On a slightly more positive note

[SparklePlenty]

A reason that some people think they can make outrageously offensive posts/emails like that is the fact that they are on the internet, and therefore anonymous. If one of the little weasels had to face you, they would be much more considerate, or risk a punch in the face. Anyone can be an asshole if nobody knows who they are.

[leilatigress]

I have on rare occasions sent in a request from a creator for a different color but usually I just recolor it myself and I have actually sent the recolor to the creator and asked if they wanted it.  Some do some don't some flame me for not being thankful and they have taken a holier then thou wow aren't I special and you aren't attitude.  I am incredibly thankful for those that take the time to create and more thankful for those that take the time to not only create but make tutorials to help you create.

[MoonDragon]

Thanks for letting us know about this.  I rarely read frontpage blurbs.  The people who inspired that statement really have some some nerve.  I had to go add my support.

[SnarkyShark]

I signed the book about a week ago after reading Kathy's comments about the situation on InSim. Kate, to me, is one of those folks who embody what the community should and can be about. To hear that she's been harassed to the point of having to defend herself, and the artists on her site, was just sad. And it makes me wonder if it was just random idiots or possibly, a more organized attempt to harass and possibly close a free site. (nah, no one's that evil, right?)

[Lorelei]

And it makes me wonder if it was just random idiots or possibly, a more organized attempt to harass and possibly close a free site. (nah, no one's that evil, right?)

You're not paranoid if they are really out to get you.

I, for one, thought it was very interesting how the whole Delphy "scandal" blew up mere hours (or so it seemed) after the "EA is gonna getchu, sucka paysites!" emails made the rounds.

How better to distract the community at large to a huge hit against paysites than by digging up some ancient drama, recruiting a bunch of naive twelve year olds, exaggerating the drama, throwing in some looney-tune "cult advisory" bullcrap, and copypasta'ing it on ever forum under the sun?

Perhaps we need to re-post EA's "Paysites are illegally broaching our copyright" notes, and this time do so just as far and wide as the Delphy slander (Oh hell, is slander the verbal one or the written one?) / libel post was "shared".

If we want to be really snarky, we can then also spoof the "I didn't have anything to do with it at all" butt-covering LyricLee blog posts for lulz.

YARRR!

[SoggyFox]

I half-suspect that the nast comments were from pro-paysite folks, as an attempt to try and drive off another free site.

After all, if the free-sites go away......

[SnarkyShark]

The whole "Delphi Drama" was pretty obvious. But it does point to the fact that things are heating up in the simming community (if they're not hot already). So free sites might consider the possibility that they might be targeted. At the very least they can prepare for it mentally. I mean, if Kate and Co. had known it was planned by people with a financial stake involved in the collapse of free sites (if, in fact, it was) maybe then the abuse would have just rolled of their backs.

[SparklePlenty]

...Perhaps we need to re-post EA's "Paysites are illegally broaching our copyright" notes, and this time do so just as far and wide as the Delphy slander (Oh hell, is slander the verbal one or the written one?) / libel post was "shared".

Libel is written and/or published, with the intention or effect of destroying a person's reputation and/or ability to do business. Libel is normally untrue. If it is true, it is not usually libel, unless it is done with malice.

Slander is verbally doing the same thing, but I believe it has to be spreading untruths, with malice.

Bottom line...If I were a lawyer (and I am not. I only play one on TV) I would sue for libel. This was done maliciously, true or not. There seems to be a case for libel, especially since the writer of the piece announced his/her intentions by saying they were out to destroy someone's reputation.

[Alphess]

...Perhaps we need to re-post EA's "Paysites are illegally broaching our copyright" notes, and this time do so just as far and wide as the Delphy slander (Oh hell, is slander the verbal one or the written one?) / libel post was "shared".

Omitted for space...

Bottom line...If I were a lawyer (and I am not. I only play one on TV) I would sue for libel. This was done maliciously, true or not. There seems to be a case for libel, especially since the writer of the piece announced his/her intentions by saying they were out to destroy someone's reputation.

I'm no lawyer either... but I sincerely hope Delphy is considering sueing these people... Rumours like these are no joke, and can affect a person later in life in so many ways... If I were Delphy I'd want some serious proof that I had tried to defend myself so when later in life some bigwig who's about to give him a bigwig job says, "oh we heard this rumour about your dealings with members of your forums years ago..." He'd have court records to prove what was what....

[MizzKitty]

A private person sueing internet peoplez for libel? Not saying it couldn't happen only that a) it sounds very American to me (sue, sue, SUE!!!) and b) I would honestly like to see how much Delphy would gain from it in the end.

[Hecubus]

Random interesting fact*: Residents of Northern Ireland are actually the most litigous people in the Western world...an estimated 50% of them currently have or recently had law suits pending.

*Not sure where I heard that..probably after a difficult meeting with co-workers in Northern Ireland.  I know it's a high number, though.

[Sherry]

Wow I can't believe some people feel they are entitled to act in such a way.  Then again, I don't usually understand the way people act anyway so I could be far off in my assumptions of what others consider appropriate behavior.

It's good at least she is putting things into perspective.  I left a message of support as well.

[Ash Redfern]

I've recently noticed a slightly new poll up at Parsimonious.

Since currently donations from visitors covers less than 3% of Parsimonious yearly expenses, how do you think the site should be funded?

One of the options on the poll is for Parsimonious to go to subscriptions (which 8% have picked) and another is to have pay per sets/items (of which 4% picked). They have a few other options but the most popular one by far is the idea of continuing to use advertising.

[Ensign EO]

"1.6%  - The site should close"

:?

I'd hate to see Parsimonious close.  I don't have piles of stuff from them, but I have just enough that I keep going back in case I find something interesting.

[Anouk]

We should set up some funding for sites that are older than a year, popular, but hardly get donations. But how would we go about that? :|