Talk:Jagex cache

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the Jagex cache page.
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg Before commenting, you may wish to view the following previous and current discussions concerning the Jagex cache (in chronological order):

Comment -This is as I expected. I disagree with Psycho's opinion that "It's fine so long as you don't tell them how to access the cache." Telling viewers that there are images of things that may be released in the future is obviously telling them "open it if you want." Telling them it is good for speculators furthers this point. Whether or not this topic has seen action from Jagex, this topic has yet to be proven legal. According to the RS:DP, it is not allowed to post things that are illegal. I assert that viewing the cache is illegal according to the terms of service clause "You must not reverse-engineer, decompile or modify any Jagex Product client software in any way (except to the extent allowed by applicable law)" found here. Viewing the cache is decompiling the cache, and this article clearly suggests to get into the cache if you want to speculate. Leftiness 23:19, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

This situation is no different than saying "some people use bots to train boring skills". Anyone with a will to do so can and will search the internet for ways to break the rules, be it using a bot or viewing the cache. It is not our duty as a wiki to prevent anyone from getting ideas about bad thing to do. If it were, we wouldn't have a macroing page. On the contrary, it is our duty to report this information as it pertains to RuneScape, be it the game or the community. As long as we don't actively encourage people to do this, or adopt a here's how its done, but don't do it stance, there is nothing wrong. The issue of documenting that the cache viewing is done is a completely different issue than condoning cache viewing by allowing people who do so to upload images and use them on the wiki. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:47, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
That said there was a passage in there that said it was "good" for speculation or something. Too lazy to look into the history and find it. That was indeed not RS:NPOV and probably could be construed as encouraging rulebreaking. So I removed that. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:42, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The article says "People do this." That has all the negative effects of "Don't do this." ... And, since I just looked at the page again, it now tells viewers where the cache is located and it uses the buzz word "Decompile," making learning how to do it even easier. Leftiness 00:53, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

ppl do drugs. dont do drugs. as for decompile/where the cache is located, i didnt put those on there. for all i care, they can be removed. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 01:21, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

If this article told how people did it, then you could have a valid case for removing it. But this article simply states the encyclopedic fact that people do it. Removing that information is akin to deleting the entire article on macroing out of fear that people will start doing it. Would you support deleting Macro? As for the technical terms, they are useless for actually decompling the cache unless people look up how to do it. And if they looked up how to do it, they'd encounter this term anyways. Again, this is like not defining autoclicker in the macro article because it makes macroing easier. It doesn't, and neither does this. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:43, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - All right... As long as the images from the viewer stay off the wiki, I guess I've done all I can do here. Leftiness 02:18, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed[edit source]

  • Use of third party software to access the games cache is legal, although some Jagex moderators in response to questions in game claim that any software used to access any Jagex files is a violation of the terms of service and can see accounts banned from the game.

The above is not neutrality. I assert that this statement is enough in expressing the supporting party's opinion: "As of yet no action has been taken against accounts of players known to use third party software to access the game cache." You cannot declare something legal without a statement from Jagex regarding the specifics of the matter.

  • Videos showing the contents of the cache and tutorials on how to view the cache exist in large numbers.
  • In spite of all these developments, any videos of the cache or tutorials posted on popular websites such as Youtube remain undisturbed.

Must you tell them where to find tutorials? I assert that it would be encyclopaedic to simply say, "In spite of all these developments, Jagex has yet to take legal action." Also, simply stating that some players use third party software to decompile (not decompress) the cache is enough on the topic of it existing.

  • Although many interesting files are present in the cache

Whether something is interesting is not encyclopaedic. It is encyclopaedic to say that files exist. Calling them interesting is asking viewers to decompile it.

I assert that there is no statement of the opposing party's opinion, and there is an abundance of the supporting party's opinion. If it were encyclopaedic, it would include both. Response? Leftiness 18:57, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

RS:NPOV - The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates are described, represented, and characterised, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. Leftiness 19:04, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a few lines that seemed very biased or pov, but I don't think I could remove enough to remove the NPOV tag. I tried to leave just the facts as we know them, and speculation must be clearly names as such. Guessing does not equal speculation, which is why I removed the bits about no known actions taken.--Degenret01 19:12, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you, Degen. I believe it would be allowed by NPOV to write a section of the article detailing the opposing party's counterargument, correct? The current state of the discussion is as close to the following as possible without it happening: using the software to view the models to prove the legal points. I have the software, and I haven't used it or violated my terms of use in any way, but I have read the software's code; I downloaded it to further understand it. However, I feel uncomfortable discussing it because that would basically be a guide to using the software. This is why I was uncomfortable with support for writing this article, especially considering the grey-area that the legality is currently in; no matter how hard I argue, I'm nobody to prove the true legality. It at least requires a statement from Jagex, if not from a court.

