Myconid Spore King - Monk Solo

[Samoht]

You and Zur trolled the wiki page to give OP a lower score. The wiki edit history and the post history is clear. Somebody had to undo literal troll edits.

Now Sscalez has gone in and edited it to clean up your mess instead. Next time don't edit the wiki to win a forum argument

Is your ability to maintain coherent thought breaking? Who's talking about the edits that Loramin had to remove? I'm talking about the page you used to impersonate another forum poster.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Is your ability to maintain coherent thought breaking? Who's talking about the edits that Loramin had to remove? I'm talking about the page you used to impersonate another forum poster.

You can keep repeating the same lies if you want. Loramin made a wiki page for me without my permission, and in a factually broken state that did not represent my calculator. Nobody said he impersonated me when this happened, not even myself. I am sorry you don't know what the defnition of impersonation is. This just makes you look silly.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3748316&postcount=993

[Samoht]

You can keep repeating the same lies if you want. Loramin made a wiki page for me without my permission, and in a factually broken state that did not represent my calculator. Nobody said he impersonated me when this happened, not even myself. I am sorry you don't know what the defnition of impersonation is. This just makes you look silly.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3748316&postcount=993

Oh, wow, it is broken. You're just jumping from one unrelated topic to the next now. I think he's stuck in misdirect mode.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Oh, wow, it is broken. You're just jumping from one unrelated topic to the next now. I think he's stuck in misdirect mode.

As you can see, Samoht is unable to counter any of my points. He is the one stuck in misdirect mode. I can keep posting the facts, and you can keep posting nonsense. You are only hurting yourself by doing this.

[Samoht]

As you can see, Samoht is unable to counter any of my points. He is the one stuck in misdirect mode. I can keep posting the facts, and you can keep posting nonsense. You are only hurting yourself by doing this.

I can't counter your points because you don't have any! It's called obfuscation. You invent straw man after straw man and move the goal posts and bring up some whataboutism. Not only do you get an F for debate class, but you're the class clown, and people laugh at you, but not in the good way.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I can't counter your points

Correct. I am happy to leave the conversation there at this point if you are willing to stop talking in circles. Anybody can read the thread and see the objective truth of what happened.

[Samoht]

Correct. I am happy to leave the conversation there at this point if you are willing to stop talking in circles. Anybody can read the thread and see the objective truth of what happened.

Yeah, they can look at the page history and see that:

1) You impersonated another forum poster by making a page in their name
2) They did not appreciate the page and tried to get rid of it
3) You obsessively refreshed the page and UNDID THEIR CHANGES every time they made one
4) They did not appreciate the page and tried to get rid of it
5) You obsessively refreshed the page and UNDID THEIR CHANGES every time they made one
6) They did not appreciate the page and tried to get rid of it
7) You obsessively refreshed the page and UNDID THEIR CHANGES every time they made one
8) They did not appreciate the page and tried to get rid of it
9) You obsessively refreshed the page and UNDID THEIR CHANGES every time they made one
10) They did not appreciate the page and tried to get rid of it
11) You obsessively refreshed the page and UNDID THEIR CHANGES every time they made one

There were probably more iterations, but I hope that gets the point across. I'm unsure what this has to do with Sscalez defacing the main SAC page that Loramin had to remove or your shitty DPS calculator. I don't think you had any point bringing them up, that's just more examples of your whataboutism.

My brother in christ, you cannot really be this stupid, can you?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yeah, they can look at the page history and see that:

1) You impersonated another forum poster by making a page in their name
2) They did not appreciate the page and tried to get rid of it
3) You obsessively refreshed the page and UNDID THEIR CHANGES every time they made one
4) They did not appreciate the page and tried to get rid of it
5) You obsessively refreshed the page and UNDID THEIR CHANGES every time they made one
6) They did not appreciate the page and tried to get rid of it
7) You obsessively refreshed the page and UNDID THEIR CHANGES every time they made one
8) They did not appreciate the page and tried to get rid of it
9) You obsessively refreshed the page and UNDID THEIR CHANGES every time they made one
10) They did not appreciate the page and tried to get rid of it
11) You obsessively refreshed the page and UNDID THEIR CHANGES every time they made one

There were probably more iterations, but I hope that gets the point across. I'm unsure what this has to do with Sscalez defacing the main SAC page that Loramin had to remove or your shitty DPS calculator. I don't think you had any point bringing them up, that's just more examples of your whataboutism.

My brother in christ, you cannot really be this stupid, can you?

Another post full of lies to add to the pile. You just make easy on me to show you are a troll when you keep saying things that are easy to prove false. I am sorry, but everybody can read the thread and the wiki history. Do you want the last word with another post full of lies? How far does your reputation need to fall? When have you humiliated yourself enough?

I'll take that as a yes

It sounds like Samoht has finally decided to stop destroying his own reputation, at least for now. He can have the last word since he clearly wants it. I still find it amazing that posters like Samoht will keep doubling down, even after the facts have completely destroyed all arguments he can make, to the point where he just talks in circles forever.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3748316&postcount=993

People can read this post linked above to see how easily the "impersonation" argument is destroyed. They can also read it to see how Loramin's reason for suspending me was clearly biased. By Loramin's logic, he needs to suspend himself because he made a wiki page for me, without my permission, and in a knowingly broken state. He then ignored my request to have the wiki page fixed or taken down for almost a month. I had to eventually do it myself.

People can read the thread and the wiki history to see that Zuranthium and Samoht edited the wiki first in an attempt to lower OP's score. They did not act in good faith by doing this, they were just trolling OP and forcing their opinions on everybody else.

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

[Samoht]

I'll take that as a yes

[Stryker85]

That's not true, and most melee classes can't do much even with outside buffs, it's mainly just Monks. Most casters are also not able to: Wizards, Clerics, Mages, Druids. And also even when being allowed buffs, no melee character did it in Kunark era anyway.

It's not just about Monks at all. Warriors, Paladins, Shadowknights, and even Rangers can do some impressive things with buffs. And if melees weren't competing very much even when they were allowed to have buffs, then why are you so against them being allowed buffs now? It was done to even the playing field, and even that wasn't really enough to bring them on par with casters (which is fine).


It's not a battle of each player being limited to 1 specific class or trying to have rules that allow every class to compete equally; that is not possible in the first place. EQ is EQ, things are vastly imbalanced when it comes to the soloing capability different classes have.

The whole point of having rules in the first place is to try to make it as fair and balanced across the board as possible. Obviously it will never be COMPLETELY balanced, which is why casters still dominated the rankings even when buffs were allowed for melee. But there is no reason to not try to establish rules that allow for more than just caster's to earn the top rank possible.


The point of the solo challenges is to see how far each specific class can go. Completing an encounter at S- tier with a certain class could be comparatively more impressive than doing it at S+ tier with another class. Your S tier kill is the highest tier achieved in a public video as a Monk for that encounter. Instead of being glad to have achieved the current highest tier for a Monk, you're trying to tear down other people and rage against changes most people have said make sense. Changes that are objectively the much more accurate way to categorize videos and allow players to search for examples of things to try themselves.
I think this right here is where the crux of our disagreement stems from. I think the whole point of the solo challenge is to provide a set of parameters for people to challenge themselves against, in a way that awards people appropriately if they are able to do things under the most difficult limitations possible for their class. For example, if a melee can kill a God tier mob without consumables, that is just as difficult, if not more difficult than a caster doing so self buffed, so why should it be ranked any lower? It shouldn't be (imo).

I would appreciate it if you would stop implying that everyone here in this thread is on your side and agrees with you, because we all know that is not even remotely true. There's been maybe 1 other person besides you and Samoht that have tried to claim "buffs mean you weren't solo".

I've already suggested that we make a poll and see what the vast majority of the active EQ population thinks, but you seem to ignore this every time I bring it up... why is that?

I don't want to keep going back and forth with you for another 100 pages when this is obviously going nowhere until we can come to some general consensus. I'm willing to hash this out in discord or somewhere else where we can have a more productive conversation. You should know that if we can't come to agreement, Loramin has said that he will just keep the previous rules intact, and then neither of our proposed changes will make it in. If that's what you want, then fine, but I still think we can find room for compromise.

[Summers_Light]

Even more hilariously, you're trying to say anyone who doesn't exactly agree with you is "not compromising" (and nobody agrees with you, except for 1 other very selfish person who is simply mad about the fact that soloing with no outside buffs or consumables is a way tons of people play the game and have completed solo challenges).


I dont know what drugs this guy is on, but pretty much every person that has posted in this thread has been in support of sscalez, not you. the only people tearing him down are you and Samoht. no body on this server is going to agree with the insane notion that having buffs is the same thing as having people fighting with you and assisting with the kill.

how many casters have killed the king? at least a few that i know of. how many melee have done it with no consumables? his was the first ever. that alone should tell you that his kill should rank at least as high as theirs.

kinda funny you mention not compromising. the only one i see that won't compromise is you.

[Zuranthium]

Obvious alt account is obvious.

I dont know what drugs this guy is on, but pretty much every person that has posted in this thread has been in support of sscalez, not you.

Wrong. A bunch of people have posted saying outside buffs shouldn't be allowed for melee as the highest tier description, and nobody is "not in support" of what he did in his video.

And if melees weren't competing very much even when they were allowed to have buffs, then why are you so against them being allowed buffs now?

Velious gear and the 2hander damage increase is a huge buff for melee. But even if it wasn't, that's irrelevant to the question of "what is the best a class can do with no outside buffs and no consumables".

Anyone is ALLOWED to have buffs in the challenge system. It is simply a DIFFERENT TIER of accomplishment.

Regarding balance, you don't seem to realize what a big advantage Monks have in a world where Lull is coded classically, which the p99 devs have said will be implemented at some point.

I've already suggested that we make a poll and see what the vast majority of the active EQ population thinks, but you seem to ignore this every time I bring it up... why is that?

Polls are manipulated. People who care to have an opinion should speak up. And people have in this thread. The community wants a "no outside buffs/consumables" tier.

I think the whole point of the solo challenge is to provide a set of parameters for people to challenge themselves against

That's exactly what the updated tiers incentivize.

The point is to try and see how far each class can get with each encounter. It's not a competition of trying to be an S+ Monk vs an S+ Enchanter.

If someone wants to "beat" the accomplishments of an Enchanter who has done 10 S+ God Mode kills, they need to play an Enchanter themselves and do 11 S+ God Mode kills. Just as the Enchanter player would also need to play Monk themselves if they want to "beat" the record of a Monk player.

The whole point of having rules in the first place is to try to make it as fair and balanced across the board as possible.

It needs to be fair and balanced in the sense of recognizing the different ways to kill a MOB. Doing it without no outside buffs/consumables is a factual tier. If that is not recognized, then it's inherently not fair.

What it does NOT need to do, and can never do, is try to balance things between classes. What people need to focus on doing is pushing each class to its maximize, in whichever tier they are interested in doing that.

God Mode kills by melee are possible without outside/buffs consumables.

There's been maybe 1 other person besides you and Samoht that have tried to claim "buffs mean you weren't solo".

There are more than that, but it's irrelevant to the discussion. And it's an indisputable fact (for anyone with a working brain) that an outside buff is increasing the power of a character beyond what they could otherwise do, and contributing the same amount of DPS/Healing with that buff as if the other player was directly adding that amount during combat.

The challenge page is not giving a definition of the word "solo" in a simple binary Yes-or-No answer. It's describing many different categories of doing encounters in EQ. Different peoples' opinions will align with different tiers of what they would consider a "solo". The challenge page recognizes them all.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I dont know what drugs this guy is on, but pretty much every person that has posted in this thread has been in support of sscalez, not you. the only people tearing him down are you and Samoht. no body on this server is going to agree with the insane notion that having buffs is the same thing as having people fighting with you and assisting with the kill.

how many casters have killed the king? at least a few that i know of. how many melee have done it with no consumables? his was the first ever. that alone should tell you that his kill should rank at least as high as theirs.

kinda funny you mention not compromising. the only one i see that won't compromise is you.

