waheera1

Don't complain because the souffle's a little deflated.. It still tastes the same : Hehe I like your analogy, but for a more refined palette even the shape matters! :P :^o

Can I just point something out here G_P_Kid: Why the hell were you videoing something as mundane as penguin spotting, unless it was to "prove" that you weren't abusing the bug? And if it was to be used as proof that you weren't bug abusing, why not just avoid abusing the bug...? If you knew about the bug and then decided to video the event, it's a pretty stupid thing to do. Whether or not you abused the bug, the furore surrounding the whole affair, even reportedly on the days when the bug was around, would've been enough of a clue to tell you to get the hell out of there. Do you remember 6-6-6? The Fally massacre was made famous from that video. The event can be relived today. That was my intention with the video, so we can remember this and see the crowd years from now. Btw, reason I am also very angry about the ban is because I let down a lot of people. People enjoyed the vids I made and now I'm banned many other than me are angry about it. Go look at the comments. (Warning, explicit language in some comments) I do remember it indeed, was it really 6th June 06?! Classic date for a monumental jagex balls-up! :-P Can I just ask, are you permanently banned or temporarily banned? I myself have become fairly anti-jagex when it comes to customer service/relations issues, hence some of my other posts stating how they should've taken full responsibility for their part in the debacle. I can see both sides of the situation here and whilst I deem it necessary that the offenders should be punished, I can well imagine the righteous fury of the people who have funded the company which essentially created the bug which got them banned. This is too simplistic, and I stand by the fact that the abusers should rightfully be punished, but had I known about the bug I would not have made myself so vulnerable as to create a video about it that required the spam clicking of penguins. I can understand why you're indignant about this situation, and I hope that if you truly are innocent that you get just compensation. A word of warning on the future however, would be that if someone COULD think you're doing something wrong, they probably WILL, even if it's not the case. Don't leave yourself open to that chance.

I was simply posting comments as I read the relevant posts from others. Apologies if I'm not sufficiently adept at making forums look pretty... :P Also, much as I would like to amend it, there seems no "delete message" function for retrospectively removing unwanted messages, so there it seems my hands are tied. FYI I'm relatively new to these forums and don't find I particularly like the system of multiple quoting. I'll do my best not to post multiple comments in short succession, but bear with me on it.

For all we know it could've been a sting-like operation to weed out cheaters. :lol: But seriously, what's the point of even having a rule against bug abuse if they plan to take full responsibility for mistakes. They realize they are human, they know it doesn't take much for something to slip through (maybe the person in charge of overlooking everything had a rough night?), so to account for all of that - they made a rule that says "Hey look, we will mistakes at times, so when we do just don't abuse them. Play the game how it's meant to be played and we'll take care of our mistakes." Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'm not seeking to exonerate those guilty of breaking the rules. They should know what the rules are, and in breaking them they do deserve the appropriate punishment. That said, it is not the players' fault that the glitch existed for them to abuse. Whilst they should not have abused it, Jagex should not have allowed the bug through their system - they are usually pretty competent at preventing glitches in new content. As responsible professionals it is their place to admit to the fact that they screwed up, and they should have taken a much more transparent approach to the cleanup operation. How many working professionals get let off for a huge flaw in their work because they've written into their contract "Hey, I might screw up..."? Not many. Jagex are lucky in that the nature of their "work" allows it, but they should still stand up and take the flak when they do make mistakes.

