Darkblade20

"I was hanging upside down" *breathe heavily* "Working my sweet abs, I had no time to play for reals" *breathe heavily* :^o

Pointless comments in pointless rants are also, pointless. Which is pointless.

Hmm, I see. First of all, in order to play an expansion, you have to own, and install, the original version of the game. This is a law amongst video games. If p2p were an expansion, after all, it would require you to follow suit, yet, you can simply circumvent f2p. I think of p2p as more of a sequel to f2p, much like the ".Hack" games, where the world is the same, but the general story is much different, much so that it is considered a completely different game, though part of the same universe. How people consider something plays no part in what it actually is. Second, if training a skill on Runescape begins to become hazardous to your overall health, Jagex tells you to stop playing. A doctor would tell you to stop playing. Other people will simply tell you "you're an idiot". Suffice to say, crippling yourself for a potential lifetime, opposed to paying ~$5 US, must be an immense choice for some people. I am not against an update to add a "bury X" option to the game, for all players. I do not maintain that members should horde their privileges, although, I do enjoy the quote: "Give nothing, but take from them everything!". I do, though, like to give people something to think about when they're posting some insufferable rant, in the wrong forum, for the wrong crowd of people. Tip.it forums do not own Runescape, nor do they influence how Runescape is updated. Thus, I will argue you with all my power, and attempt to taunt you until all your argumentative power is completely drained. This is how I function.

We made it fool proof, they built a better idiot.

Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder, and on the same note, arrogance is often confused with cynicism, or skepticism. I don't simply spew random garbage If there's not but a shred of truth to it all, it's simply not good principle. While p2p may seem like an expansion, due to the fact that it adds onto the f2p game play, rather than the other way around, this is universally incorrect: 1.) An expansion, by definition, is adding onto a previously existent platform, or game. The difference with Runescape being, you never have to play f2p to actually begin playing members, as in an expansion, where one would have to "own" the original game in order to play the expansion content. P2p is readily available to begin play from day 1, as such, it is it's own game. F2p, on the other hand, while you may begin playing from the very start, has everything that p2p potentially has, just most content is heavily restricted, or inaccessible. This is characteristic of a game demo, not of a fully functional game version. 2.) In addition to the above statements, content updates are a general attribute in terms of full game versions. As with almost all major games, even those with expansions, the largest number of updates are typically primary to the original game version, with sparse, incremental updates that come to the expansions, typically when bugs, or game mechanics are in need of fixing. This is simply based on deduction, and is generally true. Again, using some deductive reasoning, I draw the above conclusions simply from the fact that p2p does not rely heavily on the game mechanics present in f2p. Rather that p2p is a very independent game, per se, in regards to f2p, which is very characteristic of a full version game, contrary to an expansion. Furthermore, in a legal sense, neither arrogance nor ignorance play a part in any form of contracting. What you agree to, is generally what you get, this is the essence of a binding contract. I never said the conditions of the contract cannot be appealed, nor did I say Jagex isn't allowed to throw a couple freebe's out of kindness. I simply meant, ranting about it will literally get you nowhere but square one.

I'd like to invalidate this entire argument by first saying that: F2p is not a full game. Similarly, p2p is not an "expansion," it is the full version of Runescape. You pay a recurring service charge in order to open the full version of Runescape, the membership fee, in order to unlock certain services which you have agreed to pay for, which you agree to in that "User-License Agreement" that no one seems to take note of when you create your character. This agreement also states, that by choosing not to pay for the full version of Runescape, you do just this: You agree that you will not have access to features typcial of the full version of Runescape, namely new quests, skills, options, methods, etc. The free to play version of Runescape, now, is just like a demo, as someone pointed out earlier. It is a restricted, or limited-access version of the full game (which you must pay for). You're simply given a small taste of the full game, in hopes that you will soon pay for the full version of Runescape. Jagex doesn't update f2p because they needs to, it's simply out of a whim, as you're not in any position to even receive updates. This may seem harsh, yes, but it is the truth.

