TIF is bit over-moderated

[Nifflin]

@Y_Guy Explain the why the burden of proof is the way it is in the metagaming forum. There are other examples but that's a blatant one.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking...

 

The burden of proof when people make absurd claims is what I'm specifically referring to. Does that help?

[obfuscator]

@Y_Guy Explain the why the burden of proof is the way it is in the metagaming forum. There are other examples but that's a blatant one.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking...

 

The burden of proof when people make absurd claims is what I'm specifically referring to. Does that help?

No, I was wondering if you could give me a specific example. Are you talking about the moderation, or just general posters, or what?

[Assume Nothing]

@Y_Guy Explain the why the burden of proof is the way it is in the metagaming forum. There are other examples but that's a blatant one.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking...

 

The burden of proof when people make absurd claims is what I'm specifically referring to. Does that help?

No, I was wondering if you could give me a specific example. Are you talking about the moderation, or just general posters, or what?

 

"Chaotic Crossbow with Rigour is faster dps than a Chaotic Rapier with Turmoil"

"No it's not."

"Prove that it's not"

[obfuscator]

@Y_Guy Explain the why the burden of proof is the way it is in the metagaming forum. There are other examples but that's a blatant one.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking...

 

The burden of proof when people make absurd claims is what I'm specifically referring to. Does that help?

No, I was wondering if you could give me a specific example. Are you talking about the moderation, or just general posters, or what?

 

"Chaotic Crossbow with Rigour is faster dps than a Chaotic Rapier with Turmoil"

"No it's not."

"Prove that it's not"

 

I don't see a problem with that...surely anyone making a statement should be obligated to prove it if they want to be taken seriously.

[sees_all1]

@Y_Guy Explain the why the burden of proof is the way it is in the metagaming forum. There are other examples but that's a blatant one.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking...

 

The burden of proof when people make absurd claims is what I'm specifically referring to. Does that help?

No, I was wondering if you could give me a specific example. Are you talking about the moderation, or just general posters, or what?

 

"Chaotic Crossbow with Rigour is faster dps than a Chaotic Rapier with Turmoil"

"No it's not."

"Prove that it's not"

Prove that it is.

 

In any event, the one making a claim has the burden of proof.

[Assume Nothing]

@Y_Guy Explain the why the burden of proof is the way it is in the metagaming forum. There are other examples but that's a blatant one.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking...

 

The burden of proof when people make absurd claims is what I'm specifically referring to. Does that help?

No, I was wondering if you could give me a specific example. Are you talking about the moderation, or just general posters, or what?

 

"Chaotic Crossbow with Rigour is faster dps than a Chaotic Rapier with Turmoil"

"No it's not."

"Prove that it's not"

 

I don't see a problem with that...surely anyone making a statement should be obligated to prove it if they want to be taken seriously.

 

It's common sense. I don't see why we should need to prove every statement we make, should the claim be plausible. This is why we're suggesting that only active RS players who are knowledgeable should be the people moderating H&A/meta-gaming, as these kinds of disputes are never resolved by someone who's un-knowledgeable about RS.

 

Also, the burden of proof should always be for whoever makes the dubious claim, not for the other party to disprove the said claim.

[obfuscator]

 

It's common sense. I don't see why we should need to prove every statement we make, should the claim be plausible. This is why we're suggesting that only active RS players who are knowledgeable should be the people moderating H&A/meta-gaming, as these kinds of disputes are never resolved by someone who's un-knowledgeable about RS.

 

Also, the burden of proof should always be for whoever makes the dubious claim, not for the other party to disprove the said claim.

 

If it's common sense, surely it would be quite easy to explain why. I would never pretend to know anything about those weapons and as such would never moderate a topic with that without advice from someone who does know, but just because what you're claiming is "common knowledge" doesn't mean you're exempt from justifying it.