In a report or a debate topic, it is well-known that where possible, you are meant to show to the readers that you understand other peoples possible oppinions on the topic. This is to show that you have not only done the research, but you have not written off the fact that you may be wrong! OT: The penguin post was both interesting, relevant and well structured! Well done! Any chance of at translation here? Why did you quote troacctid, a regular and highly articulate poster, before writing seemingly unrelated drivel that was "poorly edited, riddled with errors"? RuneHQ does not come into it at all. The authors should be trying to impress us the readers. Reading articles that are badly edited, poorly punctuated and littered with spelling mistakes leads me to think: "Way to go, for a 10 year old." It is basic stuff that ANYONE who wants to write ANYTHING absolutely MUST do right or should expect to be strongly criticised for getting wrong. Jagex has absolutely no reason to be embarrassed. No, they cannot always tell who successfully abused and who didn't. Yes, they do make mistakes. Is that their fault? Is it something to be ashamed of? Not really.. They only have so much evidence to work with and I'm sure they try as hard as possible to make sure that someone really did abuse a glitch before taking action against their account. Mistakes do happen and a lot of them are corrected. You can't expect them to be perfect all the time when they have millions of users to deal with and sort through. Sorry Tripsis, but Jagex has EVERYTHING to be embarrassed about. A glitch of this kind should never have made it through rigorous quality control testing, the fact it did is something that they do need to address. Given the amount of money Jagex as a company make, and the wages they are able to offer to their workforce (all quite reasonable, trust me, I looked the other day), mistakes like this cannot be written off as "just an accident", or "nothing to be embarrassed about". Multinational computing companies would lose £millions (as a minimum) for mistakes on this kind of scale, and would probably never recover from the loss of business. It is fortunate for Jagex that their fan base is more forgiving and that they offer something which their closest rivals cannot, but they should ALWAYS be embarrassed and apologetic for mistakes that originate solely from within their own company. In the long run, they did an ok job on damage limitation, but for the players permanently banned, some of whom may well have spent hundreds of pounds/dollars on their characters, Jagex let them down badly. The fact that they did not openly stand up and take the flak for their own mistakes as well as dealing appropriately with rule breakers is an absolute shambles. A glitch with such widespread impacts as the penguin one should have had a post on the main page explaining what went wrong and how people were being dealt with. It should not have taken as long as it did to be dealt with, and there are no excuses for a bad job. Yes, because 4 minutes of film for a bug that lasted over an hour obviously conclusively proves you hadn't abused it before you started filming, right? :roll: Whether you did abuse it or not, I don't really care. I do, however, believe Jagex, who has access to just about everything going on in the game at all times, over a forum troll bashing the company because he was caught breaking the rules (or at least, trying to). As even you said, you were there to try "find out" what the bug was. Whether you got it to work or not, again, I don't care, but are you seriously shocked about being banned for "attempting" to abuse a bug, and think Jagex should be embarrassed? Can I just point something out here G_P_Kid: Why the hell were you videoing something as mundane as penguin spotting, unless it was to "prove" that you weren't abusing the bug? And if it was to be used as proof that you weren't bug abusing, why not just avoid abusing the bug...? If you knew about the bug and then decided to video the event, it's a pretty stupid thing to do. Whether or not you abused the bug, the furore surrounding the whole affair, even reportedly on the days when the bug was around, would've been enough of a clue to tell you to get the hell out of there. Edit: Just watched the video. I can only surmise that you really are a bit slow on the uptake. The comments on your own video suggest that you knew there was something "illegal" being done in the context of the game's many rules. Why tempt fate by sticking yourself in there and attempting to click away? True, you shouldn't get banned for it, but if you're stupid enough to give jagex cause to believe you were one of the people in the wrong, that's your lookout. Sorry for my complete lack of sympathy.

287 Now, I think it depends why you're doing it. Personally I think anyone who trains to 99 for the sake of having 99 needs to get out more and find a more constructive use for their time. Same goes with slayer, if you're going for 99 just because you want the cape, you're an idiot. That said, there is no doubt that there are better ways to train combat skills - people consistently afk at bandits, zombie monkeys, mummies, pest control, etc etc... For me slayer is a much more enjoyable way to take the grind out of staying at one place for ages whilst achieving nothing. I'd much rather have a diverse experience whilst still achieving that same nothing. I don't play for the levels, xp rates or anything, and I'm getting to the stage where i just don't enjoy the company of people who do. Maybe I'm getting too old for this game. Slayer needs updating to make it more profitable and still more diverse, that I will grant, but if you take a breakdown of all the skills, none of them are really all that interesting to get to 99. If I can train multiple things whilst enjoying the company of my online friends, which slayer does allow, then to me that's just about enough. As with anyone else, I'd like it to be more profitable and the like, but if you can't stick with it then just move on and live with it. Whining on forums that jagex probably won't read or take notice of will achieve precisely nothing. Jagex endorsed forums may achieve much the same, but there is at least a slightly increased chance of progress then.

