Tip.It Times - 8th May 2011

[Blutters]

The second article rather unfortunately seems to have pitted Construction VS Summoning+Dungeoneering.

There is no reason for what appears to be the majority of responses qualifying the latter two by abasing the former...

 

That out of the way,

The conflagratory article is very well written. I've no doubt someone unfamiliar with the content would find it easy to agree with and take at face value.

However, I've no idea why it was written at all. This isn't college writing anymore; if you write for the Tip.It Times, you should be doing it because you have a valid point to make and enjoy writing.

This SOUNDS like papers I've BSed in the past... Structured well, presented in a way that it would appear to someone who was unfamiliar with the subject to be validated by minimal research.

 

Writing for Tip.It times IS voluntary right?

I don't take it at face value; I don't think it's possible to truly hold these views if one is fully aware of the subject matter they are on about and what they would be implicating.

Perhaps he no longer plays, remembers Construction and Hunter quite fondly, and was fed only the worse things about each of the two newer skills and forced to write an article to maintain his seat in the Editorial Panel.

Maybe he really did just want to shamelessly plug Archeology into a front-page article.

There's also chance that he's seen how much more complex Dungeoneering rooms are (while still being cookie-cutter) and is angry that the same will never be introduced for player use in his favorite skill, Construction.

 

No more brainstorming right now. Tired... -_-

[Racheya]

I'm not pointing this at anyone, but be sure to make sure you're following these rules because we won't return to the days where people thought it was okay to flame and degrade an author just for their opinion. The Times IS voluntary and caters to more than just the opinion of the masses. Sometimes a differing opinion is needed to get some discussion going, if everyone agrees with what's being written there's hardly a reason to write.

 

But yeah, this is the last time I'm going to kindly remind people about these:

 

Rampant flame wars have taken control of virtually every week's times discussion topics. The following guidelines must be followed when posting on this topic. Posts that ignore these guidelines will be removed.

 

1. You are invited and welcome to express like or dislike on articles and a particular author's writing style. It is not acceptable, however, to flame or personally insult an author. Posts that aren't anything but an attack will be removed from the topic.

 

2. Spelling and grammar errors can be reported to Racheya by PMing her and they will be fixed promptly. It is not necessary to post them on the discussion topic.

 

3. Off topic posts that do not discuss the content of that week's articles will be removed. This is not the place to discuss the direction of the times, how much you love or hate the times, etc. Off topic posts will be removed.

 

By keeping within these guidelines, Times discussion topics will mean more for the Panel and Administration than just a place for flame wars. Flame wars do not provide any useful feedback to the Times, which is mainly what we're aiming for with these topics: feedback.

 

This policy is effective as of now, November 17, 2010. Any posts prior to the creation of this policy may or may not be removed according to the new guidelines.

[brunokiller]

^ imo that wasn't flaming (unless the mods are faster than me, of course), but people criticized the article because the author failed to recognise many of the benefits of (high levels in) sum/dung. Whether it deserves to be called a skill is irrelevant, the content exists either way.

[Jonanananas]

I'm sorry but I can't see any evidence of "rampant flaming" here. No one attacked the author personally, no one insulted him because of his opinion or his arguments. People are pointing out the numerous flaws in this article and since this is a discussion forum I don't see why they shouldn't say that the validation of his arguments are, in all honestly, partly ridiculous. It always looks more like bashing if several people attack his article because it looks like they're uniting against him. I've read through the entire thread and I've only seen one or two sentences that may be interpreted as mild flaming. This forum has seen far worse and it's honestly not nearly bad enough that you'd have to quote the rules again...

 

 

edit: to make it clear:

 

to flame and degrade an author just for their opinion.

 

Show me anywhere in this thread where crocefisso has been flamed for liking construction more than dungeoneering.

 

 

edit 2: I've scanned through the thread again, and yes there are some parts that are harsh and can be considered insulting I guess. Still, none of them attack the author's opinion and the worst attack on him that I've seen is "are you high?". Tbh, I wouldn't even bother thinking about something like that - it's not a big deal and a post that doesn't offer anything else but that is made to be ignored. I do think you are too over-sensitive here.

[Jonanananas]

Also...

 

Completely disagree with the point made in the first article about long-time F2P members being given the Veteran/Classic capes to show Jagex respect them. If they really were that 'loyal' to the game they would be paying the minimal membership fee and giving Jagex something back for the game they play.

