Duke_Freedom

You forgot trading as an aspect of the game too.

Apart from that the exact mechanics you are suggestion are way too ineffective regarding scammers who are only interested in stealing others money I don't get this aspect either: The money is increased 10% / day.. By who? The game? Not a good idea. More interesting and safe is Gehackte's idea to create stocks on NPC shops, although even that would require quite a bit more thought. Still, the ability to own player owned shops (unrelated to this idea) seems more like what the game really needs. And I don't get why people say it wouldn't fit in with RuneScape's timeline -> the oldest stock known tracks back to the year 1606.

And I'm sure anarchy is your favourite form of government. :roll: Anyway:

Yes that's still possible. Ofcourse it used to be easier though.

Well cooked food has gotten less useful throughout the past years with the introduction of guthan armour, pest control, etc. The demand for cooked food therefore dropped, hence the price of cooked food dropped. The price of raw food remained roughly the same, because people still need raw food to train their cooking skills. As cooked food used to have roughly the same price as raw food back in the days, it was perfectly possible to trade them 1:1 back then. But with nowadays lack of need for cooked food, it has a much lower price then raw food and thus people aren't really interested in trading raw for cooked (as it essentially costs them money to do so).

The Editor clearly hasn't followed the development of rares price throughout the last ~7 months. :lol: I don't get the arguement why skill capes lead to a decrease in the price of material prices if it has any effect on the prices of materials at all. 'Skill cape hunters' need masses of specific materials to train the 'buyable' skills (fast). For the non-buyable skills, gathering those specific materials is usually not the fastest way of training, hence supply caused by skill cape hunters would be smaller then demand caused by skill cape hunters if you ask me --> I'd say skill capes rather lead to an increase in the prices of material prices. In fact, looking at the material prices used in production I believe they actually rose, rather then dropped.

Technically my character still owns a lot ;). He just took all of his money with him into his virtual grave (what a selfish person!). So where's my 100 million? :D

Don't you know how evil it is to prevent people from quiting this game by 'saving' them from quiting...? :(

I hope you are joking... I take that bet! You don't got 100 million anyway. :D Pretty much my top networth bank picture:

To show people how to live and that we can make the world a much better place if everyone betters his life? But I don't know, I don't believe anyway. And it takes him so far that he wants to force it upon people? Sorry, you are only making it worse to me with that reasoning. In that case he should know better, forcing things upon people is never good. And in opposite to whom would he care so much? I wouldn't be around in this topic if I didn't give a ... about the world. I believe in my 'right' as well, however I just don't go around saying that all christians are fools and will burn in hell just because I think that they are wrong? Nor do I understand how any God, who - correct me if I'm wrong - wants to reach heaven on earth, can actually send good willing people to this to-be-feared hell and still be consistent with his goal? I'm just not getting how you can group people as christs and anti-christs like that and then say that your believe wants to reach heaven on earth? This hate creation in itself will already disallow heaven to exist on earth in the first place. I get annoyed from the "I am right" attitude of most believers and frankly I don't understand how that kind of attitude even fits in their own religion either.

Not completely, I'm saying: why does God discriminate between the two and, to turn your own question around, why does "accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior" mean so much to God that doing that "buys" you your way into heaven? The difference is not the good deeds they both did, the difference is that one believes and the other does not. Right now, I'm observing that you're indirectly saying that God doesn't care one single bit about whether what we do on this earth is good or not. As long as we eventually 'accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior" all your sins are gone. Not only does this God sound completely immoral to me, I fail to see what this God tries to reach by all this. Does he wants us to live a good life or does he wants us to continue asking his forgiveness for our sin forever. Your interpretation seems to be that he only wants the latter. Where did all the "love your neighbour" ideology go to, why all this hate creation towards non-believers? Since when does your God promote this and what are his motives for that? Does he not see that hate creation in itself is a sin? Why does your God tell you to threaten people that if they don't believe then they will be undergoing "the worst of all". And don't say you're just warning, you're threatening: "If you don't believe you WILL undergo it".

Well I actually had a few nice discussions on this with a good friend of me IRL. It was funny to see his initial reaction, which was exactly along the lines of what assassin_696 just said: "you'll be going to hell anyway". :P After giving a critical response on that - after all the difficulty of the question lies in the supposively discriminating God - he gave it some more thought and got back to me on it later by saying that technically, those who don't believe but who do live a completely good life should be able to get into heaven anyway. Although, I can imagine that the views of various believers (and I guess the seriousness of their believe depends on that too) differ on this anyway.