This is correct.

[Summers_Light]

so now anyone that doesnt agree with you is an alt acct? why does anyone even engage with you still at this point

[Zuranthium]

Feel free to talk on discord if you want. Your writing sounds like another forum user.

[Stryker85]

A bunch of people have posted saying outside buffs shouldn't be allowed for melee as the highest tier description

If you can show me LEGITIMATE posts from "a bunch" of people saying that they think outside buffs shouldn't be allowed for melee as the highest tier, then I will stop arguing completely and admit defeat, and you can just impose your will as the Solo Artist Challenge dictator, who doesn't even play EQ anymore. But I think you and I both know that you won't be able to do that. There's been literally ONE SINGLE other person in this entire thread that held the same opinions as you and Samoht. One person is not "a bunch" or even close to a majority.


that's irrelevant to the question of "what is the best a class can do with no outside buffs and no consumables".

You are the only one insisting that this is the sole purpose of the challenge. To me the purpose of the challenge is for every class to have a set of parameters to compete under that challenges them to complete kills with the most difficult circumstances possible for their class. For melee classes, the most difficult circumstances that they can actually kill a god tier mob under, is buffed with no consumables. There is a reason why NO MELEE has EVER completed a god mode kill without buffs and no consumables, because its literally impossible.


Regarding balance, you don't seem to realize what a big advantage Monks have in a world where Lull is coded classically, which the p99 devs have said will be implemented at some point.

Alright now you lost me, what the hell are you even talking about now?? What would lull coding have anything to do with monks? I'm dying to hear this.


Polls are manipulated. People who care to have an opinion should speak up. And people have in this thread. The community wants a "no outside buffs/consumables" tier.

That's real convenient coming from someone that claims everyone agrees with you, but yet can't show any proof of that what-so-ever. When challenged with a way to prove who the player base really sides with, you come up with this lame ass excuse. We can use a discord poll in the UN or p99 general channel. How do you expect that to be "manipulated" exactly? I'll be surprised if you even make an attempt to answer this, because you know this is a ridiculous excuse.


That's exactly what the updated tiers incentivize.
The point is to try and see how far each class can get with each encounter. It's not a competition of trying to be an S+ Monk vs an S+ Enchanter.
If someone wants to "beat" the accomplishments of an Enchanter who has done 10 S+ God Mode kills, they need to play an Enchanter themselves and do 11 S+ God Mode kills. Just as the Enchanter player would also need to play Monk themselves if they want to "beat" the record of a Monk player.

That is just your prerogative and you trying to impose your will for what YOUR vision of the challenge should be, but guess what? It's not just up to you. It's up to everyone that actually plays this game. And I can guarantee you that there are more people that would prefer a balanced ruleset that doesn't gatekeep melee from ever achieving the top rank possible. If you think only casters should be able to achieve an S+ Rank, then why even include melee in the competition at all? What's the point of having a rank that only 1 subset of classes can achieve? Under that logic, melee should have their own competition. That would be stupid and unnecessary though when the rules can be structured to accommodate melee too.


It needs to be fair and balanced in the sense of recognizing the different ways to kill a MOB. Doing it without no outside buffs/consumables is a factual tier. If that is not recognized, then it's inherently not fair.

What it does NOT need to do, and can never do, is try to balance things between classes. What people need to focus on doing is pushing each class to its maximize, in whichever tier they are interested in doing that.

Again, this is just your opinion that you're trying to force on the rest of us. The original creator of the challenge did not agree with that mindset at all. That was the whole reason why melee were allowed to have buffs to begin with, and why there was no stipulation for no consumables at the top rank, because he understood that melee would never be able to compete for that rank otherwise. Melees either need buffs, or they need consumables, they cannot kill anything past the grandmaster tier without both.

I agree that there should be a place to recognize a no consumable kill, which is why when I made the changes attempting to compromise with you, I edited the S+ rank to be either self buffs only OR no consumables. This allows melee to compete for the top rank under the hardest conditions possible for their class, which is the whole point of the ranking system.

You just conceded earlier in one of your recent posts that "Completing an encounter at S- tier with a certain class could be comparatively more impressive than doing it at S+ tier with another class." If that's the case and a kill like this which has never been done IS considered to be more impressive, rarer, and harder to achieve, then why do you think it deserves a lesser rank than a class that's done it numerous times already and can do it with relative ease in comparison?


God Mode kills by melee are possible without outside/buffs consumables.

Ohh, is that why its literally NEVER been done before by ANY melee toon EVER? Something tells me you have never played a melee character at level 60, much less tried to solo anything difficult with it. Please show me ANY evidence what-so-ever of any melee character EVER killing a god tier mob without buffs OR consumables... you can't. Its never been done and never will be done... because its 100% impossible.


Feel free to talk on discord if you want. Your writing sounds like another forum user.

I've been asking you to chat on discord for a while now. Clearly we are making zero progress in this thread. Unless you want Loramin to throw both of our suggestions out and revert things back to the original challenge rules, then I suggest we work on some kind of compromise.

[Duik]

Holy fuck.

I so glad i tapped out.

Ohh boy, that's some weather we are having isn't it?

[Zuranthium]

If you can show me LEGITIMATE posts from "a bunch" of people saying that they think outside buffs shouldn't be allowed for melee as the highest tier, then I will stop arguing completely and admit defeat

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3747447&postcount=710
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3747416&postcount=703
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3745930&postcount=454
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3747434&postcount=707
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3743708&postcount=19
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2499319&postcount=11
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2499826&postcount=18
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2984997&postcount=38
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2985162&postcount=43
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2985192&postcount=44
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2987151&postcount=64
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2987220&postcount=72

For melee classes, the most difficult circumstances that they can actually kill a god tier mob under, is buffed with no consumables. There is a reason why NO MELEE has EVER completed a god mode kill without buffs and no consumables, because its literally impossible.

You don't know what every player has ever done, and the math already checks out on several recorded kills that have been done. You've also continued to refuse to do the math on what an actual BIS Monk can do while utilizing all their procs.

Here a Monk kills Phinny with just 3 clicks of wort (only needed 2 clicks), while having non-ideal equipment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUhF2ki7x_M. He didn't even need to be completely BIS with Shroud of Longevity to be able to do that kill without the couple wort pot clicks. If he was using an Abashi and fist swapping, he would've done the necessary DPS to win completely solo.

That's exactly why a tier for no outside buffs/consumables is needed. People need to have a reason to push and see what is possible totally solo. There needs to be a metric of what is possible while using sustainable methods: a tier that describes the gameplay options for a player who wants to log on and do something with only their character and the permanent equipment it has. If a class can't do something without outside buffs/consumables (and most classes can't for the hardest stuff), then oh well. That's simply the reality of the capabilities for that class.

What would lull coding have anything to do with monks?

Monks are advantaged for pulling. There's going to be a LOT of stuff that becomes far harder for lull classes as compared to the way it is now.

If you think only casters should be able to achieve an S+ Rank, then why even include melee in the competition at all?

The challenge is NOT measuring player skill based upon their ability with a certain class vs another player's ability with a different class!! The point of the challenges is to see what can done at each Tier, regardless of the class. For a lot of stuff that simply means Enchanter or Shaman if wanting to try S+ God Mode. That's just how the game is, those are the classes who have the tools to do difficult solo encounters.

The problem you're having is that your ego can't handle not being placed into what is labelled as the "top tier" when looking at the maximum possibility regardless of class. You're mad as hell about being 160 pounds and needing to fight in the "lower" bracket, instead of being 180 pounds and being allowed to fight in that bracket. Why? That's just the realities of each different body type; both weight classes are appreciable.

I agree that there should be a place to recognize a no consumable kill

Then you should agree that no outside help needs to be recognized. There's no difference in combat capability between using a consumable or getting an outside buff of the same power level. It's the exact same level of assistance in combat. To try and act like no consumables is better than no outside buffs is totally irrational. The only reason you're acting this way is because you happen to have alts sitting around to buff you. You have no concern for what is actually the most objective thing and what would benefit the community most: a tier system that accurately describes the different solo/duo modes possible.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3747447&postcount=710
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3747416&postcount=703
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3745930&postcount=454
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3747434&postcount=707
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3743708&postcount=19
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2499319&postcount=11
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2499826&postcount=18
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2984997&postcount=38
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2985162&postcount=43
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2985192&postcount=44
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2987151&postcount=64
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2987220&postcount=72


There is a lot more nuance than a hardline stance against outside buffs at the highest tier in these posts and within context of this thread. The posters can correct me of course if I misunderstood.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3747447&postcount=710


As far as I'm concerned it isn't a lesser kill because it was buffed


Gregorgasmic says it isn't a lesser kill with buffs, so it doesn't sound like he wants to lower OP's rank.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3747416&postcount=703

Crede can contradict himself. His opinion is that cleric bots cannot be used in a group of four, while he simultaneously has had a cleric bot since 2014, and tells people to use them. I don't know if he is saying this just to be contradoctory. But fair if true.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3745930&postcount=454

Shovelquest has also been against you and Samoht in this thread for trying to troll OP and lower his rank.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3747434&postcount=707


Whether it's more challenging to have no outside buffs or no consumables may depend on the class or the fight and the class.


Bcbrown is saying there is nuance on outside buffs depending on the class and fight.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3743708&postcount=19

Fair.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2499319&postcount=11

Fair.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2499826&postcount=18

Fair.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2984997&postcount=38

This post is more concerned with strong clickies like puppet strings, and exploits.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2985162&postcount=43

This post is also more about strong clickies. We don't know if he agrees with your idea that outside buffs are considered "assisted". We don't know what he means by "true solo" either.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2985192&postcount=44

This post is saying you should disclose what you used in the fight, and OP did that. It doesn't specify that outside buffs cannot be considered for the highest tier.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2987151&postcount=64

This post is a wash. The poster may agree with you, but the poster quotes kjs86z, who is praising Kelz's kill with consumables and buffs. Kjs86z seems to think it is the highest form of solo kill.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2987220&postcount=72

Fair.

Out of those links, you found 4 or 5 posters (if you count Crede) who might agree with your hardline stance of no outside buffs for the highest tier. 6 when you include Samoht.

In this thread Myself, OP, Skarne, Confit, Novamix, rhold, summers_light, Snaggles, Tewaz, and kebpts have either disagreed with you/Samoht, or simply praised OP's kill.

So it's 7 people who agree/may agree with you (including yourself) vs. 10 people (including myself) who don't agree/may not agree so far. Remember some of those 6 other posters who agree/may agree aren't in this thread. We don't know if they would say something different based on this thread.

[Nickelback8469]

The challenge is NOT measuring player skill based upon their ability with a certain class vs another player's ability with a different class!! The point of the challenges is to see what can done at each Tier, regardless of the class. For a lot of stuff that simply means Enchanter or Shaman if wanting to try S+ God Mode. That's just how the game is, those are the classes who have the tools to do difficult solo encounters.



I agree, it may be much more difficult or even impossible for some classes to solo the hardest of mobs, but that goalpost will hopefully push some people to experiment with what's possible and push for what was previously thought unachievable. It's still a great achievement for classes to solo most of these mobs even with outside help in the form of buffs, clickies, or splitting, but the tiers should reflect the amount of aid given in the form of buffs or clickies

[Snaggles]

Fact is Aego is pretty easy to count with wort clicks, as is Focus, etc (ps: it’s not many). A raid buffed mend vs unbuffed one is can be figured out with a calculator.

Stuff like a Slowstone Amber or puppet strings are WAY more difficult to count in wort clicks. None of which Sscalez used.

Until another melee puts down the king in a similar fashion or unbuffed with a few worts this thread is over. Presuming you believe in logic.

