Hotfix: Toy Horsey Phrases

[Assume Nothing]

shouldnt be against the rules just because some dipshits dont know when to stop or where to bet at

 

no thanks to all of these ideas

 

if so, cya RS income

The people against gambling are either the ones who didn't know when to stop and got cleaned or the ones who've never tried it.

 

How can Jagex say don't gamble and yet support the duel arena and other methods?

 

Jagex has said not to participate in these because they allow for too many scams.

 

It should be realised that no amount of punishment or dis-encouragement would be very effective at attempting to 'correct' consensual forms of emergent gameplay - the incentive of the adrenaline rush and the feeling of financial freedom overwhelms the suggested fear of punishment, as the risk is simply outweighed.

 

I firmly stand by the position where the implementation of a 'legalized', regulated form of gambling which cannot be influenced by the player would be most optimal, as it resolves the associated issues of the activity without the compromise to gameplay (lost development time, unfair removal of the genuine uses of the tools, etc.)

 

On a slightly related note, if JaGex's sole objective of removing 'gambling' is to simply prevent scamming, then why can't they implement an escrow feature onto trading practices and gambling activities?

 

GrapplingIgnorance presents a decent analogy to here, despite being unrelated to RuneScape;

 

 

It's frustrating to see that JaGex fails to tackle the core issues, and rather focus on the superficial problems that only has short-term effects.

[Omali]

On a slightly related note, if JaGex's sole objective of removing 'gambling' is to simply prevent scamming, then why can't they implement an escrow feature onto trading practices and gambling activities?

 

It's been said before but they probably don't want to have to deal with specific gambling laws in certain countries. frick

[Sy_Accursed]

On a slightly related note, if JaGex's sole objective of removing 'gambling' is to simply prevent scamming, then why can't they implement an escrow feature onto trading practices and gambling activities?

 

It's been said before but they probably don't want to have to deal with specific gambling laws in certain companies.

 

I assume you meant countries.

But yeah this holds true, didn't they even say it in the forums when they did away with dice.

 

Sure people throw up arguments of oh but game x does it (where game x is some quite small unknown game) and they are fine; the thing is just because they get away with it doesn't make it right in legal terms and such a high profile company with such a high value is much more likely to get noticed/pulled up on legal infringements (in this case for gambling laws).

[Kaida23]

On a slightly related note, if JaGex's sole objective of removing 'gambling' is to simply prevent scamming, then why can't they implement an escrow feature onto trading practices and gambling activities?

Isn't this basically what happens when you wager in the Duel Arena?

 

ie: person 'a' and person 'b' offer their wagers, the items are removed from their inventories and to the winner go the spoils.

[Assume Nothing]

On a slightly related note, if JaGex's sole objective of removing 'gambling' is to simply prevent scamming, then why can't they implement an escrow feature onto trading practices and gambling activities?

Isn't this basically what happens when you wager in the Duel Arena?

 

ie: person 'a' and person 'b' offer their wagers, the items are removed from their inventories and to the winner go the spoils.

 

Indeed. It's not provided in the context of non player influenced 'gambling', hence the associated issues arising. In short, it effectively manages the deceptive activities of participation in these games, without constantly adjusting content on the basis of attempting to prevent emergent gameplay. I have yet to see any of these hot-fixes become effective in the long term.

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

It should be realised that no amount of punishment or dis-encouragement would be very effective at attempting to 'correct' consensual forms of emergent gameplay - the incentive of the adrenaline rush and the feeling of financial freedom overwhelms the suggested fear of punishment, as the risk is simply outweighed.

 

I firmly stand by the position where the implementation of a 'legalized', regulated form of gambling which cannot be influenced by the player would be most optimal, as it resolves the associated issues of the activity without the compromise to gameplay (lost development time, unfair removal of the genuine uses of the tools, etc.)

 

On a slightly related note, if JaGex's sole objective of removing 'gambling' is to simply prevent scamming, then why can't they implement an escrow feature onto trading practices and gambling activities?

 

 

These forms of legalized gambling "hubs" already exist; Duel Arena and Conquest, or any system that has the game engine as the ultimate gate keeper, in terms of both funds and likelihood of victory. The main separation here is that these systems involve skill from the player, and don't rely on the PRNG alone.

