Jump to content

Warning, do NOT stake- New Glitch for stat boost.


999134

Recommended Posts

It's not even as if this was a deliberate effort to name and shame the player, though. It was evidence showing how the glitch worked that happened to contain a player's name. That matters. It's not like this is being censored *despite* being good evidence -- it's being censored because, and ONLY because, it's good evidence or could be in the right context.

 

Protecting the guilty doesn't require draconian efforts to make sure they aren't convicted by destroying any evidence that could possibly be used against them (you know, in case it misleads people).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the naming policy wholeheartedly. It encourages inaction and impotence in the face of villainous players. People who break rules or wrong other players should ​be shamed publicly in the community, they should not simply be able to get away on some policy which states we can never name players. As for "innocent until proven guilty", I disagree on that as well. We should be allowed to make our own decision as to whom we consider guilty and whom we consider to be innocent, rather than some default policy which maintains that all people are to be treated always as if they innocent. By that, I mean people should be allowed to post names, and the individual readers can make up their mind on whom to trust. Obviously, if it's a respected member of the forums who is making an allegation, I will be likely to listen and/or trust him, whereas if it happens to be some random no-namer, I will most likely take it with a grain of salt. That's how it should be, rather than a policy which basically immobilizes people from doing doing anything. Potential information with regards to rule-breakers and malicious players should be accessible to the community, we have a right to protect ourselves, rather than having it swept under the ring with the unreasonable assumption to treat everyone as innocent when obviously everyone is not innocent.

 

Now obviously I respect the right of aministrators to set whateve rules they see fit, including ones that I disagree with(such as this one) -- I have in the past and will endeavour to follow them, I am simply registering my disagreement, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the naming policy wholeheartedly. It encourages inaction and impotence in the face of villainous players. People who break rules or wrong other players should ​be shamed publicly in the community, they should not simply be able to get away on some policy which states we can never name players. As for "innocent until proven guilty", I disagree on that as well. We should be allowed to make our own decision as to whom we consider guilty and whom we consider to be innocent, rather than some default policy which maintains that all people are to be treated always as if they innocent. By that, I mean people should be allowed to post names, and the individual readers can make up their mind on whom to trust. Obviously, if it's a respected member of the forums who is making an allegation, I will be likely to listen and/or trust him, whereas if it happens to be some random no-namer, I will most likely take it with a grain of salt. That's how it should be, rather than a policy which basically immobilizes people from doing doing anything. Potential information with regards to rule-breakers and malicious players should be accessible to the community, we have a right to protect ourselves, rather than having it swept under the ring with the unreasonable assumption to treat everyone as innocent when obviously everyone is not innocent.

 

Now obviously I respect the right of aministrators to set whateve rules they see fit, including ones that I disagree with(such as this one) -- I have in the past and will endeavour to follow them, I am simply registering my disagreement, that's all.

The rule applies for the same reason as it does in real life.

You can make doctored screenshots, use private servers, etc. to make it look like someone is guilty. Any person of interest, whether it be a youtuber, high score rank, or personal enemy can be made a target.

It doesn't matter if you think it isn't likely, because it can and has happened countless times.

I can accuse you of drowning cats, if you don't believe in being innocent until proven guilty, then you are guilty. Do I have any proof of that? No. But by your belief, I don't need it.

 

You can keep yourself safe without knowing who in particular is malicious simply by not being an idiot. Don't stake, don't gamble, don't take deals that seem to good to be true, don't trust trade, all very basic stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can keep yourself safe without knowing who in particular is malicious simply by not being an idiot. Don't stake, don't gamble, don't take deals that seem to good to be true, don't trust trade, all very basic stuff.

 

Yeah, you're a total idiot if you use a game feature how it was intended to be used. When information about it working incorrectly is being deliberately withheld from you because the evidence for it just happens to implicate someone in a crime they're pretty much 100% guilty of.

 

There are frequently going to be bugs present in the duel arena. There's never any certainty that there won't be any, especially given how long it takes them to fix some of this stuff. By this logic, anyone who ever stakes for any reason is an idiot, in which case Jagex should just remove the Duel Arena since it's content that only exists for the purpose of scamming people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can keep yourself safe without knowing who in particular is malicious simply by not being an idiot. Don't stake, don't gamble, don't take deals that seem to good to be true, don't trust trade, all very basic stuff.