[Aiel]

 

It's common sense. I don't see why we should need to prove every statement we make, should the claim be plausible. This is why we're suggesting that only active RS players who are knowledgeable should be the people moderating H&A/meta-gaming, as these kinds of disputes are never resolved by someone who's un-knowledgeable about RS.

 

Also, the burden of proof should always be for whoever makes the dubious claim, not for the other party to disprove the said claim.

 

If it's common sense, surely it would be quite easy to explain why. I would never pretend to know anything about those weapons and as such would never moderate a topic with that without advice from someone who does know, but just because what you're claiming is "common knowledge" doesn't mean you're exempt from justifying it.

Actually, it does. If you don't know that rapier is the best weapon in almost every situation, you should not be posting in metagameing. If you want to state that ccbow w/ rigour>crapier with turm, YOU need to prove it, not those who are following the overall trend, as your idea is the exception, and theirs is the rule.

[Danqazmlp]

This is exactly why a thread for 'common knowledge' things like this is in the pipeline.

 

I do however agree that the burden of proof should be on those making the claim. Something may be common knowledge to person A but not person B. It would turn the metagaming forum into nothing more than an elitist forum where only those already in can be. This forum caters to everybody, which means allowing newer people to gain knowledge, adding to the community. If this means you have to show why x is better than x, so be it.

[obfuscator]

 

It's common sense. I don't see why we should need to prove every statement we make, should the claim be plausible. This is why we're suggesting that only active RS players who are knowledgeable should be the people moderating H&A/meta-gaming, as these kinds of disputes are never resolved by someone who's un-knowledgeable about RS.

 

Also, the burden of proof should always be for whoever makes the dubious claim, not for the other party to disprove the said claim.

 

If it's common sense, surely it would be quite easy to explain why. I would never pretend to know anything about those weapons and as such would never moderate a topic with that without advice from someone who does know, but just because what you're claiming is "common knowledge" doesn't mean you're exempt from justifying it.

Actually, it does. If you don't know that rapier is the best weapon in almost every situation, you should not be posting in metagameing. If you want to state that ccbow w/ rigour>crapier with turm, YOU need to prove it, not those who are following the overall trend, as your idea is the exception, and theirs is the rule.

So you're not interested in having any new users? How do people learn about efficiency? It may be common knowedge to you and others who pride themselves on having obtained and verified this information, but if you're not willing to pass on this knowledge by being willing to explain this then you'll find it very difficult to grow as a community, here or elsewhere.

 

Like Danq said, a "common knowledge" thread should hopefully help with this issue.

[Shadow37]

Considering Das's recent post, I find it kind of hard to take him seriously, the way he lashes out by calling people "butthurt" and having to censor himself several times.

 

I'm just commenting as an observer here, BTW. I have no personal stake in the TIF vs TEF debates.

[Alg]

Nah, I'm pretty sure there's plenty of guys at TEF could do a better job of moderating than you guys, given the opportunity.

 

You want, so much, for us to respect you.

But you want that respect without any tangible effort from your behalf.

That's not how it works.

I can say that as a regular user, given the history of metagamers on this forum, I wouldn't trust many of you to do a good job of moderating. If you've got people that would be cut out for it at TEF, good for them. This is TIF. It's not an isolated community of like-minded individuals. There are people that think differently than them here. Can your guys at TEF handle that, when the reason TEF was created was to get away from them?

I'd say the same of anti-metagamers too, of course. They're not getting off so easily :razz:

 

Thing is, you're expecting respect as well, when you've frequently shown disrespect both for members of the community that don't agree with you, and for the administration.

[das]

Considering Das's recent post, I find it kind of hard to take him seriously, the way he lashes out by calling people "butthurt" and having to censor himself several times.

 

I'm just commenting as an observer here, BTW. I have no personal stake in the TIF vs TEF debates.

