Stihl

This has most definitely not been disproved. It has been disregarded as trivial information. I'd shower you with analogies, but suffice it to say that there is quite a distinction. The only reason I'm not going to support a clean split into "rants" and "debates" forum, is that I don't feel garbage posts belong here at all, let alone deserve their own board. Also, having a trash board could potentially get some users into a bad habit - they get used to flames being okay on one board, and start to distribute them on other boards. Like Nadril said, we have other outlets for that. Violent video games, journals, aggressive sports... we shouldn't need to spend TIF bandwidth on it. More what I had in mind was an "archive" board that hosts the better rants which are technically mentionned on that nasty list in the Rant Guide. Perhaps then we could move said list to a second sticky in much the way that Trojan_Zebra has been suggesting. This, at least I believe, would give newer users the opportunity to see debates on those dead topics (perhaps even debate themselves), without reducing the rants board to a ..."diseased hulk", as Swampjedi might put it.

I don't know if that's aimed at me or not, but I'll go ahead and address it anyway. This train of thought is aimed at people who join, and immediately author threads, entirely ignoring the search button/stickies/rules. Their opinions may not be strictly invalid, but we'd like to minimize beating the dead horse and ignoring the regulations. This is precisely why I people who run around screaming "freedom of speech!", etc, frustrate me. In joining this forum, you agree to abide by certain rules and regulations. One of those is that you grant moderators the right to modify/delete/censor your words as they see fit. If you're posting here, that in itself is proof that you've signed away your precious "freedom of speech". Note that this applies to your comments on "freedom to rant". More relevant to your concern, I'd like to note that none of these stipulations are difficult to contend with. Three days isn't a life sentence, it's a chance for you to calm down, learn to use the search button (since you can still post on others's threads), and generally improve your arguments. The karma/post count suggestions would almost certainly follow the same principle. If you're sincere about ranting, whether or not your opinions are "valid", surely you can bear such a minor burden. Quick analogy. Imagine a room full of professional chemists. Amongst them, a Chemistry 11 student (ie: grade 11) moves about, attempting to make some criticism or validate some theory. Nobody is going to take that student seriously, not because his/her words must be (by some pagan logic) invalid, but rather, because if those fellows stop to consider the words of every grade 11 student who thinks (s)he knows something, the science of chemistry would screech to a frightening halt. At some point, we have to draw a line and accept whatever losses that line incurs. If being patient enough to wait three full days before subjecting us to your (being general, no personal attacks going on here) threads is too much to ask of you, then to be honest, I don't think that having you here is worth the moderation involved, valid opinions or no. Callous, but realistic. And, I did think my opinions were valid when I joined. It only took me about a week to realize both that much of what I had to say had already been said (in far clearer language), and that much of what remained of my thoughts were easily defeated in some older threads I found via the search button. Holy cow, neogeo0823 said a dirty word! :o Hm. Is a separate board that hosts either the neogeo0823's "weekly tip.it rants", or Trojan_Zebra's "perpetually cleaned debates" totally out of the question? I know that's a truckload of work for the whole Tip.it team, but the direction of these latest ideas is giving me visions of a rather cluttered rants board. Mixed feelings on the latest thoughts, but I've nothing better to suggest, so I'll leave it at that. =D>

No joke, friend, no joke. Mind you, there are times when it's used as a taunt, to pick a fight/duel/whatever. Frankly, there's nothing to be gained in worrying about it - and everything to be lost. These days, "stinky-pants" is a more grievous insult, anyway. Should I really care if someone half a planet away, whom I'd never recognize even if I should happen to meet, feels the need to lash out with bland remarks? "Noob" was never a particularly useful term in the first place anyway - so I figure, just ignore it. Take silent solace in knowing who the bigger man is.

