It still doesn't explain the fairly ridiculous attempts to 'know' that child sex offenders never change by intuition alone. It really is just a poor excuse of an argument.

 

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.

You're arguing two different things Newb and Geek. I was addressing Newb's opinion that people never change, not that attraction to teens is something that is treatable... Geek seems to be challenging Newb based on that sexual desires are curable? I'm not really sure what the hell went wrong there, but you guys aren't even arguing about the same thing anymore.

Well i just read the nashville news article about him fighting for the state fair and LOL'ed... I live in nashville and have no idea why anybody thinks that dump should still be around lol... The statefair grounds is in not in the safest part of town either...

You're arguing two different things Newb and Geek. I was addressing Newb's opinion that people never change, not that attraction to teens is something that is treatable... Geek seems to be challenging Newb based on that sexual desires are curable? I'm not really sure what the hell went wrong there, but you guys aren't even arguing about the same thing anymore.

 

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.

It still doesn't explain the fairly ridiculous attempts to 'know' that child sex offenders never change by intuition alone. It really is just a poor excuse of an argument.

 

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.

I support Jagexs decision. People who visit Runevillage deserve to know.

 

Why? How in all does it matter?

Taken from Zybez, originally from RV forums:

 

I believe that everyone knows by now that Runevillage's gold status has now been revoked by Jagex due to Hiker being on the sex offender's register. If you haven't seen the topic, it can be seen here: [no link]

It has been found out that he was once convicted of distributing child porn, attempting to groom a young boy on the internet and sexual battery of a 14 year old boy. He was also accused of kidnapping and giving drugs to him of which he was not convicted. It's a very sad day for Runevillage which has now been destroyed and all credibility stripped away because of an untrustworthy site admin. Hiker, we would all like to know why you kept this a secret. Most of us joined this site as children and I believe everyone had a right to know what you did. You should not of been allowed to make a website for kids but now the truth is out I think the question on everyone's mind is, why? Why would you do that? Why would you allow this to go on for so long? You must of known this would come out one day. So again, I ask you to please explain to the people who have been loyal to you and this site for so many years because now, there's nothing left to stay here for.

 

Photo of Watson's Info Page

Watson's Info Page

 

He was charged of attempting to 'groom' a young boy over the internet, but it was later dropped. He was also arrested for transferring photos of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, twice. Once by mail, and once by computer.

^ Sounds like Hiker is in a lot of distress. Its not entirely rare for middle aged men to develop some attractions towards young boys. He should probably visit

a therapist or get special needs. I've read enough articles just like this to know that these types of crimes are all because they are suffering from a disorder.

Choices can only go so far but sometimes, there are other factors that drives you to make those choices which can either be mild or very hard to handle.

Taken from Zybez, originally from RV forums:

 

I believe that everyone knows by now that Runevillage's gold status has now been revoked by Jagex due to Hiker being on the sex offender's register. If you haven't seen the topic, it can be seen here: [no link]

It has been found out that he was once convicted of distributing child porn, attempting to groom a young boy on the internet and sexual battery of a 14 year old boy. He was also accused of kidnapping and giving drugs to him of which he was not convicted. It's a very sad day for Runevillage which has now been destroyed and all credibility stripped away because of an untrustworthy site admin. Hiker, we would all like to know why you kept this a secret. Most of us joined this site as children and I believe everyone had a right to know what you did. You should not of been allowed to make a website for kids but now the truth is out I think the question on everyone's mind is, why? Why would you do that? Why would you allow this to go on for so long? You must of known this would come out one day. So again, I ask you to please explain to the people who have been loyal to you and this site for so many years because now, there's nothing left to stay here for.

 

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?

Well, what great reputation this yet brings to RS players...

Compared to other mmos, RS actually have a comparably large young/female population (try finding some in wow...gl with that) with free chat.

