The fact that you said that expecting a warning is just downright disrespectful. You are perfectly entitled to any constructive opinions and criticisms but comments like "Not surprised this is in the Times though lol" (implying that you think the Times is just crap) are completely unnecessary.
Agreed. The first article was just opinions without any logical backing for most of the stances. Not surprised this is in the Times though lol. Inb4the "warning" for "badmouthing our pretty articlesz."
In the first article, I read all the way up to banning people for being AFK: "If someone else is training their skills without even being at their computer, they have an advantage over you." No they don't. I don't care if someone is at LRC and not at his computer. They can do whatever the hell they want with their spare time.
My view of the times has been espoused numerous times. I'm expecting the moderators to suspend normal logical behavior to defend the Times, as they have in the past, even when its obvious that the pieces (in the past) have been poorly written or just downright wrong.
Don't get me wrong, the Time's has had a few amazing pieces, and some downright well written works. But then you publish an article like the first one. Let me go more into detail to explain why it is illogical and flawed writing. Note, none of this or the past has been any type of flame or personal attacks. I'm pointing out an issue with the Times as a whole, and with this piece in particular which should have been addressed years ago.
1.) The problem: Offensive language.
First off this isn't a problem per say. There is a filter, use it or don't. Report those who offend you. Simple as that. There is no "problem". Words are inherently neutral. Its the meaning them that matters. I can call someone a "noob" as an insult and it be way more "mean" or "harsh" then calling my IRL friend a Fing a-hole, because the later knows it is meant as a joke, and takes no offense, whereas the former does not. Offensive language aimed at you, report or use the ignore list. This shouldn't have been even been listed, its just this simple.
2.) The problem: Offensive username. Seriously, " Players should be able to read each other's names without seeing offensive material, according to Jagex.". First off, he's wrong. Offensive names are against the rules, but not because of some "right" that players have to "not be subjected to offensive names" as if RS has some Bill of Rights. That ruins credibility. Also,
"Why you should care: If this is a "rule", and people break it without being punished, they may have the courage to break other rules you may feel more strongly about." This is just a stupid statement. For one, logically, its wrong. Just because someone has stolen a candy bar does not mean they will steal a car. Because I punch my friend does not mean I will murder a professor. As well, even if some contrived correlation could be derived, (A person with an offensive name scams someone) Correlation does NOT create causality, at best it simply implies it. As well, offensive names are in every game. You either have to not play, or deal with it as the rules allow, through reports or such. Not sure what a wiki page would do to prevent or inform people. An stats on how many people even read the wiki pages?
3.) The problem: Spamming. WELCOME TO THE INTERNET. The problem actually isn't so much spam as it is Jagex's asinine chat system. Could be much better like WoW's, where you have a /2 (trade) but limited to 2 messages per 30 seconds or whatever. Can enter/leave it easily. In addition, where is the brightline? The author provided no brightline, he just says "Spam r problem." His solution might help a bit, but the F2P model and ease of spam will only go away when Jagex fixes their end.
4.) The problem: Solicitation. WELCOME TO THE INTERNET. So what? /ignore! Problem solved. Honestly, who sees this as a major problem? Going into the "real world info" part is again interesting. I know personally many of the people I raid with on WoW. I've spent the night at a few of their houses. (I'm 21, they were slightly older) and visited another. The threat is overblown, statistically. The real threat w/ online info is between scam (identity theft) or an employer disliking things you post. (Underage drinking on FB, posting pictures of illegal activity, etc) I don't see solicitation as a problem, at least not a major one.
5.) Multiple logging-in. Flawed premise. The system should be able to integrate accounts, like WoW does. Toons should augment and enhance each other. My pure (twink) should be able to be funded by my main. Any evidence the author posts is unreliable. "A friend told me he heard from a jmod..." Really? That'd stand up as evidence anywhere...
6.) The problem: AFKing. Why does this matter? If you are botting, ya. Unfair advantage. But I should be able to go AFK to get a soda. Who bloody cares?
I could go on, but I honestly am getting tired of pointing out the illogical and downright stupid stances taken, no offense to the author intended.
I mean, things like " Many people "AFK" and it therefore concerns them." Is just illogical. It doesn't follow. If he said "many people AFK, in order to complete IRL work, whilst leveling skills in game, enabling them to level without spending as much time actively playing the game, thus giving them an unfair advantage, and as such concerns them and all other active players." That follows. That is logical.
All I ask is good writing and logical stances. Is that so hard?