Oh, please tell us!


ROFL!! Why did he wait a year before he told her, though? lol

As for Atwat...I thought her real name is Anita?  Am I confused?

Ok, but ThomA$$ knows that FAs are getting fed up to the point of leaving, and Atwat doesn't help that.  Allowing her back does nothing but push FAs further away.  How the hell can Atwat manipulate Thomas?  No, she really must have something on him, because there is NO way she can be more valuable to him than the FAs.  TSR gets people buying subscriptions because of the "talented" FAs; once they leave, there's no longer a reason to subscribe.

After bringing back a lying, crazy witch who does nothing but cause problems, how would Thomas convince his FAs to stay, short of offering more money?


That's another thing.  Why don't they just tell her to stfu & gtfo?  That way ThomA$$ can keep his little whore, but she won't try bothering the FAs anymore because they'll just tell her to fuck off.  It would be incredibly difficult for her to continue causing problems if people just stopped replying to her posts on the forum, and putting her on Ignore so they don't receive her PM's..

Hecubus - how did you initially discover your cats could paint?  I'm kind of tempted to see if mine can, but I don't know how I'd do it: "This is paint. This is paper. You take paw, put paw in paint, then paw goes on paper!"? lol  Is paint even safe for cats to have on their paws?  They'd likely have to be thoroughly cleaned before they could go about their catly duties.

ETA:  The word paws now means nothing.  Paws, paws, paws, paws, paws, paws, paws. See? No longer makes sense.

So BeaSims IS on the FA boards?  If so, then that would pretty much confirm it's Atwat.  Why would ThomA$$ allow her back in, to cause trouble for other FA's?  Quite literally, his business revolves around the FAs.  He doesn't have to be smart to know that allowing her back in would make more FAs leave => less subscribers to TSR.

"CYA"?

From what I've heard, Disney is pretty anal regarding their Intellectual Property.  If LianaSims is charging money for something with Disney's character on it, then someone should give them a little tip

Some companies DO crack down on it.  I think RetailSims had made a Subway set (it may have been pay) - and they had to remove it.  Then someone made a Starbuck's set and that was also removed.

What I don't get is why nobody complained about Exnem Sims, or whatever their name is.  They constantly made objects of Disney characters, but I'm not sure if Disney knew about it, or if they knew and just did nothing.

What's the point of all this shit?

Is ThomA$$ actively seeking ways to destroy TSR from within?  Not that I'm complaining, but it makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Atwat must have some dirt on ThomA$$ - why else would he keep her around?  As someone said before, I doubt it's for the head anymore..

Edit: How exactly do we know she is BeaSims?  And if so, how can she be causing trouble for FAs if she doesn't have access to that area under a "basic" creator account?

Yup. Twins.

Ok wtf does a person have to do to make their text INVISIBLE?!?!  I tried white. Failed.  Gray.  Failed.  This is sad

It's pretty obvious, Paden lol

Ok, who was asking about the copyright stuff?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it goes like this: if you painted the art yourself, it IS yours. But once you put it in that .package file - then yes, the art is still yours, but the Sims item that it now is, is freely distributable (is that a real word? it is now) pay or free.  Though most people won't throw around your free .package file unless you say its ok, otherwise credit.  You could charge for the art separately as a .png/.jpeg/etc file if you were so inclined, but you cannot charge for the .package file, even if it does contain your original art.

That may have already been said, or it may not make sense, but whatever. I think I got it right, and if I'm not I don't really care

Oh, one more thing to add: I don't think you waive the rights to your art just because you put it in a .package file - if someone were to use your art outside of the Sims, then real-world copyrights apply.  I don't have legal sections to quote, so this is just what seems logical to me.

Oops. Done. Wtf is the limit? 5? I was like 740% over the limit XD I deleted all except two, JUST FOR YOU NOUKIE@! I have space now

Edit: Have emptied, but not received pm If all else fails, PM at wnf

I am 99.9% sure this will be killed in exactly one second if I posted it on TSR, and I'd be subsequently IP-banned (not that I really give a shit).  ThomA$$ has already been pm'ed about this by Nouk, anyway, or am I mistaken?  Going to TSR would be like talking to a literal brick wall.

I'm thinking more along the lines of involving EA and/or lawyers.

There was more about it on the news, but I'm too lazy to search more links. This mentions the Facebook/Children issue but doesn't say as much as I heard on the news http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2007-09-26-facebook_N.htm

This link talks about Facebook agreeing to a Child Safety Plan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7391170.stm

Notice they say it is to "protect kids from online predators and inappropriate content"

TSR may not be a popular social networking site, but I believe they are still required to provide a safe environment from children, including making sure too much information is not revealed.

In another article regarding the dangers of children and MySpace, a man found the work address 16 year old girl, tracked her down, and assaulted her.  So this isn't just a fear of paedophiles contacting or posing as 11 year olds (bad enough, yeah?), it's that they could be tracked down from the info they provide. And TSR is doing nothing to prevent that information from being out there.

It's a game, kids and young teens play it. If TSR wants members to have public profiles (do they need to have age, personality type, fave food, etc??), they need to do every damn thing they can to make sure young kids are not putting themselves in danger, or that an old man isn't posing as a young kid to try and lure them.

Yes, okay I will let it slide, but you owe me in the future...maybe sexual favours, I haven't decided yet.  What the hell happened to my av? And, my signature WAS messed up, it cut off the first letter (just like it did to Plum's [ it seems).  So I was telling people to "isit" my site. I don't know what that means or how they can do that, so I changed it to "visit". I'm sure they'll appreciate that..

Edit: Uploaded a new avamatar.

Despite being gone a fair chunk of time, I've just finished reading this whole thread, every page of it.

Whether TSR were free or pay, it is irrelevant.  They are basically allowing a potential threat to child safety to go on without consequence.  I'm fairly sure there's a standard over the Interwebz where if you are under 13 years of age, you can't provide personal information (without parental consent?).  If a site discovers someone under that age is posting personal information, it is their duty to remove it, otherwise I'm pretty sure they can be held responsible.

As far as I'm concerned, it's no longer about being "family-friendly", it's about PROTECTING any children that may be members of that site.  I couldn't give a rats ass, in this particular case, if TSR is pretending to be family-friendly or charging thousands of dollars for flood-fill content.  I am way more concerned about the fact that this can be easy-pickings for a paedophile.

I think its ridiculous if sites are not allowing this WARNING to be posted simply because they don't want to"get involved" with the TSR/pay/pirate issue. It has NOTHING to do with that.

In my mind this is likely a legal issue - IIRC, facebook got in trouble for something similar to this: paedophiles could easily message some 12 yr old with a profile.  How is this any different from what TSR is turning a blind eye to?

Thanks, Calalalalalala