 

Yeah, you're a total idiot if you use a game feature how it was intended to be used. When information about it working incorrectly is being deliberately withheld from you because the evidence for it just happens to implicate someone in a crime they're pretty much 100% guilty of.

 

There are frequently going to be bugs present in the duel arena. There's never any certainty that there won't be any, especially given how long it takes them to fix some of this stuff. By this logic, anyone who ever stakes for any reason is an idiot, in which case Jagex should just remove the Duel Arena since it's content that only exists for the purpose of scamming people.

It's funny that you're trying to act so condescendingly and in such a facetious way, but you really are a 'total idiot' for doing those things.

I'm not against spreading warnings about bug abuse, I've never even hinted that I was. But you can't just let everyone make accusations about whatever they please, this is a very obvious and established reason. The very reason why the term 'slandering' was coined.

Gambling is a risk, an entirely unnecssary risk that has and will continue to 'clean' people and have them quit, whether that be to legitimate reasons or not. Any staker that has had this happen to them will tell you that you're a 'total idiot' for staking, anyone who says otherwise has just yet to realise it. It's the same thing as dicing, just hoping to get rich quick with little to no effort.

And no, I've never lost money staking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you can't just let everyone make accusations about whatever they please

 

There's an obvious difference between (a) simply not letting people make any accusation about whatever they want irrespective of proof and (b) not letting people post evidence of a glitch to show how it works because that evidence just happens to act as for what is for all intents and purposes 100% proof that someone is guilty of breaking the rules. And I'm sure the mods here can find some intelligent middle ground between those points.

 

I would understand if 999134's intent was to name and shame, but it pretty clearly wasn't. I'd understand if the topic was just a description of what happened with a name attached, but it wasn't.

 

The "ain't got no proof" schtick goes both ways, BTW -- people can easily make any claim about any staking bug whether it exists or not. Should we ban people from posting information about bugs whether they have proof or not because of the mere possibility that someone might maliciously spread incorrect information (which I believe has happened before)?

 

This is an online discussion board, not a court of law. The very unlikely possibility that 999134 edited the video carefully to put someone's name in that he didn't like ought to be an acceptable risk if the alternative is not being sure that such a bug exists or of how to defend against it. And IMO defending people who are "stupid enough to stake after an update" is more important than defending people who are "stupid enough to get their accounts hijacked" or whatever.

 

Gambling is a risk, an entirely unnecssary risk that has and will continue to 'clean' people and have them quit, whether that be to legitimate reasons or not.

 

If you're smart enough to be making this sort of argument, you're smart enough to recognise the difference between staking being an unnecessary risk due to factors like gambling addiction or plain bad luck and it being a terrible catastrophic risk because someone might have found a way to break the system.

 

Any staker that has had this happen to them will tell you that you're a 'total idiot' for staking, anyone who says otherwise has just yet to realise it. It's the same thing as dicing, just hoping to get rich quick with little to no effort.

 

Going to a casino and risking all your money is stupid because... well, you're going to a casino and risking all your money. You might lose it, and you went in there knowing that. If I had to make a list of the reasons you shouldn't go to a reputable casino, "the games might be rigged or broken" wouldn't be among them. That's something there are reasonable safeguards against and certainly not something I'd class as "you should have known better". I doubt you'll find any casino-goers who got cleaned calling themselves idiots because they didn't anticipate someone fixing the roulette table on a big bet.

 

Like I said, if bug abuse is just going to be "part of the risk you take when you stake", Jagex should just remove staking functionality from the game entirely, since it is *only* useful for scamming people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an obvious difference between (a) simply not letting people make any accusation about whatever they want irrespective of proof and (b) not letting people post evidence of a glitch to show how it works because that evidence just happens to act as for what is for all intents and purposes 100% proof that someone is guilty of breaking the rules. And I'm sure the mods here can find some intelligent middle ground between those points.

 

I would understand if 999134's intent was to name and shame, but it pretty clearly wasn't. I'd understand if the topic was just a description of what happened with a name attached, but it wasn't.

