Dont worry about it. Its just used as a crappy defence to avoid answering questions or to stop someone else having an opinion they dont agree with.

 

It's actually trying to get people to use proper reasoning and methods of debate (although most of this seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing) when addressing others opinions rather than simply twisting what they have said.

 

I didn't get anything either way. Any innocent player would be shouting from the hilltops that they don't bot. People lie by answering with everything but the truth.

 

Or, they could just be palming off the accusation as absurd?

TL;DR all of it. Some of you need to learn to be concise. Just because you don't report bots doesn't mean you support them. I've reported many bots yet they remain unpunished and saying that because someone doesn't reprimand their friends for botting doesn't mean they approve of it. Personally botting in runescape isn't worth ruining a friendship. My brother bots, he knows I don't condone botting but I'm not gonna sell him out, and he knows I'm going to laugh at him when he gets banned. Which happend but not in recent times because Jagex banning bots nowadays...lawl

I didn't get anything either way. Any innocent player would be shouting from the hilltops that they don't bot. People lie by answering with everything but the truth.

 

Or, they could just be palming off the accusation as absurd?

Hey! That's what I do!

What, other than botting, does the community need to address that has so suddenly sprung up recently?

 

Sorry that should have said big point.

 

So then he's a bot.

 

Logical conclusion, I'm sure.

 

Very. Except I didnt call him a bot, you did.

 

I didn't even read her posts. Just yours and Crossed, and then Erewhon when she addressed me directly.

 

I'm not saying you should kiss people's asses but perhaps try to construct a proper argument. But as you put it, I guess a miracle won't be happening today.

 

I do construct arguments and give my reasoning. I also do the recipient the courtesy of addressing their post in full where possible. While youre in the mood for advice it might be nice for you to respond more fully to posts instead of cherry picking snippets here and there.

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing.

 

Edmund Burke (British Statesman and Philosopher, 1729-1797)

 

 

Need I say more......really?

 

I reject the concept of Sins of Omission on pure principle.

“The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing.”

 

Edmund Burke (British Statesman and Philosopher, 1729-1797)

 

 

Need I say more......really?

 

I reject the concept of Sins of Omission on pure principle.

Well that's up to you but that's how many truth's are hidden. That's how you know politicians are lying when they never directly answer certain questions. Many bad things happen because people choose to ignore it.

 

Sorry Erewhon I missed this quote before. Judging by the responses I've seen to it I'm not sure if some actually know what it means nor the context which you've used it. It's a pretty good metaphor for many of the later posts in this thread.

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing.

 

Edmund Burke (British Statesman and Philosopher, 1729-1797)

 

 

Need I say more......really?

 

I reject the concept of Sins of Omission on pure principle.

Well that's up to you but that's how many truth's are hidden. That's how you know politicians are lying when they never directly answer certain questions. Many bad things happen because people choose to ignore it.

 

Sorry Erewhon I missed this quote before. Judging by the responses I've seen to it I'm not sure if some actually know what it means nor the context which you've used it. It's a pretty good metaphor for many of the later posts in this thread.

 

What I meant was I reject the idea that not stopping someone from doing something immoral is not as bad as doing it. Many people are it is.

The problem with talking about morals and doing what is "morally right" is that morals are not universal. Things that I deem to be morally upright (based on my personal code) can be vastly different to those of any one else (and based on the quotes coming out, and the attitudes being demonstrated, they are). So citing moral corruption based on the immoral behaviour of someone else is hardly fair. It is clear that some of you see botting and facilitating RWT to be "immoral behaviours", but personally I couldn't care less.

 

Very. Except I didn’t call him a bot, you did.

 

Allusion.

 

 

 

inb4commentaboutmebeingatroll

The problem with talking about morals and doing what is "morally right" is that morals are not universal. Things that I deem to be morally upright (based on my personal code) can be vastly different to those of any one else (and based on the quotes coming out, and the attitudes being demonstrated, they are). So citing moral corruption based on the immoral behaviour of someone else is hardly fair. It is clear that some of you see botting and facilitating RWT to be "immoral behaviours", but personally I couldn't care less.

