aspeeder
-
Posts
3091 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by aspeeder
-
-
I find it funny how they have told us this would never happen, and that they have been so hard on gambling in game, this is most definitely gambling, that 50gp is as good as nothing, using a loop hole.. low...
Hold on a second, I just thought of something. I'm not so sure we can bring this up without incurring the wrath of other industries, notably TCG like Magic. I mean think about it, when you buy a pack of cards there's no guarantee that what you'll get will be of equal value to the money spent, they might all be worthless or you could have gotten something worth a lot of money. So in that way wouldn't we be considering something like the Pokemon Card game a form of gambling? Hell, that's more insidious since you can sell the cards for money back quickly and legally.
Yes, TCG's are definitely like gambling, especially with booster packs.
One thing that's interesting to note is even after you purchase your spins, Jamflex still owns the things that you've spun.
At the same time though courts have set the precedent that the players have significant emotional and economic investment in their accounts and have some claim to the items as discussed here. I'd honestly be ok with this if it was only for the silly cosmetic items, but since it not only gives high-level armor, regular exp, and a slim chance of lots of money I just honestly have to stand against them.
-
I find it funny how they have told us this would never happen, and that they have been so hard on gambling in game, this is most definitely gambling, that 50gp is as good as nothing, using a loop hole.. low...
Hold on a second, I just thought of something. I'm not so sure we can bring this up without incurring the wrath of other industries, notably TCG like Magic. I mean think about it, when you buy a pack of cards there's no guarantee that what you'll get will be of equal value to the money spent, they might all be worthless or you could have gotten something worth a lot of money. So in that way wouldn't we be considering something like the Pokemon Card game a form of gambling? Hell, that's more insidious since you can sell the cards for money back quickly and legally.
-
Isn't narrowing the gap between the elitists and the "noobs" a good thing?
It's only replacing the gap in the virtual world with the income gap in the real world, not to mention all the security risks and havoc kids could wreak with the conformation problems.
-
Just deleted my credit card details, I just had to set up a new bank account for other reasons I don't need security problems now. I'll still keep playing, but I may change my mind depending on how much the game changes from here.
-
A Question:
Has Jagex ever removed an update due to the huge amount of criticism?
Wilderness nerf.
You mean the one, where they brought the Wild back after 4 years? I was thinking of a removal after 1 week (or so) of releasing the update.
Other thing I can think of is the token requirements for DG items, but that was a "we already planned this, but thanks for the feedback."
And the reduction of spirit shards from 50 gp to 25 gp, but once again that's just messing with the numbers not a full reversal.
-
The thing I'm disappointed at (Besides the SoF malarkey) is the lack of a quest. That means two dry months, and while the two earlier this year were above mediocre that's still a pretty weak year so far.
-
*sigh*
As long as the wheel has a chance of winning something that is greater than the value the player payed to play in the first place, and a chance that they'll win something of significantly less value than the player payed, that constitutes gambling since there is an inherent risk of loss; not total loss, but loss nonetheless. Honestly what bugs me more than it probably should is this microtransaction shit is that it's now built into the damn UI in the game.
-
"If anyone so much as mentions the word 'parley', I'll have their guts for garters!"
parley
you@@@@@@@
NO U
Looks like we've got a duel on our hands
-
Is it just me or every time you read "Optimus", do you think of Optimus Prime roaming around RS and killing off bots?
Pretty apt since they're developing the Transformers mmo...
-
Sports, particularly team sports. I can follow along fine and I can enjoy going to a game live just because the atmosphere is exciting but I could never be a fan and care about fantasy sports or ESPN.
CoD
Doctor Who, I have enjoyed the few episodes I've seen but man the fans of that show :blink:
Rap, Country, and Bandoms (Band fandoms)
Any of the i products beyond a classic iPod (And apple in general)
Twitter
Getting drunk/high
-
Most of the ones I read have been mentioned (xkcd, Questionable Content, Least I Could Do, LFG, VG Cats, Perry Bible Fellowship, C&H) but I'll toss if a few more:
Dr. McNinja: "In a world where a doctor can also be a ninja, you can expect some things. Little boys with large moustaches, giant lumberjacks, raptor riding banditos, Dracula's moon base... If you like action mixed with comedy and doctors mixed with ninjas, Dr. McNinja is a comic you'll most likely enjoy."
