RU_Insane

Research. You will find that most people never change. There's countless articles out there. You have made the assertions. The onus is on you to provide evidence. As an aside, you have made an absolute statement. People don't change. You will never find an article that supports that. Maybe 'more often than not they don't', but nowhere, will you find one that says 'never' whilst retaining a shred of credibility. I don't need to provide evidence, because this is nothing more than a discussion which will have no effect on anything. I think if you're really trying to say that these people can definitely be rehabilitated, go browse and tell me what you find. So your excuse for your assertion is that it's the evidence is there somewhere, but you won't supply the evidence yourself? Okay, that makes it a little hard to believe your claim, since you haven't even provided a logical example in your argument's favor. Someone in this thread has mentioned that one of her friends or family members successfully overcame her drug addiction. This is evidence in support of the assertion that people can be rehabilitated. I think this is a reasonable assertion, even without the evidence, because it has happened. It's much harder to prove that no one can be rehabilitated (positing an absolute) as opposed to saying some can overcome addiction. I replied to Kimberly, unless you missed that part. An drug addiction is quite different to someone who finds pleasure in teenagers, in some circumstances it's down to trauma at a young age (Child abuse, etc.) which can lead to it. I find it funny that you're so keen on dropping a whole point because I haven't gone through to provide you with facts. I'm to take what you're saying without facts. But here, here's a link to a google search: http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&sugexp=gsis%2Ci18n%3Dtrue&cp=10&gs_id=5s&xhr=t&q=can+sex+offenders+be+rehabilitated&pq=can+addiction+to+child+pornography+be+cured&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=can+sex+of&aq=0&aqi=g5&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=f180e3c23bdef79c&biw=1536&bih=774 A useful quote to go along with that: "Therapy does not change a persons sexual proclivities - otherwise one would be able to change homosexuality." This thread has some very good comments regarding it: http://community.babycenter.com/post/a14943005/can_sex_offenders_be_rehabilitated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Treatment I'm really not bothered enough to try and convince you, if you really are interested in this conversation you'll look it up yourself instead of trying to brush it off due to laziness. Rehabilitation rates are very low, most offenders repeat. The term 'rehabilitation' is commonly used in a therapeutical context, not a psychological context as per innate proclivities that cannot be altered by the individual. I have no interest in checking out the link because I assumed you were asserting that any person cannot overcome a drug addiction. Now that you have clarified, I retract my point that you hadn't provided facts, because it seems you were discussing a different subject. I agree that a person's sexual proclivities are averse to change. What I disagree with is the assertion that the individual can, without fail, act on these proclivities, as is the basis of the objections to the owner continually operating the site in the fear he will sexualize minors. I apologize for my confusion, and thank you for clarifying.

In regards to the issue, we know he distributed child pornography in 1995, and he distributed it to someone else. Specifically, this pornography depicted teenagers, as he claims. We don't know the specific details about the content apart from that it depicted teenagers in a sexual manner. From this, even if he has a sexual interest in minors, there's no evidence we know of to suggest that he actively attempted to contact them. It may be a passive sexual interest which he enjoyed to fantasize about, as disturbing as that thought may be to some. We can't tell for sure from 1984-2005 if he came into sexual contact with minors because he was not monitored for this activity; he was registered as an offender in 2005. The earliest accusation of such contact we know of was in 1984, of which he claims innocence. Despite this, it's likely such unwanted contact would be reported and investigated, and so presumably if this has happened in that time period, the authorities would have this information, and it would have been used in his 1984 trial (which is the only case where someone accused him of forced sexual contact with a minor). The courts are likely still holding onto these documents. If we do enough digging, we can find the details. The 1995 case is different in that while he may have an express interest in teenagers/older children, he did not engage in contact with them; he simply distributed photography, which he says is a mistake he regrets and wishes to move on from it. That said, I can understand why someone would object to someone with a sexual interest in minors to running a site that attracts them. So I can understand why Jagex would sever the relationship with him, because people would object out of fear that he'd act on those inclinations. If however, Jagex simply did so in order to preserve their reputation (which is likely), and not out of any concrete evidence that he was actively pursuing minors, how can you claim he's a potential predator, in light that he says he regrets the mistake he was terminated for? There's no trend available for us to refer to that supports the claim he'll certainly act on those sexual interests. That he set up a fan-site that attracts an underage player-base, and that he was convicted of distributing child pornography, is not a fair assessment into what he's capable of doing. It's enough to establish that he has a passive sexual interest in a certain age range of children. It's not enough to establish that he will probably act on that inclination. We presently have more evidence from his own words that he doesn't wish to pursue minors, than evidence that he's willing to (we don't have the documents from the 1984 case, so that's why I say this). That being said, I agree with his stepping down, if only for the fact this stigma is attached to him. He made a stupid mistake, and now he's facing the consequences. Tough luck for him. If he isn't a sexual predator, too bad. If he is, serves him right. We don't know if a transaction took place. We just know it was distribution. He knew what he was doing was illegal. He assumed it was socially tolerable because the laws concerning child pornography had recently been introduced at the time, according to him. I think that's a terrible excuse for his actions, to be honest. But it sounds to me that he didn't intend to break the law, because he thought what he was doing would be tolerated. If he knew it wasn't tolerated, and he did it anyway, I'd say he intended to break the law. That's the mistake he regrets: thinking his actions were excusable despite knowing he was doing something illegal. So I agree that his justification of the issue is inexcusable. In fact, he admitted he knew it was illegal. He just thought it was tolerable (not wrong, not right) on a social basis. Laundry list? We only have one case where he was accused of sexual conduct with a minor, not simply sexual harassment, in 1984. Note he said the charges against him were dropped when he pleaded to an unspecified charge in exchange for one year of supervised release. He pleaded to and was convicted on one charge of sexual battery. He never said he was accidentally charged. The person was sure it was him. However, he says he's innocent of a lesser, unspecified charge, even though he pleaded to it. I'll note again, that an innocent person will likely plead to a lesser charge in favor of weaker punishment. This is not proof of his innocence. It's just a feature that has something in common with people who are exonerated of the charges after they were found guilty. Yes, and he provided reasons for that. We don't have evidence beyond what he claims, and the newspaper article Red linked to. Why not? He was perfectly in his rights to do so as he created the site in 2002. He was registered as a sex offender in 2005. Clean up what act? He says he's innocent of the 1984 charges. He says he regrets what he's done in the 1995 case, and wants to move on from that. It seems clear he cleaned up his act long ago. I'll also note he probably would have registered as a sex offender had he known the law had changed. That he was charged for 'attempting to failing to register' is not a sign of him failing to become a better person. Why would I be wrong to defend a man who cleaned up his act from unwarranted public scrutiny? I, for one, think his excuses regards the 1995 case are stupid. The 1984 case is understandable from his perspective, because he pleaded to a lesser charge, which suggests his possible innocence. I won't say it's anything beyond possible, because we don't possess all the facts regards that case. He moved to Tennessee in 2000 and checked the laws at that time to see if he required S.O. registration. That means he was prepared to register as an offender had he decided to move. It didn't require him to register yet, so he moved there. It's thus understandable that he didn't bother to check the laws again, under the assumption that such laws are averse to alteration. I'm not defending his actions, but I can see why he didn't check. "The first place" he "pulled his stunt" is in 1995, as he maintains in 1984, he was innocent. He obviously foresaw the consequences quickly, because he wanted to move on. Again, he was well within his rights to create the fan-site at that time. The fact that he operated the site for nine years until his resignation, as I explained in detail in a previous post, is a testament to the fact that he likely hasn't engaged in sexual contact with children. Had he exploited the opportunity to do so, he would have been punished, and prevented from using the internet from the time he was a sex-offender. Simple as that. That the site continued for nine years is not a failure of law. I suspect he was well-behaved in the time he operated the site as a sex-offender. I disagree. The most he should have come to expect is having his fan-site support terminated, the stigma attached with what he has done, knowing that people know he's a sex offender. He clearly regrets his mistake, so why should anything beyond this happen to him? Justice has long ago been served. No one else, with the exception of Jagex, has the authority now to dole out punishment, especially extrajudicial vigilante-style justice.

