Tip.It times - 3rd October 2010

[Racheya]

I personally would like to make some points on the... status of how people are receiving Rachael's article. Much like the rest of the 'arguments' on this thread, my viewpoint is of my own and of my own personal opinion.

 

As most people would have noticed, I was in charge of editing this week. This gives me the opportunity to read through the articles that are lined up, spot spelling and grammatical issues (etc) and express my views on the article. At first, there were some points I told her she may want to keep an eye on, just in case, but they were quickly fixed to prevent this from happening. I saw it as a well-presented argument (once the points I brought out were cleared up) with her own opinion. It was not a flaming rant and it was certainly not trollbait. It was Racheya's, and probably other people's, viewpoint.

 

Now I may be wrong, but don't newsletters and such have personal viewpoints, or opinions? How else would magazines, such as Gaming genres, stay alive if it was all facts? For instance, I think Portal is one of the greatest games out there, others do not. That is not a FACT, but rather an OPINION, much like Rachael's opinion on efficiency. One has to remember that this is a newsletter, where articles are heavily opinionated. Tip.It Times is not the news.

 

Also, if you feel any lack from us, in this apparent 'bad string of articles', then please feel free to express that to us in a PM. Note to us how we are 'lacking', or, if you feel you can do better, come up with your own topic and write on it. Clearly, if youre so good at taking points, misconstruing them and then making a completely barbaric post, then youre obviously better than us. :)

 

Oh and one last thing. It is absolutely disgusting to bash an author. One shows a complete lack of manners if they bash an author. If you have any problems with an article, then express your views on the article and not the author.

 

That is all.

 

 

Actually, you are wrong. It is completely normal to criticize an author, as well as his pieces, and style. CLEARLY you havn't read many reviews, sir.

 

Here are some examples of different negative reviews: "I weep for the souls of the trees that died to make this book" "The occasional good parts of the book weren't really all that good at all; they just seemed that way by comparison to the other even-slower parts. I found the footnotes to be slightly more entertaining" etc

 

Not to mention, the internet is a far different brand of media the newspapers, etc. An author needs to be ready to accept criticism.

 

"But when people like Stonewall337 start disecting every single word we've written down, pulling it out of context and then blame us for the fact that it does not make sense, does not encourage us to get engaged in the conversation about our own articles"

 

Show one quote I took out of context, instead of simply claiming I did so.

 

He didn't say that it's wrong to criticise an author, he said bash. Specifically bash. Not criticise. Because criticism can be constructive and actually help.

 

Your examples are, actually, not constructive criticism at all, rather just needless digs at an author. Just because other people do it, doesn't mean that it's nice or helpful or right.

 

 

And what Vulxai said about criticism. It's very easy to ignore genuine help when it's paired with a needless insult. There's NO reason you need to bash someone, none.

[stonewall337]

I think that everyone should STFU and stop bickering over something so trivial as an article!!! >.<

 

Cut Racheya some slack, she's never said she was unbiased... It would be a very boring article had it been unbiased.

 

AND FOR GOD SAKE, PEOPLE, taking quotes out of context is BAD FORM. BAD FORM. <_<

 

 

1.) Its hardly trivial. Its a featured article on the first RS fansite out there.

 

2.) Show where quotes are taken out of context, people keep on claiming this, without any proof.

 

3.) You are wellknown as a friend of Rach. Anything you say will, automatically, lack objectivity, especially if presented with proof.

 

@ Racheya. So you claim that all the points I mentioned in my first post were "needless digs at [me]"? That is utterly ridiculous.

 

In fact, over your past several articles, you've received numerous pieces of good advice, and as far as I can tell, you've ignored all of said advice. I've also offered to help you edit any article you wish. I can guarantee that would help cut back some of the criticism, even if only from me.

 

I'd also like to apologize, as I feel on reflection that, even if my original point remains true, it was neither posted in the best form, or written with the most clarity of explanation so as to be helpful.

[Racheya]

So you claim that all the points I mentioned in my first post were "needless digs at [me]"? That is utterly ridiculous.