Dominic-Deegan: Oracle for Hire: Pretty decent fantasy comic, the main character is a bit Marty-Sueish in the beginning but it gets better and I really enjoy the world and how much it's fleshed out at times.
Super Effective: Same guy who does VG Cats so the same humor, just a broad riff on the first generation of Pokemon games. Doesn't have too many pages yet so I love going through it every once in a while.
-
I know my gf's younger brother botted fishing at least, not sure if he still does since he got a warning when the bot nuke happened.
-
I never did Bork except to unlock WGS, I think I skipped the circus for about a year and sometimes I'll just forget about herb runs. I do really like the RS toolbar reminders, probably the first useful toolbar I've ever come across.
-
No one else is suspicious of the account that has only one post which was made 2 minutes after the account was created? I'd urge some caution...
-
Hey,
The entry has been edited and even though you're already credited thanks :thumbup:
-
Paranoid: Low
Schizoid: Low
Schizotypal: Moderate
Antisocial: Low
Borderline: Low
Histrionic: Low
Narcissistic: Low
Avoidant: Very High
Dependent: Moderate
Obsessive-Compulsive: High
Yeah that seems about right based on my therapeutic assesments :mellow:
-
90-91 farm from my one big tree rune, 96-98 (1/4 of the way to 99) herb through 1k ovl supplies that I had stocked up, and now I'm around 2.0 and will probably just grind agil for the rest of this. I was pretty unprepared to make my tree run but I got it all set up right in time.
EDIT: Went the last 100k agil exp to 90, did a bit at barb but got bored quickly so I decided to get 81 mine with the remainder of my time so I can start stocking up on red sandstone. All in all probably not the most I could have done but I accomplished what I wanted to.
-
I think it might be an evolutionary thing to discourage cannibalism, since it's going to be against the species' interest to eat each-other.
Going beyond that - I see nothing wrong with consensual cannibalism - not to suggest that I would partake in it.
In the interest of evolution and keeping the species alive, yes, cannibalism is a very undesirable trait.
The mechanics of evolution don't work when the individual thinks of all the others in the species, natural selection occurs when individuals are concerned with propagating their own genetic material as much as possible. As long as cannibalism doesn't limit the ability to produce fertile offspring to an unsustainable degree it doesn't really clash with the mechanics of natural selection. This is also why humans aren't evolving as much, since we are concerned about our species as a whole and our own line.
-
Agreed, I do disagree with you on the contraception debate but that's another thing entirely, it was just the most recent and well-known example I could think of. Hope I didn't derail too badly.
-
Oh, and more on this "my money" fallacy. Once you pay someone the money, it's no longer yours. You know, the same that if I went to get a Chick-Fill-A then "my" money would be used to support anti-gay campaigns because I paid my money to someone else. I have no say in what happens to money I once owned other than deciding where to spend it, that's why you get discounts on your income taxes by giving to charity. Think about this, the Catholic church is so pissed that it's going to be paying for women's contraception (Even though at the same time it's paying for Erectile Dysfunction pills, go figure), but they aren't making any damn fuss about the fact that the wages they pay employees might to towards contraception, or sex toys, or gay porn, or whatever else they might find offensive; that's because it's not their damn money anymore.
Just a note on this: ED pills aren't against any Catholic moral as they aren't contraception. They're a medical treatment, and that's why there's no outrage.
I know that wasn't the main point of your post, I just thought I'd clear it up.
I get that, I was more worried about the implication of "paying someone to have sex" than with Catholic dogma in this case, since I'm pretty sure no one would argue against the fact that ED pills are largely used to help with intercourse/masturbation and they are covered by insurance.
-
All this really is just an ill of socialism. But don't worry, I'm greedy, mean and evil for wanting to keep more of what I earn. I'm part of the 48% of Americans that actually pay income tax.
I call bullshit on this statistic. The "only x% of americans pay income tax, the rest are just lazy/illegals/leeches" argument is flawed and deceitful. Everyone who's not tax dodging, and that's a large majority of americans, is paying income taxes. It just so happens that the way our system is set up that if they make below a certain threshold that what they payed gets refunded. So everyone does pay income taxes, your bullshit statistic is just saying that 48% of americans (If that's actually the case, you have no citation) actually make enough money so that they don't have to get refunded to get by.
