Universal Sims...

[Scratch]

This is an incredibly touchy subject for most people, and people are all too prone to form witch hunts over it. He was convicted of having porn, apparently of older teens, on his hard drive. Not of luring young girls to his house or something. There is a difference, and a big one.

Finally.... some reasonable voices in an unreasonable thread.

This subject was discussed to death a few months ago and the same conclusion was reached then... innuendo and accusations are not evidence.

Until someone comes up with some actual evidence that Delphy is involved in that forum, lets not start something that can easily go out of control.

I'm not trying to minimize what Delphy did or jump to his defence, but in the world today to many people are willing to believe the worst. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[Feverish]

well looking at pornographic pictures of 16 and 17 year olds in my opinion is child porn and still wrong.
And if you know it is illegal porn, regardless of whether she's almost legal or not, he should have gotten rid of it and not looked at it three times.

And I am not accusing him of posing as MikeInside or whoever because I honestly don't know anything about it.

[chlyn]

Jesus H. Christ, we're not talking about someone who cheated at a poker game. "It's not like he actually molested anyone." Good grief, people!

The article stated the photos were of "young children". Children.

[Bliss]

And we all know the media NEVER sensationalizes anything to make it seem seedier or more interesting.

Still, though, I'm not really defending Delphy.  I don't know him.  I don't participate in enough forums to really work up a good ol' anger about this.  The news site said he was on the sex offenders list for five years ... six or seven years ago.  Apparently he's paid his debt to society.  

No, I don't have kids.  Not entirely sure I want them.  But were I to have them (and the same went for the three kids I did babysit for) NONE of them would be on the computer, unsupervised, EVER.  On ANY website.

[Diala]

The article stated the photos were of "young children". Children.

Legally, anyone under 18 is considered a "child," or a minor. Hence, the term "child pornography" covers 16 and 17 year olds. (Note that I don't think the article covers what ages were in his collection, so I'd rather not assume.)

While it doesn't excuse the fact that he knew the ages of these teens in the pictures that he had, I rather not accuse him of anything that he didn't do. Okay, he was accused and charged with having child pornography: that is a certain. However, we do NOT know if he went through therapy, and whether or not he still has these tendencies. After all, people can become better, or is it "Once a pedophile, always a pedophile"?

I'd rather damn him for what he's actually done, rather than hate him just because of wild rumors and accusations.

[Feverish]

I've not damned him for anything he hasn't done nor do I plan t do so.
I just don't think it's something that has to be overlooked nor do I accept his reason that laziness prevented him from deleting it.
And whether 16 or 17, I still think it's bad.

[Mattie]

The article stated the photos were of "young children". Children.

No, actually, it didn't.  It stated "young girls"  I also know people who call me (over 25) a young girl, I know people who call anything from 14-20 a "young girl"  It's all a matter of context and perspective.

I'm not going to defend anyone, but what I am going to say is that lynching is counter productive, in any sense of the words.  Pedophilia is a heated and touchy subject, emotions run high and people get all very excitable, but there is something important to remember here.

Proof that someone had unsavoury pictures on their PC some number of years ago doesn't make them guilty of anything but that, plain and simple.  You can suppose, you can speculate, you can accuse but that doesn't make it fact.

[Diala]

I just don't think it's something that has to be overlooked nor do I accept his reason that laziness prevented him from deleting it.

Do note that you're judging this case by one article online. There are many questions that would need to be answered if we are going to judge his actions today by actions years ago. And like I said, you don't know if he got treatment for this. Laziness is a bad excuse, yes, but like I said, we know little about the case... and about Delphy in regards to that point in time.

And just to set the record clear, I do not care a bit about Delphy, nor do I believe he is completely innocent of what happened to Universal Sims, given the information provided here.

[Quorneater]

Passively looking at images that you have made, or that were of children going about innocent activities that just happened to look titillating to a paedophile - well that in itself surely is harmless.

Now take someone who is *probably* or *possibly* turned on by the idea of sex with underage people.  The likelihood is they are going to control their actions and keep it in their imaginations.   There is a *chance* that given certain circumstances, maybe a bad patch in their lives, mental stress etc, they might slide into going further.

In fact I see it as a kindness to a person who is borderline paedophile to watch and step in *before* they get carried away and get themselves into trouble.   It's not wrong of us to watch and warn when they're getting near that boundary of possibly going too far.   The point where actual young people are actually participating in a forum set up to discuss their sexuality is teetering on the boundary of harming some of them emotionally at least.

[OneEyedWillie]

Ok, as for treatment.....If I remember right Delphy himself said he served his sentance for his crime, whatnot....I saw it either here (in the deleted thread) or on MATY....don't remember and I'm too lazy to look on MATY

I'm not defending him or anything, but to me this is old news, I know that a lot of us didn't get the info and stuff about him and I think it's great that we're able to discuss things like that here.  Umm one thing though,  there's HUGE difference between molesting a child and looking at porn.  First off, we DON'T know for sure the ages of these children.....that said, let's discuss some things in England.  As Delphy is in England NOT the US, which laws are slightly different there.

