stonewall337

JIMI NEEDS MAOR POSTZ

Meh I think people would enjoy the grind in RS more if voice coms were more common. I'm logged into vent/mumble almost 100% of the time I am at my computer, if not playing WoW shooting the shit.

Problem is between WoW F2P and RS F2P w/ mems trial s could you train RS member only skills as a trial? That'd be strange.

TBH set up skype/vent/mumble for this.

CHOCOLATE@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The first article was interesting, and I rather enjoyed it. Well done! My thoughts, I quit RS when I was almost 20. Age had nothing to do with it. Playing Rs is no more or less an indication of maturity then playing an other game, rather its how you manage gaming in relation to everything else in life which is a mark of maturity. WoW actually has a similar issue, although the thing is in WoW, a lot of the player base is getting older, meaning that they don't have as much time, or set time, (Time they can schedule every week to PvP, raid, etc) as they used to. Its a problem any MMO would have to answer, how to keep the older, limited player base interested, while training up the newer generation through content that is hard enough to actually enable them to do content later on. Its a balancing act. To Josh: I think that it is as much as testament to the "end game" of RS (There is none, everything relies around levels) as anything that botting for levels was so common. Considering the only real bragging rights, besides "skill" in PVP, or MHing, or amount of money had was in levels, the incentive to bot is and was huge. That's a game design philosophy flaw on Jagex's fault IMO. Its also why I quit RS, in part, no end game. But yes, when I played RS, I played for the personal drive, making and setting goals. That's always what keeps me interested in a game. When that dies, I quit.

WoW AH takes 5% and its still heavily used.

^ Based upon (false) assumption that the social rule of "first come first server" is of greater import than that of "He who is better able to utilize said spot, and able to keep it, deserves it." Both are valid, neither side can hold the other to their standard, so they call each other names. I'm not saying one is right/wrong. I'm saying stating you are right is wrong. Your equally false assumption that I must be lying when I said "spots that weren't exactly crowded on other worlds, but people felt the need to be total jerks just because they could, not out of necessity." I mean, your statement about best utilizing a spot doesn't even apply to situations where people are just being a nuisance in order to force the other person to leave to avoid inefficiency, rather than actually proving who is more efficient. Anticrashing in itself can largely be wasteful, since the tactics employed to do so aren't any better at utilizing the spot, just hogging it. To say that this system of competition is the best utilization of resources in itself IS a false assumption, if you judge by how it causes massive disruptions to our lives when it goes horribly wrong. Our insistence on working against each other continues to worsen many problems. I can move to another world, but why the hell should it even matter when it's not NECESSARY? It's like pushing a kid off a swing when there are two empty swings adjacent. By your justification, people should be able to do it if they're strong enough to do so, which while of its own nature the very rules of survival, not conducive to the society that humans have built in order to achieve higher living standards. Of course, that is also false considering the reality of how western society works (which is, to lie about society being fine when we sweep the consequences under the rug) but if we just keep pushing each other around there's no point to having a multiplayer game, just go mess with some npcs if you want to ego trip :P if gameplay comes before other people, then take your gameplay elsewhere and STOP [bleep]ING WITH ME just, take a moment and consider why you are doing it, and size it up with what you are doing, rather than just doing it...worse things have happened when we forget our reasons Who taught you logic lol. There is no possible link between my statement and an implication of lying on your part. My premise is no one can hold another to their own social standard without some objective guideline (In this case the RS rules.). By doing so, they are the only ones in the wrong. That doesn't mean one has to like everything, or agree, but neither side is technically "right" or wrong from a social rules standpoint. Go into efficiency, kindness, etc and that's a whole new game, with equally subjective values.

DGing any good? I might come back for 120 IDK.

Well that depends on if its a boss or a slayer task TBH.

Then he'd be V

^ Based upon (false) assumption that the social rule of "first come first server" is of greater import than that of "He who is better able to utilize said spot, and able to keep it, deserves it." Both are valid, neither side can hold the other to their standard, so they call each other names. I'm not saying one is right/wrong. I'm saying stating you are right is wrong.

y u sign your signature twice still? I loz :D

This thread is boring. /boring thread. Asking Doctor Who Who he is is weird, just like asking a masked man "who he is" is weird, cuz what he is is a man in a mask.

