stonewall337

But isn't that what Tip.it forums are about? Discussion? Hm, when did we convert to censorship? You are going to get opinions you don't like. Deal with it. I don't like listening to faulty logic, it bugs the HELL out of me. Trolls I just ignore, but if someones logic is flawed, then I am going to point it out. Same for writing.

Unfortunately, spewing logical sounding crap isnt constituted as breaking a rule, nor the level of criticism I'd like to read here... Missing the point seems to be something I learned from you then? ;) Actually I got your point, but your writing brings it across rather differently... Something you will gladly flame someone else for (your little pot starts to turn rather black there)... Anywho, you DID say that someone disagreeing with a certain statement may actually be considered enough to disprove that statement... I would just LOVE to rub your face in it again, but you're making it too easy... Instead I will fight your other point; that the writer of the article is supposed to be held to a higher standard than the person criticising it... Again, you try to be the alpha-male here without having a leg to stand on... If you want to criticise an article, you damn well better know what you are talking about... These articles are written on a voluntairy basis, and we intent to write for your enjoyment... If you don't enjoy the articles, don't read em, do not start attacking the writers for it... We will gladly put up with your crap... But not for free... Do like Returnofmic or Sir_Squab... These guys get it spot on; debate the article, debate the opinions, and disagree if you must, and do it without nitpicking... But DO NOT berate the writer for having that opinion... It makes you look like a cliché smart-mouth, just asking for an asswhooping... And yet somehow, with some of the people here (and these idiots will never understand that it is THEM that I am talking about), it does turn personal... Maybe because SOME of the authors shouldn't be writing for the Times? I don't care if the author holds an opinion, I care when the writer either: 1.) Can't write, or don't know when an article shouldn't be published. 2.) Writes using poor logic, bad examples, no proof, idiotic reasoning, etc.

Storm may be a good author, doesn't mean everything he writes is going to be a "best seller". TS: Did I say that I required no proof? NO. You pulled a liberal and completely missed the point. I said various stances and various positions require various amounts of proof. A J-mod's info should be better then a random RS player, someone writing a thesis paper needs stronger, and more accredited proofs then someone writing a 6th grade paper on leaves. Don't you see that? For the later, a Wikipedia article could be accepted by the teacher as a credible source. For the thesis paper, wikipedia would NOT be an acceptable source. That is my sole point. If someone says "200 hours of fishing is not fun for anyone" and they get 5000 people who agree, then good. But I only need 1 person who disagrees to make the statement false. My sole point was: A writer requires varying strengths of proofs depending on the writing. When I do public speaking, depending on my audience, I use different sources. If I am talking to my peers, I will use personal anecdotes and personal experiences far more commonly. If I am talking before a college group or a class, I will use more formal sources. See? Racheya, you seem to take everything personal. I often write negative, and positive reviews for numerous products, from music to movies to books. A negative review normally focuses on what I disliked then what I liked, as the negative outweighs the positive. I agreed with some stances Storm took, such as that SW wasn't great. I took exception to his description, as it was rather lacking in proof, as well as objectivity. I believe that the article was rushed, it certainly seemed so. However, I agree. Storm is one of the better writers for the Times. And sorry Racheya, you may not like it, but I can brook dissent, but I can't brook logical fallacies, unprovable points, or radical claims. I ENJOY debate, many of us do. However, when I write my next article, I'd like you to be able to actually either DEFEND or ATTACK it with specific quotes, etc. In this case, don't just tell us to [bleep] off because you don't like negativity.

There's definitely an oversaturation problem with activities in Runescape. I actually think that's one of Runescape's biggest problems (for a player who wants to have fun playing activities). It's impossible to have 20 really well executed, fun, balanced minigames. I think they need to cut what doesn't work and focus on making the minigames as good as possible (Dungeoneering would be a good example of an extremely high quality minigame). To the mod who deleted my post: Continue to appease the 12 year old masses who think they can call people trolls when they don't know what the definition of a troll is. Ye, you are definitely a troll. I can stand a dissenting opinion. Trolls are another story.

15k off 3rd chaotic.

I find it ironic that you criticize the author of using unsupported opinions and slander when you also are using unsupported opinions and slander in your criticism. <_< You're offering no more factual evidence than he is. You may think that people enjoy Conquest, but your opinion isn't necessarily the truth. If you're trying to convince someone who has no knowledge of Conquest and it's popularity (such as myself) that it's actually played a lot you're not doing a very good job. It certainly doesn't help that you did an excellent job of being polite and not calling names. </end sarcasm> On a different note, thanks for all the comments on the fictional. ;) COUGH logical fallacy. A "letter to the editor" (these responses, for sake of argument) does not require the same amount of evidence that an article writer needs. There is a major difference. In fact, a person responding in the negative about one of the author's claims is proof, however small, that the author may actually be incorrect. He may be incorrect, but that doesn't mean that anyone who objects to any argument with a lack of evidence supporting their objection is automatically more likely to be correct than the person they're arguing against. Just because they say "no, you're wrong" doesn't mean they're right. My point was not that either side is more likely to be correct, rather that in this case the writer needs more proof then the others, just as I require less substantial resources for a 3 page paper then I would for a doctoral thesis. Whilst an author may have done some research, a letter to the editor is often published without much, if any, evidence given. That is my point, simple as that. Writing from different positions require various types of evidence and proof.

