TJT was a well written article about a very good subject; The updates to the game. It covers the news Jagex have realesed and analyse them. I don't think we should panic anytime soon though, I'm sure Jagex will soon release another update. Also, I think it is rather nice to have a little break so we can actually test out the things we already have before they add new stuff. RS is after all a MMO, with a *peep* lot of content.

The Underground Pass article talks about Klank's gauntlets being important for pures because they had the disadvantage of not being able to wear a Rune Plate but really it just evened up the playing field. This is because noone had been using Rune Plates for almost a year anyway after the introduction of gauntlets from the Family Crest quest which pures couldn't get because of a high magic requirement for this quest also. Klank's gauntlets have exactly the same stats as gauntlets just without the 'special' abilities as far as I remember, so really they were important for pures so they didn't have a disadvantage on their weapon stats more than anything to do with Rune Plates because as I said noone really used them anyway.

 

 

 

I thought it was a good read though and it took me back to when I did the quest. Undoubtedly it was an extremely frustrating quest however the author seems to just want quests that he can do easily with the help of a quide which isn't really the point of them and doesn't like the fact that the quest has variables that cant be accounted for by a guide.

 

 

 

In regard to The Jagex Tease, on the Tip.it homepage it is described as "an article by Stormveritas on Jagex's new structure on announcing updates" yet it seems that the author doesnt actually understand the new structure at all as others have already explained.

Just as a reminder to some of our readers...

 

 

 

Many of the articles that appear are editorials and express the opinions of the individual authors themselves. That being said, any bias you feel is there is a result of said expressed opinions. You're more than welcome to disagree with the opinions, but in order to push the discussion forward please do state why, not just "they're wrong" or "so many mistakes!" It's frustrating to read stuff like that and not get a sense of why our readers feel this way.

I missed the point of the second article. It's just a page of ranting about a quest that's what, 4 or 5 years old? Did it ever occur the author that it's not supposed to be an easy quest? I did the underground pass with ~60 thieving and ~30 agility a few years ago, with half an inventory of cakes and some prayer potions (I didn't end up using the potions).

What CampbellMC said that Mod MMG said, in my opinion, should be the BTS. That makes me feel like we shouldn't panic. Although a DDS would be nice to have.

 

 

 

I disagree with the underground pass article. I think the agility obstacles made the quest have its difficulty. Sometimes the only way to make something hard, is to add a random chance it will happen. I did this quest with a friend and had a great time doing it. I never failed a obstacle with only 47 agility and I had fun watching my friend suffer through the quest with his 55 agility. The point of the quest in my opinion was to teach player how to navigate the pass, because in Regicide players had to do that like 3 more times. I didn't know you could get unlimited food at the end though. I was using the tip it guide, and I don't think I read anything about it... If there is unlimited food at the end. I think that should be taken out, to add to the difficulty and frustration. Any quest, no matter the frustration is much more fun with a friend, so I think more quests should be modeled after underground pass. As long as that quest lets you complete it with a friend. I don't like being taken to a room where I'm the only player. As much as I disagree with the author I liked the article.

 

 

 

I didn't read the last article. I might go do that.

I think there one of two things that need to be done to improve the tip.it times:

 

 

 

Make writers write articles objectively eg ignore personal bias and give each view point a fair representation but still allow them a personal input

 

 

 

OR make them use much more in you're face blunt terms that show it is THEIR view and not an objective analytical article that has no bias etc

I think there one of two things that need to be done to improve the tip.it times:

 

 

 

Make writers write articles objectively eg ignore personal bias and give each view point a fair representation but still allow them a personal input

 

 

 

OR make them use much more in you're face blunt terms that show it is THEIR view and not an objective analytical article that has no bias etc

 

I disagree. I think that decision should be made by the author on an article-by-article basis.

I think there one of two things that need to be done to improve the tip.it times:

 

 

 

Make writers write articles objectively eg ignore personal bias and give each view point a fair representation but still allow them a personal input

 

 

 

OR make them use much more in you're face blunt terms that show it is THEIR view and not an objective analytical article that has no bias etc

 

I disagree. I think that decision should be made by the author on an article-by-article basis.

 

 

 

I agree it shuldnt be 1 method across the board.

 

 

 

But i think making each article totally objective or very clearly personal will clear up some issues with the judgements of them

I think there one of two things that need to be done to improve the tip.it times:

 

 

 

Make writers write articles objectively eg ignore personal bias and give each view point a fair representation but still allow them a personal input

 

 

 

OR make them use much more in you're face blunt terms that show it is THEIR view and not an objective analytical article that has no bias etc

 

 

 

To be fair the Tip.It Times has always been an editorial column, not a newspaper. And I don't think it needs to be a tabloid journal using inflammatory, sensationalism to get their point across. A well-written editorial is written with a persuasive argument and uses facts to back up their position. It's just food for thought, man. I don't think they need to change their format.