[Goregasmic]

Best solution would probably be not to "hard grade" kill quality and basically go "solo buffs only" for all kills since it is the easiest frame of reference and if you stepped out of that, just specify what you used. The goal is not to diminish people's achievements but to have a frame of reference for further attempts.

If a necro manages to solo.... trakanon but raid buffed, doesn't make it any less of a fucking crazy kill, just disclose how it went down. For melees, even gear setup and/or overall stats could be interesting to disclose if you're killing stuff at the limit of what is possible so people can have a general idea of what was going on at the time.

[Duik]

If i could kill a boss like this (I cant) based on this shitshow I'd just not even fucking mention it.

[loramin]

Best solution would probably be not to "hard grade" kill quality and basically go "solo buffs only" for all kills since it is the easiest frame of reference and if you stepped out of that, just specify what you used. The goal is not to diminish people's achievements but to have a frame of reference for further attempts.

If a necro manages to solo.... trakanon but raid buffed, doesn't make it any less of a fucking crazy kill, just disclose how it went down. For melees, even gear setup and/or overall stats could be interesting to disclose if you're killing stuff at the limit of what is possible so people can have a general idea of what was going on at the time.

I agree with this, so much. The point of the original solo artist challenge was to have fun and encourage people to solo challenging targets ... not to have a bunch of forum nerds pick apart attempts, making people feel:

If i could kill a boss like this (I cant) based on this shitshow I'd just not even fucking mention it.

I do still think having "rankings" would be nice, but A) no one can agree on what exactly those ranks should be, and B) if we're being honest, rankings need to depend on class (an Enchanter soloing something is not the same thing as a Shadow Knight soloing that same mob).

Like I said, I really would like to see a good ranking system (ie. one that addresses classes, and that everyone agrees on) ... but until one exists, I don't see how people imposing their rankings on others make things better.

[Snaggles]

IMHO the OP should consider putting together a melee solo challenge page or post (since it can’t be edited). Most people aren’t using “strong clickies” these days as they don’t acknowledge those as real kills.

If you detail what went into the kill people who aren’t idiots will respect it.

[Stryker85]

I agree with this, so much. The point of the original solo artist challenge was to have fun and encourage people to solo challenging targets ... not to have a bunch of forum nerds pick apart attempts, making people feel:

I do still think having "rankings" would be nice, but A) no one can agree on what exactly those ranks should be, and B) if we're being honest, rankings need to depend on class (an Enchanter soloing something is not the same thing as a Shadow Knight soloing that same mob).

Like I said, I really would like to see a good ranking system (ie. one that addresses classes, and that everyone agrees on) ... but until one exists, I don't see how people imposing their rankings on others make things better.

After Samoht and Zuranthium edited the wiki and changed the ranks and rules just to criticize and lower my kill, I wasn't even going to post the No Charge Kill video. But then Zuranthium took the liberty to post MY video anyways, just to tear down the kills even more. Not only did he completely change all of the ranks, but also he conveniently just happened to place a "buff limit" of TWO whole buffs to be eligible for his "buffed" rank, knowing that I had 3 buffs for the kill. So a kill which had NEVER been done before is suddenly somehow barely even good enough for his new lowest rank possible.

This guy Zuranthium doesn't even play EQ anymore by his own admission. And the Solo Artist Challenge has been around for over a decade... kinda funny how he never gave 2 shits about it at all until I posted a video soloing the King, and now he's on a crusade to impose his own rules and rankings, which will prevent any melee character from ever competing for the top rank kills. Gee, I wonder why he cares all of a sudden, after not doing or saying shit about it for the last 10+ years. But nooo, he's not doing any of this out of pettiness or spite, right?

The equivalent of a chanter (or any caster) killing with only self buffs, is a melee killing with no consumables. If people cannot understand that, then they clearly have never played a melee at end game, much less tried to solo anything challenging with it.

The challenge should award ranks based on the difficulty of the kill. This kill was at the very top of that difficulty ladder (hence why it had never been done before). How Zuranthium can claim that it deserves a lower rank (not just slightly lower, he gave it the LOWEST rank possible) than the 5 different chanters that have done with it relative ease is beyond me, and makes absolutely zero sense.

[Goregasmic]

Like I said, I really would like to see a good ranking system (ie. one that addresses classes, and that everyone agrees on) ... but until one exists, I don't see how people imposing their rankings on others make things better.

I think classes are too disparate to allow anything like that. The first SAC is basically a charm/lull challenge that other classes chose to partake in. Personally I'd like people to come up with a class challenge other people could compete within, with some crossovers if possible. I think it could lead to higher rate of participation.

Intra class hard grades would also be much simpler to deal with. Like a ranger could claim unhasted but if he has epic + sky cloak that's just different damage input compared to an unhasted SK or whatever.

[loramin]

After Samoht and Zuranthium edited the wiki and changed the ranks and rules just to criticize and lower my kill, I wasn't even going to post the No Charge Kill video. But then Zuranthium took the liberty to post MY video anyways, just to tear down the kills even more. Not only did he completely change all of the ranks, but also he conveniently just happened to place a "buff limit" of TWO whole buffs to be eligible for his "buffed" rank, knowing that I had 3 buffs for the kill. So a kill which had NEVER been done before is suddenly somehow barely even good enough for his new lowest rank possible.

This guy Zuranthium doesn't even play EQ anymore by his own admission. And the Solo Artist Challenge has been around for over a decade... kinda funny how he never gave 2 shits about it at all until I posted a video soloing the King, and now he's on a crusade to impose his own rules and rankings, which will prevent any melee character from ever competing for the top rank kills. Gee, I wonder why he cares all of a sudden, after not doing or saying shit about it for the last 10+ years. But nooo, he's not doing any of this out of pettiness or spite, right?

The equivalent of a chanter (or any caster) killing with only self buffs, is a melee killing with no consumables. If people cannot understand that, then they clearly have never played a melee at end game, much less tried to solo anything challenging with it.

The challenge should award ranks based on the difficulty of the kill. This kill was at the very top of that difficulty ladder (hence why it had never been done before). How Zuranthium can claim that it deserves a lower rank (not just slightly lower, he gave it the LOWEST rank possible) than the 5 different chanters that have done with it relative ease is beyond me, and makes absolutely zero sense.

Dude, Zuranthium changed a wiki page that five people read, for a week (the rankings are now gone entirely). That's all he did.

One hater does not in any way invalidate your accomplishment: you should stop acting like it does.

[loramin]

I think classes are too disparate to allow anything like that. The first SAC is basically a charm/lull challenge that other classes chose to partake in. Personally I'd like people to come up with a class challenge other people could compete within, with some crossovers if possible. I think it could lead to higher rate of participation.

Intra class hard grades would also be much simpler to deal with. Like a ranger could claim unhasted but if he has epic + sky cloak that's just different damage input compared to an unhasted SK or whatever.

Right, the original list was more or less an Enchanter list, with an invitation for other classes to try it to. But if we're being honest, every class needs its own list: as you just noted, there are vast differences even between two melees.

I think Loraen did something incredibly cool in the original solo artist challenge, but instead of people thinking "how can we make things better?" it seems all anyone wants to do is compare penis sizes tear down each others' solos.

I think we should aim for better, and I think that means separate lists for each class, plus a (near) universal agreement among people who solo that class as to what "tiers" should exist.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

After Samoht and Zuranthium edited the wiki and changed the ranks and rules just to criticize and lower my kill, I wasn't even going to post the No Charge Kill video. But then Zuranthium took the liberty to post MY video anyways, just to tear down the kills even more. Not only did he completely change all of the ranks, but also he conveniently just happened to place a "buff limit" of TWO whole buffs to be eligible for his "buffed" rank, knowing that I had 3 buffs for the kill. So a kill which had NEVER been done before is suddenly somehow barely even good enough for his new lowest rank possible.

This guy Zuranthium doesn't even play EQ anymore by his own admission. And the Solo Artist Challenge has been around for over a decade... kinda funny how he never gave 2 shits about it at all until I posted a video soloing the King, and now he's on a crusade to impose his own rules and rankings, which will prevent any melee character from ever competing for the top rank kills. Gee, I wonder why he cares all of a sudden, after not doing or saying shit about it for the last 10+ years. But nooo, he's not doing any of this out of pettiness or spite, right?

The equivalent of a chanter (or any caster) killing with only self buffs, is a melee killing with no consumables. If people cannot understand that, then they clearly have never played a melee at end game, much less tried to solo anything challenging with it.

The challenge should award ranks based on the difficulty of the kill. This kill was at the very top of that difficulty ladder (hence why it had never been done before). How Zuranthium can claim that it deserves a lower rank (not just slightly lower, he gave it the LOWEST rank possible) than the 5 different chanters that have done with it relative ease is beyond me, and makes absolutely zero sense.

This is correct. The evidence in this thread clearly shows Zuranthium and Samoht were trolling you. They ended up editing the wiki to troll you, and gloated about it. It still boggles the mind how Loramin took their side instead of yours at every turn. He didn't suspend Zuranthium or Samoht, he locked the page with their changes for a week, and then deleted your changes after the page was unlocked. He then removed the ranks entirely, effectively doing the same thing Zuranthium and Samoht did to you. I am still not sure why he thinks that was the correct course of action.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=442054

Zuranthium has taken it upon himself to write a Star Trek/Everquest/Game of Thrones fan fic to... punish you for having a few raid buffs that mathemarically add up to like 8 wort pot charges I guess? It is very strange.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3747171&postcount=651

Here is the math showing the wort pot equivalent to OP's buffs of VoG + Aego + FoS. In that post I said 10 charges, but I forgot to include OP's regen and the fact he could use stave of shielding or dain hammer without those buffs. So its really like 7-8 wort pot charges if OP didn't have VoG + Aego + FoS. This is like 2100-2400 HP, which is less than a reaper. OP has 3.7k HP withpout FoS + Aego, and without Major/Arch Shielding.

[loramin]

He then removed the ranks entirely ... I am still not sure why he thinks that was the correct course of action.

You know exactly why, because I've told you point blank: the wiki is for "encyclopedia-like" content. Throughout it's decade-plus life (ie. since long before I got here), personal opinions have always been limited to Magelos and guide pages (ie. pages with someone's name in them).

Loraen's guide page, with rankings, remains in the wiki; it's a "named page". The (un-named) "Solo Artist Challenge" page will (like everything else in the wiki) only feature content that has a communal consensus.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You know exactly why, because I've told you point blank. The wiki is for "encyclopedia-like" content. Throughout it's decade-plus life (ie. since long before I got here), personal opinions have always been limited to Magelos and guide pages (ie. pages with someone's name in them).

Loraen's guide page, with rankings, remains in the wiki because it's a "named page". The "Solo Artist Challenge" page, with no name, will (like everything else in the wiki) only feature content that is a communal consensus (eg. no one fights when someone edits a mob entry to have the correct number of hit points, because it's similarly "neutral" content).

Trolling the wiki is against the rules. Multiple posters in this thread, including myself and OP, agree Zuranthium and Samoht were editing the wiki in bad faith. There is no reason for you to keep their changes, lock the wiki page with their changes, prevent other people from editing their changes, and then unilaterally modifying a years old wiki page to remove a key component of it (rankings).

It is mind boggling you take the side of Zuranthium at every turn. Zuranthium wrote a Star Trek/Everquest/Game of Thrones fan fic that describes violently torturing OP specifically for the "crime" of having 3 outside buffs on a solo challenge. This is unhinged behavior.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=442054

Community-wise more people disagree with Zuranthium and Samoht anyway:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3748550&postcount=1019

I forgot to include The_Ber from this thread, and the creator of the wiki page obviously agrees outside buffs are allowed on melees. So it's like 8 people for Zuranthium's changes vs. 12 people against from my count so far.

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

[loramin]

I'd answer this, but you don't bother to read my answers when I do provide them, so it feels pointless to do so.

