Crocefisso

The majority of NHS staff are bureaucrats and administrators who don't exactly save lives. Granted, the service needs these people, but when they outweight doctors and nurses, that's when alarm bells about exactly how the NHS is run should be ringing.

You're wrong. Well then again, you are the person who said, "Dungeoneering is featureless; it is lost between the puzzle-like elements of quests and combat, with cooperative benefits of doing so resembling boss monster encounters. It belongs to no category and is a characterless feature added only to satiate demanding, shallow customers." I suppose substantial customers miss the old randoms? Dungoneering is featureless but dangerous randoms are true content. Explain this. Edit: @Kaida23, bots never used to have problems with randoms and if they were reinstated they still wouldn't. Read both articles. They discuss totally different aspects of the game and there is absolutely no contradiction between the two. One says that a few skills aren't as good as others, the other points out that dangerous random events made all skills in general a little more exciting. If you see a link, please do illuminate me. Randoms do a little, but I do admit that it's very little in the article. The main advantage of them is the fun that lies behind the diversion.

I doubt South Sudan will contribute much, being an impoverished and small country. Then again, that wasn't really the point of their independence.

This is not good. Private equity firms and most creative industries - incl video games - do not bode well. It explains a lot of the recent stuff that's gone on. This is exactly the effect that private equity investment has on video games, something which is even more pronounced in products like MMOs which have to be constantly changing for the better. The fact that you didn't read the article shows in your lazy diatribes. If you'd continued reading, then you'd be aware of the fact that I acknowledge that Jagex need an income, but also point out the fact that just heaping in more content is not a realistic way of keeping the game itself interesting for a great many people. Read the article before you post next time.

You're wrong.

Just finished watching "Once Upon a Time in the West". They don't make westerns like they did in the 60s.

I'm not sure why people don't answer this question, I've got a pretty clear idea; The Big Society is the concept that everyone should be consciously considering and doing things that help the local community in general, instead of doing everything according to pure self-interest. It's a mindset. Extreme examples are participating in volunteer projects to renovate dilapidated parks, removing unwanted graffiti or help run a public event, but it also includes smaller things like keeping hold of litter until you find a bin, being polite to people in public, having a tidy front garden, going to that local shop on the corner instead of going to a supermarket. Simply being a nice decent member of society, really. So simply ethos which every "decent" person should already have in them? That's pretty ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? Because the although concept is nice, it's pretty stupid to have as a government policy. I fully agree with cutting the deficit, but it can't go hand in hand with the Big Society because charities are being temporarily hindered by the cuts and many people lack the means to volunteer in the current climate. Once the deficit has been significantly reduced, then things like the Big Society and smaller government can actually be put into practice. Currently, the role of the central government is becoming larger - and rightly so when it has a nationwide deficit to deal with -, and it only makes sense to cut first and devolve power later. The Big Society is something that needs to be left for the devolution stage. I completely agree with you, I imagine it was something that was thought up before the financial crisis. It's one of those long-term hopes, not really a government policy. The priority right now is sorting out the deficit, any Tory will tell you that. Yup. Though the Cameron government isn't the most decisive, and just quite where to cut and how much, and what cost-effective reforms to make (which are much needed: British social services - NHS and all - swallow money better than any RS money sink) in order to achieve this end seems to be something they can't decide upon. This bombing campaign in Libya isn't going to help with cutting the deficit either; the cost has already exceeded the value of our national oil investments there (presumably the reason we decided to start bombing in the first place), and NATO's recent plan of bombing oil refineries is only going to cost us more. Still, I'm glad we've got a government that has its priorities sorted and isn't wasting money or denying the need to cut the deficit.

