Tip.It times - 3rd October 2010

[Ts_Stormrage]

Note: you continue to think I was the one slinging mud at the staff. That was blade...

And, exactly as Blade predicted, the author's friends come running to her defense when she's criticized. :rolleyes:

 

Actually, I did not come in defense of Racheya except for the obvious mistakes I like to point out in some people's reasoning.

 

I only stepped in when Bladewing said that the Editorial Panel is a circle jerk of friends... I could not care less how good or badly written people think the article was, just as you don't care for my opinion on it (if you did, you wouldve asked)... Calling the Times panel a clique is FAR from the truth, believe me... Oh and if you don't believe me, don't worry... I don't care :)

 

it's assbackwards to say:

 

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

 

and then refuse to let them show what they can do

 

Ever heard of guest articles, yeah?

People here don't know we have quite a backlog of them, and are used mostly in an emergency (writers block?)... I don't have a say in it at all, but I prefer keeping the number of debatalbe articles down to a minimum, so the discussions about them do not get intertwined too much...

[CaJ]

When the term 'efficiency' gets thrown around that means something different for somebody else, there's bound to be a debate about it.

 

I'm not going to waste my breath for 30 minutes making up a long winded argument on why I think this was bad to begin with. I stand neutral on this pedestal. I don't fully agree with the article, and neither do I fully agree with the opposing side putting their daily grind to making a good counter-argument. In the end nobody wins, it's only a matter of who will let go first.

 

When you put yourself as the Critic and the Defender, you'll putting yourself at risk of sabotage. The only thing to do now is commit ourselves to achieve more, in this case, making the issue of 'efficiency' fair well with both sides. I have yet to see this happen.

[Foodfight13]

Skills should be something players do for fun, not as requirements for quests.

 

Using that same logic, Jagex should also remove combat requirements and all hard monsters, because that requires lots of grinding combat and making money to buy good weapons and food that's no fun at all either. <_<

 

"But wait," you reply, "combat is lots of fun!" Perhaps, but lots of people like skilling too and maybe don't like combat as much. Jagex isn't going to change the system just because you don't want to do skills. If you don't want to grind skills and can't find a fun way to level them, then don't level them so you can do quests. This is the whole point of Runescape: You're not required to do any particular thing to enjoy the game.

People can like skilling, just don't make it required for quests. I like quests, but I don't like skilling. I would like to see alternatives for stat requirements in quests. For example "Blood runs deep" you need 75 attack and 75 strength because that's what you need for the balmung weapon. This weapon hits a lot on dagannoths and you need it to finish the boss monster of the quest. But I don't want to get 75 strength and attack. However I am 99 range and 98 magic. why doesn't Jagex just lets me try to finish off the boss without a balmung. Maybe it will make it a lot harder, maybe even impossible to do it with range and magic, who knows? It will be a challenge to try it anyway. Now Jagex doesn't even let me start the quest without the stats.

 

I would like to see the assist system work in quests to do something that requires a high skill. Or like in monkey madness, people who can't finish the puzzle pay 200k.

 

Doesn't that take away the point of the quest being an achievement? It shows that not only you have finished a quest, but you also have the levels to complete said quest. I don't think people should be able to bypass one requirement because they excel a lot in some other areas. I feel that takes away the spirit of the quest. (In your case you also need ranged and magic for beating the Dag Mother anyways.) The few pay-to-solve-the-puzzle instances are ok, but that should not be an option for everything.

 

 

Also, I don't mean to fully inject myself into the main discussion here, but have those of you who say that you "can write better articles" or "have applied for the Tip.It Times Editorial Panel without getting a response" actually submitted any articles? I'm not accusing anyone here of not submitting an article, I just don't know who has or who hasn't. I think that actually submitting some great pieces of writing would be a more effective way of getting on the panel than just criticizing an author every time and saying you could do better.

[Troacctid]

Also, I don't mean to fully inject myself into the main discussion here, but have those of you who say that you "can write better articles" or "have applied for the Tip.It Times Editorial Panel without getting a response" actually submitted any articles? I'm not accusing anyone here of not submitting an article, I just don't know who has or who hasn't. I think that actually submitting some great pieces of writing would be a more effective way of getting on the panel than just criticizing an author every time and saying you could do better.