Right, so a couple of comments this week. First up, Troacctid, once again you're on the money. =D> Secondly, grammatical errors are not down to a difference between US and UK ENGLISH, the majority of the ones in these articles result from nonsensical word placements and mis-spellings, not the difference between colour and color. Now to the articles specifically: Penguin bannings - I agree Jagex did a reasonably good job on this, but I also happen to know that there were too many innocents caught in the net and Jagex weren't exactly forthcoming on publicising details on what they were doing! A simple post on the main page would've prevented many of the angry forum posts. I myself posted one because I was very concerned that I could not see total transparency in Jagex' dealings with this awful glitch. I remember the falador house party pk incident got a special post to explain and apologise, I think that this latest fiasco, being far more far reaching would've benefited from such a post. Diversion than distraction - Fine, nothing particularly radical, but it was adequate. On a personal note, I'm finding that there are almost too many distractions and diversions now so that for the low maintenance gamer, completing every little minigame diversion etc wipes out most of your play time for the day. Hence I personally don't bother doing them much. God Wars 2 - I wrote a brutal review of Psycho_Robot's attempts to write about the god wars, and I could well do the same to this one, sadly. I'd be genuinely interested to know if there are shortages on Tip.it's editorial staff which demand people to write multiple articles each week. This one suffered from lapses in quality of writing and didn't actually achieve anything. I was hoping that as the closing article of a 2 part series it might pose a more thoughtful or interesting view than just a whistlestop tour of runescape's many races. I wonder, is this because Necromagus had too much to do this week, or is it because he/she didn't quite know why he/she was writing it? Saradomin's sun - A little peculiar, I'll be honest. Quite clever in its own way, but to my mind stories like that don't really work too well as standalone features without a better knowledge of key characters etc to consolidate the story. I think things are beginning to improve again after a few bleak weeks for the times. Keep it up guys. :pray:

Evil coming? Elves. But why is the Underground pass linked to Tiranwnn anyway? (Don't say "for the quest..."). Were (or are, if Iban truly is immortal) Iban and the Elves cooperating? This would mean that Tyras was a good guy, if elves are his enemies; he is Lathas's brother, in the end. Lathas might be a King, but can make mistakes, for example trying to clear the Making History outpost, or in this situation, thinking of his brother as a "bad guy." Maybe Lathas is really the bad guy here, maybe he knew that outpost was important but wanted to tear it down so some of Kandarin's history could not be revealed. If you think that what I just said was insane, you are correct. After beating Regicide, you find out Lathas IS the bad guy. The underground pass is an ancient pass that was once used as a prime crossing ground between what is now Ardougne and the elf forrest. If Lathas really wanted the outpost destroyed, he could have done it anyways. He's a king. And do remember, elves are like humans. Not distinctly good or evil, it depends on the elf in question. By the way, who remembers the elven prophecy? In MEP2, you get a diary from a dead elf, and he speaks of some prophecy, and wonders if the human that went through the underground pass is the one spoken of in said prophecy. I just hope quest 150 continues a storyline. BTW, for whoever said we need a sequel to "The Forgettable Tale of a Drunk Dwarf" because that quest came out over 3 years ago.....MEP2 came out over 5 years ago I think, and definitely before the Forgettable Tale. MEP2 probably came out before Keldragim did.... EDIT: For everyone who thinks the next elemental workshop quest will be SOUL armor, due to the famous "mind body and soul" mantra, DO remember that the first quest in that series was ELEMENTAL. Not Mind. I'd say the next quest in that series will use cosmics. For the record, MEP2 has not been out 5 years. I can't remember exactly when but it has been released since I've been playing, which is a little short of 5 years ago. I think it was before the forgettable tale, but not by a full 2 years...

Mildly disappointed by the economic article. As has been pointed out, America is not the only market in the world to be suffering, and even then it is not solely because of American problems that the rest of the world is now facing pecuniary troubles, unlike the Wall Street Crash of 1929. That said, I'm only mildly disappointed, because the points that were made were succinct and also accessible to those with a lesser understanding of basic economics. I'm a little confused by the War Running article, as I thought it was supposed to be the finale this week, but for what it is I'm glad to see that a good standard has been maintained and will be interested to read the rest of the story whenever it comes. :-) God Wars: I was half hoping Psycho_Robot might be the one to attempt this kind of a breakdown after his article last week fell a little short of its potential. That said, I think what is being attempted in this current take on the God Wars provides for an interesting backdrop to what could potentially become the backbone of the new mobilising armies minigame and has been seen to some extend in Armies of Gielinor (funorb). I hope that there is some kind of unifying finish to this split article and that it doesn't become just another incomplete history of the gods of runescape. That's me done for now! :-) In general, nice work but as always things to look at!

