mmmcannibalism

Who are you to say what is moral? Everyone has different morals so to make them obey only one is a form of control, isn't it? True, but prostitution is generally looked upon as immoral. After all if we start claiming morality is entirely subjective we go down that nice road I call "why cant I kill anyone I want" road.

In what way do religious people have a tendency to be more moral? the nazi's and KKK are christian organizations where is the tug of this tendency on them? Unless you mean that religious moral people have a tendency to be more moral which is a pointless claim. I really dont enjoy using these terrible hyperboles but the fact stands there are tons of examples of corruption crime etc. that was based on religion.

very nice idea, I think the 25% is a bit too much of a boost. I think anything above 10% makes it too much of an advantage imo

not so sure about the str/def bonus(maybe slash instead of str); however, the prayer boost is something that I think would be very appropriate

Have you ever read the book 1984 by George Orwell? It depicts a distopian society, where there is censorship everywhere, to the point were historical texts were changed to reflect recent events - where there was Big Brother - pretty much the government that was suspicious of everyone. A new language was invented - called DoubleSpeak. DoubleSpeak took current ideas and concepts and put them into single, mashed together words. Anyhow, the point of DoubleSpeak was to make treason impossible because people couldn't even think it, DoubleSpeak wouldn't allow it. To make this relevant - Quick Chat is DoubleSpeak. Quick Chat makes it impossible to cuss, but it also makes it impossible to communicate effectively. Quick Chat is the easily implemented solution to your problem, not any auto-reporting thing. [hide=Here's more reasons why your idea would fail]It's impossible to get the context of words through programming. Here are a few things an auto report system would fail at: Damn it, I just died because of that noob. You're a damn noob. And he said to me "God Damn that's smoking hot" God Damn you're smoking hot. You're a Fat [wagon]. I have a fat [wagon]. It was a fat sea bass. I sea your b.[wagon]. I want to split your plateskirt with my 2h sword. I'm selling a plateskirt with a 2h sword. The firetruck was neon green. The firefruck was neon green. The firef**k was neon green. Hot smoking love is called firef**k. A Q, P W, are the answers to the cryptoquip A Q P, W, makes a male organ. That's kickass, I didn't know you could do that. I'll kick your [wagon]. Looks like he's trying to kill himself. He should just kill himself, no one wants him.[/hide] Anyhow - to get back to the title of this thread, and the debate. "PMods - Purpose or Status?" I believe this is asking the same thing as "Professional Athletes: Skilled or Over-Compensated?" Purpose and Status, like Skills and Over-Compensated are not mutually exclusive. A Player moderator has purpose, and has status, like a professional athlete is skilled, and is over-compensated. A general statement I'm inclined to agree with - All player moderators have status. True - the nature of moderation in itself, with or without stars, indicates status. Here's a question though - what if there was a player moderator who never said anything, so that there was no way to tell if they were a moderator or not? Would that player, in others eyes, still have status? If there was absolutely no way to tell if a player was a moderator or not, it would be impossible to determine their status, and therefore they wouldn't have status (as far as in other player's eyes). Now - you can make the argument that there are individual player moderators that don't serve a purpose, just like I could make the argument that there are pro athletes that aren't highly skilled. Taking a macroscopic view, player moderators serve a purpose, just like pro athletes are skilled. It would be foolish and ignorant to make the generic statement, "moderators serve no purpose". If you understand what I'm saying, then I have nothing left to say. If you can't understand what I'm saying, I'm wasting my time here. If you refuse to understand what I'm saying, you've got bigger problems, and arguing with you is unlikely to change your opinion. this =D>

religious people tend to be more pious, not more moral. Not acting in a reserved manner doesnt make you less moral. No, but doing immoral things that religious people wouldn't do, does. BTK, Dennis Raider(spelling) was a serial killer and I believe the minister of his church(certain he was christian). How would that have gotten worse if he was an atheist?

which rule :roll: I dont recall seeing "infringe upon the ability for players to trade as they want" in the rules.

