RU_Insane

I think the contentions raised from both sides are valid for the most part, except both sides are making critical errors in their judgment when asserting some points. It should be noted in attempting to sort the issue (at least partially) between these contrasting opinions that freedom of speech does not exist on the forums, as stated by RSOF's Code of Conduct. The freedom of dissent being a logical extension encapsulated within the freedom of speech, it follows Jagex is within its rights to punish dissenting players to various extremes as it deems fit. Users within the RSOF are universally bound to a set of expectations which outline proper behavior in the forums, as is the case here. Forum moderators are free to express their opinions, but as someone else said, if it's very negative, you use another account to express it. If you break the rules to express it, Jagex is within its rights to punish you too. The fact that he knew the consequences and chose to ignore them is his fault. He had the ability to conduct himself in a proper manner and failed to do so. That said, as this thread shows, you can't stop criticism of Jagex's actions. On one hand, Jagex could have (in theory) handled the problem better, but no one forwarding this argument recently has explained how they would've preferred Jagex to handle the problem in a way they considered appropriate. Further, no one has shown how following such procedures would show real improvement in the forum's policy. So I can't agree if there are no valid examples for me to agree with. On the other hand, the terms handed down to forum moderators dictating forum behavior are reasonable, given that they're expected to represent Jagex. However, as criticism shows, there may be room for improvement. I hesitate to use this word to describe what needs to be done, though, since people are too quick to label 'faults' within Jagex's PR when certain outcomes are actually intended and reasonable consequences stemming from the system in place. Current justification notwithstanding, inconsistency is irrelevant if forthcoming changes themselves bring about greater positive effect on the player-base than negative, as a rule. I have no illusions about the necessity for change, though. By itself, although the forums house a considerable amount of the player-base, it has little to no effect on individual game-play, which is part of a separate entity. If an alternative solution to moderation policy can be shown to bring about greater, positive change, Jagex is free to pursue it, but whether this change is truly necessary to implement depends on its impact on membership numbers. I mean, they can continue using current tactics to stifle dissent and not have to worry about dropping revenue as a result , as the game itself isn't affected. It doesn't happen often enough to be a problem. Even then, one can simply go elsewhere if he feels the forums are too harsh to sustain his continued existence. There are several other outlets to express criticism of Jagex if you fail to follow conduct on the official forums. Why should a change in one forum be necessitated just for two people, who, although they have valid concerns, conducted themselves improperly? Jiblix was shown to have lied about convincing people not to vote for Jagex at GJA. Ken knew the consequences and didn't heed warning. In short, you may have your criticisms of Jagex, but that doesn't mean a better solution is automatically available. Conversely, that an alternative policy may attract criticism doesn't mean its utility as a method of damage control is infeasible, provided its benefits outweigh its shortfalls. Even if an alternative method is shown to be feasible, is it necessary to transition to it? No, since Jagex is perfectly within its rights to punish as they see fit. Those are the errors I think the two sides faulted on when forwarding their respective arguments. Edit: Oh lol, police state tactics. I love the alarmist rhetoric and self-victimization stemming from the usual suspects in this thread. :lol: I know it feels good to think you're some sort of a vigilante, but please. Jagex doesn't care about the impression it sends out to players from a few overblown incidents as long as its revenues' sustained. How many members are going to quit simply because some no-name mod was "persecuted" on the forums? Better question, how many have quit from Refer-a-Friend? :lol:

No prob. Be careful in the future :)

Not to beat a dead horse, but you died. :P /captainobvious

Awesome. :thumbsup:

I like how Magic just went from somewhat underpowered to overpowered with this update. :lol: Nice blog by the way <3:

Interesting info to the above two posts :) I figured stunning would have a lower max hit since the gloves are strong enough as they are. I wouldn't expect it to hit so high anyway since it's a side-effect and not a primary attack. As for gloves vs chaotic maul at waterfiends, I'm not surprised. I mean, maul should have a higher attack accuracy anyway, guaranteeing a larger amount of hits = more enemies killed. I can't comment on the rapier though :P