As we've all seen, and had our rants about, Jagex recently dropped the heavy hammer of the law on Runescape pvp, causing an immense uproar among the general population. While I can agree with a few updates, and changes, there are a few that don't seem to make sense. The primary being, the loss of "protect item," a prayer which protects a players most valuable item upon death, which, has now lost it's central function with the changes that have been implemented. So, then, I propose a solution to the "solution" Jagex has employed to discourage abuse of pvp drops, which will benefit traditional PK, while maintaining satisfactory discouragement against said abuse: From now on, I will be discussing what I'm going to term as "Extended Release". The concept almost mirroring EP in mechanics, the basics of the idea are like so: 1) Players will skull upon log in, as usual. The skull will also function as it normally would: It will disappear in one hour of continuous play. You must be outside a safe zone for this hour, and the skull will reset upon death. 2) The "protect item" prayer will function in a manner similar to the skull. After a certain amount of time in a hot-zone or pvp area, around 30-45 minutes, protect item will become available for use. You must stay outside a safe zone, and you must stay alive, or the prayer timer will not continue, or it will reset. This way, you will be able to protect an item, but you will still have to wait for a skull to disappear to protect more items. This will also discourage PJ. 3) You continue to gain EP as usual, or if need be, less EP every 30 minutes. ~With this, not only can PK return to a semi-normal level of play, but it also adds another aspect to the hunt: Wit and cunning: A need to stay alive for periods of time, avoiding other hunters until you can PK effectively. I believe this concept creates a fun PK atmosphere, while maintaining a level of severity. Comments, and criticisms?

As we've all seen, and had our rants about, Jagex recently dropped the heavy hammer of the law on Runescape pvp, causing an immense uproar among the general population. While I can agree with a few updates, and changes, there are a few that don't seem to make sense. The primary being, the loss of "protect item," a prayer which protects a players most valuable item upon death, which, has now lost it's central function with the changes that have been implemented. So, then, I propose a solution to the "solution" Jagex has employed to discourage abuse of pvp drops, which will benefit traditional PK, while maintaining satisfactory discouragement against said abuse: From now on, I will be discussing what I'm going to term as "Extended Release". The concept almost mirroring EP in mechanics, the basics of the idea are like so: 1) Players will skull upon log in, as usual. The skull will also function as it normally would: It will disappear in one hour of continuous play. You must be outside a safe zone for this hour, and the skull will reset upon death. 2) The "protect item" prayer will function in a manner similar to the skull. After a certain amount of time in a hot-zone or pvp area, around 30-45 minutes, protect item will become available for use. You must stay outside a safe zone, and you must stay alive, or the prayer timer will not continue, or it will reset. This way, you will be able to protect an item, but you will still have to wait for a skull to disappear to protect more items. This will also discourage PJ. 3) You continue to gain EP as usual, or if need be, less EP every 30 minutes. With this, not only can PK return to a semi-normal level of play, but it also adds another aspect to the hunt: Wit and cunning; A need to stay alive for periods of time, avoiding other hunters until you can PK effectively. I believe this concept creates a fun PK atmosphere, while maintaining a level of severity. As per every theory, tweaking is in order, but this seems like it can work. Comments, and criticisms?

Laws of probability, as well as some theorems dealing in quantum physics state that anything could be a possible outcome. I'm not contradicting myself, just confusing poor people who don't waste as much time in this stuff as I do.

99% is completely reasonable, the Law of Averages dictates this. A number like 50% would imply that 5/10 fights, a level 3 can beat a level 100. Yet, on the stated 99:1 ratio, not only can fights go any way they want, but that 1% is what determines the battle, which, would dictate that the level 3 would probably lose every time due to poor equipment bonuses, and low levels. Although, the chance is always present that the lv 3 could win.

Hitpoints is a function of endurance, which, realistically, can constantly be trained. You can master you effectiveness in attacking, and defending, but with more and more hitpoints exp, the attribute should increase accordingly. I think someone with 200m exp is completely justified as having, although not as high as 500hp, but according to the algorithm which dictates how much exp is needed for the next level, a proportionate level of hitpoints. Higher levels should have an upper hand in pvp, because they train their levels to be so.. no use in whining because you didn't spend as much time becoming a "pvp boss."

I'm sorry, but all this talk of "tricking," "tricks," and such has me in the corner of whatever room I may be in, cracking up like a drugged up loon. Where do people come up with names for things in this day and age? Player X (Level 52), sitting in the corner of the bank "Tricking for 26k!". The hilarity of it all, it's simply breathtaking. For anyone who knows where this is going, kudos, the oldest profession in the world prevails, even in Runescape.

