RU_Insane

Siggying this. :P To unspam, I'm rather glad Jagex is making this change. I wonder if, for the RuneFest, Jagex will let players take a peek at their new office?

lmao. YES! :P

Yeah :thumbsup:

The new property is 43,774 sq. feet, not 26,000 sq. feet. The tank belongs to their current HQ at 140 Cambridge Science Park, and they'll probably move it. They're switching venue but will remain in that same location (moving to the center at 220 Cambridge Science Park). The price tag of the property they're getting a lease on probably far exceeds £6.1M. The information you posted concerns 140 Cambridge which is currently leased to them, not the new one they just leased. :P And no, like Accursed said, it's not unusual for companies to upscale offices when they're expanding business. Perhaps it'll allow them to operate more efficiently :thumbsup:

Those registrations are not for future reference for repeat offences, that system is already in place in the form of your criminal record. The register is public & there to protect the public & for future employers so he doesn't get to work in or around people/children of who he could abuse. What you've just said is rubbish. That's why they shouldn't be public, I'm saying those things are damaging a person more than necessary. - Hopefully now you get the point? - I am OPPOSED to public records of private things which follow you your whole life. That is rubbish? - Good luck in the future, "big brother is watching you". And we are discussing morals here, what you should, and should not do. It is impossible to leave religion out, as the basics for each religion is teaching morals. Maybe it is human nature, but do we have to admit this? Do we have to fall into our own mistakes again and again? Can't we learn and not act prejudiced? Those things only show a weakness. You can't just stow away the information somewhere so you can save his "reputation". He ruined his own reputation, and since as I explained before, the matter is public, there's no need to keep the information private. What's public is what's required for the community to protect themselves against the offender. It doesn't state his bank PIN, it doesn't state his social security, and it doesn't state anything that could seriously compromise his security. Likewise, keeping the info public doesn't compromise his image; he is the one who compromised it. Secondly, the only scenario where your suggestion is remotely possible is if he were to get off the sex offender's list -- which is dependent upon your conviction and the laws of the state you're living in. IIRC, laws regard sexual offenses are not kind toward convicts, so there's little chance of him getting off. Perhaps if he can prove himself that he's not a danger to society, he can be taken off. I don't know about that area so I can't say anything further. His address isn't a compromise of his security? What's at stake is greater than his individual security, unfortunately. I'm not saying posting that info isn't a compromise of his security. On the contrary, it's a consequence he'll have to live with, as I have said before. The legal process has served the due and fair punishment, and this is part of the punishment. It doesn't go deeper than that. Even then, it's a stretch to say posting his address in particular is a security breach. It's not hard to find someone's physical address if you look long enough. You can probably find mine within a few hours, maximum. Question is, what are you going to do when you obtain it? Mail him some anthrax? I'd also think what goes through his mail is checked on considering he sent child pornography by mail as well as through digital transmission. As for unwanted calls/visits to his home, I think few people are willing enough to do that. Even then, it's an unfortunate consequence he'll have to face. I'll note that while there's a distinct possibility that people would strive to inflict harm on him (which I don't condone), posting that information has its benefits. People use his address to simply avoid it, for example, if they live in that area. Physical confrontation as opposed to avoidance is highly unlikely in my opinion.

I don't think we should have expected the FT/W return to usher in an era of unadulterated bliss. We took free trade and wilderness for granted, and so no one expected them to be taken away. The majority of us have formed our experiences before the FT/W removal, so of course when we were longing for them to return, we only thought of the positive aspects and not the negative impacts of FT/W. Six years ago, people were still complaining about bots. The problem today is much the same, except over the course of the post-FT/W era, changes were implemented that exacerbated the effects the return of FT/W would have on the game -- easier leveling, easier account creation, gold was devalued enormously, increased emergent game-play (the introduction of dice), and so forth. Cheaters certainly saw the benefits they could reap from these changes, and took advantage of it. We simply didn't have the things in the pre-FT/W removal era that we did post-removal, so we can't expect the same outcome for its return.