 

The "ain't got no proof" schtick goes both ways, BTW -- people can easily make any claim about any staking bug whether it exists or not. Should we ban people from posting information about bugs whether they have proof or not because of the mere possibility that someone might maliciously spread incorrect information (which I believe has happened before)?

 

This is an online discussion board, not a court of law. The very unlikely possibility that 999134 edited the video carefully to put someone's name in that he didn't like ought to be an acceptable risk if the alternative is not being sure that such a bug exists or of how to defend against it. And IMO defending people who are "stupid enough to stake after an update" is more important than defending people who are "stupid enough to get their accounts hijacked" or whatever.

You're picking different points from different posts. Stop doing that. The posts are responding to different logic.

I'm not saying 999134 is trying to fake something, I'm saying that it has been done before by people, and will be done by people in the future. This is fact. That is one of the reasons why the rule is there.

People DO make scare tactic posts, whether that be here or elsewhere. Those get deleted, this thread was just edited to remove the naming part, which included the video. 999134 can upload an edited version with names removed if he pleases.

The innocent until proven guilty reasoning doesn't matter where the topic takes place, the reasoning behind it is the same. I didn't make the rules for the site, I'm just telling people why it is there. If you don't like it, so be it. It's not up to you, or me.

 

If you're smart enough to be making this sort of argument, you're smart enough to recognise the difference between staking being an unnecessary risk due to factors like gambling addiction or plain bad luck and it being a terrible catastrophic risk because someone might have found a way to break the system.

Shades of grey, my friend, or perhaps shades of dumb. Everything in Runescape combat is based on luck, no matter what you do, it is all based on luck. Randomly generated numbers are the only outcome of a fight. The best possible scenario you can get, is to get lucky numbers. You can use your abilities, prayers, food, it doesn't matter, you can hit zero every single time if your random number generation is bad. That is why your best possible scenario involves taking a incredibly unadvised risk. That is not the actions of an intelligent person.

 

Going to a casino and risking all your money is stupid because... well, you're going to a casino and risking all your money. You might lose it, and you went in there knowing that. If I had to make a list of the reasons you shouldn't go to a reputable casino, "the games might be rigged or broken" wouldn't be among them. That's something there are reasonable safeguards against and certainly not something I'd class as "you should have known better". I doubt you'll find any casino-goers who got cleaned calling themselves idiots because they didn't anticipate someone fixing the roulette table on a big bet.

 

Like I said, if bug abuse is just going to be "part of the risk you take when you stake", Jagex should just remove staking functionality from the game entirely, since it is *only* useful for scamming people.

(Most)Real world casinos are required by law to enforce fair outcomes for their bets, this is not the case for staking in Runescape. For many years rule switching has been commonplace for staking for people to scam each other, this is common knowledge. Bug abuse in staking has been around the entirety of free trade, there are trillions of GP made from it and are showboated after the methods are patched, E.G. HaxUnit. Anyone who stakes a serious amount of a wager should know that this is a huge risk because there are new methods coming out constantly because of Jagex's poor quality testing.

 

Considering both of the under-handed activity and just plain fundamentals of staking, you are not a reasonable thinker to attempt it, so my point stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shades of grey, my friend, or perhaps shades of dumb. Everything in Runescape combat is based on luck, no matter what you do, it is all based on luck. Randomly generated numbers are the only outcome of a fight. The best possible scenario you can get, is to get lucky numbers. You can use your abilities, prayers, food, it doesn't matter, you can hit zero every single time if your random number generation is bad. That is why your best possible scenario involves taking a incredibly unadvised risk. That is not the actions of an intelligent person.

 

tl;dr: You're lecturing me about what's "reasonable" while lacking even the most basic concept of reasonable risk management.

 

(BTW, I've never staked more than 5gp on a duel, so you can get off your intellectual high horse.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shades of grey, my friend, or perhaps shades of dumb. Everything in Runescape combat is based on luck, no matter what you do, it is all based on luck. Randomly generated numbers are the only outcome of a fight. The best possible scenario you can get, is to get lucky numbers. You can use your abilities, prayers, food, it doesn't matter, you can hit zero every single time if your random number generation is bad. That is why your best possible scenario involves taking a incredibly unadvised risk. That is not the actions of an intelligent person.