Strength simply allows you to hit higher more often. Attack determines how often you hit, and defence determines how often the other players misses you, in relation to the opponents attack level. The problem being, it doesn't work that way. With 99 attack, I have trouble hitting people with 80 defence, and under at times, while people with maybe 75 attack, can hit through my defence as If it were level 1 (My Def. is 85). Yet, at the same time, I can hit through people with 99 defence, as if they had 80 defence as well. So, what you run into, is dominantly random hits, with skill level barely playing a factor of around 1% in how the battle plays out. Thus, 99% of a fight is luck, with the other 1% consisting of: Skill levels, equipment bonuses, etc. Although, that 1% can often determine the outcome of the fight, luck is the only way to explain how lower skill levels can trump higher levels.

Pertaining to Blizzard's "golden" support, that is both true, and untrue. WoW may have excellent support, but for any of Blizzard's other games, support is comparatively worse than Runescape's support, citing Diablo 2, a game from 1999, as a perfect example. They cannot replace items, they send automated messages, and they generally just do not care, which, considering their ability to remove and delete items, just as Jagex can, is similarly unacceptable. Second, Jagex is not bribing anyone, this is the wrong term to use. The added bank space is called an incentive, or a device used to incite action, in our case, the action would be buying their security product. No money is payed for the bank space, the space is free, with purchase of the security device, of course. In terms of the bank space itself, CPU ability/power doubles ~every 10 months at absolutely no cost, and the same goes for the Runescape engine. Using an outdated statement such as bank space affecting the game's limitations can be tossed out the window. I can, however, agree that a flash drive as a security device would not benefit in the least. What I can propose, however, is a process that runs in the background, as opposed to an external tool. This could be limited to a software device, that runs similar to a firewall, but, like a firewall, this is vulnerable to attack. Then, what comes to mind, is an actual attachment to the Runescape engine, a player specific security mechanism that acts much like an automated bank pin.. although, this may contribute to horrendous bugs, and game lag. The options are out there, though. As people keep attempting to put the bank space incentive in the same boat as purchasing, for example, Godsword's for currency, this is universally untrue. Bank space, unlike armor and weapons, is not a commodity, it is a benefit, which is maintained every 30 days for the payment of the membership fee. In-game coins are commodities, just as maple logs, and flax are. Extra skills, added quests, and faster training methods are benefits, which is what you pay for as a Runescape member. Members-only items are not benefits, but are a commodity which are a product of paying for benefits. P2p, is not an expansion of f2p. F2p, on the other hand, is a restricted version of P2p. A membership pays for the benefit of playing the full version of Runescape, which, in turn, allows access to the full array of commodities. Getting extra bank space, as an incentive, is the same thing as paying for a membership. This is by default. People, in reality, have to pay money for benefits: For health benefits, for dental plans, automobile premiums... By paying for such, you're allowed expanded commodities, such as a longer life (Time is a commodity, as well as a benefit), the ability to drive legally (You need a certain level of insurance coverage to drive a car legally), and the list can go on. What this ultimately comes down to, is jealousy. Most in opposition are those who do not wish to pay money for benefits, but want everyone else to be on the same level as themselves. This is selfishness embodied. This is also an unrealistic idea of how benefits coincide with wealth. It's the same as someone who cannot afford a whip being on a lower level than someone who can. This is a true statement. This is all pertinent to "Addressing the Anti-Hack Key". Concerns, and criticisms?