I have a huge bag of skittles.

In multicombat spots no one ever beat me. People with similar gear knew to hop. If I couldn't beat someone out I'd hop.

Not surprised this came from stonewall though lol smileyfaceexclamationmarkoneoneeleven Just l2ignore As for the offensive names thing, I said it before and I'll say it again: More than one name change each year is too much... There's a reason half the people on your friendslist are unrecognizable when you come back from a 3 weeks vacation or something... EDIT:Misread. I want more articles by TS TBH.

WTT 10m DG xp for 10m con xp kkthanxibyi.

"Welcome to the internet". As stated, the tools to solve the problems are already there. The tools are flawed, the game is flawed. Until the game auto bans all "bad" names the best you can do is report the person. What else can you do? Same for language. If it offends you, report it, as I stated. The point being, its always been a problem, and probably always will be. A wiki page won't do jack-shit. Lets look at number one, rediculum ad absurdum. I didn't say I was hard to offend, simply that what is offensive is subjective. So how do you enforce the rule? The system is flawed, as I stated. Use the tools you have and get on with your life. Move along. What more is there to say? I still don't really see how the point I was trying to make is one which you disagree, or clash with me, on any point other then your logical fallacy. For number 2, you didn't say anything against my point, kind of skirted the issue without any clash. That's no fun. How do you differ, if at all, with my point? I should also point out how many logical flaws and fallacies you tried to use to disprove my points. Your argument against 3.) is known as rediculum ad absurdum, or appeal to ridiculousness. Also, pointing out a few instances of people meeting online and doing bad things and using that as proof is actually flawed. Unless you can provide proof they link, CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Logic. I agree with you on number 5 and 6. Shall we continue?

"The first article was just opinions without any logical backing for most of the stances." IS criticism, showing why it was poorly written. Not a flame. 2nd part was addressed at the Times as a whole, again a criticism not a flame. I reserve the right to Kritik anything.

Agreed. The first article was just opinions without any logical backing for most of the stances. Not surprised this is in the Times though lol. Inb4the "warning" for "badmouthing our pretty articlesz." The fact that you said that expecting a warning is just downright disrespectful. You are perfectly entitled to any constructive opinions and criticisms but comments like "Not surprised this is in the Times though lol" (implying that you think the Times is just crap) are completely unnecessary. My view of the times has been espoused numerous times. I'm expecting the moderators to suspend normal logical behavior to defend the Times, as they have in the past, even when its obvious that the pieces (in the past) have been poorly written or just downright wrong. There's nothing illogical about insisting that all comments are respectful and follow the forum and thread rules that have been clearly and explicitly laid out. That is all we have ever asked. If you have any more "Issue with the Times as a whole" you can PM me or post in our Times Discussion Thread: Or dare I suggest it, you can show us how you think it should be done by writing an article yourself. Is this the logical stance? "Oh if you think ours is so bad you do it better"! Um, K. I guess you can say that. But its not logical to say "you can't/won't do it so you can't say mine is bad". I pointed out the flaws in the article. Doesn't mean I want to write an article about a game I quit a year ago. And it is illogical when Mod's view perfectly viable statements as "trolling" or "flaming" just because they say an article is bad. I'll say it, the first article was bad. It was illogical and poorly written. That is neither trolling, nor flaming, but watch someone jump on my back. I welcome people counter discussing my points. Show me if I am wrong, or being illogical. This is GENERAL DISCUSSION. It is for discourse, which often includes differences of opinion and intelligence. But please, don't try and use defend the Times by saying I'm attacking the author, or I won't write my own paper. Show me how I am wrong, or the author is right.