Taken from Zybez, originally from RV forums:

 

I believe that everyone knows by now that Runevillage's gold status has now been revoked by Jagex due to Hiker being on the sex offender's register. If you haven't seen the topic, it can be seen here: [no link]

It has been found out that he was once convicted of distributing child porn, attempting to groom a young boy on the internet and sexual battery of a 14 year old boy. He was also accused of kidnapping and giving drugs to him of which he was not convicted. It's a very sad day for Runevillage which has now been destroyed and all credibility stripped away because of an untrustworthy site admin. Hiker, we would all like to know why you kept this a secret. Most of us joined this site as children and I believe everyone had a right to know what you did. You should not of been allowed to make a website for kids but now the truth is out I think the question on everyone's mind is, why? Why would you do that? Why would you allow this to go on for so long? You must of known this would come out one day. So again, I ask you to please explain to the people who have been loyal to you and this site for so many years because now, there's nothing left to stay here for.

 

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?

 

It's in the quote I gave:

 

It has been found out that he was once convicted of distributing child porn, attempting to groom a young boy on the internet and sexual battery of a 14 year old boy.

 

It doesn't state that in the links I gave. The people who found this out must have access to other documents that state this information. Otherwise, it's just hearsay.

You could murder someone and be out of prison, and Jagex wouldn't take down your fansite. You could come out of prison a "changed man," and people may not trust you, but they wouldn't continue punishing you for your mistakes.

 

But take a few pictures of teens engaging in sexual acts (which they most likely consented to, teens aren't stupid), and that follows you around for life.

 

The worst one (a bit OT) is the instance where a guy (usually in a college fraternity) has consensual sex (or so it seems) with a drunk girl. This can be deemed as rape. It happened to an acquaintance of mine, and now he is labeled as a sex offender for the rest of his life. What even is justice...

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 fail to see how my argument is ad hominem, my base is that people deserve multiple chances, and that people who don't allow that are also committing a "crime". If he is "dangerous" he wouldn't be released from prison - at least that's how it is in all countries I know the laws (belgium, germany, netherlands, france). They fall under a specific rule where they get more freedom (prison is no longer considered punishment) - however they still are in a prison - and the goverment can extend this untill the chance for repitition is considered "equal to not prosecuted people". So saying someone is "dangerous" after this time is saying this system is not working: and this is indirectly saying the goverment can't judge people enough.

 

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.

Only those affected should know, jagex might say "hey we don't support that site anymore". But they shouldn't tell everyone about this, they could inform the leaders of runevillage - who can then think wether or not they should inform the rest or just let him go silently. THAT is what I think went wrong here. JAGEX acted as an elephant in a room full of porselain.

 

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.

As I said: if somebody is released I consider him a normal human again. He served his sentence, the goverment deemed chance on repetition low enough for him to be released. So why hold the past against him?

 

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).

Mistakes can and will happen. And 1 accidentally prosecuted person is worse than 1000 non prosecuted but offending people.

 

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?

No it worked exactly like this in the netherlands (until people at the internet didn't follow the media code). Unless the person escapes from prison or something similar, it is up to the person in question wether he likes to tell the world what he was prosecuted for or not. He can choose to be prosecuted behind closed curtains.

 

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.

NO it is NEVER better to prosecute an innocent. That's in my books one of the worst things a goverment can do. The goverment should indeed inform people, but only those who have importance in knowing. (So in this case: the other leaders from runevillage, maybe the host if he was the real owner of runevillage).

 

 

Only those affected should know, jagex might say "hey we don't support that site anymore". But they shouldn't tell everyone about this, they could inform the leaders of runevillage - who can then think wether or not they should inform the rest or just let him go silently. THAT is what I think went wrong here. JAGEX acted as an elephant in a room full of porselain.

 

 

 

 

Sounds a super dangerous strategy you're suggesting Jagex follows. I can imagine if it got out, peoples reactions.

If Jagex had found out that they'd accidentally been sending children in the direction of a potentially dangerous person and then been seen to try to cover it up.

People get annoyed if Jagex covers up minor things like game balance adjustments, and this is something with potentially more serious implications that affects real life.

 

And people would ask questions and start digging if a fansite went from gold rated to not supported at all. People would want to know why. People didn't just let it lie when tip.it started off as silver instead of gold. People didn't even let it lie, when tip.it took minor measures with their advertising banners to achieve gold. People care about this stuff.

The information is there on the Runevillage owner and I think it would have got out anyway. (There's a good chance that it was a concerned player that found out about the situation and informed Jagex, rather than Jagex finding it out for themselves)

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 fail to see how my argument is ad hominem,

 

YOu create monsters this way.. YOU are the worst kind of humans I ever met,

 

Calling someone a terrible person drawn from a superficial knowledge of their character based on their differing opinion -- one you likely didn't read carefully considering you misconstrued what I said -- is an ad hominem attack.