This. Inb4 herp derp my code > ur code

The problem with talking about morals and doing what is "morally right" is that morals are not universal. Things that I deem to be morally upright (based on my personal code) can be vastly different to those of any one else (and based on the quotes coming out, and the attitudes being demonstrated, they are). So citing moral corruption based on the immoral behaviour of someone else is hardly fair. It is clear that some of you see botting and facilitating RWT to be "immoral behaviours", but personally I couldn't care less.

 

Very. Except I didnt call him a bot, you did.

 

Allusion.

 

 

 

inb4commentaboutmebeingatroll

 

Perhaps the dancing troll avatar sends the wrong message? :rolleyes:

 

Perhaps the dancing troll avatar sends the wrong message? :rolleyes:

 

Book. Cover. Etc.

What I meant was I reject the idea that not stopping someone from doing something immoral is not as bad as doing it. Many people are it is.

Depends on the context. Either way if you choose to ignore something it gives you no position to argue when the bad things happen. For some things (in RL) it can make you liable in civil/criminal aspects.

 

I couldn't care less.

Wouldn't it have just been easier to say this?

 

inb4commentaboutmebeingatroll

 

Good god I have no need to go around calling posters trolls, use of strawmen etc. That seems to be the preserve of the childish elements of the tipit community. Post how you like as far as I'm concerned (staying within the rules of course) but you don't help yourself when you post around 8-10 times in a thread and don't actually discuss very much what goes on.

Good god I have no need to go around calling posters trolls, use of strawmen etc. That seems to be the preserve of the childish elements of the tipit community. Post how you like as far as I'm concerned (staying within the rules of course) but you don't help yourself when you post around 8-10 times in a thread and don't actually discuss very much what goes on.

Actually, using strawmen is a childish element of the tipit community, not calling out on it.

Good god I have no need to go around calling posters trolls, use of strawmen etc. That seems to be the preserve of the childish elements of the tipit community. Post how you like as far as I'm concerned (staying within the rules of course) but you don't help yourself when you post around 8-10 times in a thread and don't actually discuss very much what goes on.

 

A) Note: It was a generic statement, not directed at you (the 3-4 lines between my comment addressing your quote and the statement should have made this clear

B) The majority of posts I've made have been trying to force people into using arguments that use proper arguments and move away from the (unfortunately) typical posting style that has become more and more prevalent on TIF which is often oozing with ad hominem and straw-man based arguments, rather than containing anything of value or relevant to the argument at hand. Trying to make people argue that was is absolutely relevant to the thread, so I don't need to be actively discussing it to participate in the discussion

 

Wouldn't it have just been easier to say this?

 

Easier to say I don't care if someone else bots based on my moral code when talk of morality and the notion that if you don't make clear your distain of a friend for botting, you're just as bad? Why would I have already said it when this offshoot of conversation had only just begun?

Actually, using strawmen is a childish element of the tipit community, not calling out on it.

The point on this would be supported if it was pointed out to the poster where the use of strawmen was evident and correct them instead of blithely shouting 'strawman!'.

 

 

A) Note: It was a generic statement, not directed at you (the 3-4 lines between my comment addressing your quote and the statement should have made this clear

B) The majority of posts I've made have been trying to force people into using arguments that use proper arguments and move away from the (unfortunately) typical posting style that has become more and more prevalent on TIF which is often oozing with ad hominem and straw-man based arguments, rather than containing anything of value or relevant to the argument at hand. Trying to make people argue that was is absolutely relevant to the thread, so I don't need to be actively discussing it to participate in the discussion

See above point.

 

Easier to say I don't care if someone else bots based on my moral code when talk of morality and the notion that if you don't make clear your distain of a friend for botting, you're just as bad? Why would I have already said it when this offshoot of conversation had only just begun?

Is that your stance? Are you and Crossed in-game buds?