(Also, I have already answered this, and you have demonstrated no desire to read or try to understand my answer.)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'd answer this, but you don't bother to read my answers when I do provide them, so it feels pointless to do so.

(Also, I have already answered this, and you have demonstrated no desire to read or try to understand my answer.)

I have read your answers and responded to them. The post history shows this. The post history also shows you have contradicted yourself multiple times and dodged my responses multiple times. You dodged this last post too:

Trolling the wiki is against the rules. Multiple posters in this thread, including myself and OP, agree Zuranthium and Samoht were editing the wiki in bad faith. There is no reason for you to keep their changes, lock the wiki page with their changes, prevent other people from editing their changes, and then unilaterally modifying a years old wiki page to remove a key component of it (rankings).

It is mind boggling you take the side of Zuranthium at every turn. Zuranthium wrote a Star Trek/Everquest/Game of Thrones fan fic that describes violently torturing OP specifically for the "crime" of having 3 outside buffs on a solo challenge. This is unhinged behavior.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=442054

Community-wise more people disagree with Zuranthium and Samoht anyway:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3748550&postcount=1019

I forgot to include The_Ber from this thread, and the creator of the wiki page obviously agrees outside buffs are allowed on melees. So it's like 8 people for Zuranthium's changes vs. 12 people against from my count so far.

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

You didn't even respond to the current community count where more people disagree with Zuranthium and Samoht anyway. Yet another contradiction to add to the pile. You say this is community consensus driven, while ignoring the community and unilaterally editing the page yourself.

Oh, wow. This is some victim complex. We did it just to harm you. Right.

We did it because it was outdated and needed fixing. You are completely unrelated to the changes except you brought them up as needing changes. So thank you for that.

The rest of this is just you being a cry baby lashing out because you're unable to accept criticism. I bet it would be miserable to work with you in any professional capacity.

The post history shows yourself and Zuranthium trolled and attacked OP. Both of you trolled the wiki. Zuranthium even made an unhinged fan fic about violently torturing OP, as my quoted post shows.

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

[Samoht]

After Samoht and Zuranthium edited the wiki and changed the ranks and rules just to criticize and lower my kill

Oh, wow. This is some victim complex. We did it just to harm you. Right.

We did it because it was outdated and needed fixing. You are completely unrelated to the changes except you brought them up as needing changes. So thank you for that.

The rest of this is just you being a cry baby lashing out because you're unable to accept criticism. I bet it would be miserable to work with you in any professional capacity.

[Zuranthium]

conveniently just happened to place a "buff limit" of TWO whole buffs to be eligible for his "buffed" rank, knowing that I had 3 buffs for the kill.

The rule is no more than 2 significant outside buffs. Your kill is still marked as S rank because you only needed 2 buffs. The 3rd one didn't change the end result.

How Zuranthium can claim that it deserves a lower rank (not just slightly lower, he gave it the LOWEST rank possible) than the 5 different chanters that have done with it relative ease is beyond me, and makes absolutely zero sense.

This isn't true whatsoever. The lowest rank possible would be S* with pull help. You kill is at a normal S, only below S+, and has never been marked below S.

It's already been proven melee can do some S+ God tier kills. But that's completely irrelevant anyway. The tier system has nothing to do with a per-class basis. It's simply a description of the factual way that a solo encounter was achieved, and provides useful information to allow people to search for videos and find things that align with the way they'd like to try the encounter.

And again, the tiers are not trying to compare skill between different classes, and challenges aren't meant to be possible at S+ for every class. It's simply not possible. The fact is that the highest raw power of soloing capability in the game is generally Enchanters. Solo challenges are a question of what can possibly be done solo in the game, regardless of what class is used.

You have the highest rated Monk kill on spore king, dunno why you're not happy with that. And it's very annoying that you keep trying to say I posted your video for some nefarious purpose. I posted it so people could see, because it is indeed an accomplishment that has never been publicly uploaded before.

It's also really annoying that you refuse to do actual math and look at the absolute top potential a class has. Probably because you're upset that your character will never have Shroud of Longevity, and thus never will be completely BIS. But that's why intelligent people don't equate gear with skill.

Community-wise more people disagree with Zuranthium and Samoht anyway

Absolutely wrong, but of course you'll keep trying to strawman and ignore facts as always. And importantly, thoughts about tier system is separate from individual opinions about the strict definition of the word "solo". Don't confuse the two. It's something that's happened too much in this thread.

Zuranthium has taken it upon himself to write a Star Trek/Everquest/Game of Thrones fan fic

Someone hasn't watched Solo Leveling yet! You should go do that, so then you can understand all 4 of the references.

You're welcome for the free content, please pre-order my novel when it goes on sale.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Someone hasn't watched Solo Leveling yet! You should go do that, so then you can understand all 4 of the references.

You're welcome for the free content, please pre-order my novel when it goes on sale.

Creating a fan fic where you violently torture the OP of this thread due to a disagreement about a 20 year old elf-sim MMO is unhinged. There is no defending it, regardless of how much you enjoy the various source materials that inspired it.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=442054

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

[loramin]

You didn't even respond to the current community count where more people disagree with Zuranthium and Samoht anyway. Yet another contradiction to add to the pile. You say this is community consensus driven, while ignoring the community and unilaterally editing the page yourself.

I know the concept of "consensus" is a difficult one for you to grasp, but I don't care: it's the standard for anything that isn't clearly "enyclopedia-like" that anyone wants to add to the wiki.

Consensus doesn't mean "five people voted for and two voted against": that's democracy. The wiki is not a democracy.

If anyone wants to add something to the encyclopedia-like wiki, and it's not clearly neutral, they need to cite consensus.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I know the concept of "consensus" is a difficult one for you to grasp, but I don't care: it's the standard for anything that isn't clearly "enyclopedia-like" that anyone wants to add to the wiki.

Consensus doesn't mean "five people voted for and two voted against": that's democracy. The wiki is not a democracy.

You unilaterally edited the wiki page without consensus to remove rankings entirely, instead of simply reverting the wiki back to it's original state. You allowed Zuranthium and Samoht to unilaterally troll the wiki without consensus, and did not allow myself or Sscalez to fix it.

This isn't a democracy indeed. There is no consensus either. It is a tyranny run by yourself right now.

[loramin]

You're absolutely right: I am a (wiki) tyrant. Again, not everything in life is a democracy, and doing thankless tasks like managing a bunch of man-babies so normal people can enjoy the wiki is not a task best handled by constant communal votes.

The wiki management structure has served it well for over a decade. If you actually have an issue (and we both know you don't; you're just trolling), I strongly encourage you to take it up with another wiki admin (I'm far from the only one, and I just created the wiki "Administrators (https://wiki.project1999.com/Administrators)" page to make finding them even easier), or with Rogean.

[Samoht]

It is a tyranny run by yourself right now.

Being intolerant of your absolute idiocy does not make him a tyrant. It makes him a baby sitter.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You're absolutely right: I am a (wiki) tyrant. Again, not everything in life is a democracy, and doing thankless tasks like managing a bunch of man-babies so normal people can enjoy the wiki is not a task best handled by constant communal votes.

The wiki management structure has served it well for over a decade, and if you actually have an issue (and we both know you don't), I strongly encourage you to take it up with another wiki admin (I'm far from the only one, and I just created the wiki "Administrators" page to make it even more easy to find them).

Let me go back to your previous posts. Loramin just said:


Consensus doesn't mean "five people voted for and two voted against": that's democracy. The wiki is not a democracy.

Earlier in this thread he said:


So look, if the community can agree on tiers, they belong in the wiki. You can say they are "official" because 50 people said so in a forum poll, or whatever.


It is funny that you say consensus is not democracy and the wiki doesn't work this way, while you yourself have advocated for creating a poll to find out who wins. Another contradiction. Wiki admins on other sites do not remove trolling by changing the wiki to match their own opinions lol. They revert the page back to it's pre-trolled state.

[loramin]

consensus
noun
con·​sen·​sus kən-ˈsen(t)-səs
often attributive

: general agreement : unanimity
the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border
—John Hersey

: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
the consensus was to go ahead

A poll can be a vote: it can show 20 people agreed with X while 30 people disagreed.

A poll can also show consensus. This isn't rocket science, but I guess you get dumber when you're needlessly arguing.

[Zuranthium]

Creating a fan fic where you violently torture the OP of this thread due to a disagreement about a 20 year old elf-sim MMO is unhinged.

The usual DSM lack of reading comprehension again.

The "OP" was not tortured and the story has nothing to do with wishing misfortune on the OP. A fictional character who mislead people and was profiting from that misinformation and caused hundreds of people to get killed was punished as per their culture's custom. That part of the story is a mere 2 lines and is ironically referencing a GoT thing that wasn't torture but hilariously happens to create a striking image of what it might look like if it happened to an EQ Iksar, were such a thing possible.

The story is an amusing fable and utilizes aspects of the something I am already working on. Again, pre-order the novel when it goes on sale. Thanks!

[loramin]

Being intolerant of your absolute idiocy does not make him a tyrant. It makes him a baby sitter.

:D

[DeathsSilkyMist]

A poll can be a vote: it can show 20 people agreed with X, or 30 people disagreed.

A poll can also show consensus. This isn't rocket science, but I guess you get dumber when you're needlessly arguing.

Please don't dodge.

You said the wiki can be edited by using a poll to see what the community prefers:


So look, if the community can agree on tiers, they belong in the wiki. You can say they are "official" because 50 people said so in a forum poll, or whatever.


You then claimed it cannot:


Consensus doesn't mean "five people voted for and two voted against": that's democracy. The wiki is not a democracy.

Which one is it?

[loramin]

No, you're just a moron, one who is pretending to be even dumber than you already are, to waste hours of my life arguing with you ... but I'm not going to play your game.

Consensus is the requirement for "controversial" stuff in the wiki. If you don't like it, you can go suck an egg: I can't make it any simpler than that.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No, you're just a moron, one who is pretending to be even dumber than you already are, to waste hours of my life arguing with you ... but I'm not going to play your game.

Why can't you give a straight answer? It's a yes or no question, and as a wiki admin you need to be clear on the rules.

Please don't dodge.

You said the wiki can be edited by using a poll to see what the community prefers:


So look, if the community can agree on tiers, they belong in the wiki. You can say they are "official" because 50 people said so in a forum poll, or whatever.


You then claimed it cannot:


Consensus doesn't mean "five people voted for and two voted against": that's democracy. The wiki is not a democracy.

Which one is it?

[loramin]

I've given you dozens; you just ignore them when they're not the answer you want. That's sort of an encouragement not to give more.

If a poll just says "50 people agreed with X", it could show consensus ... if only a handful of people disagreed with X. A poll with 50 people agreeing to X can also fail to show consensus for X, if there is significant disagreement.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I've given you dozens; you just ignore them when they're not the answer you want. That's sort of an encouragement not to give more.

If a poll just says "50 people agreed with X", it could show consensus ... if only a handful of people disagreed with X. A poll with 50 people agreeing to X can also fail to show consensus for X, if there is significant disagreement.

What threshold is needed for you to unilaterally edit the wiki with your own opinion instead of reverting the wiki to it's original state? There was no consensus to remove rankings.

[Goregasmic]

What threshold is needed for you to unilaterally edit the wiki with your own opinion instead of reverting the wiki to it's original state? There was no consensus to remove rankings.

Imo it should remain as loraen intended and if we want to do a different challenge with different rules people can start their own.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Imo it should remain as loraen intended and if we want to do a different challenge with different rules people can start their own.

I agree. That is what I have been advocating for this entire thread.

[loramin]

You mean these rules (https://wiki.project1999.com/Loraen%27s_Solo_Artist_Challenge#Rules) ... which have remained unchanged in the wiki through this entire temper tantrum of a thread? I agree.