 

If you create a system that allows for very high payouts, but requires very little skill outside of dumb luck, then the balance of the game (or what's left of it) is pretty much shot. There would be little purpose in leveling skills for GP, as it would be as fast to participate in that system instead.

 

It's frustrating to see that JaGex fails to tackle the core issues, and rather focus on the superficial problems that only has short-term effects.

 

That seems to be the trend for most of the major problems that Jagex has "tackled", which is unfortunate. It would be far better, from a design point-of-view, to truly consider global ramifications of adding new content into the game, rather than play this game of whack-an-issue and remove items that could have had legitimate uses.

[Randox]

They should put some sort of gambling system in where you can gamble without just giving the host a stack of money and hoping they actually pay you if you win. People are going to keep finding ways to gamble. Make a gambling npc of some sort, so players aren't getting a huge advantage from it.

 

I dunno... It' hard to combat this. Aside from just throwing all random outcome things out of the game.

 

But then, maybe they will start gambling based on hits... Give host money, guess the hit, attack guard or something.... =\ Good beating this Jagex.. :ohnoes:

This is another thought I have had.

 

The easiest way to stop interplayer gambling is by making a better alternative. This does however require Jagex to officially support gambling, which they might not be willing to do, though I would consider the dual arena (staking) to be official gambling support.

 

All they would have to do is create an NPC that you can place bets on. The players will be inclined use this, because it rules out the possibility of being scammed (either by logging or stacked odds), and it also would allow for a money sink. As long as the odds are reasonable, with an appropriate payout (something along the lines of the 55x2 game would be good), it would probably work, and cut down on a lot of the player run gambling rings.

[Jonanananas]

They should put some sort of gambling system in where you can gamble without just giving the host a stack of money and hoping they actually pay you if you win. People are going to keep finding ways to gamble. Make a gambling npc of some sort, so players aren't getting a huge advantage from it.

 

I dunno... It' hard to combat this. Aside from just throwing all random outcome things out of the game.

 

But then, maybe they will start gambling based on hits... Give host money, guess the hit, attack guard or something.... =\ Good beating this Jagex.. :ohnoes:

This is another thought I have had.

 

The easiest way to stop interplayer gambling is by making a better alternative. This does however require Jagex to officially support gambling, which they might not be willing to do, though I would consider the dual arena (staking) to be official gambling support.

 

All they would have to do is create an NPC that you can place bets on. The players will be inclined use this, because it rules out the possibility of being scammed (either by logging or stacked odds), and it also would allow for a money sink. As long as the odds are reasonable, with an appropriate payout (something along the lines of the 55x2 game would be good), it would probably work, and cut down on a lot of the player run gambling rings.

 

They can't legall support gambling in Runescape, or at least it's in a grey area of the law. The issue is that RSGP hold real world value, even if it's against game rules, and this means a court could view it as online gamblin which Jagex isn't allowed to do. Don't ask me why it's not the case with the duel arena, I'm not a lawyer :P This essentially is what Jmods said at Runefest when being asked about this.

[pulli23]

Whey do you all insist on gambling being "legal"? - It's not for nothing in real life only 1 company is allowed to gamble (which is very closely watched by the goverment): gambling is bad, leads to addictions & should be strictly regulated so only those who won't get addicted are allowed into places where gambling takes place.

 

If a game directly allows for gambling - without hiding it behind a skin of "skill", this is just terrible. Duel arena & conquest aren't really gambling: your skill MAY influence the outcome. As such it is more like "poker", where luck is a big part of the game, but ultimatelly it comes down to experience & skill. "dicing" games are illegal in real life, and also when played directly through a game. For good reasons.

[Assume Nothing]

Gambling is defined to exist where a monetary risk occurs in exchange for the potential to win an amount of money. It's not as arbitrary as you portray it to be.

 

I don't see why people should insist gambling shouldn't be regulated; it's by no means that at the same note, we're suggesting that JaGex endorses it also. It's a poor assumption to assert that it's our position. I've personally suggested the permitting of certain gambling-esque activities as it addresses the core issues more directly, as opposed to responding reactively, which is generally futile and negative consumer welfare occurs (the consumer is harmed, e.g. when the irc versions of 'dicing' were manipulated to be strongly towards the host's favour)

 

If you're wondering why a proposed legalisation would alleviate the issues, then the answer is simple; it's not the enforcement of the policies that has a significant effect on mitigating issues with gambling - it's the fact that legal structures crush the market for illegal operations to exist, as profits would evaporate with demand for the service being stifled, thus the incentive to host is gone.

