fenrir321

If all you care about is winning a debate, then you should never enter one in the first place. Getting the last word in? That's a different story. \ I hope you're not serious. That's a really immature thing to say. And he meant that you'll win because no matter if you're wrong or not in the debate, keeping an open mind means you'll be mature enough to accept that the other person was right, and therefore, are a better person than you would have been having the closed mind, and "win." That statement was tongue in cheek. I don't tend to answer back just to say "alright" when the conversation is over, but I'd rather have the last word since it put closure on my terms as opposed to closure by the opposition's terms. It's like having the toilet seat up or down; I'd rather have it down, but I wouldn't fight tooth and nail over it. Keeping an open mind is good, but open minds are more susceptible to being interrupted in trains of thought. In an ideal situation, both sides have an open mind and respond civilly, like on the forums (in the sense of "taking" turns responding. Flames not included). In more realistic terms, at least one person will have an agenda to press on the other person. As one with an open mind, it is important to keep an open mind because humans are not perfect, but it is also important to keep a partially closed mind to keep the opposition from changing your beliefs by mere expressions before you can even get a point across. Be willing to learn but not to change very easily. And winning by "learning" instead of by actual winning still isn't winning; it's redefined objectives as said by Skipper the penguin 8-) .

Wait a second, I don't fit into any of the three categories. The first two numbers go hand in hand and I don't consider myself a troll or an "inbetween type". I post quite a bit but I don't troll, so your logic is kinda weird. I'll assume you place me in the second category though. Well, sometimes your posts are inflammatory to the logically-challenged, and since a troll can be: 1. a fierce monster in fairy tales and myths 2. to fish for or in with a moving line, working the line up or down with a rod, as in fishing for pike, or trailing the line behind a slow-moving boat. one could arguably say you're a troll, albeit a logical and fair troll 8-) .

Oh, soz 3hit, I misread your post and thought you were defending jagex's reasons for not updating, not defending the complainers (which is completely legitimate). My bad, I answered the wrong statement #-o . Now that I'm up to speed, I can write a better response. *ehem* If people are going to complain no matter what the action; positive, negative, or neutral; then how could you possibly know if the complainers were "OMFG, drak bowes shud fire for arroes, not twoz" or "D claws are Op (before the nerf) because of XYZ"? Let me answer that one: by essay value. A well-written rant is usually the product of a good, logical rant. A rant that is grammatically perfect, clear, and concise has a lot of work put into it. Therefore, the author has ample amount of time to really think through their points, like on a school essay. However, a well-written rant =/= a logical rant or legitimate rant. Take for example the eatrunearrow rant on the TIF. It is a very well written but sadly flawed and heavily biased rant that is more whining (albeit mature whining if that's possible) than it is legitimate. In contrast, a fully legitimate rant could be four lines long like "We need more room space for construction." So how do you tell when the complainers are just whining for the hell of it or for OP updates, or when the person is ranting for a perfectly reasonable update? Read every single rant? That's impossible in a short period of time. Blanket statements maybe unfair for some, but they sure are damn useful.

If all you care about is winning a debate, then you should never enter one in the first place. Getting the last word in? That's a different story. \

Save your energy for something more productive (unless it's for aesthetics). Torso gives maybe 2 points more slash defense and +4 str at the cost of ~20 stab, crush, and ranged defense. Not very good against those pesky items with stab or crush (dds, d claws, gs.) And before you say the str bonus is worth it, here's food for thought: 13 strength will increase your max hit by 2. That means that it will take 7 str for +1 and 6 str for another +1. If you have access to a Ti-83 or any graphing calculator, I highly suggest using the following formula: y = (Base str + style bonus)((Equipment bonus * 0.00175) + 0.1) + 1.05 That will yield your max hit within probably 0.01 difference; it's very accurate. Style bonus is 1 for controlled and 3 for str and 0 for accurate/defensive. Base str is strength level. Equipment bonus is your strength bonus on equipment. Received from: Runewiki which received the formula from this calculator. And if you're still sold on getting a torso, I would highly suggest maxing out your roles' skills if you haven't already; too many torso farmers go through Ba with only 1 defender lvl -.-. edit: to my knowledge, you can also use the formula for ranged attacks by substituting the equipment bonus for ranged strength. Style bonus for accurate is 3 and rapid is 0.

