Assume Nothing

I did not make that claim.

A two year old can survive on their own? Different context - their parents dying would not stop them from living.

Justifying their actions =/= being transparent. "a lack of transparency is likely to result in consumer disloyalty, especially those actions which adversely affect players." If the actions being hidden by lack of transparency would result in more disloyalty upon being revealed than the current nontransparent state, then that statement is false, no? I believe he meant that the act of hiding their ulterior motives turns off more people than if they did was they wanted openly. People really, really hate being lied to, or feel they're being talked down to, etc. Yes though, your statement is correct as well. For some reason I'm failing to convey what I mean in recent posts - indeed, that is what is meant. As a point of criticism, I don't think 'ulterior' is necessary here - by definition, hidden motives are ulterior. @delapaz; I don't see how justifying their actions aren't transparent - it's simply being open about their decisions. You may be right that I may have conflated the terms though. In response to another point - I don't quite understand what you mean by "If the actions being hidden by lack of transparency would result in more disloyalty upon being revealed than the current nontransparent state, then that statement is false, no?", could you phrase it in a way that doesn't use so many negatives?

In their defence, random customers at the store I work wouldn't know about Tip.It's existence, or my positions here. xD Let's voicechat.

Things that annoy the HELL out of me: Double posting.

Same here. Today I had a few customers who started to speak English in an attempt to keep their conversation "private" while I was scanning their products. When I felt the need to point out to point out that I perfectly understood what they were saying about me (which was rather condescending), in better English than they produced, that woman looked like she was ready to faint. Their grammar and pronunciation sucked, and they knew it after I spoke. Her husband turned red and looked at the floor until I handed him their receipt. Sometimes it's amusing, but it can be a bit bleh at times too. I find it strangely ironic that they would attempt to do that when you're an editor on our Panel. Facepalm indeed.

I don't see how that's relevant to your argument - the market forces dictate prices, not a supreme overlord. The item in question (Dragon Platelegs) are worth a trivial figure because it's not desirable; it fails to give desirable stats that cannot already be outmatched by alternative means.

Oops, did I say only? They ought to justify their actions as a lack of transparency is likely to result in consumer disloyalty, especially those actions which adversely affect players. (see the recent highscores scandal)

Please refrain from personally attacking people who may disagree with your position. The question in debate is whether JaGex ought to exercise censorship against moderators who do not share the same vision as JaGex - those whom may disagree. It is not the same as 'jumping on a desk and yelling at customers' at all - the analogy is very weak because there's very few similarities between the two. My view on the matter would be that it should be most appropriate if the views of disgruntled moderators were to be listened to, should it be presented in a way that is constructive and civil. I do not shun controversy, nor criticism - it operates in their interests to be self-correcting. It is a shame that sometimes JaGex does not fully justify their actions - thus it can only be assumed that they have ulterior motives. Hmmm..

As abortion takes away the fetus' right to life. If we assume that a fetus has a right to life, then we must assume that this takes away the mother's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - two entities occupying one body means that if one entity exercises control over their rights, it would nullify the other's. During pregnancy, mothers tend to forego their own rights in order to allow a fetus to gestate unless it interferes with their very own health. If a mother chooses not to forego her rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - why should she have to carry the term? This goes especially in the case of failed contraception. If pregnancy didn't involve the 9 months of carrying a child and the pain of childbirth, then maybe the adoption argument would work - but until such technology exists, the abortion debate will continue. A mother carrying a normal pregnancy to term does not forgo her right to life. The flaw with your argument is that while there will be some conflicting rights when two entities occupy the same body, it isn't always the case. The only way the mother's right to life is being threatened by pregnancy is if carrying the child to term will result in her death; an abnormal pregnancy in which case abortion becomes a morally acceptable medical procedure. Do note that I mentioned three universal rights - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. A normal pregnancy would still forego the mother's right to liberty and pursuit of happiness if she is obliged to carry the child against her will. The argument is whether an existing being's right has superiority over the rights of a dependent being that is not yet conscious. Oh, and there's more rights I have yet to mention - such as the universal right to good health. It is possible that a pregnancy can harm a mother's health without causing death, which must also be accounted for in our arguments.

How long do you have to play to get it to say "Lots!" under your adventure log? Or is that just something you photoshopped in for the lulz? I believe that's Stev's editing. A simple line of javascript triumphs again; javascript: document.body.contentEditable = 'true'; document.designMode = 'on'; void 0 @Promise - there are three clients known to still operate, and those are likely to be either SIMBA or SCAR.

As abortion takes away the fetus' right to life. If we assume that a fetus has a right to life, then we must assume that this takes away the mother's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - two entities occupying one body means that if one entity exercises control over their rights, it would nullify the other's. During pregnancy, mothers tend to forego their own rights in order to allow a fetus to gestate unless it interferes with their very own health. If a mother chooses not to forego her rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - why should she have to carry the term? This goes especially in the case of failed contraception. If pregnancy didn't involve the 9 months of carrying a child and the pain of childbirth, then maybe the adoption argument would work - but until such technology exists, the abortion debate will continue.

People who claim to have a thousand friends on the basis of their Facebook. There's a difference between friends, acquaintances and strangers - make that distinction and realise that very few, if any, are friends at all.

I wouldn't get out of bed for 500M. -.- You'd be in a coma if you earned my income. Is it possible to build with a relatively small bank, like 300m or so?

I think it would be a good idea that before an argument is initiated about what they ought to be valued at, to understand how they're valued. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand Enjoy

It's their choice to be rational or not. Why should they pick up dbones if they don't want to?

I don't think there's going to be one soon, but there may be in future. Who knows?

Banned for assuming that I'm assuming.

Banned for blinking manually.

Do you have to share your utilities with them? 1 small kitchen for 4 people so pretty much. Even if I told them not to they'd probably forget. I'm sure you don't have to keep your items in the kitchen, assuming you have additional room elsewhere.

Could you tell us what time you log in at? Activity ranges from essentially mute to the equivalent of Mod MMG's fc when talking about f2p skillcapes.

It's rather difficult to criticize JaGex's decision of censorship if we don't even know what was censored. On the basis of the title alone, it seems more likely that the opinion may have been poorly voiced/justified ['The Ultimate Insult'] I don't think what Jiblix did deserved removal of modship though.

Do you have to share your utilities with them?

It depends on the circumstance - sometimes a minority viewpoint is suppressed simply because it's a minority view (which does not in fact change it's validity). I see nothing wrong with playing the devil's advocate - it's simply the fact that some people do it for the wrong reasons.

'You get what you pay for' <- that seems to ring true more often you would hope. OT: I hate living on a relatively high floor - someone thought it was a good idea to set fireworks off close to buildings. Argh, why aren't these people getting sanctioned?!