One of my greatest struggles with the whole historical article concept is how do I make it an editorial instead of just a history lecture? This article was my attempt to blend the two together, but apparently they weren't blended well enough. I'm wary of going for a straight historical fact article, but my hybrid history/editorial article and my fully editorial article both didn't go over as well as I'd hoped, so perhaps I should just go for it. I suppose the worst thing that could happen is that I would be lynched by those determined and resourceful enough to track me down, but I'm sure I can avoid that by getting several more firewalls. P.S. criticism is tragically underrated. Well i think what you have to consider is WHY is that history relevant? For those who just wanted a brief outline of who the gods are, in a kind of "meet your makers" kind of way, it was probably spot on. But I personally felt that by the end of the article I had yet to unearth the reason you wrote it in the first place. I didn't post on your previous editorial, but just so you know, I thought it was much better set out than this attempted hybrid. And again, the reason for that is because by the end of that previous article I knew why you had chosen to write it. Feel free to put your own opinions and thoughts/observations into an editorial and see where it gets you. The thing to watch out for with those is that it may well become too personal and you may take great insult if people don't like it. I'd be interested to read what your "go for it" article would be, so by all means try it! :-) I'll be sure to let you know what i think! :P

Well, I didn't want to put it that bluntly, but yes, it is pointless to discuss whether we should like something or not, and none can presume to give a universal judgement on anything. I didn't want to write it down because almost every argument can come down to: 'Prove it!.' 'I can't.' 'Ha!' which is as stupid. I never try to insult someone. If I may conclude from this that you did read these books, I hope you liked them. If you didn't read them, I recommend them. That's all. I chose them as example because I'm reading them right now, and I like them. Bad exaples, maybe. I could agree to that. And it is your full right to write a bad review. As I said, they were published for our reading pleasure. They were written because the writers liked it, presumably. And why the articles were written as they were? Possibly because they were not written poorly? They were written to please, and stressed easy reading. Written poorly is only a matter of taste, so long as the style does not interrupt the content. And the content is also a matter of taste. You wanted the article on the gods to be longer. OK, I'd like that. But the fact it wasn't long enough to you doesn't make it bad. I never said you said that. And the point is pleasure. It was there, to me. The god article may have been written to make people interested by leaving out a lot? The pet rock article to make you laugh, and the hunter article to make you... well, not cry, but at least to move you? Well thanks, but do you think it true? And everything is pointless. It is true that your criticism isn't very constructive until your last post, in which you say: [hide=Waheera1's post] [/hide] That's nice. I don't agree with some of your points in the first two paragraphs, because I know well that it is not required to write well. Still I think it's nice to help. I should try that once... Anyway, the arguments in my first post (and this one again) may have been badly worded. Again, I never try to insult someone. Read my signature. Well... there goes... *submit* It may have been unwise to ever start this... I foresee no solution to this argument... I don't actually have the time or inclination to write a proper response to this. However I would suggest that you carefully consider the implied meanings of some of your comments. Then you might understand my ripostes. Also, not everything is pointless, and empathy is not in fact what makes one feel human. I'm certain Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Hitler and the Khmer Rouge collectively all felt human, but I very much doubt it was because they empathised with their subjects/victims... :P As for some of your other comments, reading my extended post which you yourself posted to me would probably give you the causes of my dissatisfaction, and I can assure you it was not the length. 20,000 words doesn't make a better essay than a 1,000 word one just by virtue of its length. And please, don't just post back again about my tastes etc being different or the point being enjoyment. I'm pretty sure we've already established that the only reason I have written so many comments is because I felt the writing in the times deserved it. To me, the times did not meet either of the criteria you claimed they did. You're welcome to your opinion that in fact they were enjoyable and to the point, but I will always disagree.

Superb guide. Liked the info on temple trekking, and would wholeheartedly back you up on the ring of life for wcing.

I strongly agree with you. Thankyou kindly. :D

That was the point of the emote. It was something over the top and would never really be put in the game. It wasn't a serious criticism about Jagex, but to demonstrate how sometimes we like to blame the game instead of asking "What am I doing wrong?" When you say there doesn't seem to be a point I can respond for myself and say you are absolutely right! There was no point to be made. It was meant to be amusing for the players that can relate to it. Either you get it or you don't. I'm not trying to be defensive. I just thought maybe that could help clarify some things. I appreciate the criticism. :D ...and I have to say I loved the pet rock story. That was cute. Fair enough, I would have thought there were better ways to demonstrate it on the topic of hunting, but I can totally relate to the point you were trying to get across.

