RU_Insane

Thank gosh it wasn't a goblin pestering you to spin the wheel in-game. You'd know what be even worse? Having a telemarketer call you and pester you spin the wheel. -_- Or have subliminal messages embedded inside your TV shows. "Timmy, where's Lassie?" "She's out in the orchard, Ma. Peaches are coming in mighty early this year." "SPIN." "You know what they say, Timmy. Early peaches. long summers." "SPIN." (dog comes in) Woof! Woof! "What's that, Lassie?" "DID YOU SPIN THE WHEEL YET?"

I lol'd :P

:P I think it could be multiple GEs or a demonstration of some game-changing feature.

At first I thought you meant actual banner advertisements placed outside Jagex HQ buildings. I can see it now: "Buy one hundred spins, get a free RuneFest ticket!" Alternatively: "Buy a RuneFest ticket, get a free one hundred spins!" (This one's more likely to happen).

Ozan probably just suffers from vitiligo. The next time you see him, he'll have had five botched plastic surgeries.

Probably a count down to when Jagex declares bankruptcy. "See RuneScape's future: none!" :P

??? The girl is the model for the shirt. I think she's quite attractive. Dunno what your problem is. :P

That's actually a pretty fitting name for it. I wish this was Reddit so I could upvote this comment. :P

You and I agree on the main point, but I have to nitpick. :P 1. Just because your American lawyer friend brought up a legal principle irrelevant to U.K. contract law (and even if it weren't, probably still would lack basis in fact) doesn't mean you can chant the mantra as if it's gospel. It's not true, no case has been ever been brought against Jagex concerning this, and it's unlikely that any party will possess the resources to bring such a case to Jagex concerning virtual property, let alone a legal basis to rest on. I think you'll agree with Point # 2. 2. Jagex employs technically-correct language to maintain the veneer of legitimacy when it's clear there are less than savory intentions behind those updates. Jagex knows that players value certain items more than others. They capitalize on that interest by introducing options to raise those hopes whilst funneling the incoming flood of revenue. They purposely place low value and high value items together so the player thinks he has a shot (no matter how small) at winning the jackpot. This way, players have greater incentive to purchase spins to get closer to winning that shiny, glowing bauble...! But when the technique is questioned, Jagex can step back and say it isn't gambling because X or Y. In this case, Jagex claims it's not because you don't risk anything when you spin. That's true. That doesn't stop them from employing incentives for players to foolishly waste their money, though. It's a pseudo-gambling device designed directly for this purpose. I'm not accusing them of breaking any gambling laws. It's far from that. I'm more concerned about the sleazy marketing tactics and the possible violation of consumer protection laws. Finally... 3. Yes, the items do have intrinsic value. Value is not determined by price alone. A Godsword won from SOF is just as useful as one obtained from trade. If it had no intrinsic value, players would not purchase more spins for a chance to a win a Godsword. This is just the sort of technical, side-stepping language Jagex deploys to justify its updates.

Articles look good this week :)

My favorite is when someone says something's not ever going to happen, but it does. Jagex 2007: "We will never be bringing back the wilderness. Ever." Jagex 2010: "That last statement was supposed to have an asterisk."

Wrong board, wrong section, and possibly even the wrong forum. :P

I wouldn't mind seeing another list :P Maybe the next topic could be... hmm. Notable player-organized events (riots, parties, etc.)?

Thanks for the replies :) I tried hard to make my article engaging as well as informative without putting my readers off due to length or content. ... I think. :P I could have rewrote the first couple of paragraphs; I thought they were a bit wordy. Great to see positivity too. Much improvement from the gloom and cynicism of last week.

@Alg and Hamtaro Your responses make sense. Most certainly when Construction was first released, it was seen as a money sink as there was comparatively less capital flowing around in the economy. Luckily for myself, I trained Construction at a time where it was abundant and easily accessible, so even frivolous purchases like gold leaf were not a concern. So I'm not so easily predisposed to the notion that it's costly (then again, I haven't tried training my Con past 69, but I have a gilded altar thanks to boosts). :P

I don't quite understand how Construction is expensive or cost-intensive, counter to the trope that runs through here. I spent six million GP on my house (very convenient layout, by the way) and ten million or so to train it to 69 from level 1. I think that's a decent price, considering the benefits I receive. It's worth noting that I trained Construction when Wilderness was revenant-free, so I'd pwn green dragons for quick cash. Good times. :) Also, 1 to 99 Construction is not more than a few hundred million. I understand it's easier to make cash today than before, no? Maybe I'm completely our of sync. O_O

Not sure if typo, but last editorial is classified as "Accompanying Article" :P Looks like a quality list of articles this week. Can't wait to read them all. :) @Radicap: Thanks for your comments. :) I would like to see a reboot as well. Especially as our current economy developed under a very unique set of circumstances (one example being the item duplication bug), it would be interesting to note the key differences between the two, or even a whole host of them if we rebooted several servers. Just imagine, for instance, what RuneScape's economy would be like if the item duplication glitch were never found. How would that impact the price of rune armor? If we carefully reconstructed the economy up to this point, we may get an accurate answer.