I wasn't really clear I guess, I think I actually do agree on that in your more formal definition of a higher power: In other words, I agree on it as long as a specific God (or any 'God', "as a person wanting something, created it for a purpose") is not brought into it as a necessity, but rather only the necessity of "something supernatural". Yes I agree, but I wasn't really talking about deriving solutions for great moral issues from it, as everyone has a different opinion on those any way. I'm more talking on a case by case scenario. I mean, it seems well possible to me to derive that something is good/bad if everyone (literally!) finds it good/bad? Sure, such situations are certainly scarce, but are they totally non-existant and/or would it still be wrong to derive good/bad from such a moral issue even if all people involved agree that it is either good or wrong? Do keep in mind that in the examples you gave it was a majority who said that it was good/wrong, not everyone. Just a thought. Firstly, the whole idea of an agnost is that he's not sure on his standings at all. That said even if I were to decide to believe in a God, I'd still have trouble choosing which one. Sure you claim that your God is "the" God, but other religions claim otherwise and considering the factual evidence of all these religions is precisely the same, all these religions have the same chance of being the "true" one to me. Wait a minute, you were saying that is not a hard decision to make? No, you just claim that your religion is the right one so it's not difficult. Objectively speaking there is, to me at least, absolutely no reason why one religion would have a higher chance of being "true" then another (providing any of them is true at all) though. Another interesting question I'd like to ask you is if God discriminates between someone who believes in him and someone who does not, providing they live exactly the same life (apart from anything related to religion, of course). And if God does discriminate solely for the sake of someone not believing in him, then why does he do that and in what way does that express itself more concretely? I actually tend to ask this question oftenly to those who really do take their religion *serious, like you, so I'm curious to your answer. * = Unlike most people who say that they believe, in my opinion.

Indeed I do. Yet, everyone else seems to speak answers without facts. Now tell me, is it worse to speak questions if you don't know the answers or answer questions if you don't/can't know the facts? Your thoughts are interesting, except that it requires me to have a 100% believe in God, something I just can't do. I do wonder if people will still be saying that in some ten thousand years, when nothing happened. Then again, I'm not even sure whether even I believe humanity still exists by then, considering the crazy world these days.

Except that leaving out god, does not necessarily mean that our body inclusive thoughts, knowledge and feelings are all just a bunch of chemical reactions. There is still a lot we don't know about what we experience as "free will". Perhaps it are indeed just all a bunch of chemical reactions, but perhaps not. I guess it depends on how you define "bad". The way you are referring to it as "having eternal ramfications" is one way of looking at it, in which case I would agree that "good/bad" does not exist. The whole universe doesn't care forever if I suffered some pain or not. However, I also find it troublesome to claim that "good/bad" totally does not exist therefore, considering everyone on this planet knows what "good/bad" is (at least for himself!), which would at the very least point out that the concept of "good/bad" exists on an individual level. (oh really? :P) The question that remains, given that it exists on an individual level, is whether it also exists on a broader scale like the whole society? I guess it all becomes even more complex (logically speaking at least) if we are indeed only a bunch of electrical and chemical reactions: why do we experience things as good/bad in the first place then? (then again, why do "we" 'experience' anything at all :P)

Because I already told you one hundred times that the theory you're presenting is not flawless and makes assumptions itself. Your reply was exactly what I expected, so I have nothing more to say. You didn't even actually read my points. I only see you hammering that I don't understand something that I understand perfectly well and I'm done with it.

For this reason I love that I can requote your first reply to me on page nr 6... Thus this whole debate stems from you not agreeing with me calling insane arrogant for his god = absolute morality and not god = not absolute morality statement. Logically, I conducted that you agreed with insane's view, considering you found that I couldn't say he's arrogant. However, now that we have finally agreed upon that the first statement is based on an assumption and the second statement is not true at all, you suddenly claim that you never denied that and that this discussion started about me saying that my absolute morals come from logic, which is simply not true. So there are a few reasons I did not get into my standard for absolute morality: 1) It was irrelevant, the discussion was about the whole claim that you can't have absolute morality without a god, so it didn't matter what I based my standards on. Considering we now finally seem to have established agreement on the point the arguement started with (even though you claim there never was disagreement on that and that the topic was about something totally different), it was indeed not necessary for me to specify my standards further. 2) I am however still not convinced either way, whether it is possible for absolute morality to exist with or without assumption. The is/ought cap raises a problem, but the is/ought cap is not perfect, even though you seem to love claiming that I "just don't understand it". :roll: 3) Furthermore, I never said I do not base my standards on an assumption either (feel free to check my posts on it) and if it makes you happy if I now say I do then fine, because that was not the reason I was debating here anyway. Although at the moment I keep my stance on 2) that I'm still not convinced either way. Point is, perhaps we may "logically" be able to define things like pain as bad, if we actually knew more about our own brain and what our brain interprets as 'bad' in the first place (as in, electric shocks or whatever, it's just a thought), little use discussing that though. Another way is what the article I referred to suggested: it sounds like common sense that pain is bad. Last way of looking at it is that you define good and bad as what each individual sees as good and bad. This removes your ability to give answers to broader questions like "Is killing animals good", because there will be people who see it as good and people who see it as bad, but it WILL still allow you to answer various hypothetical questions as "What if there is one person who finds pleasure in someone hurting him and what if some person finds pleasure in hurting that person - would it be moral for the second person to hurt the first person?" (yes weird hypothetical situation, don't mention), in which case you can answer yes as both all involved perceive the situation as good, thus the situation is good. I'm sure you'll refute all of these points faster than I wrote them with your all-mighty "is/ought gap" or something else, which probably still does not impress me anyway. 4) I don't like the tone of your posts at all. So feel free to try and discuss my opinions in a civilized way if you want and otherwise I believe I'm done debating here. The point I was arguing in here for apparently seems to be agreed upon now so it's all fine.