 

It's why I oppose the superficial, ineffective stance that JaGex currently has. It's frustrating to see a company unable to deal with the simplistic issue like this - it doesn't take an economics degree to understand this fundamental notion.

 

I'm a little tired so if I'm completely incoherent, please tell me.

[ghjkl]

every time you get a monster drop you gamble

i don't see why dicing is such a big deal

[wioneo]

They are trying far too hard to idiot proof their game. It's human nature to take advantage of others' stupidity and the Jagexes need to just deal with that.

[Stev]

Yeah I remember hearing of that. A Google search shows it, also.

 

And then there was something else about someone who stated in game or on the forums that he was gonna commit suicide and the police went to his residence.

That was me and our Skype group. Lol.

[Kimberly]

They are trying far too hard to idiot proof their game. It's human nature to take advantage of others' stupidity and the Jagexes need to just deal with that.

 

I agree that it's human nature, and it seems like they are dealing with it.

[muggiwhplar]

Replace the Party Pete chest w/ a gambling NPC such that no GP is being created; just circulated?

[pulli23]

Gambling is defined to exist where a monetary risk occurs in exchange for the potential to win an amount of money. It's not as arbitrary as you portray it to be.

 

I don't see why people should insist gambling shouldn't be regulated; it's by no means that at the same note, we're suggesting that JaGex endorses it also. It's a poor assumption to assert that it's our position. I've personally suggested the permitting of certain gambling-esque activities as it addresses the core issues more directly, as opposed to responding reactively, which is generally futile and negative consumer welfare occurs (the consumer is harmed, e.g. when the irc versions of 'dicing' were manipulated to be strongly towards the host's favour)

 

If you're wondering why a proposed legalisation would alleviate the issues, then the answer is simple; it's not the enforcement of the policies that has a significant effect on mitigating issues with gambling - it's the fact that legal structures crush the market for illegal operations to exist, as profits would evaporate with demand for the service being stifled, thus the incentive to host is gone.

 

It's why I oppose the superficial, ineffective stance that JaGex currently has. It's frustrating to see a company unable to deal with the simplistic issue like this - it doesn't take an economics degree to understand this fundamental notion.

 

I'm a little tired so if I'm completely incoherent, please tell me.

Sigh...

 

Did you just not read my post?

 

It's illegal for a reason, as addiction is always very close around the corner here. So whenever you gamble you always need to make sure people who are suspectable to addiction aren't close - even in a game. In a game it obviously doesn't matter if you lose everything. However someone who is vulnerable to gamble addiction will get addicted to "real life" gambling, even by seeing in game gambling. Similar they get addicted to gambling when their friends gamble in real life - that's always why to battle addictions you also have to make sure the environment works together with the person.

THAT is why gambling is strictly regulated, houses have a list of people who are registered to be "addicted", and if they even allow such a person inside their buildings, they risk being closed indefinetally. Even online gambling.

 

It has nothing to do with legalisation, but everything to do with protection.

[Assume Nothing]

The entire premise of your argument is on the assertion that gambling addictions on RuneScape is likely to lead towards gambling addictions in real life? I'd say that's a rather strong assertion that lacks evidence or citations to justify.

 

I'll assume that your argument operates on speculation, which an alternative theory could explain just as well; those who become addicted gamblers on the game are already predisposed of the symptom, and it only highlights it earlier in their lives. If they seek therapy earlier by doing so, it may actually benefit them in later life.

 

In order to make the distinction between who's right, we need evidence.

 

If you took the liberty to read my post, you'd realise that I advocate a regulated atmosphere. I was using the term 'legalisation' synonymously with 'acceptance'. I'm not sure where you want to go with this discussion though.

[Beaumonde]

every time you get a monster drop you gamble

i don't see why dicing is such a big deal

 

There's a distinction to be made between playing against the house (monster drops, the game being the house), and gambling between players.