Research. You will find that most people never change. There's countless articles out there. You have made the assertions. The onus is on you to provide evidence. As an aside, you have made an absolute statement. People don't change. You will never find an article that supports that. Maybe 'more often than not they don't', but nowhere, will you find one that says 'never' whilst retaining a shred of credibility. I don't need to provide evidence, because this is nothing more than a discussion which will have no effect on anything. I think if you're really trying to say that these people can definitely be rehabilitated, go browse and tell me what you find. So your excuse for your assertion is that it's the evidence is there somewhere, but you won't supply the evidence yourself? Okay, that makes it a little hard to believe your claim, since you haven't even provided a logical example in your argument's favor. Someone in this thread has mentioned that one of her friends or family members successfully overcame her drug addiction. This is evidence in support of the assertion that people can be rehabilitated. I think this is a reasonable assertion, even without the evidence, because it has happened. It's much harder to prove that no one can be rehabilitated (positing an absolute) as opposed to saying some can overcome addiction.

Free press indeed: freedom of speech protects one against goverments.. However a press should never be free to post ANYTHING private of a person. And punishment is a private being. I never said anything about not believing punishment, I rather say the opposite: leave punishment to the goverment. Especially if the offender wishes to stay low profile let him stay low profile. We are no longer in the middle ages where you have to stand at the market square and let people throw tomatos at you. Keep punishment by the goverment, and if you disagree change the law - don't punish as civilian. Also let the past be the past. Punishment is always left up to the government. You are conflating the public element of humiliation with the notion of legal punishment. The government is the only entity with the authority to reintegrate and deter offenders of the law. Once the government publicly releases information about that offender, in the name of public protection, the press is free to report it. The press must assume that the information given is true since the judicial process is designed to wean out false positives as opposed to false negatives regards conviction, meaning a person's legal status as an offender is likely to be closer to fact then falsehood. It's also divulged by a trusted authority, so the press has little reason to not report it, especially if the matter is one of a public nature. Punishment is not a private matter since it's done in the public interest. When one offends, he is committing an offense against society. The public thus has the right to be informed of the danger an offender represents to it. We can only assume that danger is justified, because the judicial process is designed to give as accurate a conviction as possible. Like Will_H said, we cannot give up freedom of speech in favor of protecting individual security because that conviction just may happen to be false. We are meant to think that public danger is accurate, not false. Hence why the judicial process is so rigorous to determine if one truly broke the law. So you feel someone should his full life be followed by something he did earlier? YOu create monsters this way.. YOU are the worst kind of humans I ever met, actually craeting a place where others can't live who share other opinions. This is very similar to how homophilia was forced down only a century ago: whether it is good or wrong is besides the topic: what is wrong however is that punishment should be the end. There should be 0 problems AFTER the punishment has been taken, people have to live again. If you don't let people do that they'll only get together, thrown away from society and will commit even worse crimes. If I ever went to the US I would rather kill myself than getting into court: those things aren't even morally correct and I believe a crime against humanity. Look what happend to "DSK" now? In the end prosecution stopped, but his political carreer was destroyed, something many US people would love I guess. I doubt it was a complete fair process, but he was a foreigner so it was only normal. You have no real argument, so you resort to ad hominem attacks in a feeble attempt to undermine the veracity of my argument. No, I'm not arguing that he should live his life that way, I'm simply saying that's unfortunately how people will perceive him. I have no objections to him moving on, especially since I argued earlier than I think he is innocent. It doesn't matter now, but had you seen my earlier posts here, you wouldn't have defaulted to such an immature retort. If we had a judicial process where the potentially innocent's punishment is silenced in favor of protecting his image, we wouldn't have a fair judicial system, because that person could also potentially be guilty, and hence people would deserve to know he is dangerous. I don't know how it is where you live, but in Canada, each person has the right to a fair trial. This doesn't mean such matters should always be kept private in the person's interest, because it's possible he is dangerous to society. Likewise, it doesn't mean we should convict him on the possibility that he's an offender. However, we don't have all the facts, so we can't determine if he really did sexually exploit children. What we do know is that he was convicted of the 1995 charges, and he admits he made a mistake. Is he regretful? Yes. Is he ready to move on? Yes. The question to ask is, is he prepared to deal with the consequences? Yes, and he's dealing with them now. No one is saying he should live as if he's guilty. I'm saying that because he was convicted, nothing can stop people from (rightly) perceiving him as a danger to society, although he may have not committed the offense! But it's a better system than keeping such info private, and thus actually fueling danger, because children and parents don't know who's a predator, and who isn't. Do you want a society where people don't know who and who isn't a predator? I don't think you do, given your response. Hence, this system is the best alternative to what you have proposed. The judicial process has worked exactly the way it was meant to work. Evidence was given from both sides at the trial. The evidence was fairly examined by an impartial jury and the sentence meted out by a competent and unbiased judge who considered all the facts of the case. The people directly involved also have more details about the evidence then we do. Keeping that in mind, I don't see how you can say it was unfair because he was possibly innocent. The process doesn't work from that perspective. It works by considering the facts under a presumption of innocence before fair conviction (current system), not a speculation of innocence under unfair disavowal from public scrutiny (your flawed system). I'll also note that under your system, if he were punished without public notice, people would start asking questions as to where he is. What would the government say in response to that? Are you seriously proposing an opaque and closed government as opposed to a transparent and open government? If the man is released, and he is an offender, but no one notifies the public, wouldn't that be more dangerous than warning the public of the potential danger? Do you see the flaw with the system you're proposing? Like I said earlier, the government has the duty to report dangers in the interest of public safety. In this case, the government was simply doing its job. Further, the press has the liberty to report things that are true, especially if they concern the public. And again, even if the offender is innocent in actuality (which we have no way of knowing, although I've argued that I think he is), the press doesn't have any reason to doubt the veracity of the info the government has released, because the government is a trusted authority. So, out of the public interest, the gov. has released this information, and from there, the press has the liberty to report and speculate on it. Tough luck if he's innocent. It's better than letting a guilty person go free, which is what the system is designed to prevent. It's not a perfect system, but it's far more preferable to what you have proposed.