 

my base is that people deserve multiple chances, and that people who don't allow that are also committing a "crime". If he is "dangerous" he wouldn't be released from prison - at least that's how it is in all countries I know the laws (belgium, germany, netherlands, france). They fall under a specific rule where they get more freedom (prison is no longer considered punishment) - however they still are in a prison - and the goverment can extend this untill the chance for repitition is considered "equal to not prosecuted people". So saying someone is "dangerous" after this time is saying this system is not working: and this is indirectly saying the goverment can't judge people enough.

 

You haven't shown how people who don't allow criminals to rehabilitate are committing criminal acts. I see you've placed "crime" in quotes so I assume you're using a personal definition of the term. I would like to know the definition you're using. Otherwise, you'll have to cite the law they're breaking in order to call it a "crime".

 

You're correct; if he's dangerous, he is not released from prison. That's why prisoners are assessed when they apply for parole to determine if they are capable of reintegrating back into society. If you're not shown to be capable of that, you aren't released. Prisoners are given plenty of chances to reintegrate. They just have to pass the test first. I have no idea where you got the notion that prison is a place that "allows more freedom", if I understand what you're saying here.

 

The purpose of imprisonment is to keep the offender at bay from society, who has committed an infraction severe enough to terminate the Contract with the State and thus have his citizenship privileges revoked, albeit retaining a few human rights intrinsic to the conception of prison. Prison is a totalitarian institution. The offender is subject of the State. By "extend this" I suppose you mean extending the term he serves in prison for.

 

That an offender has served time in prison, doesn't mean he's no longer an offender, or prosecuted. His prosecution still remains in the records, and depending on the severity of his infraction, he can still be monitored and may have to report to an officer for a time after he's released from prison for the remainder of his sentence. I'll note that imprisonment is not the only method of criminal punishment the State can mete out.

 

A person can serve a prison sentence in addition to another punishment, and still be considered a dangerous offender, and hence can be kept on probation. The question being asked when one is released from prison is whether the offender is considered harmless enough to fully reintegrate back into society. If it's found he's capable, it's not automatically a free ticket out. He's given a chance to prove himself through probation and similar methods before he's considered fully absorbed into society, and hence not dangerous enough to warrant additional restrictive measures.

 

 

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.

Only those affected should know, jagex might say "hey we don't support that site anymore". But they shouldn't tell everyone about this, they could inform the leaders of runevillage - who can then think wether or not they should inform the rest or just let him go silently. THAT is what I think went wrong here. JAGEX acted as an elephant in a room full of porselain.

 

I agree, only those affected should know. That means society, because a dangerous person affects society in negative ways. In terms of RuneVillage, I'd agree in this case. I posted earlier that Jagex could've taken a different route opposite posing as moral crusaders. However, the example you used to illustrate your point is incidental; not strictly related. If he had raped a child, for example, and had a history concerning this, it's reasonable to assume he would use the Internet in an attempt to exploit more children. Because of the danger children have of being deceived because they lack the sufficient cognitive faculties to scrutinize potential threat, I argue that both parents and children should be informed of the danger an offender represents, especially if he's capable of reaching a wide audience, which has a larger scale of effect than having it contained within a small community.

 

As I said: if somebody is released I consider him a normal human again. He served his sentence, the goverment deemed chance on repetition low enough for him to be released. So why hold the past against him?

 

It's not the government holding the past against him. The gov. has already done what it needed to do. He's kept on the sex offender registry in the interest of public safety. The people who will continually bring up his past are the ones discussing it like you and I. The ones who will hold it against him are those who feel that extrajudicial retribution should be served to him. I think justice has already been served via the legal process. I said earlier that the press (which is what you're confusing with government here) has the liberty to report things of a public nature. Time is not a barrier to freedom of expression. It doesn't matter how long ago something happened; people will still talk about it.

