Duke_Freedom

I can turn that question around and say 'if you believe in a god, you need evidence for it'. No, I don't need any standard to believe that absolute morality can exist without needing a god. You have not "explained" anything considering you fail to come up with facts, evidence and what not.

Certainly more than 100 if you ask me. Probably even more around 200.

Which is exactly what I disagreed with. I suggest you reread my previous posts, I'm not going to repeat everything I said. And I continue to keep my stance that it is therefore arrogant because you continue to simply state that without a god there is no absolute morality. As I said: you are creating a relation between absolute morality and god, that you cannot prove, let alone that you can even prove that if you remove god, absolute morality will be gone to.

Proof? No right eh? Don't see any use in continuing these stupid yes/no games with you on the other points.

According to insane there is room for discussion as far as I can interpret his post: take out god and you'll have to take out morality because that is consistent. I saw no "I believe" in his posts which would have been more than appropriate stating something contraversional as he did. I'll repeat, stop saying that I make up my own definition of arrogance. You're just wasting your own and my time. :roll: I don't have to defend me on that point, religious people don't either. Plus I believe the answer is self-explanatory enough. I doubt he makes a difference between atheists and agnosts, because agnosts don't believe in a god either, but whatever he did not say agnosts specifically.

Just because the foundation of atheism is arrogant doesn't mean insane, who is a christian, should be arrogant too. We're back to primary school logic here: if I jump of a bridge, do you follow me then to?

You need to read and stop saying people are making up words just because you can't read. He nowhere said your morality is wrong. Yes it is. Therefore I'm an agnost who considers the chance that god exists to be less than 10^-99. Now this chance doesn't anything anyway, because he either exists or he doesn't exist. As I said earlier in this post already, you need to read and stop saying I make up definitions. Anyone who is claiming he and only he is right without supplying undeniable evidence for his righteousness IS arrogant. Now, I'm not going to take you serious anymore if you continue to claim I make up words. Plus I already pointed out I believe in an absolute morality, derived from the simple rules of logic.

insane claims that atheism comes with non-morality. Yes I find that arrogant AND offending. That has nothing to do with the 'definition I make up for arrogant', it has to do with the way insane claims a relation between atheism and non-morality that he cannot prove, especially since he cannot even prove his theism comes with morality.

Apparently religion teaches you this nice character trait called "arrogance", which expresses itself in that you should believe that noone else can believe in an objective morality without believing in some god. The morality of the bible - and any religious book for my part - depends completely on the morality of the person reading it, considering most stories in those religious books are written in such a way that you can interpret them in a thousand ways. In turn, this leads to people arguing about "the right" interpretation when there is no "right" interpretation of something that you can simply interpretate in a thousand ways. If anything, religion confuses people on the topic morality. People would be best of deriving morality from simple logic. That is ensured to give the truth.

You two heading for 3800 you mean. :P

I never liked RuneScape's music... It gets on my nerves. :lol: Rather listen to my own. :P

Just read my sig. :) That said, I am not writing as regular guest author for the Tip.it Times anymore. Seems like Illuminitai did some nice research on that... His calculations suggest that nature crafting is actually best for everyone (from an economic point of view only though). Although I think truth may be slightly different and that combo runes may actually be best till level 91 runecrafting (double natures) and after that nature runecrafting is best. Too lazy to do extensive calculations on that though.

How much is the mage exp and how many essence can you craft / hour. Need to take the 53K less runes to craft into consideration too, via the value of time (say ~200K-300K / hour for reasonability). Don't think the combi-runes are really a viable option though. There is no demand for them, as you already pointed out. In the current situation it will simply mean that their prices drop from the ~300 you say there are now to far lower when they'd be mass produced.

liek they already havn't? Google is getting so big :D I should buy sum stocks. "Some"? They are only ~$460 per piece eh. :P

I believe max gp I ever owned was around 900mil. :P I always kept my cash in rares anyway. ^^

Hmm. Will be a task to avoid using those words in order to keep my spelling right. :D But hey, it's possible. ;)

If I see a flying sheep (which has not been genetically manipulated :P) then God can convince me. :) I see insane just skipped my reply to his arguement that you need to change from the inside while that implies that religion is not the right answer to do that either. Unless you agreed with that ofcourse?

Funny how the editor succeeds in a completely positive article about Jagex even though they did something ridiculously stupid in the first place (making Luring fine within the rules in the first place) and shouldn't be given a compliment for merely correcting their fault. :roll:

Hm I would consider them quite similiar due to draining effect. It ensures a large, continous drain on those items, keeping them rare. The problem is is that you are claiming players have much more money while at the same time claiming that this is true for many players. This implies that you are more or less claiming that there is much more gold in such a server compared to one without, which already explains higher prices without needing to speak of RMTing. Just remember that everything bought needs to be sold as well. :P And if there are many buyers while the price of the game gold is not extreme this implies that there are many sellers as well. If there are many more buyers than sellers then this doesn't make sense with higher prices on powerfull items, because most buyers would probably be buying smaller amounts then and not large amounts which they'd use for powerful items. The analogy is not very (completely) applicable though because you agree that other items that normal players use to get cash in the game seem to rise in price too.

