Danqazmlp

I love the taste of bandwagon bias in the morning.

Agreed. I see no problem with tightening the rules around copyright and giving more powers to those who attempt to enforce them.

It is just such a widespread language, originating in very different languages and being changed over and over with different cultures coming and going from Britain over the centuries. It has then spread to other places, evolving separately in them. All languages have their problems and success', but I wouldn't say any are better than others. It all comes down to being able to understand each other.

At the time of the offense, what he did was not considered a "sex offense". And it does not work that way in many, many countries. But this is not an issue of law, it's an issue of Jagex digging around skeletons in people's closets when they have no right to do so. They have every right to do so. When they are actively supporting a fansite, they are actively sending users to it. If the owner and admin of said forum is a convicted sex offender, no matter what their offence, you do not under any circumstances send children to that site. Had they not done so, there would be many more questions to be asked and Jagex would seriously lose support from parents of younger players. Lordkafei makes a good point, he will have been actively told not to be involved in anything bringing him in contact with children, he really should have known better.

If jgaex didn't say anything theories would spread and jagex would get dissed for demoting a site for no reason. Also they need to make it clear they are no associated with such people, it could effect investment given they are aimed at the teen market. So you think if someone employed by jagex was found to be a sex offender jagex would send out a post "making clear" of the situation? Or do you think they'd quietly fire the person and internally deal with it? I'd imagine the later of scenarios to happen. The difference is huge so comparing the two is nearly pointless, however I will humour you and explain them. A Jagex worker in their role as staff generally has no links with the public, bar the community management team. This means there is no need for them to know such details, as once somebody has served their time, unless in a role which brings them into contact with children, it should remain in the past. Staff are also not often know, again, bar community management and high profile developers. When one leaves, very few people outside of Jagex know. The Runevillage Admin on the other hand, in his role as administrator had very close contact, and a responsibility to have close contact with the public, of which a major portion could be children. The Admin also possibly has unrestricted access to personal details of users of the forum. Unlike Jagex staff leaving, when Runevillage loses it's gold status, it is very public and people notice. Due to this, Jagex had to either give reasons or be subject to wild speculation which could possibly give them very bad publicity. The byline in that story is dated February 16, 2010 - 18 months ago. When did the fansite status program start? Why did it take 18 months for Jagex to take this action? Just how much research goes into the fansite status program? Can we expect Jagex to be doing background checks on all fansite operators? Staff members? While I dont disagree with what they did, it does open a can of worms. To answer this, The article is from a small, fairly local papers website. Jagex are not superheroes, they cannot possibly scour every nook and cranny of the internet. They probably do not know the full names of administrators (Which could change due to this, who knows), meaning unless somebody tells them, they have to rely on good faith.

Agreed with Killerred and Tripsis. I think a public announcement would have been good somewhere such as the forums, but only after giving Runevillage notice of their actions and intentions.

Sadly I have to agree with this. Everytime something goes public either for good or worse, it always seems to get more popular. I remember that one thread about Timmy (Hellslayer H) who got hacked after RWTing 140 dollars and when someone announced it was on news on a Youtube video, Timmy suddenly becomes a RS celeb. Even when he clearly broke the rules and showed how stupid he is for buying gold and then losing it at a phishing scam. I doubt Jagex's intention is specifically to limit Runevillages visitors. I'm sure Runevillage will/has get rid of the admin in question and do whatever they can to distance themselves with the whole thing. Jagex will have done this so people know that they don't accept this sort of thing and to get the news straight to the community. Knowing the Runescape community, the userbase would definitely have spread some nasty rumours if Jagex hadn't come out and said their reasons.

I fully support their actions. I will not judge anybody, including the owner of the website, however, I do not believe a sex offender should have support to be in control of a site which can potentially give them the ability to get in contact with thousands of children, especially one which has a large child-based user-base.

I don't blame him. Renault are my favourite team in the paddock at the moment (mostly due to them punching above their weight with Kubica, and Petrov a bit this season) and it is a real shame to see them start acting like the other teams. Lets just hope they don't start going down the Britatorie direction again. (God help us) Petrov has luckily come good this year after a terrible season last year and as you say, he only kept his seat due to money. It doesn't look like Kubica will be back this season but if they were to somehow manage to drop him for next season I would be so angry.

I don't see why they dropped Heidfeld. He wasn't doing astronomical, but he wasn't doing bad considering the car he was in.

Ah this is just making me want to play and get members so much. Don't think I have the time to play though. :(

Can you get two different types? For example, select Trickster and then battlemage top?