How the... Abortion, really? I can't tell how that even came up.... While on the subject, I can throw in my two cents, though. I'll start by saying, as a male, that no man has the right to tell a female what to do with her baby. Yes, it takes two to create a baby, but the female, inherently, takes all of the punishment during childbirth. On that same note, using abortion as a form of birth control is not justifiable, and is not right. Looking at this from a medical point of view, abortion up from around eight to eleven weeks is justifiable. You are not aborting a human fetus, nor a medically living form. What you're simply killing is a parasitic entity that is not characteristic of life. Of course, pro-life supporters tend to warp what can be defined as life, but that's typical of a faithful opposition. Again, though, what you're getting rid of here isn't a human, not yet, at least. What can be deemed wrong though, are abortions which take place at, or around thirteen or more weeks of pregnancy. At this point, you do, indeed, garner A developing, or in some cases developed, human fetus. This is where most clinics will turn you away and tell you "you're having a baby, there's nothing we can do." Some clinics do perform terminations at this point in time, but it's a rather immoral, and disgusting procedure. On the discussion of adoption procedures in lieu of termination, also comes under some crossfire, although, the numbers are clear. Generally adoptive measures would work out, but, here are some major, and fatal conflicts: 1) Facilities which deal in adoption are so dreadfully full at this stage, it's unreasonable to simply birth children and toss them right in there. 2) The amount of families which are extremely particular in their child's background number around 85-95%, children who aren't adopted and pass a certain point typically don't get adopted. 3)This can lead to general psychological problems among children in the future. Adoption as a form of termination is generally immoral based on the above data (this is all proven through experimentation and study). On the dilemma of rape in correlation with pregnancy and abortion, you are completely within your right to have a termination, unless you really want the child. The court will probably take measures, as well as tests to discern the recipient as a fit mother. Also, on the problem with a man being raped, and the rapist keeping the child, it's all a matter of the courts, again. If no convictions are made, and no evidence can be presented, it can go any way you can imagine. Although, either party can press for custody, and some problems may arise there.

That theory on emergent properties is definitely tied into this discussion. Similar to what I've stated about a collection of consciousness, rather individual consciousness, that accounts for the existence of determinable, concrete properties. Bravo :) Also. I'm horrified by where this thread has gone, as I've gone through many of the posts in depth at this point. I can't say whether or not I'm surprised at how off-topic we've gotten (to an extent, at least). In my opinion, this is one for the RS history books. A massive discussion for a RS board! (I'm also surprised we haven't been closed yet o.O) To answer the above question though, perhaps the only absolute truth, is that there is no absolute truth. As we've seen here so far, truth is simply what emerges as a group strives to make sense of their world, whether that "truth" be the right one, or not.

Whoo! This thread is going everywhere, seeping into every nook n' cranny you could imagine. Just to clarify, as most seem not to be able to find a definitive point in my article. How should I say.. the major point that there are multiple conclusions that anyone could arrive at, not simply my owns opinions. I find it much more interesting to be able to interpret works in more ways than one, rather than the dreary, monotonous, linear works I read almost every day. So, I simply left it up to the reader to determine their own thoughts. Obviously I was semi-successful, with forum browsers busting out monstrous posts pertaining to the very world itself. The underlying point that I, personally, am trying to make, is that perception is our only link to the world around us. Which can't help but make you ask the questions: "Is perception a reliable medium?", "Does what the eye see's, or what the finger's touch exist as we perceive it to be?". When you're able to shed all skepticism, and truly throw away your scientific values, it's quite simple to become engrossed, although, not many people share that ability, stubbornness is a major factor to consider among scientific debate. Also to clarify, This: "We're also granted the ability to perceive our own sensory input, molding it, changing it. Most would call this logic, reason"... defines thought, no, my flaw does not come from a belief in intelligence. My "flaw," if that's what you would call it, comes from a flexibility to multiple idea's, some which probably clash. "But on that topic 'Where does a rain storm begin?' it is a question I have had for ages. If you are walking is there a line that you cross into a rainstorm? Is there a specified area for the rain? The simple answer is yes, where-ever it is raining, but the more complicated argument wants to know exact where, is there and exact, measurable line between rain and no rain. Is there an exact measurable time between life and death?"... This just proves my point. There is no line, no measurement, it simply happens where it exists. I've had a lot of fun with this thread, Archimage, I also enjoy your responses! I wonder how long this will keep rolling?

