Blyaunte

The spirit of the game means playing fair, playing honestly. It's a game, if you don't follow the rules of the game then it's hardly a proper game, it's just a bunch of people doing as they like. I just find it unfair and dishonest. way ahead of you see my last post. Also who decides that is the spirit of the game? If I decide that the spirit of the game is to lie, cheat and steal would I be wrong? Ring -- all "spirit of the game" and "cheaters neener neener" discussion points aside -- where is YOUR threshold? At what point do you think that "botting" will become a sufficient problem to annoy you beyond the point that you simply will not dismiss it as unimportant and actually take issue with it? I could give a rat's ass that someone cheats. My "in game" achievements mean [bleep] all to me. I just like to play the game [as efficiently as possible]. But let's be frank here -- they've past MY threshold point. Bots are practically everywhere and in HUGE and obvious numbers. They're in the Black Demons cavern in Taverly and have pretty much choked out that resource/tarining area. They've made it damn near impossible to get a quick kill rate in GWD for Armadyl ... <_< How soon before the bots take over so much of the game that it becomes unplayable, do you think? Will it have reached YOUR threshold then? :unsure:

Anyone got screenies of the Rellekka update?

I dunno "loyalty points" sounds to me a lot like "frequent flyer miles" and all the positive and negative attributes that goes along therewith. :unsure: That said, how "cosmetic" is this aura spot going to be? I wonder ...

My questions exactly ...

Not like we can always hotlink rolleyes emotes from other sites ... :rolleyes: Or perhaps the OP would prefer this one? :lol:

Um -- you DO realize that you're arguing the attributes of "game-play" with someone who doesn't even play, right? :unsure:

Would love to watch a riot about botting. My bet is that many there will use an autotyper. The irony. How about a bot that RIOTS about bots? :unsure:

It's never changed anything in the past, although it would be fun to take part in one and be a part of RS history. If people really want to show Jagex that botting is a serious problem, then all the members need to cancel their memberships until something is done. That would hit them in the one place that seems to matter: their pocketbook. How does something like a riot get organized, I wonder? :unsure: People have to care about the issue, when it comes to botting - they wont. Neither, apparently, does Jagex. I just took a stroll through the main page. At a tertiary glance, I could not locate the original link to the forums about the whole "bot busting" extravaganza. Apparently "world turtle day" was far more important ... :rolleyes:

It's never changed anything in the past, although it would be fun to take part in one and be a part of RS history. If people really want to show Jagex that botting is a serious problem, then all the members need to cancel their memberships until something is done. That would hit them in the one place that seems to matter: their pocketbook. How does something like a riot get organized, I wonder? :unsure:

I have fun mining, but it's hard to do that when all the training spots are full of bots. Besides, it's not that bots make the game less fun, after all I can always train other skills that they don't affect like DG, but the fact they're not only being lazy but breaking the rules that bothers me. Seeing people blatantly flaunting their disregard for the rules has always rubbed me the wrong way. Really which training spots do you enjoy that are taken by bots? Here is the better question, which spots occupied by bots do they have an advantage over your 97 mining if you are competing? And why does someone's personal choice matter? Its a game, Jagex isn't a deity why do you care so much about someone breaking rules if your not out for a spot on the high scores? Any spot where you can one hit ore at a low level. I.e., clay (yes I mine my own clay for urns while I'm f2p), iron, and all lower ores. Futhermore, all woodcutting areas. Yes it's a game. A game most of us have logged hundreds if not thousands of hours on. This is a game that builds upon the work you've put into it; therefore, most players don't like to see their play time hindered by people who break the rules. The part about breaking the rules only bothers me is because it is Jagex's number one rule basically. It's been the center or the majority of major changes to the game and the rule they swore to uphold when they returned free trade. It's like if the federal government decided to not do anything on terrorism even though they've said they're so guns-[garden tool] about stopping it. I am well aware I just related a game to real life, but on a larger scale, that is exactly what Jagex would be doing. Find a better spot then for clay or iron? Ok you personally chose to legit 99 smithing by cannonball making, someone else chose to bot it and do other things why does it matter? If you enjoyed your time on rs why do you care so much about the person that chose to bot it instead? Devalues your achievement perhaps but it shouldnt devalue your fun [because fun is derived from the activity not the recognition and if that isnt the case I suggest therapy] And if the federal government decided not to pursue terrorism anymore that would be because they decided that its a waste of recources to have troops in foreign countries to find terrorist cells and a better way to fight it would be tighter border control/protect major targets. How would that be a bad thing? In essence that is what Jagex does now. But you are making the call that bots = terrorists with that analogy and it is just plain off. Bots dont hurt your gameplay [unless you love clay/iron mining or use pure ess as a money maker] while a terrorist may harm your life or property. The same cannot be said about bots. [besides the flimsy devalues my money maker/achievement arugments] At any rate to you personally, you CHOSE very mundaine and repetative ways of getting 99's [smithing with cannonballs, mining with gold pre lrc/pure ess] if you feel bad that you did it legit then you should have botted it. If you are mad that someone botting it takes away ingame recognition for your achievements seek therapy. If you are mad that bots devalue your money maker - find a better money maker. If you enjoy clay mining above all else in RS find an empty spot [yes im sure it exists]. If you enjoy mining, say you enjoy LRC, say you want 99. Why does it matter if you enjoyed getting 99, achieved it but someone else cheated. This is entertainment not a job, them cheating means nothing to me if I enjoy what I am doing. Edit: I know it seems rude of me to say that about method you personally used to train but its not you directly im saying it to, its anyone who feels they got cheated by someone cheating. If this was IRL id support you 100% however this is entertainment, if someone cheats in GTA (Grand Theft Auto) and I dont care, after all what difference does it make to me? The only difference comes when theres a pecking order established by a high score list, but I honestly think people who worship those lists need therapy. Edit: Edit: I know im rambling in this post bare with me [/hide] Every good spot for clay and iron are filled with at least three bots per ore cluster in F2P. I was just citing examples for activities levels don't affect when compared against bots. I can outclick bots the majority of time so it isn't a hassle for me, necessarily. I did enjoy my time Smithing to 99. Why do I care about the person botting? They're cheating. The principle is as simple as that. Bots don't affect me until they begin to hinder my game play, and since everyone can use a furnace, they did not hinder my smelting. It never devalued my fun, but it does for sure devalue the achievement if one can not play a single hour and achieve that same skill as I have. As for recognition, explain the entire basis of skill capes. Humans by nature enjoy being recognized for their achievements whether they are real or something online. Why would there be Valedictorian during high school graduations if recognition is not important. I'm not saying it's a driving factor behind people getting 99s, but it's an after product that people enjoy to see/hear. Take strength and cooking for example. Most people do not even buy the capes because they are so popular and therefore devalued. Obviously, recognition is important to players. If the federal government stopped an active approach towards terrorism they wouldn't stop entirely. You said it yourself, they would do something and not just totally stop. Totally stopping is basically what Jagex has done. If Jagex took an approach where they make it harder for bots to function effectively it would be different. They have done nothing besides blow smoke up our posterior ends. Again, you said that RuneScape is for entertainment. If I decide that I loathe frost dragons and want to fish sharks since I enjoy fishing and they were decent money, then that's my choice and it's based on the fun factor. The bots have obviously harmed shark prices and therefore they have devalued something I enjoy and made it near stupid to fish for money. In essence, they ruined that aspect of fun since it's so impractical to perform that task anymore. Therefore, they did affect my game play and hinder my experience in RuneScape. I myself stated that I am not comparing bots to terrorists, but am comparing the actions of Jagex to something on a much larger scale, the federal government. I do not feel bad about the way I achieved 99s. I did them because I LOVED that certain skill and the way of training it that I choose. Personally, smelting three minute batches that allowed me to forum browse and such, is the way I wanted to play RuneScape at that time. I'm not mad about people botting, as Racheya said in her article, "I don't care." It's the fact that they are cheating that bothers me only slightly. It's as simple as that; someone is allowed to cheat blatantly and get away with it. As I said before, empty spots are extremely tough to come by. It doesn't matter to me at least. As I said before, it's the blatant cheating. It's not rude, it's support to your argument and I'm fine with that. The only way bots directly affect you is if they ruin a way you used to play (mentioned