If someone liked it, it has succeeded. And I did. So. (I am one of 'you') No, really. I think that you read wrongly. Should I ask why the Lord of the Rings was written? Or the Mists of Avalon? (both great books, 1000 pages each, keeps you busy, too). These were published for our reading pleasure, as many pieces are. The Times is not a tome of learning, and therefore not required to write solid facts only, indeed, it does regularly feature articles meant to convince. This week, that was the article on contruction. But not every text follows only one schedule; while school teaches us text types, experience (and higher grades) teach us that some text may be written to do all types at once. In short: Article one is for pleasure. There is pleasure in learning, too, when used at ease. Article two and three, likewise, but silly. No big deal (bad-writteness-wise). Then on hunter: I believe that is on pleasure again. Empathy makes us feal human, and nice. Then the fourth is left, which is, like the first, a mixture. Now it is not between learning and amusing, but between convincing and amusing. Though it could be learning for those uneducated in the debate. The pleasure is obviously first. As it should, I think. But if you take that view, what is the point of the discussion topic? It may be for our pleasure, but if I did not enjoy it then I have as much right as you to post about it. As for reading "wrongly", do not presume to insult me by suggesting that I don't know those books or have not read them. Or indeed that I am not well aware of the pleasures of learning. If i dislike a book, I will write a bad review in the hope that the next will be better. Thus I do the same when it comes to these forums. On topic of why those books were written, who knows. However, they do follow a sophisticated and well constructed storyline based on the incredible imaginations of their authors. My point is not so much why the articles were written, but why they were written as poorly as they were. I have no doubt that any of the articles (even the ridiculous imp) could have been very interesting and/or enjoyable for me to read if they were better considered before the writing began. I never once said that the times should be fact based only. I merely stated that the times should have a point. By and large this week's articles contained neither facts or a point. "Empathy makes us feel human, and nice." That I have to say is one of the more pointless comments I've ever come across. What kind of "point" would you expect the articles to have? I'm a beginner in this respect; that was only my second article. I don't yet know exactly to what the readers will respond positively. I'm more interested in criticism than compliments at this point, so tell me, how could that article have been better? First up, before I say anything else, whenever you're writing ALWAYS ask yourself: "Why am I writing this?" If you yourself don't know, it will be harder to achieve anything with what you're writing. If you have a clear purpose, such as a "religious" preach even, you will be able to focus what you write much better to support your ideas. It is always harder reading through something that doesn't have a purpose, so if you're not sure what yours is, sit back, get a brew/pint/whatever and think about what it is you REALLY want to write about. I don't know what the times are like with regard to making you write to specific topics, but I'd recommend you focus largely on anything that really interests you. Then you can contemplate how you're going to make other people read it to find out why you find it interesting. Also stick to one topic, or make it clear when you're switching within your article: your article was all about gods, but touched on 1) the gods, 2) their dishonesty/unreliability, 3) the narrators within the game concerning gods, 4) you finished with asking who "you" would support? That's 4 things that could be individually approached, or at least separately paragraphed, which became blurred together at times. Keep it simpler for yourself and it will become an easier read as well as making your job easier. To be honest my main issue with it is that it is too vague for the topic. I don't take a hugely significant interest in the various gods of runescape, given their number and essential insignificance in the great scheme of things, but I have come across them many times in my questing etc. I am well aware that there is a vast amount of information on each of these deities which was not even brushed upon. Without a clear purpose for the article, the end result became a brief and even at times inaccurate ramble through the gods. For this reason I think your article would have been much better if it could've been split into multiple parts over several weeks, perhaps even focussing on just one god at a time. This would have allowed a far greater amount of information to be presented and would have made for a more interesting read. Personally I found your final paragraph was the most interesting for me: an explanation of the confusion within runescape's histories due to the unreliable nature of its many sources. Here you have a golden opportunity to explain the various viewpoints and key narrators using the wealth of information available, which I think could be made into a much more interesting article. Perhaps working on a theme such as that would make the information easier to present in an interesting fashion, rather than facing yourself up with a mountain of information to squeeze into an envelope. As a final note, when writing about runescape's histories etc, only write about them if you have absolute conviction: chances are that if anything isn't thoroughly researched and you write about it, someone else will already have written a better article on that particular topic. I hope that helped, feel free to post back if anything doesn't quite make sense or you disagree with anything I've said. I would also add that despite my harsh postings, good effort in writing the article in the first place and for taking the criticism. I understand the challenge and look forward to reading more of your articles. =D>

