Donnie

Not so poetically, I am just saying that its stupid to ignore that given the ability to cheat a number (in this case a LARGE number) of people will do so negatively affecting the community as a whole. Basically I am not excusing players, people who cheat deserve their ban however the fact that half the playerbase is cheating does show massive game design failure. The fact that Jagex is technically unable to fix the problem says that the only way to get rid of botters is to change the gameplay which isn't happening in a game as established as runescape. Basically Jagex is dishonest and things like this latest name and shame or the 'the new bot nuke' are just illusions of a solution to keep the rest of the legitimate players from quitting or botting themselves. At this point I would rather the them just allow the use of bots and justify it as a way to balance hardcore/casual players experience.

Runescape isn't real. Obviously its not real life but the game itself doesn't exist. See the client you play on is a clever trick to make it look like your experiencing stuff, for example it updates when you move, gain xp, you talk to people and they respond, etc. But runescape only exists on the servers over in Jagex studios. So yes there is no spoon. You have never actually played runescape, its all a bunch of clever tricks to make you think things are really happening. Its the illusion, and believe me if you cheat engine a completionist cape on yourself you are just as disapointed as you are having actually earned it 100% legit. Moreover they are equally 'real'.

Grind based game has grind based game problems. Any sort of cheating is a result of someone figuring out that they dont have to jump through the hoops they are expected to jump through. This is true about any game, dayz hackers do it for the same reason as people that bot. This doesn't say that it doesn't harm legit players gameplay experience, in both examples it does, all I am saying is that when people realize they dont have to jump through the same hoops as everyone else - they wont. As a game designer you need to really identify the problem before you can fix it. Is it technically impossible to stop dayz hackers? No. But the mod team probably doesn't have the ability to on their own since the problem is probably deep in the game engine itself. Is it technially impossible to stop RS botters? Yes. Any other answer especially from jagex is just dishonest. Given that fixing botting is impossible what is Jagex to do about it? How do you alter the rs gameplay experience in a way that bot use wont matter? I think for the next Jagex title this is something they will need to have a talk over. I personally still see Jagex doing the marketing strategy in Runescape such as name and shames & mass bans to keep legitimate players interested as long as possible instead of actually fixing the core problem.

i bet you regret not doing that years ago

They have also expressly stated 1 will be a gathering skills and 1 will be a production/finishing skill. A pet skill, aside from already being content of summoning would fall into the category of support skills (like agility, dg, thief etc. do) Personally I think the most likely candidates are Archeology and Engineering. Archeology would fit in nicely with good lore stuff as a gathering skill via digging up ancient sites and could easily lead to all sorts of trinkets that could use the pocket slot (which they said one skill would focus on) Engineering equally could be a finishing skill drawing on crafting, smithing, fletching, magic, runecrafting and construction to make various more mechanical type things akin to the Gnome and Dwarf tech already in-game WoW style engineering would be amazing in RS

Its more of a matter of do I feel like committing at this point. I know this may sound bad, especially since you are religious but you aren't obligated to commit with someone just because you had sex. With some girls I sleep with I feel no desire to continue the relationship further after I do, even if I may have been 'madly in love' beforehand With others I definitely want to commit further and I don't feel 'trapped' in a relationship when doing so even if i felt 'meh' about her beforehand Again from my own first hand experience it holds true that I really dont know how I feel about a girl until after I slept with her.

sexual gratification = happy marriage dont take my word for it take Dr. Drew's. That said I have been 'madly in love' with a girl then had sex and realized I wasn't that into her and I have been 'meh' about a girl and had sex and realized that I had a deeper attraction and would want to commit to her. If you haven't felt both you cant really understand what muggi is saying when he says that you dont know how much you like a girl till after you've had sex with her.

so it seems that social norms have a stronger effect on use then legality?

I more or less agree with muggi. In fact I think I know which models he learned a few of his things from ;) Oh on a sidenote I has a (somewhat orthodox) jewish gf now. Im more or less a deist and a gentile so this should be interesting. Brought it because of the whole religious gf thing being discussed. Verizon dash only two types of people cheat, either sociopaths or people who are very unhappy in a relationship. Imagine a relationship being worth a unit of currency called value tokens. A shit relationship = 50VT A good one = 500VT a shit marriage = 50VT- 900VT a good marriage = 5000VT Now imagine people being worth value tokens A neckbearded unemployed 'hacker' (read: scriptkiddie): 25VT A college kid who is getting a decent degree and has good social skills: 160VT A famous actor, rich, famous, beloved by all: 1000VT These numbers are of course subjective to the individual but why people cheat is when someone whos value is higher then the relationship enters the picture. People who encounter this either cheat or break up with their former relationship partner. Its not personal its economics. That said most people value a relationship as a whole beyond your natural attractiveness value. So as long as your both happy in a relationship cheating will not happen, which is why it never happens in the honeymoon phase of a relationship.