There's a difference between customer dissatisfaction and being unable to discern fantasy from reality. Yes, Jagex has betrayed their entire player-base. They sacrificed the principles that formed the core gaming experience of the game in favor of cheaters -- filling Jagex's wallet with cash -- while giving their loyal, legitimate players the royal shaft.

It seems you're oversimplifying based on the superficial aspects of the discussion. I think Racheya's always had higher priorities than RuneScape. The point is, the reasons that drew her to RS in the first place no longer exist for her, alongside the fact that she's quitting in favor of her studies. She never said anything about outgrowing the game; she commented on this by saying how hard it is for players to completely quit a game, in part because of the bonds you form over time with it. There's nothing wrong with playing a game to pass the time and meet new people; but the direction it's heading now makes it harder for her to enjoy this point, I think. I'll also note, Racheya said she'll gladly return when Jagex gets its act together. That, and considering her reasons for quitting, it seems she's had her priorities in place for a long time.

Those registrations are not for future reference for repeat offences, that system is already in place in the form of your criminal record. The register is public & there to protect the public & for future employers so he doesn't get to work in or around people/children of who he could abuse. What you've just said is rubbish. That's why they shouldn't be public, I'm saying those things are damaging a person more than necessary. - Hopefully now you get the point? - I am OPPOSED to public records of private things which follow you your whole life. That is rubbish? - Good luck in the future, "big brother is watching you". And we are discussing morals here, what you should, and should not do. It is impossible to leave religion out, as the basics for each religion is teaching morals. Maybe it is human nature, but do we have to admit this? Do we have to fall into our own mistakes again and again? Can't we learn and not act prejudiced? Those things only show a weakness. You can't just stow away the information somewhere so you can save his "reputation". He ruined his own reputation, and since as I explained before, the matter is public, there's no need to keep the information private. What's public is what's required for the community to protect themselves against the offender. It doesn't state his bank PIN, it doesn't state his social security, and it doesn't state anything that could seriously compromise his security. Likewise, keeping the info public doesn't compromise his image; he is the one who compromised it. Secondly, the only scenario where your suggestion is remotely possible is if he were to get off the sex offender's list -- which is dependent upon your conviction and the laws of the state you're living in. IIRC, laws regard sexual offenses are not kind toward convicts, so there's little chance of him getting off. Perhaps if he can prove himself that he's not a danger to society, he can be taken off. I don't know about that area so I can't say anything further.

Zezima is back what? O_O

Well, that's partly right. They do realize that companies can switch domains. I think they think that we don't have a clue about their BS. Keep in mind, domain seizures are actually what Jagex is referring to when they say they're taking "action against RWT companies". They really should stop giving such vague answers. It's easy to justify yourself if you say you're only taking "action" against them. The question is, what kind of action, how soon, how frequent? How dedicated are you to actually solving the problem, and not attacking the symptoms of it? Jagex likes to skirt their way around these questions by leaving as many details as blank as possible. And if they do realize that the majority sees through their BS, I guess they seriously don't care anymore and are taking any last steps (the sex offender fiasco, this) to preserve the final remnants of their tattered gaming image whilst simultaneously milking the cash cow for all it has left. That said, none of what I just said should be a surprise to anyone. What I want to know is, why would Jagex pay tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, in legal fees to pursue RWT this way when it's obviously ineffective?