 

In fact, over your past several articles, you've received numerous pieces of good advice, and as far as I can tell, you've ignored all of said advice. I've also offered to help you edit any article you wish. I can guarantee that would help cut back some of the criticism, even if only from me.

 

I'd also like to apologize, as I feel on reflection that, even if my original point remains true, it was neither posted in the best form, or written with the most clarity of explanation so as to be helpful.

Of course not all of them were, but I can't spend the time going through every small point. Like I wrote already, I don't intend on writing an article only to have to write another article's worth of words in this topic on little things.

 

Ideally, we don't want to be getting help from people just to stop their criticism. Something like what you're mentioning is something that needs to be discussed by the Editorial Panel it'self.

 

And thank you for apologising, but calling the Times a circlejerk and such aren't going to get you anywhere if you're trying to make a legitimate point.

[Ts_Stormrage]

1: Glad to see you still respect it as such then :)

 

2: Uhh, several people (including me) pointing out the same one, several times on this thread...

 

3: Guilty by association, if that isnt pulling things out of context I dunno what is :)

 

@Rach: that was Bladewing if I am not mistaken, not Stonewall :)

[stonewall337]

So you claim that all the points I mentioned in my first post were "needless digs at [me]"? That is utterly ridiculous.

 

In fact, over your past several articles, you've received numerous pieces of good advice, and as far as I can tell, you've ignored all of said advice. I've also offered to help you edit any article you wish. I can guarantee that would help cut back some of the criticism, even if only from me.

 

I'd also like to apologize, as I feel on reflection that, even if my original point remains true, it was neither posted in the best form, or written with the most clarity of explanation so as to be helpful.

Of course not all of them were, but I can't spend the time going through every small point. Like I wrote already, I don't intend on writing an article only to have to write another article's worth of words in this topic on little things.

 

Ideally, we don't want to be getting help from people just to stop their criticism. Something like what you're mentioning is something that needs to be discussed by the Editorial Panel it'self.

 

And thank you for apologising, but calling the Times a circlejerk and such aren't going to get you anywhere if you're trying to make a legitimate point.

NOTE: That was bladewing, not me.

 

And I'd disagree TS. Several friends of Racheya, including in this case the OP, have done the same thing in the past. In which case this is rather a case of precedent, instead of guilt by association.

[Guest jrhairychest]

I didn't realise there were so many professional authors out there. Such distinguished people who work for The Times, The Guardian and Financial times who play RS and go on to the Tipit forums to criticise the article authors.

[Ts_Stormrage]

I didn't realise there were so many professional authors out there. Such distinguished people who work for The Times, The Guardian and Financial times who play RS and go on to the Tipit forums to criticise the article authors.

 

Lol... I know there's some sarcasm in there somewhere ;)

[Racheya]

So you claim that all the points I mentioned in my first post were "needless digs at [me]"? That is utterly ridiculous.

 

In fact, over your past several articles, you've received numerous pieces of good advice, and as far as I can tell, you've ignored all of said advice. I've also offered to help you edit any article you wish. I can guarantee that would help cut back some of the criticism, even if only from me.

 

I'd also like to apologize, as I feel on reflection that, even if my original point remains true, it was neither posted in the best form, or written with the most clarity of explanation so as to be helpful.

Of course not all of them were, but I can't spend the time going through every small point. Like I wrote already, I don't intend on writing an article only to have to write another article's worth of words in this topic on little things.

 

Ideally, we don't want to be getting help from people just to stop their criticism. Something like what you're mentioning is something that needs to be discussed by the Editorial Panel it'self.

 

And thank you for apologising, but calling the Times a circlejerk and such aren't going to get you anywhere if you're trying to make a legitimate point.

NOTE: That was bladewing, not me.

 

And I'd disagree TS. Several friends of Racheya, including in this case the OP, have done the same thing in the past. In which case this is rather a case of precedent, instead of guilt by association.

My mistake, but the example of that sort of attitude till stands.

