RuneScape Wiki
This talk page is for discussing the Real-world trading page.

Legality of RWT

You realise RWT is illegal under British law? Morphyhunter 18:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. However, it is possible to be under a lawsuit. Like Slander, it is not illegal but you can be involved in a lawsuit. 23:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it only be lawsuit-able if it was illegal?
  1. REDIRECT User:C Teng/sig 01:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not illegal. You can only get sued if you don't tell the buyer that it is virtual and/or don't offer a refund.Bulbear4444 03:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RWT may be legal, but it is against the "terms of service" for using Jagex servers and equipment. Essentially, this is a civil contract between yourself and Jagex when you are playing Runescape. BTW, while RWT in a broad sense is perfectly legal, there are aspects of it, particularly to circumvent data encoding techniques, development of unauthorized software (aka bots), and the scams usually associated with RWT that can be illegal and may even be 1st degree felonies that can be used for extradition from most western nations to the UK, USA, or even almost any member nation of the UN. Depending on what is happening and how dangerous the action is perceived, you can spend serious time in prison for actions done while playing Runescape. Prosecutions for some criminal activity that has been done by Runescape players has already happened, with folks already in prisons for their actions. Just because you are playing "anonymously" doesn't mean you can't be tracked down, either. --Robert Horning 10:19, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


I categorized the article and did some general rewriting and cleanups. I went ahead and removed the Cleanup template, as well as the Obsolete template (though I didn't see anything that was obsolete to begin with...). If there are still concerns on either of this points though, feel free to add the templates back. Regabuh 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruining the business

Why would RWTers ruin their business by stealing accounts? -- 13:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few RWIT websites out there, and the act of giving your account to someone isn't really to be taken lightly. If one website stole someone's account and money, they would no doubt be very angry. If the website then got a bad reputation, then people would just go to a safer website. Sysop crown.svgTes FanSysop crown.svg 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reporting RWT Websites

Is there anyway to report the RWT websites to Jagex? Because (anonymous), a friend of mine used one, and thats not fair. His account will probably be hacked anyway tho. Eggyisme 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation or I call BS

Okay, where is the citation for "RWT may result in a prison sentence"? Is there a single precedent for this in any country ever? I do not think so. In Holland there is actual precedent for virtual goods IN RUNESCAPE belonging to the accountholder... This amounts to groundless fear mongering. --Nog lorp 23:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


What I find odd is that Jagex is doing RWT themselves, through the use of selling memberships.Bulbear4444 01:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Memberships are different because the only way to obtain them is to buy from Jagex. Also, it doesn't involve the sale of in-game items. So it's not the kind of real-world trading that the article is about. Zeldafanjtl 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The reason membership is different is not because it's from Jagex. If that was the only difference, then it'd just be first-party RWT, which is still RWT. What really makes membership different is that it provides access to new game content, not unfair advantages. With membership you pay to be able to go to the God Wars Dungeon and fight the monsters for their drops. With RWT, you just buy the drops directly with real-life money. For an example of first-party RWT, please see the JCredits page on the War of Legends Wiki. --MarkGyver 23:27, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


"You can be severely penalized civilly or even arrested if the Law Enforcement finds out you were buying/selling gold because all items, accounts, gold, etc. legally belongs to Jagex." Just wanted someone to confirm. --King x treme 00:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC) PS: Anyone know whats wrong with my signature? I'm pretty sure I have something set up for it...

Yes, that is true. Also, with your signature, make sure the "custom signature" thing is checked. And lol I know this is a waaaaaaaaaaaaayyy long time since you posted...which was 3 days after my b-day last year? Omg... Woodcutting-icon.png Talk Megakid39 Firemaking-icon.png 01:30, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Stat Wipe

I really think that the Stat Wipe (where they would wipe your stats back to 3) is a good idea! Here is what I think they should do:

  1. Stat wipe them.
  2. When they log in, let them only access their stats page, nothing else, and let them look in shock at it for 30 seconds.
  3. Disconnect them and ban them. Forever.

