homer205

It originally said 32 minutes then at some stage switched to 23 hours. I was taking the screenshot because I had two floors ticked off by the one floor, only noticed tbe time afterwards.

So, a rather odd floor here. Apparently it took 23 hours, also it ticked off two floors at once.

Me to. xD What's ur 3rd bind gonna be ? Rapier unless I can get a blood necklace Not CCS? We neeeeedd more CCS'ers! At least, that's what I'm shooting for until I bind primal platebody. (plate prod, I know. Keyed with arg platebody today) I don't have 99 magic. If I did, maybe I'd bind it, it's annoying if there's multiple people with them in a floor, which doesn't happen as much with rapier.

Me to. xD What's ur 3rd bind gonna be ? Rapier unless I can get a blood necklace

Although I think I've decided to trim my firemaking cape as it takes much longer than I remember to keep it. I'm sure nik and green will be pleased to hear it.

As I understand it, DGS is about teaching tifers to become better at dungoneering. As such, the best methods are expected to be attempted, you don't have to get them right to start, but be working towards it.

The 25 minute floors are only expected of ranks, plus they usually have good teams, taking only one or two newbs at a time. As for as people who don't key (regardless of rank) they don't generally complain, and if they do; you can choose not to take them again. My times aren't that great but rarely do people complain to me (40 min average)

Contender for best post in the thread?

Random start to the floor, back to back monos too.

Put simply, what is this? It had no options, and would move every 30 seconds or so, heading northeast on world 99. I hopped to check other worlds, it wasn't on 100. When I came back I lost it. A little difficult to see in the last picture but you can just see a green dot to my right next to the wall.

So just to be clear, for third binds excluding blood neck and hex, it goes ccs>primal rapier>empowered fire>prom rapier?

Just thought I'd add it, maul is also good for waterfiends.

One thing about the guidelines, the drag ggs job should probably be moved out of the wingmen/wingwomen section and into the more general section as it's something everybody needs to do at certain stages.

I recognise all of those people. Also whats up with the lines of dropped items on the minimap?

80 rc for emp fire staves.

Cause it also depends on the size of the post ;). Fair enough. Go again? Inb4lockedforspam This is just childish... :wink: Oh well :shades: Quick people, before Quyneax returns. Quyneax, if you do return, how are we supposed to pronounce your name? Always wondered about that.

Cause it also depends on the size of the post ;). Fair enough. Go again?

If there's a maximum amount then why do people encourage using hide tags? (you know, in serious threads) They could've just lowered the limit if they really wanted it less spammy.

That's what happens when any clan gains notoriety-- quantity and quality have an inverse relationship. The higher quantity, the harder it is to control the quality. And it probably wouldn't be totally unreasonable to venture that a fair amount of the "noobs" that have found DGS are RSOF idiots whose line of thinking goes something like "AMFG DGS HAS DEM HI LVLS I WENT MAH CHAOTICS FEST DERP." Or maybe I am just extremely jaded. Yeah, that's probably it. :sad: You? Jaded? Never.

Hitpoints affects monster level. Each of your individual skill levels will affect how the levels required for doors/puzzles which need that level. The critical path will always be doable (getting to the boss), within potable levels. Higher skill levels will also increase bonus door levels but you'll have a better chance of opening them, although this might slow the floor down a little if the keyer ha to call for you. All doors are strong potable at 94 iirc. Oh and no, there's nothing you can do to counteract it, level 3 aren't worth having outside of f2p.

Glad to hear that it used to be like that, thought I was going crazy for a bit. It seems like a quick and simple way to at least provide some information about what's going on. It's not like the person can say they're banned after all.