Actually, it's not the people who are good at the minigames, it's the people who play them a lot. There's a difference. Considering that Toad doesn't have the full sets yet, we can safely assume nobody human will for the next few days. Unlike most people, I see that as a good thing. Except for utter completionists, it will only be those who fully enjoy the minigames who attain the sets. It isn't whether people are good at a minigame or not, it's whether they enjoy it and actually want to play it, not just throw money at it, they will finally be able to compete again. It is what drove me out of the game and removed my subscription, the fact I was forced to do something I disliked to do something I liked. When gear overrules equipment, the game becomes incredibly frustrating for many people. To quote myself on June 18th this year:

If ever an update made me want to return to Runescape and start paying this would be it. Finally I could play the best parts of Runescape (minigames) without having to grind hours on the boring parts for gear to make me competitive in them. It's like going back to 2006 all over again, being able to Cw and Cw only, pure fun. Finally those who are best at minigames and actually play them for fun can compete with those who just have millions of Gp to spend and throw away at gear allowing them to win by brute force. I really am tempted to come back to the game now.

It is annoyingly ridiculous when serious programs, CSI etc try to do computer usage and fail miserably. The same goes for programs in which actors try to 'act' playing a game with a control pad, they usually end up just pressing buttons repeatedly. Films like TRON imo are fine as they know that isn't real, they know their interpretation isn't realistic, they are just making a fantasy of it, as much as die hard does fantasy police officers.

Personally I'm quite impressed by his reply, but that's just me.

I don't think they use the king in the UK adverts anyway (never seen one). Most do what they say above, show the ingredients and the burgers, seem a bit boring to me. I never go to Burger king. Why? Because they aren't in good locations. McDonalds has a nack of being in the right place when I want fast food, simple as that. No advertising, no preference in food, just location and ease.

The link is clean as far as I can tell. To sum up the article, Andrew and his bothers sold their shares in Jagex but have set up 'Fen Research' which is 90% owned by Andrew. It is focused on development, working with Jagex Technology. Why and how is unknown.

It is indeed hard for me to see just how much of an effect they have as I haven't studied the great depression in much depth before and something like a world superpower defaulting hasn't happened before as far as I'm aware. I can see that there would be consequences, but the sale of them and how deep they would go in society isn't very obvious to me at all. EDIT: I agree with all of the above, except getting rid of social welfare. It does however need tightening up and made much stricter, but there are those who do legitimately need help and wouldn't survive without help from governments. This is generally what all governments need to do on a huge scale, comb through everything and tighten budgets, cutting excess fat which isn't needed and generally tidying up the whole system.

But how much exactly did that effect society as a whole? People spent a bit less for a couple of years, unemployment percentages rose a few %, but social structures stayed in tact, the vast majority of business' stayed afloat, most governments have remained unchanged (in structure, not by way of scheduled elections) and we are all still here in mostly the same seats as we were when the financial crisis started around three years ago. Society is very elasticated, we easily ride out most of what happens. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a lot of what happened to the worlds banks has had little effect on how the world works on the streets, and I can't see that changing in any catastrophic manner at all. It will slowly evolve, but nothing more.

Roman empire greek empire colonial england indian empire soviet russia ancient egypt ancient mesoptomia ancient israel That's a short list. We're approaching a problem we've never had before - a massive population and a demographic shift. The current way we live isn't sustainable - and there will be a lot that's going to change. I won't be alive 100 years from now, but I'll wager the world will be completely different, and our current society nothing but a distant memory. I did mention Soviet Russia. As I said though, I don't see any of them as being failures. History books often represent them as having a fixed end, very sudden and catastrophic, but in reality they merely evolved into a new form, be it a government taking over from a monarchy or Empires falling to republics. I do not disagree that society will change, but it will not be anything sudden and nothing that happens short of a war will catastrophically change society in a very short term. Especially in the modern world with more people than ever involved in decision making in major countries, things go very slowly and are moderated heavily.

You can speak up loud anything you want, on a fansite or not. But anything said in public is subject to public scrutiny. But saying that you can't enjoy anything else in life more than a minigame in an online game indeed saddens me. There's enjoying a game, and then there's living for a game. If you wish to play a game, using it to have fun, is it not logical to do the thing which you find fun while doing so? I actually see no problem with somebody having nothing more fun to do than a mini-game. At points in my life there was nothing more fun than a game of castle wars. To each his own, if you have fun you have fun. Who are you to judge?

I wouldn't actually say any social structures have failed (maybe Russian Communism). Many evolve and slowly change over time but in essence stay the same for centuries. I was thinking about this earlier, noticing that essentially we have been a consumerist society at some level for at least 700 years (At least in Britain). People have always wanted the best things for themselves, as cheaply and as easily as possible. Ways of attaining that may have changed, regulations, wealth levels etc change, but the core of our civilisations stay the same. I do acknowledge that systems within society, such as regulations, the importance of banks and non-physical money may change at some point, but society as a whole will not, we will still consume, strive for the best items available to us and still rely on governments to aid us when we get old or run out of money. Some of us may get wealthier, some poorer, some countries may go through the same, but in essence, the world will not change massively within the next hundred years bar a war happening between two major countries.

The world goes through recessions, depressions and growth so frequently that I actually don't get all of the hype things get. Overall, the world will recover and has done many many times in the past. Yes it tkes work, but the Euro Zone, America, The 'West' will not fall. Go 15 years into the future and this will have all been forgotten when the next 'credit crunch' comes along and the next generation, our children claim it to be the end of the financial world. That's almost all I have to say on the matter.

Good suggestion.