 

 

I can't exactly say I feel I was being critical by "lashing out" exactly. I've never in a decade of this forum in it's various formats seen a group of users cling on to past transgressions with such a sorry and disrespectful attitude. I've seen plenty and numerous splits in a decade (I was part of one myself once) and new sites start up. And I really feel at this point the eternal pissing match over the scriptsl (what else would you call it exactly?) is pointless. If they want to work out the over-moderation problem - it's not hard to not act like a total and complete ass and work on it seeking compromise. But currently it seems like it's more like "our sig's are gone and we can't advertise on a higher traffic site, wahhhh" than anything else for the past 15 pages.

 

As for censoring myself, the forum actually censored me - I didn't censor myself.

 

You also obviously have some stake since you have near as many posts there as here ;)

 

~Das

[lordkafei]

I honestly don't understand why members of TEF who feel mistreated by Tip.It are still here. Don't you have your own thriving community of likeminded people on TEF now? You don't have to worry about moderation or whether or not you can post this link or what... Why waste your time with petty arguments here when you have a better place to go to?

 

There sure is a lot of toe dragging going on.

 

Perhaps Jagex would be willing to set up a metagaming forum on RSOF. That way, the middleman would be eliminated when questions came up.

[Ginger_Warrior]

As far as I'm aware Jagex would refuse any scripts being posted on RSOF, regardless of legality, and from a policing point of view you can sure as heck understand why they would have that attitude.

[Gandorf61]

 

It's common sense. I don't see why we should need to prove every statement we make, should the claim be plausible. This is why we're suggesting that only active RS players who are knowledgeable should be the people moderating H&A/meta-gaming, as these kinds of disputes are never resolved by someone who's un-knowledgeable about RS.

 

Also, the burden of proof should always be for whoever makes the dubious claim, not for the other party to disprove the said claim.

 

If it's common sense, surely it would be quite easy to explain why. I would never pretend to know anything about those weapons and as such would never moderate a topic with that without advice from someone who does know, but just because what you're claiming is "common knowledge" doesn't mean you're exempt from justifying it.

Actually, it does. If you don't know that rapier is the best weapon in almost every situation, you should not be posting in metagameing. If you want to state that ccbow w/ rigour>crapier with turm, YOU need to prove it, not those who are following the overall trend, as your idea is the exception, and theirs is the rule.

 

This just brings back Nifflin's example again:

 

[spoiler=Example]Five monkeys were in a room that contained a table in one corner, and a banana hanging from a string in the middle of the room. The monkeys figured out that if they dragged the table to the middle of the room, they could climb up and grab the banana. So they did. As one of the monkeys quickly hopped up and reached for the banana, hidden compartments in the walls suddenly opened, releasing high-pressure cold water that knocked the monkey off the table and drenched the other four monkeys.

 

They quickly learned that whenever one of them climbed on the table, all of them were soaked with cold water. They realized climbing on top of the table was a bad idea. Unbeknownst to the monkeys, the high-pressure cold water hoses were disconnected and removed.

 

The next week, one of the five monkeys was removed from the room and replaced by a new monkey. The new monkey saw the table and the banana dangling from the ceiling. Realizing that the banana was there for the taking, the monkey headed for the table. But fearful of being drenched by the high-pressure cold water, the other four monkeys pounced on the newcomer and beat the tar out of him. Every time the new monkey got near the table, the others beat him up. Soon the new monkey no longer went near the table.

 

By the third week, another of the original five monkeys was replaced by a new monkey. And like the monkey the week before, the newest member of the group tried to get near the table to move it over to the banana. Once again, the others beat up the newest member of the group. Even the first new monkey joined in.

 

Each successive week, one more of the original monkeys was replaced. The same thing happened every time; when the newest monkey attempted to get near the table, the others joined in to discourage him.

 

By the sixth week, not a single monkey was left from the original group. Not one remained that had been squirted with cold water. But when the newest monkey headed toward the table and tried to reach the banana, the other four monkeys “trained” him by beating the tar out of him.