above) or hinder your from performing a duty effectively. There are a lot of people who value they place on the high scores. To them, it is a competition and maybe this is the one thing they're good at. Is it wrong for them to have a sense of achievement over a game? Some may say yes, but others would disagree. It's all a matter of opinion and circumstance. My main point is however, it's cheating plain and simple. I'm not criticizing anyone besides Jagex themselves. If you're not going to enforce a rule then simply remove it and do not lie to people by saying you're proactively against it. Personally, bots don't bother me anymore. When I was low leveled I believed I could make a difference by sending it hundreds of names of suspected bots into Jagex. I don't think so anymore. They're something I ,in essence, grew up with and with their return, I'm used to them. Botting isn't a felony or near a major crime; however, when Jagex basis major decisions about botting, they emphasize its importance in RuneScape itself. Therefore, they have established the severity of the offence in people's minds. I had to retype this entire post as I hit add reply earlier and my internet died XD. I hope it's as good as the original. I ask you why the principle of someone cheating matters to you that much? I like to believe im live and let live about a lot of things so its just foreign to me to care about someone else breaking the rules in a way that doesnt harm anyone. A real life example of this would be a pot smoker or someone that gets out of paying traffic tickets somehow. They dont hurt anyone by their actions so I tend to be rather empathetic with them. That is the same attitude I have towards someone who says "Yeah I botted this skill and that skill cause they suck" The reason I say that ingame recognition shouldn't be sought after [and you should seek therapy if it is something you strive for] is that it is a MAJOR factor in developing an unhealthy obsession for the content, it creates the allusion of achieving something when in reality it isn't real. A lot of the top players on the 200m in all skills thread that quit have said similar things. Sure recognition is fun, and pretty nice but it is harmful in my opinion to play for dangerous amounts of times for that high, when spending that amount of time on real challenges will create real recognition as well as real accomplishments. But for your particular runescape accomplishments, I think what you did was great and quite a feat at the time you did it and if you had fun doing it more power to you. :lol: On the Jagex actions towards bots I agree they should be more responsive and actually do something. And I agree with you about bots that directly interfere with your fun are bad. Just something I dont understand still is the ones that dont interfere with your fun such as smith bots or alch bots, why does it matter if the player is cheating? [/hide] It just boils down to myself having pride in certain skills that I have accomplished. There are plenty of people that bot 99 cooking, and do I care? Not particularly. It ruins the fun you could have had and makes the accomplishment (if there is one) meaningless, but that's their choice. People who bot a skill like Runecrafting however kind of annoy me. It's a tedious skill that the majortiy of people who possess the skillcape have pride in. Also, it used to be a major money-maker for skillers that is basically ruined now.The fact that I can do nothing about it however makes it to the point where it's dumb to care if someone is botting anymore. I don't see the point in botting 99's when you can easily play on a private server if abilities is all your after. If you think about it, people who bot are after recognition for no input sometimes. The fact that someone can offer zero input and achieve exactly what the person who spent 100 hundred hours doing whatever annoys me as well. It's as if someone got through the entirity of high school by cheating off someone else and graduated. I understand this happens, but on a much smaller scale. In fine, it takes away from the achievement, someone can achieve something with no input, and the majority of bots now directly harm players (as in they ruin training spots, ruin old money makers, and crowd areas). Note that bots did not affect any of my skills so this isn't me being madbro about this :P. Fair enough on the first paragraph. Perhaps they are unfairly tring to enlarge their e-peen without actually exercising it themselves, so what it doesnt matter. A person that cheated their way to max lvl in runescape what did they gain or lose by doing so? They gained in-game recogntion (arguably undeserved), I cant think of much other gains, perhaps entertainment at max combat without working to get it? What did they lose by botting? Arguably nothing either, potentially their account and/or money to buy the bot but that isnt really too bad considering buy the bot once have it for life and bot a new account if main gets banned. In relation to high school cheater its a poor example because you gain undeserved recognition for cheating, however you are an illiterate dumb ass despite the fact that you graduate. That is why I say cheating IRL is bad and cheating in rs isnt. [/hide]They have an unfair advantage against anyone who actually spent the time to train. They did so without any struggles and in essences didn't earn what they have. It's about honor and pride basically. One who bots doesn't deserve the levels they earned. Compared to the players who sacrificed their time to achieve their goal and be able to do something new, they don't deserve it. If the players who bot only wanted the levels, why don't they just play on private servers? They obviously want the recognition and the ability to play with legitemate players. However, when they cheat, break a contract they agreed too, and break one of the biggest rules in the game, they don't even deserve that right. It's about having honor in everything you do. It my be a game, but I don't lose my morals when I click log on. Why does "morality" have to enter into it? How does the existence of bots lessen your "achievements" if you know that you worked hard, honestly and earnestly to get them? I'm not disagreeing with your overall opinion on the botting problem, but I am disagreeing with your point of view on this as to how it affects both you and your gaming experience. I agree that it's a problem – I just diagree as to why it's a problem: IMO – the problem with bots is that, in the end, if something doesn't get done about them, and soon, we're pretty much going to be playing "Botscape". Go to those common locations for bots and the sheer number of the damn things out there demonstrates the degree to which this problem has truly got out of control. It's pretty much reached the point of critical mass. ... and it's not just a few people trying to train grinding skills anymore, it's people trying to make IRL money from them, too. As a result, those places where people trained "combat skills" or "earned money", like GWD and Black Demons, have now been so inundated with bots, that it's become almost impossible to go to those places anymore. Off topic +1: Is it time to "RIOT" about the botting problem?