[hide] If the system was more transparent, facts such as who did the banning wouln't need to be questioned, saving moderator time. The question I'd like answered is, what good would that do? Making the whole thing transparent actually sounds counterproductive, since now not only do you have to pass along information about a particular user's ban, you also have to deal with people who think/feel that it was unfair. This leads me to believe that, instead of transparency between staff->users, there should be more information available to admins about who was banned and for what reason. In my mind, moderators are free to disagree with the bannings, but doing so in a public forum usually leaves a black eye for the entire process. Kind of like this. The passing along of information wouldn't require more than a one off effort as this information is already stored for mods to review. In response to the claim that mods would have to deal with people thinking bans are unfair, they've already had to do that, did you miss the uproar earlier? Plus, the threads which contain discipline history could be limited so only the person who it concerns and mods would be able to post there. The prohibition on discussing bans in other threads could remain. Also it's quite frustrating to make a post in response to a mods question then have the only person who responds not actually be a staff member. There's no need to complain about it, it hasn't been very long since you posted...I was writing an in depth response but had some studying to do first, we're all volunteers remember? I do apologise though as I replied to someone else before you even though you posted first. As we've said before, bans are very rarely reversed like this, and the system has been in place for close to 10 years now without any major problems, which is quite admirable considering the size of the forum. About discussing bans at a length, that's a fair point. A large amount of the time we do discuss them, especially if they're going to be lengthy bans on users who have contributed a lot to the community. Unless the ban is very obvious (spambots, graphic pictures) there usually are discussions between at least 4 or 5 Super Mods/Admins and Local/Global mods. As I said, this was a one off and won't happen again. Thirdly about someone who's spamming, trolling and posting graphic content..If they're posting graphic content (i.e. Pornography or Gory pictures) it's a straight ban, no matter how long they've been on the forums. Also, with people spamming/trolling we're not going to go ahead and give them a ban on their first offence, we almost always give two warnings first before then giving a repeat offender a 3 day, or week long ban. Which they can appeal without logging into their account. I don't see why they'd need access to their account to get to the message center. This would also make it harder for Super Mods to ban, because we don't have complete access to the Admin Control Panel. With the current team I can't see a case happening where all of us leave then a whole new lot needs to be brought in, we're all fairly active. With the previous ones the activity was so low that the administration had to organise so people could apply for a moderator position, which is how I became a mod, and another 9 current mods did, I'm sure there will always be enough experienced mods to teach and guide any new ones. I'm curious though, what type of change in policy to you propose? The reason we remove them is because they shouldn't be seen by other users. I don't see why another user would have to refer to a post which someone was warned for? There's no reason for users to track bans and warnings when they have nothing to do with them. A lot of the things we warn/ban for are personal attacks as well, so allowing people to have access to them could cause hurt feelings, and this is the whole thing we're trying to avoid. I'm sorry, but I don't support everyone having viewing access to removed posts. It's important that all mods have access to removed posts, (it's not possible to completely delete posts from the forum) and we do, and that's the way it should stay. Also, it's not only rule breaking posts removed. Sometimes posts are removed from private boards, such as from the staff forums which can have sensitive information which there's no reason for users to have access to. If the system was more transparent, facts such as who did the banning wouln't need to be questioned, saving moderator time. Who did the banning shouldn't need to be questioned, and I'm not questioning them, and no one else should, the moderation and the admins that work together as one team, I don't like seeing people singled out. It's a bit late for that now though, and looking back I wish it had been approached differently but it was hard to know what exactly was going on. If every single person on the forums knew who has banned who it doesn't really solve anything. A lot of the time it will be a group decision on the ban, then someone will send the email, it's not 'them' who banned the person, it was a team decision. I think this is where we went wrong with these bans, but it won't happen again, as I've mentioned previously. [/hide] Thanks Jimmy, yeah it was the posting to others which irked me a little. I only mentioned the message centre because I thought they would need it in order to contact moderators, as you say they can do that anyway, that part could be ignored. I assume the previous mod team also thought they'd have time to pass on wisdom to the current mod team too, I know at least one of the team has retired from runescape. It just seems an advisable thing to do. As far as suggestions go (beyond the seeing of ban offenses which you've already rejected). Some way for an average user to tell who's banned would be appreciated, either by having it on there profile, or as a compromise between the separate forum idea, have a sticky somewhere with a simple list of the person banned, and length of it. Secondly, as you say there are usually discussions between 4-5 mods before a ban is made, why not make it a requirement that a player can not be banned without a vote from the mod team. You could have either a system where you must reach 5 votes or have a majority in order for the player to be banned. Graphic content bans could be handled in the same way they are currently as there is less discretion required for those. I wasn't meaning that another user would have to refer to posts made in there, just that as they could be used to start arguments, referring to them elsewhere could be made against the rules. Either under the banner of trolling or discussing other players bans. Sensitive information could be censored so long as it is noted as being censored. I think this should apply for all posts which have been removed from the main boards too, say who's posts were removed and for what (in general terms), but so people know and understand what has happened. It's extremely frustrating to read threads and have parts of it removed and then people referring to these parts and not understand what has happened. I'm not questioning who did the banning, just saying that people who were was part of all the commotion and if they knew then maybe it would've been lessened somewhat. Yet you didn't answer the question. I asked what the benefit of that would be. Again, I've stated that I don't see a benefit to it; it's information that doesn't need to be in the public's eye. More tersely, I couldn't care less who was banned from TIF for what reason and when - it just doesn't benefit me to know this. And, more times than not, a player is banned from a forum for clear violation of a rule instead of on a whim - and that's what the majority of "posts" or "reports" or what have you would be like. I wasn't here for the falling out. I don't know what happened, and who did what. I do maintain though that if Mods/Admins disagreed with the way something was handled, then it should have been kept in a place that's exclusive to them (staff forums), and not in public. The benefit is that it wouldn't have angered people in the way they were and reduced the questions from those on the sidelines wondering what had just happened. I agree with you though, most of the forum would be clear violations which have been dealt with and nobody would care about them. But you need them there as the precedent for times such as this when the information would be helpful, you can't just have individual users history as a board announcement.