Perfect! I didn't bring this up earlier, because I didn't want to single you out, but since you're voluntarily laying the vittles on the chopping block...^_^ I remember one such 'new' rant quite clearly. It was mediocre at best. One of those "It's Okay to pray because there's no rule against it!" types - you know. I remember Gidion coming along, and laying out pretty much all of the information that existed on the opposing side of the issue (the part I remember most clearly was, "sure, there's no rule against it, but don't expect me to stand around and take it while you suck the fun out of my gaming"), and yeah, it was a little above lukewarm. I remember someone posting, "wow, Gid. Isn't that a bit...excessive?". His reply, as best as I can remember it, went something like, (and seriously, read this part nice and slow :P ) "It is. But you know...I've been here. I've done this. And I know exactly how I feel on the subject." You know what happened to the rant? It up and freakin' died. If Zubeedoo's thoughts on flaming hold water (and in at least some respects, they do), then please, please let it happen like that. I can guarantee that some of the bigger contributors to that 'wildy honor' thread that's been mentionned a few times weren't just casual posters - like Gidion, they've been there. (iMeR and Lim Dul come to mind - just figured I'd qualify this. It sounded quite....empty.) Edit: I was going to test this ^^^ out to see how well it stands these days, and Philip laid a lock down on the thread about thirty seconds before I got my post off. Gosh darnit, geez... :x Edit#2: I figured I'd give it the old school try anyway, and PMed the fellow with my thoughts on the matter. His response consisted of two notes: 1) I write too much #-o, 2) It's no surprise that I follow Guthix #-o #-o Yeah! Yeah!! Yeah!!! UP-SIDE, IN-SIDE OUT - LIVIN' LA VIDA LOCA! YES!! \This sounds awfully familiar, mind you...but it's great to see I'm not some lone heretic. Should we focus on rescuing as many as will be rescued from their ignorance (like I was), so that the remaining heavy flamers revert to the lackluster minority they once were? If the mods can handle it - Absolutely! :3> Says I. ...I'm gonna go see about getting the sugar out of my system now.

Be warned, I tend to ramble. There was a rant not too long ago, by Nightwolf06 I believe, which basically outlined frustration at not being able to prove how many quest points had been obtained. Most people agreed that a notice on the highscores would be the best solution. I, however, immediately thought of an examine function. I've gotten into the habit of examining random things in my environment whenever I'm feeling a little tired/bored/whatever. At one point, I tried to examine another player, unaware that I had just sent a trade request. I felt a bit the fool, but from that point on I've always thought it would be neat to examine players, if for no other reason, then to show off a little. I wish I could provide for you fancy pictures. Alas, I am horribly tired, and my connection is meager at best. Essentially, what I might suggest to avoid all of this concern with hackers and such, is to divide the profile, so that players can either display a message, or alternatively, show off one characteristic. Since we've already got black, blue, and red text in our chatboxes, it shouldn't be entirely difficult to select one more color, just to differentiate between the player-written messages and the 'show off' feature, so no trickery can exist. Quick and dirty example: "Thatkidinthecorner - Total level 1734" - Fraud. "Thatkidinthecorner - Total level 1265" - Not fraud. Also, rather than some large buttons that require scrolling, it might be tidier to make the selection screen like that which you see when using a magic lamp - adding, of course, buttons for QP and total level. That would also make it more obvious that only one item can be displayed at once - if you're scrolled all the way down, you can't see the top of the list uncheck itself. In any case, my support to you with bells and whistles. You have Mr. Devnull's signature to thank for it.

Trojan_Zebra's made some comments that many of the ranters in question have a fair post count or have been around for some time, so they can't really be classed as "casual users" - those who just stroll in and post right away. Basically what I'm shooting for right there is that post count (in total, as well as rant board specific) and length of membership don't directly dictate how casual or serious a ranter is, or vice versa. There is a rough connection, and it might be a fairly strong connection at that, but there are glaring exceptions. Like, say, you. ...I'm thinking maybe I need to elaborate what I say a little more. That's a pain though, because I'm long-winded as it is. Welcome to the fray, Zubeedoo. We've been expecting you. A little skeptical on that part. When people reply to the spam, by the time the moderator shows up, there often isn't much new to say other than "loxors 4 teh roxors", and that's a little bit of a self-perpetuating situation. New users see the flames, think it's commonplace, do it themselves, and the mods still have no reason to explain themselves. Those new users are then potentially in danger of being banned for imitating moderators, in the case that they get a little carried away or whatever. Speaking from experience on another forum, sadly. However, when a mod gets the jump on the flamers thanks to a timely report, they've got the opportunity to lay out the problem civilly. I personally remember a few instances where Philip and Alduron have done so. Even if the mod keeps it short with with something like, "Please read the Rant Guide sticky before authoring a rant", though, the deed is essentially done. The ranter has the right to PM moderators concerning a decision, if they're unclear. If the busted ranter won't read the sticky, or can't figure out why the sticky justifies the lock, they're a lost cause in the first place. They'll leave eventually, though an administrator might have to help them to the door. ...So, considering Trunksrs' words earlier, what mods are doing is going, "Hey! You, you stupid, lazy person! See this? This is an example of what not to do! You could learn a lot from this, bucko. Read it, or at least acknowledge the title! Then maybe you won't make the same mistake, you lazy, stupid person, you!" Silly, I know. I've just never been the kind to think that you can clear up ignorance by censoring it. As things stand, the people who aren't beyond help have a good opportunity to smarten up, and those that are... :-$. Which relates a lot to my first post, but I'll not go there just now. Believe me, you're in good company. :-w Edit: So I noticed a minute ago that only five locked threads remain on the rant board's first page. Curious, I checked the second page, and saw no locked threads at all. So I'm thinking either locked threads are instantly deleted when they fall into page two, or a number of them which I don't remember too well have been unlocked/deleted manually. In either case, the point here is the numbers I've thrown out there regarding Trojan_Zebra's post are not necessarily accurate. *grumbles*

