TSR: In Ur Accounts, Deletin Ur Stuffs!

[Kaitlyn]

I don't see why there is any argument about whether Spaik 'stole' those windows from MaryLou.  They are both Maxis window expansion sets, both based on the same Maxis window.  Of course they are going to look similar, or even exactly the same, depending on how much they chose to alter the original mesh.  I agree with Quorneater that it's just going to muddy the waters for the original, real theft by Shakeshaft to keep entertaining the possibility that Spaik stole from MaryLou when anyone modifying that particular window could very well have come up with the same thing either of them did.

[calalily]

That should give members the shivers - TSR can see every single thing in their profiles - nothing is encrypted in their database.  TSR wouldn't have that discussed anywhere at all - after all, don't they pride themselves on their protection of personal information - when they couldn't really give a shit.

See, that's the thing, Calalily.  It's quite possible that he's always wanted the option of being able to peruse member's personal account settings because it gives him a sense of being that much more in control. The guy has gone to considerable lengths to control information concerning TSR that's appeared outside of his own website, so wouldn't it stand to reason that it would just seem natural to him to be able to study and possibly utilize information stored on his own site?

I agree - and that's kinda creepy.  I'm sure Atwat has been through the whole thing as well - as well as anyone else who wants to toddle through and peer around. After all - even if we were to buy their bullshit story about "we only shared the details they gave us - never paypal stuff" they would have no issue with peoples looking at stuff. Not to mention, haven't they reasoned that the person with nothing to hide doesn't have anything to worry about?  So they don't seem to have a problem just leaving things wide open for everyone to have a look at it.

Shakeshaft the thief toddling through your accounts - makes the blood run cold. They must need all those staff members to read PMs, uh?

[HugeLunatic]

I don't see anything dodgy about those wireframes.  Anyone wanting to do a version of the maxis window without the bottom squares would have done it exactly the same way.  I hope the waters are not going to be muddied so that the *valid* complaints against TSR get discredited along with these rather more desperate ones

I don't see why there is any argument about whether Spaik 'stole' those windows from MaryLou.  They are both Maxis window expansion sets, both based on the same Maxis window.  Of course they are going to look similar, or even exactly the same, depending on how much they chose to alter the original mesh.  I agree with Quorneater that it's just going to muddy the waters for the original, real theft by Shakeshaft to keep entertaining the possibility that Spaik stole from MaryLou when anyone modifying that particular window could very well have come up with the same thing either of them did.

I was never questioning spaik in regards to "stealing".  I know I was questioning *who* had done them, wondering if there was a pattern of other items for Shakeshaft.  I think it's an unoriginal *idea*, but hey at this point in the sims 2 lifespan, hardly anything is original anymore.  If three people made expansion sets to a Maxis mesh they would all look nearly identical.  What Shakeshaft did was not steal an idea, she literally stole an *original* mesh and texture.  Not one that was a maxis knock off to begin with.

In regards to the database of passwords, etc. not being encrypted, I am glad I chose to change my password at *all* other sites just in case I happened to use the same one.

[edwardcullenisawesome]

I personally feel sorry for buggy. Please don't bite me, but I'm a member on TSR. I don't even go there anymore. My e-mail on there was an old gmail account with a password I can't remember. I don't have the same username anywhere else, so I think I should be safe from their theiving. Although now I'm paranoid and I'm gonna change my password.

[Paden]

Not all members there are idiots or arseholes, but most of their staff are.

[Darqstar]

Good fiction writers do it all the time. Most fiction writers are pretty crappity. Even then, the fiction writers are creating those personalities. It would take a very special sort of writer to be able to fake the voices of real people so well. We see DOT, Thomas, padre et al post elsewhere. One starts to learn what they "sound" like. And it would be very, very difficult to write so many posts that "sound" exactly like all those different people on those different subjects. Very nearly impossible, in fact.

I'm hardly a good writer, but I can do it and I have done it before.  And I know of several fanfiction writers, who certainly aren't professional that could do it too.  Not to the extent that Coconut has done it, but someone being able to make people sound different wouldn't be enough to get me curious if I was apathetic.  

Historians have always been able to catch forgeries without using a bunch of recently invented forensic tools for this reason. What people write and say tells us who they are, and mimicking any one person is difficult. Mimicking many, convincingly, in a sustained way? I've never seen it.

Actually, as methods of dating improve, more and more documents that were once barely questioned are put to the test.   Ink, paper, etc. are big in proving forgeries.  And remember, someone who's going to question if a document is forged is someone who is an expert in what is being forged.  So, while Henry Cleveland produced those missing letters from Lincoln,  they not only had to fool his friends, but they had to fool people who make it their lives work to study Abraham Lincoln.  We aren't personality experts and Dot, Thomas, and Atwa aren't people who we've all studied for years.  

