TSR: In Ur Accounts, Deletin Ur Stuffs!

[Missbonbon]

WHY are the FA's emailing people asking them to give credit to the workshop? WHY isn't Thomas or Jonah doing it? Seriously? Creators =/= Legal teams.

Secondly, IF someone had not sent the item to TSR directly, how would they know what items are made with the work shop, and what items are not? Is the workshop constantly connected to your computer watching what your doing, OR does it embed a code string into the file to give it a dead give away?

Thirdly, WHY is a FA discussing with someone outside of TSR what they are going to do with people's information!? I mean, I don't condone sharing information with anyone at TSR for any reason, but to pretty much admit to someone outside of TSR that you have access to people's information, is terrible.

Fourthly, WHERE are they getting their email information from? Is it from their TSR account, or the workshop? And if it's from either, HOW are they connecting the two?

Also Inge, when exactly did this conversation happen with Murano?

[Quorneater]

That was today.  Those are GMT times.   I pretty much came straight here as I was so shocked by the idea they may be still committing the same error of judgement re FAs as already got them into so much hot water.   Apparently you have to put in your email address in order to register TSR Workshop, so it may not be from the userdata on TSR's members, but it's still stuff I had assumed would go only to admins, not to the FAs they have made clear are not vetted.

Even if it is as Murano says, and they only contacted people who publish their emails, it still seems a bit distasteful to send creators after one another when it's not even really their business to police Workshop use.  It can't help community relationships at all.

[johan]

I think there has been a slight misunderstanding here, the emails sent out were acquired from the websites where the items have been published.
As for who did it i don't really see what difference it makes whether it was Thomas or if he got help from someone else?

[Missbonbon]

I think there has been a slight misunderstanding here, the emails sent out were acquired from the websites where the items have been published.
As for who did it i don't really see what difference it makes whether it was Thomas or if he got help from someone else?

It makes a huge difference. You and Thomas are expected to be able to see someone's information such as their email. Murano is not. Murano is a creator. You and Thomas are owners. See the difference? If I downloaded your workshop tool, I would not have even dreamed to think that one of your creators would have access to my email address.

And even if this is just a ripple on the water, it's a ripple on the water of a huge pond that TSR has made for themselves with actions such as this. This is why people don't trust you AT ALL. You claim that your systems are encrypted now, yet your willing to hand out someone's email willy nilly.

[dstar]

i think it does- the only person who should have access to any site members personal information should be your accountant that processes your Paypal and Credit Card info for subs, the person who processes registrations and that is it. Creators are not accountants, creators are not your data processing person. Not even your brother should have that info unless he processes registrations personally which given the size of your site I highly doubt.It is clear that your organization has unethical creators working for you who steal or use other creators work without permission. What makes you think that a creator who steals someone else work is beyond using the email address of another creator outside TSR to access their Paypal or Xoom accounts, or other private data that can be accessed simply by searching a persons irl address and personal info based on their email address. There are companies that do that sort of thing you know. "Because I know these people" really isn't an excuse- you know them over the internet and have met them at EA/TSR events- that doesn't mean you REALLY know them at all. I meet people on the internet and at parties all the time- that does not mean I would consider giving them access to my own personal info such as email addresses forget about someone elses.

Anything else is opening your company up to big time Identity Theft lawsuits.

[johan]

No information coming from TSR or from Workshop (which does not collect such information in the first place) have been used.
The people who got contacted were contacted using information found on their own websites.

[kenmtl]

If only emails that were already published on the sites were used, I don't really see anything wrong there. That is unless of course you consider being a petulant vindictive attention whoring 12 yr old wrong in some manner.

I don't know about anyone else but I 'd be interested in seeing some examples of these emails. Not because I'm being nosey, it really isn't my business, but Murano's description of the emails "We simply ask in a friendly manner for a credit and link back to the tool they can use free of charge." doesn't quite jive with coconuts description "some stern, some nasty and some containing threats of legal action ".

[Quorneater]

As for who did it i don't really see what difference it makes whether it was Thomas or if he got help from someone else?

