Is anyone else just completely disappointed with everyone?

[Vulxai]

If you think a lot of the bans were justified, then you don't really have a good grasp on the situation. Either that or I completely disagree with your sense of justice.

 

As with your subforum, if a poster "disrupts" a metagaming forum, would that not be considered trolling?

Trolling = intentionally bothering someone else for your own amusement

which is different than genuinely having a different opinion

 

Also I don;t think a rule clause about disrupting 1 specific member group is needed. Yes a forum specific rule in a meta-gaming forum; but not an overall one. Same as clan forums have specific rules that dont apply elsewhere.

Yeah and I think a global clause like that would be unfair. But that's not what I'm pushing for.

 

Just to clarify if you were talking to me in the first part or not, I don't know why the bans were made, so I can't say whether or not they were justified (Levon's on the other hand was, but that was on his own part, and had nothing to do with your group, and I have personally witness Grimy telling him never to do that again).

 

I suppose the differing opinion thing isn't trolling, so basically what you're asking for is a local clause in an efficiency subforum stating what exactly? What would be disrupting, yet not trolling? Someone having a differing opinion would just be a discussion, yes?

[Hobgoblinpie]

[hide]

I don't see the huge need for metagamer specific mods (aside from in tht subforum if you guys get it which wuld be good for you)

After all in terms of general forums, eg H&A, it doesn't matter what game style they use as long as the moderating is kept equally and exclusively to the use of derogatory terms and flaming regardless of which party it is agaisnt.

 

Not everyone is an efficiency freak. Some people like to play the game how they want. Quit trying to sway him when he has repeatedly said he wants to train a specific way.

lol yeah lets have those sorts of people mod h&a, after all it doesn't matter what game style they use.

[/hide]

 

I think PoorLepRecon meant that not everyone wants to do everything as efficient as possible all the time.

 

I think people should be allowed to post advice, and that the original poster should decide on which bit of advice to take, so that the will be more comfortable with the method. Non-metagamers shouldn't flame metagamers and vice versa. Pretty simple really.

 

If the metagaming forum does spring up on Tip.It, I do think that current mods who are into maximum efficiency (yes, mods) should be the ones to moderate.

[Saradomin_Mage]

[hide]

I don't see the huge need for metagamer specific mods (aside from in tht subforum if you guys get it which wuld be good for you)

After all in terms of general forums, eg H&A, it doesn't matter what game style they use as long as the moderating is kept equally and exclusively to the use of derogatory terms and flaming regardless of which party it is agaisnt.

 

Not everyone is an efficiency freak. Some people like to play the game how they want. Quit trying to sway him when he has repeatedly said he wants to train a specific way.

lol yeah lets have those sorts of people mod h&a, after all it doesn't matter what game style they use.

[/hide]

 

I think PoorLepRecon meant that not everyone wants to do everything as efficient as possible all the time.

 

I think people should be allowed to post advice, and that the original poster should decide on which bit of advice to take, so that the will be more comfortable with the method.

 

If the metagaming forum does spring up on Tip.It, I do think that current mods who are into maximum efficiency (yes, mods) should be the ones to moderate.

I think the issue Chee brought up was Lep's use of the word freak

[Lose No Hope]

I don't see the "promoting metagaming" thing at all.

 

As long as there is no bias AGAINST metagaming in moderation, there's no issue.

It just seems to again here come down to metagamers think they should be allowed to be derogatory towards non-metagamers and not have the moderators penalise them for it.

It's not a case afterall that mods have acted agaisnt people because they are metagamers, it has been because they have flamed or been derogatory or trolled.

 

@Cheezedude I clearly said "as long as the moderating is kept equally and exclusively to the use of derogatory terms and flaming regardless of which party it is agaisnt." Clearly the person you quoted is NOT someone who would be suitable if they hold that attitude. But you don't need to be pro-metagaming or even a metagamer to subjectively moderate on derogatory terminology or flaming regardless of who is using it and why.

Most of the "flame wars" that have occured in H&A topics weren't metagamers talking down on others. It has often been others flaming the metagamers for "forcing" their advice on the OP.

[Range_This11]

It just seems to again here come down to metagamers think they should be allowed to be derogatory towards non-metagamers and not have the moderators penalise them for it.

What?

 

They want a forum specifically for discussion of metagaming specifically because they want to avoid conflict.

[Sy_Accursed]

I don't see the "promoting metagaming" thing at all.

 

As long as there is no bias AGAINST metagaming in moderation, there's no issue.

It just seems to again here come down to metagamers think they should be allowed to be derogatory towards non-metagamers and not have the moderators penalise them for it.

It's not a case afterall that mods have acted agaisnt people because they are metagamers, it has been because they have flamed or been derogatory or trolled.

 

@Cheezedude I clearly said "as long as the moderating is kept equally and exclusively to the use of derogatory terms and flaming regardless of which party it is agaisnt." Clearly the person you quoted is NOT someone who would be suitable if they hold that attitude. But you don't need to be pro-metagaming or even a metagamer to subjectively moderate on derogatory terminology or flaming regardless of who is using it and why.

Most of the "flame wars" that have occured in H&A topics weren't metagamers talking down on others. It has often been others flaming the metagamers for "forcing" their advice on the OP.

 

Yeah thoose people equally need dealing with, no denying that.

but I still see why there needs to be an air of "promoting metagaming" opposed to simply unbiased moderation and kicking the ass of meta-gamers and non meta-gamers alike who get derogatory or flamey at others.

[TheAncient]

Just to clarify if you were talking to me in the first part or not, I don't know why the bans were made, so I can't say whether or not they were justified (Levon's on the other hand was, but that was on his own part, and had nothing to do with your group, and I have personally witness Grimy telling him never to do that again).

 

I suppose the differing opinion thing isn't trolling, so basically what you're asking for is a local clause in an efficiency subforum stating what exactly? What would be disrupting, yet not trolling? Someone having a differing opinion would just be a discussion, yes?

 

Nope, wasn't referring to you in the first part of my post. Sorry if that put you off.

 

To answer your question, it's a matter of attitude. What are you here on the forums for. If you aren't here to give or receive advice, or to do research, I don't hate you but there's not much space for you on the forums. We're trying to get work done. If someone comes into your office to talk about something completely unrelated, as a manager I'd think it's perfectly reasonable to ask that person to leave the premises.

 

Opinions that further discussion are and should be distinguishable from opinions that have nothing to do with metagaming.

 

For example:

CLS vs rapier. "I think CLS might be better because its slower attack time allows SS flashing to be easier" (wrong, but still in the vein of finding out what weapon is actually best)

versus,

CLS vs rapier. "I think CLS is better because it looks cooler and has a better attack animation" (wrong, but discusses something totally unrelated)

 

Obviously a user wouldn't be banned for the latter comment. I'd just keep it in mind and observe over time.

[obfuscator]

I think an efficiency subform of H&A is an excellent idea. I don't think it needs separate moderators though.

[Sy_Accursed]

It just seems to again here come down to metagamers think they should be allowed to be derogatory towards non-metagamers and not have the moderators penalise them for it.

What?

 

They want a forum specifically for discussion of metagaming specifically because they want to avoid conflict.

 

That comment was specifically about "promoting metagaming" attitude m and in relation sepcifically to h&A when it has been shown earlier in the thread some "promote" meta gaming by calling anything non meta-gaming archaic or outdated etc.

And that tht attitude also does sort of imply the view of meta-gamers shuld be allowed to talk down non-meta gaming advice but people shouldnt be allowed to talk down meta-gaming.

[Vulxai]

Just to clarify if you were talking to me in the first part or not, I don't know why the bans were made, so I can't say whether or not they were justified (Levon's on the other hand was, but that was on his own part, and had nothing to do with your group, and I have personally witness Grimy telling him never to do that again).

 

I suppose the differing opinion thing isn't trolling, so basically what you're asking for is a local clause in an efficiency subforum stating what exactly? What would be disrupting, yet not trolling? Someone having a differing opinion would just be a discussion, yes?

 

Nope, wasn't referring to you in the first part of my post. Sorry if that put you off.

 

To answer your question, it's a matter of attitude. What are you here on the forums for. If you aren't here to give or receive advice, or to do research, I don't hate you but there's not much space for you on the forums. We're trying to get work done. If someone comes into your office to talk about something completely unrelated, as a manager I'd think it's perfectly reasonable to ask that person to leave the premises.

 

Opinions that further discussion are and should be distinguishable from opinions that have nothing to do with metagaming.

 

For example:

CLS vs rapier. "I think CLS might be better because its slower attack time allows SS flashing to be easier" (wrong, but still in the vein of finding out what weapon is actually best)

versus,

CLS vs rapier. "I think CLS is better because it looks cooler and has a better attack animation" (wrong, but discusses something totally unrelated)

 

Obviously a user wouldn't be banned for the latter comment. I'd just keep it in mind and observe over time.

 

No worries, I was just making sure, as I didn't think it was towards myself.