Yes, this criticism has been made in the past - on this thread and every other Tip.It thread in existence - and, frankly, I'm tired of people's shallowness. I am neither anti nor pro-Jagex; this article was critical because I feel it was a terrible update, past articles of mine praised other updates that I felt were good. The readers, if they want to actually be involved in a proper discussion, need to stop trying to throw around accusations of ranting, bias, and whatever else. If anyone writes a positive article, people go "waah, the EP is pro Jagex and it's unfair", and if they write a negative one, it's all "they're raging on Jagex and it's mean". People really need to stop giving these unfounded, unhelpful and downright fatuous criticisms and just respond properly or not at all. Similarly, the fact that Jagex is a company is both discussed on this thread and acknowledged in the article. And I think the general consensus is that Jagex, as a company that makes video games, needs to try and make their game compelling enough to play rather than wasting time with gimmicky little schemes. I'm really quite tired of the focus that has been given to one phrase. It is not remotely useful or constructive as feedback goes; not only do I find much of the criticism insubstantial, it is also of no use to me because it is not a phrase I ever intend to repeat in an article, because that's generally not the way writing an article works. It's an utterly fruitless line of discussion. I was not even aware that Gowers left the board in January. That being the case, there is no doubt that the marketing blitz is linked to this. But this does not make the blitz any more of a good way of developing games, because it's a totally backwards strategy to adopt. Jagex need to focus on improving their game before they can try these tricks again.

I also wouldn't mind sending you my email by PM

Mitt Romney seems to be the most reasonable of the major candidates. Herman Cain was not too bad either, but given the current choices I would side with Romney. Romney has absolutely no backbone; his policies are just based around what he expects people want to hear and little else. I don't think that such wishy-washy people have the capability to be proper, strong leaders on an international level. I'll stick by Ron Paul as my preferred Republican candidate and President over Obama.

Jesus Christ I just looked at the map :wall:

You, sir, are a man of impeccable judgement.

I'm not sure why people don't answer this question, I've got a pretty clear idea; The Big Society is the concept that everyone should be consciously considering and doing things that help the local community in general, instead of doing everything according to pure self-interest. It's a mindset. Extreme examples are participating in volunteer projects to renovate dilapidated parks, removing unwanted graffiti or help run a public event, but it also includes smaller things like keeping hold of litter until you find a bin, being polite to people in public, having a tidy front garden, going to that local shop on the corner instead of going to a supermarket. Simply being a nice decent member of society, really. So simply ethos which every "decent" person should already have in them? That's pretty ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? Because the although concept is nice, it's pretty stupid to have as a government policy. I fully agree with cutting the deficit, but it can't go hand in hand with the Big Society because charities are being temporarily hindered by the cuts and many people lack the means to volunteer in the current climate. Once the deficit has been significantly reduced, then things like the Big Society and smaller government can actually be put into practice. Currently, the role of the central government is becoming larger - and rightly so when it has a nationwide deficit to deal with -, and it only makes sense to cut first and devolve power later. The Big Society is something that needs to be left for the devolution stage. Going off topic but within my own rules, here's an amusing video of my favourite politician (Ken Clarke) and my least favourite man on earth (Peter Mandelson) bickering - pre general election - in a very funny manner. It's the first of 4, but I'll leave anyone interested to track down the rest on YouTube.

I'm pretty sure it's that gay fish Kanye West up to no good again.

Rebecca Black, is that you?

The problem as I see it with the Labour Party is that they think simply redistributing wealth and creative a massive, centralised social security system is going to improve people's long term wellbeing. Their neoliberal fiscal policies from 1997-2010 were such a massive ideological contradiction, and their total lack of controls and backup plans (such as those predicted and proposed by NN Taleb) hit their typical electorate the hardest. Inherited wealth is, true, something that is far from desireable in a society. But people like my father are robbed by society, when he came to the UK as an immigrant with very few belongings, from a poor background but with just enough education to get to a mediocre university here, work hard, and subsequently end up earning a very good wage. Yet Labour's policies forced him to pay extortionate amounts to fund social security which, though a good principle, was too centralised to ever work properly and ended up producing a few towns where a majority of the 'workforce' scrounged on benefits. On top of this, my father has never used any of these services, not even the NHS, and gives to various charities. The core principles of the Labour Party aren't bad, but they have yet to executive them well. Our society has become too dependent on the state, and the notions of true hard work - in which people lift themselves out of poverty entirely on their own - have been diminished. The basic ideas of social security are good, but they need to be balanced with granting the individual what is rightfully theirs and respecting this. On the point of the Big Society, I agree that it is a sham. I'm not a big fan of David Cameron; as a Tory member, I wanted Ken Clarke as leader in 2005. But it is not comparable to 'New Labour', which was a bigger sham that more people blindly accepted. PS: Range This11, you have voted incorrectly. Please read the rules and vote again.

The only reason they're separate is because the North is a mad communist dictatorship whose head of state has been dead for 17 years. I've a friend who fled there, and from what he tells me it's far from a good place to live.