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

Sigh...

 

Did you just not read my post?

 

It's illegal for a reason, as addiction is always very close around the corner here. So whenever you gamble you always need to make sure people who are suspectable to addiction aren't close - even in a game. In a game it obviously doesn't matter if you lose everything. However someone who is vulnerable to gamble addiction will get addicted to "real life" gambling, even by seeing in game gambling. Similar they get addicted to gambling when their friends gamble in real life - that's always why to battle addictions you also have to make sure the environment works together with the person.

THAT is why gambling is strictly regulated, houses have a list of people who are registered to be "addicted", and if they even allow such a person inside their buildings, they risk being closed indefinetally. Even online gambling.

 

It has nothing to do with legalisation, but everything to do with protection.

 

From the looks of things, you're conflating "legality" with "morality". To some extent, gambling online may be illegal, but the larger problem is one of morality.

 

I'd also like to point out that we've had the issue (or at least the hint of an issue) of gambling addiction and RuneScape for as long as I can remember. This issue had solely to do with the Duel Arena (surprise, surprise). Now, by your own posit, the Duel Arena would have been closed down and totally dismantled due to the very real problems of gambling staking addicts between 2004-2007.

 

Jagex doesn't want to support a system in which RS skills aren't involved with the PRNG, and suggesting that such a system be implemented is only going to make this matter much bigger than it actually is. It's been said before, but it's worth repeating - just make dicing-like activities a bannable offense, and quit this ambiguous "against the spirit of the game" crap. There are enough people left in the community that will challenge this phrase until it is explicitly outlawed, much like luring was.

[pulli23]

Sigh...

 

Did you just not read my post?

 

It's illegal for a reason, as addiction is always very close around the corner here. So whenever you gamble you always need to make sure people who are suspectable to addiction aren't close - even in a game. In a game it obviously doesn't matter if you lose everything. However someone who is vulnerable to gamble addiction will get addicted to "real life" gambling, even by seeing in game gambling. Similar they get addicted to gambling when their friends gamble in real life - that's always why to battle addictions you also have to make sure the environment works together with the person.

THAT is why gambling is strictly regulated, houses have a list of people who are registered to be "addicted", and if they even allow such a person inside their buildings, they risk being closed indefinetally. Even online gambling.

 

It has nothing to do with legalisation, but everything to do with protection.

 

From the looks of things, you're conflating "legality" with "morality". To some extent, gambling online may be illegal, but the larger problem is one of morality.

 

I'd also like to point out that we've had the issue (or at least the hint of an issue) of gambling addiction and RuneScape for as long as I can remember. This issue had solely to do with the Duel Arena (surprise, surprise). Now, by your own posit, the Duel Arena would have been closed down and totally dismantled due to the very real problems of gambling staking addicts between 2004-2007.

 

Jagex doesn't want to support a system in which RS skills aren't involved with the PRNG, and suggesting that such a system be implemented is only going to make this matter much bigger than it actually is. It's been said before, but it's worth repeating - just make dicing-like activities a bannable offense, and quit this ambiguous "against the spirit of the game" crap. There are enough people left in the community that will challenge this phrase until it is explicitly outlawed, much like luring was.

 

 

Duel arena is not really gambling, as it is "hidden" enough to not be considered gambling - you're placing money and hoping you can OUTSKILL the opponent by having better stats / equipment, or using the items in a better manner. It has be shown time and again that even showing gambling to one who used to be addicted can easily trigger the addiction again. It doesn't mind the environment, if someone is addicted he is addicted. Also it doesn't matter wether the technical term is legality or morality, it's all about the reasons behind laws. Laws without reasons will quickly be removed, and if you wish to circumvent the law yet not the reason behind it, you'll quickly find the law adapted.

[Assume Nothing]

Sigh...

 

Did you just not read my post?

 

It's illegal for a reason, as addiction is always very close around the corner here. So whenever you gamble you always need to make sure people who are suspectable to addiction aren't close - even in a game. In a game it obviously doesn't matter if you lose everything. However someone who is vulnerable to gamble addiction will get addicted to "real life" gambling, even by seeing in game gambling. Similar they get addicted to gambling when their friends gamble in real life - that's always why to battle addictions you also have to make sure the environment works together with the person.