 

And just because they're my friends, means they can't express their opinions? Wingless is ON the Times and does a lot of hard work editing and writing articles himself. Miss_Suzumiya is a friend of mine who, in fact, I'm more likely to argue with than anyone here. Just because they're friends and what to defend me against points that they see as genuinely bad things, doesn't mean they won't have their OWN opinions. Nor is is right to suggest that they can't express it.

 

And what do you mean by the OP? As in the OP of this topic, me? O_o

[stonewall337]

So you claim that all the points I mentioned in my first post were "needless digs at [me]"? That is utterly ridiculous.

 

In fact, over your past several articles, you've received numerous pieces of good advice, and as far as I can tell, you've ignored all of said advice. I've also offered to help you edit any article you wish. I can guarantee that would help cut back some of the criticism, even if only from me.

 

I'd also like to apologize, as I feel on reflection that, even if my original point remains true, it was neither posted in the best form, or written with the most clarity of explanation so as to be helpful.

Of course not all of them were, but I can't spend the time going through every small point. Like I wrote already, I don't intend on writing an article only to have to write another article's worth of words in this topic on little things.

 

Ideally, we don't want to be getting help from people just to stop their criticism. Something like what you're mentioning is something that needs to be discussed by the Editorial Panel it'self.

 

And thank you for apologising, but calling the Times a circlejerk and such aren't going to get you anywhere if you're trying to make a legitimate point.

NOTE: That was bladewing, not me.

 

And I'd disagree TS. Several friends of Racheya, including in this case the OP, have done the same thing in the past. In which case this is rather a case of precedent, instead of guilt by association.

My mistake, but the example of that sort of attitude till stands.

 

And just because they're my friends, means they can't express their opinions? Wingless is ON the Times and does a lot of hard work editing and writing articles himself. Miss_Suzumiya is a friend of mine who, in fact, I'm more likely to argue with than anyone here. Just because they're friends and what to defend me against points that they see as genuinely bad things, doesn't mean they won't have their OWN opinions. Nor is is right to suggest that they can't express it.

 

And what do you mean by the OP? As in the OP of this topic, me? O_o

 

You, clearly, didn't get the point. Rather, if your friends tell us basically to bug off, etc, they lack objectivity. That is all there is too it.

 

OP is objective party, or original poster. In this case, objective party, or the person I was talking about.

 

Example, if some of my friends told others to leave me alone, EG Grimy or Lowc etc, when their is room for discussion, then others would be write to consider their bias more a reason why they are "protecting" me, then because of they have any real backing for their statements.

[Guest jrhairychest]

I didn't realise there were so many professional authors out there. Such distinguished people who work for The Times, The Guardian and Financial times who play RS and go on to the Tipit forums to criticise the article authors.

 

Lol... I know there's some sarcasm in there somewhere ;)

Moi? Never...Actually I'm waiting around for T.S Church to come in and give his opinion.

[Ts_Stormrage]

Hmm... I'm actually set to write a fictional for the Times, spanning november AND december... If he's willing to give his opinion, I'd be humbled no matter what he says :D

[Guest jrhairychest]

Hmm... I'm actually set to write a fictional for the Times, spanning november AND december... If he's willing to give his opinion, I'd be humbled no matter what he says :D

Nice one, good luck with that. Sling him a few GP and you never know. What's the subject of the fictional?

[Erewhon2]

I'm sorry I couldn't resist doing the corrections when the posts from this author have displayed such arrogance about his ability and right to criticise and such a desperate need to be recognised by the Tip.it team (nearly every post for the last 2 pages is practically begging the team to take him on as an editor).

 

 

 

Example, if some of my friends told others to leave me alone, EG Grimy or Lowc etc, when their (there) is room for discussion, then others would be write (right) to consider their bias more a reason why they are "protecting" me, then (than) because of (? irrelevant word) they have any real backing for their statements.

 

 

Personally, I have no issues with Racheya or her article, I appreciate personal perspectives...it gives something to debate and discuss.

[Ts_Stormrage]

LOL @ previous post :) now beware of stonewalls wrath :P

 

 

 

@Jrhairychest: The setting will be Rellekka, in a particularly harsh winter :ohnoes:

 

I'll go into full detail in the prologue which will be published on November 7th...