Well, I didn't claim I can write better articles (although I think I can), but I did write one. http://tip.it/runescape/index.php?times=391

[MstrMonopoly]

Also, I don't mean to fully inject myself into the main discussion here, but have those of you who say that you "can write better articles" or "have applied for the Tip.It Times Editorial Panel without getting a response" actually submitted any articles? I'm not accusing anyone here of not submitting an article, I just don't know who has or who hasn't. I think that actually submitting some great pieces of writing would be a more effective way of getting on the panel than just criticizing an author every time and saying you could do better.

Well, I didn't claim I can write better articles (although I think I can), but I did write one. http://tip.it/runescape/index.php?times=391

 

I enjoyed that one =D

[Troacctid]

To Troacctid on Page 2, pardon that I don't know how to quote/hide tags.

 

But, the meaning of efficiency in such a context, can imply that:

1) What you mention as minimal grinding

2) Maximising exp gains in shortest time possible - I.E Grinding at a skill for most efficient players

 

Thus, I beg to differ as I consider that efficient playing is definition 2. Grinding is not always efficient, but some people do it to try to maximise their exp.

The efficient philosophy recognizes that grinding is a necessary component of the game and seeks to minimize it.

[Sheep Tails]

And, exactly as Blade predicted, the author's friends come running to her defense when she's criticized. :rolleyes:

 

And, exactly as multiple posts have stated, that doesn't matter. By saying this, you imply that the Times group and Racheya's friends in general are a bunch of people who do their best to remain exclusive, meanwhile forming a defensive circle to discredit those who attempt to criticize anyone of their number.

 

What you also show is that you take bias to mean something else entirely. Each of these supporters of Racheya have proven their arguments with logical thoughs - for example, bashing the author is bad because ___. Note the "because" in there - each person explains their viewpoint; they give reasons for their defense. Just as those who criticize are (mostly) doing.

 

Thus, by doing this, they remove the element of bias. Bias simply means that someone is leaning towards one opinion or other because of some prejudice; however, giving valid reasons for their opiniongives them objectivity - they are not merely defending Racheya because she's their colleague or friend or both, but rather because they have opinions that are backed by logic.

 

Anyway.. this has gone way too far. It's degenerated into insults and so on directed at everyone's writing credentials and skills. (Not that they're not important to show when criticizing someone else's writing skills.)

[stonewall337]

The editorial staff is made of volunteers, treat it as such. There will be some articles one will disagree with, and one is welcome to post in a respectable manner.

 

However, what I see is a few users going beyond constructive criticism, instead they are harassing Racheya, no ifs or buts about it, it's harassment. If it continues, it will be treated as such (1 warning, 2nd offense is a ban).

 

A few things that really disappointed me about this thread, friends being called in to help argue an argument, not a discussion. Bring up the past regarding a recruitment drive (my bad, I was severely overworked at the time we held it and wasn't able to pm everyone, but instead posted in the thread that we pm'ed all who were choosen) was low.

 

Comparing the times to a professional paper, if that was the case, lots of the replies I have seen would have gone in the junk mail folder.

 

 

As the one staff member whom I have the most respect for, my point was rather that those of us who don't know who is doing things (including sending the "rejection" PMs) have at least some right to be perturbed, if not downright upset, when the stated PM didn't come. Essentially, we were left in the lurch, wondering what was going on. Nothing personal in this case was meant, especially as there is so little transparency. I had, and still have, no clue who picks whom for Time's staff. Overworked or not, you should have expected the reaction. Both sides are partially right in this case, especially since it was a volunteer post.

 

TL;DR, both sides have grounds for their feelings in this instance. Even if the overlook was accidentally, it still, at least for me, lent the impression of being snubbed.

[Erewhon2]

 

As the one staff member whom I have the most respect for, my point was rather that those of us who don't know who is doing things (including sending the "rejection" PMs) have at least some right to be perturbed, if not downright upset, when the stated PM didn't come. Essentially, we were left in the lurch, wondering what was going on. Nothing personal in this case was meant, especially as there is so little transparency. I had, and still have, no clue who picks whom for Time's staff. Overworked or not, you should have expected the reaction. Both sides are partially right in this case, especially since it was a volunteer post.