Now, I did just rename them to "Loraen's" (before they said "Kunark Version"), as I wanted to keep that encyclopedia page vs. named page distinction. But nothing changed.

Loraen's version has remained in the wiki, unchanged, this entire time: it was the (unnamed) "Solo Artist" page that I created to build consensus for a better challenge ... and when it failed to be that, I removed the offending parts.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You mean these rules (https://wiki.project1999.com/Loraen%27s_Solo_Artist_Challenge#Rules) ... which have remained unchanged through this entire temper tantrum of a thread? I agree.

Yes. Revert this page: https://wiki.project1999.com/Solo_Artist_Challenge

Back to Lorean's ruleset, as no consensus was reached to change the solo artist challenge page by your own standard of consensus. There is no clear majority vote that is like 50 to 1.

[loramin]

Yes. Revert this page: https://wiki.project1999.com/Solo_Artist_Challenge

No: you don't get to make the wiki worse for everyone.

Zura is doing great working trying to add Velious mobs to it (ie. the entire reason I made it) ... just not in this dumpster fire of a thread.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No: you don't get to make the wiki worse for everyone. Zura is doing great working trying to add Velious mobs to it (ie. the entire reason I made it).

He did not add velious mobs to it before, he changed the ranking system without consent. Thats the entire discussion.

You don't get to make worse either.

It is amazing that you just tried to pretend that Zuranthium was simply adding velious mobs in this thread lol.

[Samoht]

I love how people who never had to deal with Lorean are in this thread trying to use his work as some sort of measuring stick when in reality Lorean was terrible at actually seeing beyond the end of his own nose. The SAC was just one of many examples.

[loramin]

I love how people who never had to deal with Lorean are in this thread trying to use his work as some sort of measuring stick when in reality Lorean was terrible at actually seeing beyond the end of his own nose. The SAC was just one of many examples.

I have to strongly disagree with this. I re-read at least the first fifty pages of that thread (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80165) recently, and Loraen was an absolute gentleman. There was no DSM-like arguing with everyone who disagreed with him.

To the contrary, several times throughout that thread he considers a poster's disagreement and updates the challenge to be better as a result. It's a perfect example of how consensus is possible, even in this forum.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I have to strongly disagree with this. I re-read at least the first fifty pages of that thread (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80165) recently, and Loraen was an absolute gentleman. There was no DSM-like arguing with everyone who disagreed with him.

To the contrary, several times throughout that thread he considers a poster's disagreement and updates the challenge to be better as a result. It's a perfect example of how consensus is possible, even in this forum.

Why do you only ever blame me lol? There was no poor behavior by Samoht or Zuranthium or yourself in this thread?

[Samoht]

I have to strongly disagree with this. I re-read at least the first fifty pages of that thread (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80165) recently, and Loraen was an absolute gentleman. There was no DSM-like arguing with everyone who disagreed with him.

To the contrary, several times throughout that thread he considers a poster's disagreement and updates the challenge to be better as a result. It's a perfect example of how consensus is possible, even in this forum.

Go read the shit he posted about enchantering and such. He was so wrong about so many topics and all of the evidence he could provide was anecdotal at best. He'd test things for fewer than 10 iterations and declare them as fact.

[loramin]

Their behavior was at times bad also, but they at least were genuine.

You have to understand, lots of people in this forum disagree with each other, and sometimes even say mean things to each other. But you are uniquely disengenuous.

To expand on that, when Ripzoko pops into a thread with a hot take on something, everyone in the community knows he's just being contrarian to troll, because he doesn't pretend otherwise.

But you pretend to be a normal, rational person ... and then ruin every conversation you participate in by being insanely disengenuous. NO ONE ELSE IN THIS FORUM DOES THAT.

[loramin]

Go read the shit he posted about enchantering and such. He was so wrong about so many topics and all of the evidence he could provide was anecdotal at best. He'd test things for fewer than 10 iterations and declare them as fact.

Oh, he may well have been (I'm not going to go read the threads, and I don't play an Enchanter, but I have no reason to disbelieve you).

I'm just saying he knew how to throw out a cool idea, and then work with the community to build a better version of that idea through consensus. And the Solo Artist Challenge absolutely was a cool idea.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Their behavior was at times bad also, but they at least were genuine.

You have to understand, lots of people in this forum disagree with each other, and sometimes even say mean things to each other. But you are uniquely disengenuous.

To expand on that, when Ripzoko pops into a thread with a hot take on something, everyone in the community knows he's just being contrarian to troll, because he doesn't pretend otherwise.

But you pretend to be a normal, rational person ... and then ruin every conversation you participate in by being insanely disengenuous. NO ONE ELSE IN THIS FORUM DOES THAT.

So you believe literal trolling from Samoht and Zuranthium is fine if they match your definition of "genuine"? Genuine trolls get to troll the wiki and OP and break the rules because they are "genuinely" acting like the assholes they are?

[loramin]

Again, everyone else in this entire forum falls into two categories.

1) Rational human - these people frequently disagree with each other ... but they do so on top of a layer of decency. If A and B disagree, A can listen to why B disagrees, and either change their mind, or they can convince B to change his opinion. Ultimatley, there's a presumption that everyone is playing for the same side, truth, and that you "win" by getting everyone to see the truth of reality.

2) Trolls - these people disagree for illogical reasons. They can't be convinced to change their opinion, because they don't actually believe in it.

Now both Samo and Zura probably fell into category #2 at some point in this thread (I'm too lazy to go back and find examples, but I think I remember it). However, they were explicitly trolling you when they were.

You, again, are unique ... and not in a good way. You are the forum's only

3) Falsely sincere disengenuous poster - you engage in conversations to prove your brilliance and win forum fights, but when a disagreement arises there is zero chance you will listen to the other side: in fact, if they present more logical evidence, you will just double down on stupid, and keep arguing against that logic no matter what.

Ask yourself this: is any other poster so insecure about their posts that they feel the need to always get the last word in? No, because they care about truth and reality: they know that "winning" a forum thread by repeating the wrong thing until everyone gives up on talking to you isn't really winning anything.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Again, everyone else in this entire forum falls into two categories.

1) Rational human - these people frequently disagree with each other ... but they do so on top of a layer of decency. If A and B disagree, A can listen to why B disagrees, and either change their mind, or they can convince B to change his opinion. Ultimatley, there's a presumption that everyone is playing for the same side, truth, and that you "win" by getting everyone to see the truth of reality.

2) Trolls - these people disagree for illogical reasons. They can't be convinced to change their opinion, because they don't actually believe in it.

Now both Samo and Zura probably fell into category #2 at some point in this thread (I'm too lazy to go back and find examples, but I think I remember it). However, they were explicitly trolling you when they were.

You, again, are unique ... and not in a good way. You are the forum's only

3) Falsely sincere disengenuous poster - you engage in conversations to prove your brilliance and when forum fights, but when a disagreement arises there is zero chance you will listen to the other side: in fact, if they present more logical evidence, you will just double down on stupid, and keep arguing against that logic no matter what.

Ask yourself this: is any other poster so insecure about their posts that they feel the need to always get the last word in? No, because they care about truth and reality: they know that "winning" a forum thread by repeating the wrong thing until everyone gives up on talking to you isn't really winning anything.

You have repeated this delusion probably 100+ times now. Nobody cares how you fantasize about me. This ruins any chance at pretending you can be impartial when it comes to a disagreement between myself and another poster.

Why can't you just admit Samoht and Zuranthium trolled the wiki? Do you honestly believe they were acting in good faith in this thread?

[loramin]

Why can't you act in good faith, in all threads? You cause so much damage with the way you post currently (this thread being example numero unno). Just stop, and post like all the other reasonable people.

[Goregasmic]

Go read the shit he posted about enchantering and such. He was so wrong about so many topics and all of the evidence he could provide was anecdotal at best. He'd test things for fewer than 10 iterations and declare them as fact.

His enchanter guide is pretty fucking solid to this day, you'll have to point to specific cases and even then you'd probably be nitpicking. Honestly for a while I wanted to make a new one but I figured 80-90% of it would basically be loraen's.

His SAC is the yardstick because he made the first and only one so if we're to come up with a new one it should at least be better. Getting all those kills done is a lot of work.

[loramin]

And to be clear, I don't care what you post: argue that X is or isn't a viable solo target. I truly don't care which.

Just post honestly and genuinely.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Why can't you act in good faith, in all threads? You cause so much damage with the way you post currently (this thread being example numero unno). Just stop, and post like all the other reasonable people.

Why can't you just admit Samoht and Zuranthium trolled the wiki? Do you honestly believe they were acting in good faith in this thread?

Even if everything you say about me is 100% true (which it isn't), it doesn't excuse Zuranthium and Samoht trolling the wiki, or you defending their actions.

[loramin]

Maybe you haven't noticed, but this forum has trolls. They aren't going away, even if they do hurt your feelings.

Be a big boy like all the other rational posters in the forum: ignore the trolls.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Maybe you haven't noticed, but this forum has trolls. They aren't going away, even if they do hurt your feelings.

Be a big boy and ignore the trolls.

So you endorse trolling the wiki then simply because trolls exist? Either you think Zuranthium and Samoht didn't troll the wiki, or you think they did but you don't care. Remember you are a wiki admin. Which one is it?

[loramin]

No, I endorse only punishing someone when it's 100% clear to me they knew they shouldn't be doing what they were doing.

Those two edited a page that invited everyone to edit it. If you could get punished for editing a wiki page that invites you to edit it, how could that possibly be fair? Its like some kind of "gotcha" trap.

But consider another example: you knew no one wanted to read Zura's post in the wiki. You also knew Zura didn't want it there. And I know you knew, because I saw you undo his attempt to remove it eight times in the wiki history.

Does that clarify the difference for you?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No, I endorse only punishing someone when it's 100% clear to me they knew they shouldn't be doing what they were doing.

Those two edited a page that invited everyone to edit it. If you could get punished for editing a wiki page that invites you to edit it, how could that possibly be fair? Its like some kind of "gotcha" trap.

But consider another example: you knew no one wanted to read Zura's post in the wiki. You also knew Zura didn't want it there. And I know you knew, because I saw you undo his attempt to remove it eight times in the wiki history.

Does that clarify the difference for you?

Two things. The first thing is I caught you in yet another lie:


3) Falsely sincere disengenuous poster - you engage in conversations to prove your brilliance and win forum fights, but when a disagreement arises there is zero chance you will listen to the other side: in fact, if they present more logical evidence, you will just double down on stupid, and keep arguing against that logic no matter what.


Recently Zuranthium specifically called out a flaw in my DPS calculator. I found out it was true, and fixed it. I admitted I was wrong too. So you are a liar when it comes to what you think has happened regarding me and other posters, even ones I've disagreed with in this very thread.

Secondly, if everyone is allowed to edit, why did you remove Sscalez's changes but kept Zuranthium's changes for a week while the wiki was locked?

[loramin]

You're right: you found a single (by far the most minimal example possible) of you admitting another poster is right about something.

But you're wrong (and stupid) if you take every word I ever write literally, or if you think one example negates the hundreds of counter examples.

Secondly, if everyone is allowed to edit, why did you remove Sscalez's changes but kept Zuranthium's changes for a week while the wiki was locked?

I didn't: I just froze the page for a week without picking any side.

Someone was on top when I froze it; they got to have the page there way ... a page that no one outside of this thread read, for just one week ... which did not hurt anyone in any way ... except it clearly hurt your feelings.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You're right: you found a single (by far the most minimal example possible) of you admitting another poster is right about something.

But you're wrong (and stupid) if you think one example negates the hundreds of counter examples.

There are more examples, you just didn't read them, like everything else. You are a confirmed liar.

Why did you remove Sscalez changes while keeping Zur's if everyone can edit?

[loramin]

You literally have one example in that post.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You literally have one example in that post.

If you really want I can find multiple examples, but we all know you will just dodge again. Unless you promise to admit you were wrong if I can find more?

