Tip.It Times - 26th January 2014

[tripsis]

Time for a new release of the: >>>Tip.It Times!<<<

 

 

 

WRITE FOR THE TIMES - SUBMIT A GUEST ARTICLE:

Remember, YOU can write an article for the Tip.It Times! You can apply to write full time, or just submit a "one-off" guest article any time you want! Our editors will work with you to ensure that your article is ready for publication. All guest articles can be submitted to @tripsis or any other Editorial Panel member. For more information, including details on how to apply full time, read this forum thread: http://forum.tip.it/topic/209138-how-to-write-for-the-tipit-times/

 

I'd like to remind people of the rules pertaining to Times threads:

 

[hide=Read these rules before posting in this thread]

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 tripsis 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.

[/hide]

 

[hide=Submitting Crossword Puzzles]If you want to submit your own crossword puzzle, it's quite simple.

 

Simply provide a word list (about 10-20 words) with their corresponding clues. Then, message @The Floating Pen with the word list and it will eventually be published in the Tip.it Times![/hide]

 

When replying please make sure to clarify the article you are replying to! Thanks!

 

If you spot any typos or mistakes in an article then please PM them to @tripsis. :)

 

Enjoy the articles!

[Ts_Stormrage]

I think when it comes down to it; we're all on the side of the godless, as we'd really secretly want all that power for ourselves...

[Blyaunte]

As someone who is, by nature, "godless" -- I personally prefer my game to be filled with as many variety of gods as possible. Frankly, it was too soon to be killing off a "major" god like Bandos (and Guthix, for that matter), and I am disappointed that Bandos (and Guthix) didn't have some kind of "saving throw" that allowed them to simply be removed from the immediate vicinity of Gelinor -- say, banished to another realm or plane or something, along the same lines as it appears to have happened to Zaros.

 

In actuality, I have been rather disappointed with Jagex’s presentation of the “godless” within the game itself. Frankly the manner in which they present godless supporters is not dissimilar to the typical believer’s view of atheists, and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what it means to be able to posit one’s existence in a universe without god(s).

 

Not to mention that, during this last World Event, they had a wonderful opportunity to allow the players to undertake a third option as “the godless”, which would have allowed us to choose to support neither of the two gods and simply play “spoil-sport” to those trying to make buildings and gather energy. I think playing under THAT option would have been great fun. 

[Quyneax]

I think when it comes down to it; we're all on the side of the godless, as we'd really secretly want all that power for ourselves...

I agree I would take the power for myself, but that doesn't mean I'm on the Godless' side - as of right now, I'm with Zaros, and I will continue to be, because the Godless aren't the best path to power at all. And I'm certainly not trying to get rid of the gods, either generally or in Gielinor only. If I can take the power and ascend, that's fine, but that doesn't mean I'll be decimating my own species now, will it?

[Alg]

In actuality, I have been rather disappointed with Jagex’s presentation of the “godless” within the game itself. Frankly the manner in which they present godless supporters is not dissimilar to the typical believer’s view of atheists, and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what it means to be able to posit one’s existence in a universe without god(s).

To be fair, a lot of their presentation of the gods and their factions also tends to fit typical atheist views of believers (especially in regards to Saradomin, who's probably the biggest wasted opportunity in a game of wasted opportunities right now). The conflict as a whole really isn't well-written. :-P

[Ts_Stormrage]

Also, it's impossible to be an atheist in RuneScape, as there is physical evidence for the existence of gods...

 

We've talked to half a dozen already, for crying out loud...

[Quyneax]

You can still be an atheist; the Gielinorian word translated to English as 'god' might perhaps more accurately be translated as '(fallen) archangel' (in Christian contexts) or 'Vala/Maia' (in Lord of the Rings contexts, depending on whether you classify the Elder Gods as aspects of Eru Ilúvatar or not). That is, you can still believe in any amount of all-powerful, all-knowing and all-controlling beings. Those beings won't be the gods that we speak to on Gielinor, but that's okay. Essentially, the assumption of a an all-powerful/knowing being is very productive, that is, it can pretty much always be applied to a given cosmology (this also means that it isn't very specific, and that is related to it not explaining very much about the world).

[Ts_Stormrage]

So it depends on what the definition of a god is, doesn't it?

 

In that case, the Gielenorian gods (as it is defined by those on Gielenor) should be enough to make atheism not exist there...

 

Then again, most debates about religion/gods/whatever tend to revolve a lot about semantics...

The Quran says fresh and salt water don't mix, for example... The actual mixing that you tend to see in just over 99.99999999999999999% of the experiments is explained as "passing through eachother"... At which point you're well within your rights to smack some people over the head with a dictionary...

[ilovecuttingyews]

You can debate whether the gods we've interacted with are truly gods depending on your definition but wouldn't the Elder Gods fit just about every definition of a true god?

[Blyaunte]

Anyone can be an atheist if they want to, particularly in Runescape. Simply because someone claims to be a god, it doesn’t necessarily make them one. 

 

The Romans worshiped their Caesars as "gods", and these individuals proclaimed their divinity for all to see -- does that make them gods?

[W aldo]

One could argue that if they die that they aren't really a God, meaning Bandos, Guthix etc. aren't true Gods.

[Flabberwocky]

If any of the Gods put out a "Yeezus" style album, we should stop worrying about Gods and start worrying about the Apocalypse.