Original Intent - a Short Exposition on Random Events

[xpeimingx]

Ok, it is another Wednesday morning and I just feel like writing, which is something that I really do not like doing. No explanation why, I just feel like writing today. Maybe the chocolate last night influenced me. By the way, I will write this expo in first person.

 

 

 

You may have come across the term "original intent" in your government or American history classes. It is the term strict constitutionalism (narrowed view of interpreting the U.S. Constitution) use to strengthen its argument. Basically, strict constitutionalists believe that interpretation of the Constitution should include consideration of what the Framers first wanted it to achieve.

 

 

 

Let us take a glance at Random Events in the virtual (and in my personal opinion, completely useless and time-wasting) world of RuneScape, with a capital 'R' and a capital 'S'. Just weeks after the self-proclaimed "video game" first launched in early 2001, there manifested the problem of macroing, left, right, and center. Insidious, but clever people taking advantage of the game's then low level of detection and security. This probably was not discovered or detected until much later, perhaps in early 2002, because the well-known Report Abuse system was introduced on September 11, 2002.

 

 

 

Note: The fact that this system was introduced on the same day of the 9/11 attack the year previous is purely coincidental.

 

 

 

The very nature of the Report Abuse system makes it an excellent method to promote the integrity of the game play and the morality of its community. Players can now act as "public" vigilantes and the mere presence of other players deter would-be offenders from engaging in such behavior.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to tell if a person is macroing or really putting his or her effort into RS. False accusations of macroing are common mistakes. Jagex needed a better way to differ between genuine work and macroing. Therefore, they came up with a reasonable idea; interrupt ALL or MOST players that appear to be overly automatic or unresponsive to other players. If he or she does not react at all to these "random" events, it can be assumed beyond reasonable doubt that he or she is guilty of using another program to play the game for him or her. If a Mysterious Old Man suddenly teleported in front of you and kept shouting your name in your face, promising gifts if you talked to him, who would ignore him? Why, only a machine, or a robot, not programed to react to him would not.

 

 

 

Since the introduction of Random Events, Jagex has become more effective in catching macroing scum and bring them to justice (even the insignificant world of RuneScape deserves to apply justice).

 

 

 

- On December 12, 2002, Jagex banned 400 players for using macros, and I quote, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅWe have very advanced detection routines, and we can tell if you use programs to control your character for you.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[flava0falcon]

So, if im not wrong, that's your personal opinion and you have absolutly NO proof right? Well you can be sure randoms are not 100% random...I mean even though it is random the odds change and that means the odds to get, for example, a grave digger random event are bigger in diffrent situations. I have made a topic saying i think the random also has better/worse odds to appear to a certain player just because it's this player and not another and i have (not 100%) proved that by telling you of some examples such as i had an account with 54 prayer who wasn't even close to get full zombie and still missed 1 emote while another with 18 prayer already got that over 3 times more than needed for a full set of zombie and both emotes and i also gave some more examples. I only think that im right but i can't, ofcours, prove that and if you want i can add a link to that topic.

 

 

 

~EDIT~ w00t first post :thumbsup: .

[xpeimingx]

So, if im not wrong, that's your personal opinion and you have absolutly NO proof right?

 

 

 

I have evidence, as stated above. This is not about personal opinions, it is an exposition. Proof is the process by which something is accepted to be true, beyond a reasonable doubt. That shall be achieved one day.

 

 

 

Absolutely no proof is no evidence.

[flava0falcon]

So, if im not wrong, that's your personal opinion and you have absolutly NO proof right?

 

 

 

I have evidence, as stated above. This is not about personal opinions, it is an exposition. Proof is the process by which something is accepted to be true, beyond a reasonable doubt. That shall be achieved one day.

 

 

 

Absolutely no proof is no evidence.

And I take it as you didn't read the rest....?

[xpeimingx]

And I take it as you didn't read the rest....?

 

 

 

I never said that I did not "read the rest" of anything. If you are talking about your post, rest assure I have read all of it.

 

 

 

One person alone cannot determine if a set of evidence is proof. Like lawsuits or criminal cases, a jury, or a set of objective outsiders must determine that.

 

 

 

In addition, please be polite on these forums. When I posted my expo, I just felt like sharing a theory, not looking for a verbal fight.

[flava0falcon]

And I take it as you didn't read the rest....?

 

 

 

I never said that I did not "read the rest" of anything. If you are talking about your post, rest assure I have read all of it.

 

 

 

One person alone cannot determine if a set of evidence is proof. Like lawsuits or criminal cases, a jury, or a set of objective outsiders must determine that.

 

 

 

In addition, please be polite on these forums. When I posted my expo, I just felt like sharing a theory, not looking for a verbal fight.

 

I do not see this is a fight but more like a positive arguement.

 

 

 

I am not the only one who thinks randoms are not 100% randoms almost every experienced RuneScape player knows that by doing one thing he (or she) increases the chances of getting a random event of one kind (for example- freaky forester).

 

 

 

As I said I also think it depends on the account itself and 1 account has higher chances of getting 1 random while the other doesn't (and might have higher chances in getting a diffrent random).

 

 

 

With all that said, I can't say randoms are not random but randoms are NOT 100% RANDOM!

[xpeimingx]

RE's are NOT situationally random. However, I am quite sure that they are mathematically random, as to ensure that the system is unbiased.

 

 

 

Where is the argument? We both agree that RE's are not 100% random....

 

 

 

I too busy to read all of the posts, so if any has any concerns, please point out the precise post.