RuneVillage - Removed as gold status because owner is a sex offender

[RU_Insane]

The law and what we know about his precise status. may or may not be black and white.

But the issue of stepping aside is very black and white: you do it or you don't.

 

Even assuming he wasn't restricted in interaction with minors legally one can question whether it is wise to maintain a fan site and communication with minors knowing you have this status over your head and that it is quite likely on a moral ground many would find it iffy and object and thus the fact he probably should of stepped aside in 05 when he became a sex offender. After all irl off the internet he wouldn't be likely to get a job with minors due to the moral implications and the objections of parents etc. so why should the internet differ.

 

I mean the issue was bound to come up at some point, so to me the obvious thing to do would be to step aside quietly in 05 when it developed potential to become an issue and thus avoid any mass drama due to the "secret" being stumbled upon and causing such ructions from the fairly justified moved of jagex bringing it attention.

 

Well, I think the law knows his precise status about the restrictions. We don't know, and hence this is where we get into the gray area, because this info regards his exact status hasn't been made public. I see for your argument about stepping aside you've taken into account the moral objections. I can understand the concerns they'd have. Yes, the issue is two-fold: step aside, or don't. However, 'stepping aside' doesn't mean he has to leave. It simply means he abandons his current role so someone else can take over. He can assume another role in its place. He could assume a much less public role in the forums in response the potential objections. He would be staying with the site, but would no longer be acting as its day-to-day public operator. Why should he be forced to leave, especially if, for him, he's innocent?

 

Likewise, why should he face scrutiny if he chooses to stay? Perhaps it's easier to just step aside and leave, true. But he was not prepared to do that; he's been running the site from then 'till now. It's only when he was more publicly exposed as an offender that he resigned his duties. Now that more people know, of course they're going to have objections, so he resigned. That was the most obvious course of action to take, and maybe he came to regret his decision. I don't think he had to leave, but I agree with stepping aside (read: abandoning current role) in response to the criticism. If he simply wanted to avoid criticism, I think he could have stayed, but lurked in the shadows, y'know.

[Lensare]

I suggest that for the definitive answer, we need contact the TNBOPP for the answer.

Do we - i.e. Rune Tips? - really NEED to do anything at all? I don't think we have to meddle in others' private problems, as long as they don't concern us. I don't see how we are primary participants in the issue; if RV or Jagex see a need to do it, then I guess it's their right.

[lordkafei]

I suggest that for the definitive answer, we need contact the TNBOPP for the answer.

Do we - i.e. Rune Tips? - really NEED to do anything at all? I don't think we have to meddle in others' private problems, as long as they don't concern us. I don't see how we are primary participants in the issue; if RV or Jagex see a need to do it, then I guess it's their right.

 

Disclaimer: I do not speak for Tip.It in any sort of capacity. I used we as a general pronoun.

 

TBH though, contacting TN authorities is what Jagex should have done behind the scenes - instead of a screaming forum post.

 

And honestly, there is nothing preventing any concerned citizen from discreetly asking whether running a fansite violates terms of contact. Id expect at the least that some sort of age verification would have to be put in place to make it legit.

[pulli23]

Wow, this sounds awfull what you do here:

 

Take for example this true story which just happend:

 

Some person was taken captive, for "pedophilia", he was let to the court, they sentenced him for some years + TBS. He owned a school for handicapped people which he "build" himself. Needless to say: within 2 months of him becoming a target (not even getting prosecuted) the school was run dry already. He had to abandon as the media made him look like a monster. He was active at some organizations - everywhere he was putted down, and thrown away.

 

Now 2 months after prosecution it came out that it was all a big mistake: the police had just the wrong dosier at the wrong person (he should've went to the court for not paying a fine he gained for speeding). - And he only admitted because he was under pressure. Now he was fired from jail: but that was least of his worries. He had no life anymore, everywhere he went he was still known as that "suspect of pedophilia". His lifework was destroyed, he couldn't get a job anymore, his house was often vandalized...

The media had destroyed his life

 

What I wish to tell through this: media shouldn't involve itself with legal, personal, things. And especially never name or show an image of the person in question. Punishment -and other private things- should always be kept in private. Mistakes can (and will) happen, and destroying somebody for such a mistake is simply inhuman.

 

Leave punishment to the goverment, not to public/companies.

[Will H]

Wow, this sounds awfull what you do here:

 

Take for example this true story which just happend:

 

Some person was taken captive, for "pedophilia", he was let to the court, they sentenced him for some years + TBS. He owned a school for handicapped people which he "build" himself. Needless to say: within 2 months of him becoming a target (not even getting prosecuted) the school was run dry already. He had to abandon as the media made him look like a monster. He was active at some organizations - everywhere he was putted down, and thrown away.

 

Now 2 months after prosecution it came out that it was all a big mistake: the police had just the wrong dosier at the wrong person (he should've went to the court for not paying a fine he gained for speeding). - And he only admitted because he was under pressure. Now he was fired from jail: but that was least of his worries. He had no life anymore, everywhere he went he was still known as that "suspect of pedophilia". His lifework was destroyed, he couldn't get a job anymore, his house was often vandalized...