Been checking on RSWiki about these gloves, and decided to make a handy list of its various bonuses for reference. At all times: Beats Barrows Gloves in every attack bonus by two points except for Ranged and Magic Higher strength bonus than Barrows Gloves by one point Beats Dragon Gauntlets in every defensive bonus by two points except for Summoning and Ranged Defense Whilst fighting without a weapon: +82 Strength bonus (may top out at +85) stacked on top of its +13 while fighting unarmed Gloves will randomly perform an attack that cannot be prayed against This attack binds the opponent for 10 seconds, and can bind opponents from afar This attack lowers opponent's combat stats (minus Prayer and Summoning) by 7 In multi-combat, all players (except for recognized team-mates) within a 5-square radius will be affected by the special attack Aesthetics: Gloves boast a unique attacking animation. I'd love to have these gloves to use in PvP. Too bad I'm not 110 combat <_<

Oh for sure. I won't deny that for some groups of the RWT populace that it would make a dent in their profit. Although, somewhere in the supply line, there's a primary supplier (or suppliers) that grind for the gold and sell to others. Being P2P alleviates that grind because of the larger money making opportunities. Then the flippers come in :P Though, the guys that have large amounts of real cash can afford to lose a few dollars on membership while still profiting considerably (depending how their business is structured. They might sell from solely a main account, or a main and several mules, who they buy from, and so forth). That's who I was talking about when I argued my point, but I see the counter has some validity. But for the trade limit's role as a deterrent, that's easily bypassed depending on how you market the gold and what skills you have. Some people flip gold with no loss, others flip at a small loss. If you have enough skill to generate substantial amounts of cash on your own though, well, that's pure profit. In fact, I argued the reasons for incompetence in light of the fact they wished to avoid negatively affecting players using evidence. The fact that they wanted to achieve a particular effect, and failed as a result of appealing to the immediate needs of the player base is shown through the fact that they left gift-giving untouched. Gift-giving = anyone can use this as a ruse to real world trade. Not hard to see, right? Can you see why they're incompetent? They wanted to curb RWT, and this major source of RWT still remains. They failed in this respect, no matter how successful their other efforts in the same instance were. I'll concede to you, thanks to Bruno, that some RWTers are actually affected to some degree by this update. But the effects are not as far reaching as some would like to hope, for a large portion of RWT remains, no? Further, any effects this has on gold-flippers can be lessened, if not completely bypassed, provided they're willing to take a little risk by buying a membership. It was never my position that Jagex had malicious ulterior motives to justify the way you're mocking the portrayal of Jagex by some members here. The ulterior motives can be neutral, or they can even be beneficial, although that's unlikely. Perhaps I came off as demonizing them because of the context surrounding the world "ulterior". If so, I apologize for not clarifying. I never stated it was imperative for Jagex to stall RWT efforts no matter the cost. In truth, I wouldn't care very much what the effects their actions had on the populace or the game itself. I've long since lost interest in this game. What I was critical of, and the reason why I posted here, was to show that the implementation of this isn't as well-thought out as some people think it to be. I'm aware that you have to pay membership to remove the restrictions. My entire premise was that this has no effect despite the fact you pay membership. The point is that this doesn't curb the profits of the sellers by any significant amount. If you have 5 mules and you pay $8 to remove the restrictions on each of them, that's a $40 expense you'll pay in exchange for a large profit selling the gold housed on those accounts. This is common sense through simple observation. Yes, it'll have an effect, no doubt, this requirement. But how large is the effect that it can be considered a deterrent? I argued that it isn't really a deterrent because players will buy members either way for a larger profit margin. Hence, it's closer to a tax, not a barrier to entry. My position does not require further research. The fact that Jagex gets money for what's essentially allowing RWT to continue is what confounds me, hence why I called this plan not a barrier to entry, but closer to a tax on cheating. Jagex is taxing cheaters to play the game when, in my opinion, they should focus on devising methods they know cheaters can't rebuff against. All this is doing, is in my opinion, very slowly bleeding the RWTers dry. To at least make this plan effective, why not mass ban accounts more frequently? Then these people will be forced to buy membership more frequently and hence it'll more deeply cut into their profits, no? :P You're correct, fewer remaining gold-traders means others will be forced to create new accounts (and pay membership) to continue the practice. But some traders have so much capital that I think this dilutes the effect it could have. I think it's an inefficient solution, in my opinion, because I think Jagex is trying to bleed RWTers slowly rather than swiftly deal with the main source of the problem. I've heard (from some black market forum, one player's personal experience, and corroborations from other members) that Jagex wiped a few major gold-sellers in the middle of highly-unbalanced trades. I applaud them for that! But is this tactic we're talking about the best they can do? I think