 

This is why I said you can't prevent people from forming a negative perception about him when that info is kept accessible in the name of public interest. Like I said, he's facing the social consequences of what he's done right now, which will stick with him to some degree forever. The legal consequences have already been served. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he should live guiltily. I'm glad he realized he made a mistake, and is moving on, trying to lessen the stigma around him. I'm saying you can't prevent people from forming that perception without endangering society. You're proposing a system which endangers society in the name of protecting his image. This is the flaw in your argument. He's going to be registered until he's considered harmless enough to be taken off, or dies. It's unfortunate, but again, it's preferable to what you have proposed.

 

Mistakes can and will happen. And 1 accidentally prosecuted person is worse than 1000 non prosecuted but offending people.

 

By this point it seems you're responding irrationally because you have some deep-seated bias that arises when you discuss this subject. Any person can see why a thousand dangerous, non-prosecuted people are worse than one innocent, prosecuted person. The negative area of affect they have is much larger, and hence society is at much greater risk, compared to that one person. Plus, if that person was innocent, they would not be dangerous anyway, and so they'd have an easier time applying for release from prison. Do you want a system where society is at greater risk because a thousand dangerous people are running around, and you don't know they're dangerous, or a system where one innocent person is prosecuted, but has an easier release from prison because he's innocent? Don't think about this too hard. It's not a complex issue to any degree.

 

No it worked exactly like this in the netherlands (until people at the internet didn't follow the media code). Unless the person escapes from prison or something similar, it is up to the person in question wether he likes to tell the world what he was prosecuted for or not. He can choose to be prosecuted behind closed curtains.

 

That's an interesting topic. However, what person wouldn't tell people he was imprisoned to sate the worries of family members and friends? Or are the family and friends informed regardless of his choice?

 

NO it is NEVER better to prosecute an innocent. That's in my books one of the worst things a goverment can do. The goverment should indeed inform people, but only those who have importance in knowing. (So in this case: the other leaders from runevillage, maybe the host if he was the real owner of runevillage).

 

You cannot know if you've prosecuted an innocent person as per the judicial process' design, so you cannot claim it's worse until there's definitive evidence that he'd been wrongly convicted. Even then, in the interest of society, it's a rare occurrence, but something to be expected. Keep in mind everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Generally, the accused is then either sentenced, or cleared of the charges based on the evidence provided from both sides, which is an element intrinsic to the conception of the right to a fair trial.

 

What you're proposing (and I implied this earlier), weighs the outcome of the trial in favor of the defendant, when in fact both sides should have equal opportunity to present their case. The evidence is then deliberated into by an impartial jury, and the verdict is finally handed down by an impartial judge who has considered all the facts presented. In your system, if we had a person who was actually guilty of the charges, but he wasn't prosecuted because the court's bias landed in favor of evidence for his innocence, he'd be cleared, and scot-free. This is not the purpose of justice. The purpose of justice is to land a fair conviction based on all facts fairly considered. The facts cannot be fairly considered if conceptually, there's inherent bias toward a side.

I could post this long, drawn out post, but I'd be wasting time jumping into what seems to be an argument already. Personally, I think sex offender punishments should be stricter and I'll leave it at that. HOWEVER, from what I have seen, it appears the guy just had some bad luck. He doesn't seem to be some roving sex offender who used RuneScape to pray on children (we would have heard about it). Ok, he distributed child pornography and received 15 months in jail, that is such a small sentence you almost have to believe that he wasn't a big time distributer. Sending an explicit picture of yourself, or received even, while you or that person is a minor is considered possession of child pornography and therefore, you would be a predator. Some dumb girl at our school sent a nude picture of herself to a boy at our school. He, in turn, sent it to everyone he knew and it spread like a wild fire. Her reputation was ruined and the police were called. They received a search warrant and everyone within the school was advised, if they have that picture of ANY of a minor in their possession, they have the chance of being charged with being a sex offender. The police came the next day and just appeared as a threat to all students. They never carried out the warrant because too many people might have been punished for some stupid idea. It is really easy to become a sex offender; however, it is also really easy to be one and not get caught. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt. I believe he committed a mistake and was punished. I don't agree with Jagex's actions on the matter. Furthermore, they want to have good moral standings? Follow your own game rules that you have laid down and quit lying to the players. Jagex hoped to gain PR from posting all this information, I'm sure.