I'm very much enjoying the debate going on. It's not typical of the stereotypical 'Scape population characterized by the in-game players. I'd like to point out first, that (mind you, this essay states this very thing), it's not to be taken completely seriously. Every theory has it's fundamental flaws, which is why they're theories, and for something I cooked up at ~5:00AM based on some theoretical physics and quantum theory, I can imagine the number of cracks in this rock. I do have to point out, though, in order to effectively criticize a literary work, you do, indeed, have to work within the parameters, or context, of the piece itself. You can't judge an Edgar Allen Poe piece from a bubbly perspective, or you'll have an emotional bias, or so to say, interfering with the context of the story. Similarly, many of the arguments made thus far, deal greatly in measurements, and physical laws, which this essay completely throws out in the explanation of the universe. There is no measurement, no physics, no deities: There is simply what exists. At the heart of everything, there are two planes, what exists, and what's become. The Earth exists, we exist. Measurement, mathematics, astronomy, language.. all belong to what has become, what's been propagated through existence itself. Where "Theory" delves, is how simply perceiving the former, somehow ends in the creation of the latter. Where's the proof to show that objects continue to exist, whether we accept it or not, other than accounts from people who see these objects stand the test of time? History proves that all scientific heritage, and religious texts, come from one living, breathing person, or another. "I think, therefore I am"... Who is to say you're the one doing the thinking? Both arguments are acceptable, as most people are free to be their own person, within lawful constraints, at a mere whim. At the same time, man-made laws curb your very existence as well, conforming you to an ideal individual. Similarly, this theory is not only limited to sensory perception as some people seem to make out. Of course, sensory perception is our only link the the world as we know it, but this is simply data processed by the brain. We're also granted the ability to perceive our own sensory input, molding it, changing it. Most would call this logic, reason, but the truth is, there's probably no name for it. It's sort of a system that's backwards-compatible with itself, and ultimately affects the outcome of what exists, and what we perceive. Of course, we cannot see a God, yet, why does it exist as an entity? This is proof of this mechanism. Likewise, the fact, again, that sensory input is our only link to the world, further serves to prove the underlying point of "On Theory." The only way the human body can react to it's environment, is to move a muscle, or secrete from a gland, both of which can be vastly affected by alterations in sensory input, and general perception. And where does all this stem from? The brain. Which, along with the mind (yes, the two are different), control how you, and your environment, serve to function. So, I ask again, without perception, where does that leave you?

I was simply trying to make a point, many people are unaware of the physics behind everything. On that note, how would you have known any of that without the invention of mathematics, which is a byproduct of perception?

First of all, what have I created? Sure, I enjoy criticism and debate, but it's not been even 24 hours. Second, most of you seem to be picking apart the essay as if it were split into parts, yet, the idea is present throughout, thus, one must take it as a whole. Using analogies which concern physical, tangent processes, and objects, is similarly useless, as the initial argument here, is that based on a presence of certain, undeniable attributes, these idea's cease to exist. That being said, the only method of argument becomes induction through the use of logic. Archimage, to respond to you, take this into consideration. As I stated in "On Theory," natural processes continue to exist, with or without our knowledge, because through perception, we acknowledge that, for example, sound exists, and when a tree falls, it makes a sound. Or perhaps you disregarded that entire portion? Thus, in that we acknowledge this phenomena exists, it can continue to propagate with, or without the presence of a perceptive being. Of course, you can also argue that animals in the area are perceiving this event, as are other lifeforms proven to have intelligence. Then you can make the conjecture, that through this series of events, the forest does, indeed, exist. As for your apple tree, did it cross your mind that perhaps: Only because the tree exists, the apple has the ability to fall. Or that only because we exist to walk on the earth, gravity can then be discovered. Tell me.. if we didn't know we were walking on the earth, anchored down by some invisible force, would we have discovered the existence of gravity? Without the invention of spacecraft, and observational technology, would we know there is no gravity in space? The answer then, is no, the phenomena simply does not exist. Why is that statement true? On an individual scale, what cannot be perceived, does not exist. If the same observational qualities apply to every human, then the same statement can be similarly applied. I'm not saying it cannot exist as it's own entity (gravity), but to the human being, or even to a lowly ant, the individual is to what the world matters, and nothing else. This applies to atoms, to plants, to the very air. As for religion: Religion is anything that we put faith in. To be more accurate, what my theory pertains to, is the concept of intelligent design, or that some omnipotent, cosmic being created everything. Just to clear that up. Also, I clearly define atheism for everyone who seems to be confused: "One who maintains that there is no God."