 

What if Jagex spontaneously cancelled their membership - which was on a credit card and just renewed itself every month -, but charged them for another two months on the back of that until they made a complaint?

 

That's why I'm F2P and, as a player of over five years, I feel I still deserve a Veteran and Classic Cape.

 

I'm sorry, what? First off, why would Jagex do that? And what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? Care to elaborate? I really don't get what you want to say.

 

Jagex did it accidentally due to some sort of error or something (that was the official statement). As for what it has to do with the discussion: read the posts again. If you still don't get it, read them again.

 

And you believe that it was on purpose? As you show yourself, they don't gain from it, they lose out. Even if they were 100% only after money, they wouldn't do it. If it happened more often and became public, it would be EXTREMELY bad reputation.

Also, it wouldn't matter if you've been a member right until the day when the capes were released. It's not what you deserve for playing for five years, it's an additional reward members can use to show off that their account is over five years old. If you aren't a member, you don't have access to member's benefits(excepting already worn objects for looks)

[diddleysquat]

I may be unusual but I do not subscribe to the capescape theory. I only have 3 skillcapes but hardly ever use them.

 

However I do believe that withholding the new veterans cape from F2P is unbelievably cruel. Jagex itself admits that people move from P2P to F2P and back all the time. My own personal belief is that Jagex just wants a month's subscription from each of them, purely a venal moneygrabbing cash decision. Sadly the company seems to have been taken over by hard-nosed businessmen.

[jsboutin2]

Companies are there to make cash. That's life.

 

However, if they cancel and renew their memberships often, as you mentionned, they can wait until their next membership to get that ugly cape, can't they?

 

Heck, they don't pay and they get that unusually large demo, that should be enough.

[Hawks]

I quite liked the first article, but disagreed with Crocefisso about Dungeoneering; I love it and it's one of the only reasons I play the game now.

[Jackie_Clay]

In the second article the argument against summoning being a good skill is incredibly weak. It takes all of the many uses of the skill and dismisses them as if they don't matter, while still acting as if the skill is garbage. Really, hunter was moderately successful yet summoning was a flop? Yes it took a couple of batches to make summoning into the skill it is today but there are far more uses for it than hunter, not to mention that hunter is just another grind skill.

 

Also the arguments against Dungeoneering being a skill are really getting old. They aren't going to take the icon out of the skill tab. Give it a rest, it is here to stay.

[Amethyst_Gem]

I'm sorry but that second article was the shoddiest one I've ever seen in the [bleep], which I've been reading since 2006.

 

It seems like just a personal gripe, which starts off by hyping up construction (which I agree was a good skill), and then goes on to claim that everything since is worse. Personal opinions on matters were everywhere. Not that that is a bad thing, but when the article consists of nothing but personal opinions without anything to justify them then it isn't a particularly good article; for example stating that "Hunter is a skill which becomes progressively more enjoyable" as a fact - actually I personally found hunter to get less and less enjoyable as I went up - tracking was more fun than catching butterflies which was more fun than falconry which was more fun than catching chinchompas. Yet the article states it as though it is undeniable truth. Summoning added massive amounts to most aspects of the game, yet these were swept under the carpet or ignored completely.

All the while throwing unjustified insults at "other updates" that aren't even named, as well as criticising Jagex based on updates in general, which are otherwise ignored by the article.

 

The article even insults anyone who dares to disagree, calling any of the vast number of players who find dungeoneering the most fun aspect of the whole of runescape "shallow", calling the skill "featureless" because it incorporates a lot of features, which is the very thing that people enjoy about it.

 

As for "The original skills ... all had some basis in reality" Really? Because as your article describes everything after construction as going downhill, it seems as though the original skills would be everything before this. So runecrafting. Slayer. Nice basis in reality there.

 

And as if that wasnt enough it then ends in a 3 paragraph long shameless plug for a particular suggestion.

 

Jagex are not "incapable of making something decent". However I am of the opinion that the writer of this article IS.

 

Was there really nothing else to put in this week? Because I don't believe that this could have been chosen over anything. If I wanted to read trash like that I would spend my day on the RS rants forum where other people who just want to slate Jagex for no apparent reason hang out. Although I must admit that the quality of most threads on there is rather higher than that of this article.

 

P.S. There's more wrong with it than that but I don't feel like going on more than I already have.