To those who would edit this article, I would like to restate that the topic is disputed. Statements such as "this is legal" are not yet allowed. Statements such as "some users believe this to be legal because there is not yet a specific statement from Jagex or a court as to the legality of the issue" are allowed. I restate that absence of an official statement does not prove legality. Also, it may be legally obvious to a court that this is illegal. Personally, I expect this because I'm sure Jagex has hired a legal department to cover themselves from issues like this. None of us have legal education despite vehement asserting that we understand the issue. Leftiness 21:00, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Is it allowed to say "players can not get in trouble" without confirmation from Jagex? We don't know that it's true. I simply said that I doubt it's true that they can detect it. I think that saying "you can't get in trouble" is basically condoning it. Leftiness 00:42, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* can we stop looking for meaning in words that have non? its simply a fact that- unless you confess- jagex cant do anything about u viewing it. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 00:48, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to restore NPOV. Take a look and see if there are still any areas of bias. Also 3rd age, you can't really say that without any proof. Sure they probably won't ever find out, but 1. you're not sure and 2. since you're not sure that's technically an opinion, and therefore not NPOV. That is not debatable. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:55, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
it is IMPOSSIBLE to find out, and i am sure of this. im sure even left would agree on that, though i think he will argue that by saying its impossible to find without u confessing is encouraging it. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 01:03, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the wording of the phrase thusly. This is an immutable fact. The fact that they can only tell that a player has been viewing the cache if they confess is absolutely not true. They might get someone because they uploaded a cache image to the wiki, or to youtube. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:14, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
but if i was to view the cache right now, and then denie that i had ever done it, they couldnt do anything about it. im somewhat happy with what u added, and will leave it alone for now, though i may change it if i get an idea that seems better. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 01:16, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

So have the neutrality issues been dealt with? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:54, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that the content about the supporting argument is currently acceptable. I'll write something about the opposing argument, being sure to keep it NPOV, and I'll suggest it here for discussion before posting. I can't do that now, or maybe even tomorrow, because I have non-wiki work to do. However, since the topic is a disputed one, I suggest that it have a "supporting argument" and "opposing argument." Objections to that? Leftiness 01:58, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

The wiki is for facts, not arguments. If you can provide factual evidence to support your viewpoint the put it in, but making a pro and con section or something is not NPOV. Simply put, a paragraph slanted one way and a paragraph slanted the other way do no mix together to form two NPOV paragraphs. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:22, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - You're right about not putting two argument sections. What about this statement from RS:NPOV: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." I'm particularly referencing that all significant published points of view are to be presented. If I talk about the supporting argument in an aggregate manner, would it fall under NPOV? Specifically, I would like readers to know that there are players who dispute the legality of the issue; it isn't just Jagex. I think that adding the following statement after the Jagex TOS quote would accomplish that: "Because of this, the legality of this issue is disputed." If this is added, "They have also publicly stated" would have to be changed to "Jagex has publicly stated." Also, there should be a comma after the following quote located in Unknown Models: "Inspite of this" Leftiness 02:52, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

That sort of change doesn't sound like it would breech NPOV, so I'd say go ahead if you want to. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:59, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I made the approved changes. Leftiness 03:15, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

on second though, i dont like that version. saying jagex "hasnt revealed how they know when ur doing it" makes it sound as though they know ur doing it, something they dont. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 21:41, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - We don't know that's true. The current wording supports your belief, that Jagex is bluffing, while not speculating. I think it should stay that way. Leftiness 22:35, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Possible performance boost[edit source]

Runescape is hardcoded to store the cache in C:\.jagex_cache_32 and C:\Windows\.jagex_cache_32. I think everybody knows that hard drives are the slowest component in a computer (unless you have a solid state disk) so it still takes a bit to load content from the cache. Fortunately, I have a few tricks up my sleeve that will help you optimize the cache on a windows computer system:

  1. Normal users: defragment the cache. Chances are that the cache files are physically scattered across your hard drive (more info on Wikipedia). In laymen's terms, this means that the read/write headers usually take longer to collect the data from your hard drive. An excellent tool for defragmenting a specific set of files goes by the name of Contig.
  2. Advanced users: if your C:\ drive is formatted in NTFS (default filesystem in windows), you can move the cache to a faster device (e.g. highspeed SD cards, USB flash drives). To do this, first make a copy of the C:\.jagex_cache_32 and C:\Windows\.jagex_cache_32 folders on the device you'd like to use. If you get access errors then you need to close the game because java locks these files while the game is running. Now rename the original folders to something like jagex_cache_32_old and open up a command prompt with administrator privileges. In the command prompt, type this (where X:\ is the drive letter of your chosen device):
    1. mklink /D "C:\.jagex_cache_32" "X:\newlocation\.jagex_cache_32"
    2. mklink /D "C:\Windows\.jagex_cache_32" "X:\newlocation\Windows\.jagex_cache_32"
The mklink command creates a junction point (also known as a symbolic link). This is similar to a regular shortcut, but it works on a deeper level in the filesystem. You can google more information but all you really need to know is that it tricks java into believing it is writing and reading to and from C:\.jagex_cache_32, when it is really writing and reading to and from X:\newlocation\.jagex_cache_32. If you have ~300MB of RAM to spare, you could even use a ramdisk (which is probably the best place to put the cache, but you'll have to figure out a way to automatically copy the cache onto the ramdisk after every reboot or runescape will just start rebuilding the cache).
If everything seems to be OK, you can safely delete C:\.jagex_cache_32_old and C:\Windows\.jagex_cache_32_old because they won't be used anymore.
Those were my tips for optimizing the Jagex cache. I'm not a frequent wiki user, let alone editor. So quite frankly, I'm not wasting my time by reading all the rules for contribution. Nevertheless, I hope this little article is good enough to stay here or even to make it into the main article. I'll look back once in a while, hoping for some constructive criticism from you guys :) anyway enjoy a faster loading Runescape. 23:04, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Additional Cache Files?[edit source]

Can someone tell me what %userprofile%\jagexcache\jagexlauncher\bin\.jagex_cache_32 is?  Is this a normal cache file and can I/should I delete it if I'm trying to "clear my cache"? 21:53, September 10, 2015 (UTC)