If someone liked it, it has succeeded. And I did. So. (I am one of 'you') No, really. I think that you read wrongly. Should I ask why the Lord of the Rings was written? Or the Mists of Avalon? (both great books, 1000 pages each, keeps you busy, too). These were published for our reading pleasure, as many pieces are. The Times is not a tome of learning, and therefore not required to write solid facts only, indeed, it does regularly feature articles meant to convince. This week, that was the article on contruction. But not every text follows only one schedule; while school teaches us text types, experience (and higher grades) teach us that some text may be written to do all types at once. In short: Article one is for pleasure. There is pleasure in learning, too, when used at ease. Article two and three, likewise, but silly. No big deal (bad-writteness-wise). Then on hunter: I believe that is on pleasure again. Empathy makes us feal human, and nice. Then the fourth is left, which is, like the first, a mixture. Now it is not between learning and amusing, but between convincing and amusing. Though it could be learning for those uneducated in the debate. The pleasure is obviously first. As it should, I think. But if you take that view, what is the point of the discussion topic? It may be for our pleasure, but if I did not enjoy it then I have as much right as you to post about it. As for reading "wrongly", do not presume to insult me by suggesting that I don't know those books or have not read them. Or indeed that I am not well aware of the pleasures of learning. If i dislike a book, I will write a bad review in the hope that the next will be better. Thus I do the same when it comes to these forums. On topic of why those books were written, who knows. However, they do follow a sophisticated and well constructed storyline based on the incredible imaginations of their authors. My point is not so much why the articles were written, but why they were written as poorly as they were. I have no doubt that any of the articles (even the ridiculous imp) could have been very interesting and/or enjoyable for me to read if they were better considered before the writing began. I never once said that the times should be fact based only. I merely stated that the times should have a point. By and large this week's articles contained neither facts or a point. "Empathy makes us feel human, and nice." That I have to say is one of the more pointless comments I've ever come across.

[/hide] I'm sorry waheera, but these were solid articles, and you should not criticize them. I do sympathize with you somewhat on article one. However, even if it didn't say much, it was very well put. Article Two was brilliant and amusing. You can't just simply put "why" at the end of it, and expect people to think you're witty! Article Three was an excellent short story, one that I enjoyed reading. Your "critique" basically just said "It didn't make sense" over and over again. Yet the story was contiguous and self-explanatory. It was very clear, and even managed to have a satisfactory ending. Article Four did lack direction. The writer couldn't seem to make up his mind if he was critiquing himself, or the hunting skill. But some good imagery in there, like when the imaginary skill cape was described. Article Five was more coherent than you give it credit for. Tripsis was simply trying to show that the Construction cape isn't as simple as making a lot of oak larders. Again, using large words, and throwing "why?" into the mix make a critique doth not. -Recksash ps. was the Genie inspired by the one from Terry Pratchet's books? There I'm afraid we differ. Regardless of whether you deem them to be good articles or not, if I feel there is something to criticise then I will. Unfortunately this week I did, and that is NOT a common occurrance. If they really were so solid I would not be criticising. The question I put to you regarding article 1 is: "WHAT was well put?" Yes it had some facts in it, but that does not provide any reasoning for creating the article, and writing "facts" based on runescape mythology requires no talent in itself. Article 2: If I was expecting or wanting people to find me witty I'd've made more of an effort. My problem with the article was that whilst it was entertaining, what was the point of writing it? That is all. Article 3: It was entirely pointless. And that I'm afraid does not make for a satisfying read. I did not think it worked at all well as a standalone story and since the new format of the times has come to include a fictional article, I'd rather it took a more sophisticated route than a peurile tale of an imp's (mis)fortunes. Article 4: I'll not argue the imagery was entertaining, but personally I'd find an emote such as the one described completely ridiculous and out of place within runescape. Article 5: If you plan to lambast me for using "long words" and the like, don't finish with such a ridiculous final sentence, else you will be hoisted by your own petard. If you wanted to tell me that writing "why?" doesn't make a critique using the word doth, at least put it in the right place. For example: "...doth make not a critique". Unfortunately I think YOU miss the point of tripsis' article. He is not proving that you don't need to just build oak larders at all, in fact he clearly references oak planks as 'the' method of levelling construction (whether or not it's how he actually levelled is irrelevant, but that's how he made comment on the cost of materials). Quite frankly he'd have been an idiot if he used oak logs and didn't make oak larders. Might I also refer you to the second page of responses to this thread for a much better written article on buyable skills (as referenced in by troacctid). The rest of the article focussed only on his experience of buying the materials and teaches nothing about construction or does anything to dispell the belief that it is basically a skill that burns money for little useful gain. In general I felt that the articles in this week's times served no purpose at all. The reason I am being so harsh is because I know that the times usually contain higher quality articles, each carefully considered and presented, to whose standard this week's articles certainly did not match up.

