Assume Nothing

There's a bot for everything. Even Nex? And by a bot, I mean an efficient bot. Pal's post seems like a mis-post, intended for a different thread. Is that correct, pal?

I'm not sure where this thread should be in, but I'd help you anyway. In the top right hand corner of your screen, there's a scrollbar with your name on it. Click on the arrow and go to "My Settings". Click on "Profile", and you could scroll down to where it shows "RuneScape Username". Type your RuneScape username in there. EDIT - Ninja'd.

We also do a lot of in-thread moderating but in most cases, if the posts aren't removed and a moderator just comes in asking people to stop, people will continue the discussion anyway because the posts are still there, taunting them to reply. This is particularly true if it's a flame war and people are insulting each other or jumping down their throats. But by removing the posts, people don't feel inclined to respond to each other anymore since the posts are no longer there. I still feel like this solution is like cutting off your finger if you get a splinter. What is the big deal if people keep responding to each other? If anyone is put off by the discussion they can just leave the thread. I think if people are choosing to participate in a flame war it is the moderators job to resolve the dispute, not simply hide it. The problem is that it takes time and patience to resolve a dispute. It takes seconds to click "move to the black hole forums" or whatever it is that you do with the posts. We see a lot of posts such as "No, you're an idiot because it's meant to be like this. Get outside nerd." Leaving it in the thread would just leave it open for more arguments, people just can't help but reply to a post such as that. In cases where it isn't so bad we do leave an in thread warning but it doesn't always stop the flaming so we have to remove the posts, then it stops. And if two users, or a group of users are having a large dispute we will private message them and try and work something out, but users having large disputes does not happen too often thankfully! We also generally try and leave threads for users to sort out problems between themselves, unless it gets serious with personal attacks/threats. I'd like to quote the example where an argument about supporting the position of the 54 year old male led to some... quite serious accusations.

Take away the internet? What? It's one of the best ways to find and share information and up to date news. Why would you want to take it away completely? Your argument is definitely very circumstantial. Certain courses can be well taught with nothing but a blackboard and a piece of chalk. Some courses are best taught in a laboratory, and some are best taught in the computer room. Take Economics for example: It's good to have the internet in the course, because the students are more likely to better develop their application skills if they're working with relevant and recent material. However, I would agree that sometimes, the funding could be better used. I would argue it's not just the teacher salaries that has to go up, it's the motivation levels and the ability of the teachers. Good pay does not necessarily imply good teaching quality, nor does vice versa. Not sure where I'm going with this now. I'll leave this here

Warts. You know the kind I'm talkin' about.

Think of this dude as an inverse. While not making ridiculously large meals, he prepares them using the most insane methods imaginable. Barbarian style cooking. I think that's what Cave men did

"A bird in a bird in a bird in a bird in a bird in a pig"

Does underwear count?

They could, but would they? I've always argued that in the UK, the health budget is far too high and unreasonable. By simply reducing waste in those departments, you could stop the cuts in funding to Education.

It depends. Could the mute evidence be interpreted as intentionally trying to cause offense/solicitate? Even "[bleep] off" could be interpreted as an derogatory term, thus JaGex would place action against it, usually in the form of mutes.

Arts and music programs, in my opinion, aren't economically viable. I would be most opposed to a cut in a teacher's salary. Teachers serve a fundamental role in education: To teach. Their role is to directly/indirectly influence interest in a subject, to teach the subject and make sure the students understand it. A cut in their pay has a direct impact on their motivation levels, and with lower motivation, they are less likely to do well at their job. I don't think that would be fair to the younger generation, therefore, I would be most opposed to cuts in teachers' salary. That's my little rant of the night. Damn, it's 5:11am

This is what I refer to as 'Food Pornography'. EDIT - That's good too.

What mis-information? All the seed drop info is correct. And my comment about "virtually nothing" aside from ancient mages n boss monsters dropping torstol is perfectly true as well, not a lot does drop torstol herbs other than the boss monsters and as you covered they are rare. What would be more correct to say is that virtually everything drops noted torstols, but as they are one of many rare drops on the new rare drop table they cannot be farmed through combat. Except ancient mages and that's inefficient. There we go. A well phrased response. That saves me a bit of typing. "Virtually nothing" implies very few monsters, yet in reality, there's many monsters who can drop noted torstols. However, noted torstols are found in many monster's droptables, it's just rare. I'd say I have to agree with you, Nifflin. EDIT - Hmm, my mistake. OP specifically asked about Torstol droppers that are more frequent than most of the monsters that can be found.