The media had destroyed his life

 

What I wish to tell through this: media shouldn't involve itself with legal, personal, things. And especially never name or show an image of the person in question. Punishment -and other private things- should always be kept in private. Mistakes can (and will) happen, and destroying somebody for such a mistake is simply inhuman.

 

Leave punishment to the goverment, not to public/companies.

 

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here. If you're on the sex offenders' register, you have been punished under a court of law. If we start doubting the validity of the decision made by the courts, we have to give up any sort of notion of law or punishment for anything. That's too much doubt placed upon a process that has been honed for centuries to eliminate false positives, to the point that it churns out a fair amount of false negatives and only punishes when there is a definitive line of evidence that proves the defendant committed the crime. Make no mistake, if you're on the sex offender's register, it's a reasonable assumption to make that you're on there for a very good reason.

 

Secondly, we have a free press. You can't go into some kind of denial that you can be rendered immune to the thoughts and opinions of the people around you. Consider the inverse, would you think it would be progress if the government was free to arrest and take people away, convict them behind closed doors without public scrutiny, and enforce a total media silence on the treatment or the reason of the treatment of the person?

 

My point is, while there is always progress to be made to eliminate miscarriages of justice, that does not mean that we should start giving up our rights to free speech and exist in a state of judicial anarchy.

[wormy]

If I remember correctly and it has been some time. Did Jagex basically do the same thing when they first removed tips gold status?

 

I think it was a news post item saying tips support has been removed due to "hacking ads" or was it because of the mass hack of......

[Kirschen]

I might as well throw my own thoughts on this also since everyone seems to have something to say about it. I agree that Jagex had the right intentions to why they did this action since they want to keep their image as a company to US players. Personally, I just felt the method was a bit humiliating since hiker is getting heat from both the community and some fansite users themselves because they just got a curve ball telling them that their founder had a dark past. Runevillage may be a dying fansite but the whole community didn't really deserve this sudden change of events, did they? :-|

[pulli23]

 

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here. If you're on the sex offenders' register, you have been punished under a court of law. If we start doubting the validity of the decision made by the courts, we have to give up any sort of notion of law or punishment for anything. That's too much doubt placed upon a process that has been honed for centuries to eliminate false positives, to the point that it churns out a fair amount of false negatives and only punishes when there is a definitive line of evidence that proves the defendant committed the crime. Make no mistake, if you're on the sex offender's register, it's a reasonable assumption to make that you're on there for a very good reason.

 

Secondly, we have a free press. You can't go into some kind of denial that you can be rendered immune to the thoughts and opinions of the people around you. Consider the inverse, would you think it would be progress if the government was free to arrest and take people away, convict them behind closed doors without public scrutiny, and enforce a total media silence on the treatment or the reason of the treatment of the person?

 

My point is, while there is always progress to be made to eliminate miscarriages of justice, that does not mean that we should start giving up our rights to free speech and exist in a state of judicial anarchy.

 

Free press indeed: freedom of speech protects one against goverments.. However a press should never be free to post ANYTHING private of a person. And punishment is a private being.

 

I never said anything about not believing punishment, I rather say the opposite: leave punishment to the goverment. Especially if the offender wishes to stay low profile let him stay low profile. We are no longer in the middle ages where you have to stand at the market square and let people throw tomatos at you. Keep punishment by the goverment, and if you disagree change the law - don't punish as civilian.

 

Also let the past be the past.

[Sy_Accursed]

Punishment is not private.

The whole concept of law and punishment is to publicly bring shame and/or ridicule upon the guilty party to act as deterrent to others.

 

The only reason things like the stocks died out was the advent of mass media meant it wasn't necessary to put on a show of punishment as word would spread anyway.

[pulli23]

Punishment is not private.

The whole concept of law and punishment is to publicly bring shame and/or ridicule upon the guilty party to act as deterrent to others.

 

Uhm no, that's really not the idea of punishment. If you wish I dig up some old quotes, but really during the 17th century people already believed we should stop punishing as a sense of "fullfillment" but instead try to change people. THAT is also the reason why you don't kill, or do other permanent things to people. People can change, and everyone deserves the right to change himself and let the past be the past.

[Kaida23]

Punishment is not private.

The whole concept of law and punishment is to publicly bring shame and/or ridicule upon the guilty party to act as deterrent to others.

 

The only reason things like the stocks died out was the advent of mass media meant it wasn't necessary to put on a show of punishment as word would spread anyway.

Now there's an idea. Bring back the stocks and let us throw rotten fruit at criminals. :lol:

[SomeNut]

Punishment is not private.

The whole concept of law and punishment is to publicly bring shame and/or ridicule upon the guilty party to act as deterrent to others.

 

The only reason things like the stocks died out was the advent of mass media meant it wasn't necessary to put on a show of punishment as word would spread anyway.

however, the media starts attacking people even before a trial, and even if they're found innocent the damage cant be undone, the world still looks at people differently, that tends to make plea bargains and settlements more appealing, even when you did nothing wrong, because otherwise the media drags your name through the dirt, especially with a charge like this

 

and we all know the police only have the publics best interests at heart, Right?