 

I completely understand (being a manager at the store I work with). I agree that if they aren't into metagaming, they shouldn't be giving advice in that forum, and could be asked to do so. If they aren't actually asking a question in the efforts to learn, and are stern about that latter comment, they should be asked to leave.

[Sy_Accursed]

Just to clarify if you were talking to me in the first part or not, I don't know why the bans were made, so I can't say whether or not they were justified (Levon's on the other hand was, but that was on his own part, and had nothing to do with your group, and I have personally witness Grimy telling him never to do that again).

 

I suppose the differing opinion thing isn't trolling, so basically what you're asking for is a local clause in an efficiency subforum stating what exactly? What would be disrupting, yet not trolling? Someone having a differing opinion would just be a discussion, yes?

 

Nope, wasn't referring to you in the first part of my post. Sorry if that put you off.

 

To answer your question, it's a matter of attitude. What are you here on the forums for. If you aren't here to give or receive advice, or to do research, I don't hate you but there's not much space for you on the forums. We're trying to get work done. If someone comes into your office to talk about something completely unrelated, as a manager I'd think it's perfectly reasonable to ask that person to leave the premises.

 

Opinions that further discussion are and should be distinguishable from opinions that have nothing to do with metagaming.

 

For example:

CLS vs rapier. "I think CLS might be better because its slower attack time allows SS flashing to be easier" (wrong, but still in the vein of finding out what weapon is actually best)

versus,

CLS vs rapier. "I think CLS is better because it looks cooler and has a better attack animation" (wrong, but discusses something totally unrelated)

 

Obviously a user wouldn't be banned for the latter comment. I'd just keep it in mind and observe over time.

 

Thats certainly reasonable for a meta-gaming subforum.

If you class disruptive behaviour as "unrelated or non-metagame reasoning"

[Range_This11]

It just seems to again here come down to metagamers think they should be allowed to be derogatory towards non-metagamers and not have the moderators penalise them for it.

What?

 

They want a forum specifically for discussion of metagaming specifically because they want to avoid conflict.

 

That comment was specifically about "promoting metagaming" attitude m and in relation sepcifically to h&A when it has been shown earlier in the thread some "promote" meta gaming by calling anything non meta-gaming archaic or outdated etc.

And that tht attitude also does sort of imply the view of meta-gamers shuld be allowed to talk down non-meta gaming advice but people shouldnt be allowed to talk down meta-gaming.

Well I don't think it "sort of implies" anything. I think these people are frustrated they have to deal with users that don't understand how the way they play works. Kill two birds with one stone--give them a forum. I don't think a sub-forum would be the best idea because there is a lot more that these players want to discuss than just giving help and advice to other users.

[Sy_Accursed]

I think the sub-forum people in general are referring to is assumed to be a gen discussion sub-forum, though there are also mentions of possibly a help&advice sub-forum too.

[Range_This11]

Yeah that was just a general comment, I should have separated those two statements by a line break.

[xpx]

<Mod edit> Quote Removed

 

And yes, i do believe the moderation for metagame forums should be different from the general discussion, but not out of the hands of the current moderation. My original suggestion for moderation for the metagame forums was that those who started the idea vote for 4 moderators who should and 4 moderators who shouldn't have power of moderation on those forums, and most of that list should be adopted. The list would be remade each year.

[Danqazmlp]

I do not want to have to say this again, if you think somebody is trolling/flaming, report it but do not reply to it, you just make our work much more time consuming and end up doing the exact same thing as them. Keep this discussion civil and report things if you think they cross the line. Then simply ignore them until a moderator can deal with them.

 

Edit: Just to clean up, the posts discussing the above actions after this one were removed.

[pulli23]

if metagaming should have it's "own" sub forum, than why not those who like to play as RPG, so a role-playing sub board. Or a board for each style of playing a game?

 

 

We DID have a "meta" gaming forum; it was called the "debate club". However it had to be closed as there simply were not enough members participating, only a handfull actually cared!

[Lose No Hope]

if metagaming should have it's "own" sub forum, than why not those who like to play as RPG, so a role-playing sub board. Or a board for each style of playing a game?

 

 

We DID have a "meta" gaming forum; it was called the "debate club". However it had to be closed as there simply were not enough members participating, only a handfull actually cared!

Because metagaming is the one that is having problems. Many people who are against metagaming and the efficient advice given will flame the metagamers. There isn't an issue with role-players or other groups.

[Andy]

if metagaming should have it's "own" sub forum, than why not those who like to play as RPG, so a role-playing sub board. Or a board for each style of playing a game?

Because there is no userbase for those people and it isn't a majorly discussed topic on tif.