they can do better. At the very least, provide incentives for gold-sellers to buy membership more frequently. Preferably at a pace where their expenses are higher compared to their income. But is that possible without negatively affecting legitimate players? Where do we find a comfortable balance where we can effectively deal with cheaters while keeping the population happy? I think Jagex tried to do this, but fumbled on some points. Like I said, my positions here aren't meant to be based on much research. If I were making a greater claim, I research it, I assure you.This isn't to say I'm purposely making unfounded claims. Rather, I assume my assertions are valid to some degree because the premises that construct my argument are empirically verifiable. In other words, I base my assertions on what I assume to be common sense. I understand how it could be taken the other way though. I apologize if it seemed I was pulling facts out of my ass. :P I'm not suggesting that they remove their free-to-play effectiveness, no. I agree with what you say here. I don't deny that free-to-play macros are useful to RWT companies in generating a healthy gold supply. The reason I focused more on P2P gold-farming is because I assume most would agree (for what I think are evident reasons) that P2P gold-farming is more profitable than F2P gold-farming due to greater access to resources, and generally higher prices on members-only resources there (sharks, monkfish, rocktail, and so forth). As these companies are businesses, after all, profit is the bottom line for them. What ensures the most profit? P2P. This is how I reached my conclusion. Again, I think this conclusion can be reached by simple observations and thus carries some validity. I apologize if it seems I'm pulling facts out of nowhere. :P That's true about resources. On top of that, transactions to P2P customers can occur on F2P worlds. I'll give you that. Perhaps I was wrong to assume P2P was more efficient due to more expensive resources :mellow: I mean, maybe I shouldn't have assumed so readily. But the gold-farmers in Taverly Dungeon, the wilderness and elsewhere do generate hefty amounts of profit, no? I think the more expensive P2P resources gathered offset the quantity of the lower-level resources gathered in F2P. True. I think I interpreted 'efficiency' too narrowly in this context then. I concede that my conclusion may likely be wrong. I still think, though, that their budgets can absorb the membership costs, provided accounts aren't banned quickly enough. If you're right, however, I'd like to think Jagex is slowly bleeding out the RWT companies this way via what I term a "tax". Well, if we're talking about increasing costs, perhaps not directly. Firstly, there's no immediate cost to the user of the credit card. Secondly, If I remember, Jagex had to pay charge-back fees on behalf of the users who had their credit cards stolen. I agree that legal action is possible. The question is, what sort of legal action will be taken? Jagex has taken action against RWT companies before -- but not in the way you think. They got to change their domain name. This temporarily stalled their operations, but they quickly resumed after. My argument was not to prove that Jagex hasn't taken action against these people. My argument was to prove that this particular action isn't as effective as some think it to be. I could be wrong though, I admit. I agree that expecting Jagex to deal with the problem in a swift manner is unrealistic, considering the legal fees, which are certainly beyond even Jagex's income to pursue the several cases they have, and the law surrounding real-world trading is actually complex. I wouldn't say it's exactly illegal. It's against Jagex rules, but there's facets of it that have to be considered. Breaches of copyright, intellectual property, legal protection of the prosecuting party, and so forth. I really don't know much about the issue beyond that. I recommend you look here though. Links to places in that thread, as well as discussion of the legal aspects to get the juices flowing. Again, I didn't mean to give off the impression I was making unfounded claims. I thought they were valid to some degree, otherwise I would've clarified how uncertain I was. I apologize for this. I'm not advocating that extreme measures be taken, no. Certainly they could've implemented the trade limit better, in my opinion. For example. What's the need to bleed RWTers dry? Why not stop incoming transactions to begin with? That way, customers can no longer buy gold. RWT is fueled by demand (the customers). With no way for the customers to collect their ill-gotten gold, demand from them effectively falls, no? Yes, gift-giving may be affected, but this can be patched. Remember the former friends trade limit? You could give several tens of thousands to your friends provided they'd been on your friend list for at least one month, and depending on your quest points. At the very least, the implementation of a system similar to this would impede customer demand for gold a bit, I think. Plus, once the would-be buyers finally collect their gold, the system picks up the unbalanced trade and punishes the suspected gold buyer. It would need a way to differentiate between RWT and gift-giving though. I have no proposal for this, unfortunately. I don't object too much to Jagex making money off their current tactic. It's actually clever that some RWTers are buying into it. Also, pardon me for coming off as arrogant to you. I don't want this debate to be antagonistic towards anyone. I just strongly felt what I said at that moment. The annoyance wasn't directed at you rather than Jagex. I certainty didn't mean to paint them as evil, either. I think that's a silly idea. :P This has been a long reply for me. It's been fun to debate with you, Stewie. I'll check your reply sometime later. Take care :P

