lord_british

Why am I waiting for the other shoe to drop about this? Jagex have consistently proven they mangle and distort any decent ideas into something terrible..... Their ideas about updates seldom fit the bill to people who have played the game day-in, day-out for years... Don't get your hopes up too soon kiddies, they may just get dashed again :(

If this is true, and somehow Jagex DO remove direct trading, they're going to drive off the families that play together. Gone would be their ability to lend items/money to family members. I don't play with my family, but do loan/give items to friends that play. I even held several millions of GP for a very close friend, for months, so she wouldn't spend it all on magic runes. Would I want these friends (and/or family) to be banned because I was doing them a favour? No, and I doubt that most sensible people would either, and would stop playing what would become a fairly silly game with little point to play together anymore.

check the recent updates forums, they made a sticky about it being for crash issues and tournaments not starting on busy worlds

there's a way to stop this : click the spanner icon next to the LOGOUT icon at the bottom of your backpack section. Turn off the ACCEPT AID.

As this Grand Exchange is supposed to link everyone across all the servers I have these thoughts : What about ex-members on F2P worlds : Will they be able to sell their "Member Object"s in this GE? They shouldn't be allowed to buy them, unless they are P2P, but then...why try this on a F2P world if you are a member?

I know, it confused me too at first. Computers rate the sums differently than we do. for a computer * and / have the same value, + and - also have the same value, but lower than * and / so if a sum has more than 1 of any of these symbols, it will work them out in its own preference. If the sum has two symbols of equal value, it will work them out in order of appearance. I added the brackets to show how the computer does it. 2+4*6+2*2-15=x the computer will see this as: 2+(4*6)+(2*2)-15=x so it will work out the *'s first: 2+(24)+(2*2)-15=x 2+(24)+(4)-15=x then it will work out the "lesser" expressions: 26+(4)-15=x 30-15=x 15=x you can alter its working out of the sum by incorporating brackets into the formula: (2+4)*(6+2)*2-15=x (6)*(8)*2-15=x [it will always work out bracket sums first, in order of appearance] 48*2-15=x 96-15=x 85=x a totally different sum altogether, to a computer :P

/kindaofftopic 5=2*2+2/2 ... its all 2's WTF lol I think you will find 2*2 = 4 4+2= 6 6/2 = 3 Given that computers have a hierachy in working on formulae, "*" and "/" get worked out before "+" and "-", so : the sum would be (for a computer) 5=(2*2)+(2/2) 5=(4)+(1) 5=5 you can change the order by putting specific parts inside brackets but that would alter the answer :P

No "almost" about it. It IS pure speculation. He claims proof, but provides heresay, gossip and musings on the meanings of a blank space on a new design of a webpage.