 

We DID have a "meta" gaming forum; it was called the "debate club". However it had to be closed as there simply were not enough members participating, only a handfull actually cared!

Debate club and a metagaming forum have very little in common - I don't see how you could ever compare them.

[Sy_Accursed]

I feel obliged to point out:

 

we have AoW for the guide makers.

Media for the artists and film makers

Blogscape for blogger/goal types

Events for the random event making type (sort of covers mhers and skillers)

graveyard for pkers

RSC for classic players

Clan section for clan folk

Varrock library for writers

Falador tavern for Role players

 

Most classes of rs player are covered in one way or anther other than meta-gamers

[FooK-A-Ji]

Knowing more about in-game efficiency in no way makes you a better moderator on a forum.

Moderating tip.it forums has little to nothing to do with playing Runescape.

 

It is the members of the community who are to point out who is wrong and who is right with regards to in-game discussions. It is up to the moderator to determine wether or not the messages relayed to one another are being conveyed in a civil manner.

 

And that's the moderators job. A moderator can of course give their own input as a member of the community but their word cannot in any way be held in higher regard than another users when discussing in-game information. That would be wrong on way too many levels.

 

With that said, if there were to be a forum for "metagamers" on tip.it it would be advisable if appointed moderators were users which frequented the mentioned corner of the forums.

 

Just like Falador Tavern for example, which I personally never visit, has its own mods, since they hang around there alot.

[pulli23]

if metagaming should have it's "own" sub forum, than why not those who like to play as RPG, so a role-playing sub board. Or a board for each style of playing a game?

Because there is no userbase for those people and it isn't a majorly discussed topic on tif.

There is for metagaming? - apart from a few who shout very hard?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to discus things in a place where when I ask for the droprate of a certain item I don't get "it's random" - however wouldn't those topics fit well in general discussion? - And then depending on the attendence (or the fastness of them getting burried while still relevant, being discussed by a solid group) it might be a good board. - Why couldn't you start those discussions at the general runescape discussion board, just to show that they are valuable and a real asset to tip.it's community.

It's also not like being a seperate forum means that other people wil look, everyone can still open any forum and it has the same visibilty.

 

 

We DID have a "meta" gaming forum; it was called the "debate club". However it had to be closed as there simply were not enough members participating, only a handfull actually cared!

Debate club and a metagaming forum have very little in common - I don't see how you could ever compare them.

Debate club was ment to "debate" things like new barrow methods, was barrows better than green dragons for money. (Yet also: "is the current way jagex handles bugs correct"). Seems awefully similar to meta gaming, even a bit broader actually. Yet it had almost no activity after the initial topics were discussed to death.

Sure each update a new topic was added, but those quickly derailed to be copies of the discussion in general discussion.

 

Do you think this is inherently different when a forum is called "meta gaming". - You CAN"T force people not to post there, and however silly and stupid in your eyes they might be, stupidity can never be a reason to ban. So also those meta gaming forums will -after the initial burst is discussed- fall down to the level "but the drop rate is random".

 

tip.it is already splitted into way to many subforums, and I feel to see the coherence between the various number of subforums. But I still don't see why you make such a fuss about it: if you feel there is a community for meta gamers, and there's need for that it should be terribly easy to set up your own boards. Why can't a user join different websites for different needs?

[Obtaurian]

The problem with General Discussion has always been that discussions of gameplay and metagame are always immediately buried under the multitudes of botting/morality/recent updates/etc topics. On top of that, it still welcomes people to post ridiculously nonconstructive nonsense.

 

The problem with Debate Club is much the same as above. I agree that Debate Club was better for metagame discussion than General Discussion is now, but it was still polluted with the same topics as General Discussion - only the author would state the topic in such a way that it could be considered a debate ("JAGEX NEEDS TO STOP BOTTERS" as opposed to "IS BOTTING BAD?").

 

A metagaming forum is absolutely necessary at this point.

[FooK-A-Ji]

The problem with General Discussion has always been that discussions of gameplay and metagame are always immediately buried under the multitudes of botting/morality/recent updates/etc topics.

 

lol I agree and admit that I've grown a little tired of every update on the runescape.com website craving its own topic here :mrgreen: :thumbup:

[Kimberly]

The problem with General Discussion has always been that discussions of gameplay and metagame are always immediately buried under the multitudes of botting/morality/recent updates/etc topics.

 

lol I agree and admit that I've grown a little tired of every update on the runescape.com website craving its own topic here :mrgreen: :thumbup:

 

I would've always liked it if recent updates were discussed in Runescape News. Having a topic there and a topic here has always seemed redundant to me and, as you and Obt pointed out, cluttering.