I think the point is that Jagex have suggested they have got rid of gold sellers main and mule accounts, therefore they will have to start again and will be unable to farm gold with the new ones because of the restrictions, if thats the case that is a moot point. Most people have seen this as a positive update for that reason. In fact, I have doubts that Jagex wishes to achieve anything substantial from this update. I think they have ulterior motives, although I can't exactly say what those motives are. Most suspicious is that they require you to purchase membership to permanently remove the restrictions. Fair enough, except it doesn't affect the trade flow of gold at all. This update only affects outgoing transactions from new accounts. The vast majority of supply-side RWT is performed by already existing main accounts, who aren't affected by this update. New players can still happily purchase gold, and RWTers can still sell it. If this has little to no effect on the trade flow between these people, then this is just a pointless update. This brings me to my second point. The last two updates were very determined at breaking illegitimate game-play. This update looks like a ham-fisted attempt at curbing the major sources of RWT. And given the fact the last two updates were for the most part, successful in breaking illegitimate game-play, why is it that this one is such a flop? I want to draw attention to one thing: the payment required to remove restrictions. Why is payment even required? If Jagex were truly serious in their attempt, they shouldn't have allowed any exception. Also, why are the restrictions permanently removed upon payment? Why does it only affect outgoing transactions and not both, like the last trade limit? Why has Jagex returned to trade limits after admitting they don't work? What's Jagex expecting from this update? To curb future players who might sell gold? Excuse me, future players are the threat? I thought we were focused on the present! This is honestly what the update sounds like to me (even though that may not be the point). It only affects new players and outgoing transactions -- in other words, rich new players looking to sell gold, who apparently aren't rich enough to buy membership to remove the limits. You see a problem there? In my opinion, I think this only legitimizes real world trading. Jagex's giving all new players a pass once they buy membership. No trade limit in members means they're free to buy and sell gold as they like. It's not so much a barrier to entry (which they should be focusing on) for cheating as opposed to a one-time tax on cheating. If they were sincere about their intentions behind this update, it wasn't done well, in my view. Ulterior motives? They're probably corrupt NWO shills raining down death on average citizens. Occupy Jamflax! But seriously? If you see an ulterior motive to everything Jagex does, then you'll be able to rationalize it too. This is a case of your opinion providing the evidence, not the evidence shaping your opinion. If Jagex didn't allow any exception? They tried that, people quit the game. They allow transactions to go to new F2P accounts because otherwise it would be the downfall of gift giving and of course people setting up their pures. You can buy gold and get it on a new F2P account but how many people do you think will actually do that? Most of the people buying gold are probably 13 year olds leveled in the mid-70s and want to buy the super cool Barrows armor, or whatever. You think they'll start a new account, or do you think they'll say "Screw it" and go play a less inconvenient game? Yes, future players are the threat. Have you forgotten about a recent update that introduces a new theoretical system known as "banning"? It's quite an interesting dohickey, I hope that the Y2K bug doesn't wipe it out. Once the current RWTers are banned, they'll create new accounts. In go the restrictions. Again, you don't seem to be aware that Jagex bans people for RWT. They aren't "free to buy and sell gold". It's just as against the rules as it ever was. I didn't say I was absolutely sure Jagex had ulterior motives. Rather, what I meant was that the way Jagex went about tackling this problem makes it seem, to me at least, that they may have ulterior motives. Even if they did have an ulterior motive, it's not obvious. I'm not going to claim it's profit-related, if they do have one. Virtually everything they do is profit-related. So I can't speculate on that part. At the very least, it suggests Jagex is incompetent. Of all the action they decided to take, it was against new accounts who have no gold to trade, yet have trade limits imposed on them! How does that make sense? It only makes sense if you focus more on the gift-giving aspect rather than the prevention of RWT. That Jagex wished to pacify their player-base by tip-toeing around their precious feelings this way, and leave the gift-giving alone while gamely slapping the gold-seller on the wrist is pathetic. :rolleyes: This is why I said Jagex couldn't have been serious in this particular effort. It does nothing, and you should know that. It'd be more effective if they imposed these restrictions on players most likely to possess large amounts of gold -- high levels and so forth. If they wanted to stop mule accounts, simply impose restrictions on all new accounts for incoming transactions, not outgoing. If they wanted to cut into companies' profits, they could increase the price of membership substantially, and they could make it harder to generate cash in the game. This hasn't happened considering RWT is still thriving even after the bot-nuke. But why would Jagex do that, right? It cuts into their own profits -- players either start quitting more frequently, or are even more compelled to buy gold to ease the grind. And what you've seemed to have missed is that the restrictions are only there for as long as the person doesn't pay. $8.00 for permanent removal of trade limit, and a $1000 profit from selling gold is a good return on investment, no? Also, many, if not most gold-sellers, are P2P. They pay membership anyway, as it yields higher profit margins. How does this tactic cut into their profits again? :unsure: You think RWT companies don't have membership costs included in their expenditures already? Do you remember the stolen credit cards gold-farmers were using? The companies already pay for membership (however possible) so they can generate more gold to satisfy demand. It's better to be efficient and buy membership, make a few million an hour, and then sell that gold, than to remain F2P and struggle for dozens of hours trying to earn the same amount to sell, right? No, I don't think this update will cut into their profits at all. They've been doing this exact thing since inception: buying membership, farming gold, then selling for larger profit. It's how they've been so successful. Efficiency is key to success in business. P2P provides efficient ways to generate gold to sell. F2P, not so much. Again, if Jagex really wants to cut into their profits, they could try raising membership costs. But the way they implemented this tactic -- if that's their goal -- will not achieve this effect. Think about it. In 2007, gold traders got banned pretty frequently, no? Yet they were still populous in member's worlds. Banning them did not have an effect on how well they could afford membership. Keep in mind they were also using stolen credit cards. They bought membership on someone else's dime. Have they stopped doing that now? If not, how can you claim it cuts into their profits, knowing they don't lose cash from it? Bottom line, RWT companies budget for these sorts of expenses. A requirement to buy membership to bypass trade restrictions won't affect them, because paying for membership is integral to their success as a business anyway. Hence why this update is useless. The effect you stated it will have has already been diluted by this trade's very essence. In fact, it makes the business more successful! Access to P2P resources means higher profit margins for the gold-sellers. It's not a deterrent -- it's another reason to get into the business. Oh, and I'm aware that RWT is against the rules. What I meant by free is that while it may technically be against the rules, and Jagex says they're taking action against it, their actions prove the opposite -- no effective action has been taken, as my explanation has demonstrated. Further, players are free to real world trade, for we all have free will. A deterrent however, is the consequence of doing so. But then, where are the consequences? If there are no consequences, no one will feel deterred. I'll grant you that perm banning of offenders is a consequence. However, is this update yet another reason to avoid cheating? No, because no consequences come directly from it. The threat of banning is that deterrent -- not these particular trade limits. No consequences, no effectiveness, not a useful update. Case closed.