Jp, I must say, that response covered everything to a tee. Cutting the head off a fluke worm only results in... another fluke worm. So, obviously we need to stop treating the problem like a snake, and more like a fluke worm, if that makes any sense to you. So, rather than create a transverse cut, like we've been doing thus far, a change in dissection, something similar to a sagittal cut, may be more effective. (Hopefully that analogy will make sense as well?) Indeed a problem today is a lack of competition in order to balance the the tides, if you will, caused by the actions of the merchant clans. Competition, being the primary tool used in the combat of monopolies. The problem being, the largest competition before the grand exchange, and trade caps, was the person standing next to you, vying for the same profits as you, and probably the next five to ten people around you. That being said, the days of RWT were probably the most vibrant days of Runescape in a way. I can't say, on the other hand, I've actually come up with any viable methods of competition, which based on the said outline of goals, are going to keep us on track. As you stated, freedoms would probably be taken away at this rate, such as an item-purchase limit. Actually, most of the solutions that've popped into my head are in dire resemblance to something like communism. While Jagex may not be legislators, something amounting to the most basic of laws would probably garner a massive blow to the exploitative communities of players. I'll get back to this when I can generate some solutions that aren't going to have people working in the eUSSR.

On Theory: An essay I typed up in my free time. Theory with the intention of competing on par with current theories of existence, including evolution, and intelligent design. Let's shake this forum up a bit :wall: On Theory: Perceptive Correlation on Life and the Universe. Albert Einstein quoted Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame. Almost a paradox, or oxymoron, taking into account the immense conflict that the two bodies come into. Agnosticism, claiming a neutral stance, states that any ultimate reality (as God), is unknown, or probably unknowable (). Atheism, on the other hand, is neither as viable a stance, nor a logical take on religion, as one who maintains that there is no God. While maintaining that there is no God, per se, Atheism makes the mistake in maintaining God, as a tangible medium of faith, thus defeating its very purpose. One cannot, however, argue the existence of an intangible, or non-existent body, leaving any level of debate in a perpetual spin. My stance on the matter, though, draws on a different medium, maintaining that such bodies, tangible or not, exist only through the collective consciousness, and belief of such matters by the general psyche that persists in humanity. Thus, neither religion nor science become the prevalent means of existence in our society, as existence itself, can only be explained by perception. Deprive a single human being of the five senses linked to general perception: Sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste. What then, does existence become? With loss of vision, colors cease to exist, as do the general forms of objects. With loss of auditory function, and the sense of touch, objects lose texture, form, and basic properties (Such as weight, or composition). With the further loss of olfactory, and gustatory function, objects will cease to exist. A child, slowly incubating in his mothers womb, what exists for such a form? Only with the addition of the basic senses does the world itself come to life, only then does what we perceive as life, come to exist. Does a form without the ability to perceive believe in God, in evolution? If you dont know what God is, does he still exist? The basis of religion is in maintaining the influence, and existence of a deity through faith, which is also a medium of perception and thought. If all Christians were to suddenly cease practicing their faith, is there a God? Does this apply to individual practitioners of a certain faith, or a completely different faith as a whole? Drifting to the other end of the spectrum, the theory of evolution would not exist if there were no scientists to study the phenomenon. Taking that into consideration, the basis of longevity for both sides of the argument pertinent to our existence, both support the fact that without the human mind, both subjects are nigh. The mind being the only medium for conduction of our sense of perception, human beings cease to exist without it, death being clinically defined as the cease of brain function that can be measured be EEG. Greek philosopher Protagoras said "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not. To a great extent, he was probably far ahead of his time in terms of philosophy, and correct in his theory. Taking note that we all probably had to be created at some point, take this into consideration: With the introduction of the five senses, objects are given their basic properties. We can see that water is liquid, that a mountain is tall, and rocky. Yet, somehow at one point, were stuck thinking the Earth is flat, and we are the center of our universe. With our invention of basic transportation, and the introduction of mathematics, as well as inventions such as the telescope, the Earth suddenly becomes round, later spherical. The Earth suddenly becomes a planet orbiting an immense sun, the universe suddenly taking scope, the magnitude of its size becoming apparent. The introduction of flight, and aerospace technology give the planets of our solar system composition, also aided by the invention of powerful new technology. When you begin to examine the progression of our existence from that of a flat surface in the middle of the universe, to that of an improbable anomaly amidst the current of an infinitely vast universe, it becomes