What the hell are you talking about? All current laws stay in place until theres a reason to overturn them. If we wanted to make it illegal to own a gun, we need to make a good case for why the law needs to be created. If burqas were illegal to start with, we would need a good reason for them to be made legal. People who wear burqas already need to remove their burqa to get ID cards. Also, when they need to prove their identity in a bank, or at the DMV, or anything like that, they must present their ID card and reveal their face. This is all before the burqa ban legislation got passed. I understand that there is MORE of a risk, but so what? Lots of stuff poses MORE of a risk. Public access to the internet poses more of a security risk than if we required everybody to obtain an internet permit/license. You need to present more of an argument. It is simple to just say "Blah blah blah its dangerous" Describe a specific scenario where banning the burqa will now protect us. You mean your argument? Yeah, pretty much. Your argument is just "It looks scary". So? Lots of stuff is scary to lots of people. Dressing like a goth looks scary to me, but I don't think it should be outlawed. Way to manipulate what I said. I wasn't saying that we don't need a good reason to place a ban on burqa's, that's not my point. The point was, just because it was never banned before, it doesn't mean it should remain unbanned. I agree that we need good reasons, and I'm going to list them now. You mentioned "lots of stuff poses more of a risk". That's true, but does it mean that it's acceptable? If you want an example for me to illustrate my point: If a burqa wearer commits armed robbery/assault, and there are many burqa wearers about, then how are you going to identify the robber from everyone else? The veil doesn't just cover the face, it covers the identity of the women who decide to wear them, by choice or force. I'm unsure on the specifics, but where does it say that it's necessary for Muslim women to wear these veils? The comment about pointless arguments: It doesn't prove to be a problem in the UK/US at this moment in time, so I don't see the point in arguing about it. It's a French ban. However, I find it funny that you comment about my lack of reasoning, where you don't do much better.

Okay: you start. Since burqas were not banned before, we need a reason to ban them. What is your reason? Could you please stop making irrelevant comments? Just because burqas weren't banned before, it doesn't mean it ought to remain so. My personal stance is not to ban burqa's, but to make it extremely inconvenient to have a burqa for logical reasons, thus providing a disincentive to wear them. Examples would be inability to obtain a valid passport/driver's license, identification cards, etc. The perception of burqa wearers is that they pose a risk, as their identity is unknown. They also incite fear and discomfort in general, as the public does not feel safe around people who cover their entire face. I'm unsure whether this argument is going. I feel this is a pointless argument

You can pop your wrists? Could you elaborate on that, or perhaps, show us how you do it? A youtube video would be nice..

Then ban black-visored motorbike helmets. If a biker commits a hit-and-run offence and I can't see his face, isn't this the same issue of accountability? Or does it not fall into the special terrorism clause that popped up after 9/11? I'm sorry, I just don't follow this at all. We criticise Islamic nations for forcing women to wear a full-faced veil, and then we perform a complete intellectual backflip by not allowing them to wear it at all here even when they want to. Which country in this situation is really on the high ground here? I'd argue they're both persecuting free will. The use of your analogy is once again sub-par. Black visored motorbike helmets serve a different purpose - It's to prevent head/eye injury to motorbikers. There are other ways to identify a biker in a hit and run case - Eg the number plate that's obviously on the bike itself. The right of free will shouldn't triumph other people's rights without a good reason. Could you address the other issues in the quote that you decided to cherry pick, please? You're welcome to find some far-flung Internet source to counter this (plenty exist when it comes to Islam), but from the Muslims I've spoken to in life, full-faced veils are to respect a woman's right to privacy. Where's the harm in that? "Right to privacy" doesn't exactly scream "She wants to blow this [cabbage] up". First of all, that's simply a generalization; You're taking a specific example of someone's opinion and presenting it as a general fact. Furthermore, the disclosure of the face is in the public interest (for their own safety), thus you couldn't argue that it is a privacy right to wear them. Assuming the right to privacy does apply in this situation, which I doubt, you haven't explained how it triumph's society's rights to good health and be free of mental anguish. I don't understand your argument very well. Enlighten me. @Mywepon: You've not only misrepresented our arguments, but you've made a poor analogy. Could we please go back to the discussion about banning the Burqa?