Sounds evil, huh? If it's evil, it's a great way to torture macroers!! --Staff of fire.png Justine2369 Dragon scimitar old.png 03:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would be no more effective than what I think is the current policy of instant banning without changing stats. Remember that the RWT botters are running many accounts at once and losing one or two every few days means practically nothing to them. --MarkGyver 17:37, February 11, 2010 (UTC)


Just because Jagex officially demonizes RWT doesn't mean that our wiki should share the same slant. Many games have both first and third party RWT and it's highly beneficial to both the in-game economy and to those who enjoy the game enough to make it a job, if implemented correctly. I would like feedback here from those watching this page before I put in any serious edits to the page, so I can see the views of the wiki, so I'm sure my additions are welcome --Aitamen 12:49, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

The RuneScape wiki does not support rule breaking ingame activities in general. I am sure its in the policies but I am too tired to look. 21:00, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Searching through RS:POLICY, I wasn't able to find anything directly stating that the wiki should not support rule-breaking. However, I did find the following:

  • RS:DEL#REVISION: A page revision that "contains hazardous or offensive links", including rule-breaking sites, should be deleted. If the RS Wiki became a rule-breaking site, then this rule would prohibit it from linking to itself, so this implicitly assumes a policy against rule-breaking on this wiki.
  • RS:NOT#JAGEX: "Even though our Wiki is a Silver supported fansite, we are not affiliated in any way with Jagex."
  • RS:NPOV: Articles must be "representing fairly and without bias all significant views", which I think includes those of rule-breakers.

Overall, I think the policy is that we should neutrally document issues relating to rule-breaking, but we should never advocate or enable it. In the case of RWT, it would be fair to mention other games where it is allowed, and possibly encouraged, but it should stay clear that it is completely against the rules in RuneScape. --User:MarkGyver/Signature/Real 22:07, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

"Jagex UTurn on Microtransactions"

Jagex does not see this as a microtransaction (my opinion is different, but that's not the point). Should we really have a section about this with a picture and everything? It's definitely a big dispute going on right now, but I'm not so sure that having this on the Real world trading article is correct.

  1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 16:43, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
The whole section should stay. Here's why:
  • If Jagex changes something about an article's topic, it should be mentioned in the article, so Jagex's changing RWT definition and attitude should be mentioned in the article about RWT.
  • If something about an article's topic is controversial, the controversy should be covered in the article, so the controversy about Jagex's shifting attitudes about RWT should be covered here.
  • If there is supporting material such as JMod quotes or images from the RS site, the material should be included in the article, so the picture advertising Jagex's first-party RWT should be included.
That said, there's always room for improvement in how the controversy section is covered. A few examples are adding citations, improving neutrality, and general grammar/sentence flow fixes. User:MarkGyver/Signature/Real 01:37, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
Jagex hasn't changed their definition as they do not see this as a microtransaction. If it is to stay, it needs a major cleanup.
  1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 05:06, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
Jagex has changed their definition of RWT, even if they also changed their definition of microtransaction. Originally, RWT meant any trade between real-world and in-game stuff. Since then, they've changed their definition of RWT to mean third-party trades between real-world and in-game stuff. They've then defined microtransactions as first-party trades between real-world and in-game stuff, which clearly falls under their original definition of RWT.
Now, they're claiming that in-game items bundled with real-world purchases (Flagstaves of festivities and Ornate katanas bundled with RuneFest tickets and membership cards respectively) do not count as microtransactions. The corresponding third-party RWT version of such bundling would be someone selling a random item like a picture and then adding an in-game item as a "bonus". Either way, the sale of an in-game item for real-world currency is still taking place; it's just obfuscated by combining that transaction with another.
Basically, if anyone but Jagex bundled an in-game item with the real-life sale of a real-life item, they'd call that RWT and ban all involved. Thus, any such bundling by Jagex which they claim not to be RWT is an example of them having changed their definition of RWT.
As for cleaning up the section, here's a list of what I think would make it ideal:
  • Move RuneFest 2011 info to its own section.
  • Add citations.
  • Expand the section with more info.
  • Add a caption to the image.
  • Remove the {{Disputed}} template. Are any of the claims in the section actually disputed?
Anyway, I would call that more of a "normal" cleanup/refactoring/fixup than a "major" cleanup. User:MarkGyver/Signature/Real 04:37, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

Mod Moltares RWt view

I swear that Mod moltare told me today that Sof is not RWt because RWT is in deifnition a 3rd party to 3rd party action. I tried to take a screenie but the chat moved to fast to do so but I swear he said it at around 16:54 British time on the 19th of April.


Why is (this site) advertising real world trading websites!? I have been using this site for many many years and have never seen that. I do not know if they gave the advertisers permission to advertise and then they advertised rwt without wikia's permission. I am certain I saw this.

Frozen Cactus (talk) 04:12, July 17, 2012 (UTC)Frozen Cactus