The problem I have with the claim that RMTing has a negative effect on the games economy is that I simply cannot come up with a reason why it would. Even if I assume that it somehow influences it, I cannot figure out why it would. Basically we can describe a game with RMTing as follows: Sellers (of gold) Neutrals Buyers (of gold) The neutrals just play their game as usual, nothing changes about that. The sellers need to get gold in some way to sell to the buyers, they have several ways of doing that: - Merchanting / pking / staking: This does not change anything to the amount of gold nor the amount of items in the game and therefore can't change anything to the prices of said items. Let's call them together market neutral. - Gathering of gold: Leads to increase in total amount of gp ingame, however in most games the gathering of pure gold is not the best money maker; I don't know how this is for WoW and EQ2 ofcourse. Even if it is, an overall increase of gp leads to higher prices of all items, in theory at least. - Gathering of materials: Leads to lower prices of materials. - Gathering of high-end items: Leads to lower prices of said items. Now if you ask me, I'd say that most "legit" sellers are either players who quit the game (and should thus have an equal relation of gold, materials and high-end items compared to the total economy) and those who get too much cash by 'just playing the game' (the market neutrals). Getting high-end items, materials or pure gold is simply not an option for *"legit" sellers, as that is not cost effective in time at all (aka you better get a real job then ;)). (Ofcourse in reality a lot of RMTing also takes place by people running bots gathering materials: but again, it is the macroing that effects the economy in that case, not the act of RMTing) (* = This is indeed more complex if we consider chinese farmers who don't use bots, as I already mentioned more or less earlier in a post and that is, in my opinion, the only weak point of allowance of RMTing. Even then I still don't know how bad that would really be though) Now the buyers spend their cash: - Buying of materials: Should even out with the gathering of materials by the sellers. - Buying of high-end items: Should even out with gathering of high-end items by the items. Now there is one reason why this doesn't exactly even out. The sellers could have gained most cash by market neutral ways. Market neutral itself means redistributing wealth from other players to yourself. By selling gold the market neutrals simply redistribute the money they earn from theirself to another player. This is roughly the same as if that other player gained the money himself by merchanting / staking / pking and should thus not have extreme effect if you ask me. I hope this post was not too vague so that you could follow what I am saying.

Hehe there we go again. :P (Just for the note: I have little exact knowledge of the details of both WoW and EQ2's economies, although I do have a rough idea in what sense they differ from RuneScape's economy). I do believe that those powerful items are very comparable with RuneScape's discontinued items in the sense that it are the most sought after items in the game. Such items, in every MMOG, suffer from inflation due to the way most of these games economies are set up in the first place. You have to be really wary in attributing any of that happening due to other reasons. Ofcourse they are not comparable in the sense that you don't "need" / use rares for anything other then showing off, investement, etc. This is not true for those powerful items in other games so I am aware that, with regards to RMTing it's not perfect to compare them like that, however with regards to general game inflation they can be compared. I have an issue with the way you claim he could have had 100g so easily - keep in mind you are more or less talking about higher inflation / overall wealth because of that too, but I'll get back to that later in this post. A contraversional assumption already. Realize that most legit individual sellers are people who initially had no intention to sell at all, but who do it as a way of "cashing out of the game". Generally, individuals start selling gold when they have enough of the game and want to quit. I can see plenty of people joining the RMT allowed server for merely that reason and many of them may never show up on the buying side (and as long as they play not at the supply side either) of the RMT market. Again, realize that you're implying an overall higher wealth / gp total. That is a whole different topic and still should not matter to those who don't participate in the RMTing, back on that in a second. I like it that you come up with this example, because it allows me to explain why there are some fallacies in your theory. You more or less seem to claim that the overall wealth on RMT allowed servers is higher then on the RMT disallowed servers and that therefore the prices are higher (read: China vs America). Keeping the RL analogy, you should also have mentioned that wages in China are significantly lower than in America. Therefore (let's assume this for a second, it's not completely true in RL, but I need to make a point) people in China can buy just as many products with their monthly salary as American's in America. However, this also means that the standard of living in both places is the same. Compare this with the RMT disallowed versus RMT allowed servers. Now yes, someone who moves from America (RMT allowed) to China (RMT disallowed) is extremely wealthy, however this is not possible in these games! In short I am more or less just saying: if we double the amount of money people have then the relative prices of everything stays the same and so does the overall standard of living. Thus it makes no difference. The procentual arguement would go for anything though and that would mean that everything in the game should be priced higher by a certain factor, but I don't believe that's what you were saying earlier. I could see that one comming, but you are focussing on the wrong aspect. Point is that both a person who practices little and a person who practices much begin completely equally in any match of chess. This is simply not true for someone who starts playing RuneScape now versus someone who started playing a year ago. If you want my full opinion: I don't believe (full) equality in MMOG's is needed and perhaps not even wanted. I personally don't even think we should be calling these things "games" but rather refer to them as "virtual worlds", because that is what they are. However, that's a whole different topic and I'd suggest a new thread for that if you want to discuss that. ;) However, I do believe allowance of RMTing makes it so that a new player can 'equalize' himself with someone who started a year ago by buying a certain amount of gold. For example, say person A starts a year ago and only merchants and has now 100mil and person B starts now and buys 100mil with real money then the game is equalized for person B, which seems fair towards both players. Don't forget: player A still has the advantage of game knowledge, but that is comparable to the practice advantage someone who plays soccer 5 hours a day has vs someone who plays soccer 1 hour a day and such an advantage is widely accepted as "fair" too. Those goals are still not widely accepted as ultimate goals though. There are no ultimate goals for MMOG's. Less true for the third age armour. Their prices merely seem to reflect their rarity. There does not seem to be some sort of "additional RMT fee", that you'd suggest there to be.