Could you explain to me in the legislation at hand, where it says he cannot run a fan site for a game which may have or may not have kids involved? I'm not in the US so I don't know the law there like I do here. Generally, people who are convicted of crimes that would require registration as a sex offender come with restrictions relative to their crimes. The most common of which are things like being prevented from working around children (like in a school), volunteering for groups that work with children (Boy Scouts/Girl Guides, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, etc...), not living within a certain distance of school or playground...that kind of thing. Considering one of the things he was convicted of was distribution of pornographic pictures of minors, I'm sure he has similar restrictions placed upon him. While starting up a fansite for a game aimed at minors might not be technically violating any of his restrictions, I'm sure it easily falls into a grey area that a man of his age should have known well enough to avoid. Especially if he is simply trying to put such things behind him and move on with his life as a law abiding citizen (a commendable course that we should all be supportive of). Edit: I just realized he may have restrictions against him forbidding him from initiating contact with minors, or communicating with minors who are not family over the internet (not unreasonable considering he distributed the offensive pictures via email). If so, then starting up the fansite would easily fall under the list of things he shouldn't be doing. Keep in mind while I write this, that we'll never be in full possession of the facts concerning this case, as per Hiker's words. I only comment with absolute certainty on what I know to be true. I speculate on the basis of what I know to be valid assumptions. The Facts: Hiker started RuneVillage in 2002. He was convicted on obscenity charges concerning the distribution of child pornography in 1995; at this time, Georgia's pornography distribution laws did not require registration of the offender because they were classified as obscenity offenses rather than sexual offenses. He moved to Tennessee in 2000, and in 2003 at the latest, TN changed its pornography distribution laws to constitute a sexual offense, requiring him to register as a sex offender. He was arrested on a warrant in 2005 for 'failing to register' as an offender although he was not legally required to register at the time he left; nor did he know that the laws concerning this had changed. Because of this, the charges were initially dropped. I'm only chiming in to comment on this. If TN changed it's laws, the Constitution clearly states that there should be no retroactive punishment by virtue of the fact no governing body is allowed to pass ex post facto laws. So why did they force him to register, when it's clearly unconstitutional? I'm referring to how it was an obscenity charge, and they changed it retroactively. Good question. Neither the articles, nor his resignation letter mention that his charge was 'grandfathered' in or that ex post facto was involved in the 2005 charges. If sounds like an important detail (especially since I think an attorney could've used this to show he didn't have to register) so I don't see why it wasn't mentioned 'till now. Perhaps TN is able to override this limitation in certain circumstances? I dunno.

My thoughts exactly. Jagex can take down YouTube videos for copyright claims, but can't get people selling their property for profit? O_O First I'd like to say, they already have the back up domain ready. They have had their customers aware of this dispute between them and Jagex for ages. Not only that, but Jagex has not yet won the case. Their customers know that as soon, if at all, Jagex takes control of the domain, which domain the company will change to. It will not halt that company for more then 10 minutes. Secondly, the company isn't selling property that isn't theirs. They're selling their time and their resources that it took to collect the gold and items. You're technically hiring them and their resources to play RuneScape. Hell, until eBay didn't want it, people could say, "Selling funny joke - Free RuneScape account included!" Loophole. This won't phase G4RS at all. I figured there'd be some loophole like that >_>

Agreed -_- They act as if they're the valiant warriors taking a stand against corporate tyranny lol

My thoughts exactly. Jagex can take down YouTube videos for copyright claims, but can't get people selling their property for profit? O_O Youtube vs an international scale of legal battles. Youtube: complies with one take down notice, generally not a lot of questions asked International legal battles: people protecting their livelihood, hydra effect, moneypit in legal fees You can't really compare the two. Yeah, the situation here is more complex. Think it's sad Jagex doesn't seem to have more tools available to them to deal with RWT effectively. Unless they're profiting from bots and are purposely letting it continue this way >_>

My thoughts exactly. Jagex can take down YouTube videos for copyright claims, but can't get people selling their property for profit? O_O

This is a week old, but haven't heard any news posted about it yet. Jagex has recently seized the domain of [Caution: Jagex Rule Violation], a well-known real world-trader, on the grounds that the domain name infringes upon the RuneScape trademark due to them being "confusingly similar". Of course, this doesn't actually do anything to even halt the industry a substantial amount. The most the gold-sellers were forced to do was switch their domain name. I love how they imply it's a human right to buy gold from them :lol: Also lol'd @ the Father's day thing. Thanks for pointing that out, Blutters. Thoughts?

Ah okay :P I wonder if the tables would turn had it been announced much later -- say, two days before BXPW. Few people would have the chance to stockpile items suspected to rise in price, and the demand would increase past the supply since skillers et al. would be rushing to buy commodities. It's also possible that certain high-value items like godswords would drop as people would sell them cheaper to buy as many commodities as possible.