The point on this would be supported if it was pointed out to the poster where the use of strawmen was evident and correct them instead of blithely shouting 'strawman!'.

"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]"

You're smart, I'm sure that if you look back on your posts you'll find it on your own.

 

 

Is that your stance? Are you and Crossed in-game buds?

I don't see how that is relevant.

The point on this would be supported if it was pointed out to the poster where the use of strawmen was evident and correct them instead of blithely shouting 'strawman!'.

 

Sadly, I have previously done that but alas, after the second or third time, it's kind of on the user to get their act together and fix it up without me having to highlight the exact words. I'm not going to hold hands through fixing up rubbish posts.

 

Is that your stance?\

 

MY STANCE is quite simple. If you are going to bot, you deal with the consequences of those actions should they arise. It is not for me to call you out and scream from the heavens that you are an evil doer and should be punished. Heck, I want you to get caught, I want you to be punished, but if it's in your "moral code" to cheat, then who am I to question that? I can't tell you that your code is wrong, I can disagree with it, but to outright say you're wrong? That's quite over the top.

 

Are you and Crossed in-game buds?

 

Even if we were, I fail to see relevance in this.

 

 

Whilst I enjoy this devolving into a "ll0rt is an evil bastard" thread (gotta love the attention afterall), this is of absolutely no relevance to the thread, and given that my posts have been disappearing lately, this is where my involvement in it ends. If you have an issue, feel free to PM me about it. I'll happily discuss my apathy towards to Jiblix issue, or towards the botting issue here.

"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]"

You're smart, I'm sure that if you look back on your posts you'll find it on your own.

Ah the wiki book of lies copy and paste. Feel free to enlighten me btw.

 

 

I don't see how that is relevant.

Simple question.

 

Whilst I enjoy this devolving into a "ll0rt is an evil bastard" thread (gotta love the attention afterall), this is of absolutely no relevance to the thread, and given that my posts have been disappearing lately, this is where my involvement in it ends. If you have an issue, feel free to PM me about it. I'll happily discuss my apathy towards to Jiblix issue, or towards the botting issue here.

 

Shame that. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy. It'd been fun to debate with you. Laters :)

Ah the wiki book of lies copy and paste. Feel free to enlighten me btw.

 

Here's another definition, not from the "wiki book of lies".

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

 

Person A has position X.

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

Person B attacks position Y.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Copy and paste is irrelevant, it merely allows me to convey a more structured definition to you.

And ll0rt had already quoted you on your straw man. I assume you can't and don't read people who argue against you, or point out flaws in your arguments, else you'd have seen it.

 

Simple question.

Which is of no matter to the argument at hand. Side tracking arguments is not a form of arguing.

Here's another definition, not from the "wiki book of lies".

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

 

Person A has position X.

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

Person B attacks position Y.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Copy and paste is irrelevant, it merely allows me to convey a more structured definition to you.

And ll0rt had already quoted you on your straw man. I assume you can't and don't read people who argue against you, or point out flaws in your arguments, else you'd have seen it.

This is coming from the same guy who can't answer a direct question on whether he bots or not. Point them out if you're so sure. You're the one pointing out flaws, so show me them.

 

Which is of no matter to the argument at hand. Side tracking arguments is not a form of arguing.

Your attitude is getting pathetic. I'm entitled to ask simple questions. Whether you answer them or not is up to you.

 

Whilst I enjoy this devolving into a "ll0rt is an evil bastard" thread (gotta love the attention afterall), this is of absolutely no relevance to the thread, and given that my posts have been disappearing lately, this is where my involvement in it ends. If you have an issue, feel free to PM me about it. I'll happily discuss my apathy towards to Jiblix issue, or towards the botting issue here.

 

Moral codes are irrelevant when it comes to a game that has rules, or anywhere that has rules. You abide by them, and are given the tools to ensure others do, too. You don't just jump to the conclusion "Oh, maybe cheating's part of who he is. I can't question that!". You can, are provided with the resources to help tackle it, all with the anonymity of them not knowing it was you.