It just *feels* odd.  It's not their natural role.   And it stirs up memories of FAs being given the email addresses of members even if no such thing happened this time.   It just seems like poor PR all things considered.   I mean if Thomas needed help, he could have asked the FA team to discretely look for breaches in crediting, and collect email addresses from the relevant websites, and then he could have sent a mailshot in his name to all the addresses on the list.   So although nothing morally wrong may have taken place on this occasion, it is another example of where a slightly more sensitive decision could have been taken, based on understanding psychology.

[Moune]

I'm with Kenmtl. Can't really blame somebody for using an email that the owner has published themselves on their own site.

What I don't see, though, is why it should be necessary with credit and link to TSR just because you used their tool to make CC. Both Murano, CycloneSue and Anoeska have used SimPE for their Sims 2 creations for years, but I've sure never seen any of them linking back to Quaxis site.

Obviously it's about luring more people to subscribe to TSR. Greed in other words. I find that disgusting.

ETA:
Honestly Inge, if this is another example of TSR screwing up and creating bad publicity for themselves, then I say 'Cheer it on'. The more bad publicity they get, the better for the cause we're advocating here. Paysites must be destroyed, you know.

[minionsRmine]

It's only common courtesy to give credit where it's due, but FORCING someone to link back for a free tool is dictatorial. When I had my freesite, I linked to SimPE, CleanInstaller, etc. and gave credit to the creators of those who provided me with those services. However, it wasn't required, and no one would have sent me a nasty email for not giving credit or links if I hadn't.

It's just the same for other free tools that you can find on the internet, GIMP being one example. If I used GIMP, it would be my choice to give credence for the use of that program. The makers of GIMP could not make me link back to them or give credit for a program that is free. Linking or giving credit is based on the honor system. I'm not sure why TSR thinks anyone should give them any honor. Then again, I don't know why anyone would use their CrackWorkshop.  

Like I said, it's a COURTESY. Never should be a demand. TSR should never force anyone to credit them for the use of their tool. It's just another reason for the remainder of individuals to rip their funds from TSR and embrace the community that is FREE!

[SnarkyShark]

As for who did it i don't really see what difference it makes whether it was Thomas or if he got help from someone else?

You wouldn't. Which is one reason why TSR is continually crossing the line. Using creators to police the internet at your behest is just asking for trouble. Or are you intentionally trying to create another loose cannon like atwa?

[Missbonbon]

No information coming from TSR or from Workshop (which does not collect such information in the first place) have been used.
The people who got contacted were contacted using information found on their own websites.

If it's the case of collecting information from external sites, then fine. But you still haven't answered how you would even know someone used the workshop if they obviously had given no credit what so ever.

[ShanOw]

If it's the case of collecting information from external sites, then fine. But you still haven't answered how you would even know someone used the workshop if they obviously had given no credit what so ever.

The workshop leaves a small overlaying image watermark on the thumbnails of any created content, so it can be easily identified.

[Pescado]

I don't know about anyone else but I 'd be interested in seeing some examples of these emails. Not because I'm being nosey, it really isn't my business, but Murano's description of the emails "We simply ask in a friendly manner for a credit and link back to the tool they can use free of charge." doesn't quite jive with coconuts description "some stern, some nasty and some containing threats of legal action ".

Well, for starters, everything coming from TSR is automatically more threatening simply because they're prepared to throw thousands of dollars into a legal attack. Secondly, the descriptions may not necessarily jive because Johan is not involved in any of this, and therefore, he hears one story, while the people receiving the nastygrams hear something else. Did you know that the tone of an email message is misunderstood by some significant proportion of over half the time? So you have one level of misunderstanding when the orders to send the nastygrams are sent out, another level when the nastygram is sent by the outsourced agent, and again when the story returns.

[rum nate]

If it's the case of collecting information from external sites, then fine. But you still haven't answered how you would even know someone used the workshop if they obviously had given no credit what so ever.

The workshop leaves a small overlaying image watermark on the thumbnails of any created content, so it can be easily identified.

But if the person didn't say they used the workshop, and they didn't post the thumbnail on their site, how could TSR know the workshop was used? And I've seen some people use the workshop, then extract the packages out for people to use, and not even post the .sims3pack.