Im not familiar with chemical warfare. Whats stopping people from making a lethal nerve gas currently?

John Nichols: No one has the right to tell me I can't have it. That is protected on our constitution. Michael Moore: Where does it say a handgun is protected? John Nichols: No, gun. We should... Michael Moore: [interupting] It doesn't say gun. It says "arms". John Nichols: Arms. What is "arms"? Michael Moore: Could be a nuclear weapon. John Nichols: It's not these - That's right. It could be a nuclear weapon. Michael Moore: Do you think you should have the right to have weapons-grade plutonium here in the farm field? John Nichols: We should be able to have anything... Michael Moore: [interupting] Should you have weapons? Should you have weapons-grade plutonium? John Nichols: I don't want it. Michael Moore: But, should you have the right to have it if you did want it? John Nichols: [thinking about it] That should be restricted. Michael Moore: Oh. Oh, so you do beleive in some restrictions? John Nichols: Well, there's wackos out there. So, weapons grade plutonium, which, when spun correctly is a form of Arms. Which is clearly protected by the right to bear arms. I dont believe in banning any substance yes including weapon grade plutonium. Coincidentally the only people who could afford weapon grade plutonium are billionaires so I dont see it being a problem. The amount of plutonium that was in Fat Man would be worth about $25,000,000 today. Although that's an incredibly large some of money, someone who won the lottery would be able to afford it. I agree that most substances shouldn't be banned, but nuclear weapons? Come on. costs a few hundred million more to do anything with it. Its very hard to get a nuclear reaction going.

140 hours done however you want doesn't majorly damage your health. 160 certainly has that opportunity though. 140 hours will definitely damage your health, sure you wont croak next week but dont delude yourself by calling it healthy.

John Nichols: No one has the right to tell me I can't have it. That is protected on our constitution. Michael Moore: Where does it say a handgun is protected? John Nichols: No, gun. We should... Michael Moore: [interupting] It doesn't say gun. It says "arms". John Nichols: Arms. What is "arms"? Michael Moore: Could be a nuclear weapon. John Nichols: It's not these - That's right. It could be a nuclear weapon. Michael Moore: Do you think you should have the right to have weapons-grade plutonium here in the farm field? John Nichols: We should be able to have anything... Michael Moore: [interupting] Should you have weapons? Should you have weapons-grade plutonium? John Nichols: I don't want it. Michael Moore: But, should you have the right to have it if you did want it? John Nichols: [thinking about it] That should be restricted. Michael Moore: Oh. Oh, so you do beleive in some restrictions? John Nichols: Well, there's wackos out there. So, weapons grade plutonium, which, when spun correctly is a form of Arms. Which is clearly protected by the right to bear arms. I dont believe in banning any substance yes including weapon grade plutonium. Coincidentally the only people who could afford weapon grade plutonium are billionaires so I dont see it being a problem.

Anyone who does this should post what city they live in so we can visit their funerals

blocking the crap out of her is the advice for people who need to get over a long term relationship. But if he feels he needs complete lack of contact with her then its probably not a bad thing to do

me_hate_libs was funny. Anyways are the added benefits worth the cost?

Did you talk about it? I don't quite hear the sound of wedding bells, but has that taken things one step further? Alcohol was involved. If there was a step, it would've been a damn wobbly one. edit: whoops totally confused him with another poster

you just presupposed several points to be true in your argument then threw in there there some emotional replies like "redneck or psycho". anyways... http://www.ncpa.org/...rticle_ID=17847 I grabbed a quick article because most australians I talk to agree with its conclusion. If you really want greater detail you can go and check Australia's violent crime index following the gun ban.

dont worry, the gun control arguments are incoming

We aren't at war with pakistan though and I specified paki children. And yes I'm familiar with Dunbar's number which is why I specified not knowing the victims personally. My critique of peoples reactions is just like I said in my first post on this topic, people care more about people in their own country more then others and this is a negative affect that statism (read: nationalism) has on us.

Im not saying its not tragic it is horrible. Im just saying other people are human too and given that you should more or less react to news the same. Whether its american, pakistani, Israeli or Palestinian.

My stance is Americans are not more precious then Pakistani's and to anyone who is more upset about these murders then those should check their values. Unless you knew any of the victims personally

What I find most disturbing about the Connecticut shooting is that it reveals an essential truth about this country: people are only outraged because it was a massacre that was not sanctioned by the state. If 18 children were murdered in a Pakistani schoolhouse by a drone, no one in the media would report it and just about everyone would go about their lives not caring. Statism has a horrifically dehumanizing effect on how we perceive other human beings that are not American.

besides if your playing for the respect of others and not for entertainment theres a bot for that anyways. on a related note, Im not sure why people who buy spins knock botters when while they are "within the rules" they are far from legitimate.