Carl

You can speak out if you wish, just don't do it when you're representing the people you're speaking out against. Who cares if it's voluntary, it's still a position which has you in their light. Do not expect there to be no consequences. This isn't an authority, this isn't real life. This is a game and you're not being forced to do anything. You're not being forced to play it. You're not being forced to go by their rules, but you will be dealt with if you go against them. No-one's holding a knife to your throat forcing you to play. The sooner you realise that, the better. You seem to despise the game, stop playing. "Fighting" the fight isn't going to get you anywhere, give up the act and "Challenge" something in life that's worth challenging, if that's how you were raised.

http://www.sercrui.com/graph.php?tl=1167644700&tu=1316421900&sn=9999&pf=on&grn=2 Furtherest back their trackers go, note if anything the most recent data shows rs to of grown back to 07 levels and higher after a slight drop in 08-09 region (aka when we did not have wildy etc) Exactly. Results on searches from Alexa prove notihng. The graph is results taken from players online. It holds more weight than searches from a search engine. If you're going to make an argument, take that graph and try and spin it your way about how RuneScape is still dying, years on after first having the 'RIP RS' title.

E-thug? No. I think you've already pointed out your flaw; you didn't read previous topics in the past months. Therefore you don't get the general gist of the OP. There's what, 3 (?) threads on the main page alone created by this user to put Jagex/RuneScape in a bad light. Even the opening post showing off their new building. "So this is where your money is going"... I'm not replying to boost anything; ego, e-peen, whatever you wish to call it. I can discuss in a normal manner, no problem. I've chosen not to, due to the nature of this particular thread. There's no fact behind anything posted by him. Claiming ones research as fact when using such limited sources is a rubbish argument. There are so many factors involved which have been left out, relying on only the one source from Alexa. Also take into consideration that younger users who play RuneScape stop when they return to school. School would have started back earlier this month. Those graphs show that. It's a yearly trend. EDIT: It's always a rise-and-fall situation, the exact same thread could be created every single year and prove absolutely nothing, because when you look at the bigger picture..Searches aren't relevant. http://www.sercrui.com/popgraph Go back as far as you can and graph it, that's judging by player numbers. It's an up-and-down roller-coaster the whole way. Absolutely nothing has changed this year that will sway from that track.

You must have not been on RSOF when news of this first broke- there were hidden threads EVERYWHERE. If you don't think so, go make a jiblix thread on RSOF even now discussing the demodding and see what happens. Jagex has no legal right to remove that video - yes it has game foottage - but it is WAY on the side of "fair use" of US copyright law. It is a obviously a commentary. If it comes to an actual copyright fight, Jagex will not win. Your thinking and logic is horribly warped; probably beyond repair. A users account status on RuneScape is no-one elses business. It's entirely between them and Jagex. That applies on the forums. You can't bring up another players name on the forum, it's not allowed. It's breaking rules. Especially not their account status, or post topics that are irrelevant to the board you are posting them. Forum Moderators would have been the main ones actioning those threads, removing the spam, clutter and useless ideas of sheep flocking to the forums. Go make a thread right now, and yes, watch as your content is hidden because IT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS. What don't you get? LOL! It's like dealing with a child.

It is a tank - I remember reading about it in 1 of the interviews - I wonder if that got moved to their new mansion. It's Mark (MMG)'s own tank, said he didn't have room for it at home so brought it to the office. A new building is probably what they needed, as they are still expanding.

Wasn't Nicole an entirely different person in a situation many months ago?

So people can just make the Armadyl Battlestaff? As in; I should remove my 200M offer for one? Or the 100M for each pair of boots? :L

It's a huge quest, something people have been waiting for for a long, long time. And you're [bleep]ing about the rewards. LAUGHABLE.

That would be cool, Smelly. I won't be doing the quest this year, anyway. If ever. If there's new weapons though, I wouldn't mind offering high prices to buy. :thumbup:

I got to 92 firemaking so I can get an Adze...when I find myself able to kick my butt doing it. I think I never touch the skill again, maybe for strange rocks when I'm bored (I completed the statue already). It is indeed a horrible, tedious skill to train. I was using the Pyrelord, so the XP went by fairly quickly because I was doing with my bonus XP, which when I started FM was 2.5 I think.

80-82 Crafting I think and 80-85 Firemaking. Was more happy that I did Firemaking, as 85 has been a level I've wanted for a long time; but too lazy to get it. So I can burn elder roots. >:) Those were my first levels in 5 months. :shades:

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.

It's well after 3am, I don't know who I'm arguing with at this stage. And I've said both, that no-one can, and most people are repeat offenders. I mean the latter. Of course there will be a case where it's said someone can be rehabilitated. Apologies for that mix-up of words in a few posts. I couldn't care anymore.

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.

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.

I can agree with you, addicts can be good people who made bad decisions. So how do you go from one man sharing a teen porno (to which half of the men on TIF would probably be classed as pedos) to a sudden and depraved sexual craving for children? At the age of 35 he was accused of having sex with a child. [hide]one comment that i'd certainly like to dispute is one of you referred to "Forced sex with a defenseless, innocent child." No way. I've never, and would never, force *anything* on anyone-- man, woman or child. yes, i was accused of it once. but the charges were either dismised or 'nolle pros', meaning it was not prosecuted. other charges against me were dropped entirely. all of those charges went to trial, but after the prosecution's witnesses testified, a recess was called and i was offered a deal. if i would plead quilty to an "unspecified" misdemeanor charge of sexual battery, everything else would be dropped and i would be given a year of unsupervised probation (meaning i did not have to report to a probation officer). i took the offer. an "unspecified" offense is one that does not specify who or what the actual offense was. this was in 1984. in that case, i was basically in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong person. [/hide] At the age of 46, he was found guilty of sharing 10-12 images that involved teenagers, with at least 1 other person. (Going by the age mentioned in the article) That's two cases in 11 years where children were involved, or at least one where they were allegedly involved. I never said there was a depraved sexual craving, just the fact that these people don't change.

Research. You will find that most people never change. There's countless articles out there.

A family member of mine was a drug addict. He got clean. He has not taken any substance to abuse and only takes pain medication in case of extreme health situations, like surgery. He has been clean for 10 years, and has changed his whole life and behavior from what he was in the past and went on to raise a healthy daughter in a healthy household. You can be wrong sometimes. I'm glad to hear of that, but it's a sense it's not at all the same. An addiction like that's something you pick up, you're not born with it unless unless a parent was under the influence throughout pregnancy...As such, when born you crave what it was that was being pumped into you then. An attraction to younger people isn't something you pick up throughout life, it's really just how you are. Just like ones sexuality. Some people can live in denial about theirs, hide it, but under it all they'll always have that attraction. I've met drug addicts, been to rehabilitation centres for alcohol and drug addictions...Most of them are great people who just made some bad decisions in life. You don't "decide" at one point you're interested in children.

What? Not at all. I'm going by my own opinion, why did you even think to bring that in? I can't think for myself? EDIT: Welcome to the intenret, Ginger_Warrior. Where we have to go by what we know, regardless of whether or not we're professionals. We can all perceived things differently. I know what I'm saying when it comes to people never changing. They can mask it, but never change.

[/hide] No it's not void, at all. Jumping to conclusions, sure, but what's to say there wasn't more than just what he was charged with? We will never truly know the full story. And a fansite, created by him, which attracts teens and contains a thread for them to post pictures of themselves? Not saying such thread was there, but we have one. People don't change, no matter what's done to them. You can't change how they are wired and how they think, what interests them and what doesn't. Also a previous offense: "in that case, i was basically in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong person." You have jumped to a conclusion based on nothing other than he was charged with distribution, and thus assume he also, be inclined towards children. What we know is what the conviction stated. He was charged with DISTRIBUTION. Not production. Not sex with a minor. Not pedophilia. So, based on his charge, you have taken the leap from, distributor to MUST BE INTERESTED IN YOUNG KIDS :ohnoes: :ohnoes: :ohnoes: :ohnoes: :ohnoes: :ohnoes: and somehow consider that to be a valid judgement and leap? Really? I stated that it was a completely conclusion. To quote Crocefisso: "Anyone who believes that someone's innate nature changes between their 40s and 60s and suddenly they have no sexual feelings towards children because of a few months of prison is absurdly naive.`" At this stage of the discussion it's down to opinions. If anyone's got two cases behind them involving kids (The first we're not so sure about what exactly it was for: "in that case, i was basically in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong person." - what's that to mean, really?); that's a gap of 9 years. Fast forward to now, that person isn't going to change.