Station - Understood. I'll chalk it up to misinterpretation on my part. :-k That may be so, but upon examining the profiles of these individuals, I submit this: For six of those thirteen, the locked rant was their first contribution to the rants forum. Five of the remaining seven had literally made two or less posts on the rants forum previous to authoring their own rant, and for at least one (though I think two...I wasn't watching close enough #-o), that was during the same day. Even the two (!?) remaining ranters aren't necessarily exempt. It's possible to read the rant guide and write a stellar rant on your first day, with a post count of 1, and it's possible to frequent the rants board for weeks before ever reading the rant guide. This is an interesting observation, and I'd be a fool to deny that it holds some measure of weight, but it's not wholly reliable; Neogeo0823 himself is a good example of this.

Okay, fair enough. Let's see if I can clarify. In other words, there are two kinds of people writing these garbage rants. 1) Idiots. 2) Normal people who have gone astray. In this case, because they see what the idiots just posted, and figure it's totally acceptable, common practice. Now, what this line of ideas (the karma/time limit/post count restrictions) are targeting is this second group of individuals, as they are obviously not fool-proof enough to affect the first. Having both first-hand and second-hand experience in group 2, as well as some measure of faith in humanity, I feel that there is a very significant amount of garbage that could potentially be countered through this line of ideas. The feeling I'm getting from you is that you believe that there are simply too few members of group 2 for this line of ideas to be worthwhile. That would be the disagreement as I see it, though I can understand holding such an opinion. I don't quickly submit to "idiots will be idiots" simply because that kind of thinking negates all effort. The alterations by Ard Choille, which you applaud, the pleas you make for Retefael to read the rants guide...if "idiots will be idiots" is as far as we can go, all of this is for naught. ...Is that clearer?

The short answer, Station, is it's a throwback to an old rant. The long answer is, once upon a time, Bia Bf wrote a rant called "I have a name, you know". If memory serves, that was the rant where many users related their qualms with being called by either a number or something other than their name. You were among them, relating frustration at calls of "mod guy", "noob mod" and what have you. You also mentionned at one point being referred to (mistakenly) as "Station", and a little voice in my mind went, that. is. awesome. :thumbsup: That would be the same rant where Swampjedi eventually said, "You may call me Ishmael", hence that reference on his latest rant. Now, I have to admit I'm a little put off by your perspective. Obviously idiots will be idiots, but then if that was the be-all and end-all, we wouldn't be here in the first place. :-k. If what you're getting at is that the amount of garbage this line of ideas would stop is small potatoes, now that I can understand. I disagree, but I understand.

True on both counts. I tend to think that the ones who are persistant enough to just bugger off for three days to start the spam would just as soon lay down some one-liners here and there to get post count or "karma" though. Clearly none of these suggestions can be fool proof, but if they'd catch a significant amount of garbage before it happened, I'd sure be willing to give it a shot. The only reason I'd opt for time over post count or "familiarity" is that it's easy to start giving these things more weight and importance than necessary when they start to dictate what you do and do not have access to. A positive step it certainly is. Now that that's in place (I notice Ard Choille got a word in right about the time I hit "submit"), however, I don't think that reversing the wording would stop pointless garbage altogether. It just tweaks the stress and mood of the sticky. In all formality, I think that's the way to go, but the realistic benefits that remain after Ard Choille's latest update strike me as being minor at best, and trivial/insignificant at worst. Mind you, I suppose that's why I posed the question in the first place; to see other people's thoughts on the subject. I suppose I can withdraw that question now. Station's bang on, too. +1. Heavies, he says. hahahaha....

