Earth_Poet

What prompted this decision? Why did you choose to sponsor such a large, public vote on an issue with such an obvious outcome? How will they handle RWT? Can we trust that these changes will be permanent? Or will the Wildy and Free Trade be threatened if RWT rises out of control again? Will there be other "referendums" in the future regarding Runescape? What can we, as players and fans, do to help Jagex combat RWT and cheating in the future?

Right -- that's why they're selling T-shirts for it now. There's absolutely NO publicity involved. None! Absolutely NONE. Ya know, this reminds me a LOT of "Baghdad Bob" ... :rolleyes: I wish I'd thought of selling T-shirts.

You kept a watchful eye on the marketplace in the forums, as it was considerably more active than it is now. Alternatively, you could fight your way into world 2 and view what people were buying/selling for to get more immediate update. The one thing to keep in mind is that most prices, save for rares or new items, remained more stable and consistent than they are now. I had a similar experience with bowstrings. When I first became a member, I had created a load of bowstrings while exploring, but thought them to be useless until I saw a guy buying all bowstrings. He bought them off of me for 100 gp each, and I thought I struck it rich....until I began studying the forums and saw they were selling consistently for 200gp each. That night I made my first 100k in an hour.

@Flabberwocky [hide=]I did not know that your article was originally intended for the RSOF. I can understand why you may have needed to omit certain information. I read your reply to Rsvote, and the one problem is that you can't contain this topic entirely within the scope of the game, because the reasoning behind the decisions came from outside factors. You can't adequately explain why Jagex chose to implement the '07 updates without discussing what was happening in the real world, and the rest of the industry. Therefore, it would also be impractical to keep the scope of reasoning behind this referendum contained within Runescape. However, I do understand why this would be a little more dangerous of a topic on the RSOF. Also, it may have been presumptuous of me to believe that all players should already know about the history. There may be a few players who’ve been living under a rock these past three years. Personally, I feel it’s beating the cliché out of a dead horse. I wonder if the Tip.It Times has even managed to go a month without at least mentioning the ’07 updates in some form. 10 December actually began covertly a couple of months prior to the updates with the removal of staking, the party room, and the addition of the GE (along with its trade limits), and the event lasted long after the updates as Jagex spent most of ’08 creating content to fill the void. If someone is still unaware of how big the update was, then all I would have to do is kindly direct them to this wiki page: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Pay_to_PK_Riot So if your purpose was to summarize the history of the ’07 update, then I suppose it’s beneficial that players are informed, and have a condensed reference to guide them. However, you did take it one step further. The extremes that Jagex took in ’07 do not adequately explain their reasoning to retract their decision today. Perhaps I am a greater cynic of Jagex than you. I never once thought, “Oh, Jagex is finally listening to its players.” I’ve watched the company’s philosophy slowly shift over the last couple of years. Jagex has some history of being disingenuous with its player base. Even this poll has smelled fishy from the start, and a lot of players are waiting to see what the catch to all of this is. To suddenly spring up a poll about the most controversial and most discussed event in the history of the game, and then to feign surprise at the level of response it receives either means they are not as in touch with the community as it may seem, or they are being disingenuous at this very moment. Thank you for the other information I suggested that you provide though. Two very big things stand out in my eyes. First, Jagex is facing tougher competition, and a gradually declining player base. There will always be a natural turnover rate in players quitting, but I believe there is evidence to suggest that Jagex is having a more difficult time attracting new players and keeping them, which means not enough new players are joining the game to replace the older players that eventually leave. Second, Stellar Dawn is on the horizon. Would it be safe to say that the initial success of the new MMO will significantly depend on the interest of the Runescape players? I believe that at least some reasoning behind this referendum has been to generate some cheap buzz. Of course, this is all conjecture as well. There were a lot of angry players after ’07 (including myself), but I thought maybe we had finally weathered that storm. The questions I’m anxious about, and I know a lot of the community as well, is: Why now? What has changed? Most importantly, what are they up to? They're asking for a blind vote as it stands. Edit: As I said, I went back and read your responses to Rsvote as well, and you've already addressed most of the issues. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I fully understand that what I am demanding is beyond your ability, and therefore can seem unfair. Only Jagex can write that article. I do hope Jagex can answer some of these questions. Until then, I guess we'll see what happens in a couple of days.[/hide]

@Flabberwocky: Thank you for your detailed response. I have read it, but I need some time to form a proper response. @Ts Stormrage: Do you really think goldfarmers will care about statwipes?

