stonewall337

cool almost there

In terms of interaction with other players and that highscores system, many games aren't nearly as competitive imo Honestly, I couldn't disagree more. Granted, efficiency and some minor skill is required, but TIME is all that's really needed to become rich/high level in RS. There is no good PVP ranking system, or any real competitive PVE scene. That's something other MMO's have.

Ok, so thats an opinion, but legal precedent says otherwise.

TBH read the TIF times article on who virtual goods belong to. They actually DO NOT belong to Jagex.

Indeed you do. Though I think it's more "By logging on you agree" than "Accept NOW or no scape for you!" Contract of adhesion, shouldn't hold up in court. Also, according to a lawyer friend of mine the type of "click here to accept" EULA's aren't all that strong to begin with.

There we go! I agree, gambling is detrimental overall. But how is this worse (as far as starting addictions, etc) then say boxing, or dicing?

This. I don't care whether or not it's called gambling, whether it's legal or not... I just can't understand how they don't feel bad encouraging younger people to spend money to participate in a game of chance. K, to claim something is morally abhorrent is fine. But I'm going to say its NOT because its not illegal, against the game rules, or anything, and as such can not be immoral. According to Kant, the intentions are the important factor (considering many other things as well, thats just one). You have to actually prove or show WHY its abhorrent. Can't just up and say "its bad cuz I said so". Devil's advocate, yes. But I hate when people say stuff like this without defending it in the slightest.

itunes its a given that they have unlimited ability to buy shit but runescape was a surprise. I think any kids parents who got hit with this are able to sue jagex Also anyone whos account gets hijacked through Jagex's joke of a recovery system and gets charged for more squeal rolls can sue as well Um on what legal grounds?

Hold on a second, I just thought of something. I'm not so sure we can bring this up without incurring the wrath of other industries, notably TCG like Magic. I mean think about it, when you buy a pack of cards there's no guarantee that what you'll get will be of equal value to the money spent, they might all be worthless or you could have gotten something worth a lot of money. So in that way wouldn't we be considering something like the Pokemon Card game a form of gambling? Hell, that's more insidious since you can sell the cards for money back quickly and legally. Derp. The TCG's are a GAME with a bonus loot chance. Big difference from gambling.

Except that's a lie. I can go on the web right now and see people willing to buy and sell 0.6$/mill. Everything that is desireable to people has an inherent value. It depends on what courts think of it. I *personally* agree with you....but it looks like courts don't. Or, at least not always. If you were sueing Jagex, you could potentially win, assuming you have equally skilled lawyers on both sides. Since this is very unclear though, and Jagex can afford good lawyers, they would be winning any court case on this. You keep on getting yourself deeper and deeper. Court cases, as shown, have proven virtual goods have real world value. If I were banned for selling RSGP (which I don't) then I could sue Jagex.

While anyone on an MMO would likely agree with those terms the loophole is the fact that in literal terms as seen by law and such as long as you get something you have 'won' it does not matter the value. Then why don't all online gambling sites guarantee that you always "win" something? Perhaps even if you lose, you get some kind of virtual item, like a cabbage let's say? Then they could totally avoid the anti-gambling laws. Everyone's a winner*! *some moreso than others The real reason why it doesn't qualify as gambling in real world laws is because you can only get Runescape items, which have no real world value. ^^^FIRST OFF, simply not true. Internationally, precedent has been set stating that there is a value to virtual goods. http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/elj/57/57.5/Arias.pdf http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2010dltr011.html http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/01/31/dutch-supreme-court-declares-runescape-theft-a-real-world-crime/ http://digitalguise.com/archives/750 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/9053870/Online-game-theft-earns-real-world-conviction.html http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/EconomiesOfVirtualWorlds/exchange.html "From a stricter economic standpoint the fact that people are willing to pay real money for virtual goods and currencies demonstrates the validity of virtual markets" And I could go on and on and on. This notion of valueless virtual goods is flawed and false. Virtual goods have REAL WORLD VALUE. Also read the Tip.it Times for today. Wow. This might be enough to make me want to finish off DG, even though I hate the RWT.

