Bloodveld

Personally, I really think we need two new smilies. A "-.-" smiley, and a smiley of a guy holding his head (obviously exasperated). I made for the "-.-" smiley, but I haven't made the other one. I could easily make it, or get someone from the media forums to if needed. Whatcha think? EDIT: We also need a ^_^ smiley and a XD smiley, which I'll also make if my idea gets passed. EDIT 2 & 3: = -.- = = ^_^ = XD = :lub: = delete -> :3> = :thumbsup: Muahaha.

Guthix is Jagex's favorite god too :P Jagex hate guthix.... They made it emo.... He goes in a cave and cries :cry: They are saying he is both kind and considerite, not emo. Seriously, grow up. Lose the middle school stereotypes. =;

+1! Gnomes are guthixians!! THEY MUST BE SAVED!! Also, there really isn't much point to this event. (:-$ just saying :-$)

No, personally I find the guthix spell to be the best of the three, sara only lowers your opponate's prayer by one, and zam is hardly effective against warriors, the guy that you are trying to kill in the first place. IMO jagex is setting up more minigames, this time ones with autocasting sara and zam weapons.

XDXDXDXD I think you mean community, and you've obviously never played it. WoW is an excellent game. Lmao @ all the WoW haters, they've obviously never played it. Good luck in life! I hope you enjoy WoW! If you would like to add me on WoW, I have a horde character on the skywall realm, named Bloodveld. I would be happy to play with you. ^_^ Also, would you like to have the drop party at my house? My 100 combat party was a blast, and I'm sure that you'd enjoy borrowing my house for an afternoon. :anxious:

Supposed to be a joke. If its a pun, I dont get it either. Jagex is just being, well, silly. :lol: The monster is called an evil spirit, the pun is that it's a ghost of rum, and alcohol is sometimes refered to a spirit. ;)

Excellent point. One thing that I would like to add is that someone could create 6 or 7 accounts now, wait 4 years, then post keyloggers one by one. Join date does nothing to show trustworthiness. High quality posts, on the other hand, do. EDIT: Reply already Zim-boy, I've got to go soon. :P Off topic: My gf really loves invader zim. :shock: EDIT2: I'll be back tomorrow.

:shock: I'm sorry, but you officially creeped me out. Very good eye. :shock:

It'd be nice to think that the quality of one's posts increases as time passes and post count grows but I haven't found that to be the case for everyone. Sure people who have a larger post count than I have contributed more but I would question the quality. This isn't to say I write great awe inspiring posts but more to say that contributing more isn't the same as contributing well. I've noticed there's more than one person with a substantial post count who goes through the forums and adds to each and every topic it seems. And after reading through the posts I can't see how it was that much of a contribution, not to say they are doing it for post count but trying to say that the count equals quality is a bit of a stretch to me. It's true that not every high post counter is a good member, but not every low post counter is bad either. Saying that all high post counters are these wonderful people is just as bad as saying each low post counter is some low down dirty swine. In every community there are some bad eggs, and tif is certainly one of them. Certainly you understand this. (Also, I ment no offence by the "You obviously haven't contributed as much to this forum as a 2k post counter has." comment. 'Just trying to prove a point) I couldn't agree more. There will always be spam but the fact that there's a reward for it will inspire some. The blatant spammers are taken care of soon enough and don't last. It's the ones who contribute the minimum that this might affect. Needless to say it would be an interesting little social experiment to run and see the results on spamminess in general. I'm not saying it would eliminate it, nor would I imagine most others would either. An experiment would be an excellent idea, but I never suggested it for one reason; once it's been changed, you can bet that it won't be changed back. As you probably can tell, more then one mod is against post counts, and they'll find an excuse not to re-add it. I wish more people followed your example. This is the very reason why some boards don't count toward your post total. Simple three word responses shouldn't be considered a substantive post. If someone feels the need to respond it should at least be with a complete thought out reply. I would suggest adding a mod that prevents posts from being posted if they have less characters then a preset amount, but there is two main problems with this: 1) Spammers will simply make their spam longer. and 2) There are times when just 3 or 4 words is enough to completely shift the favor of an argument. I would be willing to compromise and add this mod if post count were to remain, though. I'll grant you that it's more probable that the one with the higher post count wouldn't post something of that nature. However since we are dealing with people via the internet even the amount of time you have "known" someone doesn't mean much sometimes. My point was more to use common sense and don't let a count number make you assume something about someone. That's the crux of all this I think, people assuming things based on a number. Like I said, there will always be bad eggs, but usually a higher post count can show some level of trustworthiness. What everyone is forgetting about high post counters is that everyone of their posts is logged. The higher your post count is, the more of your personality is shown to the general public. If someone with 2k posts posts a link, by then people will usually have a sense of this person's character, and his trustworthiness, hense have a good idea if the link is safe or not. Simply put, there hasn't been any reason for us pro-post counters (this argument is a grammatical nightmare :lol:) to post any reasons. We're winning, aren't we? If we weren't, then I can assure you that there would be plenty more pro-post count posts on this topic, with a good deal of them having good points. +1 ;) Also, I would like to say that I'm very happy that you've posted on this thread, it's been ages since I've had a good debate. :D I find it humorous when a post that's complete spam asks people to stop spamming. If people wanted to counter your points they would have already. And as for your post count rebuttal against mine I find it hard to see how a post count deems how much time you spend on here. Just because some people post around 30 posts a day of "I agree with this one!" or "I think this..." posts doesn't relegate how long one has been here for. More to the point why would one care how long someone has been on these forums. This isn't a pissing contest here... Stop whining. :roll: The point of that post was to stop the spamming and possibly create more debate, which it accomplished. Obviously you're angry at me for one-upping you, which is not surprising. Your counter to my post is basicially saying that there are certain high post counters who always post spam. I would like to add to that DUH, but removing post count will, if anything, make them spam more. Crazy you say? Well, if they are spamming to get a higher post count, then they are looking to be more well known, so people will reconize them by their large post count. Well, consider this: without high post count, how are they going to get well known? By posting even more. Topics will be flooded by spammers just so people notice them. Is this really what you want? And thank you for your 90% flame post, it has allowed me to one-up you, once again. ^_^ ~Bloodveld