Actually, this is exactly where you should've went into more detail. You could've answered a lot more questions if your essay had been based solely on this topic. Most of the other information in your article is fairly well-known and has been exhaustively discussed. When did they discover this mysterious new power? Yesterday? Last week? The history lesson was nice, but it didn't answer the BIG question. How are you so certain? Behind the references, your article is still based on supposition. You failed to adequately support such a crucial statement. Most players already understand the significance of the referendum, and if they didn't live through it, then they heard the historical accounts ad nauseam. What everybody wants to know is what has changed since '07. How will things be different? If sending in those abuse reports in '07 did little to stem the tide of bots, why would it change anything now? In fact, the sister article this week even states that it would be impossible to report bots since they revamped the report system. So much for doing our part.

You still have the Ditch/Wall of Stupidity to protect getting lured, so no moonwalking into the Wildy. Jagex really does block your password. See? ****. For me, the GE resolved a lot of frustration with scammers. I'd world hop to trade with someone only to find out it was a lurer asking me to meet them at the edgeville trees, or scammers changing items or money at last second during a trade. So there are still a lot of safeguards in place. It doesn't mean people won't be trying, and it doesn't mean people won't get scammed. But the armor trimming and trust trading and such were mostly pulled on brand new players, or extremely gullible players. If you've been playing for 2 years, then hopefully you already know better on a lot of these things. It will be interesting to see if PKers return to set up ambushes. Dodging ambushes on my way to the abyss always made rcing a lot more interesting. In fact, I practically gave up rcing since then. I don't know if anyone still even uses the abyss, but there are quests that take place in the wildy now, and let's not forget those penguins that like to roam in the Wildy. I can see Pkers camping out on a wildy penguin in world 80.

I really, really enjoyed reading this. Thank you so much for sharing it. There is only one major thing I want to point out. Be sure to keep your verb tenses consistent. Your story jumps from past tense to present frequently. Other than a couple of typos (it's should be its, you should be your) I didn't notice anything else, because I was too wrapped up in the storytelling. This is good stuff. I know you say it moves really, really fast, but I enjoyed that aspect. Fast-paced stories tend to keep my interest for longer. You handled the action scenes beautifully. I was watching it play out in my mind. I also enjoyed the concept, sort of a Dirty Harry meets science-fiction. You set up the story well with the background information of the Yakuza and the growing debate of cybernetics, and you did so without bogging us down with exposition. You kept the story moving. It's a great story, with a good title. I would love to read more about Zach Archer. Good stuff. :thumbup: :thumbup:

"It was short, it was pitiful, it was quiet." Grammatically speaking, this is a comma splice, though I get the rhythm you continually try to convey. There are a couple of ways to fix this: It was short. It was pitiful. It was quiet. It was short, pitiful, and quiet. Keep in mind to create a consistent point of view. It jumps back and forth between John and Martha a little too erratically. Maybe divide it into sections to distinguish the two viewpoints. Think about adding some more imagery to the story. For example, the time spent in the garden would give an excellent opportunity for some olfactory descriptions. What color were the flowers? Can you use any metaphors to describe the garden? Speaking of imagery, what do your characters look like? Speaking of the garden, it is such an excellent symbol throughout the story. Maybe the ending should include the garden returning to life? You do an excellent job of using short and long sentences for rhythm and impact. I also did enjoy the repetition as Realize pointed out. Not only did the repetition create emphasis for the isolation, but it connected John and Martha very well. It's difficult to create an empathetic character in such a short story, but I think you managed pretty well. You deserved your "A". I would suggest revising it to clean it up in some places and submitting it for publication, but if you do just make sure to change the character names.

For some reason, you reminded me of that old Alice Cooper song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAPD7ZZr7_I Personally, I've felt the variety in the game has a pyramid effect, with fewer options for higher level content. Jagex has been addressing this issue much more in the last couple of years though, so maybe you are right. For a long while, I was struggling to make money as well. At some point, you start developing a pattern to make money, you FINALLY get that high-end drop you were waiting for, or you just wind up in the right place at the right time (such as holding an item that sharply increases during an update). As far as the gaps are concerned, they only get wider and wider as you progress.

