Grimy_Bunyip

I'd prefer it not to have a special attack :P less likely to accidentally empty my spec bar

The evidence is how long it took to convince you guys to give us some proof that you actually contacted Jagex. That kind of behavior is not indicative honest behavior, is it?

New Dungeoneering Information Just In Bloodragers drain defense levels scale according to damage dealt Specifically: Defense_Level_Drain = RoundUp(Damage/20) This means, if your bloodrager misses, you deal 0 defense levels from the target! This further means, if ragers are a crucial part of a boss, IE Kalger, Gulega. It is now recommended that you leech defense whilst ragering! Special Thanks to Brunokiller for making this information available to DGS. May DGS stay on the cutting edge of the metagame ;)

id just swap the workshop with the dining hall and relocate the bedroom to another floor.

Two things here. First, ancient was trying to reach some sort of middle ground with Das. Second, we're also of the opinion that some of the rules need revision. and for goodness sake you realize the size of that conversation log right? did you seriously search through it to find a single potentially incriminating snippet on ancient? He doesn't have internet access for about another week, so I'd appreciate it if you don't twist his words when he's not around.

Yep, No remorse, no regrets, I'm sure I could find other people in your group who would of been happy with removed warnings and a forum created ran by the people who actually used it. People who wanted to work with us. I posted my logs too - just because 1) I have nothing to hide 2) I wanted mine incase yours posted first might of been altered. Which reminds me...if you wanted to build your community so much...why are you so worried with this one exactly? DGS is based on TIF, and I'm still involved with them. but don't worry, if DGS leaves, you won't see me here anymore.

dont worry, we logged the entire conversation: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=15WofN_kTabZ8HehWVID3N5ixi-h3F0hZA3jA02TCMVU anyways the quote you want is: [3:13:50 AM] Das: i'm sure i can find other members of your group who will take what i'm offering you can find it in the Google doc containing the whole conversation if you want the context.

Way to like, snip out 6 IM's completely out of context from a 2+ hour discussion. at the end of the day, you refused to let us stay independent until we saw results. You want us back first, then have results on TIF later. you left out the part where you tried to make power grabs at the efficiency community. Offering moderator positions on TIF to arbitrary TEF as a ploy to pick off members of the efficiency community. and look at you now, doing the same old same old, trying to split the efficiency community again. I'm really sick and tired of your "businessman" tactics Das.

Especially since fault still lies with both sides imo at trying to work things out. It's becoming increasingly clear again - that some of you guys really have no intention of working things out here. Some of you - Like yourself Nifflin - do have that intent and I hope this [cabbage] ends soon, but some like grimy, never had a [bleep]ing desire to work it out, I know I spent hours talking to him as an admin as was all but blown off as he "never intended to agree" You told me that you wanted us to come back to tip.it BEFORE a change in moderation. All I told you, was that I would never agree to anything involving such a stipulation. We disagreed because you wouldn't back down on that stipulation. Don't attribute it to never intending to agree. Your attempt to make a power grab, and divide the efficiency community after you perceived a failure of negotiations, was not appreciated either.

automated responses, great.

So if I register on your forums as a regular person, which I've been longing to do ever since you chose to close your boards to guests, I will not be banned? You won't assume every sort of issue than anyone else might find out is because of me? If so, I'd happily join your boards and speak with you via PM to hear your ideas. It's a bit ridiculous, but if you feel that unsafe about communicating on these boards--which you shouldn't--then I will try to accommodate you. And for the record, most of the moderators you assumed to take action against you haven't been the ones to do so. I know you might not like a lot of moderators here, which is bound to happen, but making baseless accusations will not be tolerated on these boards. I haven't banned Y guy yet, nor darkdude even though they've registered accounts. Even golvellius seems to have an account on TEF, but i haven't banned him because he hasn't done anything wrong yet. Heck I've only banned two people on TIF so far, and one was by accident when i was still tinkering with the admin panel, and the guy has already has a fresh new account. TIF, on the other hand, HAS banned me I don't see what's unreasonable here. Or are you trying to pull a guilty until proven innocent thing on me again? TIF makes baseless accusations towards me all the time, take this AHK-Macro thing for example. YOU HAVE NO BASE otherwise you wouldn't be contacting Jagex in the first place. You will speak on TEF or you will receive no constructive feedback. That is all.