Exactly my point and it also points out that not god = not absolute morality is a baseless statement.

Guess what, that was never the point of his article anyway. The point of his article was showing that there is a basic assumption that does not necessarily needs to be true and, considering the is/ought problem is a logical problem (I don't read the word morality in the word logical anywhere, do you?) it also has other consequences and yes also to science. Anyway I see you make an interesting statement here though, considering this whole debate started because I disagreed with the god = absolute morality and the not god = not absolute morality statements and called insane arrogant for stating that. Right now, it seems you have adapted it to assumption = absolute morality, which I can, for simplicity, agree with for now. Keep in mind that assumption = absolute morality is something completely different then god = absolute morality and not god = not absolute morality.

What Locke doesn't seem to understand is that if we take the is/ought gap for given, our whole science seems worthless. I also like to point out that the article I referred to was not just written by some random idiot, but by an actual professor, but ofcourse Locke doesn't mind putting it down as "terribly written" anyway. I do wonder what Locke's own background is at this point. Anyway, I can already see Locke go back in time when Newton 'discovered' the gravitational law, by observing an apple falling to the earth. I can imagine the discussion going something along these lines: Newton: Aha, it must be the gravitional power of earth that creates a force in the apple that in turn gives the apple acceleration towards the earth. Locke: You can't know that. Newton: Yes I do, I observed this gravitional power long enough and it all fits each other so well. Locke: It's impossible, you just can't pass the is/ought gap logically. Newton: What?

The high alching or dropping of rares does not have large effects on the economy of the game at all... And while the comparison of rares to stocks in nice in an upgoing stock market you can certainly not compare a crash of the stock market with a drop in the amount of rares due to people high alching them. In short, the effect of people high alching or dropping rares is minimal.

I'll indefinitely burst the bubble for those who still believe that I'm the editor, even though that was already denied by Kiara Kat on page 5 or so. Anyway, no I'm not the editor. :P Never been and never will be either. ;) In fact, I've recently decided to withdraw as regular guest author for the Tip.it Times. I am honoured by those who mentioned me as a possibility even though, as Rubinio rightly mentions, I'd personally say that my own word usage is a bit more limited due to the fact that English is not my native language. I really laughed about -- pattern observation though, I do use that a lot and so does the real editor apparently. :lol:

If success is defined as friends and having fun than I'd say overall weirdness and a good personality do wonders. :P If success is defined as getting 99's or getting rich then patience, dedication and motivation are required too. :)

You are the one comming up with the is/ought cap as "impossible to overcome" yourself, so I believe I am certainly allowed to defend myself by highlighting that the "impossible" part is not true, considering it is based on certain assumptions. I didn't see you bring the evidence for the attack on is/ought impossibility so I am certainly allowed to quote someone else's theory too. It seems to me that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing about everything, including "my definition" of arrogance which was just fine, the is/ought cap impossibility which is not as impossible as you say it is and now saying that I am hiding behind someone else's theory, while you were the first to mention the is/ought impossibility without arguing about the reasonability of it in the first place. :roll: Nah I got nothing to argue about with you anymore.

For something that is claimed to be "impossible", I am strangely enough able to find enough critics who disagree with that opinion and who raise some interesting possible fallacious presumptions in the arguement that points out that it is "impossible" per definition. Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing the is/ought "problem", but I think this guy here summarizes my stance on it very well if you want to know my stance anyway. It also explains the standard more or less that you want to hear so gladly.