MY STANCE is quite simple. If you are going to bot, you deal with the consequences of those actions should they arise. It is not for me to call you out and scream from the heavens that you are an evil doer and should be punished. Heck, I want you to get caught, I want you to be punished, but if it's in your "moral code" to cheat, then who am I to question that? I can't tell you that your code is wrong, I can disagree with it, but to outright say you're wrong? That's quite over the top.

 

Why is it not for you to call out and scream that someone is an evil doer? Although possibly that might be a little excessive :wink:

 

You want them to get caught and be punished, but you don't question their moral code? You can't have it both ways, its either right or wrong...this is not a 'grey' area. So if someone else's moral code is to steal (after all thats what botting is) you think thats bad but its also fine by you?

 

What about if their moral code is to drink while driving? Or taking the cash out of the till from your local store, or attack the elderly for their money is this ok too? Of course you can question it! complacency is an 'opt out' for those that do not wish to confront or take any responsibility for making waves.

This is coming from the same guy who can't answer a direct question on whether he bots or not. Point them out if you're so sure. You're the one pointing out flaws, so show me them.

As I've said, ll0rt already did that. You keep not reading things and arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 

Your attitude is getting pathetic. I'm entitled to ask simple questions. Whether you answer them or not is up to you.

I will not answer questions that are not relevant to the argument at hand, as that will only serve to sidetrack the discussion.

 

 

Moral codes are irrelevant when it comes to a game that has rules, or anywhere that has rules. You abide by them, and are given the tools to ensure others do, too. You don't just jump to the conclusion "Oh, maybe cheating's part of who he is. I can't question that!". You can, are provided with the resources to help tackle it, all with the anonymity of them not knowing it was you.

You can't hammer nails with a broken hammer. You cannot give me broken tools and expect me to abide by them.

Also, reporting others is not a rule of the game. Botting is, but assuming none of us bot, the decision of whether reporting people is moral or not falls under your own personal moral code.

 

You can't hammer nails with a broken hammer. You cannot give me broken tools and expect me to abide by them.

Also, reporting others is not a rule of the game. Botting is, but assuming none of us bot, the decision of whether reporting people is moral or not falls under your own personal moral code.

 

Broken tools? Not at all. Use them and your work will see a result, at one point or another. You are only speeding up the inevitable, probably putting that account on their radar.

 

Oh, so we can all blindly assume people aren't botting so we're abiding by our own moral code. But that in itself is a foolish thing to think; we know people do, and reporting people who genuinely aren't isn't going to get them banned, or anything of the sort. I can see what you're trying to say, though. You really don't care, but wish to argue anyway. :thumbup:

 

You can choose to ignore the problem, pretend it's not there, not report people for your own benefit...That's all perfectly fine. Whatever floats your boat. You can bring a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.

Broken tools? Not at all. Use them and your work will see a result, at one point or another. You are only speeding up the inevitable, probably putting that account on their radar.

At one point or another? Please tell me the average time in which reports are read and punishment is inflicted.

I did report people, a few months ago. The months passed and nothing was being done about my reports, so I simply stopped reporting people.

Like me, there are many others who don't see results from their reporting, and until proven otherwise, reports are effectively useless.

 

Even if Jagex did punish all bots reported withing one day, the problem would still be there, as the bots reported do not care about their accounts, and would just create more bots to replace the old ones.

Until Jagex cuts down the source of the problem, reports (assuming 100% efficiency), are useless still.

 

Oh, so we can all blindly assume people aren't botting so we're abiding by our own moral code. But that in itself is a foolish thing to think; we know people do, and reporting people who genuinely aren't isn't going to get them banned, or anything of the sort. I can see what you're trying to say, though. You really don't care, but wish to argue anyway. :thumbup:

 

You can choose to ignore the problem, pretend it's not there, not report people for your own benefit...That's all perfectly fine. Whatever floats your boat. You can bring a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.

When I said "assuming none of us bot", I mean "us" here on the forum, not that nobody botted ingame.