THAT is why gambling is strictly regulated, houses have a list of people who are registered to be "addicted", and if they even allow such a person inside their buildings, they risk being closed indefinetally. Even online gambling.

 

It has nothing to do with legalisation, but everything to do with protection.

 

From the looks of things, you're conflating "legality" with "morality". To some extent, gambling online may be illegal, but the larger problem is one of morality.

 

I'd also like to point out that we've had the issue (or at least the hint of an issue) of gambling addiction and RuneScape for as long as I can remember. This issue had solely to do with the Duel Arena (surprise, surprise). Now, by your own posit, the Duel Arena would have been closed down and totally dismantled due to the very real problems of gambling staking addicts between 2004-2007.

 

Jagex doesn't want to support a system in which RS skills aren't involved with the PRNG, and suggesting that such a system be implemented is only going to make this matter much bigger than it actually is. It's been said before, but it's worth repeating - just make dicing-like activities a bannable offense, and quit this ambiguous "against the spirit of the game" crap. There are enough people left in the community that will challenge this phrase until it is explicitly outlawed, much like luring was.

 

 

Duel arena is not really gambling, as it is "hidden" enough to not be considered gambling - you're placing money and hoping you can OUTSKILL the opponent by having better stats / equipment, or using the items in a better manner. It has be shown time and again that even showing gambling to one who used to be addicted can easily trigger the addiction again. It doesn't mind the environment, if someone is addicted he is addicted.

 

gam·ble (gmbl)

v. gam·bled, gam·bling, gam·bles

v.intr.

1.

a. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.

b. To play a game of chance for stakes.

2. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.

3. To engage in reckless or hazardous behavior: You are gambling with your health by continuing to smoke.

v.tr.

1. To put up as a stake in gambling; wager.

2. To expose to hazard; risk: gambled their lives in a dangerous rescue mission.

n.

1. A bet, wager, or other gambling venture.

2. An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk: I took a gamble that stock prices would rise.

 

Your very definitions of gambling seems to be flawed.

[pulli23]

Sigh...

 

Did you just not read my post?

 

It's illegal for a reason, as addiction is always very close around the corner here. So whenever you gamble you always need to make sure people who are suspectable to addiction aren't close - even in a game. In a game it obviously doesn't matter if you lose everything. However someone who is vulnerable to gamble addiction will get addicted to "real life" gambling, even by seeing in game gambling. Similar they get addicted to gambling when their friends gamble in real life - that's always why to battle addictions you also have to make sure the environment works together with the person.

THAT is why gambling is strictly regulated, houses have a list of people who are registered to be "addicted", and if they even allow such a person inside their buildings, they risk being closed indefinetally. Even online gambling.

 

It has nothing to do with legalisation, but everything to do with protection.

 

From the looks of things, you're conflating "legality" with "morality". To some extent, gambling online may be illegal, but the larger problem is one of morality.

 

I'd also like to point out that we've had the issue (or at least the hint of an issue) of gambling addiction and RuneScape for as long as I can remember. This issue had solely to do with the Duel Arena (surprise, surprise). Now, by your own posit, the Duel Arena would have been closed down and totally dismantled due to the very real problems of gambling staking addicts between 2004-2007.

 

Jagex doesn't want to support a system in which RS skills aren't involved with the PRNG, and suggesting that such a system be implemented is only going to make this matter much bigger than it actually is. It's been said before, but it's worth repeating - just make dicing-like activities a bannable offense, and quit this ambiguous "against the spirit of the game" crap. There are enough people left in the community that will challenge this phrase until it is explicitly outlawed, much like luring was.

 

 

Duel arena is not really gambling, as it is "hidden" enough to not be considered gambling - you're placing money and hoping you can OUTSKILL the opponent by having better stats / equipment, or using the items in a better manner. It has be shown time and again that even showing gambling to one who used to be addicted can easily trigger the addiction again. It doesn't mind the environment, if someone is addicted he is addicted.

 

gam·ble (gmbl)

v. gam·bled, gam·bling, gam·bles

v.intr.

1.

a. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.

b. To play a game of chance for stakes.

2. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.

3. To engage in reckless or hazardous behavior: You are gambling with your health by continuing to smoke.

v.tr.