Getting 150 requires alot of clicking, and thats with water collecting, i have never managed to get over 100 collecting nuts or coloured water though. Imo they should lower the amount of PoE needed, raise the amount given, or decrease the time the game runs for. I don't have enough time to burn to stay there for hours and hours to get the stuff. Mystical. They changed it, 100 water only gets you 60-ish pieces of eight. Luckily I was able to get 1800 before they changed it.

Stop the spamming guys. Does anyone want to counter the points I brought up here? http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=3321686#3321686

I'm still sticking to the theory that we need a world with a 100 combat minimum. (and yes, I have been saying this way before I even got 100 combat.)

letsee 75 = ....Mentally challenged 95 = average american 100 = average 125 = above average 133 = genius 150 = super genius 192 = WTHOMGBBQ!?! :shock: hmm...but then again bloodveld has been known to be an editor...O,o :shock: I don't believe it. I bet it's like golf, lowest score, right? :? You can tell me the truth.

The game gets really boring fast.

For me personally, I try not to spam. I try to write only meaningful posts. My post count is a record of personal achievement. I don't use it to judge myself against anyone else. This is one of the main reasons why I like post count. Guys, I think that the discussion is over, unless anyone would like to argue the points I posted on the previous page. Bleh, I thought I could get higher. ^^ Is that score good? I have no idea how they rate those kind of things.

Making planks IS the expensive part. :roll: Turning an oak log into an oak plank: 250 gp. 1k oak planks = 250k 10k oak planks = 2.5m Still think this is just a few hundred k? Maybe if you are shooting for 50 con it's cheap, but lets look at 99, shall we? 13,034,431 exp for level 99. 60 exp per oak plank. 217,241 oak planks for level 99. That's 54,310,250 gp for level 99. Let me ask you again: Still think this is just a few hundred k? 54M for a 99 isn't so much if you compare it to what other skills cost; smithing, herblore, farming etc. Don't forget the cost of a butler and buying all the logs ;) Did I mention that con was the only skill that I was planning on getting 99 on? =P~

