Ginger_Warrior

None so far. What a fail attempt. Maybe steve likes Carly Rae Jepson? It's a free country...

Because I don't want to be left out, here's an irrelevant (and shit) YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWAdb1vgoik Am I doing this right?

I can't name all of the MPs because Nigel Farage isn't one. Boris Johnson and Tony Blair aren't either, but at least they have been. /threadwin

Can you get warned for that? He wasn't advertising or posting anything malicious...

I can't really think of any other crime where so much energy is expended trying to put some level of blame on the victim, or trying to find an excuse for the perpetrator's actions. The fact that crime happens to be one of the most traumatic and horrifying experiences any victim of crime can go through, makes that position all the more harrowing. I have every right to go out and get drunk. Yes, it makes me vulnerable. It does not make me responsible if some guy who can't accept the answer "no" decides that actually, he'd rather make my mind up for me and abuse every basic right I have as a human being, to suit his own satisfaction.

How does getting drunk "directly contribute" to being raped? What a crass statement. I'll make no apology for being snarky this time, that's a truly appalling statement to make.

No one's saying you're a bad guy. We're not into ad hominem. We're suggesting you did something incredibly stupid and uncalled for, given the circumstances, and therefore deserve no sympathy with the position Jagex took with you.

Awww... my heart bleeds.

It might be different (in fact, probably is) in Canada.

Agreed. You might argue that their decision to get drunk isn't wise because it places them in increased danger of being raped, but it doesn't make them in part responsible for any actions that occur to them. In reply to your point; the issue is not that you're drunk necessarily. The issue is that you're so drunk, and you've impaired your mental state of health so much, that you no longer have capacity to give consent because you cannot justify why you are giving that consent, or follow the process that leads to consent. If somebody who is drunk can justify why they're buying drinks to their friends and can understand the consequences of that decision, and there's a clear process to it, they can give capacity. I referenced the Ched Evans case before. In that case, the victim was said to be slurring in speech, couldn't recall information and could just about barely stand with assistance. There's no possible way someone in that frame of mind could have capacity to give consent to another person having sex with them, and therefore no consent could have been given. Therefore, it was rape. Technically speaking, if she was as bad as that, she could have been detained under the Mental Health Act had the police been called, although this would have been unlikely since the police could also have her admitted to hospital under the same Act for her own safety, as an alternative.

You're not a fan of Bitcoins then, Tim? :P

I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you meant by it. That being drunk prevents you permission from agreeing to a contract of any nature?

It's barely any of the cases. Around one-in-two hundred if you go off the CPS's figures. Your friend was very unfortunate it went that far, and I absolutely sympathise that false allegations are ruinous to the victim of those allegations, but we shouldn't allow that to tar the whole issue when it reality, they represent such a tiny, tiny minority of rape prosecutions.

Close, but not quite. Of all of the 873 known exonerations in the study, 35% had been convicted of rape. Not the same as saying 35% of those convicted of rape were exonerated. I'll admit, I'm being very insincere here. I know full well how many rape prosecutions end in a prosecution for false allegations: As a side-note: 50% of those exonerated were African-American... interesting. I'll have to look into that some time.

good thing nobody said they didn't e- i mean i didnt actually read most of the thread so someone might have but i dunno i assume nobody said that Ginger was implying it's extremely rare and not relevant, I'm saying it is. I didn't say it was irrelevant, nor did I ask you to provide me with an anecdote (as horrible as it was); I asked you to provide me with numbers, facts, statistics. Your position seems to be that a significant number of would-be rape victims who are attacked while under influence, are actually false accusers who got drunk, slept with a man, later regretted it, and made up a story to exact one of the most evil forms of revenge imaginable. All I've asked is for you to show me how many rape accusations eventually turn out to be false accusations because of those reasons. It's the most basic rule of debating: back up what you say with evidence. Neither you or Squab (who conveniently appears to dodged the question) have done that so far.

A lot of the themes raised in this thread have also been attributed to the so-called "deaths" of other MMORPGs. I'm not sure if a lot of this criticism is about OSRS vs EoC RS specifically, or a trend that can translated generally to the genre, which when you look at the video gaming industry as a whole, is a weak genre, and getting weaker by the year. The loss of the "laid back, sociable" community can probably be explained by the recent rise of arcade-era gaming genres which are more casual-friendly, and are more able to provide the emotional experience those groups of people are wanting from a game. If there's any part of RuneScape which was most to blame for driving those groups away from RuneScape, it was probably skillcapes and their consequent unrelenting focus on achievement-setting and goal-planning, not EoC. If you accept that, you accept that the damage was done many years ago (predating OSRS) and the current situation is more a scarring from actions taken back then. I know people (and I'd hardly describe them as 'efficienados') who quite casually talk about spending seven or eight hours per day grinding a skill to achieve 99 by a certain date. No matter how much you look at EoC, while that mentality exists across the whole community, you will never attract the kind of people who only want to play/can only play for one, two, maybe three hours a day, while taking things at a slow pace so they can be more sociable and laid back. Skillcapes, more than anything else, removed any notion that you could play RuneScape on a casual basis and still hope to progress at a pace relative to anyone else around you. tl;dr -- The "death" of RuneScape's community is more likely due to competition from outside the MMORPG genre, and even if there is a problem with RuneScape driving people away, it's not likely to be EoC.