Regards the short-selling of goods regards this month's XP weekend, I thought they would have sold goods for higher considering demand for them would substantially increase, thus increasing the price. Or am I missing something here? >_>

You got it wrong. He was never CONVICTED of attempting to groom a child, he was CHARGED with that but it got dropped. MASSIVE difference between being charged and being convicted. I meant charged in the first post :P Edited to reflect correct changes.

I can definitely agree with Jagex's decision to terminate him. The man, despite his claims to the contrary, may still be a violent offender. Though, I think posing about it after, as if they actually contributed to the safety of the community (the safety measures had already been taken by RV and the courts long ago, as Ginger said) brings unwarranted attention to the case. That said, they more likely did it to eradicate what they perceived as a threat to their reputation (as if bots aren't a threat by themselves). I agree with their decision to distance themselves from him, but they could've quietly done it, and as they are a private company, they have no obligation to justify their actions to any party outside the law (the legal process had long been finished when Jagex found out).

Photo of Watson's Info Page Watson's Info Page He was convicted of attempting to 'groom' a young boy over the internet. I suppose I was wrong that he wasn't capable of it. Oh well. He was also arrested for transferring photos of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, twice. Once by mail, and once by computer. I obviously am reading the info in the screen caps wrong, but where does it say he was convicted of attempts to groom or sexual battery? Yeah, I too am curious to know where that above information has come from. And being caught with a picture of a teenage girl and being labeled a sex offender at the age of 18 or similar, is quite different than being caught at the age of 46. He didn't receive those images in college and sent them on to some of his homies. The information is from Zybez, sans the URLs that link to law enforcement pages. The bolded part was retrieved from RuneVillage forums and reposted on Zybez. I have no idea if the charges of 'sexually grooming a minor' in the bolded are true, considering I don't know where the RV people found that information from. However, the owner of RV was quoted in the OP here saying he pleaded to 'unspecified charges' of sexual battery.