apparent that the sole reason for the general knowledge, or even the existence of the universe as it is today, is a direct product of the advancement of man. Could you explain the size of our universe, or the composition of Jupiter without any of our technology at the time? Without such instruments, the universe as it is, would probably cease to exist as a tangible body in our mind. Yet, tangency in itself is yet another propagation of mans never-ending quest in search of the, again, ultimate reality. Considering the above facts, the lines between what can be considered as real, surreal, fiction, or intangible begin to blur, even fade away. If whats considered real is a byproduct of the collective conscious of humanity, what can be, realistically, considered, well, real? (No pun intended, of course). Furthermore, how can we consider the word real as an effective medium of existence, if real itself, is also at the same time, the brainchild of perception, and is thus unreal at the same time. Can anything be considered real? Exemplifying the sheer power behind the mind, simple propositions can be blown out of proportions infinitely, yet with the arguments currently at stake, they can make perfect sense, or none at all, at the same time. Such is the power the brain leases to a human, or an animal, even the smallest organism; The power to bend reality around oneself. Just like a jellyfish, though, reality is not made up of one, individual mind, but millions of minds, to form one, which meld together, forming a single, sentient form. Whos to say humanity isnt the product of some other organisms collective consciousness? An octopus, a lion, both of which are proven to show perceptive ability, could we not be a mere hologram projected by the mind of a creature which we deem inferior? Or perhaps, as a whole, the world, and all its inhabitants, are simply on the same level of existence, equal to one another as the creators of our universe, after all, humans are not self-sufficient as some animals are, and would surely not be here if not for the aid of animals. Perhaps the sign of some sort of mutual symbiosis, key in the existence of not only ourselves, but those around us. Again, though, this is merely speculation based on evidence present in nature. After a bit of reading here, one might ask, how is it that the world does not exist, although everyone else can clearly perceive everything that is going on, at the same time. Again, it comes down to what can be called the collective consciousness. The world is perceived as uniform by such an immense number of minds, the form of the universe ceases to change, and probably never will. How do you remove an image from wood, etched by fire, without first destroying the original piece of wood? A man once said, a mind stretched by a new idea, will never return to its original dimensions. If you fill a balloon with water, and tie it off, its nigh impossible to return the balloon to normal, without popping the balloon itself. The father of Futurism, F.T. Marinetti, was probably correct in his endeavors to destroy the history of the world, destroying all museums, colleges, libraries, in an attempt to start over anew, his views on history perfectly conveyed by his belief that History is the process by which the dead bury the living. In order to change existence, by that token, humanity would have to destroy its very foundations, all which we are built upon, everything that makes the world what it is. Then however, how is it that the universe stretches far beyond that which we can see? Look at it like this: We wish for there to be life on mars, and there is, with the aid of only ourselves to be accounted for. We invented the technology, thus, without the power of the mind, life would not exist on mars. Man wishes for there to be other planets beyond our solar system, and so there is, only with the aid of our own minds. There is no outside force swaying the existence of these phenomenon, simply our own desire for their existence. Is there life in the universe other than ours? If we wish hard enough, the day will probably come. This theory, in which perception, and the mind become the basis of our existence in its current form is only supported by such degrees of information persistent in society. Looking in retrospect of whats been said, even perception itself starts to become sketchy, it too, being yet another concept of man-made production. Just imagine, the only reason for existence, the only reason for this entire, vast universe coming down to a single element, a single form: The brain, a sole tool in not only the conception of perception in itself, but also a primary organ, vital in the life of every creature. Every organism in existence has some form of structure that can relate to a brain, whether it be a nucleus, or something completely different, they all exist to perform the same function, which is to preserve life. What is existence, then, without the mind? Therell probably never come a time in which we will ever find out, perhaps, though, the answer everyone seeks, that ultimate reality, is right behind our very eyes. Hell, one could even go on to argue that organs themselves are merely elements of what our eyes are showing us, then, going even further than ever before, where does perception even begin to propagate? Does this reality, or anything in it really exist as we know it? Even then, where does this concept of reality come from, and concepts like such can stretch infinitesimally. Obviously there are numerous theories which strive to explain the existence of the universe, or at least attempt to act as the supplements which form the stepping stones down the path of truth. Yet, as mere speculation, it becomes increasingly difficult to pinpoint that ultimate reality, in which we all seek. Perhaps, though, the simplest answer, in the case of perception, does indeed, become the best answer.