[stonewall337]

I'm sorry I couldn't resist doing the corrections when the posts from this author have displayed such arrogance about his ability and right to criticise and such a desperate need to be recognised by the Tip.it team (nearly every post for the last 2 pages is practically begging the team to take him on as an editor).

 

 

 

Example, if some of my friends told others to leave me alone, EG Grimy or Lowc etc, when their (there) is room for discussion, then others would be write (right) to consider their bias more a reason why they are "protecting" me, then (than) because of (? irrelevant word) they have any real backing for their statements.

 

 

Personally, I have no issues with Racheya or her article, I appreciate personal perspectives...it gives something to debate and discuss.

 

 

See, I admit I am not perfect. However, there is also quite a bit of difference between grammar mistakes, which any editor should catch, and other types of errors. As well, a Times piece and a forum post are also quite different mediums. Grammar mistakes are quite common, and often accepted, as time is often more important then proofreading everything. I don't take the same amount of time proofreading a forum post as I do my college papers. Its really quite simple. I could point out several grammar mistakes in your post as well, such as misuse of .... However, that isn't the point here.

 

In fact, I'd be amazed if anyone here on TIF uses perfect writing when texting. In that medium of idea exchange, proper grammar is actually neither needed, or expected. It really should be simple logic to figure the difference out.

[Guest jrhairychest]

LOL @ previous post :) now beware of stonewalls wrath :P

 

 

 

@Jrhairychest: The setting will be Rellekka, in a particularly harsh winter :ohnoes:

 

I'll go into full detail in the prologue which will be published on November 7th...

 

Will look forward to that. Enjoyed the Falador novel. No pressure or anything :-w

 

lol jks.

 

@Erewhon2 - Your lingwis...lynguis.....lingi...stuff with words is tops as always since the last time we crossed swords spoke :P

[Ts_Stormrage]

I wont be trying to live up to that... This will be my first full multi part story I ever wrote... the only remotely fictional thing I once wrote is also a Times article (found here), so do not expect a beauty ;)

[Guest jrhairychest]

I wont be trying to live up to that... This will be my first full multi part story I ever wrote... the only remotely fictional thing I once wrote is also a Times article (found here), so do not expect a beauty ;)

 

I think anything that puts depth into the game has to be good. Nice article. Enjoyed it. Just like the book, there's not enough of it. More please. :^_^:

[Obtaurian]

I, too, have attempted to apply for the editorial staff without so much as a reply. At the expense of modesty, if Stonewall and I were the editors, there wouldn't even be these types of discussions. Racheya's article wouldn't have been released because it would've been apparent within two seconds of reading it that she literally has no clue what she's talking about. There's a difference between an opinion piece and uninformed drivel.

[EU Slayer]

I didn't realise there were so many professional authors out there. Such distinguished people who work for The Times, The Guardian and Financial times who play RS and go on to the Tipit forums to criticise the article authors.

 

LOL, best post of the year :thumbup:

 

I'm glad to see more fictional Stories on Tip.it Times again, Oh how I missed thee.

[Erewhon2]

I, too, have attempted to apply for the editorial staff without so much as a reply. At the expense of modesty, if Stonewall and I were the editors, there wouldn't even be these types of discussions. Racheya's article wouldn't have been released because it would've been apparent within two seconds of reading it that she literally has no clue what she's talking about. There's a difference between an opinion piece and uninformed drivel.

 

If you apply for a job and don't get shortlisted, very rarely are you contacted. I would think that the number of people asking for recognition by the Tip.it team would be overwhelming, I certainly would not necessarily expect a response for a request like that, why should you? :huh:

 

 

If you and Stonewall were editors with your insulting and demeaning attitude it is unlikely I would read your article in the first place. People have already stated on here that the article was not an indication of everyone, but a perspective drawn from those Racheya spoke to.

[Bladewing]

it's assbackwards to say:

 

"well if you're so good, show us!"

