Carl

I can still see the thread. Over reaction much? [qfc]285-286-462-63381407[/qfc] We get it. You don't like Jagex. Quit preaching, maybe find a game you like. EDIT: QFC isn't working. Search "The Ultimate Insult 2" on the RSOF.

Please refrain from personally attacking people who may disagree with your position. The question in debate is whether JaGex ought to exercise censorship against moderators who do not share the same vision as JaGex - those whom may disagree. It is not the same as 'jumping on a desk and yelling at customers' at all - the analogy is very weak because there's very few similarities between the two. My view on the matter would be that it should be most appropriate if the views of disgruntled moderators were to be listened to, should it be presented in a way that is constructive and civil. I do not shun controversy, nor criticism - it operates in their interests to be self-correcting. It is a shame that sometimes JaGex does not fully justify their actions - thus it can only be assumed that they have ulterior motives. Hmmm.. Jagex, a multi-million pound company should justify (Or walkthrough - as they are already justified) why they've done something, to its customers? No, not at all. What they've done is justified, those demodded know exactly why they were demodded. I've already supplied a rather large quote by Mod Mat K in a previous page of this thread. These moderators weren't censored, they're free to post their opinions. They are guided to post them in a feedback forum for Moderators (As stated in previous quote) as their opinions in public can be seen as the opinion of all Moderators (They have green backgrounds/Silver crowns). If every other Moderator can express their opinions in a certain forum - so can those that were demodded. It's attention seeking when they go out of their way to make it seem like they're the only ones with an opinion. And I believe his analogy does apply. If all of the other staff in that place can express their opinions to the management privately and respectfully, then so should they. Should they choose to jump up on that table and scream and shout, they shouldn't be surprised as to why their were dismissed. To then go outside of that place of work and preach that they were fired for disagreeing with the ownership...They're not being entirely honest.

When growing up in school, there was one specific talk we were all given. If you want to drink, or smoke -- or even fight; fine. You're going to do it, you're human. But out of respect for those who you represent, and your peers, don't do it while you are representing the school (We wore uniform). If you're wearing the crown and bad mouthing them, no matter where, you deserve to be stopped. You're risking the image of every other Moderator. Resign your voluntary position if you no longer want to represent them - or choose to speak badly about them. No-one forces people to remain as a Moderator. Well, if you want to shout out your negative opinion, resign your position before you do so. Don't ruin the image of many because you don't want to provide feedback the same way as they do. That's selfish and simply attention-seeking. A lot has changed in 6 months. I'd love to discuss every point in full, but that's not an option. I've already commented on that above. Omali: I understand what you're saying, but in RuneScape each player has their own set of tools. You have a Report Abuse button and an ignore list. It's not like Pmods are the only method of reporting people.

... :wall: You just don't get it. Anyway, to quote something (not just directed at the above post)

If you wish to believe that's how things work, fine. :thumbup: More power to you.

How is i t a good buisness model for jagex to basically discourage people from accepting modship by saying you must spout the party line and not get a pay check for it? First it makes people lose respect for the current p and f mods because now they are basically drones serving jagex and can't have an opinion of their own. But they do have opinions, and places to voice them.

Not that I disagree with what Ken may have said, as I'm opposed to the update as well.

Horribly disappointed with the Hiscores update. It's put a damper on a good two months.

Not for long. Not in F2P anyway. <_< AFAIK you could only stake very small amounts in F2P. I wasn't including F2P in what I said.

Money's transferred only after a staking match. With Dicing, it's before the game's started. Therefore any Joe can state they are dicing, take money and log out. You can't do that in a Duel. You have hiscores, etc. at your disposal to insure it will be a fair match.

...It required a smart person to host? :rolleyes:

I'm happy it's been removed. I'm not poor, nor unconvinced of trustworthiness of certain people. I wasn't happy with the direction the game/community was going. This will halt it, even if only for a few days.

[qfc]15-16-957-63375704[/qfc]

You don't know me personally, at all, Pal. When it comes to here, though...And some of the posts? There's only so much face-palming I can do. If that person doesn't want to make an effort in their post, and only [bleep] about it "Because X said...", then don't expect Mr. Niceguy.

So people who have jobs, etc. Are disadvantaged because they can't play RS all day? Come on...No-one's forcing you to play, ever. RuneScape should never feel like a job.

