Adam007

Makoto, you can't blame problems with the GE on players. It's jagex's responsibility for it to work. They shouldn't have to rely on players. If there's one bad egg in the community, it ruins the whole system basically. Junking is so widespread that it's up to jagex to fix. Not the players. Junk trading isn't wrong or unethical. It's just an example of game theory where one person uses junk trading, so everyone has to. Because of that, it's up to jagex to step in and fix it. Until then, people won't be able to pay the real value of an item in cash, where supply meets demand. Instead we have an extremely messed up system that desperately needs fixing.

I'm completely engrossed in this demo! Here's my first creation: It basically makes everything work for you, but I'm still working on getting realistic proportions and everything. There are some crazy looking ones on the sample creatures page, but it's fun recreating animals too.

I had that for awhile too. I figured that was the like the new way forums were done or something. :)

In runescape, being rule abiding is not the same thing as being moral. The rules in runescape do not dictate what is right and wrong, unless you truly believe the staff at jagex have a moral authority over other sources in life. So if you're reporting a friend, are you doing it because you feel it's the right thing to do? Probably not. And that's why he got kicked.

Some of these things people know about jagex go kind of back, so I'll explain. Jagex has stated that they never intended for rares to be expensive items, and wanted them more to be gifts that were given back and forth for free. They've said that high prices are not in the spirit of the game. It's been assumed that they've been trying to reduce their impact and prevalence in the game. As for how do I know jagex doesn't like junk trading? I never said that. That's what I'm asking in this topic. We might assume they would be against it because it's become such a warped aspect to the game, but what I'm asking is maybe our definition of warped is what they've wanted all along? Maybe they want useless items to be given value?

Yes, this junk can act as a currency. But if you were selling something in real life, and someone offered you Iraqi money or something that had little value to you, would be hard to use in other transactions, and worst of all, had questionable stability (could change in value at any moment), why would you want that currency? In real life we're able to say no and ask for whatever currency we want. But in runescape we can't. And that's an almost game-breaking problem.

Most of us see junk trading as a problem that jagex is probably working on fixing. But something occurred to me. Junk trading is perfect for runescape's economy is jagex's eyes. Items they want to have value but players don't want suddenly do have value as a new currency. But my main reason is over rares. They've always wanted them untradable, but couldn't officially do that. Another success of the GE (from the perspective of jagex) is that rares are now unsellable. Unless you want to trade for a lot of junk items. So what do you guys think? From jagex's perspective, this junk system is working great. Do they even acknowledge it as a problem? Maybe to those of us expecting them to fix this, they have no intention of it?

It's an unfortunate byproduct of jagex's flawed system. If people can't buy/sell for the prices they want, junk trading is the only option to resort to.

You ignored the only first reply suggesting that if you played for pking then it's not worth it. Then you replied asking how to make money, so I think your mind is set. You just want people to list more reasons for you to come back. I don't have any recommendations for making money. I'd just say log on, see if you still enjoy the game or not, and go from there.

For me, it's more of an issue of self sufficiency vs. efficiency. If I need to get my cooking level up for a quest, I'm going to buy fish and cook them. Time is money too, so I'm not going to spend over twice the time just so I can be self sufficient. Before you accuse me of not levelling the enjoying way, remember not all of us have all the time in the world to play.

I was using that as a quick example. The people who make blogs right have my respect. :D The main point as you said is abuse. Why put something that can be abused when we don't need it. I was thinking about having a post req before you can give a rating but truth be told some of the high posters are stuck up (not saying all are and I am in no way implying this to 1 person). :P You need to have a little faith to go forward with anything. Why should we have image tags? They can be abused. Or why even have a forum at all? People can post abusive/harmful/insulting things. The point is the cons are negligible compared to the pros. There is room for very little abuse with this. I could cite examples of how other forum features could be abused, but what's the point? Anything can be abused - that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it.

Skatedog, I agree that it's not as useful without negative ratings, but the general consensus here usually is to err on the side of caution, assuming if something can be abused, it will be. As for blog ratings n odie, it would make sense for the initial post to have a lot of + ratings. A lot of effort is put into one. A limit to 1 + per person would be instated too for asking friends to give +'s.

Sounds like a good idea, and would save time just getting the general idea of a thread rather than loading each page.

Bari, you're right. There's no use getting riled up about an idea, and the discussion alone sometimes seems to derail the idea because there isn't enough of a consensus. Still, D_V, I think your idea of what could happen is a pretty far-fetched stretch of the imagination. Your example was on a forum that sounds like it just had a bad community. I think this community can handle this add-on without any of those kinds of problems. Really, if one person not getting +'s while others do is the biggest problem (a problem that, again, is easily fixed), I still see no cons, and plenty of pros.