Generally, what Free2Play users are confused of, is the actual point of a payed subscription. What I mean is, by subscribing to a membership on Runescape, this is what you're basically agreeing to: I *Insert name* hereby agree to pay Jagex Ltd. in the amount of X, for added services and features rendered by the said company under Y agreement, for Z amount of time. So, let's break it down now; A member is paying $5.95 USD per month (under a credit card agreement, that is), in order to use the added Runescape membership features for one month. This is what separates p2p, from f2p. Now, here's where free players don't understand. By choosing to play f2p, and pay for nothing, you agree that member-exclusive features will NOT be rendered to the player, and you completely understand this, you're supposed to read the user agreement page, you know. So, again, in simple terminology, you agree, when you make your player, that by law: If you don't pay, you don't get skillcapes, new skills, new area's. You simply agreed to play the f2p game, and nothing more. Whereas p2p players, pay for these things deliberately. You can plead to Jagex, and make as many threads as you want, or have the entirety of RS supporting, Jagex is not obligated to listen to you. YOU made the choice, YOU chose your own consequences, this is no one's fault but the individual's.

Indeed, rather a form of "eCaptialism" taking place, the graphs do amount to something of a pre-industrialized exploitative tactic. In which case, I find that the merchant clans cannot be the ones to bear the burden of blame. As I've stated in another topic, the Grand Exchange is a definitive structure, with it's own functions, as well as limitations. Merchant clans merely take advantage of these limitations, and apply existent economic functions to an apparently flawed design. In which case, it dawns that a combination of factors account for the majority of occurrence in terms of the stated arguments, which would be implicative of not only faulty planning on account of Jagex, but also failure in the endeavor to explicate appropriate measures of counteracting the merchant clans, as well as the general problems brought about by the merchants clans themselves. Similarly, as you've stated before, how does one remove an image engraved into wood, without first damaging the wood itself? Merchant clans have carved, through their own actions, a distinct niche in the basis of game play, and, as a man once said, a mind stretched to new lengths will never return to it's own dimensions. That being said, a game, being a product of the mind, can similarly follow a parallel degree of function. What we find, then, is that the damage already done is much like cancer, permanent. This carcinoma, very much entwined in our very game play, is a law now, more than a theory. What has to be done, then, is much like what must be done with cancer, remove as much as possible, and hope for an answer in the distant future. Look beyond what's been done, and focus on a cure, rather than a patch. This is the dilemma everyone seems to run into, while it's important not to linger in the past, or future, it's similarly important not to wander too far in the present, as not to lose sight of the horizon. And as for people who are complaining about what's been done, forget it. As F.T. Marinetti said, history is the process by which the dead bury the living, and it'll become much like that if people continue to linger upon what's been done. So, then, let's discuss further: What can be done, rather than what should be done, or what has been done.

I can't help but giggle like some friend's 6 year-old little sister at some of the arguments being tossed on the table in this discussion. Let me start by pointing out the misdirection of this entire argument. Nothing is being "manipulated" here. The GE serves a defined purpose, with it's own limitations and functions. What these so-called "merchant clans" are simply doing, is apply the existing GE functions in a way which serves to create a profit. As many people have stated, it amounts to something close to capitalism. No, the word that's flying over everyone's head is called exploitation. Generally, there are laws in place which essentially abolish the existence of exploitative practices. Where we fall short, though, is that Runescape is a game. There is no state, no government, and the established free-market has full rights to operate in it's purest form. This is simply purist capitalism, where merchant clans, a private business essentially, are free to control trade in an attempt to profit: Which defines capitalism. By all means strive for Jagex to radify some sort of "eSherman Act", but you have to understand, the GE is not flawed, the game's mechanics are fine, you cannot complain. What is happening here, is an realistic marketing strategy, is being applied to an unrealistic game. As for everyone who keeps citing "The rich get richer." People are not born rich. Wealth does not come from a genie's lamp, or from a fruit-bearing tree. In order to become rich, a foundation has to be laid. People becomes rich, because they've worked hard to do so, and they amass even more wealth, because of the hard work they put in to get to where they currently are. There's no one to blame but yourself for any financial shortcomings. Any dingbat with eyes can discern a particular flow in the market, and merchant clans take advantage of their ocular endowments, grasp the reigns of the horse, and take the throne for themselves. This is how the medieval era took place, and people who couldn't handle it, normally died off. Simply put, try harder.