Rick is refering to selling pins for Runescape membership to others, There maybe a reason behind why they do not have members as already mentioned. For example, Bad grades, not doing housework when asked, being an arse to your parents.

This goes for Everything that breaks the rules, Yes AFK training is against the rules but define AFK training? Jagex does not do this.
 
--------------------
Friend's Forver
The Long Road Ahead - 91/99 Prayer

Rick is refering to selling pins for Runescape membership to others, There maybe a reason behind why they do not have members as already mentioned. For example, Bad grades, not doing housework when asked, being an arse to your parents.

This goes for Everything that breaks the rules, Yes AFK training is against the rules but define AFK training? Jagex does not do this.

I'm just being a wiseass, but yeah they do.

 
--------------------

But most people do sit at their PC and watch films/do home work while they train thus remaining at their PC.
 
--------------------
Friend's Forver
The Long Road Ahead - 91/99 Prayer

If you read the rules, they do define what they mean by it. They mean being logged on rs while away from the keyboard, quite literally. By jagex standard, that means millions have broken the rules.

Very interesting viewpoint. Clearly you've had prior experience of selfish lazy people

What do you say to those people? Do you tell them straight or help them out? If the latter persists, they'll end up thinking there's nothing wrong with it and you're happy to help. Consider also that some of them may be natural group learners, who learn by communication. Sometimes, giving someone the answer can help you out because it makes it stick stronger in your mind. However, if that isn't the way you like to study, they need telling straight, and doing things on their own.

Of course there are people who deserve to be homeless. In the UK, they're in luxurious houses sapping up the taxpayer's money, and don't want to get off their ass. If they got their act together, it would literally do a world of good. However, people are on a varying scale of difficulty. Some have no other option, for either circumstancial reasons, medical reasons, or a combination of both.

What's your viewpoint on giving to charity? You could say 'the people should work for a living, not get things for free', but most people in the 3rd world work their ass off, but just happened to be born in a poorer place, and they can do jack-all about it. Is it wrong for us to give a small sacrifice, say £3 a month, to help them out? After all, with economy of scale, £3 over there can make a much bigger difference.

A fair point, but in the charity circumstance, a little sacrifice from the rich makes a huge difference to the poor, it is far from a perfect equillibrium. And more often then not, the more money the poor have, the more successful they are at supporting themselves. They grow more crop, the kids have a better education, it eventually helps them become more useful, hence balancing the equillibrium even further. Once you give a seed some soil, it can support itself and even benefit you with its fruit.

Not sure if I was on the right wavelength of your argument. You're probably referring to only those who do not work, hence the 3rd world is a poor example.

Very true. Often it takes a lot of discression to determine who needs special consideration, and whether they are faking their hardships. If someone has a hard time in RL, we naturally smpathise. But there is a difference between emotion and currency.

Its quite a grey area where 'the people who are better off have to supply it" though. Who is this referring to? If you mean the PIN sellers, they're getting RS currency at the same time, so its no skin off their nose. Usually PIN sellers don't advertise their trade, they help someone out who requires assistance. Its a mutual benefit.

Now if you mean the people not involved - do they 'supply' special consideration when a PIN trade goes on around them? Maybe its because they had to pay with their real life currency, whereas the person getting the PIN only pays with rs currency. Is that the real concern? If so, it definitely is a viable one. They're not getting something for nothing, but they are using a different form of payment. That form is arguably easier to come by and, as I mentioned before, is down to luck.

But my original point still stands - if that person is struggling for money in real life, is in a very poor situation, and simply wants p2p to escape and have a break from the hardship, is it not viable to use the money in rs they earned?

If the people who must supply consideration are in fact the people who would probably like to get a P2P pin for rs money instead of rl money, then that's also a fair point. But if they're in a good situation to pay in rl, is it really a matter for them to be involved in? If they are in a poor situation in rl, and yet refuse to pay by rs money, then that would definitely be an acceptable reason.

In the PIN circumstance, is that the 'unfair' aspect behind it? The people who would be better off using rs money, but refuse to break the rule, and hence miss out? I think i'm confusing myself, clarity would be useful =s
 
--------------------
~Aetas: carpe diem quam minimum credula postero~

"Seize the day and place no trust in tomorrow"

This threw me off. Morals? If you think this is bad you should see some other things that go on around the internet. (See: 4chan, CALeague forums). I understand there is a right/wrong here, but morals sounds like a strong word.

Anyways, I can't really say my position on this.. I'm kinda in the middle. I don't like that people do this, but I used to RWT a few years ago as well ($100 for a santa hat? YES PLEASE!) I haven't been doing it lately, and I would never be on the end of receiving RS cash because I think thats a waste of RL money.

I sincerely believe that we should leave those doing it, alone. As put by Jacob, as long as the trading is not done publicly, we cannot do anything about it. But at the same time, that is saying WG accepts rule-breaking, as long as it is not associated to the clan directly. Anyways, some people have an extremely tough time trying to get P2P. I was never able to convince my parents to allow me, so I went and did it on my own.
 
--------------------

You misread. I said I would never be on the receiving end of the RS cash. I sold a Santa hat for $100. And I was around before they existed (H).
 
--------------------

Ohhh in that case, nice one (y)

Tnuac never misreads, just misunderstands occasionaly

When did you start out?
 