 

TL;DR, both sides have grounds for their feelings in this instance. Even if the overlook was accidentally, it still, at least for me, lent the impression of being snubbed.

 

Really Stonewall, get over yourself, this is a 'fun' forum, run by volunteers. Quit treating their treatment of you as though it meant the end of your lifelong career and ambitions...honestly!

 

I have seen few balanced perspectives, there has been little constructive, positive or creative criticism and that is disappointing. As I said previously I would expect a personal view from any writer of an article, it's certainly not anything strong enough to ignite such behaviour as has been demonstrated on this thread.

 

 

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

Somehow I doubt that, and that was a while ago lol :grin:

[CaJ]

And, exactly as Blade predicted, the author's friends come running to her defense when she's criticized. :rolleyes:

 

And, exactly as multiple posts have stated, that doesn't matter. By saying this, you imply that the Times group and Racheya's friends in general are a bunch of people who do their best to remain exclusive, meanwhile forming a defensive circle to discredit those who attempt to criticize anyone of their number.

 

What you also show is that you take bias to mean something else entirely. Each of these supporters of Racheya have proven their arguments with logical thoughs - for example, bashing the author is bad because ___. Note the "because" in there - each person explains their viewpoint; they give reasons for their defense. Just as those who criticize are (mostly) doing.

 

Thus, by doing this, they remove the element of bias. Bias simply means that someone is leaning towards one opinion or other because of some prejudice; however, giving valid reasons for their opiniongives them objectivity - they are not merely defending Racheya because she's their colleague or friend or both, but rather because they have opinions that are backed by logic.

 

Anyway.. this has gone way too far. It's degenerated into insults and so on directed at everyone's writing credentials and skills. (Not that they're not important to show when criticizing someone else's writing skills.)

 

Very true, and unfortunately I've seen this happen to any forum board that ran a story or an article in point.

 

Eventually this will come to a standstill.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Really Stonewall, get over yourself, this is a 'fun' forum, run by volunteers. Quit treating their treatment of you as though it meant the end of your lifelong career and ambitions...honestly!

 

I have seen few balanced perspectives, there has been little constructive, positive or creative criticism and that is disappointing. As I said previously I would expect a personal view from any writer of an article, it's certainly not anything strong enough to ignite such behaviour as has been demonstrated on this thread.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought you got rewarded for consistently good behaviour as well as hard work. I think I shall go into work tomorrow, tell my boss that he's garbage and tell him I want his job as I can do it 10 times better. Actually, reality sucks so I don't think I'll bother as I'd like to remain in employment (I can dream though!). If my boss is reading this then I didn't mean it honest...No don't give me my P45......Not even a reference? :-k

 

On a more serious note if I was looking for some sort of promotion, as well as the hard work I'd also be politically savvy and that means cultivating the right sort of people very carefully.

 

Somehow I doubt that, and that was a while ago lol :grin:

Yup but it was fun :wink:

[Assume Nothing]

So, Racheya, will you be making a two-author article next time? One from your own viewpoint, one from the other side, and someone to edit out the grammar mistakes?

 

And uhh, can I suggest article ideas?

[Danqazmlp]

So, Racheya, will you be making a two-author article next time? One from your own viewpoint, one from the other side, and someone to edit out the grammar mistakes?

 

And uhh, can I suggest article ideas?

 

You can suggest an article all you like, but I'm sure it would be better for you to write it. A writer won't be as inclined to write about your things as much as they would theirs. Honestly, people are taking offence at such slight things, are you all newbs to the internet or something?

[Assume Nothing]

So, Racheya, will you be making a two-author article next time? One from your own viewpoint, one from the other side, and someone to edit out the grammar mistakes?

 

And uhh, can I suggest article ideas?

 

You can suggest an article all you like, but I'm sure it would be better for you to write it. A writer won't be as inclined to write about your things as much as they would theirs. Honestly, people are taking offence at such slight things, are you all newbs to the internet or something?

 

Don't really want to begin writing a 1500 word article to find out that it won't be used =/. I think I'll try and write an article with a few buddies later, probably.

 

Hmm

[Foodfight13]

So, Racheya, will you be making a two-author article next time? One from your own viewpoint, one from the other side, and someone to edit out the grammar mistakes?