I say 'Yay' to the creation of South Sudan. All of us saw how atrocious that civil war between north and south was. The Arabs in the north benefitted too much from the south's wealth, and as siuch this new nation has a lot of catching up to do in terms of its development.

I'll edit that later; essentially, I interpret politically themed debate more to do with ideology and actual political and policy issues, rather than arguing over why someone should/shouldn't vote, their conscience, arrogance, bla bla bla.

That faeces phrase was never meant to inspire debate. Taking any single sentence in isolation and expecting it to spark much debate is absurd. The point of an article is that the article itself provides the debate. As far as such a criticism goes - the alleged "vulgarity" of said phrase has been mentioned twice now -, it is not constructive in any way. One phrase singled out of context means nothing, nor does the word "faeces" indicate vulgarity. Similarly, the article only used the MLP as a starting point for the general topic of "Underhand methods" - including vanity items and all the rest - which are, frankly, nothing other than cheap and transparent tricks, developed by a lazy developer unsure of where to go and what to do with their product. The MLP is the latest in a series of unscrupulous schemes that have left many, including myself, disillusioned with Jagex and their ability to deliver a solid update. Many have mistaken this article for a rant, when in fact it was written in a perfectly calm way, simply because I did not have the time to [kitty]foot around and devote time to wording things in a nice and gentle way. This was entirely my own fault, and I will endeavour to be more careful next time. I thought I was the only person in RS who ever complained about this. Seriously, why does Jagex think that adding more and more stuff that is basically the same as everything else is the best way to update RS? If you look for an old interview you will find the reason why - according to Jagex whenever they do a big update they see a surge in memberships. That was some years ago and they have not changed their tactics. I mean like it's always "oh lookie here, an update where you can get more arrows!" or "new armor, super rare" or "another quest with more items" all the time for years and years. Having said that, it's not all negative. I do like certain updates that help players like clan support, friends chat, anything that makes social interaction and gameplay smoother. ;) Why don't they do more things to shake things up instead of adding more arrows all the time? Thanks as always for the feedback, meili. I'm glad you enjoyed the article and that we are of the same mind with regards to Jagex's rather stupid approach to the game. I will be publishing more on this topic, in some form or another, every week this month, just to let you know. ;) I am glad to see another person with whom I agree. The question is, when will Jagex figure this out? They might end up doing so too late, after which time, it won't count for much.

Well then you're a just an arrogant fool who refuses to try to help others and himself. You're getting too personal, rocco, and both Range and you are getting a little too off topic for my liking. Accept that Range doesn't vote because he is not obliged to and leave it at that. I highly doubt that insulting him is going to change his mind. Changing the subject, I notice that there are many Labour voters here, for whom I have a question: why?

True Brit. ;) I agree with you; aside from the USA, you just have to look at all the irritation it's causing Turkey to realise that constitutions provide more trouble than anything else.

Yup. I stopped using iTunes about four years ago now; never looked back. I advise everyone who values their money to stop using all Apple software, hardware and whatever else they might sell to rip people off at once. They've created a very clever but ultimately quite crappy monopoly through very clever marketing and aesthetically beautiful pieces of hardware that cost the earth. I'd rather put money in Rupert Murdoch's pocket any day.

This is true, especially with the scary amount of influence lobbyists seem to have in the US (far, far more than in the UK, and I imagine most other European countries), I don't think many of those industrialists and their buddies who profit from Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya would take too kindly to Paul's foreign policy. But what option is there for the USA? Mitt Romney... well, I think that the cartoon of Romney with lots of mouths saying 'Stop me when you hear something you like' sums up Mitt Romney. I hear he was a good Governor, but I don't think he's Presidential material. Michele Bachmann is essentially Sarah Palin, except that she is slightly more intelligent and looks more like a plastic doll. Combine her moronic nature with her lack of real management experience... let's face it, she's a disaster waiting to happen. Can't say I know or care much about Pawlenty, Santorum, Cain or the rest of them, because they're all the sort that are going to get knocked out pretty quick I reckon. On the Democratic side, there's pretty much just Obama and, though he's an amazing orator, he really is just all talk.

Though this thread wasn't created with the intention of sparking debate, I certainly do not mind there being a degree of debate. But that whole Catholicism debate did get a little too off topic.