 

and then refuse to let them show what they can do

 

note: i am not still not saying i am a better author or editor than those on the staff

[Earth_Poet]

Somewhere before, Stonewall337 was asking for examples of where he took things out of context, etc.. This is why I felt your criticism was frivolous. I had to remove a couple of quote tags as well for limitations.

 

[hide]

Racheya ONCE AGAIN showing her lack of logic skills. Please just stop with all the fallicies, if you wish to retain any semblance of both impartiality (which personally I think you've blown) and reasoning ability. I'll post a myriad of examples later.

 

You have a funny way of showing your own objectivity when delivering your criticism.

 

1.) What your definition is, is actually rather irrelevant. If you are going to write an article about a subject, you need to find out what the REAL, or ACCEPTED definition is. Going by the timing, and content of your article, I will assume that it was written at least in part in answer to the "efficiency" thread on TIF. As such, you really need to use a GOOD definition of efficiency, which was stated numerous times as gp/xp/time. I can argue any side quite easily if I mis define the terms which the other side is using, part of the reason why in debate one of the first things done is to define the terms in the resolution, as well as other common terms to be used.

 

The only part I'd agree with is the first sentence. Frankly, I find the need to define efficiency rather condescending. I work with a group of sixth graders who understand the meaning of efficiency. If someone doesn't know the definition, then it's not hard to look up.

 

However, since you decided to use this as an example, then here's what the Oxford Dictionary Online says about efficient:

 

"...achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense…"

 

- Oxford Dictionaries Online

 

Racheya's definition of efficiency (skillfullness in avoiding wasted time and effort) is far closer than your definition of "gp/xp/time".

 

 

2.) "Let’s face it: Runescape is mostly about the grind, the rote repetition of clicking the same things over and over."

 

You say you aren't getting into whether or not this is a good/bad thing, and yet your whole tone is to imply that it IS bad. There are numerous ways you could (and should) have written this, to retain your objectivity.

 

There's nothing that has to be objective here. Nobody likes to grind. If you enjoy it, then it isn't a grind:

 

"noun

(in singular)

1 a crushing or grating sound or motion:

the crunch and grind of bulldozers

figurative

the slow grind of the US legal system

hard dull work:

relief from the daily grind"

 

- Oxford Dictionaries Online

 

 

 

3.)

This usually involves a lot of calculations with XP per hour' date=' cost per XP and estimated times to reach a goal. Not everyone bothers with the number crunching beforehand, some just get as many resources as they vaguely figure would be enough, then go and do whatever method of training it is[/quote'] BULL [cabbage]. The math for most efficiency factors takes seconds, simple as calculating potion gp/xp, etc. Heck, even figuring out defender Vs DFS is as simple as comparing the stats.

 

While some players go quite in depth with their stats, I agree that most calculations can be done very quickly, especially with Tip.It calculators. Despite that, not everyone bothers doing the calculations. You are disputing a miniscule and irrelevant point. Even if she corrected this passage to your standards, it changes nothing in the meaning. In other words, what's so BS about this quote?

 

4.)

Playing Runescape for fun is the most important thing.

You continue to assume that efficiency is IMPOSSIBLE to attain' date=' without being bored. SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

I hate to think that people are continuing to play just because they feel that they have to get high levels, rather than because they genuinely feel that they enjoy the game.

Citation needed to prove this is true of efficient players.

 

Here is a quote you pulled out of context. Where did Racheya claim efficiency is impossible to attain without being bored? She didn't. The author wasn't making a case against efficient playing. She simply stated that it's not the most important reason. Yes, you can have fun and play efficiently, but why bother playing at all (efficient or not) if you don't enjoy the game?

 

Which leads to the second part of this quote. Where did she claim this is true of efficient players? Even if she personally believes it, she never said it. All she did was offer an opinion that she hopes people are not unhappily grinding away in this game out of some sense of necessity instead of for fun. Then she even goes on to explain what is fun in the next paragraph:

 

"What constitutes fun is such an extremely changing and subjective definition. We cannot define fun for anyone but ourselves."