While I agree it doesn't play like a skill, I don't think it was a mistake. I think it's one of the best things to happen to the game. The rewards from it are amazing. It's also just plain fun to do. This.

I see how this goes I see how you rolls But watch out mate Don't make me irate Or else, oh noes You'll be missen your toes Foo <3 ur eyes.

Glad we understand each others stance now. That is why misunderstanding terms used by others, or not defining terms, can cause such trouble.

Also, it is fairy balanced. It's weaker than a whip, and the spec takes 60% of your bar, 54% with a RoV, which means you'll have to wait a bit, then activate the second spec, then wait even longer... unless you use a Special Restore (like Dragon Claw Speccers) etc. NOTE: THAT IS LOW LEVEL. READ: L-O-W. It seems balanced. I'd still use claws spec unless: 1.) I don't want to be risking claws (Using divine in PvP) 2.) I NEED to be sure of hitting. And Zaaps, its *really* hard to die rune pking w/ divine. Just as it's really hard to find a fight. The KS should make the edge PKing scene a little more interesting atleast, just hope for no vigour+claws+KS rushers. Its already hard to find a fight with any chaotic, just as right after T@S no one would want to fight turmoil. And I'd rather use just whip+divine then Ks+divine. Only thing KS has going for it is spec (ko potential)

3rd one is wrong. That is effective, attaining a goal, but not qualifying HOW the goal is reached. Rc'ing airs to 99 is effective, in the comparative to efficiency sense (as it has several definitions, in this case we've been using it to mean Successful in producing a desired or intended result), but not efficient. Facts can be thought of as objective or subjective. Things and events are objective facts. A subjective fact is one that is limited to the subject experiencing it. Establishing the reality of subjective facts depends entirely on the trustworthiness of those who claim to be experiencing them. Since efficiency can be defined as subjective or objective, fun can be factored in (subjective). Would it be efficient for you to train rc via ZMI, if you hated runecrafting at ZMI (so badly that half an hour of it would make you suicidal), but found Graahking pretty fun? You have a point, however, due to the pure nature of subjectivity and objectivity, one can not factor in fun, without knowing what is "fun" for everyone one is factoring in efficiency for. An example would be Grimy's spreadsheets, where fun (subjective) isn't factored. In fact, fun is more often factored in AFTER determining efficiency, then before, at least personally. EG: TDS/Frosties/DKS average between 3.5-4.5m gp/hr. I'd factor in all the variables, then decide WHICH I want to do based on fun. The objective facts (What I can make, where, based on what gear/method etc) are factored first, and then fun is added into the equation.

I find it ironic that you criticize the author of using unsupported opinions and slander when you also are using unsupported opinions and slander in your criticism. <_< You're offering no more factual evidence than he is. You may think that people enjoy Conquest, but your opinion isn't necessarily the truth. If you're trying to convince someone who has no knowledge of Conquest and it's popularity (such as myself) that it's actually played a lot you're not doing a very good job. It certainly doesn't help that you did an excellent job of being polite and not calling names. </end sarcasm> On a different note, thanks for all the comments on the fictional. ;) COUGH logical fallacy. A "letter to the editor" (these responses, for sake of argument) do not require the same amount of evidence that an article writer needs. There is a major difference. In fact, a person responding in the negative about one of the author's claims is proof, however small, that the author may actually be incorrect. I would agree that this article was, actually, rather lacking in real content. Quotes such as this are ones I hope to never see attached to another TIF times article. Is it horrific, well that is more due if anything to the quality of the PLAYERS then anything else. There are balance issues, etc, but the game more often fails because the players are either clueless, or they just don't care.

A major part of minigames, outside reward, is control. Both MA and Conquest have TERRIBLE UI. Thus I played them no more then necessary. Game room and gnomeball were flawed from the start. No reward, not great UI, ability to play GR games on otherwebsites easier/better, etc all lead to their lack of popularity. And whilst there is a lot of content in RS, after thousands of hours, I've done just about everything that is "fun" in its own right. Many people quit due to boredom, same reason I quit MW2. Those who stay often have other reasons, goals, community, etc. Personally, I'd like conquest if it were balanced better, and had better UI. Right now, its just Ugh. The main way to win against even opponents is to wait until one messes up.