First it is legal, to be post topless pics of yourself at the age of 16.  Age of legal consent, 16.  I remember a girl who was 16 auctioning off her virginity to the highest bidder and her parents were ok with it.  That in itself is disturbing, but legally she was allowed to do this, and had been posting pics of herself topless online as well.  So from this info, I would assume that the pics were of boys/girls under the age of 16.  

Yes this is horrible and whatnot, and to think of someone having sex with a 10 year old, fucks me in the head so much, that i just wanna take a shotgun and blow his nuts off, and stand there watching him slowing bleed to death.  BUT this is not the case with Delphy, they were pictures.....yes there is a difference!  Granted when i think of the kids involved in order to get those pics make me gnash my teeth.  And if there wasn't a market for those pics then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place....but anyway i digress.  

Ok basically my opinion is this....I don't care if Delphy runs MTS2, as long as that's all he does.....meaning, doesn't use the site, or any other site for that matter to solicit anything.  

Doesn't anyone get a second chance?  Especially after they've paid for their crime?  (there are of course EXCEPTIONS to this and so don't go off on a tangent about it)

[Quorneater]

Absolutely he gets a second chance!  And he got it.  A chance to show everyone that he was not gonna do dodgy stuff like host sites that have borderline paedophilic forums etc.  Ok the forums have disappeared from my view now, but a) he should have pulled them as soon as they started and b) closed the WHOLE site permanently once he found out rather than continue hosting a site with an owner like that.  Assuming of course this *is* someone other than Delphy running it.

[chlyn]

Delphy has done nothing ... to deserve being metaphorically hanged for society's latest bugaboo.

"latest bugaboo" LMAO

Innuendo and accusations are not evidence.

Oh, my bad. Disregard the court records then. It's all fiction, anyway.

No, actually, it didn't [say children]. It stated "young girls".

- "child pornography"
- "young girls engaged in indecent acts"
- "of which 30 involved children"
- "child pornography"
- "images involving children"
- "a risk to children"

I quoted the article correctly.

It is Delphy and his lawyer that try to minimize things by talking about teens. Naturally, his lawyer's not going to say his client is a pervert.

No, people can't be therapied out of a sexual interest.

I'm the one that gives people the benefit of the doubt long after everyone else has figured it all out. This is hard to ignore.

Whatever, I'm over it. I've been in the community since the beginning of Sims 1, and I've seen scams, perversion, fake illnesses and even a fake death. Yet people continue to make excuses. Basically no one cares as long as they can get downloads.

Good luck to all with Delphy and MST2 - enjoy!  :lol:

[Jojoba]

I read the article. Nowhere does it say the age of the people in the porn. "Child porn" can very well mean 16 and 17 year olds, at least in the U.S. If someone has different info about Hampshire, I'm all ears.

You are right there. In England, you are classified as a child until you are 18...so the images could have been that of 16-17 year old girls.

Paedophilla is a big issue in England (aided through the internet, and sites like Bebo, etc) and the police take it very seriously, therefore we should really listen to how they treated it, which is:

He was fined £2,500 with £585 costs after Judge Paul Darlow accepted Stanfield had not distributed the material and a pre-sentence report stated he did not present a risk to children. He was also placed on the sex offenders' register for five years.

And also the fact that this happened back in June 2001.

[redisenchanted]

Thanks chyln for summing it up nicely.

I'd also like to add that no one would be talking about this again if he hadn't had a pervy forum involving kids on a site he hosts. He may have had nothing to do with it, but it's opened up a huge can of worms for him.

He was convicted of a crime in England. It's not innuendo. Personally, I don't want to financially support someone like that.

[MizzKitty]

I can believe the laziness part to an extend.

My boyfriend had a butt-load of manga (comics) on his comp once, some of it ecchi (risque) and hentai (porn) (yes he's a nerd, as am I) and one day I looked at it to find that some of it (perhaps 3 out of 500) were hentai representations of an anime (cartoon) with high school girls - which didn't bother me to be honest, considering we were just 21 at the time (about four years ago) - and one single 10 year old genius, who is in the series but who I did not want to see in this context.

I told him about it and he said he hadn't had a chance to weed it out but I could delete the whole folder if I liked. I didn't, leaving it up to him and in his lazyness he didn't even look at the folder for a long time and eventually upon rediscovering it he just deleted the whole thing - as he'd told me to do in the first place.

I know that this was just drawings, but the sentiment is pretty much the same, isn't it? And here the disgusting images were with a very young girl, indeed. Oh, and my boyfriend is studying to become a public school teacher.

This all sounds very incriminating, doesn't it?

The series in question here was one we enjoyed watching together, it's called Azumanga Daioh. He had no reason to suspect when he got the folder at a LAN party that the manga would be porn versions. Later when it wasn't deleted it was both of us who just didn't get it done. So this stuff does happen.

But I digress. On to another matter.

Paedophilia CAN be cured through therapy as it is not simply a matter of sexual preference (as say, if you're gay). It is a matter of, popularistic speaking, your sexuality being locked in the wrong age due to some sort of trauma. It is a disease and it's treatable if the subject is willing. I studied some psychology.

Just my two cents.