You are judging him. Sure, his response was as ignorant as it was ultimately true (he just chose it to say in a cruel way), but that does not give someone else the right to judge them. lord_british, you are the perfect example of the people I was talking about, you proceed to judge and talk about high morals, when in reality you hastly resort to insults. I am not judging him. I am merely stating the obvious. Once again, as stated on countless threads : Ignorance is a state of lack of knowledge about something, NOT a behaviour. Your use of the word in that context makes you ignorant. How does his self-centred, and rather obnoxious reply make it ultimately true? It just shows he has little compassion or regard to his fellow humans. Actualy, I can gurantee you nobody would say that in real life. Sure, people would say that on the internet, but they would say that regardless, because internet is full of ignorant and disrespectful people. Qeltar makes a comparison between 2 concious adults delibrately tormenting a troubled girl and internet behavior as a whole, which is apples and oranges. Again, whether intentional or not, you're missing the point. Whether they would use those words in real life is a sophistric arguement at best. The intent is the issue. Do you really think that the behaviour seen online suddenly appears magically as soon as anonymity is acheived? No, the behaviour shown online is just what is already present in a person, just given "free-reign" because the person sees "no harm, no foul". These adults KNEW this girl was psychologically unstable, any reasonablely mature person would have known there may have been dire consequences with their actions, yet they still chose to gain her trust, exploit that trust, start little better than a smear/hate campaign against her, and all from the safety of a computer screen! How is that an issue related to just 2 people and a little girl? Actualy, consider how much attentnion the parents are getting now... makes me wonder. Is there a point there? :-k Again, this issue is not JUST directed at the parents, either of the girl or of those that drove her to killing herself. It is about having a little thought before typing in something that may cause harm (however unintentional) to others online. Don't forget there are real PEOPLE behind that little pixel-avatar you see on the screen and not everyone of them may be having a good day, and the least little thing may just be enough to push them over that edge into doing something unconscionable. Actualy, you misunderstood his statement. I do agree with him on this point, countless people die every day out of hunger, accidental deaths, murder, and so forth. Where is your bleeding heart for innocent victims? You cant be selectively merciful. Blowing 1 suicide out of proportion in comparison to all the other deaths seems pointless and infact a way to seek attentnion, by those who initiate it. Actually, I understand his point all too well. You misunderstood me. My bleeding heart is in my bank account pay-outs overy month to people like "Red Cross", "NSPCC", "Oxfam", "Amnesty International". I do what I can, where I can. Even in online forums where I am forced to constantly make the same counter-points in many different ways, to the same inane, spurious arguements that have little validity to the issue at hand. You misunderstood the point he was making again and also, human nature is to be cruel as well. We are all cruel and liars and pretenders, some more than others, but anyone who denies this is just lying to him or her self. Nope, again I understood his false reasoning all too well. He just doesn't want to admit to any sense of his, or those adults, actions online having any consequences at all in real life. This reasoning is utterly false, just as it is false in real life. You can deny and bluster all you want : reasonable people will always hold such statements up to the light of truth and law and morality. Yes, Human nature is somewhat cruel, at least in childhood. Especially when in mob-mentality of a group of one kind, harrassing, bullying, tormenting someone they consider to be different and not worthy of their group status. Those that stand by and allow this to happen are just as guilty as the perpetrators. The "But there was nothing I could do to stop it" defence didn't work at NÃÆÃâÃâüremberg, as I recall, nor should it work in an online environment either. You'll note I added Bold to part of your response. I would take it as a kindness if you wouldn't generalise that badly for the majority of people who DO feel compassion, and empathy towards their fellow people. Also, I am not cruel; I do not lie (if anything I am somewhat too honest for my own good - brutally honest in some cases;)); nor am I a pretender towards something I am not. I would make a large wager that there are more in these forums that would take the same umbrage towards your asinine statement there. I am well aware of my faults (I tend towards laziness, I am not particularly diligent towards paperwork to name two) and am quite capable of enumerating them myself, without some online person who has never met me making broad assumptions about me, and others. You are focusing too much on 1 example, look at the overall daily mortality issue as a whole, 1 suicide (regardless of cause) is insignificant on the larger scale. No, I was responding in the same analogy used by the other person. Want another analogy? Let's return to your complete dismissal of "personal responsability" with tools. It is the duty of the person wielding the tool (whether a car, drill, or computer) to use said tool in the manner that it was designed for, in as responsible a manner as can be expected from any REASONABLE person. Not to go and use it irresponsibly to smack someone's skull in, drive drunk, or cause so much distress to a vulnerable child she hangs herself in her bedroonm closet. Do you get the point now? Or do you have yet more shallow, invalid arguements? Ill say it again, I dont defend the heartless adults, but the girl was suicide risk. Chances are, something else would have triggered it eventualy anyways. Only thing I personaly cant understand is the girls parents not seeking a form of revenge, but thats from my own personal point of view. The point isn't that she may or may not have been "triggered" to kill herself in the future. The point is that these two adults KNOWING she was vulnerable, gained her trust using a FAKE identity, exploited her for whatever information they wanted from her, then started a smear campaign, while she believed she was speaking to a real person. Yet how does your actual comments tally with your "I dont defend the heartless adults"? I would suggest you look closely at your points again, because you have done little except to shift the blame to "everyone is an [wagon] online - you can't blame the internet for this - the girl was at fault for being so sensitive and emo" I'm sorry, but again, that defence does not, never has, nor ever will hold an iota of water in any moral, legal or practical way. And again, you resort to insults. If you want to be judgemental make sure you are qualified to judge, which you are not in my point of view so you are no better than him. Are constructive critiscisms insults? Are you perhaps as sensitive to critiscism as that 13 year old girl was? I recall a thread where someone said, without naming ANY NAMES AT ALL, that there were two classes of merchants : The honest merchant that everyone likes and uses at some point, and, The Vulture class that gives all merchants a bad name, by exploiting people's ignorance about real prices of items and buying far too cheaply, or selling far too dearly (basically scamming). Then a second person seemed to think this statement about the second class of merchants was directed at him personally, and made several flaming, and insulting comments directed at the first person, over several threads/topics, even to the point one of his posts got deleted and hidden. I call that a guilty conscience. :-w What would you call it Ego? :-k Answers on a postcard, please.

