# FA's Way Of Handling Things



## Mr Cullen (May 3, 2006)

You know, it might just be me, but I think FA Mods/Admins sometimes have their wires crossed on certain things. Recently a friend of mine had trouble with someone using thier artwork in an icon without their permission. Granted it was "only an icon" but no one likes their work being used without their permission. The artist the drawing in the icon belonged to then procedeed to warn the user that unless they took it down post haste and apoligised, they would be reported. The "thief" (I'm using my friend's words) then claimed that my friend was being mean and nasty and that they hadn't done anything wrong. SOMEONE from FA then told them that they shouldn't have told them off and that they had no right to do this. Even though this person had taken someone elses work?

WTF? Are some of you guys a bunch of god damn hippies? I can imagine you telling someone off if they were actually swearing at this dude and ripping them a new one, which is sometimes my friend's usual nature to these types of people, but she was unnaturally polite about it and you still made it look like she was in the wrong. You really need to deal with the thieves first and THEN the offending language or whatever. I mean she drove away a thief and your telling HER off for it?

THat's premium lulz right there.

BTW. It's Volcanus I'm talking about that had her artwork swiped. So I know exactly who I'm talking about that told her off her at FA.

BUT ANYWAYS! It's all drama and lulz, we still laugh about it to this day only I'd appreciate it if you guys would sort your act out.


----------



## facek (May 3, 2006)

Mr Cullen, where've you been? The offended always come first in this age.


----------



## uncia2000 (May 3, 2006)

Mr Cullen said:
			
		

> You know, it might just be me, but I think FA Mods/Admins sometimes have their wires crossed on certain things.
> ...
> BUT ANYWAYS! It's all drama and lulz, we still laugh about it to this day only I'd appreciate it if you guys would sort your act out.


Heya, Mr. Cullen. What makes you think you have the whole story to be able to sit in judgement?

If "getting our act together" means cutting out drama/rumor-mongers who decide to post second-hand information about other people's private business in public (to stir matters up?), rather than raise what are still perceived to be issues in private, just let us know. 

Volcanus has a voice and is more than welcome to post here if they wish.
Or permit the (still open) trouble ticket contents to be re-posted here, which I'm more than happy to do in full.

As you say, it "might just be you".


----------



## Tabuu-Lion (May 3, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Heya, Mr. Cullen. What makes you think you have the whole story to be able to sit in judgement?
> 
> If "getting our act together" means cutting out drama/rumor-mongers who decide to post second-hand information about other people's private business in public (to stir matters up?), rather than raise what are still perceived to be issues in private, just let us know.
> 
> ...



LOL I take offense to the implications of that statement. We all know how things flare up (and given the name Volcanus is involved you could imagine how the situation could quickly erupt ), so it's not always the more productive route to bring a user who might be a bit spurned and angry at certain parties to the boards. Especially to face the surgeons of these forums who pick apart every detail to discredit the basic principle for which the statement was made.

Given sometimes people do make completely baseless accusations, but one has to look intuitively toward what the meaning of making the statement was. Generally when it comes to something like this, it's too late to hand out lollipops and apologies to the offended party. It's their prerogative not to return or even bring an issue to the table, but the wider concern is how policy inkeeping with the enforcement stated (either actual or hypothetical) affects those of us who remain.

But I'm just playing devil's advocate for a change. Seems like with as many around here willing for that part, though, god's in need of a few smooth talkers XD


----------



## uncia2000 (May 4, 2006)

Tabuu-Lion said:
			
		

> uncia2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was in reference to Mr. Cullen's "You know, it might just be me, but I think FA Mods/Admins sometimes have their wires crossed on certain things".

There is nothing for you to take offense to, leo, since the statement was a reply to Mr. Cullen.
What they have picked up- as far as I can tell- is a distorted version of the original discussion from someone who apparently feels unwilling to discuss their "grievances" save through the gossip channels.



			
				Tabuu-Lion said:
			
		

> We all know how things flare up (and given the name Volcanus is involved you could imagine how the situation could quickly erupt ), so it's not always the more productive route to bring a user who might be a bit spurned and angry at certain parties to the boards. Especially to face the surgeons of these forums who pick apart every detail to discredit the basic principle for which the statement was made.