Jagex has always maintained that all player accounts are Jagex's own intellectual property. It's stated in numerous locations all over the Runescape site. As such, technically, you cannot bequeath that which does not belong to you under a Testamentary document (Will). That said you can pretty much say anything you want in your Will although any lawyer preparing said document will look at you sideways. In the end, it is up to your Executors/Trustees to carry out your wishes, and why you'd want to saddle them with this kind of bequest is totally beyond the scope of normality. Still as of the date of this writing I know of four people who have claimed to have "died" and had their accounts taken-over by some form of "representative". :unsure: Personally, IMO, these four people didn't actually "die", but rather feigned (claimed) death in order to get out of the sticky drama into which all of them were embroiled ... :rolleyes:

I've been cannoning/meleeing Black Demons for charms and effigies and yes, the bots down there have become just terrible -- 20 of the damn things, all dressed alike, and all attacking the same available target. :angry: That said -- I hopped to a 1500+ skills world and there were no bots at all ... :unsure:

http://thesaurus.com/browse/enforce, yes they can have varied meaning and connotations but they can't be THAT dissimilar if they're synonyms. Further, it wasn't just the UN providing the refugees with services. He used connections to force the government to provide basic health care to the refugees; I don't know what more you want than a show of force to consider an action to be enforcing. That's still not enforcement but rather a temporary relief. Theoretically, you could argue that, say, peacekeeping is likewise an enforcement of the U.N. mandate but it isn't. All they can do is keep parties at arm's-length from each other and hope they learn to get along. You're still not enforcing "Universal Human Rights" though you're merely offering a reprieve from the current conditions. I get that you were criticizing it on a broader scale, and yes these things are much harder to implement without a decent infrastructure. But the fact remains that China is capable of providing these rights, but remains unwilling to. I am interested in this dichotomy you're talking about, if you'd feel more open you could just pm me. I'll add it here under a spoiler: I'd hardly consider this "getting wild" over, everything has just become embroiled since you openly mocked torture victims. And as Dan pointed out, why do you get to dictate what is important and what isn't. And further, why shouldn't we add this to the list of China's atrocities? It's one more claim to lay against them. "One more claim ..." Is it? On the grand scale of claims, is it one more? All through this debate, you and others have been trying to assert that this punishment is some form of torture, based largely off, what I can plainly see, as a diversion from the actual facts. Sure, the writer tried to make the article seem meatier somewhat exciting but the actual plugged in information from the original source doesn't back up the half-baked claims that the story purports to relate. In the end, you're still left asking the same question: is playing video games torture? The answer to which is an unequivocal "no" ...

