Assume Nothing

Banned for flattery.

I understand that to look formal, one should wear a fitting suit. I don't quite know what's good for casual wear. Are jeans + tshirt generally acceptable? On a slightly unrelated note, I like this design:

What exactly are you doing on the internet? I've always been against the notion that being on the internet should be equated to being anti/un-productive, since your productivity is dependent on what you're doing at the time. If you're doing research, or having a discussion in order to draw some ideas for assignments, then I'd say that's sufficiently productive to stay on. I'd even argue that sometimes, playing a game like RuneScape could be considered productive in a non literal sense, since one requires adequate rest and leisure time to operate at one's potential. I spend a lot of my time initiating/participating in discussions, personally. On a more relevant note - I've almost completed one of my ICT assignments. I really regret taking this course - it's eternally frustrating.

Banned for making the presumption that using walkthroughs is somehow less deserving than not using them.

It's funny - my detractors often tend to be highly irate like yourself. I don't understand the point of the unnecessary vitriol and animosity - for what cause? I don't see how it benefits either parties by 'cursing [one] out' [sic] as you say. Is it that difficult to compose an argument on the internet without resorting to such petty fallacies? I'd like to see you quote me where I was allegedly 'arrogant', if you're even using the correct definition. Indeed, you have an entitlement to hold and express your opinion, but by no means does that substantiate it into something valid or meaningful. Are you suggesting that the only qualifiers to be the 'best article ever' would be simply to talk about something seldomly discussed? EDIT - I don't see why criticism should be suppressed. Why shouldn't I respond to your posts/remarks? Do remember that your opinion is rather meaningless unless you support it with argument/evidence. If your remark that "it was the greatest Times article that was ever written," were presented in a way that clearly suggested that you only speak for yourself, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Incognito. Utilize it.

You're literally thinking too much. I know when I go to sleep, I never manage to sleep at the correct time because I simply want to discuss things, which requires a considerable amount of thought. Your room has to be clean, sufficiently warm/cool, light/dark (depending on your habit - it's impossible for some people to sleep in the dark unless extremely tired), etc. Do you ever go hungry when you sleep? That's a contributing factor too.

IP bans are good in theory, but the logistics of making it successful is overwhelmingly difficult. It's simply too easy to evade the proposed system. How about giving players a tool to omit their messages (beyond ignore list, perhaps an auto-pruning list), or an incentive to comply with the rules - thus making it irrational to solicitate/spam/rwt on RuneScape? I think we still haven't reached the core of the problem - we're merely tackling the symptoms of a mismanaged RuneScape. It'll be a fruitless cause.

Am I misidentifying the person, or is this the correct girl?

I claim it is the best article written because, in my opinion not yours, it tells of a subject that has rarely been brought up in the relatively innocent Times publication. I thought it should have been featured instead of the defense one because the defense one has been discussed to no end on RSOF, in game, irc channels, etc. You don't hear about solicitation to minors, especially not to 11 year old girls, in a video game. I'm not saying the defense one wasn't well written, because it was. But the third article had first hand information, drew at emotions, had a source backing some claims, and was never written about. It's subjectively true, so you should identify it as such. I don't see the necessity for the unprecedented ridicule and animosity of the pre-edited post. In addition to that, your pre-edited allegations are completely unsubstantiated, so they hold no weight at all. Heck - even if it's given that they're true, they fail to discredit my points. It's merely committing the ad-hominem fallacy, which is laughable in all honesty. I don't agree that drawing at emotions is considered good argumentation - it's flawed because it falsely persuades readers on the basis of evoking an emotional response as opposed to a rational response.

Do tell us more. I'm having some annoyances with eBay too.

0:56 I lol'd

Do share.

I'd politely do a long, ridiculing rant if that happened to me.

Please, don't project your ideals as though it was a group consensus. Why do you personally dislike the article about defense? Was it too elaborate, or not elaborate enough? Did it miss a key point or two? Does it happen to be too repetitive? Could it be an article too verbose to be easily understood? Did it reiterate what others have said without introducing a new idea? Is the article too trivial, or too serious? You see, by stating that you dislike something offers nothing to help the author improve. That's why your remark regarding the 'useless article about defense' holds no weight, thus it's merely an unsubstantiated claim. It's meaningless in that it serves no purpose. How did you get that from his post? The guy just called the article "useless", which his opinion, I disagree with it but he is entitled to it. Sure its not constructive, but lets not bash the guy before he has a chance to explain. Maybe he just feels that the other article was much much better, in which case I agree with him. It certainly discussed a topic that some may consider "taboo", it probably came across as informative to some as well, few people know how bad the situation in World 1 is. It depends how you'd define bashing. If critique is considered bashing, then I'd argue that it's a meaningless term - it fails to mark the distinction between constructive feedback and criticism that lacks purpose. I think you've misidentified the inference in my post - I was referring to the 'this is the best article ever written'. It's written as though it's objectively true, which it obviously isn't. Nor is it agreed via a sufficiently large group consensus. Oh, and even if he is entitled to critique articles, it doesn't make it any more valid. The entitlement has no relevance to the truth value of the claim(s).

World 1 is most definitely a disproportionate example of any identified user traits.

You mean, like this? Banned for the lack of moral discussion.

Banned for succumbing to a pitfall.

I don't see any problem with the notion of change. Ultimately, a review of something will almost always find faults, so there'll almost always be suggestions at some level. I don't think there'll be much interest, or purpose in constantly expressing satisfaction. That's the role of the community - the role of the EP is more to offer an alternate viewpoint or perspective.

Please, don't project your ideals as though it was a group consensus. Why do you personally dislike the article about defense? Was it too elaborate, or not elaborate enough? Did it miss a key point or two? Does it happen to be too repetitive? Could it be an article too verbose to be easily understood? Did it reiterate what others have said without introducing a new idea? Is the article too trivial, or too serious? You see, by stating that you dislike something offers nothing to help the author improve. That's why your remark regarding the 'useless article about defense' holds no weight, thus it's merely an unsubstantiated claim. It's meaningless in that it serves no purpose.

Just maybe... you might want to consider doing a co-op article if that's the case?

I'd contend with that notion. If people were forced to play old RuneScape again, they'd probably be discontent with it. I think it's not the old RS that we've enjoyed - it's the nostalgia that came along with it.

I think that used to be problematic for me. It has really dwindled in activity though.

I'm pretty sure it's legitimate in terms of payout, but the 'jobs' they require people to do seem highly shady at best. It's literally doing mundane stuff for rates that range from $.1 to $5.

I've spent part of today browsing dubious 'make money online... free!' schemes. It seems very legitimate :lol: