I hope you realize that.

Segways are coming to RS? Why not just end the ban on horses!? :P

You gain zero combat xp while dueling? they could just add in very small xp gains while dueling to break that :P

Generally when the editors review an article, we read it as a whole instead of skimming it and taking one line too literally :) No one is taking that line too literally. Everyone is perfectly clear that it's a figure of speech. It's just something that is not done, if you're aiming for a professional mode of conduct. I often see references to that here, so I thought I'd mention it. *shrugs*

The referenced page that number was gotten from lists 1M+ subscribers and 8.5M+ active accounts. How is it misrepresentation? The question is - are 7.5m active f2pers in support of that very article? Does the views expressed in the article represent the views of the average f2per? That isn't the question. Even if the letter does represent the views of 7.5m f2p, it's still misrepresentation to put "yours truly, 7.5m active free players", unless 7.5m active free players specifically said they wanted to be included as sending that letter. Tons of letters are sent every day that I agree with in principle, but if someone signed my name to the bottom of them without my permission I"d want whoever did it to be charged with criminal forgery. (well, other people have my name in this world, but if they either forged my signature, or signed it with both my name and my address, either way, that's a felony under US law) When someone's name is at the bottom of a letter, it doesn't mean that they exist. It doesn't mean that someone had good reason to believe they would agree with the contents. It means that actual person, approved the mailing of that letter to the listed recipients. By extension, 7.5m f2p active players at the bottom of that letter means you actually asked 7.5m f2p players if they wanted to be included in that tally. That's the way it is.

I'm frankly surprised that Tip.it would publish a letter from 1 anonymous F2P'er ending with "Your truly, 7,500,000 active free players " That kind of blatant misrepresentation is not something I would expect tip.it to condone :(

What?! Nevermind then.

Perhaps if they said something more interesting than what they hoped some other person/entity would do? It's just common sense: Talking about what you yourself did is factual. Talking about your plans, or what someone else did, is one step removed. Generally, the only reason for going one step removed is to allow for analytical discussion, not just relating the bare elements, as then you'd prefer the more factual approach of sticking to personal experience. Talking about your plans for someone else to do something, without them knowing those plans, is two steps into the realm of fantasy, only unusually inspired analysis can make that level of separation interesting. You presenting your hopes and dreams for what Jagex would do, without analysis or interpretation, was actually fairly unusual, which is why I mentioned it. You may have mistook it for a rhetorical question, but I was actually curious why you thought that was worth expressing. Especially when you later compared them a nutjob murdering kids, also an unusual rhetorical move. Both of those pathologies indicate that you regard Jagex more from the perspective of a jilted lover than as a disappointed customer of an underperforming software company, and I was attempting to ascertain why that was so. Hope that answers your question :) Sorry that it was a relatively uninteresting second level answer, but it was a relatively uninteresting second level question after all. After reading your post, I'd cartainly say you are an expert at being uninteresting. :thumbup: If you'd prefer our exchange to devolve into one of insults, please take it to PM :)

You're missing the point. They still paid money for a Jagex product that affects their RuneScape gameplay. By Jagex logic, that means they're able to pay for something like highscores if they really wanted to. How does Jagex logic differ from your logic? Don't you conclude the same thing?

Yes, if you never played at home you would qualify. Course, even logging in from home for one second would disqualify you from membership in sunny's imaginary "true f2p" posse.

Perhaps if they said something more interesting than what they hoped some other person/entity would do? It's just common sense: Talking about what you yourself did is factual. Talking about your plans, or what someone else did, is one step removed. Generally, the only reason for going one step removed is to allow for analytical discussion, not just relating the bare elements, as then you'd prefer the more factual approach of sticking to personal experience. Talking about your plans for someone else to do something, without them knowing those plans, is two steps into the realm of fantasy, only unusually inspired analysis can make that level of separation interesting. This epistemological viewpoint we find echoed in common social norms, where small talk with strangers is often limited to noncontroversial facts or jokes, sharing your hopes and dreams is more commonly for intimate friends, and telling someone else what you hope and dream for them is generally limited to your spouse and children, and even then one should proceed with caution. You presenting your hopes and dreams for what Jagex would do, without analysis or interpretation, was actually fairly unusual, which is why I mentioned it. You may have mistook it for a rhetorical question, but I was actually curious why you thought that was worth expressing. Especially when you later compared them a nutjob murdering kids, also an unusual rhetorical move. Both of those pathologies indicate that you regard Jagex more from the perspective of a jilted lover than as a disappointed customer of an underperforming software company, and I was attempting to ascertain why that was so. Hope that answers your question :) Sorry that it was a relatively uninteresting second level answer, but it was a relatively uninteresting second level question after all.