[diddleysquat]

Please, just because you don't agree with something it is not necessary to be quite so rude. Personally I hate Dungeoneering but love Hunting. We are all different and fully entitled to our opinions without being called names.

 

Sorry just my rant.

[Crocefisso]

Was there really nothing else to put in this week? Because I don't believe that this could have been chosen over anything. If I wanted to read trash like that I would spend my day on the RS rants forum where other people who just want to slate Jagex for no apparent reason hang out. Although I must admit that the quality of most threads on there is rather higher than that of this article.

 

 

You may well disagree with the content, Amethyst, but I think we all know that my article - regardless of your opinion of the views expressed - is of better written quality than a 12 year old saying "O ye I is well anoyed wiv dis change" and so on. Simply because you disagree with my opinion does not mean that you should descend into vitriolic, petty attacks on the article itself. This forum is intended to be a place for debate, not unsubstantiated, unnecesary derision. The difference is significant; next time, you - and all others who feel it necessary to express their disagreement in the most virulent manner possible- would do well to remember this when posting future comments.

[Crossed_Body]

is of better written quality than a 12 year old saying "O ye I is well anoyed wiv dis change" and so on

Fancy words describing the same core content.

[Range_This11]

is of better written quality than a 12 year old saying "O ye I is well anoyed wiv dis change" and so on

Fancy words describing the same core content.

[spoiler=Here's a bridge, just for you!]

 

 

We've got a spot in the Times later in the month that is open, would you care to write an article? :-)

[Crossed_Body]

We've got a spot in the Times later in the month that is open, would you care to write an article? :-)

No, I would not care to write an article. :-)

[Range_This11]

I didn't think so.

[Crossed_Body]

I didn't think so.

Are you implying that only those who write articles can criticize article writers? Because if so, your logic isn't very sound.

[Range_This11]

I'm not against criticism, in fact I'm all for it because it makes writers (or anything, for that matter) better, but only if it is constructive criticism. What you posted was nowhere near constructive criticism. It was an insult.

[Crossed_Body]

I'm not against criticism, in fact I'm all for it because it makes writers (or anything, for that matter) better, but only if it is constructive criticism. What you posted was nowhere near constructive criticism. It was an insult.

So, what exactly was my insult? Amethyst_Gem said the article was trash, and the writer used a poor rebuttal. I only pointed out how flawed his rebuttal was.

[Range_This11]

is of better written quality than a 12 year old saying "O ye I is well anoyed wiv dis change" and so on

Fancy words describing the same core content.

 

I believe you were implying Croce's article was nothing more than a twelve year old's rant that used "fancy words". It is a base, juvenile response that gives no consideration, respect, or helpful advice to the author. I will not sit idly and watch that happen. If I am wrong, then I am genuinely sorry for my responses, but if I am right in my interpretation, what you said could not be--in any way--considered a form a constructive criticism.

[Crossed_Body]

I believe you were implying Croce's article was nothing more than a twelve year old's rant that used "fancy words". It is a base, juvenile response that gives no consideration, respect, or helpful advice to the author. I will not sit idly and watch that happen. If I am wrong, then I am genuinely sorry for my responses, but if I am right in my interpretation, what you said could not be--in any way--considered a form a constructive criticism.

I was merely stating that no matter how polished, a turd never becomes a diamond. Now, I'm not saying his article is in any way related to a turd, Amethyst_Gem said it for me.

I never said I was giving him any kind of criticism. Again, just pointing out how weak his argument was.

[Range_This11]

If you think you can demonstrate how weak an author's argument is in seven words, you are out of your mind. Your attempt seems to be the turd in this situation, but you just keep on polishing.

[Crossed_Body]

If you think you can demonstrate how weak an author's argument is in seven words, you are out of your mind. Your attempt seems to be the turd in this situation, but you just keep on polishing.

I don't see how him being an author has anything to do with it. Apparently, he needs you to "defend" his poor argument.

[Range_This11]

First, I am defending the concepts of constructive criticism, not the content of his article. Never have I said I agreed with his article. In fact, I don't! Second, Croce is very capable of defending himself. He doesn't need me to defend him, I chose to. Just like how I am choosing to leave this thread. Have a good day.

[Crossed_Body]

Just like how I am choosing to leave this thread. Have a good day.

I'll take that as an apology. Good, this was a fruitless discussion.