I feel like being quite harsh today, so apologies to the authors, but here I go: Article 1: God Wars Why was this written? It may have provided some small part of the history of Runescape's gods, but did it actually have a point? I read it through and was still waiting for a punchline or explanation of what had prompted this short and incomplete history lesson. Article 2: Pet Rock I'll grant that bits of this were midly entertaining, but once again, why?! Article 3: The Imp and the Jinn Didn't really seem to make a lot of sense if we're being honest. Winding itself into ever more ridiculous situations, the story seemed to ramble on a bit as an inconsistent collection of ideas placed together almost coincidentally rather than because of a coherent story line which required it. Runescape is after all a fictitious game with a complex mythology of its own, and so some peculiarity should be expected I suppose, but I thought this article took it a bit too far without good reason. Article 4: Hunter... I agree that hunter as a skill has severe limitations. And I have experienced all of the ones laid out in this article, so I genuinely do sympathise. The only problem I had with it was that I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be just an elaborate rant about jagex' incompetence, or whether it was designed as constructive criticism. I got the impression that it was more biased to the former option, and whilst I will gladly rant about many things in the game to friends whilst playing, I personally prefer reading articles that were written for a more specific point. If, after the rant, some more suggestions could have been made I might have been more interested, sorry. Article 5: Construction I'll start off with saying I really don't like construction. It's a money drain that I personally don't see the point in past building an altar and some useful home portals. So expect this to be harsh anyway! My personal take on any skill cape is: "Congratulations!!", I don't honestly care which it is. If it's one of the lesser 99s that are being frowned upon these days such as cooking, fletching etc, I'll still congratulate. Similarly if it's a combat cape I'll offer a "well done" comment, and the same goes for buyables. This is where I have a small issue with the article on construction. What motivated this article? Why was it written? To get back at those who deride buyable skills? If so, I'll put it simply that I'd be about as interested in reading a defensive article written by a "master" chef, or indeed watching mould grow. The endless ranting that goes on in forums debating quest cape v skill cape and the like achieves precisely nothing, but I would rather read a good general commentary than a specific article extolling the virtues of one skill 99. The final paragraph was an absolute blessing, and I'm glad tripsis wrote it =D> but the rest of the article left me bored and disinterested, which presumably wasn't the intended effect. I'll be honest, this week was a pretty poor one for the times in my opinion. Make of that what you will, but I didn't enjoy reading 5 articles that were written without a clear objective or any reason why. It's rare that I'll get so bored by the times, but hey, it just happened! Oh and just to take any personal bad feelings out of it, to all writers!!!!

Ok so please explain: Quest cape is better than all combat capes except mage = 5 "inferior" capes It's also better than fletching, cooking and firemaking = 3 more "inferior" capes, total of 8 capes "inferior" to quest cape. The other skill capes are better though. Leaves 16 Capes which are "better" than quest cape. Yet you assert quest cape is better than most skill capes? How can it be better than most when in fact it is "better" than only 1/3 of all the capes around...? :wall: :shame: :ugeek:

I don't really say Quest Cape is better/more respected than any Skill Cape or vice versa, but I do find some flaws in your logic too which compelled me to make a post. You mention Curse. Have you seen how boring it is? If you curse all the way to 99, then you have treated Magic like you would have treated Agility, probably even worse. Which is why each skill demands respect (or most). This is what we come down to anyway - Most of the skills (Slayer being an exception, though slightly) have 3 ways of training them - a) You spend a lot of money, make tons of loss but get the fastest xp/rates. B) You take a slow and moderate way, make no loss/small profit and get decent xp. c) You compile a way to make money with the skill along with option a). [Example] For Magic, option a) has much higher gp/xp ratio than most skills. #1 reason why its respected. Option B) has extremely slow ways to train it. And lets not forget mindnumblessly, finger-painingly boring. #2 reason why its respected. Option c) has very few areas where you actually make money with magic. #3 reason why its respected. I noticed you used the word "except". Couldn't it be said that Slayer is useless except for a few monsters? Or Runecrafting is useless except for a few runes? Range is vital, extremely. Without range you cannot kill or are restricted to very poor methods for making money Kree'arra, Zilyana (melee works good here, faster kills but smaller trips), Tormented Demons, Aviansies, 1 of the kings in DKS and not to mention Range is extremely powerful in PvP. These are the only things people do these days. Wouldn't say a lot of time, but they aren't that easy too. Thanks.. Lord Shalaj Tell the truth, with RS nowadays, whats not hard? yes some are easier than others but they're still "hard" and time consuming. The only difference is that the quest cape continually gets harder to get unless of course you already have it, in which case it is usually not too hard, until a quest comes out with reqs you don't have. but if you were a skiller and a quester, that shouldn't be a problem. i say try to get everything to 75...quests won't bypass that for a while still i hope...don't want it to be too hard when i go for mines. lolz Apologies for quoting you in this as well dpattle but 2 things that are contained within this massive quote that I disagree with: 1) Am i the only one to notice the number of noobs walking around with combat capes who got them through pcing? Every single melee skill can be pced and therefore is not hard at all. The xp rate at pest control is obscene so no, if you choose to pc, melee capes are not anything special. HP included. 2) dpattle this one's for you. Actually it might be better to ask what IS hard? All 99s may be time-consuming, as I suppose is the quest cape, but none of the skills are actually challenging so long as you have at least one finger and a mouse!

Thank you for the compliment! I admit the idea sounds intriguing, but I feel the Times has already put together a talented staff. Sorry yeah, just to clarify: I was complimenting you not lambasting the Times staff. Seriously though, if you ever feel like writing a letter to the editor post, I would be very interested to read it! :-)

Shouldn't you have put stuck instead of unstuck? And not to dispute that playing runescape teaches you the same stuff as high level economic courses, because we all know runescape doesn't, but if you pay enough attention to the runescape economy you can easily learn the BASICS of supply and demand. No. If however you're an American then perhaps that may change things, as it's quite a common colloquialism in England. And I know it's possible to learn the BASICS, but I get really cheesed off by the people that post on runescape forums about how wonderful it is that runescape teaches economics etc. It doesn't and the basic awareness of it, though useful, shouldn't give an argument for playing runescape as a learning experience. It is my opinion that the people who have to justify playing like that are the people that should stop playing and learn such things properly from dilligent study. Disagree if you like, but that's how I view it and how I will continue to view it regardless of any counter-argument. Oh and fyi if you're unsure as to what I mean, google "define: unstuck" and look at the second bullet-point. Quote: "unstuck:thrown into a state of disorganization or incoherence"

Shouldn't you have put stuck instead of unstuck? And not to dispute that playing runescape teaches you the same stuff as high level economic courses, because we all know runescape doesn't, but if you pay enough attention to the runescape economy you can easily learn the BASICS of supply and demand. No. If however you're an American then perhaps that may change things, as it's quite a common colloquialism in England. And I know it's possible to learn the BASICS, but I get really cheesed off by the people that post on runescape forums about how wonderful it is that runescape teaches economics etc. It doesn't and the basic awareness of it, though useful, shouldn't give an argument for playing runescape as a learning experience. It is my opinion that the people who have to justify playing like that are the people that should stop playing and learn such things properly from dilligent study. Disagree if you like, but that's how I view it and how I will continue to view it regardless of any counter-argument.

Personally, I find no point in debating when there is no right or wrong answer and it comes down to a matter of opinion. Nor do I as a rule, but at a basic level that's what debating usually is.

I think at this point it just comes down to a difference in opinion. There is no sole greatest thing in RuneScape because it's different for everybody. As made evident by this thread and countless others in the Debate Club alone, everyone has a very different opinion on almost every aspect of RuneScape. I'm not trying to argue that you can become an economics expert because of RuneScape. But it can teach you basic things like supply and demand and how some items can affect others and the impact that updates can have on the economy, etc. I doubt that older players will learn much from RuneScape, but for younger teens, RuneScape can actually be educational in that minor sense. Which surely is the whole point of the Debate Club? And if you insist then I'll concede some very minor benefits in aspects of runescape, but on the whole I'd rather the guys that need to learn that kind of information learnt it properly from a book instead of acting completely ignorantly until their runescape epiphany!