 

And uhh, can I suggest article ideas?

 

You can suggest an article all you like, but I'm sure it would be better for you to write it. A writer won't be as inclined to write about your things as much as they would theirs. Honestly, people are taking offence at such slight things, are you all newbs to the internet or something?

 

Don't really want to begin writing a 1500 word article to find out that it won't be used =/. I think I'll try and write an article with a few buddies later, probably.

 

Hmm...

 

Well it's never going to be used if you don't write it and submit it. <_<

 

Just go ahead and write it. They'd love to have a look at it, and if they think it's good enough, they'll put it in the Times. If you want I can give you my thoughts on it. ;)

 

I offer that same advice to everyone reading this thread. If you have something you want to say in the Times, write an article and submit it. I can't promise that it will get published, but I can promise you they'll never publish something if you don't write it.

[Racheya]

So, Racheya, will you be making a two-author article next time? One from your own viewpoint, one from the other side, and someone to edit out the grammar mistakes?

 

And uhh, can I suggest article ideas?

 

You can suggest an article all you like, but I'm sure it would be better for you to write it. A writer won't be as inclined to write about your things as much as they would theirs. Honestly, people are taking offence at such slight things, are you all newbs to the internet or something?

 

Don't really want to begin writing a 1500 word article to find out that it won't be used =/. I think I'll try and write an article with a few buddies later, probably.

 

Hmm

We don't tend to do two-author projects, though of course it's not something out of the question. Maybe for something a little bigger than the efficiency debate. I think that an article written in that style would have been interesting for when Dungeoneering was released. We did consider a special 'Dungeoneering edition' of the Times, but decided that letting articles about Dungeoneering come naturally would be better than trying to force through several of them when the skill was brand new.

 

You can suggest article ideas, but it's often hard for a writer to entirely grasp another person's ideas. You might want to just write it up yourself. Articles are generally a minimum of 600 words, so there's no worry about writing something so big as a 1500 word article! And though we don't guarantee articles will be used, we may well get around to it eventually. Guest articles are mostly used when we have a spot of trouble getting one of our own articles in on time, or the article is particularly good and also time sensitive. Something that we wouldn't want to go to waste by leaving it waiting for a while.

[Low C]

Why do people think you have to have two authors for two sides? It's called thinking rhetorically, any author can see both sides of an issue. If I didn't have a back log of essays to write for my classes I would actually be inclined to try writing an article. I however do not have the time, something I admire the volunteers of the times for having.

[waylon]

I quite enjoyed the Efficiency Wars article. It reminds me a lot of a previous article about a time when some friends decided to hold a woodlands camp-out within Runescape. While I might not participate in something like that, I very much appreciated that there are people who want to do such things and who create and find such opportunities within the system. It makes me wonder how much the "emergent gameplay" tools sold by Faruq in Al Kharid are really used.

 

The Efficiency Wars and the campout article have some similar themes that are also found in Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us by Daniel H. Pink. I just bought the book and began reading it. I'm only 30 pages into it, so far, but it's about intrinsic motivation as opposed to extrinsic motivation. The "efficiency wars" in some ways seem to work very much off extrinsic motivation, whereas "emergent gameplay" seems to match intrinsic motivation more closely.

 

Yeah, I grind, and when I do, I feel like a slave, even though nobody is forcing me to play this game. But I definitely grind because I want the rewards of profit in terms of gp or the exp needed to gain additional abilities within a Skill. I ought to credit Frederick Winslow Taylor. He was an engineer in the early 1900's who invented "scientific management," the concepts of using rewards to encourage desired behaviors and using punishments to discourage undesirable behaviors. I learned this from the book.

 

 

Despite its greater sophistication and higher aspirations, Motivation 2.0 still wasn't exactly ennobling. It suggested that, in the end, human beings aren't much different from horses--that the way to get us moving in the right direction is by dangling a crunchier carrot or wielding a sharper stick. But what this operating system lacking in enlightenment, it made up for in effectiveness. It worked well--extremely well. Until it didn't.

 

That's a quote from pages 19-20 of Drive. "Motivation 2.0" is just Pink's term or metaphor for the system of rewards and punishments that motivates human beings to be productive in society.