You said players that pay the same should get the same report priority. Stating ftp should be allowed the same priority on reports conflicts with this and is very hypocritical :shame: Im not saying that my opinion is perfect, or that any mod always makes perfect reports. The point is even without the status reports from players such as myself would have priority because we have shown a pattern of good reporting. If there was a feasible way for jagex to set up priority reporting on other levels then mod non mod it would be an awesome thing, but theoreticals arent relevant to reality. if a player is report hunting they most likely wont earn modship(see that post you quoted about how honest he was being). Report hunting is a completely seperate problem from priority reporting, jagex is concerened with trends of who the better reports are by, not how they came about them. I already addressed that report hunting is problamatic, but its hardly relevant to a discussion on prioritizing mod reports. jagex does take every report seriously, but there are technical limitations. If they cant guarentee they will be able to get around to checking every report why wouldnt they start with the ones more likely to be good? yes they should listen to every player, Im showing you why it makes sense to check certain players(mods or non mods shown to report well) because if someone usually makes a better quality of report it stands to reason that checking their posts first will deal with more rule breakers in less time. A mod is not going to get away with many bad reports before they lose modship status. Since they are held to a high standard of reporting jagex can be sure that checking mod reports first will either lead to a very high ratio of good reports, or evidence a mod needs to lose his privilidges.

religious people tend to be more pious, not more moral. Not acting in a reserved manner doesnt make you less moral.

religion is believing in something beyond then reality. My belief there is a divine mechanism behind all the science of the world doesnt satisfy any of your claims about religion but its clearly a religious belief. edited higher to beyond seemed more appropriate.

Not true. The majority of atheists do not oppose religious organisations - they just don't care. Atheism certainly is not a religion. It is not structured or organised like religion. Here be some highly amusing discourse between Dawkins and a religious lady. I'm positive she does not reflect the intellectual capacity of the bulk of the American religious however. let me rephrase that for clarity atheism functions as a religion(even though it technically isnt) because as long as most of the world is religious being atheist puts you in (metaphorical) opposition to the church. Its not a religion in the sense being implied but in many ways it does function as one

why shouldnt mods get priority reports? since your basis is how much we pay why do ftpers have the right to report? They arent paying for it afterall :roll: ignore the crown and everything while we consider this part of modship priority reports anyone who has earned modship has at the very least sent in a good amount of accurate reports correct? Whether or not they were hunting isnt important, they have proven they know how to report what is rulebreaking(even if they may be overly strict) but they are reporting rule breaking. A player that has not gained modship has not gained(to the extent of a mod) proof that they are capable of making good reports. Does it not make sense that before going into the general report bin that jagex should take the pile out of the proven good reporter bin? If your not capable of seeing the logic here I really cant explain it. lets use an analogy actually your mining for gold and there are two streams stream a has given you record breaking amounts of gold for the past 5 days and has shown no sign of slowing down this profit stream b has never been searched for gold which stream would you start with if you wanted to make the most money?

even if atheism isnt a religion per se, it is still effectively a religion in many aspects. If most of the world was non religious the functional religious status of it would go away because atheists would stop opposing religious organizations(metaphorically) and it would be just a simple personal belief.

while web adverts are obvious, how do you intend for a system to pick up when swearing is bad enough and when something is racist? Ignoring cases of obvious words, these things would be very hard to pick up without a very sensitive sensor that would end up getting a lot of players a lot of black marks. btw that joke wasnt funny secondly, the reason mods get priority reports is that jagex has seen "proof" their reports are more likely to be accurate. Lets assume not every report gets read since it seems very unlikely, doesnt it make sense for jagex to start with the batch that is likely to be nearly perfect?

a server could fall on you though. A server isn't physical. #-o I think... And your computer is part of ther internet, so computer+bashing head=die the internet is made up of giant server computers and the interconnections between all computers. Since a computer can fall on you and kill you the internet also can. The non physical(which disqualifies it) abstract network is only part of the net.