[hide] I'd concede this to an extent in that they have little military power to stop offenders (See: Darfur); but saying that they are completely unable to support human rights is hyperbolic (For an example see here.) "Support" and "enforce" are two entirely different things. "Because I could use the intergovernmental clout of the U.N. to win asylum permission, disembarkation permission to get the various ministries concerned to get ships into the port to allow refugees on board to allow them temporary shelter in hospitals and in camps in Singapore." --From my source about a UN official using it's power and connections in order to "enforce" Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of HR. Sorry the words I chose were not completely interchangeable with yours, but they do bear enough resemblance to carry my argument. Now moving on from the Topicality... [/hide] You're trying to swathe an awfully WIDE GAP between "support" and "enforce" here, and you know it. Is providing relief to those seeking assistance/comfort/asylum "enforcement" by the U.N.? No. No it isn't. [hide] "There is a difference between having rights and enjoying those rights. In most countries there is still a big gap between human rights in theory and in practice." Source Simply because they are not being practiced doesn't make them go away. I still have a right to privacy, no matter how much the government spies on me. If the idea of rights can disappear when they are violated, then no one but rich old white heterosexual men would ever have any rights, ever. And considering your track record, I doubt that's the kind of world you believe in or want to create. There is a difference between enjoying those rights and/or wanting and needing those rights. In a Western democracy, where we've got food on store shelves, income to provide pretty houses and lots of interesting fashions to cover our backsides, it's very easy to think that our "rights" are "Universal". In a place where one struggles to find food, has little or no shelter, barely enough clothing to stay warm, it is entirely another matter. These people are often more concerned about where their next meal is coming from, or if they will ever have fresh drinking water, than having concerns about their "right to privacy", or any other "right" deemed "universal". These notions of "Universal Human Rights" are merely luxuries, afforded to those who have the free time to employ and otherwise enjoy them. Ask a starving man if he'd rather eat (and do what you tell him) or vote and exercise his Universal Human Right – which do you think he will choose? If you think he will choose the latter, then you're even more out of touch with the greater realities of what goes on this world than I originally suspected. China is many things, but a third world country it is not. And no, I'm not so "out of touch with the greater realities of what goes on this world" to think that lack of food or shelter aren't problems in China. A person you described living in China would be far in the minority, especially in urban areas. So to expect basic human decencies to be upheld in one of the largest economies in the world isn't exactly a stretch. [/hide] My point was not merely limited to China. I was merely proving that "Universal Human Rights" is a luxury that not everyone wants or can afford. If you'd like, we could discuss the concept of, say, "Unversal Human Rights" as opposed to China's concept of communism. You'd find, in many ways, that there is a certain dichotomy that, interestingly enough, doesn't make the whole "Universal Human Rights" option out to be a whole lot better. But that'd be taking the thread off-topic, and I'd end up being banned for trolling ... :unsure: [hide] This is a curious step in logic: just because these countries (Including our own) do not hold to those conditions, doesn't mean they should be expected or demanded to change. So just because some entity is doing something, something which can usually be seen as obviously morally wrong or at least dubious, that doesn't mean others should expect or demand a change. Just because our country right now continues to be homophobic, racist, sexist, islamaphobic etc. we shouldn't do anything and should just be expected to carry on. Wasn't there that whole Civil Rights Movement that hinged on the idea that people can demand equal treatment from their government and actually make gains in the quality of life? Yeah, the world still sucks, and politics often delays these processes, but to say that we cannot demand change from our society is to give up. Sure – go ahead -- make all the demands you want. While you're at it, put a pile of poo in one hand and pile of those demands in another, and guess which one will draw China's attention first. It's not within the U.N.'s mandate to make these changes happen – neither is it within its power. That said – if you WANT to make change happen in China, find a way to get Facebook and Twitter to have a wider audience therein. If the Arab Spring is any example, and I think it is, these social networks are having more affect making change, than anything the U.N.'s managed to do in the past 70 years. And what is this article for if not a rallying point to try and change Chinese policies? This was written, posted, and then re-posted here in an effort to make the lives of Chinese citizens better, and since you agree that internet activism can achieve great things why are you so cynical about this whole thing? [/hide] As I pointed out. There's a whole list of atrocities that are uniquely China's own burden to bear – and there's issues that one should get wild about and make a huge fuss over. This isn't one them. Sorry.

