Assume Nothing

You've misrepresented my position. Congratulations.

The questions in debate: 'Should dicing be prohibited' Answer: Yes Premise: It allows for scamming, and it's addictive (assumed to be a bad thing, which I don't disagree with) Counterpoint: 'It may be ineffective' Premise: 'It doesn't address the issue at hand, and it's too easy to circumvent' I'm not seeing the problem here. The issues at hand doesn't lie within the fact that it's a form of gambling. It's the fact that is has disputable potential for scamming and potential for developing an unhealthy addiction. I don't think prohibition would reduce the scamming, because if it were the naive who were 'suckered in', then making it a rule wouldn't be effective in reducing the unhealthy aspects of participation in the first place. The inference drawn about my claim that there may be unintended consequences is not representative of my position - I'm simply illustrating why there may be a problem with the implementation of the proposal, it's not the sole reason that I defend my position. I think there's better ways of handling these issues, such as the provision of a legal structure that allows players to partake in escrow forms of gambling (therefore can't be scammed), and to provide support for those who need help with understanding and overcoming a gambling addiction. I believe it's stronger than your proposal because it doesn't allow the emergence of black-market gambling (irc), address the issue of the non-treatment of addiction victims. Please tell me though; Why prohibition, if there's a better alternative? If it's not better, then I'd see your point.

I don't think you've interpreted my point correctly. I'm suggesting that prohibiting player gambling is likely to be ineffective in reducing gambling as the fear of punishment is simply outweighed by the potential reward (it's a calculated risk). I'm suggesting that the enforcability of the rule would be moot. I'm not suggesting that gambling isn't addictive - it is addictive, but I feel the slippery slope argument pops up when it's suggested that gambling gold pieces on RuneScape would lead to gambling addictions in real life to be a little far-fetched. It's not comparable to real gambling (online or otherwise) on the basis of the distinction in purpose - gambling on RuneScape is for leisure, whereas gambling in real life is for the potential to accumulate real winnings to pay rent, buy things, etc. (leisure takes a significantly smaller role here) I don't think it's a fair point to suggest that we're (or in this case, I'm) trying to legitimize the activity, it's simply arguing against a position that seems irrational and potentially more harmful than beneficial (law of unintended consequences).

I'm a psychology major. I told him that and there was like a 5 minute awkward silence and he was like - "There is no demand for jobs of that nature" Like I could do them anyway. I don't even have my BA yet. I think you may have misinterpreted an objective statement with a snide remark. It's pretty factual that there's very few jobs in the field of psychology, as it's such a specialist one that may be currently saturated.

I was referring to legitimate players who spammed. I just don't think there's any real benefit in the prohibition of dicing-esque games, and if anything - it limits consumer choice and harms those who decide to partake in the more shady, unregulated forms of dicing because of the imposed regulations.

It sounds like an international North Korea bill.

The point was; How effective was that rule?

EDIT: I don't think I made much sense. Feel free to delete this, mods. I may edit something useful in later though.

Because of box staking and rat pits, and arguably conquest too. They could make it so that gambling/betting/wagering/etc... are against the rules outside of areas that have the mechanics already built into the game specifically for that purpose. For what cause? I honestly don't think these hot-fixes would be effective. It'll be like an attempt to stop spamming by making it against the rules.

I spent 30 minutes pressing replay on this. I imagine this is how some guys come across to be. Disclaimer: It may or may not be safe for work/school

There needs to be data in support of that assertion to be compelling. It's an assumption too strong to make any meaningful argument, since other variables are in play here.

... I like the vicious cycle. >(better) recognize the symptoms of a verbal impairment >get (more) anxious about the verbal impairment >acquires higher awareness of symptoms gained >verbal impairment worsens >go back to step 2

I realised that drug cocktails can be extremely dangerous. It only took one drink of a mixer, in addition to my flu/cold medication to cause a sudden increase in pulse rate (at least double, which could be felt clearly as though there has been an adrenaline surge, despite absence of activity) and drowsiness. I'm thankful I'm not dead. I should consult a pharmacist before taking silly mixtures next time...

It's what happens after reading tvtropes for a while. It's damn addicting though.

I like the unequivocal explanation of the anti-dicing agenda. I agree on several points, but I'll present some counter-arguments first: If the argument against dicing is purely against the notion that it disrupts the generally positive vibe that RuneScape supposedly has, then the problem in itself isn't infact the activity of dicing; it's the associated disruption caused. I do agree that dicers can often cause the said disruption, either in the form of spam-esque messages, or initiating a persistent dispute between the sides on the controversial stance. I think the issues with dicing/gambling activities arises from the playerbase reaction towards the relevant decisions - it's very unpopular because it's depicted as an activity where dicers/hosts can 'unfairly' make money very quickly, whereas the others have to expend a substantial amount of time in order to earn the same amount. I'd contend with the notion that dicing is akin to scamming/other deceitful activities though; gambling in itself is a choice whereby consenting individuals risk their items/money on an outcome that's very difficult to predict. It's important to note that the gambler has no obligation to gamble, and they're not misled about the outcome ratios/payments. However, it can be agreed that they are highly incentivized by the idea that they may win a significant amount of money in the short term, hence it persuades them to partake in it. I don't see how the benefits of prohibition outweighs the drawbacks though.

