A few changes

#1

Some of you will have noticed that I made some changes to the way the rank works.
Those changes are:

[ol][li]The rank ‘Moparscape Vet’ no longer appears in your profile or under your names when you post in topics.[/li]
[li]Your name is no longer yellow in the user list at the bottom of the page[/li][/ol]

There’s only really one reason for this. People are voting people in, or attempting to vote them out, based on things other than programming skill and overall brilliance.
Things like maturity were coming into play, despite the fact that having access to this section and holding a moderator rank are two very different things.

One of the reasons for this, in my opinion, is the fact that some members don’t want to be lumped in with less desirable users. So to fix that problem, everyone is now disassociated from each other.

So to sum up, this section is development centric – always has been, always will be.
Nominate people for access based on the fact that they can program well, and thus contribute to development. Don’t nominate people because they’re ‘nice’, or ‘mature enough for the rank’ – we have rewards for helpers anyway.

#2

I win

#3

Don’t you think Moparscape Moderators should still appear in yellow in the online users list?
New members, and even regular members always look for someone to private message for help down there, or to report a post, and if the name doesn’t stand out, then who ya gonna call?

#4

No, not really. If anything, you should be grateful for the lower chance of being bombarded with questions which are already answered in public topics.

Seriously though, if they need the help badly enough then they’ll find out who to message one way or another.

#5

I think this is a decision in the right direction but I am not completely sure this will solve the voting issue. Perhaps a test of ability, or maybe when someone believes a user should be allowed access to this section they should have to provide a few references to some of the users work.

Just an Idea.

#6

I like the change, but I agree with meiscooldude too. Perhaps all the vets should have a reevaluation of ability. I mean, I never entirely agreed with moderators automatically getting this rank, when the idea of being a veteran and community contributor are entirely separated.

#7

Before we can argue about who is/isn’t a veteran, we need to define what a veteran is. We haven’t really done that.
If we don’t want to do that, we need to let everyone’s vote be their own vote for their own personal reasons and don’t challenge that as you have your own vote to use.

#8

[quote=“blakeman8192, post:7, topic:379088”]Before we can argue about who is/isn’t a veteran, we need to define what a veteran is. We haven’t really done that.
If we don’t want to do that, we need to let everyone’s vote be their own vote for their own personal reasons and don’t challenge that as you have your own vote to use.[/quote]
would the criteria be that difficult for a moparscape vet? Knowledge of the client or server and some accurate usage of most* naming conventions seems well enough for me.

#9

[quote=“Miss Silabsoft, post:8, topic:379088”][quote author=blakeman8192 link=topic=474944.msg3473189#msg3473189 date=1295463296]
Before we can argue about who is/isn’t a veteran, we need to define what a veteran is. We haven’t really done that.
If we don’t want to do that, we need to let everyone’s vote be their own vote for their own personal reasons and don’t challenge that as you have your own vote to use.
[/quote]
would the criteria be that difficult for a moparscape vet? Knowledge of the client or server and some accurate usage of most* naming conventions seems well enough for me.[/quote]
Well if we didn’t want to lose most of our veterans, any criteria tougher than that would be inappropriate. :wink:

#10

[quote=“blakeman8192, post:9, topic:379088”][quote author=Miss Silabsoft link=topic=474944.msg3473227#msg3473227 date=1295465978]

would the criteria be that difficult for a moparscape vet? Knowledge of the client or server and some accurate usage of most* naming conventions seems well enough for me.

[/quote]
Well if we didn’t want to lose most of our veterans, any criteria tougher than that would be inappropriate. ;)[/quote]
I don’t see a reason to have anything tougher its not like Moparisthebest Community Contributer (another dead forum) where the elites “talked about elite methods of runescape hacking”

#11

[quote=“Miss Silabsoft, post:10, topic:379088”][quote author=blakeman8192 link=topic=474944.msg3473265#msg3473265 date=1295468440]

Well if we didn’t want to lose most of our veterans, any criteria tougher than that would be inappropriate. :wink:
[/quote]
I don’t see a reason to have anything tougher its not like Moparisthebest Community Contributer (another dead forum) where the elites “talked about elite methods of runescape hacking”[/quote]

Ahhh are you still bummed out you lost your CC? :stuck_out_tongue:

I agree with the minimum criteria being basic understanding of the client, protocol, server design, and just formal programming practices (which seems really important to most of us, things like understanding the core concepts of Java and following proper conventions).

#12

I know given that I am a ‘vet’ I am in no position to suggest what the standards should be.

But personally I see no problem with high standards :slight_smile:

http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/GRE/pdf/CompSci.pdf

Also I suggest a minimum time being an ‘active’ member. Perhaps a minimum number of posts per day over a year or two.

(And yes, that test was somewhat a joke, but I believe a vet should be able to answer some questions of that level)

#13

I’m just curious, but if this section is meant to be development centric, why are moderators and ex-moderators who possess limited knowledge of programming (i.e. myself, Scape-JAVA, etc.) allowed access?

#14

[quote=“deathschaos9, post:13, topic:379088”]I’m just curious, but if this section is meant to be development centric, why are moderators and ex-moderators who possess limited knowledge of programming (i.e. myself, Scape-JAVA, etc.) allowed access?[/quote]This is why you are a good moderator. You value fairness and truth over your own power.

#15

moparisthebest was lazy setting up user permissions

#16

Clearly you don’t know what a vet(eran) is. Maybe instead you should rename Vet to something that actually makes sense with the current standards.

#17

And what do you think it is?

#18

clearly you don’t know it was changed to moparscape vet because of a confusion with moparisthebest community member being the same as moparscape community member.

#19

I think it would be appropriate to ask the question whether a vet position is actually a good idea.

#20

I think it should continue to be around, but we need to have a set guideline on what should be considered a vet.

Also, I know this is a RSPS based site, and a majority of the development in these sections is going to be based around RSPS, but what about those of us who don’t know much about the client & protocol, but still have things we can offer to this section? And what about those of us who have things that we would like to release privately, maybe for testing and bug finding before a public release? Yes there are the CM section(s) over at MITB, but a lot of the people who have access to these sections don’t have access to the CM section(s). Anyone that actually has something useful to offer to these sections should be admitted, not just those who have something to offer that is Runescape related.