3rd one is wrong. That is effective, attaining a goal, but not qualifying HOW the goal is reached. Rc'ing airs to 99 is effective, in the comparative to efficiency sense (as it has several definitions, in this case we've been using it to mean Successful in producing a desired or intended result), but not efficient. @Thomas154321 1.) Serker ring is worth it, as has been shown numerous times, especially the more it is used. 2.) 5m in an item, which I can sell as well as gaining the benefit of its use is far more useful then 5m sitting in my bank.

Also, it is fairy balanced. It's weaker than a whip, and the spec takes 60% of your bar, 54% with a RoV, which means you'll have to wait a bit, then activate the second spec, then wait even longer... unless you use a Special Restore (like Dragon Claw Speccers) etc. NOTE: THAT IS LOW LEVEL. READ: L-O-W. It seems balanced. I'd still use claws spec unless: 1.) I don't want to be risking claws (Using divine in PvP) 2.) I NEED to be sure of hitting. And Zaaps, its *really* hard to die rune pking w/ divine.

U have a vid on YT with 66 views. That is pretty leet.

Yeah. :mellow: The Runescape Sections (especially General from what I know.) seem to have fallen below normal. I have been away from it through so my senses may have became dull, or OT has made me more mature. Can't tell. All I know is that it appears that a lot of people enjoy an Ego boost. Through I bet with time it will return to a more "less aggressive" environment. Indeed, and if this continues, TIF will slowly but surely turn into the 2nd RSOF. That's pretty pessimistic of you. Let's argue about it. But i don't want to. Thats part of discussion. There is nothing wrong with arguing, inherently.

WHEN YOU SEE YOUR OWN FACE IT"LL GIVE YOU HELL

This, I'm 19 "While our games are created with adult gamers in mind, we do appreciate that some younger players also enjoy them." http://www.jagex.com/corporate/Parents_Guide/parents_guide.ws

Hrm, is that through the slayer dungeon / AJR ring? I'll believe you at face value on that one, but must counter that the elite cape doesn't -ever- dissolve. Slayer rings cost like 150 gp to make.

I think it's sad that Debate Club has to be merged with General Discussion but General discussion has to be separate from Questionnaires. I think Questionnaires should be allowed in General Discussion, as long as it has some discussion value, instead of just a simple yes/no type answer. Well that's what differentiates General Discussion from Questionnaires. General Discussion is home for threads that have discussion value. So if you're asking a question that does have OBVIOUS discussion value (and is being responded to with good discussions) then it can certainly be posted here. But Questionnaires is the place for questions that only require a short, one word/sentence answer. Because so few people, comparativly, go in Q subforum. That is rather obvious. And in part, people don't learn common logic in school anymore. So few people know what a straw man, ad hominum, etc fallacies are, and how they can be usedor detected. As long as not caught, they are incredibly effective. They are quite often a part of debates, or arguments.

I've heard this quite numerous times, and it never made sense. It seemingly implies that every negative statement, be it criticism, or otherwise, is not accepted. That never made sense to me. Some speech fits in this category, and as such may not be wanted on TIF, but the generality that "if its not good, don't say it" is rather asinine.

Hopefully jagex never releases 90+ quest requirements just so the high levels can feel special. :thumbup: Lol, resorting to the "yer a high level so [bleep] you" argument? I think we can see where this is going. :rolleyes: So I can feel special? No. So I can have some better gear, or a quest which is actually DIFFICULT? ye. And maybe a good reward, or a boss which is actually semi-exclusive. Gives people something to grind for, similar to skillcapes. If I never saw a slayer skillcape in F2P, I probably wouldn't have started training it in P2P right away. Granted, I also enjoyed it, but you get the picture. I want high level DG rewards because, since I enjoy it, I train DG high. Get it? Part of the reason the QP cape is more undervalued then a number of other capes is it is quite easy to get. One needs a number of quests to unlock content. The QP cape was my first cape, and even with WGS, and low combat, I'd say it was quite easy/fast to get. I don't "need" anything else to feel special. I'm in the top few percentage of RS players for total levels/xp, as well as for gear. So I think I'l go grab my divine, and my capes, and sulk because I don't have a hard quest to make me feel "special" I still don't see why people have this "entitlement" mentality. You don't "deserve" easy quests. You need to EARN.

1-60 = low levels 60-75 = not so low 75+ = high 93= Very high. I want a Dungeoneering clan that is good and don't ask for so high requirement like 93. No, Anything under 85-90 DG is low. Most people under 85 have NO CLUE what they are doing. Heck, even a few 90+ are clueless. 75 is only low to you since you are low level DG. Anything under 85-90 DG is low? Just because most people don't know what they are doing, it does not mean that it's always because of the level. But it is far more likely. Which is why clans have level requirements.

1-60 = low levels 60-75 = not so low 75+ = high 93= Very high. I want a Dungeoneering clan that is good and don't ask for so high requirement like 93. No, Anything under 85-90 DG is low. Most people under 85 have NO CLUE what they are doing. Heck, even a few 90+ are clueless. 75 is only low to you since you are low level DG.