Do you agree to admit defeat instead of dodging if I do this?

[loramin]

Why did you remove Sscalez changes while keeping Zur's if everyone can edit?

You are literally making shit up now: the entire edit history is fully available:https://wiki.project1999.com/index.php?title=Solo_Artist_Challenge&action=history

I didn't remove anyone's anything: I froze the page, for a week (and then after that week I removed the rankings).

[loramin]

If you really want I can find multiple examples, but we all know you will just dodge again. Unless you promise to admit you were wrong if I can find more?

Do you agree to admit defeat instead of dodging if I do this?

I'll promise to admit that I'm wrong if you provide legitimate evidence, that a reasonable person would agree with, that I am wrong. And that applies to anything, not this one point.

But I've already read the evidence: I've read hundreds, if not thousands of your posts already.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You are literally making shit up now: the entire edit history is fully available:https://wiki.project1999.com/index.php?title=Solo_Artist_Challenge&action=history

I didn't remove anyone's anything: I froze the page, for a week.

Sscalez made changes after the wiki unlocked. You deleted them lol.

[loramin]

Sscalez made changes after the wiki unlocked. You deleted them lol.

Ok, if we are talking after the lock, that's a different story. Stop shifting goalposts, it's not something honest people do.

After the lock there was no invititation to edit the page. In fact, to the contrary, I put a very clear warning in red at the top, saying don't mess with this page unless you're doing so to benefit the community.

Someone who edited the page ignored my warning. I put them on a timeout (as I did to you) and removed those edits.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Ok, if we are talking after the lock, that's a different story. Stop shifting goalposts, it's not something honest people do.

After the lock there was no invititation to edit the page: to the contrary, I put a very clear warning, in red, at the top, saying don't mess with this page unless you're doing so to benefit the community.

Someone edited the page ignored my warning. I put them on a timeout (as I did to you) and removed those edits.

You can split hairs if you want. The reality of the situation is Zuranthium got to keep his changes for a week, and Sscalez got his changes deleted quickly.

I need to go do something right but I'll find multiple examples of me admitting I am wrong and post them. You better not dodge again.

[loramin]

Are you five years old?

Spell it out for me: what terrible thing happened when a wiki page no one but you and four other losers read was "wrong" for a week?

I'll tell you a good thing: I didn't have to deal with this nonsense for a week :)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Are you five? Spell it out for me: what terrible thing happened when a wiki page no one but you and four other losers read for a week was "wrong"?

They edited the ranking system specifically to troll OP and lower his rank. They didn't do it to improve the wiki.

[Samoht]

Are you five years old?

Spell it out for me: what terrible thing happened when a wiki page no one but you and four other losers read was "wrong" for a week?

Didn't you know? The community suffered!

[loramin]

They edited the ranking system specifically to troll OP and lower his rank. They didn't do it to improve the wiki.

See, this is the point were an ordinary person, confronted with overwhelming evidence, would change their opinion.

Any normal, genuine person would admit: "you know what Loramin: you're right, there was no harm. It bothered the hell out of me, but we're both rational humans who can see that no one was hurt in any way."

But instead you just double down on stupid, and this is why no one can have a meaningful converstaion with you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

See, this is the point were an ordinary person, confronted with overwhelming evidence, would change their opinion.

Any normal, genuine person would admit: "you know what Loramin: you're right, there was no harm. It bothered the hell out of me, but we're both rational humans who can see that no one was hurt in any way."

But instead you just double down on stupid, and this is why no one can have a meaningful converstaion with you.

If no one was hurt, why can't we just change the wiki back? Nobody would be hurt.

[loramin]

Why are you posting?

[loramin]

Serious question: what are you hoping to achieve by engaging in this conversation with me?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Serious question: what are you hoping to achieve by engaging in this conversation with me?

I want you to do your job as a wiki admin, and act impartial while doing it. You failed on both counts.

OP was hurt by the trolling, to the point where he said he didn't want to post anymore. How does that help the community?

[loramin]

I want you to do your job as a wiki admin, and act impartial while doing it. You failed on both counts.

If you're right and I've failed at being a wiki admin ... that's already happened: this conversation can't change it.

If you're wrong and I've been a proper admin, more conversation certainly won't convince you of it.

So again I ask:

Serious question: what are you hoping to achieve by engaging in this conversation with me?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If you're right and I've failed at being a wiki admin ... that's already happened: this conversation can't change it.

If you're wrong and I've been a proper admin, more conversation certainly won't convince you of it.

So again I ask:

You need to revert the wiki back to its original state. No consensus was made, and the page without the ranking is broken.

[loramin]

So what part of my "encyclopedia part vs. personal part" of the wiki explanation didn't make sense to you?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So what part of my "encyclopedia part vs. personal part" of the wiki explanation didn't make sense to you?

You honestly keep contradicting yourself. You say consensus can change the wiki page, but no consensus was made. The page was changed unliaterally to match your opinion. You accepted Zuranthium's changes, and deleted Sscalez changes.

[loramin]

But again, what are you trying to achieve?

The page currently, like every other un-credited page in the wiki, has only universally agreed upon information. Are you against that policy, of the wiki being like an encyclopedia?

The fact that Gruplinort is a "Disciple" level difficulty mob has not been contradicted by anyone. To the contrary, there's a long solo artist thread where everyone seems to agree it is that level. By my call, that's encylopedia-like information: do you disagree?

But, the fact that Loraen (many years ago, before Velious even existed) felt this way or that way about what counts as an "S+" is not: there is clear disagreement in the community as to what "S+" (or whatever rankings) should mean. Do you feel that personal view belongs on the community page?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

But again, what are you trying to achieve?

The page currently, like every other un-credited page in the wiki, has only universally agreed upon information. Are you against that policy, of the wiki being like an encyclopedia?

The fact that Gruplinort is a "Disciple" level difficulty mob has not been contradicted by anyone. To the contrary, there's a long solo artist thread where everyone seems to agree it is that level. By my call, that's encylopedia-like information: do you disagree?

But, the fact that Loraen (many years ago, before Velious even existed) felt this way or that way about what counts as an "S+" is not: there is clear disagreement in the community as to what "S+" (or whatever rankings) should mean. Do you feel that personal view belongs on the community page?

I told you. Revert the wiki page until the the changes can be agreed upon. It's really that simple, and how other wikis operate. The admin does not revert troll changes by modifying the wiki to suit their own opinion.

[loramin]

And I told you, the wiki policy is not to have personal opinions on community pages. Do you object to that policy?

Reverting the page to the point you want would restore rankings, but as this thread has made painfully clear, rankings are not neutral content.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

And I told you, the wiki policy is not to have personal opinions on community pages. Do you object to that policy?

Reverting the page to the point you want would restore rankings, but as this thread has made painfully clear, rankings are not neutral content.

You do realize that your opinion on rankings is just that... an opinion. You put your own opinion onto the wiki by removing the rankings. The community did not agree to this.

[loramin]

Do you feel that the rankings are neutral, encyclopedia-like content, or do you feel that the wiki shouldn't be constrained to only have encyclopedia-like content?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So, do you feel that the rankings are neutral, encyclopedia-like content, or do you feel that the wiki shouldn't be constrained to only have encyclopedia-like content?

The rankings haven't been changed in like 10 years. That is a pretty good metric to me. Much better than this thread.

[loramin]

In all seriousness ... on page 110 of this particular thread ... you are honestly going to try and argue that rankings are neutral content?

All this bluster, all this fighting ... all because it's not enough for the wiki to have Loraen's rankings on Loraen's page? You feel so strongly that the rankings are neutral, and belong in the neutral part of the wiki ... despite a hundred pages of fighting over what the rankings should be ... that you needed to do all this?

Really?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

In all seriousness ... on page 110 of this particular thread ... you are honestly going to try and argue that rankings are neutral content?

All this bluster, all this fighting ... all because it's not enough for the wiki to have Loraen's rankings on Loraen's page? You feel so strongly that the rankings are neutral, and belong in the neutral part of the wiki ... despite a hundred pages of fighting over what the rankings should be ... that you needed to do all this?

Really?

The rankings have been there for 10+ years. The community did not agree to your opinion that they should be removed. If they agreed with you, the rankings would have been removed already.

[loramin]

So something old can't be contentious? Is that your argument?

Also, might I remind you that wiki page was created less than six years ago, and for the vast majority of its life it was edited peacefully by genuine people trying to make something good for others (including Loraen himself).

If you and the other children hadn't acted like children, maybe the rankings might have stayed, but as a direct result of your (y'all's? why doesn't English have a plural pronoun for your?) actions they had to be removed.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So something old can't be contentious? Is that your argument?

Also, might I remind you that wiki page was created less than six years ago, and for the vast majority of its life it was edited peacefully by genuine people trying to make something good for others (including Loraen himself I might add).

If you and the other children hadn't acted like children, maybe the rankings might have stayed, but as a direct result of your (y'all's? why doesn't English have a plural pronoun for you?) actions they had to be removed.

The wiki page can be changed with community consensus. That is your opinion as well if I understood you correctly. Consensus was not reached to remove rankings or accept Zuranthium's edits. I am just asking you to literally follow your own standards when you use your admin powers.

[loramin]

The policy is simple: if it's not clearly neutral content, it doesn't belong on the wiki (except on "personal" pages). I've asked before if you agree with this policy, and you don't answer, so I'll assume you agree it's a good policy.

BTW, your entire context on this off. This was not a museum sculpture that I came and hit with a hammer. I made the page, and it was never meant to be a historical record of Loraen's solo artist challenge! I mean, it literally said as much at the top of the page. Loraen's page (what used to be called the "Kunark version") already has that version.

The point of the page was to serve as a place for interested parties to collaborate and improve on the challenge, eg. by adding Velious mobs. And again, it all worked just fine for years until you arrived and decided it wasn't any of the things I'd said it was. You decided it was the official judge of how people solo their character, and you felt passionately that your opinion had to be the right one, so you and the others edited it, badly.

Again, as a result of your misunderstanding, a fight broke out on that page ... and at that point it was clear the page no longer met wiki policy, because wiki content is not "fight over" content. As soon as it was clear it didn't meet the wiki standards, I removed it.

If you disagree, what part of that specifically do you disagree with?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The policy is simple: if it's not clearly neutral content, it doesn't belong on the wiki (except on "personal" pages). I've asked before if you agree with this policy, and you don't answer, so I'll assume you agree it's a good policy.

Also, your entire context on this off. This was not a museum sculpture that I came and hit with a hammer. I made the page, and it was never meant to be a historical record of Loraen's solo artist challenge! It said as much at the top of the page! Loraen's page (what used to be called the "Kunark version") already has that version.

The point of the page was to serve as a place for interested parties to collaborate and improve on the challenge, eg. by adding Velious mobs. And again, it all worked just fine for years until you arrived and decided it wasn't any of the things I'd said it was. You decided it was the official judge of how people solo their character, and you felt passionately that your opinion had to be the right one.

Again, as a result of your misunderstanding, a fight broke out on that page ... and at that point it was clear the page no longer met wiki policy, because wiki content is not "fight over" content. As soon as it was clear it didn't meet the wiki standards, I removed it.

If you disagree, what part of that specifically do you disagree with?

I disagree with your idea of "neutral content". The rankings were created 10+ years ago, you just copied them onto the newer page that you literally created.

Why did you allow bad content on the wiki for 10+ years if you think it broke the rules? Why did you copy it into the new page?

[loramin]

YOU YOURSELF FOUGHT OVER THE RANKS WITH OTHER PEOPLE!

IN WHAT DEFINITION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE COULD YOU POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND THAT TO MEAN "NEUTRAL"!?!?!?!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

YOU YOURSELF FOUGHT OVER THE RANKS WITH OTHER PEOPLE!