From the looks of things, you're conflating "legality" with "morality". To some extent, gambling online may be illegal, but the larger problem is one of morality. I'd also like to point out that we've had the issue (or at least the hint of an issue) of gambling addiction and RuneScape for as long as I can remember. This issue had solely to do with the Duel Arena (surprise, surprise). Now, by your own posit, the Duel Arena would have been closed down and totally dismantled due to the very real problems of gambling staking addicts between 2004-2007. Jagex doesn't want to support a system in which RS skills aren't involved with the PRNG, and suggesting that such a system be implemented is only going to make this matter much bigger than it actually is. It's been said before, but it's worth repeating - just make dicing-like activities a bannable offense, and quit this ambiguous "against the spirit of the game" crap. There are enough people left in the community that will challenge this phrase until it is explicitly outlawed, much like luring was. Duel arena is not really gambling, as it is "hidden" enough to not be considered gambling - you're placing money and hoping you can OUTSKILL the opponent by having better stats / equipment, or using the items in a better manner. It has be shown time and again that even showing gambling to one who used to be addicted can easily trigger the addiction again. It doesn't mind the environment, if someone is addicted he is addicted. gam·ble (gmbl) v. gam·bled, gam·bling, gam·bles v.intr. 1. a. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest. b. To play a game of chance for stakes. 2. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit. 3. To engage in reckless or hazardous behavior: You are gambling with your health by continuing to smoke. v.tr. 1. To put up as a stake in gambling; wager. 2. To expose to hazard; risk: gambled their lives in a dangerous rescue mission. n. 1. A bet, wager, or other gambling venture. 2. An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk: I took a gamble that stock prices would rise. Your very definitions of gambling seems to be flawed.

The entire premise of your argument is on the assertion that gambling addictions on RuneScape is likely to lead towards gambling addictions in real life? I'd say that's a rather strong assertion that lacks evidence or citations to justify. I'll assume that your argument operates on speculation, which an alternative theory could explain just as well; those who become addicted gamblers on the game are already predisposed of the symptom, and it only highlights it earlier in their lives. If they seek therapy earlier by doing so, it may actually benefit them in later life. In order to make the distinction between who's right, we need evidence. If you took the liberty to read my post, you'd realise that I advocate a regulated atmosphere. I was using the term 'legalisation' synonymously with 'acceptance'. I'm not sure where you want to go with this discussion though.

Gambling is defined to exist where a monetary risk occurs in exchange for the potential to win an amount of money. It's not as arbitrary as you portray it to be. I don't see why people should insist gambling shouldn't be regulated; it's by no means that at the same note, we're suggesting that JaGex endorses it also. It's a poor assumption to assert that it's our position. I've personally suggested the permitting of certain gambling-esque activities as it addresses the core issues more directly, as opposed to responding reactively, which is generally futile and negative consumer welfare occurs (the consumer is harmed, e.g. when the irc versions of 'dicing' were manipulated to be strongly towards the host's favour) If you're wondering why a proposed legalisation would alleviate the issues, then the answer is simple; it's not the enforcement of the policies that has a significant effect on mitigating issues with gambling - it's the fact that legal structures crush the market for illegal operations to exist, as profits would evaporate with demand for the service being stifled, thus the incentive to host is gone. It's why I oppose the superficial, ineffective stance that JaGex currently has. It's frustrating to see a company unable to deal with the simplistic issue like this - it doesn't take an economics degree to understand this fundamental notion. I'm a little tired so if I'm completely incoherent, please tell me.

Forum Games: Last One to Post Wins. Personally, I would never consider myself an alpha. I don't know what to consider myself. :P I'd say you're an average liberal Catholic Christian. You don't seem very dominant, but can assert enough control that you don't get trodden on. I may be wrong.

I don't object to the notion that parties are a time for leisure. I do object to those who do it regularly, i.e. to binge drink on a weekly basis.

I'd say that my frustratingly persistent and irritating cough is rather... annoying.

We've told you time and time again - go take some responsibility, and do something about it. I know that if I knew someone as fretful/querulous as yourself, I'd be pretty annoyed too - and this is coming from a male. Your desperation doesn't help your cause in any way, shape, or form. It may be a good idea to reflect upon your character faults, and observe how you could go about progressing with it. It takes honest introspection. Your mind is the ultimate obstacle. We're all imperfect, we all suffer - but it's only the truly dedicated that go through life without being taken down, by progressing and overcoming the obstacles they encounter along the way. On topic: I've spent a majority of my day at school, so I have nothing particularly enlightening to share here. I've spent a significant time watching documentary-esque videos on youtube, though. EDIT @My_Eggs: I told you so.

Those are probably scam emails, they aren't actually from jagex. Just to serve as an FYI; tip.it's emails served as a directory for mailing lists when it was compromised. Did you read what was said in the offenses, Army?

Isn't this basically what happens when you wager in the Duel Arena? ie: person 'a' and person 'b' offer their wagers, the items are removed from their inventories and to the winner go the spoils. Indeed. It's not provided in the context of non player influenced 'gambling', hence the associated issues arising. In short, it effectively manages the deceptive activities of participation in these games, without constantly adjusting content on the basis of attempting to prevent emergent gameplay. I have yet to see any of these hot-fixes become effective in the long term.

You're an adolescent male yourself, so you should understand how other people within your age range would respond with your girlfriend. I'd suggest against a militant stance, and instead, to act with composure. It may be a good idea to assess and understand the situation at hand, and to assert control over the situation as opposed to being reactive towards it. I've always viewed assignment blame as a fruitless cause; the implied retribution doesn't help alleviate any issues, and if anything; it exacerbates it. Question legitimately how you feel about your relationship. If you're struggling, perhaps question why there's an issue. Is she expecting something more from you? Is the situation indeed as you've described, or was it misconstrued/misinterpreted? I can quite easily assert that a platonic relationship with a hint of flirting could easily be misunderstood to be something much worse, and in your situation, it may be true. If she is cheating, then break the emotional bond before you break the relationship. It's inevitable that someone will suffer from heartbreak and regret in those scenarios; don't let it be you. It's your decision in the end - make sure it's a good one. Please don't become that guy who harasses their ex-significant other due to a misunderstanding, though.