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

[Carl]

 

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

 

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.

[Bxpprod]

[hide]

I distrust the fact that someone who was found to be distributing child pornograhy' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

Post pictures here example is void. He was charged with distribution of CP, not production, nor sex with a minor. Try again.

[/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?

[BioIce]

He was basically a smuggler.

 

EDIT: I know you have to tow the company line, Carl, but you're laying it on too thick.

 

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?

[Deathknell]

ll0rt, if you get caught with drugs, I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption to think you're doing them. 100%? No.

 

I loathe all people involved in sex with minors. I hint and joke. I have to. It's my defense mechanism. That's how I deal with the topic to a degree. Slanderous wasn't intentional. I admitted I was wrong.

 

Wishing that pedophiles, child pornographers, and PDCP would kill themselves? Well I pretty much stand by that. Eat a bullet creeps.

[AnneFrank]

I am just curious for the pictures

[Carl]

[hide]

I distrust the fact that someone who was found to be distributing child pornograhy' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

Post pictures here example is void. He was charged with distribution of CP, not production, nor sex with a minor. Try again.

[/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.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Yay, amateur psychology from people who don't know what they're really saying, about someone they've not known about for anything more than five minutes. This [cabbage]storm is going to end well...

[Carl]

He was basically a smuggler.

 

EDIT: I know you have to tow the company line, Carl, but you're laying it on too thick.

 

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?

 

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.

[Deathknell]

Yeah, it does become opinions.

 

1) I think Jagex is justified in both action and saying why they're taking that action.

2) I don't think anyone should initiate violence against Hiker

3) I don't think the RV community should be disturbed due to Hiker

[BioIce]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I only see one case, not two. The other charge was related to failing to register as an offender in the new state he moved to.

 

He was convicted in federal court and sentenced in November 1995 to 15 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, court records indicate. In 2005, Nashville authorities arrested him for failing to register as a sex offender, according to Davidson County Criminal Court records. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge the following year and was given a suspended jail sentence. He is now listed in Tennessee's Sexual Offender Registry.

[RU_Insane]

 

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.

 

Punishment is always left up to the government. You are conflating the public element of humiliation with the notion of legal punishment. The government is the only entity with the authority to reintegrate and deter offenders of the law. Once the government publicly releases information about that offender, in the name of public protection, the press is free to report it.

 

The press must assume that the information given is true since the judicial process is designed to wean out false positives as opposed to false negatives regards conviction, meaning a person's legal status as an offender is likely to be closer to fact then falsehood. It's also divulged by a trusted authority, so the press has little reason to not report it, especially if the matter is one of a public nature.

 

Punishment is not a private matter since it's done in the public interest. When one offends, he is committing an offense against society. The public thus has the right to be informed of the danger an offender represents to it. We can only assume that danger is justified, because the judicial process is designed to give as accurate a conviction as possible. Like Will_H said, we cannot give up freedom of speech in favor of protecting individual security because that conviction just may happen to be false. We are meant to think that public danger is accurate, not false. Hence why the judicial process is so rigorous to determine if one truly broke the law.

[Carl]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I only see one case, not two. The other charge was related to failing to register as an offender in the new state he moved to.

 

He was convicted in federal court and sentenced in November 1995 to 15 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, court records indicate. In 2005, Nashville authorities arrested him for failing to register as a sex offender, according to Davidson County Criminal Court records. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge the following year and was given a suspended jail sentence. He is now listed in Tennessee's Sexual Offender Registry.

 

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.

[Bxpprod]

ll0rt, if you get caught with drugs, I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption to think you're doing them. 100%? No.

 

I loathe all people involved in sex with minors. I hint and joke. I have to. It's my defense mechanism. That's how I deal with the topic to a degree. Slanderous wasn't intentional. I admitted I was wrong.

 

Wishing that pedophiles, child pornographers, and PDCP would kill themselves? Well I pretty much stand by that. Eat a bullet creeps.

 

No, I'm going to sell them

[Ginger_Warrior]

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.

No no, the Internet isn't an excuse for crap debating, it's just part and parcel of it. You know nothing about this person... I mean literally nothing. We don't even know it was related to child porn, we suspect it might be. That's the level of competence you're all showing here--you saw "sex offender" and went "hang him the filthy perv". It's cringeworthy that this has been labelled under 'discussion', it's just two sides shouting about something they can't possibly know to be true.

[Deathknell]

ll0rt, if you get caught with drugs, I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption to think you're doing them. 100%? No.

 

I loathe all people involved in sex with minors. I hint and joke. I have to. It's my defense mechanism. That's how I deal with the topic to a degree. Slanderous wasn't intentional. I admitted I was wrong.

 

Wishing that pedophiles, child pornographers, and PDCP would kill themselves? Well I pretty much stand by that. Eat a bullet creeps.

 

No, I'm going to sell them

 

Like I said though I think it's a reasonable assumption. Not foolproof by any means, but I can't fault someone for making the assumption.

[Kimberly]

I know what I'm saying when it comes to people never changing. They can mask it, but never change.

 

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.

[The Dark Lord]

No no, the Internet isn't an excuse for crap debating, it's just part and parcel of it. You know nothing about this person... I mean literally nothing. We don't even know it was related to child porn, we suspect it might be. That's the level of competence you're all showing here--you saw "sex offender" and went "hang him the filthy perv". It's cringeworthy that this has been labelled under 'discussion', it's just two sides shouting about something they can't possibly know to be true.

 

^^^

 

This.

[Bxpprod]

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.

No no, the Internet isn't an excuse for crap debating, it's just part and parcel of it. You know nothing about this person... I mean literally nothing. We don't even know it was related to child porn, we suspect it might be. That's the level of competence you're all showing here--you saw "sex offender" and went "hang him the filthy perv". It's cringeworthy that this has been labelled under 'discussion', it's just two sides shouting about something they can't possibly know to be true.

 

Actually, it was related to child porn.

The guy wrote a long winded post on RV which was quoted at the start of the thread, in which he acknowledges this.

[Deathknell]

Yeah, there is no denying it's related to child porn...

[Carl]

I know what I'm saying when it comes to people never changing. They can mask it, but never change.

 

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.

[Ginger_Warrior]

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.

[RU_Insane]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I only see one case, not two. The other charge was related to failing to register as an offender in the new state he moved to.

 

He was convicted in federal court and sentenced in November 1995 to 15 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, court records indicate. In 2005, Nashville authorities arrested him for failing to register as a sex offender, according to Davidson County Criminal Court records. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge the following year and was given a suspended jail sentence. He is now listed in Tennessee's Sexual Offender Registry.

 

There's three cases, but he'll only admit to one as his fault. One is the 1984 accusation of sexual conduct with a minor, which he maintains he is innocent of. The second he admits he did, is the 1995 offense. The 2005 offense is one he didn't intend to commit. He claims he failed to register because he didn't know the respective law had changed. The authorities arrested him on a warrant under the assumption that he was knowingly evading registration. So when we narrow it down, there's only one case he'll admit to. He says he's innocent of the 1984 charge, and he didn't intend to commit the 2005 charge. He admits the 1995 case is his mistake, so he's guilty of that one for sure.

[Bxpprod]

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.

 

That, I must agree with.

[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.

 

Punishment is always left up to the government. You are conflating the public element of humiliation with the notion of legal punishment. The government is the only entity with the authority to reintegrate and deter offenders of the law. Once the government publicly releases information about that offender, in the name of public protection, the press is free to report it. The press must assume that the information given is true since the judicial process is designed to wean out false positives as opposed to false negatives regards conviction, meaning a person's legal status as an offender is likely to be closer to fact then falsehood. It's also divulged by a trusted authority, so the press has little reason to not report it, especially if the matter is one of a public nature.

 

Punishment is not a private matter since it's done in the public interest. When one offends, he is committing an offense against society. The public thus has the right to be informed of the danger an offender represents to it. We can only assume that danger is justified, because the judicial process is designed to give as accurate a conviction as possible. Like Will_H said, we cannot give up freedom of speech in favor of protecting individual security because that conviction just may happen to be false. We are meant to think that public danger is accurate, not false. Hence why the judicial process is so rigorous to determine if one truly broke the law.

So you feel someone should his full life be followed by something he did earlier?

 

YOu create monsters this way.. YOU are the worst kind of humans I ever met, actually craeting a place where others can't live who share other opinions. This is very similar to how homophilia was forced down only a century ago: whether it is good or wrong is besides the topic: what is wrong however is that punishment should be the end. There should be 0 problems AFTER the punishment has been taken, people have to live again. If you don't let people do that they'll only get together, thrown away from society and will commit even worse crimes.

 

 

If I ever went to the US I would rather kill myself than getting into court: those things aren't even morally correct and I believe a crime against humanity. Look what happend to "DSK" now? In the end prosecution stopped, but his political carreer was destroyed, something many US people would love I guess. I doubt it was a complete fair process, but he was a foreigner so it was only normal.

[Kimberly]

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.

 

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?