IN WHAT DEFINITION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE COULD YOU POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND THAT TO MEAN "NEUTRAL"!?!?!?!

Loramin. Can you please read the thread? The people who started fighting with OP over ranks wasn't me. It was Zuranthium and Samoht. I was defending OP from getting trolled, and OP specifically thanked me for defending him.

[loramin]

Why did you allow bad content on the wiki for 10+ years if you think it broke the rules? Why did you copy it into the new page?

Jesus H. Christ, you are five years old. I allowed it because A) I'm not omniscient: I don't know what's happening on every wiki page (or even every one I've created), and B) until a bunch of assholes started fighting about it, it was uncontroversial (for ten years).

And as for your last question, I literally answered in my previous post (ie. it's for collaboration). You truly don't even read what I write.

[loramin]

Loramin. Can you please read the thread? The people who started fighting with OP over ranks wasn't me. It was Zuranthium and Samoht. I was defending OP from getting trolled, and OP specifically thanked me for defending him.

How does that make it neutral?

[bcbrown]

I think the wiki page is better without the ranks.

[loramin]

You know what DSM, I thought I had you genuinely talking to me for a minute there, but it's clear that's gone. We're done pretending you can hold a normal human conversation for today.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

How does that make it neutral?

It was neutral for the years it was on the page you created. Two trolls attacked OP and the wiki. That isn't a community agreement that rankings are no longer neutral. That is two trolls defacing the wiki, and they should have been suspended for it. Your failure as a wiki admin caused this mess, as you refused to do your job impartially.

[loramin]

I think the wiki page is better without the ranks.

I mean, I think it'd be even better if the community could come up with something we all agree on.

Maybe not "ranks", but if not, then "descriptors" of some sort. If soloer #1 has to say "I soloed Froggy with three widgets, four whatzits, 17.5 wort potions, and here's my list of eighteen buffs ...", it's not as easy to share that solo, or compare it with other people's solos.

But if you can say "I soloed Froggy self-buffed, with no potions and weak clickies", and everyone is on the same page, everything is just a bit simpler. And I do think the community can agree on a set of "classifications", because the old ranks were halfway there already.

Plus, with that approach you remove the "you get X solo points for not having Y" element from things, which removes a lot of the need for flame wars. People just need to have objective conversations about which things make sense to be grouped together.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I mean, I think it'd be even better if the community could come up with something we all agree on.

Maybe not "ranks", but if not, then "descriptors" of some sort. If soloer #1 has to say "I soloed Froggy with three widgets, four whatzits, 17.5 wort potions, and here's my list of eighteen buffs ...", it's not as easy to share that solo, or compare it with other people's solos.

But if you can say "I soloed Froggy self-buffed, with no potions and weak clickies", everything is just a bit simpler. And I do think the community can agree on a set of "classifications", because the old ranks were halfway there already.

Plus, with that approach you remove the "you get X solo points for not having Y" element from things, which removes a lot of the need for flame wars. People just need to have objective conversations about which things make sense to be grouped together.

There weren't any flame wars for the years the ranks were on the wiki. Two trolls defaced the wiki, and you are deleting rankings for everyone instead of doing your job and punishing rule breakers.

The problem isn't the rankings. The problem is you can't admit you are wrong, and are coming up with the worst solution for everybody to cover that up.

[loramin]

Congratulations DSM: I've only done this maybe twice in the entire history of using this forum, but ... you've now been added to my ignore list.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Congratulations DSM: I've only done this maybe twice in the entire history of using this forum, but ... you've now been added to my ignore list.

Great. Now you will stop attacking me in every thread I am a part of with lies. Hopefully you will stop trolling now. You are a problem on these forums.

I am not sure why you think this is a punishment. There will be less of your spam in all threads moving forward!

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

[Skarne]

I feel like in another life you two would be great friends. Some world, eh!?

[loramin]

I feel like in another life you two would be great friends. Some world, eh!?

Maybe ... but he'd be that friend that always drives me crazy if we were :)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I feel like in another life you two would be great friends. Some world, eh!?

Loramin is fine when he isn't tunnel visioning into me and blaming me for everything on these forums, while ignoring all other bad behavior.

For some reason he just got super flustered recently when I disagreed with him about an item. He's been following me around in many threads and attacking me with his same delusuions and lies over and over. Even when he'd never posted in the thread before. I already disproved his lies, but he doesn't care about facts when he acts like this.

Hopefully this will calm him down, and teach him to stop spamming threads. Maybe he will re-read this thread and realize how he abused his wiki powers and sided with trolls over OP, who was just trying to show off a cool video.

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

[Zuranthium]

Maybe not "ranks", but if not, then "descriptors" of some sort.

That's already what the tiers are now. Certain people are just treating them like ranks, instead of the factual categorizations that they are of how someone soloed something.

With that approach you remove the "you get X solo points for not having Y" element from things, which removes a lot of the need for flame wars.

This doesn't exist in the first place. Everyone already gets their God tier kills recognized regardless of how they did it and everyone already gets the same title of Solo Master/Grandmaster/God/Legend.

The entirety of the flame war of this thread is because 2 people are incapable of acknowledging that soloing without outside buffs/consumables is a common way of playing the game and needs to be recognized as its own thing.

[bcbrown]

Maybe not "ranks", but if not, then "descriptors" of some sort. If soloer #1 has to say "I soloed Froggy with three widgets, four whatzits, 17.5 wort potions, and here's my list of eighteen buffs ...", it's not as easy to share that solo, or compare it with other people's solos.

Yeah, I think standardized descriptors would be way more informative and less controversial. Stryker's right that self-buffed vs outside buffs is vastly different for melee vs casters. I don't think there's any easy or non-controversial way to rank that. But it should be non-controversial and semi-straightforward to categorize the various sorts of ways that make a kill easier or harder.

I also have a general uneasiness with the idea of it being competitive. Whether or not an encounter is trivial for someone playing another class just doesn't factor into whether or not I'm proud of my ability to have successfully killed it solo. Sure, the Ghoul Lord and the Froglok King aren't especially rare solo kills. But I attempted both, had a couple failed attempts, one or two deaths, and in the end soloed both. I'm proud of that and don't care whether anyone else cares.

I tried to solo an Ice Burrower yesterday, made like three attempts, wasn't successful. I'm sure I'll be able to succeed one of these days, and that accomplishment for myself won't be cheapened even if someone else thinks it's trivial because it doesn't summon and can be kited around.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

That's already what the tiers are now. Certain people are just treating them like ranks, instead of the factual categorizations that they are of how someone soloed something.



This doesn't exist in the first place. Everyone already gets their God tier kills recognized regardless of how they did it and everyone already gets the same title of Solo Master/Grandmaster/God/Legend.

The entirety of the flame war of this thread is because 2 people are incapable of acknowledging that soloing without outside buffs/consumables is a common way of playing the game and needs to be recognized as its own thing.

Remember when you said nothing is solo unless it is self buffed no consumables? You were claiming OP did not do a solo kill.

Remember when you wrote a fan fic where OP literally gets tortured?

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=442054

[Skarne]

Loramin is fine when he isn't tunnel visioning into me and blaming me for everything on these forums, while ignoring all other bad behavior.

For some reason he just got super flustered recently when I disagreed with him about an item. He's been following me around in many threads and attacking me with his same delusuions and lies over and over. Even when he'd never posted in the thread before. I already disproved his lies, but he doesn't care about facts when he acts like this.

Hopefully this will calm him down, and teach him to stop spamming threads. Maybe he will re-read this thread and realize how he abused his wiki powers and sided with trolls over OP, who was just trying to show off a cool video.

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

What a whack way to get another jab in.

[bcbrown]

What a whack way to get another jab in.

My favorite part is the little "back on topic" copy/paste after the off-topic stuff.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

What a whack way to get another jab in.

If you say so. At the end of the day Loramin will now no longer attack me across multiple threads, spamming them with nonsense.

That is a win for everyone.

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

[Zuranthium]

Remember when you said nothing is solo unless it is self buffed no consumables? You were claiming OP did not do a solo kill.

That's my own personal definition of the word solo and is a different thing than a tier system, which obviously recognizes different variations of soloing.

Too bad this has been said 100 times now and you still fail to comprehend.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

:(That's my own personal definition of the word solo and is a different thing than a tier system, which obviously recognizes different variations of soloing.

Too bad this has been said 100 times now and you still fail to comprehend.

Thank you for admitting it is now your personal definition and not the definition of solo other people agree with. There was no reason for you to unilaterally edit the wiki tiers to reflect your personal definition.

And yes, you claimed your personal definition was fact:

You two clowns are incapable of comprehending the simplest things people say.

Solo means no outside buffs and no consumables. That's the ENTIRE discussion that's been taking placing in this thread from the start, and was explicitly stated yet again in the post you quoted. Jesus christ.

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/

[Zuranthium]

Getting an outside buff factually requires another player. That's not a personal opinion. Exactly as the quote says, LOL, you are incapable of comprehending the simplest things.

I'm not interested in debating any further semantics and strawmans on the topic. You waste everyone's time.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Getting an outside buff factually requires another player. That's not a personal opinion. Exactly as the quote says, LOL, you are incapable of comprehending the simplest things.

I'm not interested in debating any further semantics and strawmans on the topic. You waste everyone's time.

See? One post later and your personal definition is a "fact" again.

Multiple posters, including myself, disagree with your personal definition that getting outside buffs turns a solo kill into a group kill.

Factually speaking a logged out character cannot group with another player. The Enchanter, Shaman, and Cleric who buffed OP did not interact with OP's Fungi King kill at all. The video evidence proves this. OP did the kill 100% solo.

I've already done the math showing VoG + Aego + FoS was like 7-8 wort pot charges for OP's video. There is no reason mathematically to punish OP for wanting to save 1600pp on a 10 Dose Wort Pot.


https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3747171&postcount=651

Here is the math showing the wort pot equivalent to OP's buffs of VoG + Aego + FoS. In that post I said 10 charges, but I forgot to include OP's regen and the fact he could use stave of shielding or dain hammer without those buffs. So its really like 7-8 wort pot charges if OP didn't have VoG + Aego + FoS. This is like 2100-2400 HP, which is less than a reaper. OP has 3.7k HP withpout FoS + Aego, and without Major/Arch Shielding.

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

[Ripqozko]

Back on topic

**RAID ATTENDANCE Deathssilkymist#0**```md
+ Last Week: 0/33 (0%)
+ Last Month: 0/373 (0%)
+ Last 3 Months: 0/1239 (0%)
+ Life: 7/1718 (0%)
```

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Back on topic

**RAID ATTENDANCE Deathssilkymist#0**```md
+ Last Week: 0/33 (0%)
+ Last Month: 0/373 (0%)
+ Last 3 Months: 0/1239 (0%)
+ Life: 7/1718 (0%)
```

Sscalez is in fuse too. Not really sure what your point is. You should be defending fellow guild mates from attacks, rather than piling on.

Sscalez posted a great video. Trolls shouldn't be trying to ruin it.

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

[Stryker85]

Sscalez is in fuse too. Not really sure what your point is. You should be defending fellow guild mates from attacks, rather than piling on.

Sscalez posted a great video. Trolls shouldn't be trying to ruin it.

Back on topic:

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

DSM, I appreciate the effort, but I think it's time to just let this go bud. There's no point in arguing with the trolls, you won't get through to them. Any well adjusted reasonable adult can see for themselves what happened here. Let's not spend another 110+ pages going back and forth about it.

In fact, if any admins have the power to do so, I formally request an orbital strike to nuke this whole fuckin thread into oblivion. We should all just forget any of this ever happened. There was no spore king solo - nothing to see here. Move along please.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

DSM, I appreciate the effort, but I think it's time to just let this go bud. There's no point in arguing with the trolls, you won't get through to them. Any well adjusted reasonable adult can see for themselves what happened here. Let's not spend another 110+ pages going back and forth about it.