There's three cases, but he'll only admit to one as his fault. One is the 1984 accusation of sexual conduct with a minor, which he maintains he is innocent of. The second he admits he did, is the 1995 offense. The 2005 offense is one he didn't intend to commit. He claims he failed to register because he didn't know the respective law had changed. The authorities arrested him on a warrant under the assumption that he was knowingly evading registration. So when we narrow it down, there's only one case he'll admit to. He says he's innocent of the 1984 charge, and he didn't intend to commit the 2005 charge. He admits the 1995 case is his mistake, so he's guilty of that one for sure.

Free press indeed: freedom of speech protects one against goverments.. However a press should never be free to post ANYTHING private of a person. And punishment is a private being. I never said anything about not believing punishment, I rather say the opposite: leave punishment to the goverment. Especially if the offender wishes to stay low profile let him stay low profile. We are no longer in the middle ages where you have to stand at the market square and let people throw tomatos at you. Keep punishment by the goverment, and if you disagree change the law - don't punish as civilian. Also let the past be the past. Punishment is always left up to the government. You are conflating the public element of humiliation with the notion of legal punishment. The government is the only entity with the authority to reintegrate and deter offenders of the law. Once the government publicly releases information about that offender, in the name of public protection, the press is free to report it. The press must assume that the information given is true since the judicial process is designed to wean out false positives as opposed to false negatives regards conviction, meaning a person's legal status as an offender is likely to be closer to fact then falsehood. It's also divulged by a trusted authority, so the press has little reason to not report it, especially if the matter is one of a public nature. Punishment is not a private matter since it's done in the public interest. When one offends, he is committing an offense against society. The public thus has the right to be informed of the danger an offender represents to it. We can only assume that danger is justified, because the judicial process is designed to give as accurate a conviction as possible. Like Will_H said, we cannot give up freedom of speech in favor of protecting individual security because that conviction just may happen to be false. We are meant to think that public danger is accurate, not false. Hence why the judicial process is so rigorous to determine if one truly broke the law.

Well, I think the law knows his precise status about the restrictions. We don't know, and hence this is where we get into the gray area, because this info regards his exact status hasn't been made public. I see for your argument about stepping aside you've taken into account the moral objections. I can understand the concerns they'd have. Yes, the issue is two-fold: step aside, or don't. However, 'stepping aside' doesn't mean he has to leave. It simply means he abandons his current role so someone else can take over. He can assume another role in its place. He could assume a much less public role in the forums in response the potential objections. He would be staying with the site, but would no longer be acting as its day-to-day public operator. Why should he be forced to leave, especially if, for him, he's innocent? Likewise, why should he face scrutiny if he chooses to stay? Perhaps it's easier to just step aside and leave, true. But he was not prepared to do that; he's been running the site from then 'till now. It's only when he was more publicly exposed as an offender that he resigned his duties. Now that more people know, of course they're going to have objections, so he resigned. That was the most obvious course of action to take, and maybe he came to regret his decision. I don't think he had to leave, but I agree with stepping aside (read: abandoning current role) in response to the criticism. If he simply wanted to avoid criticism, I think he could have stayed, but lurked in the shadows, y'know.