 

 

 

The problem I had this week was one of the articles was their argument was misleading compared to what information is already out there.

I think there one of two things that need to be done to improve the tip.it times:

 

 

 

Make writers write articles objectively eg ignore personal bias and give each view point a fair representation but still allow them a personal input

 

 

 

OR make them use much more in you're face blunt terms that show it is THEIR view and not an objective analytical article that has no bias etc

 

 

 

To be fair the Tip.It Times has always been an editorial column, not a newspaper. And I don't think it needs to be a tabloid journal using inflammatory, sensationalism to get their point across. A well-written editorial is written with a persuasive argument and uses facts to back up their position. It's just food for thought, man. I don't think they need to change their format.

 

 

 

The problem I had this week was one of the articles was their argument was misleading compared to what information is already out there.

 

 

 

i didnt say a thing about changing format.

 

 

 

the fact of the matter is at the moment it is failing in part as a editorial.

 

 

 

Simply articles either try to disguise a personal review or commentary as an editorial and as such lack any real evidence and pay little scope to the other side of the argument or attempt to be an editorial with some good arguments but equally lack any consideration of an alternative viewpoint.

 

 

 

What I think it need is a injection of language use that makes it clear when an article is a personal review or commentary so it doesn't come off as a poorly approached editorial, this can be achieved by simply using terms such as "in my view" or "to me" in the writing more. Equally i think it needs more out right editorials that ARE balanced. Either by dictating some articles to be written objectively eg pick a neutral person who can consider all views, or pairing writers up on an article, specifically those with opposing view points or doing paired up articles where one week we get the scathing condemming of mod mmg with considered arguments but the week after we get the other side of the argument again with evidence.

 

 

 

It all comes down to writing, the writers are all quite good but to be frank most of them suck at editorial as they seem unable to write without bias or often even give decent argument or evidence to a point. But the styling the time is aiming at requires editorial writing, which is causing otherwise good writers to go slightly off key.

 

 

 

I'd much rather see a tip.it times made up of some outright personal reviews and commentary and some really well done editorial than all mediocre editorial based on many personal reviews and commentaries trying to be written into an editorial format.

What I think it need is a injection of language use that makes it clear when an article is a personal review or commentary so it doesn't come off as a poorly approached editorial, this can be achieved by simply using terms such as "in my view" or "to me" in the writing more.

 

 

 

Editorials are by definition the representation of the point of view of the writer. It is assumed that all statements that are not facts and are not cited as otherwise are the opinions of the writer. Therefore it is redundant and in bad style to use words and phrases to restate that it is an opinion.

 

 

 

An argumentative essay presents evidence and explains how that evidence supports the writer's point of view. Editorials are, in essence, argumentative essays. Editorial columnists are under no obligation to represent the other side of the argument, because they are presenting their own. Including both sides of the argument removes the argument aspect and turns the article into a report, not an editorial.

 

 

 

As the Times is now, it needs to change nothing in order to present "better editorials," because what everyone seems to be clamoring for is a change from the editorial format completely and to an objective stance. I really don't understand why you want this; what it seems to boil down to is the fact that people just don't like what the writer has to say. Well, that's an editorial for you. You can agree fully, halfway, not at all or anywhere in between. Just because you don't agree with a Times article does not stamp it with the label "SUCKS." They are doing nothing wrong in the composition area.

 

 

 

If you want to see multiple viewpoints from the Times staff, I'm sure we can easily find people who disagree. One can then write an essay arguing for his/her point of view, the other can then rebut with his/hers. Again, it is not the obligation of the person writing an editorial to represent the other side at all, much less equally.

I think there one of two things that need to be done to improve the tip.it times:

 

 

 

Make writers write articles objectively eg ignore personal bias and give each view point a fair representation but still allow them a personal input

 

 

 

OR make them use much more in you're face blunt terms that show it is THEIR view and not an objective analytical article that has no bias etc

 

 

 

i didnt say a thing about changing format.

 

 

 

Ok...you'll have to forgive me for misunderstanding then because that sounds exactly like what you are implying.

I think it's safe to say I should not try to reply to anything tht requires brain pwoer in the early hours of morn as even I have no idea what I was on about. =/

 

 

 

But from all my waffle I think I gleamed two good ideas.

 

 

 

Firstly some objective unbiased articles would be nice from time to time instead of editorials, particularly for new content.

 

 

 

Secondly I think it would work rather nicely if we did get some opposing article pairs in editorial form where both sides of an argument are addressed but in personal view points.