Sorry, I got my statistic wrong. It is somewhere between 48.5% and 51% that pay no income taxes. My bad.
http://nation.foxnews.com/taxes/2012/02/22/percentage-americans-who-pay-no-income-tax-hits-495
Also, 30% of Americans make money under the tax system, i.e. get more in rebates than they withhold.
Well congratulations on actually getting your facts right, however you still ignored the actual point of my argument that this whole argument is disingenuous. ~50% of Americans don't have their income taxes refunded because they make enough damn money that they can get by comfortably without that rebate. All Americans who aren't breaking the law do pay into the system, just some of them are in a bad enough situation that they get some back.
As I posted in another thread, I think it's a crime that most people considered "poor" in America are very rich compared to the majority of the world. You pay for cable every month? Why am I paying for your food then?
Seriously? Cable costs like what, 30-50 dollars a month? According to this that's maybe enough money to feed a single adult female for a week on a "thrifty" (Most likely nutritionally deficient) diet. And don't even get me started on paying for internet, any sort of job outside of basic service industry jobs that don't pay anywhere close to a living wage damn near require a decent internet connection. And I'm damn proud that the poor (Which, need I remind you is a RELATIVE term that varies from society to society) in America are better off than the poor in Uzbekistan, or the Congo, or Vietnam. If you seriously expect me to sit by and let the lowest tier of our society fall into that sort of rut while corporations are having some of the most profitable quarters in our nation's history then you are sadly mistaken.
What you can't seem to grasp is when I say that the federal government has no role in welfare, I'm not saying there shouldn't be welfare. What I know right now is that the federal government does a piss poor job in managing money, and welfare should be left up to states, counties, cities, towns and communities. I'm also advocating for charity. I want to know who my money is going to, and let me be the judge if someone is able to work or not. Why do we need a central government to collect and redistribute money?
Sorry, but charities do not cut it. Yes they are a good and vital part of our society, but because the organizations can set up the rules as to who gets the charity and who doesn't it leaves many citizens still vulnerable. The problem is that many who are ostracized from society at large: trans people, gay homeless youth, religious minorities, etc. are usually the ones most likely to be deemed unworthy by the charities since so many of them are run by religious organizations. Also, good luck in tracking down the thousands of people on welfare in your state alone (Which, I might add, has some of the most stringent welfare criteria) by yourself just to find whether you deem them worthy of basic needs. I'm sorry, but one person's moral code should not be the criterion for another person's well being. Also your whole "federal government doesn't do it well" is just some old states rights arguments,
clears up quite well.Oh, and more on this "my money" fallacy. Once you pay someone the money, it's no longer yours. You know, the same that if I went to get a Chick-Fill-A then "my" money would be used to support anti-gay campaigns because I paid my money to someone else. I have no say in what happens to money I once owned other than deciding where to spend it, that's why you get discounts on your income taxes by giving to charity. Think about this, the Catholic church is so pissed that it's going to be paying for women's contraception (Even though at the same time it's paying for Erectile Dysfunction pills, go figure), but they aren't making any damn fuss about the fact that the wages they pay employees might to towards contraception, or sex toys, or gay porn, or whatever else they might find offensive; that's because it's not their damn money anymore.
-
All this really is just an ill of socialism. But don't worry, I'm greedy, mean and evil for wanting to keep more of what I earn. I'm part of the 48% of Americans that actually pay income tax.
I call bullshit on this statistic. The "only x% of americans pay income tax, the rest are just lazy/illegals/leeches" argument is flawed and deceitful. Everyone who's not tax dodging, and that's a large majority of americans, is paying income taxes. It just so happens that the way our system is set up that if they make below a certain threshold that what they payed gets refunded. So everyone does pay income taxes, your bullshit statistic is just saying that 48% of americans (If that's actually the case, you have no citation) actually make enough money so that they don't have to get refunded to get by.
As I posted in another thread, I think it's a crime that most people considered "poor" in America are very rich compared to the majority of the world. You pay for cable every month? Why am I paying for your food then?
Seriously? Cable costs like what, 30-50 dollars a month? According to this that's maybe enough money to feed a single adult female for a week on a "thrifty" (Most likely nutritionally deficient) diet. And don't even get me started on paying for internet, any sort of job outside of basic service industry jobs that don't pay anywhere close to a living wage damn near require a decent internet connection. And I'm damn proud that the poor (Which, need I remind you is a RELATIVE term that varies from society to society) in America are better off than the poor in Uzbekistan, or the Congo, or Vietnam. If you seriously expect me to sit by and let the lowest tier of our society fall into that sort of rut while corporations are having some of the most profitable quarters in our nation's history then you are sadly mistaken.