If the system was more transparent, facts such as who did the banning wouln't need to be questioned, saving moderator time. The question I'd like answered is, what good would that do? Making the whole thing transparent actually sounds counterproductive, since now not only do you have to pass along information about a particular user's ban, you also have to deal with people who think/feel that it was unfair. This leads me to believe that, instead of transparency between staff->users, there should be more information available to admins about who was banned and for what reason. In my mind, moderators are free to disagree with the bannings, but doing so in a public forum usually leaves a black eye for the entire process. Kind of like this. The passing along of information wouldn't require more than a one off effort as this information is already stored for mods to review. In response to the claim that mods would have to deal with people thinking bans are unfair, they've already had to do that, did you miss the uproar earlier? Plus, the threads which contain discipline history could be limited so only the person who it concerns and mods would be able to post there. The prohibition on discussing bans in other threads could remain. Also it's quite frustrating to make a post in response to a mods question then have the only person who responds not actually be a staff member.

I'm not sure how the fact that the bans were reversed is a sign that the system is working, if it was working, wouldn't they have not been banned? Also, I'm curious as to why mods/admins must discuss an unbanning at length but not a banning (as evidenced by the speed of bans compared to unbanning-not complaining about the length to unban, pointing out the difference in the two times). If it's an issue with somebody continuing to spam/troll/post graphic content, could a 1-6 hour mute of sorts not be applied? This would allow them to have access to the message centre etc still. The forum staff has learnt from this experience, (remember most of us haven't been staff for a very long time, a lot of the older staff left in a clump) and none of these mistakes will happen again. Not meaning to be disrespectful, but just because none of you will make the same mistake again, the same can't be said of any new moderators a change in moderators will happen eventually. A change in policy would effect this and hopefully outlast the current moderator/admin team/some of its members anyway. I think having a separate forum for warnings and bans would be appropriate as it would solve a few issues. For one, it would allow offensive posts to be moved from threads while still providing a record for users to refer to as if you don't see a post before it is moved, it can be very difficult to track what is going on and I believe is part of the reason that such a ruckus was made in the past view days; people were confused, even after all the protesting, many people don't have the full picture. Secondly, having it as a separate forum would avoid an excess of messages that somebody mentioned earlier, only those who are interested would have to see them. To avoid the offence of anything in these forums, everything could be in hide tags or some other check could be made when entering that area. Also it could be considered an offence to quote from this area. If the system was more transparent, facts such as who did the banning wouln't need to be questioned, saving moderator time.

It's been added to the "Regarding the clan chat" section. Also, the only soulgazer I've seen wasn't killed because nobody had the slayer level or range level to use it. Does that make me a bad person?