[hide=] Yes you are absolutely correct. But the problem is, as I have said before, people believe in many different versions of God. Muslims believe in a different version to Christians. Because Christianity and Islam are some of the most popular Religions on the planet, it would not be wrong to pick their 'Gods' as an example. Stop being pugnacious. Albert Einstein was not religious. He was Pantheist, which basically means he used the term God as a metaphor. I think it would be nice to use God as a metaphor, however, discourse about semantics is not what this topic is about. Some Einstein quotes; "It was of course a lie, what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this, but expressed it clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "I am a deeply religious non-believer, that is a somewhat new kind of religion." If I choose to view god purely as a metaphor its not semantics, its just an abstract model. Temperature is nothing but the vibrating of particles but we still measure it. We agree their are flaws in the christian and muslim traditions, but that doesnt relate to whether some kind of god exists. Edison made one hundred or so things before he got a light bulb, certainly the incadensant bulb didnt become impossible since the first few forms were wrong on the quote, not believing in a personal god while religious entails ignoring religious establishment and believing the universe exists defined by science but their is some divine mechanism behind it. Largely metaphorical, feeling the universe has some divinity in it means searching for the source which I believe to be science math philosophy etc. I can't find your post, so would you please either link me/demonstrate your arguments from math/science for God? I remember reading them a while back (I think it was you), and noticing some flaws but didn't have enough time to post a reply. [/hide] No, that wasnt me just to note, dont take my sense of science being god too literally. Its more of an agnostic sense of maybe its god maybe its just awesome but at least they work whether divine or not. I dont have a shrine to Albert Einstein in my room though that would be pretty sweet hmm... I guess in a sense we have to debate god's existence within some frame, if not someone can just say they worship a can of soup as god and its technically real.

a server could fall on you though.

Yes you are absolutely correct. But the problem is, as I have said before, people believe in many different versions of God. Muslims believe in a different version to Christians. Because Christianity and Islam are some of the most popular Religions on the planet, it would not be wrong to pick their 'Gods' as an example. Stop being pugnacious. Albert Einstein was not religious. He was Pantheist, which basically means he used the term God as a metaphor. I think it would be nice to use God as a metaphor, however, discourse about semantics is not what this topic is about. Some Einstein quotes; "It was of course a lie, what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this, but expressed it clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "I am a deeply religious non-believer, that is a somewhat new kind of religion." If I choose to view god purely as a metaphor its not semantics, its just an abstract model. Temperature is nothing but the vibrating of particles but we still measure it. We agree their are flaws in the christian and muslim traditions, but that doesnt relate to whether some kind of god exists. Edison made one hundred or so things before he got a light bulb, certainly the incadensant bulb didnt become impossible since the first few forms were wrong on the quote, not believing in a personal god while religious entails ignoring religious establishment and believing the universe exists defined by science but their is some divine mechanism behind it. Largely metaphorical, feeling the universe has some divinity in it means searching for the source which I believe to be science math philosophy etc.

aviansie or chaos tunnel green dragons should work out

thanks for covering me there to lobsta Its grossly incorrect to assume you can narrow down the fundamentals of god to a few examples of a few religions. The religion I adopted is similair to the philosophy Albert Einstein(quotes on page sorry I cant give a narrower link) in that the universe its self and the pursuit of its truths is god. Unless you wish to argue the universe, science, math, and philosophy dont exist then you must concede my "god" does.

Does the general concept of ghost really fall under church and state since a large portion of religions/belief systems, and since ghosts arent really bound to religion? That law obviously wont hold up in any case since you cant "prove" it though if you did the new owners would be rich :lol:. Interestingly though, I recall a law somewhere that bans the killing of bigfoot which was probably made on the same reasoning of getting ahead of the curve so to speak.

devil's advocate time(well pastor's advocate time is more appropriate :lol: ) 1. its not exactly a moral occupation(not really an argument more like a supporting detail) 2. theory that prostitution existing leads to the breakup of families(because someone thats going to cheat on their spouse will only do it if their are prostitutes available :lol: ) 3. makes the city/town/state look bad if their are legal brothels(more of a social stigma argument but it is reasonable) Ive never really studied the defense of a prostitution ban but Im hoping thats at least a partial list of reasons

did the situational thing arise from me using the set of all objects 500million miles away?

first off, a personal opinion on obscene isnt relevant, jagex determines that within the confines of a game. I report what they have told me is to be considered obscence after I review it against a personal frame(saying age is against rules but I dont report it in innocent context). The resistance to a report bot would be from all types of players, because few people are going to like the idea of a robot looking at their chat constantly with a mindless report button. At least when good player mods are doing it they can see that the player asking if anyone else is 17 isnt trying to steal recov questions, or at least hang around the convo for a minute to make sure.

I knew I had heard it mentioned before, just can't remember where. I remember being like wtf! when I read it. I think jagex said they wanted to but it was impossible, if anything it was a very old statement.