I love bashing Jagex as much as the next disgruntled player, but even I feel that article 1 is a bit of an overreaction, not to mention contradictory to an article you wrote in February: Yes, Jagex is pushing unused areas and content upon us. They aren't trying to be sneaky about it. In fact, it was a main goal of theirs: I honestly don't see the harm in Jagex desiring players to broaden their scope of the game, even if the attempts do come across as shallow.

Now you've just devolved into a puddle of gibberish. What a surprise from such a self-purported intellectual as yourself. I don't care how many of your buddies show up to defend you. It won't make you right. Learn to stand up for yourself, especially if you intend on freely slinging insults at people who disagree with you. I have read your posts on numerous articles, and they are often frivolous and insulting. The funniest part is you expect the staff to kiss your butt every week, like you've done someone a favor. You tried to shrug me off with condescending insults instead of formulating an intelligent response. Fine, I can play on this field, too. You can try to play victim or dismiss me out of hand all you want as well. Do whatever it takes to avoid having a real discussion, because in two posts you've managed to show me you are nothing but hot air. I've read well constructed criticism by people like troacctid this week, and waheera in the past. I have yet to see anything that I could learn from you. As for the rest of you, even Racheya admitted it's not the best written article, but you have gone way, way beyond grammar and style. You've taken to slinging mud at the author and entire staff, and reading insults where there are none. Do you even know what the message of the article really says? The article isn't about which style of play is the best. It's about learning to respect different playing styles instead of insulting and calling each other names. It says that as long as you are having fun, then it doesn't matter how efficient you are. That's a fairly positive message, and I agree with it. And PereGrine, that was my real point all along. Stone was insulting her for using a universal definition of effiency, and insisted we use something only a few people have seen to express the same concept. In other words, it was an unnecessary criticism. In fact, it was a wrong suggestion, because Racheya's concept will be more widely understood by the audience.

Actually, I've just completed a BA in English, and will be pursuing a MFA in Creative Writing. You can continue to act like a childish blowhard, and dare I say an elitist as long as you like. However, you still fail to make any semblance of a counterpoint. I'm sadly mistaken? I guess I'll just have to wonder why. As such, "gp/xp/time" looks like nonsense without further explanation. You are not just disagreeing with me then, but the entire English-speaking world. I presented you with a textbook definition. You countered with the equivalent of "nuh-uh". Yet it still changes nothing about the article. Well, I'm reading a different tone by the author. The author was relying on her own experiences to write the article, but that's not good enough? How elitist of you. Absolutely true, but it doesn't give YOU the right to act like an ass. I will refer you to the very first post, where it says: "If you spot any typos or mistakes in the article then please PM them to me" Nefarious means anything wicked, including immoral. It doesn't just refer to illegal.