The issue isn't so black and white. Your assertion presupposes that he should have stepped aside because those restrictions would interrupt his operation of the site. The hard part about determining what's legal and what isn't in a 'gray area', to quote Kaida, is that a) we don't know the terms of his restrictions regards his status as a sex offender, and b) we're speculating what is and isn't illegal based on assumptions of these terms. You'll note in my earlier post, I had reason to believe that the terms of his restriction aren't so strict as some would assume. This is because he has been managing RuneVillage for the last six years he was legally classified as an offender, i.e. he is subject to certain restrictions. It's also naive to implicitly assume that he isn't being monitored for this potential danger, or that he's somehow clever enough to bypass these restrictions without being noticed, for six years straight. Hence why I said, had he been subject to no contact at all with minors, as per his status, he'd long ago been punished. This makes the concept of a 'gray area' much less feasible because that assertion predicates itself on condition b). What we don't know is what those restrictions specifically entail, which is condition a). We presume it entails the restriction of contact with minors in some way. That's a valid presupposition. However, we don't know to what extent he is allowed contact with them, of what nature this contact, and hence what he is restricted from doing, and hence what makes such actions illegal. So I argue that it's ultimately pointless to argue the legality of his actions in a 'gray area' when we aren't in possession of facts that we could use as markers to form a probable conclusion. This is why I when I formed my speculation, I predicated it on the valid premise that the restrictions likely aren't as strict as many would think. We have the premise, now we can use the relevant evidence to support a conclusion following from a question I wished to answer. That question is, Does he have the potential to engage in sexual conduct with children? So I admit in fact, my speculation in the last post was largely irrelevant to her question, since Kaida was simply asking whether or not he'd be restricted from all contact with minors. This question however, presupposes that he has a range of potential to engage in sexual conduct with minors; not just any form of conduct, specifically sexual conduct. Why would you restrict him from all forms of contact, unless you think he will, without fail, seek every opportunity to sexualize a child? So I sought to prove that he had little potential to sexualize a child. This is what the question was implicitly asking. This is still an important question, even if it's not the one Kaida posed directly. To answer directly, no, he's not restricted from all contact with minors. Why do I say this? Because if he's been restricted from all contact with minors, we would not see him running the site for the last six years, as it's home to children. If he hasn't been totally restricted, we can rule out that possibility. Had he engaged in sexual conduct regards this, he would have been punished. That he hasn't been punished lends credibility to my point, along with the other evidence I supplied, that he had little potential to sexualize a child. Thus the heart of this matter lies in the nature of the contact between the minor and the adult. So my selection of the final outcome, to finally answer your question, Kaida, is this. He's punished for sexualizing a minor, or he hasn't been punished and hence hasn't been sexualizing any minors. I base this outcome on the assumption that he is monitored for this exact type of behavior. It's ludicrous to assume that he's been engaging in this kind of behavior, because that raises the question of why he was allowed to operate the site for so long. If he's been engaging in sexual behavior regards minors for so long as a sex-offender, he either hasn't been monitored enough, or he's clever enough to bypass the restrictions. I find both of those assertions laughable, considering the severity of the crime. Hence, I supplied evidence that he likely hasn't been engaging in such conduct in line with my rejection of these absurd outcomes. To Sy_Accursed, I hope you can see now why it isn't so black and white as simply 'stepping aside'. :P

