Magicana

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

The devil's in the details, but what I gleaned from that post (before they locked their forums down, apparently) - Jagex had mentioned to them that they'd work with the site's new admins after Hiker was removed, but then Jagex came back and permanently ended their ties with the fansite. Even though it's still a he-said she-said sort of scenario that plays out from here, there is an obvious lost of trust between RV and Jagex. So I'd say it's kind of tough to get back in the community's good graces. They were still around 7 years ago, back when the fansite "wars" were still happenin'. IIRC, they were one of the few that had concept art (not official of course) for RS2. People stay at sites because they like the atmosphere. If they loved it over there at RV, then who are we to say where they should or shouldn't be? Well, in the he-said/she-said scenario it's pretty tough. Take the word of a company who's judgement you no longer trust or the guy convicted of posessing and sending child porn. :unsure: The past two quotes were from Henner and Burks, respectively - Not Hiker.

Another admin post: Now for my exact post in the admin forum:

Update on the situation:

This was my response when I first saw it.

Hi everyone. I'm Magicana, a Clan Chat moderator from Runevillage. I got linked to this topic by Matt258, and just thought I'd add my thoughts to the whole thing. He has certainly worked very hard :). ------------------------------ Now with that covered, on to the main topic at hand. There have been some questions as to whether Hiker used RuneVillage to groom anyone. The answer to that is very simple. He hasn't. I joined the website at 13 and on a personal level, he never had any inappropriate dealings with me. Nor have I seen any evidence that he has done so with any other users. Discussions with other moderators/users on the website reveals the same thing. He did not form the website to groom children. In terms of the timeline of the issues mentioned, you've got all the information. I've seen the court documents that were prepared by the probation officer in 1995 (Who was trying to stop it being granted - so some bias admittedly). It wasn't pleasant reading, but alongside Hikers version of events, it gives a rough idea of what happened. In the end it's more sadness than anything else over the situation. I've had a lot of dealings with Hiker in the past year and a half, and this came as a complete surprise. Whether he should have done it or not is a moot point; he did, and we're moving on now.