Took me long enough to get 9 hours of sleep. :P I believe the join date does a good enough job of this. Besides some people choose to read topics rather than to post within them. Join date does not show time spent on here. Someone could create an account now, spend the rest of the day reading posts, and not return for 3 years. Does that show how much time you've spent here? NO. Yes, post count can sometimes encourage spamming, but it doesn't create it. I'm 100% positive that without post count, spammers will still spam. If you do remove post count, I'm sure that you'll find out that it was completely negitive, as spammers will still spam and good, active members of the forum won't be able to enjoy looking at their post count steadily increase. You obviously haven't contributed as much to this forum as a 2k post counter has. A low post count doesn't show how long someone has been here, it shows how much they've contributed. Now, there are sometimes exceptions to this, but the majority of the time people with high post counts have contributed considerably. You honestly think that when people post "+1" or just an emote that they are only doing it for post count? :lol: Trust me, without post count there will still be just as many spam posts. Just look at runehq, when they removed post count spamming actually increased. Now, I never just post "+1" and leave it at that, if someone has a really good post I might post +1 and then state why he's right or why I agree with him, but I've never posted before just for the sake of post count. When someone posts a download link (to a movie or maybe a POH designer or something of the sort), if you notice someone has a very low post count then that's a first clue that the person is untrustworthy. Now, your argument in this states that post count does not show how trustworthy someone is, but consider this: Who is more likely to post a keylogger? Someone with 2k posts, or someone with 2? The person with 2 is probably just going to make another account, while the person with 2k has shown that he's spent considerable time here, and people more then likely know him. IMO the poll is perfectly valid, UNLESS someone groups two of the options together. 176 249 113 As I've said before, adding the first and last options then taking the higher of the two is completely stupid. Doing so will make 176 > 249. Any arguments that "well, more people are voting to have there be a change then not" is completely invalid, as I could easily say that "more people are voting to keep post counts in some way then remove it", so maybe the last two should be added and the highest taken? All in all, the highest choise in the poll is the one that should be chosen. Communist propaganda. :P These forums already run for me with the speed of a lightning bolt, and my computer is far from new. The only time that these forums have ever been slow for me is after a huge update, and even then it's not too bad. Also, when the new update monster rears his ugly head, removing post count will not stop his big bro, Lagasauris Rex, from showing up. err actually, this poll is not perfectly fair at all. It causes a split in those who vote yes, because there are two 'yes' options, while the ones voting no are united. Actually, there aren't two yes options. THERE ARE TWO KEEP OPTIONS. The poll says "Remove post count?" with 3 options: remove it, keep it where it is, and keep it but in the profile. Theoretically speaking, "remove" should be winning by a landslide as the keepers are split in two, but IT'S NOT, which shows that the majority of people want post count to stay. As I've already said, a rep system is always abused, as people never give good rep to those whose posts deserve it, and instead just de-rep people who they don't like. Sir Lol-a-lot (XD) said it pretty stupidly, but he does have a point. People tend to automaticially give a certain amount of respect to those with a higher post count. This can be good or bad. As forums grow and change, people come and go. The same people using the forum now might not be using it in a year or two. Someone still using this forum with a high post count in two years (for example) shows that he's not new, even though a lot of the people who know him don't use the forums anymore. Now, you could say that join date accomplishes this, but it doesn't. Someone who tried rs right when it started, played it for 5 min, thought it was stupid, then quit and didn't come back until rs2 cannot claim that he isn't a rs2 product, as he never accomplished something back in rsc. Same thing with post counts. My 2ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãââ.

I read it all. I see no point is being so lazy that I don't even spend an extra minute or two to read over all the replies.

no, posts are not deleted. Why don't you just disable post count in the deleted forum so posts there don't add on to post count?

EDIT: Yikes, wrong button. Sorry. (The forums are quite laggy today, eh?)

That's perfect if you consider "Remove" can only win if it beats "Keep and hide" + "Keep entirely". I think that's that you're going to do, right? No, he's saying that "keep entirely" can only win if it beats "remove" + "keep but hide" :roll:

Maybe the quest skulls you and you only noticed it when you entered the area?

Yes, yes, using the Lord's name in vain sure proves your point. :roll: The fact stands that there's more votes for keeping the post count then either removing it, and until you address my previous point and give me a decent counterpoint, I'm not going to be swayed. EDIT: The poll has THREE OPTIONS. People voting for relocating it are not voting for removing it altogether. You are assuming that they are, which is biased. Ah, I see what you mean, but I'm also sure that everyone who chose the 'keep' option would also prefer to have it relocated then to have it removed. Also, who knows? Maybe the people who chose to have it moved to profile would still prefer to have it on the side then have it removed all together. Maybe they still want to view their own post counts but think it would be better suited to viewing in the profile. I'm sticking with "Grouping ANY of the two options together is just biased against the 3rd". There's 3 options for a reason; none of them should be combined.

Ah, I see what you mean, but I'm also sure that everyone who chose the 'keep' option would also prefer to have it relocated then to have it removed. Also, who knows? Maybe the people who chose to have it moved to profile would still prefer to have it on the side then have it removed all together. Maybe they still want to view their own post counts but think it would be better suited to viewing in the profile. I'm sticking with "Grouping ANY of the two options together is just biased against the 3rd". There's 3 options for a reason; none of them should be combined.

Yes - Remove 30% [ 57 ] No - Keep 44% [ 82 ] Umm...you need to check again. Umm...you need to read again Yes - Remove - 30%[ 61 ] No - Keep - 46%[ 94 ] Keep - But only display in profile - 23%[ 47 ] 61 + 47 > 94 Grouping ANY of the two options together is just biased against the 3rd. Why would you add a remove and a keep option? If anything the two keep options should be grouped, so 94 + 47 > 61.