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. When it turned up that he didn't register in Tennessee either, he was charged again for failing to register, but this was reduced from a felony offense to a misdemeanor (albeit he was still required to register as a sex offender). This was in 2005. In short, Watson was legally registered as a sex offender no earlier than 2005; he created RuneVillage in 2002; and hence he wasn't subject to the stipulations of said conviction at the time he created the site. Hence, the claim that "he should have known better" is of course, false, since nothing was legally preventing him from creating that site at the time. That being said, your points are still valid, if predicated on the false assumption that he was a sex offender at the time. He's likely prevented from establishing sexual contact with children now that he is registered as an offender. My Speculation: So, where does the gray area come into this? Well, it's certainly not involved in the creation of the site, but arguments can be submitted regards the continued operation of the site circa 2005 onward from the time he was first registered as an offender. Determining whether the site's continued operation is against his terms or within his rights is hard. In this case, we can deliberate into the intent of the owner to gauge whether or not he was engaging in activities that violated the terms of his restrictions. I think it's a fair statement, that we're perhaps broadening the scope of what's considered illegal via contentious definitions, and hence part of this gray area arises. That he has established communication with and had access to minors is not a fair grounds for assessment into the legality of his actions. I think to make a fair statement, we should determine whether he has engaged in any sexual conduct with minors, and not merely established communication with them. I would think he would long ago been punished had he not been allowed to establish any communication with minors in the first place, so this is why I forward that definition for this hypothesis. The owner has said that, while he had access to information about minors, he had not acted on this information maliciously or had made any sexual advances toward minors in his time there. So, the least we have to corroborate the claim that he hasn't engaged in such activities are his own statements. It's likely that any advances made by him onto minors would be reported to authorities, and hence the information would be held on the public record, and that this would factor into the reasoning Jagex gave for demoting RV. Jagex demoted RV because of offenses concerning distribution of child pornography (which he did not produce or physically possess, and the content itself likely being of a questionable nature regards its legality) and other offenses, not sexual advancement onto minors. I'm not saying it's not possible that he hasn't done it, but that there's no observable trend in his criminal record (as far as known fact) that we can defer to in order to support the claim that he intended to engage in sexual relations with minors. Furthermore, he also stated that he wished to start over; and that his past offenses did not represent who he really was (see first page). So he seems remorseful of what he has done and I argue from this that it's unlikely he would engage in these activities for the fact he wishes to move on. Further, he last committed an offense in 1995, though he thought his actions could be excused. Keep this in mind. If he thought his actions were innocent enough to be excused, can you say he really intended to break the law? One must have the relevant knowledge (of a particular law) to have intent (to break that law), as a rough outline. He stated regards this that although he knew it was illegal, he assumed it wasn't yet socially despicable, as the relevant legislation had just recently been signed into law. The content itself likely wouldn't be objectionable to many people at that time, since we are not given details into the nature of this sexual content, and such parameters denoting legality (law conceptually being an extension of society) can be vague. Were the photos depicted consensual or abusive, for example? How about the age range of the minors depicted compared to legal adulthood? I thus argue that he thought his actions would be excused because he evaluated them on a social basis and not a legal basis. Despite this, he was convicted in 1995 for distributing child pornography. He was charged again in 2005 for failing to register as an offender. He didn't register because he didn't know the law concerning this had changed. Thus I argue he had no intent to break the law this time either. Thus meaning his last real offense was in 1995, sixteen years ago, and no incidents aside from the one in 2005 have been reported then. Considering much time has passed with no incident, and considering his statements, I think those are sufficient reasons to establish that he most likely did not have the potnetial to engage in sexual conduct with minors. I'll note that in 1984 he was accused of engaging in sexual misconduct with a minor. He maintains he is innocent of this crime. These charges were later dropped in exchange for one year of supervised release on unspecified charges of sexual battery, which he maintains he is also innocent of. Given what I've examined, I take the position that he was easily swept under the long arm of the law. He admits he made a foolish mistake by assuming his 1995 offense would be excused because he found it socially tolerable. He maintains that he is innocent of the 1984 charges although he pleaded to a lesser charge, which I'll note one is more likely to plead to if you're innocent. I do not present this as proof of his innocence; it's merely an observation based in common sense. Finally, he was arrested in 2005 for failing to register as an offender, which he maintains is because he did not know the relevant laws had changed to require him to. This is not a new, separate offense caused by deliberate, malicious action. This is a new offense predicated on the fact that the law itself had changed. Granted, he should have kept himself updated with the legal changes, considering he did so when he moved to Tennessee. However, he likely made the understandable assumption that such laws are slow to change, and did not bother checking after he had moved in. My end position on this issue is that he's a person with good intentions, but he failed to check the consequences of his actions (and inactions). He also may or may not be currently be violating the terms of his restrictions. This conclusion is reliant on whether he's monitored for sexual contact with minors, or totally restricted from establishing any sort of contact with them. I've exhausted what I can say in regards to the legality of his interactions with children here. Moving on to what Jagex could have done. In my opinion, I think Jagex could have handled the situation better. Tripsis and Killerred have eloquently woven together a better solution that Jagex could have taken in handing the issue. That said, I dislike how Jagex seems to be acting like a moral crusader. It's unnecessary. The man presented no danger, to the extent that we are in possession of the facts supporting that assertion. I also think, that while they have a legal obligation to keep the community safe, that their actions were confused, considering the alternatives they could have taken. They could have quietly dealt with the issue instead of vilifying the man and reinforcing, in my opinion, the likely erroneous perception that this man is a dangerous offender (that is debatable, of course). They could have asked RV to post an announcement on their forums regards what Jagex had learned about the administrator, and then plan how to reorder management if possible in the name of public relations without having to revoke its gold-status. The issue is no longer community safety since the community seemed to be safe even under this man. It's simply about preserving Jagex's reputation as a friendly video game developer to parents and children. I suspect they chose to deal with it loudly because they wished to give the impression that they were actively fighting this issue (despite it being largely superficial as no real reports of abuse were recounted from this man, aside from the court case in 1984). IMO this side of the issue seems like an entire PR stunt. They 'enforced' the rules the wrong way. Nothing was actually done that protected the community. They just demoted some fan-site because it harbored some guy who admits he should have known better about his actions, and seemed remorseful and ready to move on. He was harmless, in my opinion. How is removing a harmless person protecting a community? Now RuneVillage has attracted negative publicity. It's endured a scar it likely won't recover from anytime soon, thanks to Jagex's lack of ability to negotiate with people.

Interesting. I've never seen a pop-up or an advertisement in my last three years of using these forums. \o/ The first year, I had a lot of those though. Once I got ad block plus, I never saw an ad again. Funny thing is, I think there's a RuneScape rule that forbids you from using ad blocker when playing RS. Never been punished for breaking that rule, and I've been playing ad-free for maybe four years. OT: Have I ever donated? No. Do I plan to? Not now. In the future? Maybe. :P