I think the point is that Jagex have suggested they have got rid of gold sellers main and mule accounts, therefore they will have to start again and will be unable to farm gold with the new ones because of the restrictions, if thats the case that is a moot point. Most people have seen this as a positive update for that reason. In fact, I have doubts that Jagex wishes to achieve anything substantial from this update. I think they have ulterior motives, although I can't exactly say what those motives are. Most suspicious is that they require you to purchase membership to permanently remove the restrictions. Fair enough, except it doesn't affect the trade flow of gold at all. This update only affects outgoing transactions from new accounts. The vast majority of supply-side RWT is performed by already existing main accounts, who aren't affected by this update. New players can still happily purchase gold, and RWTers can still sell it. If this has little to no effect on the trade flow between these people, then this is just a pointless update. This brings me to my second point. The last two updates were very determined at breaking illegitimate game-play. This update looks like a ham-fisted attempt at curbing the major sources of RWT. And given the fact the last two updates were for the most part, successful in breaking illegitimate game-play, why is it that this one is such a flop? I want to draw attention to one thing: the payment required to remove restrictions. Why is payment even required? If Jagex were truly serious in their attempt, they shouldn't have allowed any exception. Also, why are the restrictions permanently removed upon payment? Why does it only affect outgoing transactions and not both, like the last trade limit? Why has Jagex returned to trade limits after admitting they don't work? What's Jagex expecting from this update? To curb future players who might sell gold? Excuse me, future players are the threat? I thought we were focused on the present! This is honestly what the update sounds like to me (even though that may not be the point). It only affects new players and outgoing transactions -- in other words, rich new players looking to sell gold, who apparently aren't rich enough to buy membership to remove the limits. You see a problem there? In my opinion, I think this only legitimizes real world trading. Jagex's giving all new players a pass once they buy membership. No trade limit in members means they're free to buy and sell gold as they like. It's not so much a barrier to entry (which they should be focusing on) for cheating as opposed to a one-time tax on cheating. If they were sincere about their intentions behind this update, it wasn't done well, in my view.