Oh hahahaha. I almost considered coming back to RS just to max DG and hang with some real life friends. Not anymore. If they made RS P2P free, but with micro, I'd be ok. Micro+Sub? GTFO. The Snellman brother's were taken to court in California, I cannot remember the reasons behind it though. It depends on were the law was broken. EG if Jagex broke an American law, it would be a U.S court. If Jagex was suing an american company, it would be in US court as well.

Last I checked, most people with 60-80 attack use the Dragon Scimitar ( aside from we all know how god-aweful it's spec is) because it has a strength option, whip's speed and can still be wielded with a shield or a defender, whilst the Saradomin Sword removes that ability. Also it's decently affordable for a weapon that's existed as a major pillar for combat since 2006 or so, as opposed to the Brackish which has almost identical stats (swapping slash for stab) and doesn't cost 700k+ Chances are, there won't be a dragon W.Hammer because in this game atm, it would be obsolete with everything else currently in-place or serve a limited usefulness, like D Spear in Castle Wars. To be fair, you don't (and mostly shouldn't) be using a shield when training anyway, using a defender instead. Also, IIRC sara sword=dscimmy+rune defender. been years since I checked though. @Stev. That was my point. The statement "here a dragon hammer would be better then current equipment" in NO way implies that any other warhammer is superior. To assume so would be asinine.

Who says new weapon released have to over power the ones that currently exist? Perhaps they could release some to fill the gaps. Not everyone is 138 and can both wield and buy the best weapons. Can you think of anywhere where a dragon hammer would be better then current equipment? Looking at stat progression from other warhammers that is.

The reason no one agrees with you is because you are wrong lol. That's the problem. You don't know about the game. You don't know which weapons are worth using, and which aren't. That's not bad, per say, but it also expalins why you want a d warhammer. Dragon is outdated. Every piece, except for their special, or for pures. For the general population, they have no meaning. Why bother? Why Bother? Why bother? Why bother? No reason. There is no need for a warhammer.

Ye cuz I was allowed to use my personal computer. Rstation FTW.

I think its a pushme-pullme TBH.

you trust people more when you get to know them better. If more people used VOIP to talk w/ their clan mates, IMO, trust would be built faster. As well, people who band together more often to accomplish a goal garner the same benefits: Trust and friends. Personally, I know my guild mates in WOW way better then people I've know for 4x as long in RS. Heck, I spent spring break w/ a few of my guild mates, something I've never done with people I know from RS. This may be in part because RS is more a global game, however.

Actually, this is an AMAZING point. But I'd point out the counter example: I'd assume (I could be wrong) that MOST people who bot either are botting alts (Maybe a pure for PKing or something) or their main AFTER they get bored, but still want a certain level for some reason. I wouldn't imagine that there are many people who bot from their first day of RS. (Unless its people starting to play w/ friends, wanting to catch up or something.)

Thus creation implies a unchangeable, unchallenged right to create whatever rules one wants?

The problem is that not everyone defines cheating the same. Is using Autohotkeys cheating? If using stev's macros to item switch at TDs cheating? What is cheating?

Um, yes? Everything has to be justified...or its baseless. That doesn't mean its HARD to do, but it is still necessary. Really? Wow....... If I'd have known that fair play had to be justified I could have made up my own rules of all the games/sports I have ever played. What a cool philosophy :rolleyes: Bravo =D>. Do you ever get the feeling that because players don't like RS any more or won't abide by the rules, they don't want you to have fun either or want you to agree that rulebreaking is acceptable? Didn't say that. I said you have to have a REASON to justify an action, or to condemn it. You can't just say "this isn't fair" without being able to justify why it isn't fair. It may seem obvious, but you still need to do it. Its basically JTB- Justified true belief. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ In debate, its sort of like a Kritik. You are arguing for/against more then the resolution, but argue against a certain type of mindset. In this case, the mindsets which has been argued against in the past are "Rules are rules" and "You have to obey the TOS in everything". To answer the first one: Rules are designed to function a certain way. Speed limits are designed to protect drivers, and to bring in revenue via speeding tickets. But, if a speed limit can be shown to be counter productive, (CAUSING more deaths, or accidents, for instance, without an even greater benefit such as significantly reduced travel time) then it SHOULD be changed. "Rules are rules" would be bad here. "TOS obey in everything". Just a quick answer to this one. Ever share email/website/skype/vent/mumble info over RS? You broke the TOS. This is where a Kritik would come in handy. Which parts of the TOS should be binding? Should they be binding? And the like. You see, even though I am agree that a belief is the correct (or a correct one) I still need to have justification for my belief. Or else its completely baseless, and as such unjustified and mostly invalid. I hope this better clarifies. Hope I haven't been wasting my time responding to a known troll. @Merciful. I agree with you as well, different MMO's have brought me to meet some AMAZING people. Having the common ground of RS also brought me back into contact with a friend from YEARS ago as well. @Randox. Lets be logical, shall we? "At the end of the day, if you feel the need to bot in RuneScape, then you shouldn't be playing the game anymore because you obviously don't find it fun." That is a logically flawed statement. One can enjoy ASPECTS of the game without enjoying ALL of the game. If someone bots to get 99 str, 99 attack, and 45 defense to PK, that DOES NOT mean they hate playing. It means they ENJOY PKING but DISLIKE leveling. Counterexample presented, your statement has just been invalidated. Unless you define "playing" as "enjoying every aspect of the game" (Which would be asinine).