I know how they could do it, sad to say... this kind of thing happened to me at least once. :wall: Described simply, there are cliques of people out there, and they don't give a [bleep] where their plus rating goes, long as it doesn't go to a person they commonly hate, even if that person which they hate is a really nice person. Further, they will then use their unused points to make that person which they hate look bad constantly, compared to other users whose posts aren't as great. This leads to situations where some of the best users are made to look like useless trolls, and leaves those users with no choice but to leave the forums, as their words and advice will go permanently unheeded. Now, I'm sure you don't want people leaving TIF, right? If you don't, please let this idea die the death it deserves, before it turns into the nightmare monster that I know it will. I can already feel it knocking, and that sends shivers down my spinal column as I shudder in a closet nearby. :? ~Mr. D. V. Devnull Could you explain how this kind of thing happened to you? If one person can only give out 1-5+'s a day, there's really no way of spamming a thread to make one other specific person seem like a worse poster by comparison. With a limit to +1's, your described scenario can't really happen.

D_V, other people have raised legitimate concerns, and I've edited my idea, but realistically how can you see something like that occur? Who's feelings would be hurt if they didn't get a +1 while others did? It would just tell them that they have room to improve their posting. The point of this system is that it isn't contextual. An individual post is rated - not compared. Besides, if people were limited to only one +1 per hour or something, they wouldn't be able to do what you described. Devoted: I changed the idea to only +1, so that wouldn't be a problem anymore.

I guess we're not reading the same forums. I can't imagine people having the motivation to gang up on certain users, find their posts, and selectively bury each one. Then message all their friends who use tip it and tell them to do the same. This could be circumvented by only allowing one person to bury a maximum of one post per another person a day. Taking precautions to the worst possible degree never made sense to me, because you're missing out on a good thing. It does seem I'm in the minority in thinking this would help the forums though. And I do suppose the idea of giving a "thumbs-down" isn't very conducive to the best atmosphere. However, I'd still like to try to implement a system that you can give a +1 to a post. I don't know if phbpbb3 has any 'props' system, but that's the idea. If you think someone gave a worthy reply, you just click a thumbs up by the post or something. It will still promote quality posts, and I see no downsides.

I hate this idea, but it could be like Slashdot : on slashdot, you can set a threshold, so you only see posts rated above or at a certain level. EDIT: The reason I hate this idea has been rehashed over and over again, and most of my reasons have already been posted. Could you explain why? I haven't used slashdot, but what would be wrong with the individual choosing their own threshold of viewable replies? If people have a choice, what's to complain about? Some people would just rather have the choice to not view borderline spam. But again, you guys are missing my point. While I find the thumbs down button to be really useful, if you guys see it as a problem, would there be anything wrong with having a single thumbs up button? That way we could still have friendly competition between members trying to post witty, insightful remarks. If no other part of my idea comes through, I see no reason not to try this part.

Heh, I mean it's just an added bonus, but not the real point of it. The main point of it is to encourage intelligent posting. We could still implement it without hiding replies that reach a certain negative number. But also like you said, you could skim past a reply if it had a low rating.

The hiding feature isn't essential. If that became a problem, we would disable the hiding of a post if it got too many thumb-downs. I figured one person would reply with that, but I really don't think that would be a problem. People have better things to do than group up on one member and search all of his posts to bury. These systems work on sites with much larger member bases with a much bigger chance of abuse. I don't think that would be something to worry about. As for the second point, Cowman, I think someone replying to a thread "Agreed," or someone quoting someone replying "+1" gets pretty spammy. Most people don't elaborate on how they agree, so this system would be great in allowing people to praise a post they really agree with. And who knows, it could just trigger a new wave in people really genuinely trying to make intelligent, well thought out posts. We used to have a lot more users like that, and if we can do anything to bring us closer to how things used to be in that regard, why not try? Cruiser, I think this does differ a lot from karma. Rather than rating a person, an idea is rated. That way people can't gang up on users and rate them down. It also doesn't have that air of "I have a higher rating than you so I'm a better member" or anything like that. Each reply, rather than member, is individually rated, so there isn't really room for that kind of abuse. Devoted, I don't see this in any way being a replacement for mods. I see it as a system to encourage a type of posting. It just has the side effect of making the job for mods easier.

Edit: Idea is changed, simply, to a system where you can click a +1 or thumbs up by someone's post/reply. If you think someone made a post that's above average, you can click on that. You're given 1-5 thumbs ups a day you can give out. This way above average posting is encouraged and rewarded, overall benefiting the forum quality and community.

Is this really that big of a deal? Sure, there's nothing wrong with the occasional post asking people to try to make replies thoughtful, but does the amount of posts really affect costs that much? Although I find the reason you're making this thread a little weird, I do agree the more thought out the posts are, the better the community gets. I miss having big recognizable names posting intelligent threads/stories.

I think it's all about the mentality. Once the items get to a state where people are unable to buy for the maximum price set, buyers freak out and want in. When they're like party hats and are hard to sell for the minimum, people also freak out and madly sell for the lowest they can, causing a bad chain of panic until it hits a realistic bottom for demand. It seems this new cycle will be how things work in the future.

Exactly, plain and simple. Without the brain you would have no emotion, senses, or feelings what so ever. The heart only pumps blood throughout the body, while the brain is somewhat like the "command center" in the body. Not exactly, not plain and simple. The question isn't asking if one's heart plays any role in your actions. Heart is a metaphor for emotion/passion. Based on your answer though, I'd guess the brain for you, since you think so analytically to not even realize the metaphor most everyone else does.

A 99? That I missed? Congrats. Any more leveling?