I hear this garbage a lot and i wish i knew what moron came up with it, yes there is a link between age and maturity, maturity comes with age, you dont magically know how to act at age 6, you dont suddenly have the wisdom of a 40+ year old at age 14. You mature as you learn, you learn as you age, nobody pops out of the womb and is suddenly Friedrich Nietzsche. Tell that to the 9 year old girl I met in Runescape just after I first started, and was convinced for well over a year (until she mentioned her 11th birthday earlier this year) she was at least college-aged because of her speech patterns, and general behaviour in-game :P Tell that to the 48year-old bloke who was fairly obnoxious when asked a simple question and launched into a tirade of abuse.... If it can happen once, it can happen twice, and again, and again, and again....

Agreed, who cares, 1 emo down. Stupid attention seekers like this do my head in, genuine people die for reasons they can't help e.g car crashes and this spoilt little [cabbage] goes and dies because of myspace. Wrong on so many levels I can't be bothered enumerating them :wall: Who Cares? We do (the people who realise the true implications of this story). It's obvious you don't. You only care for yourself. If your attitude towards others rubs off on those around you, who would you turn to when you need help? And if you did, what would you do when those people say to you "Haha!! emo noooob! go crawl away and die quietly. I don't care about you!" [obviously I 'm using the proper spellings whereas they would use numbers and symbols ;)] Attitudes like that are going to make you a very lonely adult when you finally reach adulthood (assuming you don't ever require emergency medical help for any reason beforehand ;)) IF she was "attention seeking", wouldn't she have made a big fuss of "Going to my room and kill myself! You don't love me! you obviously think they're right and the world will be better off without me!!"? But instead she, if not calmly, quietly went to her room, and methodically took her own life. Genuine people?? So she wasn't real? Her parents don't have to look at an empty chair at meal times? Her grave doesn't have to be attended to? Wait! What if you're not real too?! Does that mean we don't have to listen to you inane blatherings of "plastic-gangsta-isms"? Sure you can write a tough line, but I bet behind the psuedo-annonymity of the intarwebs, you've got feelings too, just like this girl, and everyone else in the world. Try to show a little compassion sometimes. You never know who's life you may change for the better ;) "Die for reasons they can't help"? #-o :wall: Most car crashes are accidents...but some aren't. They're lumped into accidents even when it's alcohol related, or innatention due to changing the radio station, or making a phone call, or putting on make-up, or rubber-necking the accident on the other side of the road...those could be helped, but they won't be. It's human nature. Most people killed aren't in the vehicle causing the accident, they're totally innocent of breaking rules of the road, yet find themselves in situations where people die. This girl wasn't. She was rather effectively seduced by ADULTS. "Groomed" is the current buzz-word. These people are old enough to know better, they knew she was vulnerable, and yet STILL exploited her for their own sick "fun". Now, how is a 13year old girl, whether suffering from depression or not, supposed to help herself facing experience and knowledge more than twice her own age? Whilst being lied to? I would respectfully submit, yer 'onours, that the only cabbage here, is you, and people with the same uncaring, unfeeling, repulsive attitudes like you and your fellow trolls. Grow up, mature, lose the attitude, gain respect, and above all else, THINK.

If you can only sell to the GE, how are you going to buy items that other people can only sell? That logic would mean that the GE will rapidly be full of items that NOONE can buy #-o *EDIT* well, looks like a few people have beaten me to that one :shock:

OK, assume for a second that I believe that... what about the rather large RUNESCAPE logo in the top right corner?

This is STILL nothing more than speculation. Where is your proof?

Jagex do have a night shift. Several JMods make posts throughout the night here, on the RSOF.

you're still blaming the "tool", not the "workman". It's the responsibility of the person using the "tool" to use it properly and in a safe manner. The "tool" is without conscience, will, or motive. That lies in the "user"

What you said can be rephrased into i"lets not blame the gun that killed the victim, lets blame the bullet" Again, you're missing the point. Whether intentional or not... To borrow your analogy, it's neither the gun nor the bullet he's blaming, but the person pulling the trigger... or are you still so self-centred, or intent on creating a fuss about pedantry, that you can't or won't see that?