No, the average poster would have noted something along the lines of the following: "Lol, my lvl 90 combat familiar could kick your [wagon] in 1v1." And in terms of logic, Zeirro had a sarcastic rant that was quite legitimate. He made an observation: People complain. He made a hypothesis: People will always complain about updates, regardless of quality. He made an experiment: look at rsof or rants forums after each update. He made a conclusion: there will always be complaining. He published his conclusion, albeit in a sarcastic way. I believe that's the scientific method. If you want to get into nitty-gritty details, then I could go a step further and say you are the one at fault, sir. I believe "Sticking your head up your arse" is ad hominem, wouldn't you agree? Granted, it's not a falacy like other flaws, but ad hominem is the equivalent of stating the sky is blue in a discussion about taxes; it's useless and makes you look like an idiot. That's why it's not nice (nor practical) to flame on a forum unless you don't mind making yourself look like a fool. It also hinders you from making friends, unfortunately :cry: .

Are you using that as the saying? Or did you somehow know my name? :? Lol, funny :lol: . Naw, if I knew your name, I'd have said, "Mah George" like \ . <- The best YTP for Mah Boi I could find unfortunately -.-

That's how I am with commas. They're so damn convenient though. [hide=inorite?][/hide]

Rofl, nice troll. 8.5/10 =D> I was wondering why I could feel some sarcasm. Might want to put disclaimers in 0.5 font when you're being sarcastic :lol: .

Well, like I said, I usually tell who by simply looking at their sig. Even if the person changes the sig, the "style" is similar. For example, when Makoto changed his sig from this air, sky blue riddled with clouds to a fiery storm with the dude having black and not white hair, I could still tell it was Makoto. Don't know how, but I just could. edit: another example was with Zeirro above; I didn't know he changed his avatar to Moe (ftw :D) since I'm used to the monkey with the excessively long nose, but I knew it was him for some reason :-k And even if you don't have a signature "flame bait" like eatrunearrow or black/white logic hammer like Rachet, some characteristics like small paragraphs, lists, excessive space between paragraphs, and certain idiosyncrasies (not that you have these or are limited to this list) can define an author. I personally use lots of parenthesizes, something I've got to get away from when writing a paper :wall: .

What you're confusing is the "before point X..." point. Before point X, your attack lvl will determine most of your dpm. After point X, your strength will determine your dpm. Before you meet irl (physical meeting, phone, etc), you can't call the person a boyfriend/girlfriend. After you meet them, you still can't call them boyfriend/girlfriend, but you can say you're dating them. After point Y, which is when you know the person's soul, you can pretty much say you have a healthy relationship. It's not just the internet, really. Slightly more than 50% of all couples divorce. Why? Because those people didn't know each other and said they were "soul mates". By George (never thought I'd use that one), you don't have to be on the internet to have a phail relationship. Likewise, you don't have to meet someone originally irl to have a good relationship. If they didn't, sites like eharmony wouldn't flourish. We'd be saying the same thing if you were on eharmony and never took that step further and contacted the person. No contact = no relationship.

You have a right to feel what you want, think what you want, and have a choice. And I'm sure EVERYBODY thinks the updates were bad, even Jagex. What's arguable is if they were necessary. And even if you argued that they were not necessary, what really irks some people is the lack of logic or cohesive arguments. If you can bring up a good point that says that the updates were not necessary (which I highly doubt you will, but it's still possible) then your argument would be different from the other ten million others that merely cried and had no logic.

I had a hunch.

That's exactly what people are doing. Sometimes people are too serious, but other times people are just venting and not being serious enough. And btw

Dictionary.com Discussion- an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate. Debate - 1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports. 2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. 3. deliberation; consideration. Therefore, by definition, discussion ~ debate with the difference being degree. Also from dictionary.com: Forum: 1. the marketplace or public square of an ancient Roman city, the center of judicial and business affairs and a place of assembly for the people. 2. a court or tribunal: the forum of public opinion. 3. an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest. 4. the Forum, the forum in the ancient city of Rome. Vent (intransitive verb as the title "rants forum" suggests) - verb (used without object) 13. to be relieved of pressure or discharged by means of a vent. 14. (of an otter or other animal) to rise to the surface of the water to breathe. Now, if you change the word to a transitive verb, you can say, "I vented my opinion," which gives way to communication. However, you can also vent your anger/sadness/happiness/etc. Doing so is not communication because: communication - 2. the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs. Communication requires two way traffic to order to be communication. Venting anger is not communication (unless you want to argue that my venting of anger is "communicating" with your venting of anger, which means I would have the right to flame and tear up any rant with ire at will, which you say is wrong.) So, the above definitions have said three things: debate ~ discussion. Forum = a place for discussion. Rants =/= discussion. Therefore, rants forum is an oxymoron like "low in sodium salt sticks" is an oxymoron. However, since an oxymoron is "a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in 'cruel kindness' or 'to make haste slowly,'" and "rants forum" is self-contradictory, it's a misnomer.