If one's brought to court, there's good chances they will see it. Not if they don't have the money period. 99% of civil lawsuits never sees all of the money from it. Case in point, there's the case of that woman who was sued for 2.4M or 2.4B for downloading a bunch of songs. There is no way that company will see that money from that individual in their lifetime, there is absolutely no way. This will be no different, and I would have no idea how they'd quantify "damage" done in any case. What, would each "tree" chopped be worth X cash? It's an arbitrary thing at best. Alternately, they could just settle the matter outside of court, but knowing how these companies have just so much money to throw at the courts, I'm not so sure. Also, I don't even play this game, as I stopped well over four years ago, so how would I know what the abuse report is? What about your TOS argument? Report Abuse has always been in the game. One of the first options to report is for macroing. It's hinted everywhere that bots aren't allowed. Of course they won't see 2.4M or 2.4B - they'll likely see a realistic amount. I wasn't talking about massive sums of money. In any case, I'm just saying that TOSes are in most cases not factored in during any proceedings. They're often so badly written in favor of the company and in most cases they do not extend any protections to the consumer. I'm also aware that Report Abuse is in game now that you've told me. Remember that I haven't played in four years meaning I frankly don't care for it? Literally the only reason I'm posting/bullshitting in this topic is for postcount+. Trying to boost your post count by making stupid arguments really isn't productive. They're "often" this, and "most cases" that. No. You're not talking about any company. Make an effort instead of forming your own conclusions from absolutely no work. I never said you cared for the "Report Abuse" button. But it was regarding your above comments that I brought it up. Do you read the cover of every book before you comment on it? Try harder.

Leave it as two, add a new question into the second - "Do you care?" "Yes/No", or something. Honestly, I'm happy with where it is. I see no reason to change.

If one's brought to court, there's good chances they will see it. Not if they don't have the money period. 99% of civil lawsuits never sees all of the money from it. Case in point, there's the case of that woman who was sued for 2.4M or 2.4B for downloading a bunch of songs. There is no way that company will see that money from that individual in their lifetime, there is absolutely no way. This will be no different, and I would have no idea how they'd quantify "damage" done in any case. What, would each "tree" chopped be worth X cash? It's an arbitrary thing at best. Alternately, they could just settle the matter outside of court, but knowing how these companies have just so much money to throw at the courts, I'm not so sure. Also, I don't even play this game, as I stopped well over four years ago, so how would I know what the abuse report is? What about your TOS argument? Report Abuse has always been in the game. One of the first options to report is for macroing. It's hinted everywhere that bots aren't allowed. Of course they won't see 2.4M or 2.4B - they'll likely see a realistic amount. I wasn't talking about massive sums of money.

Please use another example, if you wish to argue that. Jailbreaking an iPhone is very different to using a Botting program, effecting the other hundrds-of-thousands of users operating that product whenever you're online. I've consulted various websites, and can't find any that state that the Terms & Conditions aren't legally binding. If, when brought to court the T&C are vague or too ambigious, there's a high chance you won't win. There's absolutely nothing vague about that. It's also seen in-game whenever you pull up the Report Abuse screen. If one's brought to court, there's good chances they will see it.

Please tell me, if someone steals something, what are they? If someone's sailed for the first time, what are they? And what someones is if they've piloted a plane for the first time. Trainee thief? Trainee Sailor? Trainee pilot? Apparently they're similar!

6. Realise that praising their efforts might change the rest of the botting communities. Mentioning it every chance? I saw a thread created by another player on the forum that was stickied where Jmods were poking fun at the site -- where else? Why so [bleep]y? Simply because their internal consistencies with fansites is, as demonstrated here, horribly flawed. They're willing to shitcan an entire fansite for the actions of one person, yet espouse another, of which the majority of participants were dedicated to - in their own words - disregard[ing] the terms, conditions, and agreements entered [to play the game]. There's something to be said about reformation, which I'm more than happy to agree with - maybe the reformation of one will lead to the reformation of another. However, it lies counter to what they've been about with their whole anti-bot agenda. So please, forgive me if I seem a bit chippy at this; I just can't stand inconsistency. There's really a huge difference between someone creating and hosting a bot site, and someone being convicted of sharing Child Pornography. Ceasing to support the latter is completely understandable.