Fair enough. Given the reasons behind the argumentation though, would you agree that the issue can be extended toward account ownership as well? Time invested into obtaining items is, by definition, time invested into the account. If property rights (to some degree) apply to one, why not the other?

Hopefully at least three articles will be published for this Sunday :) I liked the second article best. I know it's gloomy, but it summed up my thoughts on why I don't play RuneScape any- more. Too many irrelevant updates, so little time to adapt. And horrible, horrible lag. :P

This is completely irrelevant, the character itself is not the same as the virtual goods on the character. Also, no company owes any country anything. They pay taxes, and provide jobs. Its mutual. If you can make a property argument for virtual goods, you can extend the argument towards the character. Companies have a moral obligation to obey the law or face punishment. Of course, this has been ignored many times, but you should understand that "paying taxes and providing jobs" gives companies moral permission to do whatever they like, or that they're not obligated to offer services beyond that point. The issue is much more complex than that -- what about respecting other countries' business regulations in multilateral trade and adapting to foreign corporate cultural norms? What goals and responsibilities are associated with those to ensure that business is conducted sensibly? Your statement can also be flipped to reflect anti-capitalist sentiment: In fact, you essentially described the role of the petite-bourgeoise. Try looking it up. Fascinating concept. I didn't know the name for it 'till yesterday but it's certainly interesting. Bottom-line, no company should disavow scrutiny of its business practices merely because it 'provides jobs and pays taxes'. That's a very biased position and also oversimplifies the situation to a significant degree.

The implications are as important. You can never divorce an implication from its effect. If virtual goods are actual property legitimately owned by the player, and not merely possessed by legal permission, than Jagex effectively has no real control over who can and cannot commit transactions involving said goods -- which means the rule against real world trading is rendered null. Unless we take into account that Jagex has legal protections against this. Keep in mind that the goods are only in the player's rightful possession so long as they abide by the TOS -- if you intend to sell those items, they are no longer 'yours', but in fact, Jagex's precedence over them is enforced. The question here becomes, if the TOS is in fact a contract of adhesion, how reasonably can its stipulations be enforced in Jagex's favor? To place it completely in the player's favor is completely unfair to the vendor who rightfully owns and operates not just the items the player merely rents, but the entire game itself. How do you justify the TOS being a contract of adhesion without overlooking this fact?

hate to say it, but this. Possible to request positiveness next week? :lol: My article planned for next week is quite positive :grin: Yay! :mrgreen: The one I'm curently writing has a positive twist also. Inb4 same ideas? :D Mine is an experimental historical article. I can't share anymore than that right now, though :wink: ಠ_ಠ Mine is a speculative 'historical' article as well, in a sense. It speculates about the history of something very important to this game. I'm going to just cut off further details before it sounds awkward and/or lame :P

I'm planning on submitting an article for next week. It's a series, but the first part is done. I'd say it has a positive aspect to it :thumbsup:

As per the passport example (I think it's called an analogous ground), I would think the items in fact still belong to Jagex. What happened is that the items were coerced out of a player's rightful possession. In that sense, they were 'stolen' from the player. I didn't read the first article you linked to, just the abstract. But I'm guessing it discusses possible legal protections against violation of rightful possession, which is a reasonable suggestion. There probably exists in the Jagex TOS some stipulation outlining the player's lawful use of Jagex property. Ah, here we go: From the fourth paragraph under the section entitled "Intellectual property rights". In other words, Jagex in all circumstances owns the property, they just give you permission to use it, as long as you abide by the terms and conditions. This is the most Jagex has a legal obligation to: It seems robbery (coercing someone out of rightful possession) would fall under the category of prohibited transaction. In this case, if Jagex believes it necessary to 'prevent or stop any harm or damage to us [...] to other players, or the general public', these are the actions Jagex will be able to undertake unless otherwise compelled by law. Note that while no legal protections exist against coercing a player to relinquish his rightful possessions, there are several actions Jagex can take after the fact. So the question of how necessary it is to provide these protections isn't urgent in that sense, since Jagex can probably argue that the mechanisms existing in place now are sufficient enough to punish or backtrack damage caused by such actions. That, and Jagex doesn't guarantee protection against theft in terms of codifying property in favor of the players. It's not hard to see why Jagex wouldn't want to do that, even on a limited scale.

Jagex really has to stop fixing what isn't broken. :(