Instead leading to RV being inundated with hateful posts and even worse trolls, a number of forums discussing how terrible a person this guy is for something he did a number of years ago, a handful of people making what could easily be regarded as slanderous statements and a fun new lynch mob. Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning what people have started to do on the fan site. Most of them are probably kids themselves and just looking at a chance to cause hassle. Slanderous statements (Child Pornographer) and hinting at a lynch mob, and essentially wishing that person would take their own life is completely out of order.

No it's not void, at all. Jumping to conclusions, sure, but what's to say there wasn't more than just what he was charged with? We will never truly know the full story. And a fansite, created by him, which attracts teens and contains a thread for them to post pictures of themselves? Not saying such thread was there, but we have one. People don't change, no matter what's done to them. You can't change how they are wired and how they think, what interests them and what doesn't. Also a previous offense: "in that case, i was basically in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong person."

Hardly any different than someone who can always spin it in their favor, don't you agree? But given the current route the community has taken, any chance to have a stab at them is jumped on. If they were seen as to be removing support from a fansite for no reason, surely the minds within this now-vile community would whip it up, throw it around and say they were probably asking RV for money or something stupid, or trying to silence the Jagex haters over there at RV (Not saying there are any, but it's possible!) At least with how they approached it, they told everyone straight up what the deal was and the fact they weren't going to be supporting someone with a history like that. YO. TruthScape 2k11

I'm in agreeance to be honest. I don't think it's fair to tarnish someone after many years of conviction so publically. Something I definitely take a stance against. Unless he's proven to be a risk right now, which I doubt, I don't think it was fair nor appropriate. It's no worse than a tabloid paper such as the Sun digging up old dirt to tarnish someone. Given the nature of his crime, I think you have to expect at any time for the rest of your life that it might come out again. I mean, I've managed to go 26 years without storing or tranfering pornographic images of teenagers. And you know, it hasn't been that difficult. My belief is simple. If you engage in child pornography or pedophilia in any way, [bleep] you! I'd like to make you wear a large P on your chest for the rest of your life ala the Scarlet Letter. Or better yet, hanging by your neck at the end of a rope. Self-inflicted of course. I don't believe in lynch mobs. :shame: Yeah, just like some people had to war a star with them, you know that 6 point 1. Or how people burned slaves for centuries? I've also managed 23 years without stealing or resulting to violence. Not difficult at all.... Really are any of you adults? You show a total lack of respect for the law & goverment here. From these type of crimes the goverment only releases when the chance on repetition is similar to somebody not comitted this crime in the first place. Saying he is still a danger shows you distrust your goverment: that's quite something. I distrust the fact that someone who was found to be distributing child pornograhy, regardless of how many people it as shared with, has changed. And everything is A-okay now that it was several years in the past. Especially when they're operating a fan site revolving around a game which attracts teenagers. No matter how you go about it - it doesn't paint a very innocent picture. Hell, the man's probably a gentleman and had no ill-intentions, but really, can we trust that? Is it right for a multi-million pound company to be seen as supporting that fan site? I don't know what kind of content was on their forums, but I know we have a "Post Your Picture Here!" thread, when the forum contains a lot of young players and its being hosted by someone like that...Yeah. Jagex did the right thing, and no they shouldn't have done it discreetly. That's something those people need to know.