 

tl;dr: You're lecturing me about what's "reasonable" while lacking even the most basic concept of reasonable risk management.

Okay, I take it that you cannot come up with an argument and are just backpeddling, there isn't much more to be said and I don't think you'll accept a different point of view anyway, so I guess I'll stop posting.

Nothing against 999134, I don't know him at all, but I have seen him post several "FML I got cleaned, gonna quit now" videos and such in the random pics thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shades of grey, my friend, or perhaps shades of dumb. Everything in Runescape combat is based on luck, no matter what you do, it is all based on luck. Randomly generated numbers are the only outcome of a fight. The best possible scenario you can get, is to get lucky numbers. You can use your abilities, prayers, food, it doesn't matter, you can hit zero every single time if your random number generation is bad. That is why your best possible scenario involves taking a incredibly unadvised risk. That is not the actions of an intelligent person.

 

tl;dr: You're lecturing me about what's "reasonable" while lacking even the most basic concept of reasonable risk management.

Okay, I take it that you cannot come up with an argument and are just backpeddling

 

That *is* an argument. Certainly a better one than "herp derp, I can change a word of a book title to "dumb" and say it hoping it's a witty insult that wins me the argument, herp derp".

 

Your argument is this:

 

1) It's possible to get incredibly bad luck in a game which is all about manipulating probability.

2) Therefore, anyone who does it is "shades of dumb", "not a reasonable thinker", etc etc. (What's next, calling them a pee-pee head?)

 

This is a self-evidently bad argument. If you need me to spoonfeed you why, you don't deserve to be told. It's not the sort of thing you need to be CEO of an insurance company to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The rule applies for the same reason as it does in real life.

 

I can see some need for it in the real world, though in the vastness of the anonymity of the internet, it's a bit redundant and unnecessary for RS.

 

You can make doctored screenshots, use private servers, etc. to make it look like someone is guilty. Any person of interest, whether it be a youtuber, high score rank, or personal enemy can be made a target.

 

It doesn't matter if you think it isn't likely, because it can and has happened countless times.

 

I can accuse you of drowning cats, if you don't believe in being innocent until proven guilty, then you are guilty. Do I have any proof of that? No. But by your belief, I don't need it.

 

False, what I stated was, community members should be allowed to name names if they so desire. It should then be up to individual readers to determine for themselves whether they trust the words of the accuser or not. I never stated that people would not abuse this, that's beside the point. I would prefer this to the way things currently are where it is assumed categorically that all people are innocent.

 

You can keep yourself safe without knowing who in particular is malicious simply by not being an idiot. Don't stake, don't gamble, don't take deals that seem to good to be true, don't trust trade, all very basic stuff.

 

Knowing who in particular is out there acting maliciously or in predatory ways helps me to avoid such people. I do not merely want to avoid being scammed, I also want to avoid such people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shades of grey, my friend, or perhaps shades of dumb. Everything in Runescape combat is based on luck, no matter what you do, it is all based on luck. Randomly generated numbers are the only outcome of a fight. The best possible scenario you can get, is to get lucky numbers. You can use your abilities, prayers, food, it doesn't matter, you can hit zero every single time if your random number generation is bad. That is why your best possible scenario involves taking a incredibly unadvised risk. That is not the actions of an intelligent person.

 

tl;dr: You're lecturing me about what's "reasonable" while lacking even the most basic concept of reasonable risk management.

Okay, I take it that you cannot come up with an argument and are just backpeddling

 

That *is* an argument. Certainly a better one than "herp derp, I can change a word of a book title to "dumb" and say it hoping it's a witty insult that wins me the argument, herp derp".

 

Your argument is this:

 

1) It's possible to get incredibly bad luck in a game which is all about manipulating probability.

2) Therefore, anyone who does it is "shades of dumb", "not a reasonable thinker", etc etc. (What's next, calling them a pee-pee head?)

 

This is a self-evidently bad argument. If you need me to spoonfeed you why, you don't deserve to be told. It's not the sort of thing you need to be CEO of an insurance company to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

False, what I stated was, community members should be allowed to name names if they so desire. It should then be up to individual readers to determine for themselves whether they trust the words of the accuser or not. I never stated that people would not abuse this, that's beside the point. I would prefer this to the way things currently are where it is assumed categorically that all people are innocent.