-
You can make that argument for anything though. The majority of the population tends to think studying specific things that aren't of much interest to them is a waste of time; it's the specialists in every field who go above and beyond to analyze the details.
I suppose that's true, it's just one of the most often used arguments against specific study and its use has been empirically shown to be negative. Faith takes the argument one step beyond "I doubt that this could be useful" to "I doubt this to be useful and the lack of its importance in the framework in this book I hold in high regard further cements my preconceptions." I've seen this manifested as "The two most important things that should be taught, guns and the bible, are not in public schools." And no, that's not a straw-man, I have seen advertisements and bumper stickers saying that almost verbatim; these people exist in my country.
-
Doesn't matter if you like it. We all do it. Religion comes from humans, so all the assumptions are of human origin anyway. I'll use Evolution as an example. You don't need religion to assume that humans have always been humans. It's actually the logical conclusion unless your either 100,000 years old, someone who studies bacteria, or someone who studies archaeology and has found the right evidence. Even when Evolution is working as fast as it can (and it can work quite fast, such as African Elephants being born noticeably more often tuskless as a result of poaching), its probably going to be a few lifetimes before you can really notice it. It is unobservable unless you have been alive for way to long, you study something that reproduces incredibly fast (such as bacteria), or you have access to fossil records. Religions (plural - since I think this applies to pretty much every religion ever) assume that the creator made us as is because for thousands of years, there was no way to observe otherwise.
At this point I should probably mention that I believe the works that make up the Bible were all written by humans, not God.
You didn't need to believe in anything to come to the logical conclusion that humans had always been humans, and always would be humans.
As for a curiosity stopper...for some people I suppose its possible, but only for those who need to know everything about the world (and to think you know even close to that would require a terribly small imagination anyway I think). I have a drive to know how things work, be it a mouse climbing something (they have fantastic grip), that camera that broke and I can finally take it apart, or how skates move so easily on ice. My curiosity and drive to know things is greater than anyone else I know.
When I say it answers questions that science can't, don't make the mistake of thinking that I am filling in blanks like the grand unifaction theory with religion. I don't know how to quantify what I mean, and its a very individual thing anyway. Some people look to religion to tell them how to live running the gambit from 'be kind and forgiving' to 'these are the absolute rules you live by', others to tell them what the meaning of life is. I guess it depends on what the questions are.
I'd actually agree with Assume on this one, but not because "I don't like it" but because as you pointed out it can have noticeable harms. I suppose my biggest problem with it being a creativity stopper isn't stopping those with a drive to learn, discover, and explain (Many Enlightenment scientists thought they were doing God justice by exploring the greatness of His works) but rather giving an easy hand-wave to those who aren't as inquisitive and thus dismiss a valid observation or criticism for as long as the proposition can be ignored. As long as mainstream religious people can look at people trying to explore or explain seemingly mundane things and say "This is heretical" or "What you're doing isn't worthwhile, everything's explained here" or can suppress their work from being accepted then religion will continue to be a hamper on the advancement of our understanding of the universe.
Also, just as a side note, evolution can be observable within a single generation. I saw a video in my Fundamentals of Evolution and Genetics class where a wife/husband team of scientists observed a group of birds in the Galapagos and as the weather conditions changed beak sizes either increased or decreased an average of 3-4% if the changes were extreme enough. That is an observable and predictable change, but not one a layperson would examine; and if it weren't for scientists most people would think that observing such things would be a waste of time.
Squeal of Fortune + Buyable Spins
in General Discussion
Posted
I was referring more to just opening the packs rather than playing the actual game itself. For example, I bought an old pack of Zendikar a few days ago for 3.99 and I get Scalding Tarns which is worth ~12 dollars, then I bought another one and I get a crappy rare worth .50 cents. In both cases I "won" something just like there is no "losing spot" on the wheel but there's clearly and element of luck and pseudo gambling to both. I'm just applying the logic we're creating here to the corporate world at large since a legal precedent will be set for what is and isn't gambling if the things we want come to fruition.