Am I the only one here opposed to the trade restrictions? I think it was very poorly thought out. As I see it, the implementation of this will have absolutely no effect on either mule accounts or gold sellers real-world trading with their mains -- the main source of transactions surrounding ill-gotten gold. First problem, is that it's very easy to remove these restrictions, and it's a permanent removal at that too. Gold sellers handle real money very often. Who in their right mind would think a RWTer would be stopped simply by the requirement to purchase membership? They do it all the time to keep their business running! Secondly, the trade restriction only affects outgoing transactions originating from the affected account, not incoming transactions. Many RWTers use mules, whose only use is to store excess gold/items acquired from the main account. Existing gold sellers will be able to transfer excess without any impediment. Whenever they're running out of gold to sell on their main account, they'll just take some from their reserves. Oh, but don't worry! At least we stopped RWT where it most matters -- the new accounts! :rolleyes: I'm all for trade restrictions, as long as they're imposed on the appropriate population, and implemented correctly. Now, if you've noticed, this update affects outgoing transactions, implying that Jagex's curbing RWT on the supply side -- the people who sell the gold, hence outgoing. ...what new account has the kind of gold to sell for large profit, besides a mule? As they handle real money frequently, they'll have enough of it to buy membership and be rid of the restrictions anyway. What's an extra $8.00 to someone who wants to purchase (or sell) $50.00 worth of gold? On top of their shiny new gold, guess what, no more trade restrictions! :rolleyes: Needless to say, this update targeted the wrong population, and incorrectly at that. Jagex at least could've implemented it to affect incoming transactions -- you know, the way customers actually get the gold. Fail update is fail.

What abilities would this enchanted armor have :P

I'm surprised they're still going on with this.

Assuming the numbers are proportional enough to be representative of the free-player base, yeah. Otherwise, no.

lol if you actually think you have 'freedom of speech' here. though it's more free than rsof, yeah.

I suppose they think that gives them a pass to do whatever they like to their free-player userbase :P Mod MMG: *to staff members* Okay guys, we've lost the Golden Joysticks this year. We can stop trying to look good now. Staff: \o/

yeah, but it's not hard to manually put in your stats either :P

It started 23 hours ago.

Interesting topic. I chose Yes, then Lumbridge. Second choice would be Al-Kharid.

Can the strength bonus stack with weapons? :twisted:

Interestingly enough, it was Wicked/Stev who suggested that Jagex should hire a bot maker to find a way to beat the bots. It looks like they listened to his advice ... :lol: Sorry I'm lost here. Are people saying that Jcmob is the reason that Jagex broke the bots? He made a direct contribution to all the coding and design that went with it all? Forgive me if I seem behind the times on this. No, they launched the attack without him. Jacmob just managed to get his bot running after the nuke, so they hired him because it was clear they failed at that point.

Five articles this week o.O and to think I was going to submit one this week lol

I think it's strange at least. You can't please everyone though. Someone will always find something to nitpick >.<