 

Therefore, using deductive reasoning, aka LOGIC, we can assume that if:

 

1) the author believes that having fun while playing is important, and

2) you find gaining levels efficiently to be fun, then

3) the author will have no problem, because you are having fun while you are playing.

 

5.)

This ‘average player’ is someone that plays Runescape maybe an hour or two a day. They often play it with friends and are what Jagex would consider an ‘average player’ to be: usually fairly balanced' date=' typical stats with not many high levels[/quote'] Citation needed. In fact, Jagex expressly said that RS was geared for adults. It has been my experience, as an adult gamer, that more adult gamers are goal oriented then their younger counterparts. I can't prove it scientifically, but then again I'm not claiming what is "average" without anything to back up my stance.

 

You are disputing erroneous claims with an erroneous claim. Whether unintentional or not, you've implied that a person's stats are indicative of his or her age. At least you admitted that you have no proof.

 

6.)

Of course' date=' I’m only speaking in stereotypes right now. Every player is unique, have their own way of playing the game and, I hope, enjoying Runescape. However, Stereotypes play a big part in the Efficiency wars. What sort of player is stereotypically anti-efficiency? What sort of player is stereotypically pro-efficiency? I’m sure you can guess.[/quote'] What the hell does this mean? So you admit that, although you are limiting all RS players to one of three categories, they are only stereotypes? That somewhat destroys your whole argument.

 

While this paragraph does seem expository and "..oh by the way", it doesn't hurt the article. Yes, every individual is his her own unique snowflake, but we can still manage to categorize people. She introduced three categories for the sake of her argument, but she also explains in the previous paragraph that there "are many, many other types of players". She doesn't have to borrow from a preset list of categories; she can create however many categories she wants. She did a good job of explaining the criteria for each category. It doesn't hurt her argument at all.

 

7)

It’s true that many players find efficiency and reaching high levels to be genuinely fun' date=' they enjoy getting the xp and racking up the high scores, there’s nothing wrong with that. However the thing that IS wrong is when these extremely efficient players that see themselves as ‘elite’ start to call people who don’t use the most efficient methods… noobs.[/quote'] Why? Because you say so? I am better, in stats, gear, bank, and experience, then 95%+ of the RS population, there can be no debate about that. So, am I not one of the more "elite" players? Pretty sure most of the max players would consider themselves far more "elite". In fact MAYBE YOU SHOULD DEFINE ELITE. The definition of elite is, among other things, "The best or most skilled members of a group". Hmm. Guess I AM elite.

 

Again, you are doing nothing more than debating semantics. It was simply an incorrect word used. Racheya meant elitist, not elite. Good criticism would have simply offered the correction, and refrained from such a sardonic response as above. Anyone can sit back and be a jerk. I'll show you what I mean:

 

8.)

the idea that being efficient makes you fundamentally better than other players

It does' date=' according to my style of play. I am an achievement player. Making, meeting, and exceeding goals is what I play for, in large part. If I achieve more, for less, in a shorter amount of time, then other players, I AM better, by definition. The definition of Better is, among other things: To surpass or exceed, More highly skilled or adept, More useful, suitable, or desirable. Hmm. Once again, I am better in the game. This has nothing to do with my real life standing, my "worth", etc.[/quote']

 

Here's another fine example of pulling a quote out of context. First let's look at the entire sentence:

 

"Yes, noob is hardly the most insulting term you could call someone, but it’s the idea behind it that matters, rather than the actual name-calling - the idea that being efficient makes you fundamentally better than other players."

 

Again, if I use deductive reasoning, I can assume that:

 

1) if noob is a pejorative term, and

2) calling people noob is an assumption that you are better than others, and

3) you believe you are, by definition, a better player, then

4) you have the right to insult and call people names because your stats are higher.

 

Well, what does Racheya have to say on the subject. Let's read the very next sentence in the article:

 

"Yes, you may have more xp and higher levels than that player, but that doesn’t make you ‘better’ in any other way than stats."

 

She said the same thing you did. You are better in stats only.

 

9.)