 

If you could ask each monkey why it was beating up the new monkey, each probably would say, “I don’t know, that is just the way we do things around here.”

 

 

Without proving something the first time it just becomes something that's accepted with no factual proofing to ever back it up. I find it hypocritical that the moderating team has been accused of following the forum rules blindly (which we try our best not to) when the forum users accusing us of this want new metagamers to follow their word of mouth without telling them the proof behind facts being discussed.

[curtis95112]

 

It's common sense. I don't see why we should need to prove every statement we make, should the claim be plausible. This is why we're suggesting that only active RS players who are knowledgeable should be the people moderating H&A/meta-gaming, as these kinds of disputes are never resolved by someone who's un-knowledgeable about RS.

 

Also, the burden of proof should always be for whoever makes the dubious claim, not for the other party to disprove the said claim.

 

If it's common sense, surely it would be quite easy to explain why. I would never pretend to know anything about those weapons and as such would never moderate a topic with that without advice from someone who does know, but just because what you're claiming is "common knowledge" doesn't mean you're exempt from justifying it.

Actually, it does. If you don't know that rapier is the best weapon in almost every situation, you should not be posting in metagameing. If you want to state that ccbow w/ rigour>crapier with turm, YOU need to prove it, not those who are following the overall trend, as your idea is the exception, and theirs is the rule.

 

This just brings back Nifflin's example again:

 

[spoiler=Example]Five monkeys were in a room that contained a table in one corner, and a banana hanging from a string in the middle of the room. The monkeys figured out that if they dragged the table to the middle of the room, they could climb up and grab the banana. So they did. As one of the monkeys quickly hopped up and reached for the banana, hidden compartments in the walls suddenly opened, releasing high-pressure cold water that knocked the monkey off the table and drenched the other four monkeys.

 

They quickly learned that whenever one of them climbed on the table, all of them were soaked with cold water. They realized climbing on top of the table was a bad idea. Unbeknownst to the monkeys, the high-pressure cold water hoses were disconnected and removed.

 

The next week, one of the five monkeys was removed from the room and replaced by a new monkey. The new monkey saw the table and the banana dangling from the ceiling. Realizing that the banana was there for the taking, the monkey headed for the table. But fearful of being drenched by the high-pressure cold water, the other four monkeys pounced on the newcomer and beat the tar out of him. Every time the new monkey got near the table, the others beat him up. Soon the new monkey no longer went near the table.

 

By the third week, another of the original five monkeys was replaced by a new monkey. And like the monkey the week before, the newest member of the group tried to get near the table to move it over to the banana. Once again, the others beat up the newest member of the group. Even the first new monkey joined in.

 

Each successive week, one more of the original monkeys was replaced. The same thing happened every time; when the newest monkey attempted to get near the table, the others joined in to discourage him.

 

By the sixth week, not a single monkey was left from the original group. Not one remained that had been squirted with cold water. But when the newest monkey headed toward the table and tried to reach the banana, the other four monkeys trained him by beating the tar out of him.

 

If you could ask each monkey why it was beating up the new monkey, each probably would say, I dont know, that is just the way we do things around here.

 

 

Without proving something the first time it just becomes something that's accepted with no factual proofing to ever back it up. I find it hypocritical that the moderating team has been accused of following the forum rules blindly (which we try our best not to) when the forum users accusing us of this want new metagamers to follow their word of mouth without telling them the proof behind facts being discussed.

 

That's why that sticky is needed quickly.

But in the meantime, burden of proof should be on the one making the dubious claim. Especially since the C Rapier has been analyzed to death on a certain thread before.

New users are good, but you can see why you'd want people to have a certain amount of expertise before butting into discussions. Having to prove everything would slow the discussion down and may very possibly derail the topic. The thing missing is a goos resource for new users to educate themselves with. Preferably without having to read every thread on Metagaming. Hence, the sticky.

[obfuscator]

Yeah, that was our thought on it. Hopefully that'll happen before too much longer...