This is a curious step in logic: just because these countries (Including our own) do not hold to those conditions, doesn't mean they should be expected or demanded to change. So just because some entity is doing something, something which can usually be seen as obviously morally wrong or at least dubious, that doesn't mean others should expect or demand a change. Just because our country right now continues to be homophobic, racist, sexist, islamaphobic etc. we shouldn't do anything and should just be expected to carry on. Wasn't there that whole Civil Rights Movement that hinged on the idea that people can demand equal treatment from their government and actually make gains in the quality of life? Yeah, the world still sucks, and politics often delays these processes, but to say that we cannot demand change from our society is to give up. Sure go ahead -- make all the demands you want. While you're at it, put a pile of poo in one hand and pile of those demands in another, and guess which one will draw China's attention first. It's not within the U.N.'s mandate to make these changes happen neither is it within its power. That said if you WANT to make change happen in China, find a way to get Facebook and Twitter to have a wider audience therein. If the Arab Spring is any example, and I think it is, these social networks are having more affect making change, than anything the U.N.'s managed to do in the past 70 years. I'm not commenting on the rest of your post because I don't like interfering with posts directed at other too much, but: "Sure go ahead -- make all the demands you want. While you're at it, put a pile of poo in one hand and pile of those demands in another, and guess which one will draw China's attention first. " What the [bleep] is that even supposed to mean? Yes a pile of crap in someone's hand would draw attention faster than demands (assumably written, if they're being held, as demands alone are incorporeal), but that has nothing to do with anything. Are you trying to imply that the demands are worth less than fecal matter? If so your comparison is awkwardly phrased and badly executed. And if not, I repeat: What the [bleep] is it supposed to mean, then? Anyways, if you're saying demands is worthless, then I'd like to ask you what would have happened if you had never applied for a college. I paraphrased and old expression ... [/hide] So what you're basically saying is that it's pointless to acknowledge an atrocity as an atrocity if you as a single person cannot stop it alone? Because the only way to gain support and actually gain the support to end this is through knowledge. Which is spread through stories like the one linked by this article. No. What I am saying is that you can scream all you want about certain "atrocities", but the likelihood that you're going to affect change screaming about them is so close to zero, that it's really not worth the time or effort to get all excited about them. Mainly because, in this case, the act itself isn't all that atrocious, despite the tender mercies of certain individuals herein to claim otherwise. There's a time to pick your battles. There's a time to get morally outraged. This isn't one of them.

[hide] This is a curious step in logic: just because these countries (Including our own) do not hold to those conditions, doesn't mean they should be expected or demanded to change. So just because some entity is doing something, something which can usually be seen as obviously morally wrong or at least dubious, that doesn't mean others should expect or demand a change. Just because our country right now continues to be homophobic, racist, sexist, islamaphobic etc. we shouldn't do anything and should just be expected to carry on. Wasn't there that whole Civil Rights Movement that hinged on the idea that people can demand equal treatment from their government and actually make gains in the quality of life? Yeah, the world still sucks, and politics often delays these processes, but to say that we cannot demand change from our society is to give up. Sure – go ahead -- make all the demands you want. While you're at it, put a pile of poo in one hand and pile of those demands in another, and guess which one will draw China's attention first. It's not within the U.N.'s mandate to make these changes happen – neither is it within its power. That said – if you WANT to make change happen in China, find a way to get Facebook and Twitter to have a wider audience therein. If the Arab Spring is any example, and I think it is, these social networks are having more affect making change, than anything the U.N.'s managed to do in the past 70 years. I'm not commenting on the rest of your post because I don't like interfering with posts directed at other too much, but: "Sure – go ahead -- make all the demands you want. While you're at it, put a pile of poo in one hand and pile of those demands in another, and guess which one will draw China's attention first. " What the [bleep] is that even supposed to mean? Yes a pile of crap in someone's hand would draw attention faster than demands (assumably written, if they're being held, as demands alone are incorporeal), but that has nothing to do with anything. Are you trying to imply that the demands are worth less than fecal matter? If so your comparison is awkwardly phrased and badly executed. And if not, I repeat: What the [bleep] is it supposed to mean, then? Anyways, if you're saying demands is worthless, then I'd like to ask you what would have happened if you had never applied for a college. [/hide] I paraphrased and old expression ...

No one is arguing that this isnt wrong all were saying is china is a totalitarian form of government who is too powerful to be pushed around by the UN so they can do what they want. Also to the chinese citizens you knew what was coming for breaking petty crimes ... and I am arguing that they're misreading the original article and that 12-hour shifts doesn't mean they're working 24/7 and/or sleep deprived ... As such, the entire conversation is laughable.