[Sy_Accursed]

Punishment is not private.

The whole concept of law and punishment is to publicly bring shame and/or ridicule upon the guilty party to act as deterrent to others.

 

The only reason things like the stocks died out was the advent of mass media meant it wasn't necessary to put on a show of punishment as word would spread anyway.

however, the media starts attacking people even before a trial, and even if they're found innocent the damage cant be undone, the world still looks at people differently, that tends to make plea bargains and settlements more appealing, even when you did nothing wrong, because otherwise the media drags your name through the dirt, especially with a charge like this

 

and we all know the police only have the publics best interests at heart, Right?

 

That is true but in this case: he WAS found guility by a court and IS on the sex offender registery

 

And Pulli I know my stuff on crime and punishment I did it at gcse and A level history; punishment is meant to shame the offender in its public repercussions and deter others due to seeing this; even when they got all philanthropic and lets fix these poor people the elements of shaming and humiliating didn't go away. Eg rather than the stocks they went to the work house and then faced stigma of being in the workhouse and forced to do essentially slave labour.

[hfbrads]

Actually rehabilitation is the purpose of prison, at least in most judicial systems.

[The Observer]

The purpose of prison terms is to stress rehabilitation rather than retribution.

[Sy_Accursed]

But prison still has a stigma/shame and an element of humiliation attached to it; that persists beyond the prison walls with criminal record and friends/family facing questions about it.

[Crocefisso]

Not sure i agree with Jagex broadcasting that, should have just been Jagex sending that to runevillage, not to the community. Because no one honestly cares runevillage isn't a "gold" site. They now just care that there's a sex offender that owns it. Makes it look like Jagex just going the extra mile to diss on runevillage.

Completely disagree. It's important to let the community know: think of the severity of the guy's actions (40 year old involved in child porn distribution), and consider that many of the game's users are in the sort of age-group he targets. People need to be aware of this, as far as I'm concerned.

[pulli23]

But prison still has a stigma/shame and an element of humiliation attached to it; that persists beyond the prison walls with criminal record and friends/family facing questions about it.

Hence why criminal records are never public: instead only companies (only if the police deemed it necessary for the job) may get it, or other instantions.

 

Asking questions to friends/family is in some cases actually a crime too: and especially for media not allowed.

[The Observer]

But prison still has a stigma/shame and an element of humiliation attached to it; that persists beyond the prison walls with criminal record and friends/family facing questions about it.

 

It happens because people make it that way. They're mainly used to show that someone did something, so that the public will be aware of their past actions. Say, if someone was convicted of fraud and they apply to become an accountant.

[Deathknell]

Sorry, but it's very hard for me to feel bad about all this. I know it was in the past and maybe he is better, but when you engage in these things, that [bleep] is gonna follow you for life.

 

I feel bad about the forums. Maybe Jagex could apologize to each of the posters personaly. I mean, that's only 8 or 9 people right? :unsure:

[Sly_Wizard]

Just because you're a registered sex offender, doesn't mean you're some 40 year old who had sex with a 15 year old. You can get slapped with a sex offender charge if you're as little as three, might be two, years older than the person you're sleeping with. Anyway, this is kind of [cabbage]. I mean, if it's in his past, it's in his past. Plus it has little bearing, none actually, on the maintenance of Rune Village.

[Sy_Accursed]

But across all forms of punishment the shame factor is present.

Eg children grounding them or giving them detention in a school break or making them sit in a corner at front of class if they disrupt it; all of them involve shame and humiliation because other people see and know that you have done wrong.

The very nature of punishment enforces an element of shame and humiliation; if it did not it wouldn't be a very good punishment. As its the negative emotional responses that form the deterrent.

 

And Killerred - exactly: Its there so people KNOW if they did something pertinent to the position/situation. A sex offence is something the effected public has a right to know about when that person is exposed to minors etc; in this case the parents and users of runescape have a right to know as they can/are directly exposed to it.

[BioIce]

Maybe Jagex could apologize to each of the posters personaly. I mean, that's only 8 or 9 people right?

 

Bahahahahahahahah!

 

I think people understand the stigma attached to a crime like this. It's the way Jagex has handled it in a way that flaunts their authority over fansites that has people up in a tizzy.

[Sly_Wizard]

Completely disagree. It's important to let the community know: think of the severity of the guy's actions (40 year old involved in child porn distribution), and consider that many of the game's users are in the sort of age-group he targets. People need to be aware of this, as far as I'm concerned.

 

...Fifteen years ago.

 

This is one of the problems with society. People are always trying to hold others' mistakes above their heads, no matter how long ago those mistakes occurred. At some point in time, an individual should be allowed to live and operate without whatever they did in the past constantly throwing the proverbial dark cloud over their head.

[RS_Qet]

Personally believe Jagex were completely correct in their actions - warning users of the fansite about the owner is extremely important. I understand that it may seem unfair that they've publically exposed the owner, but if there's a possibility that younger players have had contact with him and are potentially at risk then it's their duty to warn those players.

 

There'd be greater uproad by far if we'd just found out someone had been abused by the owner and Jagex had never done anything concerning his past.

 

Good on Jagex imo.