Glad to see I didn't just imagine that part. I wonder if that point where most redundant threads could be resolved to a natural death without moderator involvement could be re-established? Oh, that wasn't neogeo0823's quote, though. :mrgreen: Regarding the forum description: The older sticky, as best as I can recall, stressed the rants forum as a place for debate and discussion first, and venting second. It surprised me how much added stress was put on the "venting frustration...blowing off steam" element of ranting when Ard's Guide replaced Mullein's. So, more or less in line with Jake Corsair's comments, I think "discuss possible solutions AND vent your frustration" would be more beneficial than "vent your frustration AND discuss possible solutions". General question here, if the Guide sounded a bit more like, "The purpose of posting a rant is to stimulate discussion about a problem and possible solutions as a method of relieving yourself of game-related frustration ", is there any chance people would treat the rants forum differently? One more item for this post. A requirement for authoring rants sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe post count isn't ideal, because it's easy to dump one liner responses on multiple threads, but if Jake Corsair's suspicion that many authors of the lesser rants are newcomers holds any weight, perhaps a time constraint would do the trick. Let's say a newcomer tries to write a rant shortly after joining. They might be redirected to a little page that says something like this: Thoughts?

Too true, too true. There are a few things I've wanted to say for some time. The collective nostalgia here makes me think that this is the time to do so. Perhaps my memories are painted a rosy hue, I will not deny that possibility. It's also roughly 2:30 AM where I am. Keep that in mind as I ramble at length. I came here in April. Back when the old "How to write a good rant" sticky was in service. There were flame wars, and spam, and a fair bit of other garbage that didn't belong, but in the end of it you could trust that each topic had been analyzed from several points of view, if not annihilated entirely by karma or reference to a highly related thread. Neogeo0823's "T.U.F.W. on f2p vs. p2p" would be a prime example; no stone was left unturned. Another I recall was a rant on "PKer honor", which passed the 15 page mark. I know it changed my mind, and heck, it convinced Raichase, at least in part, as well. Those who are familiar with that name know that that is no small feat. There came, I believe, a point of "critical mass", where veterans grew tired of the same arguments being made again and again when the issue had been fully examined elsewhere. Many went on hiatus or faded into the scenery. Many have posted or have been mentionned here. Hence the introduction of your own Rant Guide, and the list of topics which should not be ranted about. Case in point, I seem to recall you recently saying something to the effect of, "the noobtopic has been noobeaten to noobdeath", and for the seasoned members of tip.it, that was certainly true. However, for the inevitable stream of newcomers, this was, and is, simply not the case. I'd like to raise the idea that said sticky came as both a blessing and a curse. In effectively banning certain topics from being discussed, and downtoning the importance of rants as being debate-based, any ignorance harbored by a newcomer is almost certainly doomed to remain ignorance. An easily offended youth is never fully convinced just how silly calls of "noob!" really are, and must muddle through his RS experience coping with such garbage any way he can; responding in kind, taking the taunt as a hit to his self-esteem...et cetera. A die-hard "anything goes" PKer and a die-hard "honor" PKer come to an impasse when they miss out on the chance to understand and respect each other's idea of fun, which only breeds more intolerance. A macro hater never gets to see (within the rant forum) just what is known about macroes, what has been suggested in the past, and hence remains convinced that something as clearly ineffective as IP banning must be the answer. I can understand if you doubt such things. Some indivuduals join clans and get a lecture from the leader. Some make all the right friends. Some. Hence, I offer myself up as an example. I once believed all of this foolishness and more besides. My mind was opened so many times on the rant forum as it once was that I actually felt the need to create a new account, and cast off the old one with my silly predispositions. With the environment for that kind of 'fundamental' debate nerfed, I'm quite confident that I would retain said predispositions. What's perhaps most infuriating for me, is that those 'duplicate' threads are still being made. They still require moderator attention. Less attention, perhaps, but attention. In this sense, something similar to "option #2" (Gidion's first suggestion) comes to mind. I rather wish that I could fly back in time, retrieve the links to such rants. If we could merely refer newcomers to those rants via a sticky (with a title such as "Before you post...", containing the list of abused topics and links to the better rants on each subject) rather than shelter them from such topics altogether, I genuinely believe less clutter would result. Then again, such rants would get bloody long. I can't deny that most posters would rather just start a new thread than bother reading some 20 page monster. Sigh, my hopeless romanticism gets me nowhere...