"Pre-Law"? So you're not even a law student yet? Anyone else reminded of this scene: 1. I don't see how this is at all germane. If I was a law student currently I doubt I'd have time to post on a forum about a game I no longer play. 2. My opinion is based off legal research into the case, including reading the court documents. I doubt very few other people on this thread have done so. Instead, most of the posts are simple baseless opinions. At least I defend my stance. 3. Whats your point? Whats my point? My point is that youre trying to sell what youre doing as some form of legal research when you are neither a law student nor a legal representative in any manner at all. Pre-Law is a meaningless term, you could be a communications or drama major for all it matters. Anyone attending a community college is a pre-law student. Your so-called pre-law qualification is meaningless and comical. I hate to fill you in on reality here, but youre not a legal authority of any kind. Youre not doing legal research. Youre some guy whos probing the internet for what he thinks is legal data and then extrapolating nonsensical comments therefrom. Please leave the legal research to those people who actually do legal research, and know what it means to look up current law, case history, comparative precedent and common law, and then attempt to extrapolate that into the current circumstances. From what I have seen, you havent done any of that. Please leave the armchair legal opinions out of this discussion. Leave the law to those people who know what theyre talking about. Hopefully, some day if you do become a law student you will realize what a silly thing it is youre doing now. Oh god, I'm the one person actually looking at the only first hand information we have, and using it to form an opinion, instead of spewing whatever enters my head, and that's more baseless then just making stuff up. Ayup. Logical.

Or maybe you could just accept that you'll never be able to have what you want and just move on. Just because you want something doesn't mean you have to be able to get it really, but it seems like no one in this world subscribes to that value anymore. :rolleyes: Yeah, but I'm a grown adult, and if I want something, I'm at least going to try. I tried to come back to runescape over the holidays. It was boring. I didn't enjoy it. It was very short lived. I realized that I just don't have to the time to play this game, which I had when I started 10 years ago. I think this is Jagex's greatest downfall, and will ultimately lead to the game's demise. The game has a limited audience who can enjoy it, with the majority of players ages 13-18. [/hide] tbh, then quit, but do not destroy the game that some of us has put 8+years on. runescape is not meant to be a game where as everyone starts with maxed lvls so that you can do all the activities, your supposed to have to work long to reach goals, something that some of us like. as far as i know boting is against the rules, aka if you aare boting you are cheating. and i find cheating immoral. Plz let me know what dictionary you are using, must be fun making up what words stand for. My premise was constructed using dictionary definitions, I resent the assertions of "making up" definitions but than again, since you can't defend your argument with anything other then an opinion and "Rules r rules" I guess that is the strongest case you are capable of making. Also, stating "I live by the rules" is, IMO, a terrible way to live. One should never take that stance completely. It is, if that were everyones stance, live in a dictatorship.

Mod Edit: Removed quote of rulebreaking post. Sorry for the inconvenience! :) Cheating refers to immoral way of achieving a goal. Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). Thus botting is only cheating if you believe it is immoral. Do I bot? No. Do I believe its immoral? No. I don't view botting as cheating. Its as simple as that, its a simple logical process of thought. Do I support botting? No, but I don't believe its IMMORAL.