They can't be a fee-paying FTP community because it defeats the idea of being FTP. FTP actually is about the money no matter what anyone says, only its the tail end of the gold coin. It's the decision not to pay for the package called membership at any point whatsoever for an account. Being unable to pay counts toward that decision as well. Strictly speaking, pure FTP means having nothing to do with membership at all. If some bloke pigs out cash to change their display name, FYI they're no longer purely FTP because they paid money for a member's feature. It's along the same line of reasoning as to why those who train only FTP skills in members, are excluded from the street-cred of being considered pure among the minority diehard FTP community. The pure FTPers can't pay for highscores, because by doing so they're inviting those same people they've been shunning all this time. Except the pure FTPers did come to the consensus that paying money to change your display name, a member's feature, will not change their pure status. That's hypocritical no matter how you cut it. Fact of the matter is, doing this means they paid money. That's what members do. If anyone starts using loopholes like Funorb membership to circumvent the heart of their own rules, that sends a message full of dollar signs to Jagex. So the logic goes that, if FTP have in the past paid for something that doesn't affect their stats, but still think of themselves as pure FTP, why not the highscores? This is the crack in the armor Jagex leaped at to monetize, whether it works out or not. I agree, if you're not playing RS on a stolen laptop, sitting in your cardboard shack playing only when the sun is out powered by your stolen photovoltaic array (plus no more than 78 watt-hours of battery power) ((because f2p bank is 78 spaces, of course)), using only the wireless internet available your shack's location to freeloaders or hackers, (((but not any hacking tools invented after RuneScape was first released in beta))), then you're not a true F2P player.

Oh, I thought a pure was an account that intentionally limited one or more combat stats to keep total combat level low...seems like we need to start over and get our terminology sorted out.

With all that talk about fallacies, I'm sure you're aware it's a fallacy to refer to Erewhon's point as evidence, and Makoto's nonevidence as lack of "counter evidence". Makoto's point is the original point, therefore the responsibility is first upon him to provide evidence :) Thanks for not committing that fallacy anymore :)

If new pures don't count...then old pures don't count...so then isn't that a reason for Jagex to take off f2p accounts from high scores, they're mostly pures and bots? Hm. Seems logical to me. So, do pures count or not? ;)

Well, that would indeed be one possible way to define it. Kinda seems like you're blaming jrhairychest for terms introduced by Makoto being ill-defined here. Not sure how you think that's fair or reasonable? Also, evidence of new players joining is indeed good evidence to contradict the point "no new players will want to play.", which is the crucial point in the discussion here. Not sure why you completely omit discussion of the crucial point, to talk about a side point in an unfair way?

They never said they weren't responsible for it. Why should anyone care that you hoped they'd do something different this time? If they did, thousands of people would have lambasted them for inconsistency, so that's no better for Jagex anyway. I'm not blaming you for posting that. I understand why you did it. I just don't agree with what you said. I think you can do better. Umm...way to discredit all your previous remarks with a way out of bounds analogy.

You're just restating your point, which I understood already, without addressing the issues that I raised with it. The main one being: even if you don't take advantage of member's worlds, by becoming a member you'll look like you are, which is a negative to f2p purists. Yes...obviously. You already said that. Why did you repeat it? Perhaps you are confused, for most people it's mainly about money, but for some it's not. You have to address each group of people with arguments that address their arguments, no single argument will suffice for alll groups.