Assume Nothing

Banned for not eating pistachios.

Banned for pedantry. Oh, and for being a harpy Doctor.

Banned for whipping your tail back and forth.

Banned for failing to ban the previous user.

I refuse to vote until there's more options - an alternative to the system. If JaGex's grand exchange databases can use filters, why can't the highscores? It should be able to differentiate inactives and actives, members and free to players. It seems like the more logical step to take, or to create an additional highscores table without interfering with the current one.

Dicing was hardly ruining the game, get off your high horse. It was more honest than armor trimming or any other sort of trust trade scam, and those hardly affecting the game. Dicing was the second largest supplier of RWT gold, after botting. It also created an annoying community of 'elite' dicers who acted like they owned the GE. Since we're both operating on speculation, we can't be certain what created most RWT gold. I'd argue that staking is used more frequently for RWT activities, as people trust the system with more risk as no one 'holds' the money. The community problem is more of a player attitude problem that's likely to have occurred by other means anyway - by no means the fault of the concept of dicing itself.

Scamming, by definition, entails deception - legitimate hosting itself does not involve deception as it's a consensual risk that users take, so no it's not scamming. Their accumulated wealth isn't simply stored in the form of gold pieces either - many hosts expend on goods like you and I. The economic arguments seem rather weak for this type of emergent gameplay, except for the effects of RWTing using the dice. I personally don't see much of a morality issue with dicing - the issue itself is the scamming. If that's all JaGex wants to resolve, then inform players - the problem is information failure, not dicing itself. Bah, JaGex has initiated some rather unnecessary clamour. *sigh*

The premise of the entire game is based around an RNG - the concept of gambling for money will emerge again, it'll take a little time but it's unlikely not to. What's wrong with dicing again?

The problem with an npc would be the fact that it'll cause market distortions - on the contrary, dicing in itself is a zerosum game - wealth is not created nor destroyed, simply redistributed. It may also be questionable as JaGex may not want to endorse gambling, only tolerate it, as there are strong psychologically addictive effects of gambling. It's hard to combat the problem at the very core without introducing new problems. Hmmph.

That's exactly my point. I'd say it's more likely that this effort is in fact counterproductive for their cause.

It's an acknowledged risk - the same risk applies to losing 100m too. The only thing that'll change would be the fact that people won't use dices anymore, they'd switch to skulls. Emergent gameplay can't be killed this easily. A real solution would be to regulate it, or provide information to consumers.

There's a lot of misconceptions about dicing. The removal of dices itself is effectively prohibition, and it's effectiveness will be very minimal if not completely null/counterproductive - the very concept of slightly favourable odds towards the host (the incentive of hosting) to allow betters to double their wager will not disappear, since it's emergent game-play. In fact, I'd argue that it would raise scamming rates as the incentive to be legitimate has gone - with the skullball's 'Yes/No' system, there's no long-term benefit for the host, so the 'cost' of scamming won't even exist - it'll be the rational thing to do, despite moral qualms. A more effective 'solution' would be to inform users about the odds of winning, and the psychological addiction that comes along with gambling. Scams do and will always occur - that's for sure, but it's far easier to regulate within a trusted establishment - it's all about the incentive.

Political parties is a good place to start if you want irritation. A great example would be BNP's policies on immigration:

Wait, has the old rate of 1/30 returned now?

Wait, what was their reasoning for removal of dicing? I understand why they would want to remove the associated scamming, but legitimate hosting doesn't harm anybody - why remove it?

12:00 am and I cannot sleep. I think I am unable to fall asleep primarily due the very thing (or person) I've been ranting on about for awhile. I hate this too.

Amusingly, not only is referring to a quote containing one rhetorical device as "loaded with rhetoric" itself an example of hyperbolic rhetoric, but you're also arguing rhetorically by saying you don't like the quote due it containing a rhetorical device. That equates to a rhetorical slur on both the quote and a slur on rhetoric itself, so that your short quote contains 3 instances of rhetoric even as it denounces it. A disparity that I'm sure all those on this forum with a truly skeptical bent will keep in mind. I was meaning to say that the article was loaded with rhetoric, rather than the small quote - I should've taken that into account when pasting the quote. Then again, 'exaggeration/hyperbole' is open for debate in this context. I don't quite see your second point though, care to enlighten me? Well I don't want to simply repeat myself. Let's try to strip the rhetoric from your first clause, and leave only the relevant arguments. "I don't like this quote either, it's loaded with rhetoric" First we change it to "I don't like this quote either, it contains one rhetorical device." to remove the part you agree with above. Then, to strip the slurs out, we simply remove your unsupported slur of rhetoric, leaving us with "It contains one rhetorical device." (Technically it's unclear which is the primary and which is the secondary assertion here, but you've clearly rhetorically slurred both the quote and the idea of rhetoric itself. Compare to "I don't like Steve, he's a runescape player. I've clearly slurred both Steve and players of runescape with that rhetorical statement.) Now the clause is redundant, as your clause following the quote doesn't just tell us it contains one rhetorical device, but also names it specifically. So we can shrink your clause down to " ". That is to say, stripped of rhetoric its informational content becomes zero bits of information. So we see that your statement condemning rhetoric was itself purely rhetoric. Are you sufficiently enlightened yet? Whoa whoa, slow down. How did we jump from "It contains one rhetoric device" to "", in layman's terms? Do note that as I've explained earlier, it ought to have been written as 'I don't like the article, as it's loaded with rhetoric devices', which should be taken into account for the analysis of my analysis. EDIT - Actually, the primary assertion were the first part, which implied that it's undesirable to have such a level of rhetoric in an article. I do see how my error in language affected the implications though. How would you suggest that idea should be written in order to be articulate and precise? On topic; Under-Served seems like an interesting twist to the standard article. Is it possible to argue that by updating f2p, there comes a point where players are no longer incentivised to buy membership in the first place (since they are already content with what they've got), instead of the implied idea of subtly allowing hooked players to eventually purchase membership?

Amusingly, not only is referring to a quote containing one rhetorical device as "loaded with rhetoric" itself an example of hyperbolic rhetoric, but you're also arguing rhetorically by saying you don't like the quote due it containing a rhetorical device. That equates to a rhetorical slur on both the quote and a slur on rhetoric itself, so that your short quote contains 3 instances of rhetoric even as it denounces it. A disparity that I'm sure all those on this forum with a truly skeptical bent will keep in mind. I was meaning to say that the article was loaded with rhetoric, rather than the small quote - I should've taken that into account when pasting the quote. Then again, 'exaggeration/hyperbole' is open for debate in this context. I don't quite see your second point though, care to enlighten me?

It's very rare that I disagree so much with an article. There's a lot of confusion between cause and effect here. To explain the figures pertaining to addiction - perhaps the audience group is simply more predisposed to these symptoms anyways, so whatever way you present them, it'll be skewed due to addictive personalities of teenagers. This article makes far too many assumptions too - it assumes that it's not the player's choice to play, but the fault of an addiction. I don't like this quote either, it's loaded with rhetoric - "[...] the worst of human conditions will set in: wondering what might have been." [sic] It's self explanatory why that's hyperbole...

What is the standard price for your floors? It may be a good investment for stakers.

If aborting a fetus is a crime itself, ofcourse crime rates go up. It would occur by definition. For abortion advocates - would you be supportive of your parents aborting you, had they faced the dilemma in the past?

People's insistence of using logical fallacies, and the failure to recognize it.

Banned for high expectations.

Try looking on page 2-3. I see. He said he "doesn't support it" though, I wonder what that means exactly. I would imagine that would mean tolerance without endorsement.

Banned for heckling Jimmy Carr