I agree. I dislike the way Jagex is sliding downhill with these barely disguised and poorly thought out money-grabbing schemes. Like I said earlier, it violates their core principle of not buying your way to success in the game. That idea makes more sense than what Jagex came up with. I particularly like it because of the time that lapses before you're granted the membership. For example, if the average transition time from F2P to P2P is a hundred playing hours and the reward for this is one free week of P2P, Jagex would've raked in much more from membership fees when that total time is up. I think it's fair to implement some sort of sign-up limit as well. I imagine many players would sign up and a large portion would be granted the free-week at the same-time. It'd make sense that the expenses Jagex incurs from granting free-membership at that point in-time doesn't also exceed the revenue they accrued over that same period. For example, if it takes one month for a player to achieve one hundred playing hours and he's granted the membership, tens of thousands of others would likely obtain it at the same time. Since we don't know the base expense of running a P2P subscription for Jagex (since they're likely to mark-up the price for profit and different subscriptions have different cost rates), it's unlikely that it'd be a financial loss to them. ... I guess a sign-up limit isn't so necessary then :P Your idea is actually pretty good. It prevents abuse because you have to actually put in playing hours as opposed to taking a few minutes to walk to the store to buy membership for a game you just heard about. With your method, you get acquainted with the game and when enough time passes, you have the choice to use the membership or not. I think it's useful to make the free week of membership optional, by the way. I mean, I'm sure many players would take the chance at P2P especially if it's free at that point. I'd make it optional simply because some players wouldn't want to try P2P at that point (for whatever reason), which is common. And to ensure that the time spent in the game is spent actually playing the game and not standing around doing nothing trying to fool the system, I think it'd make sense to make the game track time spent actually interacting with the environment. Skilling, questing, monster-hunting, trading, and so forth. This is so players are actually encouraged to find productive ways to spend-time in game. Although it's unlikely new players would just stand around, it's possible veteran players who have mains would sign up noob accounts to bypass this requirement by not doing anything, getting the "X amount of hours" played, and then getting free membership for their mains. This detail makes the whole programme equally accessible, comprehensive, and air-tight. Heck. You should suggest this idea on the forums. :P It attracts potential long-time players (and payers) at no cost to either the user or Jagex, and the incentive to do so isn't game-breaking or violating one of Jagex's principles. Perhaps Jagex could make it so that any account who spends an unusual amount of time in-game doing an activity a certain way (the way macroers would) is flagged. After all, what new account besides that belonging to a veteran player would stick to just a few select activities? Then when the time-lapses and membership is about to be granted, those flagged accounts are submitted to Jagex for review. Who knows how many botters will sign-up. They're artificial so they have all the time in the world to earn that membership. That considered though, I think it's more convenient for the owner-of the bot to simply buy membership up front since the profit they'd make in-game selling gold/items likely exceeds the cost of membership. If not that, the achievement of a botted 99 skill for them is worth paying the money up-front too, again because there's no physical effort beyond that since the bot presumably does the rest of the work. So on hand, it's unlikely that many cheaters would take advantage of this programme since what's a few dollars up front for a botted 99 in members? It's also likely that if they paid for the bot script, that they'd have money to pay for membership right away too. In the case the cheater decides to earn free membership through the programme, any suspicious activity from them would be flagged, meaning their efforts could be wasted with a simple ban, and they'd have to start over. If they decide to play by the rules up until they earn the membership, the bot would be flagged in-game due to suspicious activity afterward. Further, even if that bot is banned, the owner could create another on the spot at no cost. So even if the risk is great, the botters aren't really punished (unless the banned bot was their main). So I think the issue of botters abusing this program is one of risk vs reward here, and convenience vs effort. I think it's unlikely for a botter to play by the rules for free-membership (which is only one week too). On the flip-side, the botter could choose convenience and cheat from the outset, which while effort is minimal, the risk of getting caught can be potentially great. Then again, many players have botted 99s without getting caught. o.O But yeah, simply due to the convenience of paying up-front, and the low/high risk of botting, I think many cheaters would opt to pay for a longer membership rather than investing effort for a short-term subscription. So would bots benefit? It's possible, but on a large-scale? Unlikely since the majority of botters would pay for membership to bot as opposed to no cost, even if the risk of getting caught is high or low. Would it benefit bots over players? Not inside the game. Agreed. Overall, I agree with you though. There are more effective 'programmes' to attract members than what Jagex has introduced.