Taken from Zybez, originally from RV forums:

 

I believe that everyone knows by now that Runevillage's gold status has now been revoked by Jagex due to Hiker being on the sex offender's register. If you haven't seen the topic, it can be seen here: [no link]

It has been found out that he was once convicted of distributing child porn, attempting to groom a young boy on the internet and sexual battery of a 14 year old boy. He was also accused of kidnapping and giving drugs to him of which he was not convicted. It's a very sad day for Runevillage which has now been destroyed and all credibility stripped away because of an untrustworthy site admin. Hiker, we would all like to know why you kept this a secret. Most of us joined this site as children and I believe everyone had a right to know what you did. You should not of been allowed to make a website for kids but now the truth is out I think the question on everyone's mind is, why? Why would you do that? Why would you allow this to go on for so long? You must of known this would come out one day. So again, I ask you to please explain to the people who have been loyal to you and this site for so many years because now, there's nothing left to stay here for.

 

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.

Jagex hoped to gain PR from posting all this information, I'm sure.

I don't usually jump onto the Jagex-bashing but... I do have to consider your point of view there. As far as I know, everyone on RuneVillage had already been made aware of the site's owner's history and this conviction of a sexual offence. There was no evidence to suggest any children were in imminent danger of being abused by this man, and all the safeguards had already been put into place by RuneVillage themselves as well as the courts. As a company, I can understand why Jagex would want to disassociate themselves from him and that's obviously why they removed the special status of the site in their eyes, but to then broadcast it to the world claiming you're trying to make children safer is a bit incredulous when all necessary preventative measures have already been put into place. Almost like coming to the scene of a heart-attack after CPR has already been performed, just to stick a plaster on.

 

That alone is suspicious enough, but I could easily go further and debate how Jagex's actions in this have paradoxically made children less safe, not more:

 

http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/1709708.stm

 

But a plan to identity a further 110,000 was dropped after innocent people were attacked and police claimed the paper's campaign was wrecking investigations and thus - possibly - placing children at risk.

 

[...]

 

There were violent scenes throughout the country as local people formed vigilante-type mobs intent on driving men taken to be those pictured in the paper out of their neighbourhoods.

 

In Portsmouth 300 people attacked the home of a local taxi driver who had been named by the paper.

 

An innocent man, Iain Armstrong, was beaten up by a mob in Manchester after being mistaken for one of the pictured paedophiles - apparently because he wore a neck-brace which looked like one worn to the man in the News of the World's picture.

 

There was a similar case in Norwich, and a celebrated incident when an entirely innocent South Wales paediatrician was attacked after confusion over the meaning of the word.

 

In the Midlands police received messages from vigilante leaders threatening to drive suspected paedophiles from council estates warning that police stations would be attacked if officers got in the way of mob justice.

There was no necessity for Jagex to do anything except remove their status and, frankly, since they are a private company as everyone keeps pointing out, they don't have to justify that action.

I have an irl friend who is a sex offender because he was 18 with a 16 year old girlfriend and her parents hated him. With that in mind I think that this is [cabbage], unless this person is a real predator.

 

Judging by the news article that cites him as being 62 and the conviction being 1995 we are talking about someone in his 40s having dealings in child pornography.

So not exactly just a case of small age gap of 2 or so years that spans age of consent boundaries yet both parties are of simialr age.

 

I don't know the details in full, he seems to say a few pictures of teenagers & go on about how it was legal at some point which is fair enough, but to Jagex a UK company indecent pictures of underage people's are & never have been legal & I don't think he would be allowed to run a website which has a large childbase in the UK if he is listed as a sex offender.

 

Jagex are right in my opinion. If he is a changed person good for him, but Jagex are right to distance themselves especially with there game herotopia & other future releases aimed at children.

 

That 16-18 law in the US is stupid always has been imo.

Zybez - The world's most reliable internet resource.

That 16-18 law in the US is stupid always has been imo.

That law still exists in the UK, it's just almost never used unless the kid is in serious danger, in which case the police and social services would have a reason to get involved anyway. I'd agree if you'd have said the enforcement of that law is stupid and always has been.

Who cares, it's not the law or government, it's Jagex. They can do any policy they want and will. They don't want to deal with someone who's done this.