I'd concede this to an extent in that they have little military power to stop offenders (See: Darfur); but saying that they are completely unable to support human rights is hyperbolic (For an example see here.) "Support" and "enforce" are two entirely different things. "There is a difference between having rights and enjoying those rights. In most countries there is still a big gap between human rights in theory and in practice." Source Simply because they are not being practiced doesn't make them go away. I still have a right to privacy, no matter how much the government spies on me. If the idea of rights can disappear when they are violated, then no one but rich old white heterosexual men would ever have any rights, ever. And considering your track record, I doubt that's the kind of world you believe in or want to create. There is a difference between enjoying those rights and/or wanting and needing those rights. In a Western democracy, where we've got food on store shelves, income to provide pretty houses and lots of interesting fashions to cover our backsides, it's very easy to think that our "rights" are "Universal". In a place where one struggles to find food, has little or no shelter, barely enough clothing to stay warm, it is entirely another matter. These people are often more concerned about where their next meal is coming from, or if they will ever have fresh drinking water, than having concerns about their "right to privacy", or any other "right" deemed "universal". These notions of "Universal Human Rights" are merely luxuries, afforded to those who have the free time to employ and otherwise enjoy them. Ask a starving man if he'd rather eat (and do what you tell him) or vote and exercise his Universal Human Right – which do you think he will choose? If you think he will choose the latter, then you're even more out of touch with the greater realities of what goes on this world than I originally suspected. This is a curious step in logic: just because these countries (Including our own) do not hold to those conditions, doesn't mean they should be expected or demanded to change. So just because some entity is doing something, something which can usually be seen as obviously morally wrong or at least dubious, that doesn't mean others should expect or demand a change. Just because our country right now continues to be homophobic, racist, sexist, islamaphobic etc. we shouldn't do anything and should just be expected to carry on. Wasn't there that whole Civil Rights Movement that hinged on the idea that people can demand equal treatment from their government and actually make gains in the quality of life? Yeah, the world still sucks, and politics often delays these processes, but to say that we cannot demand change from our society is to give up. Sure – go ahead -- make all the demands you want. While you're at it, put a pile of poo in one hand and pile of those demands in another, and guess which one will draw China's attention first. It's not within the U.N.'s mandate to make these changes happen – neither is it within its power. That said – if you WANT to make change happen in China, find a way to get Facebook and Twitter to have a wider audience therein. If the Arab Spring is any example, and I think it is, these social networks are having more affect making change, than anything the U.N.'s managed to do in the past 70 years.

Did you just play the "maturity troll card"? Tsk. Tsk. And a forum mod too ... And actually -- no it boils down as to whether one considers 12-hour shifts of playing WoW as "torture" -- but you digress ...

"...in Heilongjiang province from 2004 still haunt Liu." Haunt. Sounds like a wonderful place to pass the time. What's your point, exactly? That because they don't call it a "prison" that it's some kind of country club? Ever try reading the original post and my response to it? You may find it enlightening. Go on. Give it a try ... :rolleyes:

Oh yay! A new "angle". :rolleyes: Shall we argue about your definition of "camp" now? Or shall we merely agree to disagree that this is something "lost in translation" as related from the original source? You never answered my question. I am curious. Have you tried, oh I don't know, READING THE ARTICLE? "Memories from his detention at Jixi re-education-through-labour camp ..."

Oh yay! A new "angle". :rolleyes: Shall we argue about your definition of "camp" now? Or shall we merely agree to disagree that this is something "lost in translation" as related from the original source? As a prisoner at the Jixi labour camp, Liu Dali would slog through tough days breaking rocks and digging trenches in the open cast coalmines of north-east China. By night, he would slay demons, battle goblins and cast spells. I'm not sure how many ways there are to interpret that. Apparently two -- there's the foolish notion that they worked people 24/7, which is not supported elsewhere in the article -- and there's the correct idea that they split work into 12-hour shifts, some working day shift, and others night shift, at varying tasks ... Now -- which part of this don't you comprehend? Or are you just going to spam the same insipid nonsense repeatedly?

What does one call a troll who accuses others of trolling, I wonder? :rolleyes:

Oh yay! A new "angle". :rolleyes: Shall we argue about your definition of "camp" now? Or shall we merely agree to disagree that this is something "lost in translation" as related from the original source?

I am merely replying, in kind, to the various bizarre arguments that have been flung in my direction. You people tried to prove that China's inhumanity was just terrible and China should be punished and I refuted that. You've dropped THAT argument because you know you've lost that one. You've tried to relate 12 hour shifts of playing video games into some bizarre notion of "torture" -- ignored the obvious facts of the matter, and then, for the most part, tried to drop THAT part of the argument because somewhere along the lines, you've realized that it's just plain silly. Now you're still trying to beat the notion that a "12-hour shift = 24 hours constant work" concept into a dead horse. Seriously -- go back to the drawing board. Come up with a better concept and let's debate that instead. You've lost this one already and it's getting really really old.