--------------------
~Aetas: carpe diem quam minimum credula postero~

"Seize the day and place no trust in tomorrow"

I got sidetracked thinking about this one guy who sits beside me in statistics. I've just kind of noticed the pattern recently, not sure what I'll do about it yet. I'm too nice because whenever I get pissed and decide to put my foot down about something it's always at the absolute worst possible time. Stopping this paragraph now before I type three more and get even more sidetracked...

I might be a hardass about some things, but I assure you I'm no Hitler. If there's stuff that can be feasibly done to help the homeless that's cool, I was pointing more to the concept of having to decide who deserves help and who doesn't, and what happens when objectivity and subjectivity get confused along the way. And I have given money to charity occasionally.

That was me getting too wrapped up in my hypothetical reality and losing touch with the thread topic. I'm a sucker for hypotheticals.

I believe they should be happy with F2P until a legal option presents itself. But at the same time, I'm an immensely, immensely stubborn person. Just because I did it doesn't mean I can expect everyone else to do it, I just know it's possible and doesn't kill you to wait awhile or find another venue.

That's where I got my ass kicked. Tnuac actually dares to add maturity to the equation while I've given up on most of the human race so I usually don't.

It's just that, I think if something is against the rules you either respect it, or fight it. According to the rules this definitely isn't a gray area, so to use the United States Government as an example we have three possibilities: a) change it, live with it, or c) leave it up to the individuals to do what they think is right. I'm in the 'B' category.
 
--------------------

I would agree that not all Jagex rules are created equal: someone who says the WG site in game should not be given the same punishment as someone who is a hacker.

With this in mind we cannot just issue a blanket statement to enforce Jagex rules, but rather we need to make some actual value judgments to decide how we are going to react to people breaking Jagex rules.

There are certian breaches of Jagex rules, such as scamming, hacking, autoing, racist/sexist/highly offensive comments, and unjustified account trading, that we must punish because they demonstrate severe character and moral flaws that we do not want in WG members.

For other rules, such as going on another's accounts and selling pins, the lack of clear harm or breach of moral conduct creates a kind of grey area. Rather than try to punish for these rules themselves, I think we should punish for openly admitting or facilitating the breach of them. This intent here is not so much to punish for the rules, (these are primarily between Jagex and the players) but rather to ensure that the WG forums and chat are not used as a venue for facilitating the breaking of Jagex rules. It also effects the moral standing of the clan, since if people are constantly talking about breaking rules it starts to just become accepted.

Related to this grey area, I am also concerned with people going on other's accounts for wars, not so much because it breaks Jagex rules but because it is usually a breach of war rules.

Then there are certain types of rules, such as saying websites ingame, spamming, personal details, advert blocking, that I would attest should be kept entirely between the player and Jagex. These rules do not demonstrate any obvious moral flaw, nor do they involve WG forums or chat as a venue for breaking these rules.

Rather than analyze each rule individually, we can break the Jagex rules into three categories:

1. Those rules that demonstrate a clear moral flaw when broken - we should actively punish members for breaking these rules
2. Those rules do not demonstrate a clear moral flaw, but may involve WG forums/chat/members - we should punish members for using WG as a venue to break these rules (or aid and encourage breaking these rules) but not for breaking the rules themselves.
3. Those rules that do not demonstrate a clear moral flaw, nor involve WG - We should not punish for these rules, but rather recognize that they are between Jagex and the player.

If we accept these categories, the debate becomes about which rules fit into which categories.

Here is my personal opinion
Cat 1. Rules 1, 2, 3, 4 (only for major bug abuse), 6 (only for unjustified account trading and severe/long-term account sharing), 7 (only for autoing/macro)
Cat 2. Rules 6 (for short-term account sharing), 8, 9, 12
Cat 3. Rules 4 (for pointless/harmless bug abuse), 5, 7 (for SS and the like), 10, 11, 13, 14, 15

Even with these rules set out though, sometimes cases will not be clear-cut, especially with rule 6. Rather than outright punish for breaking this rule, because it is such a grey area it is easier to pushing for talking about breaking the rule. WG should not tolerate people openly asking for others to do quests, training, firecape, FOG, or any other in game account improvements.











 
--------------------

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Havoc use a credit card as oppose to PINs? I agree it was disastrous, but I'm not sure PINs can have the same effect.

-----------

Wayne, thanks for clarifying. And again, interesting perspective.


----------

Karl, good job in expanding the rules. Its essentially what needs doing this stage now that we've established the problem with obeying them out-right.

I agree completely with the categories, its a great way to organise it. As you say, the mid-category, in my opinion, should be kept off our public forums and chat, but it is not worth interferring in other people's private transactions. Of course, people have differences of opinions, so it may be up to the leadership to decide where the rules stand.

I'll add a few pointers to your classification, just adding my opinion. Most of it is spot on, let me just mention:

1 - For real swearing, and when its actually caused to offend someone, definitely. But its on a scale really. It isn't right to let person A actively swear in the IRC (for which we do not enforce it), but punish person B for saying much milder words in-game. Maybe this rule spans all 3 categories? What do ya reckon?

5 - Staff impersonation: this usualy concerns password scamming and the like, so should it really be in the 1st category? The 2 rules span each other, it may just have to be played by ear.

Proabably a few points here in there, but generally that sounds good. Hopefully we can get the leadership to review it.



 
--------------------
~Aetas: carpe diem quam minimum credula postero~

"Seize the day and place no trust in tomorrow"

u wont more of a post count ehh?!?!?!?











so do i
 
--------------------

He'd give himself a 72 hour ban for your sins.
 
--------------------

I think the topic has ended unless Rick can think of a counter-essay.
 
--------------------