You should know by now we don't let people get ripped apart here. 

Anyhow, all that's really "needed" is for Volcanus to permit the unedited text of their discussion to be presented in the original context.
No hype, no fuss, no drama.

I doubt they will do so, since it does not tally with that presented by Mr. Cullen, above.



			
				Tabuu-Lion said:
			
		

> Given sometimes people do make completely baseless accusations, but one has to look intuitively toward what the meaning of making the statement was. Generally when it comes to something like this, it's too late to hand out lollipops and apologies to the offended party. It's their prerogative not to return or even bring an issue to the table, but the wider concern is how policy inkeeping with the enforcement stated (either actual or hypothetical) affects those of us who remain.
> 
> But I'm just playing devil's advocate for a change. Seems like with as many around here willing for that part, though, god's in need of a few smooth talkers XD


Heh, heh...

I can't _force_ anyone not to be an "offended party".

To be honest, I'm actually confused as to _who_ you're talking about when you mention "It's their prerogative not to return or even bring an issue to the table". Volcanus or the other individual(s) involved?
*
No-one was banned; no-one was even warned; therefore I don't know what you're meaning by "enforcement stated".

Thanks, Tabuu. Appreciate you stepping from a "concerned for the community" p.o.v. )) , but you're having to stab in the dark, too.


----------



## Tabuu-Lion (May 4, 2006)

*RE:   FA's Way Of Handling Things*



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> That was in reference to Mr. Cullen's "You know, it might just be me, but I think FA Mods/Admins sometimes have their wires crossed on certain things".
> 
> There is nothing for you to take offense to, leo, since the statement was a reply to Mr. Cullen.
> What they have picked up- as far as I can tell- is a distorted version of the original discussion from someone who apparently feels unwilling to discuss their "grievances" save through the gossip channels.


Heheh Oh I was mostly just being facetious anyways about being offended (amongst other things), but reading your response tells me I should probably run a grammar check before attempting trying to be a tail-hole XD (is bad at it)


> You should know by now we don't let people get ripped apart here.
> 
> Anyhow, all that's really "needed" is for Volcanus to permit the unedited text of their discussion to be presented in the original context.
> No hype, no fuss, no drama.
> ...


I always just always wonder more what happens if the alleged incident actually came about rather than the inevitably moot argument of one person's word/temperament/moral compass pitted against the others. Call me indifferent, but I generally feel something like that can only be taken as a lesson and progressed from. The story given doesn't make me rally in anger of the system, only ask the question of "Are these situations being looked over as thoroughly as possible". Although who's to say how well it actually was?


> Heh, heh...
> 
> I can't _force_ anyone not to be an "offended party".
> 
> ...


It sounds like the thief reported the complainant before the reverse could happen XD The "enforcement stated" was a light (and probably undocumented) verbal warning/interrogation, and the complainant was then offended because they were indeed the victim but a technicality painted them as the one in the wrong. Like sorta like if someone grabs your mate's crotch when you're not around, you threaten that person, and in a twist they call the police on you for harassment. I feel that might be a fairly logical assessment. 

But...the situation is past, and the "sort your act out" statement could be taken or left at best either way. But also I know it's a PR nightmare to leave an unacknowledged seed of dissent buried in such fertile soil. That, and kitties are just such curious folk  

I don't imagine there is real outcome to this other than Mr. Cullen squashed under the lense of a microscope for no real reason other than the exercise of a tit-for-tat rhetorical jousting match. Even though about 90% of our userbase is padded and primed for the sport, that particular inclination doesn't really attribute to the most shining moments of FA.


----------



## Mr Cullen (May 4, 2006)

I have no intention of having a slanging match, but I have no idea why you would think I'm rumour mongering when all Volcanus did was ask for someone else to take her artwork out of their icon or they'd be reported? How much nicer than that could they have said it? OHNOES! I THEFTED SOMEONES ARTS AND I'M BEING PICKED ON CUZ I GOT CAUGHT OUT!

SOMEONE HELP PLZ D:
But y'know, I've said all I've wanted to say for lulz and shit so I'll say bugger all else about the matter as long as you don't do that whol over anilysation crap, because it pisses me off.