That's why I said it was a misnomer, but as I said, the name is contradictory, since ranting in of itself gives no discussion. An argument that biased is not a rant in so many words. Here's the difference: "Jagex phails; dey n00bz" Nothing good out of this at all, which is what a lot of rants are like. "Jagex is not doing well because of..." and list the expectations. Some expectations are unrealistic, some are warranted, but they give discussion unlike the above. And again, if you're going to rant simply for the sake of ranting, then go on Word and type to your heart's content. By simply typing on a forum to "Rant", you are fishing for other people's praise in most cases i.e. COMMUNICATION. And if you're typing something that should be on word and not read in front of other people, then typing it on the internet is just like placing your hand on a hot stove. Now, there's the argument of who has to leave: the people who want discussion, or the people who want to vent. Well, in my reasoning, you can scream into a pillow by yourself. Someone cannot communicate with themselves unless they have a split-personality (which in most cases, only one persona is active at a time anyway.) So in pure practicality, I believe the people venting just for the sake of venting should leave unless they are willing to bring up a good discussion.

I've heard about SC clans doing 12 minute games. If that is true, then you could play 4 games (well, less, because of the waiting time, but w/e). For 7 tools you need 140 points. 140/4=35 a game, which is not possible. So even if he did play fast SC games, Id say it's not possible. Especially not when 12 minute games are considered the lowest possible (which I am aware of). Is there a limit on the points able to be earned in the minigame? Like if you score X points, the game ends? If there isn't, I don't see how this is possible since the timer is based on a 20 minute threshold. Game ends if all resources are harvested. That's how :) huh, never knew that. So I guess it takes everybody to skill and no pkers? And about how many people does it take to pull this off?

I believe you said in an earlier thread that the rants forum is simply for "Ranting" and not "debating". Correct me if I'm wrong. If that were true, then the rants forum would be nothing more than a pillow that you would scream into. And if you really didn't care on how you expressed your frustration, then you wouldn't be on here saying how "you guys need to chill" and would be instead screaming into a pillow. Of course, if you didn't have a pillow to scream into the first place, you might want to think about why you're playing runescape... That slight impetus aside, what you're saying also self-contradicts itself. A forum is a physical or non-physical place in which people communicate or share their ideas. The "rants" title is just that, a title that tells what kind of threads are welcome here. Screaming into a pillow or venting frustration is not communication. Therefore, the rants forum is not for venting frustration alone. In fact, if it were, then rants forums would be single-player, phased instances where you couldn't see anybody, nobody could read what you wrote and vice-versa, and any and all words you typed would be free of judgment from another person. Basically, writing something on Word and then deleting it after you finish. The rants forum is not simply for venting. I believe the name is a small misnomer. The debate forums and the rants forum have similar kinds of discussion, but the debate has the discussion to a different degree. See? The difference is not in the "kind" like General discussion to off-topic, but the "degree" like unlocked announcement threads on the rsof and the recent updates forum.

To answer the question, "Why can't we do this?" with "this" being "changing the staircase facet facing the entrance you wish", probably memory. I'm sure Jagex has that somewhere on their list and is working on it with the current memory limitations. To answer the question with "this" being "Taking off a mounted object and putting it back on after changing the room," As seen by the party-hat dupe exploit, every kind of item has a unique code. Every rune plate has the same code, but it's unique from say a bronze longsword. Likewise, if we were to get the option of removing and retrieving those items, one could feasibly gain an infinite amount of construction and slayer experience (or whatever skill you used) without doing the skill. Now obviously Jagex could simply remove the experience to get rid of the problem of exploitation, but I think they want every used resource in con to give exp. That aside, Rocnar likes to be disobedient, why would be put into the dungeon if it weren't? :D

A vanity updates: Name changes with titles. For example, if we have a skill cape, "Master Fletcher Marcus". If we have a fire cape, "Jalyt-ket-Marcus" or whatever human champion would be. Maybe "Marcus the Hero," "Marcus the Legendary," "Marcus the Historian," you get the picture. I'm getting tired of seeing "Zelda12346" in my dialogue in quests. The update would be purely for vanity and role-playing purposes. A practical update: Update to mining to make it less tedious to farm and more in line with fishing and woodcutting. Update to smithing it make it give more exp to smith the bar from scratch than the amount of exp earned from mining all of the ore. Update to hitpoints to give us more of a cushion to keep people from safing (not wrong, just overly frustrating). A new skill set (farming and production skill) just to make thign interesting. Sequel to WGS. A revamp of the minigame tokens to make playing any minigame yield good rewards and not just limit the bets rewards to a select few.

Pantim, wouldn't that argument apply to dozens of other things like macroing or RWT'ing? Everyone can choose to do those as well, but it doesn't make them legal or right. DISCLAIMER: Not intended disrespectfully or as flaming. Also, I agree with Pantim's position, just not his logic. There's a subtle difference: Mouse keys are already turned on (I believe) on every computer. Macros must either be made or searched for to obtain. Both are available to everyone. It's more of the passive/active stance on several issues.