The personality similarities between each document is amazing, I'm not going to say it isn't.  However, I'm also never going to say, "That's all the evidence that will ever be needed."  As far as I'm concerned, the more evidence we have, the better.  Because while someone might say, "Well, personalities can be faked," they might also say, "But it's really hard to fake image information like that!"  

It's like UFOs.  Some people believe with very little evidence.  Others need more.  If you really want to prove UFO's exist, the ulitimate evidence would be a video recording of a UFO landing and space dudes coming out, and all of you having a cup of tea, but there will be some who will say it's faked.  However, if you can then say, "But they left this piece of space metal that I sent to a lab and they sent me this report," *shows report* "that claims this metal is made of elements never seen before on this planet."    Now you'll have something to show the people who can easily dismiss the video.  

I know that for Coconut to do all that personality faking would take amazing amounts of time, and energy, but that doesn't mean everyone else will.  Just as someone who can barely afford a video camera isn't going to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on faking a UFO landing that can fool almost everyone.  But, some folks will still think that screen shots can be faked, and people can make a convincing UFO video with silver paints and some paper plates.  Any evidence of Coconut's legitimacy is not something to be brushed aside as, "We don't need that."  

[neriana]

Good fiction writers do it all the time. Most fiction writers are pretty crappity. Even then, the fiction writers are creating those personalities. It would take a very special sort of writer to be able to fake the voices of real people so well. We see DOT, Thomas, padre et al post elsewhere. One starts to learn what they "sound" like. And it would be very, very difficult to write so many posts that "sound" exactly like all those different people on those different subjects. Very nearly impossible, in fact.

I'm hardly a good writer, but I can do it and I have done it before.  And I know of several fanfiction writers, who certainly aren't professional that could do it too.  Not to the extent that Coconut has done it, but someone being able to make people sound different wouldn't be enough to get me curious if I was apathetic.  

Making up people who sound different from each other isn't hard, on a very shallow level. Making people sound like real people who actually exist is hard. Most fiction writers can't even make the people they make up sound like real people who could possibly exist, let alone like real people who do exist.

Historians have always been able to catch forgeries without using a bunch of recently invented forensic tools for this reason. What people write and say tells us who they are, and mimicking any one person is difficult. Mimicking many, convincingly, in a sustained way? I've never seen it.

Actually, as methods of dating improve, more and more documents that were once barely questioned are put to the test.   Ink, paper, etc. are big in proving forgeries.  And remember, someone who's going to question if a document is forged is someone who is an expert in what is being forged.  So, while Henry Cleveland produced those missing letters from Lincoln,  they not only had to fool his friends, but they had to fool people who make it their lives work to study Abraham Lincoln.  We aren't personality experts and Dot, Thomas, and Atwa aren't people who we've all studied for years.  

There are very few documents that were "barely questioned," actually. Mostly the documents which are proven forgeries had already been questioned, otherwise people wouldn't be testing them in the first place. Also, mimicking one person who has been studied in considerable depth by hundreds of people is not that hard. I could write "in the style of" Abraham Lincoln if I wanted to. (I'd be better at John Adams though.) But coconut making up everything in those screenshots would be like writing in the style of not just Abraham Lincoln, but also William H. Seward, Frederick Douglass, Mary Todd Lincoln, Harriet Tubman, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, and Queen Victoria, all in correspondence with each other. If some brilliant person with tons of time on their hands really wanted to do it, they could, but that's the kind of thing people do for big gains, not to tweak someone on the web.

I'm never against more evidence. More evidence is always good. I don't want people to stop talking about the technicalities. My worry is that TSR will somehow get people tangled up in technicalities, and people will lose sight of the basics. People are already confused, and saying things like, "oh, there's always drama, I can't tell what's going on, who's right and who's wrong, so I'll side with the people who are posing themselves as victims."

I also fully expect to be haunted tonight for comparing DOT to Mary Todd Lincoln .

[Axeleefe]

Yes and no.  You can't arrest someone unless you have a certain amount of evidence.   For example, if Mrs. X kills her husband, the police are first going to look at her.  Let's say everyone in the community knows Mr. and Mrs. X had a lousy relationship, that Mr. X was cheating on her, Mrs. X threatened to kill him several times, that's not enough evidence to really arrest her and make it stick.  But, let's say they find out Mr. X was beaten to death with a rare, antique golf club, and it just so happens that Mrs. X has a set of those golf clubs with that precise one missing and her favorite golf outfit has been thrown in the trash, covered in Mr. X's blood.  Now they have enough evidence to arrest Mrs. X.