I fail to see how my argument is ad hominem, Calling someone a terrible person drawn from a superficial knowledge of their character based on their differing opinion -- one you likely didn't read carefully considering you misconstrued what I said -- is an ad hominem attack. You haven't shown how people who don't allow criminals to rehabilitate are committing criminal acts. I see you've placed "crime" in quotes so I assume you're using a personal definition of the term. I would like to know the definition you're using. Otherwise, you'll have to cite the law they're breaking in order to call it a "crime". You're correct; if he's dangerous, he is not released from prison. That's why prisoners are assessed when they apply for parole to determine if they are capable of reintegrating back into society. If you're not shown to be capable of that, you aren't released. Prisoners are given plenty of chances to reintegrate. They just have to pass the test first. I have no idea where you got the notion that prison is a place that "allows more freedom", if I understand what you're saying here. The purpose of imprisonment is to keep the offender at bay from society, who has committed an infraction severe enough to terminate the Contract with the State and thus have his citizenship privileges revoked, albeit retaining a few human rights intrinsic to the conception of prison. Prison is a totalitarian institution. The offender is subject of the State. By "extend this" I suppose you mean extending the term he serves in prison for. That an offender has served time in prison, doesn't mean he's no longer an offender, or prosecuted. His prosecution still remains in the records, and depending on the severity of his infraction, he can still be monitored and may have to report to an officer for a time after he's released from prison for the remainder of his sentence. I'll note that imprisonment is not the only method of criminal punishment the State can mete out. A person can serve a prison sentence in addition to another punishment, and still be considered a dangerous offender, and hence can be kept on probation. The question being asked when one is released from prison is whether the offender is considered harmless enough to fully reintegrate back into society. If it's found he's capable, it's not automatically a free ticket out. He's given a chance to prove himself through probation and similar methods before he's considered fully absorbed into society, and hence not dangerous enough to warrant additional restrictive measures. Only those affected should know, jagex might say "hey we don't support that site anymore". But they shouldn't tell everyone about this, they could inform the leaders of runevillage - who can then think wether or not they should inform the rest or just let him go silently. THAT is what I think went wrong here. JAGEX acted as an elephant in a room full of porselain. I agree, only those affected should know. That means society, because a dangerous person affects society in negative ways. In terms of RuneVillage, I'd agree in this case. I posted earlier that Jagex could've taken a different route opposite posing as moral crusaders. However, the example you used to illustrate your point is incidental; not strictly related. If he had raped a child, for example, and had a history concerning this, it's reasonable to assume he would use the Internet in an attempt to exploit more children. Because of the danger children have of being deceived because they lack the sufficient cognitive faculties to scrutinize potential threat, I argue that both parents and children should be informed of the danger an offender represents, especially if he's capable of reaching a wide audience, which has a larger scale of effect than having it contained within a small community. It's not the government holding the past against him. The gov. has already done what it needed to do. He's kept on the sex offender registry in the interest of public safety. The people who will continually bring up his past are the ones discussing it like you and I. The ones who will hold it against him are those who feel that extrajudicial retribution should be served to him. I think justice has already been served via the legal process. I said earlier that the press (which is what you're confusing with government here) has the liberty to report things of a public nature. Time is not a barrier to freedom of expression. It doesn't matter how long ago something happened; people will still talk about it. This is why I said you can't prevent people from forming a negative perception about him when that info is kept accessible in the name of public interest. Like I said, he's facing the social consequences of what he's done right now, which will stick with him to some degree forever. The legal consequences have already been served. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he should live guiltily. I'm glad he realized he made a mistake, and is moving on, trying to lessen the stigma around him. I'm saying you can't prevent people from forming that perception without endangering society. You're proposing a system which endangers society in the name of protecting his image. This is the flaw in your argument. He's going to be registered until he's considered harmless enough to be taken off, or dies. It's unfortunate, but again, it's preferable to what you have proposed. By this point it seems you're responding irrationally because you have some deep-seated bias that arises when you discuss this subject. Any person can see why a thousand dangerous, non-prosecuted people are worse than one innocent, prosecuted person. The negative area of affect they have is much larger, and hence society is at much greater risk, compared to that one person. Plus, if that person was innocent, they would not be dangerous anyway, and so they'd have an easier time applying for release from prison. Do you want a system where society is at greater risk because a thousand dangerous people are running around, and you don't know they're dangerous, or a system where one innocent person is prosecuted, but has an easier release from prison because he's innocent? Don't think about this too hard. It's not a complex issue to any degree. That's an interesting topic. However, what person wouldn't tell people he was imprisoned to sate the worries of family members and friends? Or are the family and friends informed regardless of his choice? You cannot know if you've prosecuted an innocent person as per the judicial process' design, so you cannot claim it's worse until there's definitive evidence that he'd been wrongly convicted. Even then, in the interest of society, it's a rare occurrence, but something to be expected. Keep in mind everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Generally, the accused is then either sentenced, or cleared of the charges based on the evidence provided from both sides, which is an element intrinsic to the conception of the right to a fair trial. What you're proposing (and I implied this earlier), weighs the outcome of the trial in favor of the defendant, when in fact both sides should have equal opportunity to present their case. The evidence is then deliberated into by an impartial jury, and the verdict is finally handed down by an impartial judge who has considered all the facts presented. In your system, if we had a person who was actually guilty of the charges, but he wasn't prosecuted because the court's bias landed in favor of evidence for his innocence, he'd be cleared, and scot-free. This is not the purpose of justice. The purpose of justice is to land a fair conviction based on all facts fairly considered. The facts cannot be fairly considered if conceptually, there's inherent bias toward a side.

Photo of Watson's Info Page Watson's Info Page He was convicted of attempting to 'groom' a young boy over the internet. I suppose I was wrong that he wasn't capable of it. Oh well. He was also arrested for transferring photos of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, twice. Once by mail, and once by computer. I obviously am reading the info in the screen caps wrong, but where does it say he was convicted of attempts to groom or sexual battery? It's in the quote I gave: It doesn't state that in the links I gave. The people who found this out must have access to other documents that state this information. Otherwise, it's just hearsay.

Taken from Zybez, originally from RV forums: Photo of Watson's Info Page Watson's Info Page He was charged of attempting to 'groom' a young boy over the internet, but it was later dropped. He was also arrested for transferring photos of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, twice. Once by mail, and once by computer.