Somewhere before, Stonewall337 was asking for examples of where he took things out of context, etc.. This is why I felt your criticism was frivolous. I had to remove a couple of quote tags as well for limitations. [hide] You have a funny way of showing your own objectivity when delivering your criticism. The only part I'd agree with is the first sentence. Frankly, I find the need to define efficiency rather condescending. I work with a group of sixth graders who understand the meaning of efficiency. If someone doesn't know the definition, then it's not hard to look up. However, since you decided to use this as an example, then here's what the Oxford Dictionary Online says about efficient: "...achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense…" - Oxford Dictionaries Online Racheya's definition of efficiency (skillfullness in avoiding wasted time and effort) is far closer than your definition of "gp/xp/time". There's nothing that has to be objective here. Nobody likes to grind. If you enjoy it, then it isn't a grind: "noun (in singular) 1 a crushing or grating sound or motion: the crunch and grind of bulldozers figurative the slow grind of the US legal system hard dull work: relief from the daily grind" - Oxford Dictionaries Online While some players go quite in depth with their stats, I agree that most calculations can be done very quickly, especially with Tip.It calculators. Despite that, not everyone bothers doing the calculations. You are disputing a miniscule and irrelevant point. Even if she corrected this passage to your standards, it changes nothing in the meaning. In other words, what's so BS about this quote? You continue to assume that efficiency is IMPOSSIBLE to attain' date=' without being bored. SIMPLY NOT TRUE. Citation needed to prove this is true of efficient players. Here is a quote you pulled out of context. Where did Racheya claim efficiency is impossible to attain without being bored? She didn't. The author wasn't making a case against efficient playing. She simply stated that it's not the most important reason. Yes, you can have fun and play efficiently, but why bother playing at all (efficient or not) if you don't enjoy the game? Which leads to the second part of this quote. Where did she claim this is true of efficient players? Even if she personally believes it, she never said it. All she did was offer an opinion that she hopes people are not unhappily grinding away in this game out of some sense of necessity instead of for fun. Then she even goes on to explain what is fun in the next paragraph: "What constitutes fun is such an extremely changing and subjective definition. We cannot define fun for anyone but ourselves." Therefore, using deductive reasoning, aka LOGIC, we can assume that if: 1) the author believes that having fun while playing is important, and 2) you find gaining levels efficiently to be fun, then 3) the author will have no problem, because you are having fun while you are playing. You are disputing erroneous claims with an erroneous claim. Whether unintentional or not, you've implied that a person's stats are indicative of his or her age. At least you admitted that you have no proof. While this paragraph does seem expository and "..oh by the way", it doesn't hurt the article. Yes, every individual is his her own unique snowflake, but we can still manage to categorize people. She introduced three categories for the sake of her argument, but she also explains in the previous paragraph that there "are many, many other types of players". She doesn't have to borrow from a preset list of categories; she can create however many categories she wants. She did a good job of explaining the criteria for each category. It doesn't hurt her argument at all. Again, you are doing nothing more than debating semantics. It was simply an incorrect word used. Racheya meant elitist, not elite. Good criticism would have simply offered the correction, and refrained from such a sardonic response as above. Anyone can sit back and be a jerk. I'll show you what I mean: It does' date=' according to my style of play. I am an achievement player. Making, meeting, and exceeding goals is what I play for, in large part. If I achieve more, for less, in a shorter amount of time, then other players, I AM better, by definition. The definition of Better is, among other things: To surpass or exceed, More highly skilled or adept, More useful, suitable, or desirable. Hmm. Once again, I am better in the game. This has nothing to do with my real life standing, my "worth", etc.[/quote'] Here's another fine example of pulling a quote out of context. First let's look at the entire sentence: "Yes, noob is hardly the most insulting term you could call someone, but it’s the idea behind it that matters, rather than the actual name-calling - the idea that being efficient makes you fundamentally better than other players." Again, if I use deductive reasoning, I can assume that: 1) if noob is a pejorative term, and 2) calling people noob is an assumption that you are better than others, and 3) you believe you are, by definition, a better player, then 4) you have the right to insult and call people names because your stats are higher. Well, what does Racheya have to say on the subject. Let's read the very next sentence in the article: "Yes, you may have more xp and higher levels than that player, but that doesn’t make you ‘better’ in any other way than stats." She said the same thing you did. You are better in stats only. Again, taken out of context, not to mention you counter with a very irrelevant point. Let's read the very next sentence in the article: "It’s best to respect other player’s game choices - as long as it’s not autotyping spam in the GE, or anything nefarious like that." She isn't for allowing anything. I agree with you completely. Furthermore, you made your criticism in a mature and polite way. Why not employ this same approachable tone throughout all of your critiques?[/hide]

I disagree. Stonewall's argument was mostly about semantics, and occasionally irrelevant to the topic of the article. Besides, discussion is allowed which means even criticism can be criticized. I'm fairly certain Racheya meant elitist, not elite. Stonewall didn't read the very next sentence in the article. In fact, he managed to pull several quotes out of context.

At the heart of the Efficiency Wars is name calling, huh. I'll buy it. I suppose that's at the heart of almost every war.

1st Article: I'm really enjoying Emerson's first couple of articles and writing style, though I feel more negatively towards the bonus xp weekends. Sounds like the initial holiday events.

2nd article: Well written article, and quite glib, which was very refreshing. There are so many logical, intelligently written articles out there that it feels sublime to not have to think so hard! What do you have to gain at the cost of lies? Well, I think back to an old friend of a friend I had who made a female character and cleaned out all those poor souls who thought they were playing boyfriend/girlfriend. So, actually there was a quite a lot to be gained from lies I suppose, which would mean there's very little importance in being earnest, or jack for that matter. What are the costs of lies? You would lose all that hard earned loot and reputation if someone were to actually discover your lie. So, maybe there is some importance in being earnest, because even if you're lying, it is crucial to maintain the appearance of being earnest.

First article: My whip is second rate, but it still gets the job done, especially since I'm not training strength. My 20k rune pickaxe works good enough that I sold my 13M dragon pickaxe. The difference in efficiency didn't seem to justify the difference in price. Second rate isn't always a bad option. I get what you were trying to say, though I think you may have provided a poor analogy. Standard spellbook is inferior in comparison with Castle Wars. Just like I wouldn't expect a dragon scimitar to defeat a godsword in a typical duel. In terms of training, though, a dragon scimmy is still a viable, cost effective option. As was also pointed out, the explanation of the spellbooks was too much. Second article: Your article also made me admit that the game seems to be getting broader in terms of training methods. There used to be considered one, efficient method of training, and maybe a money-making method or two. The differences seem to be growing, and that's a wonderful thing. In terms of progression though, it seems Jagex is slowly reversing their policies. There are more ways to build skills with less time actually doing the tasks. More D&Ds and Bonus XP weekends degrade the value of the experience. As I read one Jagex employee put it, it's not about accomplishment, but being able to get to the "fun" things faster. That means newer players won't have to earn their stripes on those chaos druids. Overall, a fun article. And ending it with flattery will get you everywhere. :wink:

I am honestly surprised at such a high percentage of account sharers as well, and more surprised at how readily people admit it. It makes me even more skeptical of players talking about their accounts "somehow" being hacked. It was an eye-opening article for sure.

While I see your point, account sharing does one other thing. If you have 2 or 3 people playing an account it gives that account a huge advantage over other accounts with only 1 owner, as far as the ability to train is concerned. There would be no way for me to compete with an account that has twice as much available time to train. As others have mentioned about the Firecapes, it can also let someone do something for an account that its original owner might not have been able to. Account sharing can give an unfair advantage. Not unfair if everyone can do it. Also it's unfair that a middle school child can play 8 hours a day, while I can only play a few because of studies. Do you see me complaining? e: NO, I don't complain, because it doesn't matter if you're better than me. :thumbup: Not the same at all. It wouldn't be fair for a student to buy his grades in school, because he would rather play Runescape all day than study.

This is a paragraph I specifically had a problem with: The above paragraph belittles any opposing view in a childish, mocking tone. IMO, it only serves to bring the level of the discussion down, if not discourage it all together. However, looking over it again, and knowing our past history, I don't believe you were trying to attack anybody. I concede that you were simply conveying your frustrations, but it came through in the wrong way. At best it still serves as a distraction, and only harms the purpose of your article. I want to echo troacctid's sentiments. Please don't steer away from opinionated pieces or controversial topics. I apologize for my own comments, especially if they went beyond the scope of the article. I worked beside you and never had a problem with you. You've always been bright, fun, and polite. And I do know your commitment to the Times. You are a true fan of Runescape and Tip.It, and while others are seeing that as an opportunity to attack you, those are all +'s, especially for someone in your position.

Which is what some of us have been saying for the last several months. I was referring to this particular article only. I'm not ripping on the Times or Racheya in general.

It's a jerk thing to do, but it's fair game. I wouldn't exactly agree with you earning the right, as anybody is free to try no matter how illogical it may seem to them. My philosophy is usually that if it's crowded, then it's fair game, since it's competitive now. If there's room to avoid crashing, then it's the right thing to do. But nobody gets to claim a spot for themselves, so crashing is always a valid option.

Racheya's "viewpoint" was to insult anybody who disagrees with her, and she does it in a major publication on this fansite, where thousands can read it. What makes this even worse is that she is not only a contributing writer for the Times, but she's also a super moderator for the forums. Not only is her mocking diatribe immature, but it is unprofessional and reflects very poorly on the rest of the staff. Unfortunately, if the article wasn't so inflammatory I probably would've agreed with her point of view. It could've been a good topic, and it even started out okay, but it ended up as a childish rant. Maybe the first article should've read the second article for some tips.