And, while she's still innocent until proven guilty, her lawyer has to now prove she didn't do it, by refuting evidence given by the prosecution.  Yes, of course the defense will refute all the evidence, but that won't be enough.  "I know my client didn't do it, her golf outfit covered in blood is because someone broke into the house and put on her golf outfit and then killed Mr. X." Who will believe that?

But if the defense brings up Father Flynn, the most respected priest in the state, who testifies that Mrs. X was at a private catholic retreat and he was giving her council at the time, now the defense has brought in new evidence.  If while Mrs. X is in jail, someone breaks into the house next door to her, puts on a golf outfit, grabs a golf club and kills her neighbor, then it will cast more doubt on her guilt.

Techically, yes, all the defense has to do is put doubt into the mind of the jury, but that's only in a criminal case, which is why OJ didn't go to jail, but got sued and screwed.  In a civil case, there can be a grey area.  And, while we'd all like to say that we fully believe someone is innocent until proven guilty, we rarely actually think that way.  Ever watch the show Cops?  At the beginning they always say, "All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law!"  But really, when you see that guy beating the crap out of his girlfriend, do you really say to yourself, "Now wait a second, I don't know if he's guilty or not.  Let's sit down and look at all the evidence!"  

Kinda off-topic here, but your post reminded me of a book I read a while ago that made me giggle. 

Scroll Down to "How to Kill Your Husband (and other handy household hints)"

Feel free to delete the post if it has to walk the plank, but that scenario is pretty close to the one in the book, where a wife indirectly kills her husbad by placing a bloody tampon in his swimming shorts in Australian shark-infested waters. She gets away with it in court, especially because of 'innocent till proven guilty' because they couldn't recover the body, only the tampon.

It's a funny read 

[Missbonbon]

I'd say it was be you who had to come up with uv maps or anything else to prove it WAS stolen.

I'm guessing we are misunderstanding each other on this. I get your saying I need to prove guilt, but I feel like your not getting my side, or I'm not explaining it correctly. If I accused you of stealing, I'm not saying you have to come forward and prove they weren't stolen, but unless someone else says it's not stolen, then you have to prove it.

Wrong! VERY wrong! Your lawyers don't have to prove anything. That's the whole idea of innocent until proven guilty. It's the core principle of the rule of law that you find in all modern democratic countries today.

I get the whole innocent until proven guilty. If I'm not mistaken if the prosecution says I robbed a bank and plays a video, doesn't my defense lawyer have to prove that video wrong? That's why there is a prosecution and a defense lawyer. I'm not arguing the point of innocent until proven guilty, I'm arguing the way it is carried out. Unless it's a small claims court usually one side tries to prove guilt or a belief of guilty within the jury whereas the other side tries to disprove that guilt.

I don't think I would either, if I were Spaik. As long as it's just baseless accusations, I don't see why I should waste time and energy doing anything but ignoring them. Somebody would have to provide proof that I stole something to get me to react.

Meh, to me I would need someone to come forward, but I guess we differ in that aspect.

Agreed completely. But as long as that hasn't been proved I think it would be wise to lay off the accusations.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't entirely accusing. Again I was basing my opinion off of what was read. My thanks for actually looking into it and proving me wrong. 

Missed that one.  Missbonbon, you haven't taken a basic civics class or flunked it.  Or you're in a country with a different justice system than the US or UK.

Actually I passed with flying colors and live in the USA. Even took the AP Civics and Economy class. As Darqstar has already pointed out, in court there is a prosecution and defense attorney. All "Innocent until proven guilty" means is that if I walk into a courtroom I get a fair trail before the judge/jury makes a decision. A lot of people confuse a "Not guilty" with an "Innocent." ruling though. Not guilty just implies that the prosecution failed to provide enough evidence, or it was lacking in areas to 100% without a shadow of a doubt say the defendant is guilty. Innocent just implies that you are entirely blameless.

[Quorneater]

I get the whole innocent until proven guilty. If I'm not mistaken if the prosecution says I robbed a bank and plays a video, doesn't my defense lawyer have to prove that video wrong?

They're not supposed to have to.  They only need to alert the jury to possible reasons why it may not be valid proof you did it.  And they only need to do that because the jury may be gullible and won't be as well trained as a panel of judges would have been.  Judges watching the same video could probably work out for themselves whether the video was proof of guilt or not.