[sees_all1]

If/when the common knowledge thread gets stickied, I don't look forward to the abrasive "RTFM!" (or in this case, "RTCKT!") for answers to questions posted by new users.

[das]

stickies, while a good idea are sadly flawed. No one reads them and that transcends to non runescape forums. I can imagine curious players pointing people to some massive wall of text shouting to read it. I see three paradoxes's

 

 

1) How much knowledge is "common knowledge" and how much is open to debate at this point. Quite a bit of stuff could fit in the sticky leaving little room for discussion until updates occur, While it works for the C Rapier - where does it end ? Theres alot that needs to be defined.

 

2) does anyone really want a community that refers to the sticky constantly? One of my biggest pet peeves when I joined staff was people just saying "you broke section 2.2 of the rules" expecting people to go read them and know. Why not show them what 2.2 is? The same applies to the rapier. I cant imagine a healthy community really telling people "go read common knowledge" over and over. What's common knowledge to a select few people who play the game a certain way.) isn't common knowledge to everyone. The attitude is daunting to some.

 

3) would a subforum with archived "hall of fame" type topics not be better? Yeah, that means another topic on the rapier may be needed, but I see that format getting much more traffic than a sticky.

 

 

~Das

Tip.it User since 2001

[Aiel]

The point of the common knowledge thread would be like this:

"x is greater then y at z"

"well the common knowledge thread says y has the highest dps in game on most monsters, prove it"

"at z y has a dps and x has b dps"

 

the point is to establish a base off of which discussion could be established, and calculations made, not to limit discussions, the point is that if you go against what the common knowledge thread says, you need to prove it.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm not so sure what's wrong with the AoW that it necessitates basically being troden into the ground in the interests of metagaming.

 

If the body of evidence is as large and concise as we all know it is, make a guide and hope it gets placed in the AoW. You could then refer to that thread in discussions. Another solution would be to grant posting privelages for the Metagaming board to certain people only, i.e. Clan leaders, guide editors.

 

It works well for Smash Boards and Smogon. I don't think it would do well in this case but... the inspiration is there if people need it.

[fatherdeath]

Stating that "common knowledge" should have to be proven at every turn is simply redundant.

 

Everyone knows that washing your hands will reduce rates of infection and illness, yet most people cannot explain the mechanism of action of soap. Many cannot understand how bacteria and viruses infect cells and cause illness. Why is it that every time someone learns to wash their hands this information is not offered? I'm sure many adults simply are ignorant in large areas regarding this, however they still wash their hands. Why is this? Common knowledge.

 

Using this example, people may be provided with all of the scientific evidence, however this would waste time of both parties. Most people will not read the information, and simply accept the fact that handwashing works.

 

Issues such as the one previously described can be applied in this instance. There are VAST amounts of research that HAVE been conducted. It wastes the time of the poster to drag up specific research to every topic. The majority of posters who seek an answer seem to be indifferent regarding the source of the information. They seem simply to seek the answer (handwashing works).

 

If a poster is that inquisitive, then they will seek out/conduct the research themselves.

[Kaida23]

Before the benefits of hand washing were common knowledge, the fact that doctors were gentlemen and "a gentleman's hands are always clean" was "common knowledge". That, left unquestioned, led to many deaths (mostly of newborns and mothers during childbirth). Someone thinking something is common knowledge, doesn't mean that it is, or that it's correct.

 

If people are to debate properly, then both sides must provide their own facts or attempt to dispute the facts of others. Simply accepting something because a portion of the community accept it as "common knowledge" is foolhardy.

 

If the platform of your "common knowledge" is so unstable that it cannot withstand questioning, then perhaps it's not so "common" after all.

[Andy]

Except things like rapiers being better on mithril dragons than rune c'bows with diamond bolts is common knowledge. I don't see how hard it can be to put a faq thread or a common knowledge sticky that is constantly updated?