With that you are basically agreeing that religion is not the right answer to it either - it is all in yourself, not in some plastical surgery nor in some supernatural religion.

And I want to add that I think we're also still a 100,000 years away from being able to say whether we will eventually be able to say if religion can ever be proven or disproven. :P

IMO the whole concept of religion essentially comes from a fear for death and so yes I think there will always be people believing in some religion. If it's even possible to ever really "prove" that there is a god or not then I guess that may effect some people, but there will always be people believing otherwise. Plus, we aren't there in a million years yet anyway (if it is even possible to eventually prove it). :|

Pro legalization: - More fair for those who have less time to play (generally working men aged ~30) than those who have plenty of time (generally students aged ~20). Will make the game more attractive for those with less time for that reason. - Allows people to skip the absurpt grinding to a certain extend. Again, may make the game more attractive to people. - As shown clearly by all MMOG's who disallow it: it will take place anyway, whether you put it against the rules or not. - Legalization will lower costumer support costs for the game company due to not having to enforce the RMT rule nor answer queries related to those who RMT. - The game company can profit from it themselves and can offer those who want to participate in it with a safe trading environment unlike the way it is now, where scamming is rampant for those who participate in it despite it being disallowed. My counterarguements to typical anti legalization arguements: - RMTing leads to botting Yes RMTing is related to botting. However this is no reason to have RMTing itself against the rules, considering botting itself is already against the rules. By putting RMTing also against the rules, they are not doing anything about the large scale, professional farming companies but are they only countering the small individuals who are relatively innocent. - RMTing ruins the games economy There is absolutely no conclusive evidence for this at all and I am completely unable to come up with valid economic reasons for why it would "ruin" the games economy. Furthermore, the allowance of RMTing may not even change the amount it happens - at the moment it is just all taking place on the black market. The "ruining effects" anti-RMT'ers are talking about should already be taking place and I see absolutely no effects. Now that I think of it, the whole arguement that RMTing necessarily leads to higher prices because there are people who buy ingame gold to buy ingame items with wrongly seems to be focussing on the demand side of the RMT market alone. Those who sell gold (supply side of the RMT market) had to gain the ingame wealth one way or another too - which probably led to an increase of ingame items in opposite. Therefore this theoretically would even out with the increased demand for ingame items due to RMTing. - It is unfair Unfairness arugements regarding MMOG's are so weak that I really hate addressing that issue these days. There are plenty of things unfair about MMOG's: It is unfair that someone who has 10 hours per day of free time can get a level 126 in 3 months and someone who only has 2 hours per dag takes 2 years for that. In overall, it's also unfair that someone who starts now can't really compete with those 5 years ago. RMTing being unfair is the same as those things being unfair. Go play a game of chess, starcraft or whatever if you want ultimate fairness - the only thing that counts there is skill. Nadril's comparison of MMOG's with a game of chess therefore doesn't support his arguement at all if you ask me: a player who start's playing a new MMOG already starts out unequally to those who are already playing it. I'd be more likely to explain the comparison as a reason to allow RMTing rather then to disallow it. - It kills the spirit of the game Last time I checked, there is no ultimate goal in RuneScape and so I still do not understand why it should matter to you that someone else bought part of his achievements in the game. More theoretical reasons for it's allowance - You are currently being tricked into thinking that you 'own' your character and it's achievements. Yes you may "know" that it's not your character, but I don't believe that when you get 99 mining you think "oh great I gained 99 mining for a character called _my name_ owned by Jagex". No you enjoy it because you consider it "yourself" who reached, while technically the achievement does not belong to you. - Some people spend 1000's of hours playing these games over the course of several years, yet still do not own anything, there seems some form of deception in that.