Okay, that's good feedback (EDIT: I'm serious, that is helpful.). What would you rather see the moderation staff do when handling multiple rule-breaking posts at once? I do have ideas for you. And we have suggested ideas in the past in regards to this, but mods like Danq delete them before they get to the eyes of more sympathetic mods. And it's not like we know who the sympathetic mods are before they respond to us. Nor can we mass PM the TIF mods. soo yeah, ideas have been suggested as alternatives to mass deletion but you never saw them because they got mass deleted. Regardless, I'm not negotiating on TIF anymore. If you want to hear the ideas, go ask on TEF.

you also don't need specialist knowledge to know that you shouldn't ban first and prove later. I'm now issuing an ultimatum. If you want to negotiate TEF, do so on OUR forums. The post deletion problem is cropping up again.

Again, that is why it is being discussed. As mentioned before the issue with the TEF blocked links is hopefully just a small temporary one. And again, if you see a link that fits what you explained in the meantime that a moderator hasn't spotted (which will probably pop up overnight as ESTers are getting ready for bed and GMTers are sleeping) you can report it and action will be taken that way. I'm personally going to head offline shortly myself, I've had a long day. ban first, discuss later. This is just shameless prejudice towards us. as if the mods would take the same measures if it were any other forum.

You've yet to prove it, yet you're taking action without regards to that. and there you go again deleting links in signatures without providing proof. TheAncient was sent a detailed pm about exactly what was wrong with the scripts posted. We've reiterated time and time again that if the offending scripts are removed, links will once again be allowed. Ancient's also been inactive because of final exams. Why would you send such critical information to only a single admin in the first place? Probably because he was the first one who came to mind. If that's the case I'm sure it can be sent to you as well. *and rocked

You've yet to prove it, yet you're taking action without regards to that. and there you go again deleting links in signatures without providing proof. TheAncient was sent a detailed pm about exactly what was wrong with the scripts posted. We've reiterated time and time again that if the offending scripts are removed, links will once again be allowed. Ancient's also been inactive because of final exams. Why would you send such critical information to only a single admin in the first place?

You've yet to prove it, yet you're taking action without regards to that. and there you go again deleting links in signatures without providing proof.

Darkdude, it's come to my attention that you're making threats to members of efficionados via TIF PMs. Would you care to stop doing that? and you guys also really need to stop deleting links to our forums from our signatures if you can't actually prove that our scripts are illegal...

ghosts? fire giants? demons? warriors? brutes? as well as various boss monsters: Maybe not a majority, but a nontrivial number of monsters. I mean basically your opinion is that you'd rather have +4% melee DPS over +30% magic dps. And and sure you need to make fire runes/water/earth, but elemental runes can be looted or crafted more losslessly than say, having to chop an entgallow. but more there's definitely not more than 7.5x as many monsters that you would rather melee over mage furthermore fire surge with CCS puts out damage faster on skeletons/zombies than a primal 2h. Sly wizard's kinda been allowed to go too long without putting up a reasonable argument. i thought the mods were supposed to do something about that.

i'll be on right now if u can be.

it gives +7 melee str bonus... http://www.tip.it/runescape/?rs2item sort by stats not sure if you know about this or not... i did not, it worked well thanks. Now I just need 1 more bit of info before i can commence this test.

anybody know any items that give negative melee/ranged strength bonus that isn't a weapon slot item? Okay done with that request. Now I need someone with membs, and lvl 1 def to get smacked in duel arena a few times for the sake of rounding error data volunteers? :D

he's very weak to stab. if you have a spear/rapier, he's easy to just soulsplit. He used to be a joke boss back when spears were still viable.

Gratz, but post in the new forums next time, i don't check this thread much anymore :P

mhm, 33 mins.