That's a valid point. I don't think the investors anticipated the RAF update to be well-received by the player-base. I think they did it simply to increase the monetary value of the game when they eventually re-sell their shares; public reception is irrelevant to their profits. Concerning the release of botting info, I wrote from the perspective that the investors were already aware of the problem, albeit in accordance to what Mod Mat K said, they'd been quiet with the specifics of the problem. I suppose the question here is, when is the right-time for Jagex to divulge such information if they do know more than us? Let's assume Jagex is concerned (whatever concern is left) with us. It'd make sense for them to release that data if they truly knew more than us about the issue. In terms of #s of bots, I think that information could be released without any undesirable consequences. So why haven't they done this already? I couldn't tell you. Regards the development of anti-cheating software, perhaps Jagex chooses to withhold this information because they rightly fear that cheaters will find a way to circumvent those efforts if such data is publicly released. Consequently, Jagex feels now isn't the right time because they don't wish for the systems they're presumably working on to be sabotaged by the cheaters it would target. So that's the most feasible (speculative) explanation I can offer you as to why Jagex hasn't released info despite supposedly being aware of the problem. Tested and true by history. I won't deny the possibility that Jagex could be lying to its players, but given exactly what they've said ("we can't tell you to prove X because of Y"), it's uncertain to qualify this outcome. I'll admit it's even likely that they're lying. But by how I weighted the possibilities given what I know (for example, I mentioned Jagex has to pay CC charge-back fees for memberships bought by stolen credit cards), I hope for the sake of RS, that they aren't lying. I admit, if there's no evidence that Jagex is paying those specific fees to a significant degree, I see no reason why they'd lose out on bot memberships, since then revenue would exceed expenses from those subscriptions. It's completely possible that they're aware of the problem, but the profits from bot subscriptions well outweigh the issues for them to do anything about it. This is why I said in order to qualify an outcome, we'd need more data released in regards to their expenses to see if they're profiting from bots or not. Again, it could be the case that they are profiting but are keeping hush-hush about their revenue, in order to not enrage the player-base even more (and tacitly preserve whatever reputation they have left). I'll concede Jagex is quite incompetent at dealing with problems, even in light of them saying they are pursuing solutions. It seems to me the only events that could effectively deal with the problem we're facing at this point in time are ones of a pivotal (read: controversial) nature. I agree. But at any point in time, some sort of action would have to be taken assuming Jagex is proactive about cheaters. What's to say action taken earlier wouldn't be as controversial, as pivotal? If they're looking to kill a potential issue permanently, it's not unreasonable to assume that the action taken would be quite drastic at any point in time. I agree that they should be open to their best extent about the problems both we and they face. This transparency isn't always feasible however, which I'll elaborate on soon. They should also pursue effective solutions to a potentially serious problem when it's first apparent. But even if they had both those criteria filled, I'm sure the end result -- the solution to the problem -- would be quite pivotal. Placing your statements in a wider context, I suppose you mean Jagex is currently doing what it's done before -- simply giving the public what it wants to hear without having any real solution up their sleeve. But given that same content of that message ("We can't tell you what we're doing"), it's possible the information regards anti-cheating is sensitive and they don't wish to compromise it by releasing it before its due date. Interestingly, when I read your first sentence in the quote above, I keep thinking about the December 2007 updates. Botting was certainly extreme by that point in time, and the solution they implemented was equally consequential. I recall they had conceptualized those updates for quite some time before implementation. Before that time, the tactic of mass bot banning was common-place, but only proved to be temporarily effective. I think for Jagex at that time, it was quite a strain on their finances to house gold-farmers and such, because of the stolen credit cards and associated fees. I'm not so surprised that they took so long to implement such updates. We only get a clear sense of the path to take when we realize how large the problem we face is. I don't blame Jagex for not taking such steps initially, since they were informed quite late into the issue (mid 2006?) that they'd have to shut down RuneScape if extreme action was not taken. Between that time and December 2007, they had 1.5 years to carefully examine the mechanics of the game and propose, design, and implement ways to stall RWT according to these mechanics. The least they could do was introduce these updates as quickly as possible because it was clear banning the bots was no longer an effective solution; the problem ran deeper than that. The presence of bots was a symptom of the true cause of RuneScape's illness in that era, and treating the symptom does not cure the disease. Essentially, Jagex initially operated under the assumption that banning the cheaters would be an effective enough solution (and keep in mind this went on for a long time). When it became clear to them it was not, they were pressured to quickly find a deeper answer. So I think it was a learning process for Jagex and the players. Keep in mind we didn't know about the fees Jagex was paying until they told us. Not even Jagex itself was aware of the stolen credit cards until the associated banks told them. How many players were still furious with Jagex even after they disclosed the gravity of the situation? Historically, although Jagex took time to find an appropriate (yet controversial) solution, it was also because they took the time to learn. Jagex also warned players of these impending updates and noted that they'd take a grave stance against RWT. Did they specify on what exactly they'd do? No. That was left for public speculation. Is it any surprise, then, that players were shocked when the updates finally happened, and some doubters smacked their heads and went "Wow, they were serious!"? We judge the effectiveness of a solution partly on what we know about the depth of the problem it combats. So when you assert that they "pursued the wrong angle", that's true, they did. But it took time for anyone to conceptualize a more effective solution for this. Yes, one could pretend to be wise and wistfully respond, "That is not the solution", in that airy tone of assurance, as if he possessed privileged knowledge, but his claims are paltry if he cannot supply an answer beyond that. And who could? No one except for Jagex knew the path they were going to take and they were keeping it quiet because they know they'd garner disapproval from the player-base. And y'know what'd they would suggest in response to that as part of their criticism? "Change it, are you insane, Jagex?!" When it's apparent one solution has become ineffective, its takes time to search for another. Thus, that a considerable amount of time lapses in-between finding solutions, isn't a reliable indicator of reluctance or unawareness of the problem. Likewise, for reasons I hope are self-evident, reluctance to disclose any defining detail of what goes on behind the scenes isn't a reliable indicator of a non-existent solution. So, why do we assume we know more than Jagex simply based on what's superficially apparent? The reasoning is so shallow. Even bearing these principles in mind, the current case warrants closer scrutiny. Jagex now has experience not in recognizing problems (problems are always obvious, what isn't are the solutions to them), but proposing effective solutions to them. That being said, I find it hard to believe Jagex is unaware of the extent of the problem, since given the 2007 updates they'd likely more closely scrutinize where their sources of revenue come from, which is something many skeptical players are quick to point out that bots are purposely kept because Jagex is profiting off of them. Of course, if you have income, you naturally also have expenses. So what's to say you aren't losing money after you deduct your totals? The problem is that the statement has little evidence to corroborate it, and as such, begs the question in its premise. Namely, proponents of this skepticism are asserting that Jagex is profiting off of bots because they keep them in-game, therefore, they must be profiting off of bots. You are asserting the very thing you're trying to prove! There's no way to know for sure if the claim is true, so you cannot claim it to be true in the first place. There's nothing more I can say for this claim except that it's easy for one to invent a multiplicity of logically unsubstantiated answers to a question in order to satiate a pleading psychological desire for relevant meaning as a way to rationalize one's own disillusionment. I find it to be a heavy-handed and idiotic tactic that warrants no attention to be relegated to it. In summary, honesty takes a back-seat when it's clear the player-base will be dissatisfied with any proposal they claim Jagex has a right to inform them about. This of course is a ludicrous claim. This does not, however, mean that Jagex is exempt from any sort of criticism. The passage of time to an arbitrarily designated point described as "too late" is inconsequential in finding an effective answer to a persistent issue. We cannot even begin to differentiate between a "right step" and a "wrong step" until we are in sufficient possession of the facts, which we are not, presumably for a good reason (I base this presumption on precedent). Since we have a major precedent for this, I think it's safe to assume Jagex isn't unaware or reluctant to fix the problem. Of course when we aren't in full possession of the facts, we jump to erroneous conclusions based on fallacious reasoning based on what's superficially apparent, as I've demonstrated with the "profit from bots" claim. The most effective solutions will be ones that are pivotal in their effects, so I disagree with saying that Jagex is limited in their solutions. I also disagree with saying they ran out of solutions when the problem is at its most extreme, again because we naturally aren't in full possession of the facts. Perhaps this lack of information could be attributed to Jagex's reluctance to disclosure. Even so, there's nothing that could prompt such dissemination of data considering it's likely sensitive and as I previously stated, Jagex doesn't want any possible existing efforts to be compromised by early release of this information simply because players feel entitled to it. I think regards release of information, players deserve from Jagex proof that they're incurring significant losses from bots, again to stifle those who assert the contrary based on what's superficially apparent. I think players deserve proof that Jagex currently owns and operates a macro-software detection system, and that it's capable of detecting third-party software users on the level Jagex claims it does, and that it has caught a significant number of cheating users as Jagex claims it has. Of course, the release of information pertaining to either of those issues automatically disproves the perception that Jagex is ignorant of the extent of the problem. Excuse me for being so lengthy so far. :P That's a good point. I'll should clarify my statement then. It's true that stock-holders are inconsequential when the issue lays with the game itself, if I'm understanding what you're saying. They wouldn't get physically involved, rather it might be a concern among them that perhaps subscriptions could drop a considerable number if Jagex were to publish the numbers, which we agree is a baseless concern on a logical level. This is because if players are so certain that they're more cognizant of the depths of problem than Jagex, it would come as no surprise if Jagex confirms it. Many would lose interest simply seeing the state of the game so the publication of such numbers should hardly have weight on their decision to leave. I don't think it's that, given what I've said above. It's hard to discern Jagex's position on this issue apart from what they've explicitly told us, because they think they have good reasons not to disclose as much information as players think they're entitled to. It's quite a power struggle. :P I don't disagree with the validity of your statement overall. They're certainly acting like they don't need help, whatnot with the limited communication, parroting of canned responses and general stubbornness, but that's not reason alone to shame them (well, okay. The parroting is actually pretty damn shameful. What, do they think we suffer from short-term memory loss?). I think they should be ashamed that they've abandoned their principles about not buying your way to success in the game, along with the flawed methodology they employed in the initial stage of the Wilderness Vote. Come on. No passwords required to cast your vote, and you can even cast the names of banned players. -_-

