obfuscator

If it's common sense, surely it would be quite easy to explain why. I would never pretend to know anything about those weapons and as such would never moderate a topic with that without advice from someone who does know, but just because what you're claiming is "common knowledge" doesn't mean you're exempt from justifying it. Actually, it does. If you don't know that rapier is the best weapon in almost every situation, you should not be posting in metagameing. If you want to state that ccbow w/ rigour>crapier with turm, YOU need to prove it, not those who are following the overall trend, as your idea is the exception, and theirs is the rule. So you're not interested in having any new users? How do people learn about efficiency? It may be common knowedge to you and others who pride themselves on having obtained and verified this information, but if you're not willing to pass on this knowledge by being willing to explain this then you'll find it very difficult to grow as a community, here or elsewhere. Like Danq said, a "common knowledge" thread should hopefully help with this issue.

If it's common sense, surely it would be quite easy to explain why. I would never pretend to know anything about those weapons and as such would never moderate a topic with that without advice from someone who does know, but just because what you're claiming is "common knowledge" doesn't mean you're exempt from justifying it.

I'm not sure what you're asking... The burden of proof when people make absurd claims is what I'm specifically referring to. Does that help? No, I was wondering if you could give me a specific example. Are you talking about the moderation, or just general posters, or what? "Chaotic Crossbow with Rigour is faster dps than a Chaotic Rapier with Turmoil" "No it's not." "Prove that it's not" I don't see a problem with that...surely anyone making a statement should be obligated to prove it if they want to be taken seriously.

Me neither, I'm making fun of the fact that they know each other irl and no one else has a clue what's going on. :P

Ahh yes, Miguel ;)

I'm not sure what you're asking... The burden of proof when people make absurd claims is what I'm specifically referring to. Does that help? No, I was wondering if you could give me a specific example. Are you talking about the moderation, or just general posters, or what?

I've often not posted on debate topics, but you wouldn't know it unless I was broadcasting it.. But I agree, there is no absolute freedom of choice; we're merely looking at the practical application (same as the selfishness thing).

But how do you know that the choice wasn't predetermined before you made it? Because I can do whatever I want....

I edited those posts into the first post.

Oh, I know why he was against it; the potential in the american markets is much bigger, it makes the NHL much more money. But bad ownership made it fail, he had no choice.

I'm not sure what you're asking...

Then soon you can buy loyalty points to buy all kinds of cool things like emotes and hats! Team runetress 2. Yeah that's exactly what I thought lol. Kind of surprised it took them this long to do this tbh.

@Nifflin: Except we've constantly explained why our rules make sense and are the way they are.

Pointless semantic, basically.

Agreed completely, then.

Lol no tangible effort, when we've allowed a topic half full of flaming us with baseless accusations to get to forty pages. No tangible effort, when our admins made a private forum for you guys to discuss grievances and chatted with you for hours. No tangible effort, when we created a metagaming forum specifically for your community. No tangible effort, when several mods and administrators took time out of our days to come to your forums to try to explain our actions and negotiate with people who only cared about throwing out insults. But no, we don't care at all. In regards to the moderators, in general our experience (ten + years of it) is that people who follow the rules make good moderators. Now, perhaps you feel that someone who breaks the rules frequently will do a great job enforcing them fairly and consistently, but surely you can see why we disagree.

Well I agree, but my point was that the time is served, they've paid their debt to society. Certainly a rape is a mistake, albeit a very serious one; I find it hard to believe that everyone who ever rapes anyone sadistically planned it and tortured, and all of that, etc, etc. We all make mistakes; criminals just make more serious ones.

Only place I can think of is craigslist, don't know of any site specifically for college textbooks.

No, we do make choices. I can choose to do something against my nature just as much as I do something in my nature.

Glad to know that after I'm arrested for making a mistake and spend half my life in jail making up for it that you'll allow anyone to murder me because they feel like it.

Hmm. According to that spreadsheet my most valuable hat is a vintage modest, worth 5-6 refined. And I did have a vintage Sgt's drill hat, but I think I traded it to nick for something cheap lol...

This opinion is awfully subjective; Jimmy is extremely active on many sections of the board and very well known. While the runescape boards are important, they don't make up the forum in its entirety; there are many other sections with different needs that must be attended to. I also don't understand how being active in Runescape possibly affects your ability to be an administrator. What this post boils down to is basically you saying "I don't know him well, so he shouldn't be an admin".

Ah... A valid point. Sry, I will look into that. You should allow key remapping :P

I kind of agree with nick here; punishment of some sort must follow crime for society to function which by definition follows the (bad) principle of an eye for the eye. The only thing I see differently is that legally, society as a collective takes the eye rather than an individual, which makes it a necessary evil.

Clearly we disagree. There are some rules, yes, that are open to interpretation and "moderator discretion". But I tend to think that isn't a good thing, because rules that are open to "moderator discretion" tend to be quite arbitrary and often different moderators will do different things which gives the appearance of being unfair. For example, part of the reason this whole issue started is because we were put in a situation of dealing with rulebreaking where we were forced to "guess intent" behind the rulebreaking. We guessed wrong, and as a result, well, here we are. We generally can guess intent (when we have to) with a pretty high success rate, but we're only human, and bound to be wrong sometimes. If we limit the ambiguity in the rules and by extension limit occasions where we have to guess at intent we can enforce our policies much more fairly and consistently. That's why as much as possible we try to have rules that are black and white; you either broke it or you didn't. Our signature rule (in regards to size at least) is one such rule; yours clearly violated it so it was removed.