----------



## Dragoneer (May 4, 2006)

Mr Cullen said:
			
		

> WTF? Are some of you guys a bunch of god damn hippies?


I have to be honest and say that I hate sandles and hemp. It's just not for me.

Uncia already covered most of what needed to be covered. We are looking into the issue, and Volcanus did not respond to the last posting on his ticket. I think you're hearing only one side of the issue, and that side is pointing fingers -vs- having is come up with a more solid resolution.

I'm going to leave this to Uncia as he's on the case (and, frankly, better at handling this than I am).


----------



## Mr Cullen (May 4, 2006)

One side of the issue? You're telling someone off for having a go at somebody who took their artwork without asking. WHo at first was actually pretty polite about it and then after someone started on them and told them they were an asshole for bothering him... only then did an argument really start.

What is this? Liberal central for the internet? You just do nothing and let all the thieves and other rejects run around?

It looks to me like you need people who will actually kick thieves asses instead of just worrying about trying not to offend people. Geez, isn't that what alot of people complained was wrong with Deviant Art?

HMMM! I GUESS IT WAS !


----------



## furry (May 4, 2006)

Alot of people on DA are whiners who don't even understand the rules of the sites they're using.

Your point?



Anyway, how to fight art theft in 3 easy steps:
1. Don't confront the thief yourself, let the mods handle this.
2. Report the theft to the mods, with proof plz!
3. Don't fucking confront the thief yourself, let the fucking mods handle this!

If you follow these three easy steps, everything will be alright.

[size=small]It's the same as in normal real life. If you suspect someone is a criminal, you don't go Punisher on their asses. Well maybe you do, but that's illegal and you're stupid if you can't understand why you should let the cops handle this IMO[/size]


----------



## Myr (May 4, 2006)

Mr Cullen said:
			
		

> One side of the issue? You're telling someone off for having a go at somebody who took their artwork without asking. WHo at first was actually pretty polite about it and then after someone started on them and told them they were an asshole for bothering him... only then did an argument really start.
> 
> What is this? Liberal central for the internet? You just do nothing and let all the thieves and other rejects run around?
> 
> ...


Ever watch "World's Wildest Police Videos" or "Hot Pursuit" when they have one of those vigilante civilians get involved in a police chase? Yes, it can help bring a chase to a stop, but in the process the vigilante can get injured, normally always breaks laws, and sometimes finds themself in harm's way. When you take the law into your own hands, there are consequences regardless of your intentions. Likewise, all users must abide by the rules and policies of the site. Acting like a vigilante is not a good idea, but we do recognize that people get frustrated with problems and situations.

Now I don't know what's going on here, but I will say that I've had a case of harassment with our favorite hetfur-lover. Both the reporter and accused flamed each other back and forth at least once. Both of them got warned for it, although it was more of a recommendation to the reporter since I realize they were upset. As admins on the site, we normally get linked into the middle of a situation and have to determine who is doing what and what's going on. "They made me do it!" or "they started it!" isn't a valid excuse for breaking the rules of this site. If two people are going back and forth at it they are equally guilty of breaking the rules. Everyone needs to remember to let the admins deal with a situation. Most of us are artists ourselves and get pretty outraged about art theft and problems on the site. Everyone uses the site together irregardless of their status on it. We admins are trying to help keep the peace and sometimes that means getting people angry at us. We'd rather have you treating us as punching bags than ourselves setting a precedent that flaming is ok in certain situations.


And btw, dragons hate politics and government.


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 4, 2006)

I say we just bring back lynch mobs and the Salem Witch trials.


----------



## wut (May 4, 2006)

It's a damnable avatar. An AVATAR. 

If the admins actually DO take this down then that sets a whole precedent that would require them to remove every single avatar that wasn't completely made by the user in question - Including the site's own stock avatars which are Sonic Team artwork and various anime screencaps. Every single flash movie that contains a shred of copyrighted material, be it music or imagery. Or is that somehow justifiable to you simply because they're made by large companies so it's perfectly fine to "stick it" to them? Was the artwork in your very own signature and avatar created by yourself? I highly doubt it.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 4, 2006)

*RE:  FA's Way Of Handling Things*



			
				wut said:
			
		

> It's a damnable avatar. An AVATAR.
> 
> If the admins actually DO take this down then that sets a whole precedent that would require them to remove every single avatar that wasn't completely made by the user in question - Including the site's own stock avatars which are Sonic Team artwork and various anime screencaps. Every single flash movie that contains a shred of copyrighted material, be it music or imagery. Or is that somehow justifiable to you simply because they're made by large companies so it's perfectly fine to "stick it" to them? Was the artwork in your very own signature and avatar created by yourself? I highly doubt it.