1. To put up as a stake in gambling; wager.

2. To expose to hazard; risk: gambled their lives in a dangerous rescue mission.

n.

1. A bet, wager, or other gambling venture.

2. An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk: I took a gamble that stock prices would rise.

 

Your very definitions of gambling seems to be flawed.

 

Ah cause a dictionary is better than a reasoning? Really can you only just take things literal and to the word? Instead of thinking the reasons behind the words? I fail to see how one can't see the difference between duel arena & dicing games, only lawyers would try to put the similarity. It's like saying chess is gambling cause you may not be equally good each day and you never know if you're as good as you were yesterday untill after the match.

[Tim]

Good, now make it against the rules.

For once, I agree with you.

[Blutters]

It's like saying chess is gambling cause you may not be equally good each day and you never know if you're as good as you were yesterday untill after the match.

Although quite an easy mistake to make when talking about an online game, you're letting the secondary act of gambling overshadow the actual event.

By all means, if you chose to stake money on the outcome of a chess match, it would be the same, but a fight to the death in the Duel Arena should not be considered synonymously with gambling itself.

I think the distinction here is that the actual act of dicing is pure gambling; it has no meaning whatsoever outside of gambling.

___

 

But I feel everyone's missed the point entirely. Perhaps you all play RS so casually that you don't consider it to have an atmosphere. Just like bots (I feel like I've said this before about them, actually), dicers (or what have you) denigrate the game into something shallow that it was never meant to be and ruin the atmosphere. RuneScape was never intended to be a casino, and for that matter I find it incredibly ridiculous you can make more money by cheating naive people out of their belongings than by actually playing the game. This leans far more towards exploitation than emergent gameplay.

 

There is a reason that the Duel Arena and Conquest (who even plays that, much less gambles in it?) are perfectly acceptable while dicing is not: They fit within the game, but more than that, they're isolated. If people want to fight and bet money on the outcome, they know where to go, and they have a specific place to do it at. Dicing can happen anywhere, but most obviously at highly populated hubs like the Grand Exchange. People who want nothing to do with it can't avoid it like they can with staking, and it's not a pretty sight anyway. Giving dicers (using this as generic term for all un-anchored gamblers) a specific place where dice bags, flowers, etc behaved normally wouldn't work either, at least not without any official game constraints. For one (out of a myriad of problems) there are still autoadvertisers and you could expect a ton more to spring up if the natural exposure dicers have were to be negated by forcing them to congegrate in a certain location. However, I should expect that if dicers had no method of advertisement, the entire system would eventually crumble. This is because, as I said already, dice hosts rely on the constant saturation of curious and naive individuals (who individually don't have a lot of money). One could liken dicing hosts, rather ironically, to parasites: they need a constant influx of hosts (the naive) because they quickly kill (bankrupt) them off. If quarantined, they would eventually run out of hosts and die. This is, of course, a pointless thought to entertain because it's less than likely that JaGEx would ever create a quarantine zone for this to happen.

[Assume Nothing]

I like the unequivocal explanation of the anti-dicing agenda. I agree on several points, but I'll present some counter-arguments first:

 

If the argument against dicing is purely against the notion that it disrupts the generally positive vibe that RuneScape supposedly has, then the problem in itself isn't infact the activity of dicing; it's the associated disruption caused. I do agree that dicers can often cause the said disruption, either in the form of spam-esque messages, or initiating a persistent dispute between the sides on the controversial stance.

 

I think the issues with dicing/gambling activities arises from the playerbase reaction towards the relevant decisions - it's very unpopular because it's depicted as an activity where dicers/hosts can 'unfairly' make money very quickly, whereas the others have to expend a substantial amount of time in order to earn the same amount.

 

I'd contend with the notion that dicing is akin to scamming/other deceitful activities though; gambling in itself is a choice whereby consenting individuals risk their items/money on an outcome that's very difficult to predict. It's important to note that the gambler has no obligation to gamble, and they're not misled about the outcome ratios/payments. However, it can be agreed that they are highly incentivized by the idea that they may win a significant amount of money in the short term, hence it persuades them to partake in it.

 

I don't see how the benefits of prohibition outweighs the drawbacks though.