And where do I stand on this matter? Well' date=' I think after much discussion on this topic I’ve come to the conclusion that the best way to play is however you want to[/quote'] Do you really mean this? So, you are for allowing anything, as long as it is in the rules? I should hold you to this. From now on, you have NO excuse to complain against anything which is within RS rules, and Jagex ToS. No more complaining about 76k'ers, rushers, etc.

 

Again, taken out of context, not to mention you counter with a very irrelevant point. Let's read the very next sentence in the article:

 

"It’s best to respect other player’s game choices - as long as it’s not autotyping spam in the GE, or anything nefarious like that."

 

She isn't for allowing anything.

 

10.

I think that if you’re enjoying yourself' date=' then you’re playing as efficiently as you need to be.[/quote'] Wrong term again, you mean effective. Efficient means: functioning or producing effectively and with the least waste of effort; competent. Effective means: Acting directly to produce an effect. If you had said effective, you would have been correct.

 

I agree with you completely. Furthermore, you made your criticism in a mature and polite way. Why not employ this same approachable tone throughout all of your critiques?[/hide]

[stonewall337]

If you think letter to the editor type responses are necessary to be objective, you sir not only are sadly mistaken, but know little about writing.

 

As for efficiency, there is a general (real life) definition, and then there is one which is easier to prove in rs, gp/xp/time. We can easily show that. "effort" and "waste" are quite a bit harder to prove, since they are rather player-dependent. As such, I say my definition is far better.

 

Grind: I once again disagree with your definition of "grind". Runescape has specific meanings for certain words. "grind" isn't necessarily boring, by definition.

 

"lot of calculations with XP per hour" That is just not true. That is what is BS.

 

The next point is more an inference made by the author's tone, then a direct statement.

 

Erroneous claim backed up with extensive (10+ years) of gaming experience, including dozens of games, hundreds of friends, and thousand of interactions. By "proof" I meant scientific proof.

 

An author shouldn't use incorrect words, or he should expect to get called on it. What Rachaye meant is IRRELEVANT. Its what she said that counts.

 

Nefarious implies rule breaking. Simple as that.

[Earth_Poet]

If you think letter to the editor type responses are necessary to be objective, you sir not only are sadly mistaken, but know little about writing.

 

Actually, I've just completed a BA in English, and will be pursuing a MFA in Creative Writing. You can continue to act like a childish blowhard, and dare I say an elitist as long as you like. However, you still fail to make any semblance of a counterpoint. I'm sadly mistaken? I guess I'll just have to wonder why.

 

As for efficiency, there is a general (real life) definition, and then there is one which is easier to prove in rs, gp/xp/time. We can easily show that. "effort" and "waste" are quite a bit harder to prove, since they are rather player-dependent. As such, I say my definition is far better.

 

As such, "gp/xp/time" looks like nonsense without further explanation.

 

Grind: I once again disagree with your definition of "grind". Runescape has specific meanings for certain words. "grind" isn't necessarily boring, by definition.

 

You are not just disagreeing with me then, but the entire English-speaking world. I presented you with a textbook definition. You countered with the equivalent of "nuh-uh".

 

"lot of calculations with XP per hour" That is just not true. That is what is BS.

Yet it still changes nothing about the article.

 

The next point is more an inference made by the author's tone, then a direct statement.

 

Well, I'm reading a different tone by the author.

 

Erroneous claim backed up with extensive (10+ years) of gaming experience, including dozens of games, hundreds of friends, and thousand of interactions. By "proof" I meant scientific proof.

 

The author was relying on her own experiences to write the article, but that's not good enough? How elitist of you.

 

An author shouldn't use incorrect words, or he should expect to get called on it. What Rachaye meant is IRRELEVANT. Its what she said that counts.

 

Absolutely true, but it doesn't give YOU the right to act like an ass. I will refer you to the very first post, where it says:

 

"If you spot any typos or mistakes in the article then please PM them to me"

 

 

Nefarious implies rule breaking. Simple as that.

 

Nefarious means anything wicked, including immoral. It doesn't just refer to illegal.