I've heard about SC clans doing 12 minute games. If that is true, then you could play 4 games (well, less, because of the waiting time, but w/e). For 7 tools you need 140 points. 140/4=35 a game, which is not possible. So even if he did play fast SC games, Id say it's not possible. Especially not when 12 minute games are considered the lowest possible (which I am aware of). Is there a limit on the points able to be earned in the minigame? Like if you score X points, the game ends? If there isn't, I don't see how this is possible since the timer is based on a 20 minute threshold.

Abandon hope all ye who fear long threads. I'm just going to say it plain and simple: this is a rant about the tip.it rants forums, not the rsof rants or even the rsof in general. While killing time over the summer, nothing topped the charts more so than reading the rants here. I became [more] knowledgeable of certain posters and obtained a reputation of them. In fact, I can sometimes get the gist of the post simply by looking at who posted it. But that facet only possesses a small percentage of how I "know" what's going to be posted. Don't get me wrong; when Rachet replies, I can almost smell the logic hammer as it's white-hot off the forge ready to pound and melt some rants. He's just one of the posters who I can identify by simply reading the content. (What's kind of funny is I know more people by their sigs than their actual names. So I know more than I may let on). But the point I'm trying to make: the responses of several posters are actually quite shallow. Not to offend anybody, but here's how I see it: A thread is simply a discussion on a said topic. When people post, there's almost an automatic triage of the "subject". 1. The thread is a "good" one. It warrants opinions and is simply, "I like rock, you like pop." 2. The thread is an "ok" one. It warrants things along the following: "you should have known better," "You'll do better next time," "now you know," "that's life, "[cabbage] happens," etc. An example would be ranting about the actions of someone online. 3. The thread is "bad". Its logic is flawed and warrants extensive logical conversation. The problems I see: 1. is almost on-existent in discussion on a rants forum; thigns like these should be in the general discussion. 2. is one of those, "look, you don't need comfort on an online game." I really don't like being harsh, but seriously, if you are ranting about how a person booted you off "your" world in a slayer task by using a cannon just for the sake of ranting, you are taking up space and time spent reading other rants. A better worded thread would be: "Is it right to boot people off?" Complaining about actions of other people is rather pointless seeing as you will never see them again most likely both in game or in real life; turn it into a constructive argument. 3. is just ugh. Anyone who has been on this forum for a fairly long time has read the eatrunearrow rant, "Once a great game. A story/Rant for veteran players." I applaud the logicians trying to smack logic and tear the rant apart. But is there really any point? Any time it has been revived it is a response simply rehashing concepts that have been said. If the person is too lazy to look over at least a few pages of the argument, then most like they can't hold a good discussion and wouldn't be worth anyone's time. Not to be inflammatory, but the only difference between repeating the counterargument a tenth time and complaining about the 07 updates is that the former has a small purpose while the latter has none at all. The fourth problem is that posters will say almost the exact same thing on the respective triage: 1. "Sweet, I so support"/"nope, don't like it" 2. "It's ok; it's not your fault"/"Meh, just get over it" 3. "dude, Jagex phails, rite?"/"You're wrong because of xyz" As a poster, surely you guys would like to see something different, right? Regardless if someone likes book X, reading book Y, book Z, and book W that has nearly the same plot as book X would leave the reader bored. What I'm really trying to ask is why do we give in to cliches? I'm guilty of this as well. A lot of the time I read the OP and then respond without really reading the last response. I know it could simply be laziness, but surely there's more to it. In fact, when we know that we are reading a thread that's ranting about something that we've read almost five times in the last month, why do we bother posting in the first place? It's almost like feeding a troll. I'm not saying what's going on here is a bad thing, I'm just wondering why do we settle for stale or rehashed threads? Why can't there be something fresh at least a few times every couple of days? Isn't that what we're ranting to Jagex about, stale content? #-o If you want to point out any flaws in my logic, feel free to do so; I'm always happy with criticism (as long as it's not inflammatory ;) )

My stance on the tools: Farming them is incredibly inefficient. Granted, you can do something else instead of grinding at the cost of less exp per hour, but it's much better to simply skill (unless you're using the hammer to train construction; then you're saving time and money, which is a whole different dicussion.) HOWEVER. I once played SC for about 8 days straight before the update just because it was fun. I had ~23 tools in my bank at the end. From my personal experience, a clay hachte cuts slightly faster than a dragon axe, which is the same as an adze. Bottom line: don't farm the tools, but if you do have them, you should definitely be using them.

So, nintendo is an idiot since they place ads in game cases for more of their games? Here's something stupid: Advertising for World of Warcraft...on the world of warcraft community site. It's actually quit hilarious to see blizzard waste money like that.