 

And like I said, why should they keep quiet and take a hit for someone who is clearly, IMO, a slimeball and creep? Tell people why you terminated the relationship and be done with it.

 

And pulli, just because someone has been released doesn't mean they are normal, rehabilitated or anything. Based on the sentence from a judge the jail can only keep you for so long. They can't hold you ijust because they think you'll do it again.

Just pisses me off how people are so quick to judge this person as, read one post above mine for example, a slimeball and a creep. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't. Do I think his story is true? Maybe. Do I think he's some sort of pervert that deserved what happened to him? Maybe. I don't know the full details of it, and I can easily imagine a scenario that I find plausible in which he doesn't do anything I, or many others, would consider particularly wrong. As it has been pointed out many times, sexual offender laws are written in a way that it is very easy to be innocent of doing anything actually wrong, aside from being a straight man with a penis and a healthy amount of testosterone, and get labelled a sex offender.

 

Jagex was right to distance themselves from that site and it is for the best that he is not an admin of it. However, one must wonder - what if he started posting anonymously on, say, tipit just as a RuneScape fansite? Because either he has done something so wrong that he probably shouldn't have unrestricted internet access period, and by unrestricted I mean not monitored by the cops (and not just monitoring his internet access either) or we simply allow him to have the sort of internet access in which he can easily come into contact with minors. There isn't an in-between. You can't tell him to just not go on sites where the primary audience is younger teens - after all, he wants to go on those fansites because of a legitimate interest in RuneScape.

 

Also, I think the move that Jagex made was probably the best move for Jagex's interests. They can use it as PR to say, potential investors and/or concerned parents that Jagex doesn't stand for this stuff. It is unlikely that either of those circles would look into the matter with any detail.

You know, it's one thing to be a protected teenager, with parents keeping a watchful eye over you it's quite another to be the parent of that same child, who constantly worries about their well-being.

 

To be honest, I have never understood the bizarre reasoning behind the perceived "invulnerability" of teenagers. It's almost as though there are absolutely no dangers out there, whatsoever. It's uncanny, really. My own teenagers are, I swear, in a conspiracy to see which of them can give me gray hairs before the other. None have succeeded yet, but they're due any day now. Both my boys have recently developed this ridiculous sense of "absolutes": everything has always/never been the way things are right now/before, and no amount of reminders of their own past experience to the contrary or the real life experience of their own parents is ever going to dissuade them from believing that reality is any different not even when reality is staring them directly in the face. Instead, they plunge headforth into impending disaster at almost the same rate as one telling them: "I told you so" ...

 

If you have children and/or if you've ever been sexually/physically abused by another person you'd understand and appreciate just how incredibly vulnerable children really are. But you don't, you aren't and you haven't been. Yet.

 

No not yet.

 

Sexual predators aren't "human" not in the sense that one considers other human beings as "human" but none of you would understand that unless you've actually been face to face with one. There's a reason they're called "predators" they literally "feed" on the feelings of empowerment they receive, while they strip you of all your dignity. They feed on your despair. They live to dominate and control you in every way possible. They leave you feeling like less than filth.

 

It takes a lot to reclaim someone who's been victimized in this fashion. It takes a virtual rebuilding of one's own personae. One's own sense of self doesn't come back overnight. It takes a very long time.

 

... and there is no rehabilitation for sexual predators none whatsoever because the criminal justice system doesn't do anything for them there's no effort made to retrain them. And if they did try, it wouldn't "fix" them anyways.

 

... and they certainly don't punish these animals long enough for the heinous crimes that they commit. The chances that any such being has recanted his previous infatuations is slim, at best, and most likely not at all. They do their minimal time in prison, are released, and re-offend. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

But please, feel free to defend sexual predators especially since you don't know any, never truly encountered one, or anything else like them. That's the best time to defend them, really.

 

... because you're all ... invulnerable ...

 

In any event, please, feel free to elucidate further on the injustice of this creature's perceived circumstances hell, I'm somewhat surprised that no one's blamed the victims, yet.

So basically, we have no idea whether or not he was in the wrong starting a fansite.

Pretty much. That said, I still agree with Jagex's decision to pull support from the site, just not the way they did it.

 

Although, the fact that they gave us information into their decision was a refreshing change.

The fact that they still found a way to screw up, however, is a testament to their dedication.