Agreed. The first article was just opinions without any logical backing for most of the stances. Not surprised this is in the Times though lol. Inb4the "warning" for "badmouthing our pretty articlesz." The fact that you said that expecting a warning is just downright disrespectful. You are perfectly entitled to any constructive opinions and criticisms but comments like "Not surprised this is in the Times though lol" (implying that you think the Times is just crap) are completely unnecessary. My view of the times has been espoused numerous times. I'm expecting the moderators to suspend normal logical behavior to defend the Times, as they have in the past, even when its obvious that the pieces (in the past) have been poorly written or just downright wrong. Don't get me wrong, the Time's has had a few amazing pieces, and some downright well written works. But then you publish an article like the first one. Let me go more into detail to explain why it is illogical and flawed writing. Note, none of this or the past has been any type of flame or personal attacks. I'm pointing out an issue with the Times as a whole, and with this piece in particular which should have been addressed years ago. 1.) The problem: Offensive language. First off this isn't a problem per say. There is a filter, use it or don't. Report those who offend you. Simple as that. There is no "problem". Words are inherently neutral. Its the meaning them that matters. I can call someone a "noob" as an insult and it be way more "mean" or "harsh" then calling my IRL friend a Fing a-hole, because the later knows it is meant as a joke, and takes no offense, whereas the former does not. Offensive language aimed at you, report or use the ignore list. This shouldn't have been even been listed, its just this simple. 2.) The problem: Offensive username. Seriously, " Players should be able to read each other's names without seeing offensive material, according to Jagex.". First off, he's wrong. Offensive names are against the rules, but not because of some "right" that players have to "not be subjected to offensive names" as if RS has some Bill of Rights. That ruins credibility. Also, "Why you should care: If this is a "rule", and people break it without being punished, they may have the courage to break other rules you may feel more strongly about." This is just a stupid statement. For one, logically, its wrong. Just because someone has stolen a candy bar does not mean they will steal a car. Because I punch my friend does not mean I will murder a professor. As well, even if some contrived correlation could be derived, (A person with an offensive name scams someone) Correlation does NOT create causality, at best it simply implies it. As well, offensive names are in every game. You either have to not play, or deal with it as the rules allow, through reports or such. Not sure what a wiki page would do to prevent or inform people. An stats on how many people even read the wiki pages? 3.) The problem: Spamming. WELCOME TO THE INTERNET. The problem actually isn't so much spam as it is Jagex's asinine chat system. Could be much better like WoW's, where you have a /2 (trade) but limited to 2 messages per 30 seconds or whatever. Can enter/leave it easily. In addition, where is the brightline? The author provided no brightline, he just says "Spam r problem." His solution might help a bit, but the F2P model and ease of spam will only go away when Jagex fixes their end. 4.) The problem: Solicitation. WELCOME TO THE INTERNET. So what? /ignore! Problem solved. Honestly, who sees this as a major problem? Going into the "real world info" part is again interesting. I know personally many of the people I raid with on WoW. I've spent the night at a few of their houses. (I'm 21, they were slightly older) and visited another. The threat is overblown, statistically. The real threat w/ online info is between scam (identity theft) or an employer disliking things you post. (Underage drinking on FB, posting pictures of illegal activity, etc) I don't see solicitation as a problem, at least not a major one. 5.) Multiple logging-in. Flawed premise. The system should be able to integrate accounts, like WoW does. Toons should augment and enhance each other. My pure (twink) should be able to be funded by my main. Any evidence the author posts is unreliable. "A friend told me he heard from a jmod..." Really? That'd stand up as evidence anywhere... 6.) The problem: AFKing. Why does this matter? If you are botting, ya. Unfair advantage. But I should be able to go AFK to get a soda. Who bloody cares? I could go on, but I honestly am getting tired of pointing out the illogical and downright stupid stances taken, no offense to the author intended. I mean, things like " Many people "AFK" and it therefore concerns them." Is just illogical. It doesn't follow. If he said "many people AFK, in order to complete IRL work, whilst leveling skills in game, enabling them to level without spending as much time actively playing the game, thus giving them an unfair advantage, and as such concerns them and all other active players." That follows. That is logical. All I ask is good writing and logical stances. Is that so hard?

noob

Agreed. The first article was just opinions without any logical backing for most of the stances. Not surprised this is in the Times though lol. Inb4the "warning" for "badmouthing our pretty articlesz."

Wut? A half hour to 45 minutes for a cape isn't worth it, but 40 hours... Wut? :P. I got fire cape a year before I got MA rings. But I slayed for a while before I went and got fire cape years ago lol.