Gingy obviously has a past or someone close does with the whole topic. I was tired from work, sleep deprivation and also having to deal with some... challenging people yesterday. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have taken that tone of voice. It isn't really relevant to how I feel about the issue but, yes, one of my friends was raped and another friend was the target of a date rape in a nightclub. In a strange and almost perverse way, the latter friend was lucky that she was drugged, because it made her so physically sick that she literally couldn't have sex, so the would-be rapist freaked out and ran off before an ambulance was called and the health services put two-and-two together. Well so far in this thread, the concept of a false rape accusation only seems to have been argued as a hypothetical situation, with precious few statistics to show that it's anywhere as valid a problem as rape itself. It seems to have been tacitly implied that of rape accusations made as a whole, there's a significant number of women who will sleep with a man and cry "rape" as an act of revenge. If we're going to argue this point and expose it to greater scrutiny, let's do it with some logical structure, and let's get the facts and figures first. As a proportion of all rape accusations, how many later transpire to be false accusations? Of those that are false accusations, how many are influenced by outside complicating factors, such as mental health issues, or the accuser not being the alleged victim (i.e., overprotective parent claiming daughter was 'raped' when she clearly was not and is above age of consent)? I could sit here and argue against (what seems to be right now) a largely hypothetical idea, but it really amounts to attacking a strawman if the concept doesn't exist in a significant number of cases in the first place.

I'd have thought that point would be obvious.

What I find interesting is how 'text speak' has evolved over the last ten years. I think six or seven years ago, it was very trendy to minimise the number of characters used as much as humanly possible while still remaining coherent. Now that most mobile phone pay-monthly contracts are cheaper than pay-as-you-go, since as most monthly contracts essentially provide unlimited text messages as part of them, and now that most mobile phones tend to have a QWERTY keyboard of some description, I've noticed people tend to write out their messages with proper spelling, grammar and punctuation now, since we're much less bothered about using two SMSs instead of one to convey the same message. Even in text messaging, it's probably now expected to use a good standard of English grammar. IMing, maybe less so.

So, let's clarify this. Your position is that if I get drunk now, I've consented, in foresight, to any decision I make in the next few hours while under the influence of alcohol, even when I'm so drunk that cannot stand or speak properly?

Yes, because there a clear difference between being the perpetrator of a crime, and being the victim of one because someone knowingly abused your vulnerability at that moment in time to get you to consent to something you would not otherwise have done. Interestingly, you said that this was a case of "saying that X happened as a result of Y behavior." So you're essentially admitting that, had Y not happened, X would never have occurred?

You're willfully ignoring legal precedent, choosing instead to compare chalk and cheese, and use a combination of thesaurus.com and RuneScape to rationalise it. It's hilarious, actually.

Except, I've already referenced a precedent where the victim was judged not have been responsible. consent to the laws themselves. No. You don't consent to the law, you have an obligation to follow the law. Consent is a concept applied when an individual faces a choice to make an agreement with another party, or decline the opportunity to do so, stating that both individuals must be sufficiently well informed and legally capable of making that decision in the first place. Since you have no choice about following the law, consent is a redundant concept.

What has exposure or crimes of misdemeanor got to do with consent? You don't consent to commit crimes. If that's meant to be a comparison to the concept of consent in rape cases, then we're not even talking about the same court of law... ridiculous.

What of the self-responsibility of a man to tell the difference between "Yes, I want to have sex with you," and "Yes, I'm so shit-faced right now you could tell me to do handstand on the side of the Humber Bridge and I'd do it for the lolz"? What is that men find so hard ruddy hard to understand that when a girl goes on a night out and gets drunk, that doesn't mean they want you to grope them all over, take them back to your place and take advantage of that vulnerability. Yes, women should exercise caution when getting drunk, although, the irony is this: they only need to take caution because of men thinking that's completely acceptable to get a girl apopletically drunk in order to 'soften them up' into having sex with them. Which seems to be exactly what you're finding permissible here. Thankfully, the law (at least where I live) agrees with me that it is rape on the grounds of the victim not being in a position to give consent to the act. So yes, I'll continue to draw analogies to rape. Because, you know, that's what it is.