He's not blaming the internet for suisadal [sic], tendencies. He's blaming adults creating a fake person online, and using it to "spy" on someone else. Then using that same fake person to start little better than a "hate campaign" against a vulnerable person. The same attitudes that "allowed" these adults to perform these vile acts are also prevalent in many online communities, including Runescape (and other games, yes).

We will see on january, JaGex haven't made a separate billing page yet on their corporate site because it would look very obvious that there is a new game coming. However, why JaGex decided to make this change right now? Probably yet more "fixing that which is not broken", and ignoring the greater issues in the hope that the sheep will also ignore them...which quite a few do ad nauseam ;)

Rome never conquered all of Europe ;) I seem to recall more than a few disasters in what is now Germany :twisted: They actively recruited from nations conquered for the legions, and awarded them full citizenship after service, so both these points you make about their "superioty complex" are wrong :P Your other sweeping generalisations about youth being sneered upon by older people is also somewhat blinkered. Sure there are people like this, but most aren't It's done by those that never get much further than the local public house, not the more adventurous.

[hide=numerous quotes] +1. But it could be :P As stated elsewhere in these forums, by quite a few people, Mechscape wouldn't be an update to Runescape. It is a completely new game, with its own site... Duh, we all know its a new game but it does not mean it wont be incorporated it to a single biling management system for both games. Although it is speculation, the layout now suggests it will be used as corporate billing system as it is no longer entirly runescape based ie (large jagex logo ect). So what logic would be used to bill two games from inside one, when they both have separate sites to run? Many Corporate sites offer similar systems. Userbility saves creating and entering payment details more then once. Lower overheads (merchant costs ect.) and can offer the same payment systems. ect... [/hide] Corporate sites, yes. Specific game sites inside a corporation? especially when the separate games have separate sites? and are two different, unrelated games? Unless they're both on one single page on Jagex site, and both games link to it, I think they won't. Still, as stated, his "proof" is nothing more than pure speculation.

+1. But it could be :P As stated elsewhere in these forums, by quite a few people, Mechscape wouldn't be an update to Runescape. It is a completely new game, with its own site... Duh, we all know its a new game but it does not mean it wont be incorporated it to a single biling management system for both games. Although it is speculation, the layout now suggests it will be used as corporate billing system as it is no longer entirly runescape based ie (large jagex logo ect). So what logic would be used to bill two games from inside one, when they both have separate sites to run?

+1. But it could be :P As stated elsewhere in these forums, by quite a few people, Mechscape wouldn't be an update to Runescape. It is a completely new game, with its own site...

umm sorry, that's pure speculation, not proof.

That might be what you believe but you can't speak for everyone. I don't want to start a debate about the afterlife because it is completely off-topic, but you can't disregard other peoples beliefs just because they aren't in synch with yours. I really hope all of those ignorant morons who scam their friends of rares and money are reading this, the people on the receiving end might not commit suicide over it but that sort of betrayal has got to hurt. I think some people are too driven to be the "best" and forget that having fun and making friends is the entire point of the game. Its simple, you cant prove there is a god, science can prove the world is several hundred million years older then the bible says it is, and that man was created far from the 7th day of existance. Now are you going to trust a 2000 year old fiction novel, or sience which is fact. Ok lets go over this so called true science. Does something come from nothing? Can you have nothing then, have everything? Do we get flys from rotten meet or eels from pond slime? No we do not. This was proven hundreds of years ago. Now lets look at evolution. What is the foundation of this theory? That billions and billions of years ago there was nothing. Then, there was a huge explosion and then there was something! And from that something came life! From nothing came something! You know what?? I would rather trust a book that is over 2000 years old and is still true to the original than science that well reinvent an old idea that has been proven beyond a dout to be false as a truth. You want prof the there is a God and that He is the Christan God? what religion is not excepted around the world? Christianity. Why is that I wonder? Mabby because it says that it is the truth and that people will reject the truth until God opens their eyes to it. But this is just what I bleave. I do not expect you to understand the points that I have made here. I have just wasted both your time and mine -.- . Venedlor Sorry, wrong. Bible has had so many authors, editors, and re-issues, it's nowhere near the original edition. The Islamic Qur'an is written around 600AD, and has no other versions, re-writes to it, so is slightly more reliable than the Bible.