Yes it's only an avatar, but when the creator of the content can see their work being used without permission, they do have a right (as the owner) to ask them to remove it.

I'm sure that if the creator of the content in other people's avatars and signatures (like those in the big name companies you hinted at) didn't want their content being used by other people, that they would tell them to please remove it.

Sonic Team is not on our backs for using their artwork, so we keep it up because it's not hurting anyone and the creators are not complaining because it is there.

(My own avatar here was created for me by someone and I had permission from them to make it into an avatar, problem solved.)


----------



## wut (May 4, 2006)

So because they're not on your backs about it makes everything ok, but only if the artist decides to make a fuss is when it becomes a problem? Look the other way and pretend it doesn't exist? uh. BZZZZZZZZT. Wrong. Do not pass go, do not collect £200.

Big companies have more important things to do than run around hunting down every 12 year old that uses their artwork in ways they don't like, and doing so just diverts funds and manpower from elsewhere. That doesn't mean that they like it or want it happening. 

Here's an example, person x use this site and upload artwork made by person y, who doesn't use this site. However, person z notices the artwork belongs to person x and reports to the admins about it. The artwork is removed, user is potentially banned for violating copyright. But oh wait, person Y didn't intervene at all and probably never even knew of the situation. But the artwork was still removed, correct?

If person y was on the site and person x still uploaded, the same situation and resolution occurs. With or without y's intervention, so long as it comes to the admin's attention (via their own browsing or via person z)

If person x was uploading official artwork by company y, the exact same end result occurs. Why? Copyright violation, again.

So why exactly are you expecting avatars which are in the same vein as these examples to be treated differently? Either they're all violations if not made completely by the user (or modified enough to constitute fair use), or they're all fair use and thus nothing can or should be done regardless. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 4, 2006)

*RE:  FA's Way Of Handling Things*



			
				wut said:
			
		

> So because they're not on your backs about it makes everything ok, but only if the artist decides to make a fuss is when it becomes a problem? Look the other way and pretend it doesn't exist? uh. BZZZZZZZZT. Wrong. Do not pass go, do not collect £200.
> 
> Big companies have more important things to do than run around hunting down every 12 year old that uses their artwork in ways they don't like, and doing so just diverts funds and manpower from elsewhere. That doesn't mean that they like it or want it happening.
> 
> ...



Oh well then.  User A didn't want User B to use their artwork.  As the owner, they can make it so.  End of case.

We need not get into copyright issues.  The owner didn't want their work being used and also did something about it so their wishes should be adhered to.


----------



## wut (May 4, 2006)

This whole issue revolves around the percieved violation of copyright you dolt. Saying not to bring it up is absurd.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 4, 2006)

*RE:  FA's Way Of Handling Things*



			
				wut said:
			
		

> This whole issue revolves around the percieved violation of copyright you dolt. Saying not to bring it up is absurd.



I didn't mean what you think I meant.  Of course copyright is involved but this is just in its most basic form.  As an owner of something, the right to distribute or hoard it is automatically granted.  I was referring to complicated copyright laws that are enforced usually by larger corporations.  I apologize for any confusion.

In the end though, do you think that the owner should have the right to ask for the other user to remove the image displaying their work?

Edit: Also, name calling doesn't solve anything nor does it have any place in debates.


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 4, 2006)

More screaming, less shouting.


----------



## Mr Cullen (May 5, 2006)

*RE:  FA's Way Of Handling Things*



			
				furry said:
			
		

> Alot of people on DA are whiners who don't even understand the rules of the sites they're using.
> 
> Your point?
> 
> ...


----------



## furry (May 5, 2006)

-the analogy-










-some clouds-































-your head-


----------