If even to publish a small sample of their expenses to prove a point, I don't see why not. It's no secret that cheaters are a problem. Skeptical players talk about how Jagex doesn't realize how large the problem is. I'm sure they have an idea of it, especially with the data they have privileged access to. Quantifying the issue by releasing some numbers would stifle those claims and sow the impression that Jagex is aware as opposed to unaware of this issue. To be an effective company, it makes sense for those in charge of it to be aware of the problems they face so that they can form solutions to combat these problems. The least Jagex could do to show awareness and thus diligence in this issue and restore faith in the player-base instead of parroting the same canned response about how they're dealing with bots (but never qualify their tactics beyond this claim) is to publish numbers. It may not be savory for their shareholders who're looking for returns on their investment, but realistically, it wouldn't damage the company's reputation to do so as this quote seems to be implying. One, the game's condition is clearly visible to the player-base either way, and has an immediate effect on how the players perceive the company. This perception isn't new and isn't likely to change drastically over a short-period of time. To act as if publishing unsavory data is bad PR supposes that the player-base has an untainted view of Jagex easily susceptible to such negative change. This is like saying: "I... don't think any country would publish numbers on their incarcerated subjects." Despite the fact citizens are fully aware their country houses such people and have a negative perception of them. The statement is posed as if the company should be embarrassed that there are any third-party program users at all. No, that's what you'd come to expect in an MMORPG. The existence of cheaters themselves in your game isn't something to be ashamed about. How you deal with them influences your reputation, and if they're hardly dealt with, you should be ashamed. To withhold this data for fear of embarrassment simply validates the public's erroneous perception that the company isn't aware of the problem and hence this would not bode well for the company's current reputation which is already in a bad lime-light. Numbers help us visualize the extent of the problem and thus help us plan an effective solution to minimize its effects. No one should feel embarrassed, or be subject to admonishment simply because they are quantifying this problem. So I reiterate that I take no issue with Jagex publishing such data to disprove the public's erroneous perception that they are unaware of the botting problem, along with supplying a sample of their expenses incurred in combating cheaters to corroborate their claims of losses.

Lold. How can this possibly be true? I doubt it costs more than $5 per bot to get rid of or explain. That assertion operates under the assumption that the only costs involved are directly with the bot. If I recall, Jagex still has to pay charge-back fees for memberships paid for on stolen credit cards. There's no information I've seen so far that suggests that RWT'ers have veered from this tactic since 2007, so I think it's safe to conclude that Jagex is losing out not simply because bots are subscribing, but because the monetary expense of bots subscribing to Jagex is higher than the revenue they gain from those subscribers. This isn't the only factor contributing to Jagex's expenses, but it's a pretty prominent one. There are of course the costs involved to run the software that detects cheaters (simply because the software doesn't seem to be doing its job doesn't mean it's non-existent, it could simply be a very inefficient system), and the costs to pay the employees involved in that sector (research, development, and implementation of anti-cheating tactics). For as long as macroers persist, Jagex will have to keep paying expenses, and there's no indication that given the expenses we know Jagex deals with, that they they are profiting from cheaters. Y'know what'd help? If Jagex published a yearly account of all its expenses, point by point. The info we have access to now I believe only tracks overall revenue and expenses. It'd be nice to get an idea of how much money (if not effort) Jagex actually spends fighting bots. And from there, whether or not Jagex loses out, or profits from bots. Say for example: One column could be "Revenue gained from users of illegal third-party software" and the other could be "Expenses incurred from users of illegal third-party software" or whatever. The first two columns would be sub-divided, one division for each source of expense or revenue. For example, "CC charge-back fees" under "Expenses Incurred" would be a source of expense. The last column would be the difference between the first two columns (gain or loss). Pretty simple graph to do, no? I'm sure Jagex can supply us with the numbers. Oh, and not every bot is a subscriber (and thus can contribute to Jagex's revenue). It's likely due to the sheer amount of bots, that Jagex stands to lose more from them than to gain. You think bots that pay for membership are bad? The ones in free to play don't have to and are probably much larger in number. Think about the expenses Jagex stands to incur from that group. In all, it doesn't seem likely to me that Jagex is profiting from bots given what I've said here (even if we don't have all the numbers).

EDIT: Never mind, I looked and the quote's already posted. -_-

Hell, you can get several hundred million XP in a day if you tried and were high level enough. Jagex really doesn't know their own game. Not surprised. Haha

I wouldn't be surprised if they just came out with it and released a "Refer Your Bot Programme" -_- (although this one is essentially the same).

Did anyone bother to actually read the article past that part? They have a new Research & Development department, and Andrew does not own any part of Jagex anymore, but acts as their Principal Architect.

No, buy a Big Mac, get a free membership - owait. Jagex would never agree to a deal like that. -_-

Servers back up.

For the lag issues on the G.E., I think those are pretty resolved now.

Here, some screens of the new (and old GE). I saw those ^^ It looks sweet. Plan to check it out personally too though. :P

I was just about to check out the new G.E. -.- Oh well.

You're not the only one. I have much the same complaints. I can't find anything immersive or engaging about the Quests centered around Myreque.

Beat me by six minutes >_> Which is a long time in the game of post-it-first. lol. Speaking of Citadels though, my membership expired 12 hours ago. Must renew today to check out Citadels. ^_^