I wasn't going to post in this thread, but there's some blatant misinformation. The ring of wealth update brought about some noted Torstol drops on the rare drops table, so you could find torstol herb drops from many places. However, it isn't a frequent drop, thus it's not easy to 'farm' torstols with combat.

EDIT - How did I manage to doublepost?

Then ban black-visored motorbike helmets. If a biker commits a hit-and-run offence and I can't see his face, isn't this the same issue of accountability? Or does it not fall into the special terrorism clause that popped up after 9/11? I'm sorry, I just don't follow this at all. We criticise Islamic nations for forcing women to wear a full-faced veil, and then we perform a complete intellectual backflip by not allowing them to wear it at all here even when they want to. Which country in this situation is really on the high ground here? I'd argue they're both persecuting free will. The use of your analogy is once again sub-par. Black visored motorbike helmets serve a different purpose - It's to prevent head/eye injury to motorbikers. There are other ways to identify a biker in a hit and run case - Eg the number plate that's obviously on the bike itself. The right of free will shouldn't triumph other people's rights without a good reason. Could you address the other issues in the quote that you decided to cherry pick, please?

This seems relevant to Tipit. I feel this thread should be revived too. I'd say that the majority of the population are unlikely to have more than 3 'true' friends, for multiple reasons. Society itself is changing, and it seems we are unable to adapt. Ask yourself: When's the last time you accepted criticism, and when's the last time you tried to change because of it? The intentions of those who criticize is often an attempt to help you become a better person. I'd say a true friend would possess that quality. Also, changes in technology makes communication today radically different to communication about 100 years ago. Instead of walking to someone's house and asking a friend for a favour, many opt to text. It's a terrible way to communicate, as a lot of the language expressed on text based communications are misinterpreted, which is explained by the fact that it's filtered through our own emotions. "No, thank you" could be perceived as sarcasm, or a literal "No, but thank you for offering". Sometimes, this hinders relationships. On a side note, I've noticed a trend for myself personally; My very best friends are always very good at arguing. Not sure why, but it seems to be the case today. That's my little rant of the hour.

From my personal observations, Conquest is more efficient in gaining points per hour compared to Pest Control itself. On the flip side, it really depends on personal preferences. I really disliked Conquest when it came out because it was just so insanely mind numbing, but if you like that sort of game, then go ahead and Conquest for your full set of void. I believe Pest Control landers are announced on irc, on the Swiftirc server. I'm unsure if this constitutes advertising, so I won't go into detail about how to obtain the information. You could always join Heart Unit too (they have their own forums, you could just Google their website and register), assuming you have relatively high combat stats to PC with. That's my 2 cents

91,500 people? What were they doing? What were they stopped for? I don't see how this is directly relevant to the subject we are discussing here. EDIT - Judging from the BBC link you've given, it doesn't seem as though they were specifically targeting individuals who are perceived as 'dangerous'. It seems as though they targeted anything that could be perceived as a terrorist threat, be it a unattended van or a person with a guitar case. I don't see the analogy being any good either - The purpose of taxation is radically different to the purpose of the proposed ban today. As these facial 'masks' cover the entire face, it's plausible to speculate that there could be some element of risk or danger involved, if these people wearing them have the motive to do so. I'd argue that the ban is necessary - It reduces the likelihood of risk or danger to the public, or, worse case scenario, it reduces the perception of risk or danger to the public. As I've stated in a previous post, there are contradicting rights in the humans rights acts. Which right triumphs which: The right to good health (and to be free of mental anguish), or the right to free speech/expression?

I don't think the problem lies within the ban itself, rather, it lies within the attitudes of the women who wear the facial masks. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to cover one's whole face for religious purposes. I like the idea about allowing women to wear these masks, but making it extremely inconvenient to do so (Driver's license/Passport invalid, unable to vote, etc etc), as this would serve as a deterrent, without 'infringing their rights'. Human rights always conflict though: the wearers of these masks would have a right to free speech/expression/whatever, and society has a right to good health and be free of mental anguish. If society feels uncomfortable about the masks themselves, not the religion, then society shouldn't have to put up with it. It's about deciding which right triumphs which, and anti-'discrimination' campaigns always jump the gun in protecting these people. Personally, I'm absolutely fine with women wearing their religious clothing, so long as it doesn't cover their face entirely. Everyone should be identifiable for everyone else's safety. I would always opt for safety first.

This thread deserves a revival. What are your unique talents, TipIt? One of my talents would have to be... quick mental maths? It's harder to come up with something that I thought :o