In fact, if any admins have the power to do so, I formally request an orbital strike to nuke this whole fuckin thread into oblivion. We should all just forget any of this ever happened. There was no spore king solo - nothing to see here. Move along please.

I am sorry the trolls destroyed your thread, and a wiki admin let you down by siding with the trolls at every opportunity.

I don't think they will delete the thread based on what I have seen, but it would be welcome.

Thanks for sharing the great video!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

[Ripqozko]

**RAID ATTENDANCE Deathssilkymist#0**```md
+ Last Week: 0/33 (0%)
+ Last Month: 0/373 (0%)
+ Last 3 Months: 0/1239 (0%)
+ Life: 7/1718 (0%)
```

[Duik]

Only people who actually partake in the solo challenge AND who video it should have a say in what does and does not go into a tier or rankings

I see DSM posts his vids. Sscalesz too. Others as well but i am yet to see anyone else post a proof of success (or a fail even) to show what it takes to complete a challenge.

I can see those that wanna make sure they get the highest ranking possible. To those I say just post a video, say why you think it deserves a (X) rank and see what comes of it.

[Duik]

I can see an alternate league type thing going down here.

This is MY version of what goodboy A+ ranking is...

[shovelquest]

Should we allow performance dehancing drugs?

[Duik]

For you yes, your inherant superiority is an obvious advantage.

[Wakanda]

What the hell happened in this thread for it to be 130 pages long lmao. Can Grok give me the TL;DR?

[Duik]

Everybody wants to be right. Certain people cannot agree, even if they theoretically do.
People are different with differing expectations/assumptions and cannot believe that their take is in any way incorrect.
Also everyone else is an idiot/cuck/arsehole/woke etc.

That is near enuf.

[kjs86z2]

lol i went on vacation a week and a half ago

come back, 115 pages, almost 400 replies from DSM

sounds about right

[Crede]

What the hell happened in this thread for it to be 130 pages long lmao. Can Grok give me the TL;DR?

Simple formula really - Controversial topic plus deathsilkymist copy/paste/nonsense = 1000+ posts.

The DSM part is obvious, but the controversy comes from people using a 2012 kunark post as the scoring metric for solo kills. It needs to evolve like any other document does, and it will.

[Ripqozko]

DSM doesn't even play the game


**RAID ATTENDANCE Deathssilkymist#0**```md
+ Last Week: 0/33 (0%)
+ Last Month: 0/373 (0%)
+ Last 3 Months: 0/1239 (0%)
+ Life: 7/1718 (0%)
```

[Samoht]

Stryker's right that self-buffed vs outside buffs is vastly different for melee vs casters.

Yeah, in Velious gear, casters are at a huge disadvantage.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Only people who actually partake in the solo challenge AND who video it should have a say in what does and does not go into a tier or rankings

I see DSM posts his vids. Sscalesz too. Others as well but i am yet to see anyone else post a proof of success (or a fail even) to show what it takes to complete a challenge.

I can see those that wanna make sure they get the highest ranking possible. To those I say just post a video, say why you think it deserves a (X) rank and see what comes of it.

I agree with this. Zuranthium and Samoht haven't really done much in the way of solo challenges to my knowledge. Zuranthium's best kill appears to be a Cliff Golem on a Druid. Posters can look at Sscalez's youtube channel and my own. Posters can look at Zuranthium and Samoht's posts. The reader can decide who is more credible.

[Zuranthium]

You've not killed anything especially challenging on your youtube channel. You can't even get more than a 100 feet into Sebilis on your SK without dying. A druid killing a cliff golem is a bigger achievement than anything you've shown, since cliff golem is the highest tier you've done and you did with a shaman (a much more powerful class).

to my knowledge

Which is close to 0. You're ignorant and keep making bad assumptions. Hardly anything I've done in game has been recorded.

Yeah, in Velious gear, casters are at a huge disadvantage.

Casters have the highest peak potential because of Enchanters and Shaman, and Necros can also do some big things, but that's just 3 of the 7 casters.

Clerics, Wizards, Mages, Druids are incapable of hitting the "God" tier rank in both Kunark and Velious. Clerics can't do hardly anything to begin with when not cheating with puppet strings and Mages are even worse off with the way p99 randomly made it so they get an aggro dump when chain casting pets. Wizards require targets that both blind and root will reliably hold on, same for Druids in any zone where an animal charm isn't available.

The whole "caster" vs "melee" thing is silly. It comes down to what an individual class can do, not some forced dichotomy.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You've not killed anything especially challenging on your youtube channel. You can't even get more than a 100 feet into Sebilis on your SK without dying. A druid killing a cliff golem is a bigger achievement than anything you've shown, since cliff golem is the highest tier you've done and you did with a shaman (a much more powerful class).

I am not sure why you are lying about videos people can simply go and watch themselves. See my signature for my youtube channel.

The highest tier kill I've done is Ionat, a 6+ Dragon, which is currently proposed as a Solo God Mode kill.

https://wiki.project1999.com/Solo_Artist_Challenge

https://youtu.be/oPxeOVuX0G8?feature=shared

Sscalez did Fungi King, who is also in the Solo God Mode kills category.

Cliff Golems are Solo Grandmaster.

Ionat is not a Solo God tier MOB. Hilarious how you're again trying to link to an extremely outdated thing on a wiki page that was written before Velious even came out.

You can keep pretending your opinion is the only one that matters if you wish. It doesn't help your cause.

[Zuranthium]

Ionat is not a Solo God tier MOB. Hilarious how you're again trying to link to an extremely outdated thing on a wiki page that was written before Velious even came out.

[Samoht]

Looks like we need to add "without exploiting major bugs" to the solo artist challenge next.

[shovelquest]

Bugs are features in classic eq!

[zelld52]

lol i went on vacation a week and a half ago

come back, 115 pages, almost 400 replies from DSM

sounds about right

Here’s a concise summary of the discussion in that thread:

�� Core Topic: Solo kill of the Myconid Spore King by a Monk ("OP")
The original poster videoed killing Fungi King solo on a monk with no consumables, earning a [S] solo rating, though there's dispute over whether that qualifies as S+ given a wiki update post-OP.

Debate 1: "Pocket cleric"/buff controversy
Multiple users argue whether it's acceptable to use outside buffs (e.g., pocket clerics) in solo challenges.

bcbrown and others express confusion about "pocket healer" usage and note the topic erupts later in the thread


Some (like Zuranthium and Stryker85) contend that allowing buffs makes melee bosses actually beatable, since pure buffs/no consumable kills for melee are “literally impossible”

Stryker85 challenged claims that many support buff restrictions, noting only “one single other person” held that view


Debate 2: Math and parsing integrity (DSM vs critics)
A user attacked DSM (DeathsSilkyMist), accusing him of ignoring math flaws and being overly argumentative .

DSM countered, identifying a regen oversight in OP's fight calculations (HP tick sources: fungi, ring, Iksar regen), which affected total heal amount.

Critics accused DSM of trolling and derailing; DSM responded that his suspension (on the official wiki) was deserved .

Overall tone
The thread regularly devolves into personal jabs, with heavy trolling, derailing, and distrust:

Calls like “Typical DSM behavior” and accusations of “constantly patrolling RnF and filling it with spam” .

Despite these distractions, others attempted to get back on topic about ranking the kill (S vs S+), regen math accuracy, and the legitimacy of outside buffs.

�� Takeaways
Solo monk kill is impressive, but its classification ([S] vs [S+]) is under debate due to rule changes.

There's a heated divide: whether solo challenges should allow any external buffs, with no strong consensus—only a few vocal proponents on each side.

The thread has been heavily sidetracked by community drama, especially surrounding DSM and criticisms of his debate style and calculations.

[Zuranthium]

There's a heated divide: whether solo challenges should allow any external buffs, with no strong consensus—only a few vocal proponents on each side.


Nobody is arguing if outside buffs should be "allowed" in solo challenge. It's allowed, it's just a different tier, and there is absolutely strong consensus that it should be a different tier.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

That AI summary got everything wrong lol. It didn't even know that Stryker85 and Zuranthium were not in agreement about buffs.


Some (like Zuranthium and Stryker85) contend that allowing buffs makes melee bosses actually beatable, since pure buffs/no consumable kills for melee are “literally impossible”


Such a bad troll.

[loramin]

there is absolutely strong consensus that it should be a different tier.

To the contrary, I'm not sure there's even a consensus that there should be tiers.

[shovelquest]

Tiers excited mainly because puppet strings were rampant back then and everyone who had them was the cock of the walk on the boards and in game and so there was debate if a priest using puppet strings was unfair compared to an enchanter becauase alose the puppet strings were like 300k to use reliably for a recharge and a pair of use ones. which at the time was very difficult to obtain, like it was not as easy to make big plat back then in 2012 2014 days, by 2015 everyone and their mother was a sploiting enchanter solo camper (much thanks to the WIKI for that teaching everyone how.... loramin :p ) but also due to tecmos doing so many tutorial videos but that's another story.

[loramin]

Tiers excited mainly because puppet strings were rampant back then and everyone who had them was the cock of the walk on the boards and in game and so there was debate if a priest using puppet strings was unfair compared to an enchanter becauase alose the puppet strings were like 300k to use reliably for a recharge and a pair of use ones. which at the time was very difficult to obtain, like it was not as easy to make big plat back then in 2012 2014 days, by 2015 everyone and their mother was a sploiting enchanter solo camper (much thanks to the WIKI for that teaching everyone how.... loramin :p ) but also due to tecmos doing so many tutorial videos but that's another story.

Tiers make sense as a way of describing a solo. I truly believe no one wants to write "I soloed a Foo with an X, a Y, a Z, five clicks of bar, six clicks of baz, 17.5 Wort potions, and oh here's my list of every buff I had ..."

But the problem with having tiers is that they turn into (essentially) a point system, where you "lose points" by having qualifiers on your solo ... and no one can agree how many "points" you should lose for each thing.

That's why, personally, I'm not sure it even makes sense to have tiers, especially on a "global" solo challenge. If each class had its own challenge, it might be possible to get everyone who plays that class to agree on how much each variable contributes ... but it just seems impossible to do for every class, in a way everyone agrees on.

[Zuranthium]

I'm not sure there's even a consensus that there should be tiers.

Of course there is.

Consensus does not mean 100% agreement or even 80% agreement. No law in the world would ever get passed (aside from in dictatorships) if that was the case. Most things get passed by barely having a majority, and 2/3'rds majority is universally recognized as consensus.

[Reiwa]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xZIFmd7QYhw/maxresdefault.jpg

[Skarne]

The consensus is that this thread is a dumpster fire.

Grats Sscalez!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Grats Sscalez!

Indeed!

Reposting OP's epic video where he kills Fungi King solo with his monk, no consumables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wONdIYAofyQ

[Varren]

How can you consider this solo when the rogue was holding the door open for him

[Teddie1056]

How can you consider this solo when the rogue was holding the door open for him
Not only that, but he was raised by a mother and father. A true solo King would involve an orphan. EZ route IMO

[shovelquest]

Someone had to build Sebilis.

[Ekco]

Someone had to build Sebilis.

According to the lore a lot of slavery was involved.

Venril Sathir was not a very nice lizard.

[shovelquest]

Im so bad at really knowing the lore in this game I love so much.

[Ekco]

he forced frogs and undead to do it iirc

[Xer0]

I'm confused by this statement. Are you saying you box if you need buffs?

of course nobody boxes they have their friends/children log their alts for them

[Jimjam]

of course nobody boxes they have their friends/children log their alts for them

Don’t forget corporations and other organisations like charities are legal people.

My charity “Rezzes for Jimjam” often logs in a clerical to help me out.

[vales]

that comment wasn't worth the necro

[kjs86z2]

#iwannabelikekelz

[Jimjam]

that comment wasn't worth the necro

Necro? Monk! Thread worth pin.