[Pescado]

A lot of people confuse a "Not guilty" with an "Innocent." ruling though. Not guilty just implies that the prosecution failed to provide enough evidence, or it was lacking in areas to 100% without a shadow of a doubt say the defendant is guilty. Innocent just implies that you are entirely blameless.

I don't believe there actually *IS* an "innocent" ruling. People are either guilty or not guilty. There is no innocence, only varying degrees of guilt.

[Missbonbon]

A lot of people confuse a "Not guilty" with an "Innocent." ruling though. Not guilty just implies that the prosecution failed to provide enough evidence, or it was lacking in areas to 100% without a shadow of a doubt say the defendant is guilty. Innocent just implies that you are entirely blameless.

I don't believe there actually *IS* an "innocent" ruling. People are either guilty or not guilty. There is no innocence, only varying degrees of guilt.

No, there's technically not. I guess it was my bad sticking "ruling" in there.

[cookiepirate]

Just a little sumthin' sumthin' from TSR's member blogs:

http://www.thesimsresource.com/members/miller1220/blog/view-post/post/10896/Subscriber-only%20creations%3F%20Why%20can%27t%20we%20have%20them%3F

[Moune]

I'm guessing we are misunderstanding each other on this. I get your saying I need to prove guilt, but I feel like your not getting my side, or I'm not explaining it correctly. If I accused you of stealing, I'm not saying you have to come forward and prove they weren't stolen, but unless someone else says it's not stolen, then you have to prove it.

I don’t know. Maybe I don’t understand. It seems to me you keep saying that just because you (generic) say that I’ve stolen something I (generic) or someone else has to come up with proof that I didn’t. And that, frankly, is bullshit. It is the accuser, not the accused, who has to provide evidence. Then, when that has happened I – the accused – can attempt to discredit your evidence, but that’s a different story and we’ll get back to that in a minute.

I get the whole innocent until proven guilty. If I'm not mistaken if the prosecution says I robbed a bank and plays a video, doesn't my defense lawyer have to prove that video wrong? That's why there is a prosecution and a defense lawyer. I'm not arguing the point of innocent until proven guilty, I'm arguing the way it is carried out. Unless it's a small claims court usually one side tries to prove guilt or a belief of guilty within the jury whereas the other side tries to disprove that guilt.

Your lawyer does NOT have to prove anything. What he/she can do is dispute or discredit the evidence of the prosecution – for instance by creating doubt about the authenticity of a video. In that case it is again up to the prosecution to prove that the video is real. The defence does not have to prove a single thing. Never.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't entirely accusing. Again I was basing my opinion off of what was read.

Here’s a couple of quotes for your memory (boldness added by me).

It was Spaik, here. I guess they figured the sets "differed" enough to not be considered theft. 

Even though it is true that it may not take that much to create expansion sets of windows/doors, it was still done by Marylou and Numenor before Spaik. The theft is more or less referred to them because Spaik's set I think has only one or two windows that differ from theirs or is not similar to theirs.

...

Actually I passed with flying colors and live in the USA. Even took the AP Civics and Economy class. As Darqstar has already pointed out, in court there is a prosecution and defense attorney. All "Innocent until proven guilty" means is that if I walk into a courtroom I get a fair trail before the judge/jury makes a decision.

Don’t know what classes those are, but I’m a little concerned about what they teach you at them. The principle of innocent until proven guilty does not ensure you a fair trial. That depends on a number of other things: The judge could be corrupt, the jury could be influenced by public rumour and opinion, etc. Innocent until proven guilty means you can sleep safely at night with the knowledge that you can’t simply be thrown in jail because somebody thinks, says or alleges that you have done something wrong. Ask anybody from the former communist countries or African or South American dictatorships how it feels to live without that knowledge.

But evidently that's not how it works in the Sims community. If we apply your principles of who has to prove what anybody can be judged as a thief just because someone else says they've made some windows that look very much like somebody else’s. And it would be up to the accused to prove he/she didn’t do anything wrong. I sure hope that never happens to me. 

[ValancySterling]

Just a little sumthin' sumthin' from TSR's member blogs:

http://www.thesimsresource.com/members/miller1220/blog/view-post/post/10896/Subscriber-only%20creations%3F%20Why%20can%27t%20we%20have%20them%3F

The sheeple response are very sad....

EDIT:  I couldn't stand it.  I posted a response encouraging the person to look for free sites.  I tried to be very positive and I even said that TSR has some good free creators (they do, you just have to spend hours looking for them).  I took a screen shot, but won't post it unless my response gets deleted and people would like to see it).