I'm not arguing what your point was, I'm just saying that it is a bad idea to do things that way. It's the same deal as a loaded question. No matter what the response is, people have already been given a subconscious negative image of you.

That's how politics work these days, it's why no one tries to make their campaign solely on making themselves look good, but rather making the other person look bad.

If a news story comes out that someone has done something reprehensible, it doesn't matter if it turns out to be false, the seed was already planted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not arguing what your point was,

 

The "false" was in response to your assertion that "you might not think it's likely ..." which implied that I had ignored the possibility of abuse, to which I replied that it didn't matter much in the grand scheme of things if people abused it or not.

 

I'm just saying that it is a bad idea to do things that way. It's the same deal as a loaded question. No matter what the response is, people have already been given a subconscious negative image of you.

That's how politics work these days, it's why no one tries to make their campaign solely on making themselves look good, but rather making the other person look bad.

If a news story comes out that someone has done something reprehensible, it doesn't matter if it turns out to be false, the seed was already planted.

 

These constant analogies to the real world are completely ineffective. The consequences of an innocent person being wrongly accused on this site with regards to an online game are pretty much null, and completely incomparable to real life. In real life, if you're accused with regards to this sort of thing, you actually have to face people where as in the anonymity of RS you can easily avoid people or change your name(it's highly unlikely you would have to do this); in the real world you might actually get investigated by authorities, in RS unless you're running a big RWT operation or bug abuse operation, that's unlikely as well, and you'd only get banned if Jagex found some evidence of the claim in which case the allegation was justified; in the real world you might be denied jobs or positions in civil society, whereas in RS a) you don't need a job, b) most fansites do not block or disallow people from joining on the basis of allegations, nor do any clans do this. The only consequence is, that if someone, such as me, is told by by someone whom I consider to be trustworthy that person B is a malicious player, I will personally try to avoid person B, that's all. Nothing else. Try as you might, the comparisons to real life are completely dissimilar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These constant analogies to the real world are completely ineffective. The consequences of an innocent person being wrongly accused on this site with regards to an online game are pretty much null, and completely incomparable to real life. In real life, if you're accused with regards to this sort of thing, you actually have to face people where as in the anonymity of RS you can easily avoid people or change your name(it's highly unlikely you would have to do this); in the real world you might actually get investigated by authorities, in RS unless you're running a big RWT operation or bug abuse operation, that's unlikely as well, and you'd only get banned if Jagex found some evidence of the claim in which case the allegation was justified; in the real world you might be denied jobs or positions in civil society, whereas in RS a) you don't need a job, b) most fansites do not block or disallow people from joining on the basis of allegations, nor do any clans do this. The only consequence is, that if someone, such as me, is told by by someone whom I consider to be trustworthy that person B is a malicious player, I will personally try to avoid person B, that's all. Nothing else. Try as you might, the comparisons to real life are completely dissimilar.

Like I've said numerous times already, the reasoning behind the rule is why it is there. It doesn't matter if real world consequences are more severe, it just shares the same logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I've said numerous times already, the reasoning behind the rule is why it is there. It doesn't matter if real world consequences are more severe, it just shares the same logic.

 

And as I just explained in that quote, the analogy is completely dissimilar, thus there is no similarity in logic either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, this glitch is now patched.

 

A quick warning for anyone who does stake however:

 

Since boxes take so long now, the majority of stakes are weapon stakes. Rapier is most commonly used. However, the whip and vine whip are both now 1 tick faster than the rapier, meaning someone can gain a significant advantage by using the vine whip to gain a high enough tick advantage to essentially get a free hit. Also, the Statius Warhammer is superior in stats to the rapier/cls, and is one handed, so people often use the vine whip on the penultimate hit to gain a 1 tick advantage then switch to the hammer, giving them a higher chance of a KO, and if not you'll still be hitting on the same tick due to the use of the whip. (The average damage of vine whip+hammer is greater than that of a rapier).

 

The tl;dr is that if you aren't comfortable counting ticks and using each of the 3 weapons, you should always do an inventory check when weapon staking.

Asmodean <3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.