 

I don't remember when or where it was posted by Jagex, but at one point they said something about developing a style of leveling up skills that didn’t revolve around endless repetitive meaningless tasks—or perhaps it might be more accurate to say “tasks that become meaningless in and of themselves if they are only performed to gain a long-term extrinsic reward.” I’m not sure if Daemonheim was meant to be this new system or whether Daemonheim is merely a prototype experiment to find other means of exp leveling. If so, Daemonheim can certainly be a grind, too, but the randomness involved does make it less straightforwardly repetitive and simplistic.

 

This new system, whatever it is or looks like, is supposed to be a part of Jagex’s sci-fi MMO Stellar Dawn. I wish them well, and I hope it works. I also hope, if it works and proves to be more fun than the usual model, that it will be ported over into Runescape in some ways.

 

It's an interesting concept, regardless, that extrinsic reward causes people to devalue work or that extrinsic reward turns play into drudgery. And efficiency is just another way to minimize "necessary" (?) drudgery.

[stonewall337]

As a debater, and as someone involved in local politics, one of the tricks one need's to learn early is to argue both sides. It isn't rare in debate to have to argue both affirmative AND negative. We shouldn't need 2 authors.

[Assume Nothing]

As a debater, and as someone involved in local politics, one of the tricks one need's to learn early is to argue both sides. It isn't rare in debate to have to argue both affirmative AND negative. We shouldn't need 2 authors.

I think it would be a stronger case if there were two sides to the argument, instead of one person constructing an argument that will still end up slightly biased, however 'fair' you try and make it seem.

[stonewall337]

As a debater, and as someone involved in local politics, one of the tricks one need's to learn early is to argue both sides. It isn't rare in debate to have to argue both affirmative AND negative. We shouldn't need 2 authors.

I think it would be a stronger case if there were two sides to the argument, instead of one person constructing an argument that will still end up slightly biased, however 'fair' you try and make it seem.

Its easy, if you don't have a preconceived bias, which is not incredibly hard to achieve, if one can't make up his mind which side to come down on. Otherwise, you are right. If you already has his mind made up, there can be a bias, but it really depends on the author.

[Sir_Kurity]

And, exactly as Blade predicted, the author's friends come running to her defense when she's criticized. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, its a stunning similarity to you and your pro-efficiency buddys bashing the author.

 

Its really just a group of people against another group of people, i'm not seeing the problem here.

[stonewall337]

And, exactly as Blade predicted, the author's friends come running to her defense when she's criticized. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, its a stunning similarity to you and your pro-efficiency buddys bashing the author.

 

Its really just a group of people against another group of people, i'm not seeing the problem here.

You don't see the difference between one group giving examples, and the others simply playing a "leave Brittney Spears alone"?

 

I'm sorry. If you don't see the difference, there is little hope for you.

[Danqazmlp]

And, exactly as Blade predicted, the author's friends come running to her defense when she's criticized. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, its a stunning similarity to you and your pro-efficiency buddys bashing the author.

 

Its really just a group of people against another group of people, i'm not seeing the problem here.

You don't see the difference between one group giving examples, and the others simply playing a "leave Brittney Spears alone"?

 

I'm sorry. If you don't see the difference, there is little hope for you.

 

 

I agree, there really is very little hope for you if you don't see that we have almost all given reasons as to why too much offence is being taken. If you really see us as saying nothing more than Leave the author alone then you really need to think.

[Racheya]

And, exactly as Blade predicted, the author's friends come running to her defense when she's criticized. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, its a stunning similarity to you and your pro-efficiency buddys bashing the author.

 

Its really just a group of people against another group of people, i'm not seeing the problem here.

You don't see the difference between one group giving examples, and the others simply playing a "leave Brittney Spears alone"?

 

I'm sorry. If you don't see the difference, there is little hope for you.

I think you're getting a bit mixed up. I didn't 'call for my friends'. Wingless is on the Times, and edited the article, he's going to have an opinion on it. Miss_Suzumiya came when I was talking to her and told her that I was having problems with the Times.

 

So I'd like to say that I take offence to the idea that my friends come 'running to my defence'. I didn't ask them to, and suggesting that only people who aren't my friends are allowed to think I'm being treated unfairly is, well, unfair.