Indeed, people's values are hard to change when you progress beyond a certain point. So can't you consider the possibility that his lie is merely a blip in the track record as opposed to it being representative of a contrary set of values? Why should the fact that he lied in this instance mean he's prone to do it again in a different situation? That's a couple of points I'd like for you to consider. Questioning his honesty raises the question of how justified you'd be to be suspicious of him in the first place. Suddenly because he lied, that's enough to override the precedent which established that he was trustworthy? Well, I'll concede to an extent by agreeing that while lying was in itself deplorable, he likely thought he was justified in doing so. And that he thought he was justified in doing so indicates that he weighed his decision on a specific set of criteria we're not privy to. This is evident because you not only don't agree with his decision, you think it's immoral. You two are using different measurements for gauging this situation. I could say he acted morally because the end justified the means. Now if he only had enough reason to lie in this case, considering this, why should he value honesty any less? If I didn't care about honestly, I wouldn't even bother with rationalizing my position on an issue concerning it. Essentially, if he thought he was doing a greater moral good according to the outcome, shouldn't that be a greater indicator of what he actually values considering that has greater weight (according to moral consequentialism's axiom)? This isn't to suggest he was judging his actions by this principle. Essentially what I'm saying is that the fact he even chose to rationalize his position (by judging his decision according to weighted criteria) shows to me that he does in fact value certain virtues like you or I would. The difference I'm seeing is that so far, you seem to think an action's immoral if the means to realize its goal are perceived as immoral. I'm not certain on this point; I'm going off by what you've said up to this point. In contrast, he seems to think he's justified and may or may not think the issue extends into morality. You can clarify why you think his apparent lack of integrity is deplorable but that isn't relevant to my argument. In the end I think Jacmob has seriously considered his options and whatever moral consequence comes out of it has little value in comparison to the alternative path he could've taken. Note I'm no longer comparing morals by this statement, I'm broadening my argument to a wider scope. Literally, whatever moral consequence resulting from his decision has no value in comparison to the financial and legal distress he would've faced, even if he were honest in going about it. That's a small detail in the greater scheme of things. We can't say he violated his ethical principles unless we know they were clearly defined. We also can't quantify for certain to what degree he considers botting to be an ethical issue such that he'd incorporate it as an ethical value. I agree however that he violated his integrity for whatever value it may count. The real question I think should be asked is why does his integrity count for so much, knowing that even if he'd told the truth, something of greater effect had been achieved: botting as an industry has largely disintegrated. Also, why does his violating his integrity necessarily mean he that he doesn't value honesty and integrity as highly as others would? Perhaps he reached a breaking point and reasoned to himself that even if he lied, he was justified. However, in normal circumstances, he'd act with honesty and commitment to his values. Why should this past action bear so much weight on what he's capable of doing in the future knowing that he'll likely stay consistent with his values? This assumes that you operate on a strictly different set of morals contrary to his. Isn't it possible that you two have similar ideas about morality and good character, but have different ways of how to apply it? Hence my comment on moral consequentialism. I'm not saying you two do have similar ideas, but that you're crudely judging his values based on how he handled the situation, in my opinion. In fact, if the criteria (which I'll note are subjective) were logical despite this quality, that'd speak more to his values than an apparent moral absolute, as I've already explained. You've said you find that lying undermines integrity, which I can understand but I'd like you to explain why you think this means he doesn't value honesty. As I see it, if the criteria were logical, there'd be no room for his values to be undermined because one could not contradict the other. It's important to note that it's very difficult to practice absolute values. I'm sure you've lied in situations where it'd be easier to tell the truth, in hindsight. Stealing a cookie from the cookie jar? No? I agree, tougher courses of action sometimes need to be chosen. But we're also prone to shy away from these and then realize in hindsight that it would have been easier to tell the truth and bear the brunt. We can't consistently predict how we'd react in a situation, and we judge how we act in a situation by the values we hold. So when we act contrary to our values, does that make us hypocrites? Untrustworthy? At the end of this post, I honestly think Jacmob made a stupid decision. I agree that he should've told the truth, honestly. Not for moral reasons, but because it seems more sensible. But I can't say much more than this because if it had been easy to tell the truth, I think he would've done it. I know I shouldn't pose unprovable assumptions but it seems there's a deeper reason why he chose to lie than what seems apparent to most, in my view. That's all I can really say in this matter.

As far as I can find - it's pretty much customers purchasing goods as-is, with no guarantee that they will function. But if they're not of usable quality, within 14 days, they will be refunded. And RU_Insane, as one bot poster said: "Stable job > Scripting with the chance of getting sued" Could you clarify how the quote's relevant to what I said, if that's directed at me :P And yeah, I understand there's greater income opportunity in way of stability and higher salary. That explains why he accepted the job, even if he weren't threatened with legal action. But why did he choose to lie to his community? I don't know. I wouldn't use that as an example of his moral tendencies though. Off topic, but I love how I got the first post on page 23 and 24 :mrgreen: