AuthorTopic: Takam's mistake.  (Read 6421 times)

Offline am_pm

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Lurker supreme
    • View Profile

Re: Takam's mistake.

Reply #10 on: August 14, 2007, 01:52:27 am
Helm, I agree with what you say and mean no disrespect by this, but maybe if TakaM's original act of ripping was dealt with earlier, this latter form of ripping would not have happened and this current situation would have never been conceived.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: Takam's mistake.

Reply #11 on: August 14, 2007, 01:57:44 am
Your idea of what the ideal behaviour for a moderator is and mine differ. Nothing to do with professionalism at all.

There is in my eyes - and I've been doing this for a long time - no doubt that Takam referenced that image. Down to the ornamental patterns around the brick contour of the walls. Benefit of doubt is one thing, actively disbelieving insurmountable evidence in order to give me a hard time, completely another. I don't think anyone taking this seriously cannot spot the lift.

Quote
Takam doesn't seem like the type to copy artwork, something I'm sure we can agree on.

If you'd look through his other art you'd see there's little to no original concept to be found. However Takam can go right ahead and use established IP until the end of time for all I care. What I want him is not to conviniently forget to mention his sources.

About the duel, there's nothing to settle as there's no debate. Takam ripped, I am calling him out to apologise for his behaviour. Wether he can outpixel me or not is irrelevant. The day I rip anything, I expect the same behaviour by anyone that can spot my theft.

Quote
but maybe if TakaM's original act of ripping was dealt with earlier, this latter form of ripping would not have happened and this current situation would have never been conceived.

It was a dead thread by that time, to drag it back on the point was at the time considered needlessly cruel, especially since it wasn't a straight rip but a concept art piece. However I decided to keep an eye out to see where Takam goes with his art. It was an act of kindness that I didn't drag that thread back up now and ban in one swoop, and it's an act of kindness now that I ask for a public apology and nothing more.

What is this 'latter form of ripping' you're talking about? Jericho's and Takam's case are not related. That we let Takam's old swipe slide at the time has nothing to do with Jericho's lifting of the MC tree. I do not follow.

Offline am_pm

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Lurker supreme
    • View Profile

Re: Takam's mistake.

Reply #12 on: August 14, 2007, 02:08:26 am
Not related? It's TakaM's hypocrisy on Jericho's piece that spawned this request for a public apology.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: Takam's mistake.

Reply #13 on: August 14, 2007, 02:17:28 am
Not related? It's TakaM's hypocrisy on Jericho's piece that spawned this request for a public apology.

Ah, I see what you mean. If we're talking about efficiency, just banning when I was shown the reference would indeed be optimal as this situation right now would not have existed. However efficiency isn't the topmost priority, and such discussions though they might at this point seem unpleasant are not unwelcome. Regardless of where this leads for Takam (who I wonder if he'll even show) this thread is for the best of the userbase of Pixelation, myself, Jericho and ultimately himself as well. Owning up when your bullshit catches up with you is a very valuable life lesson and one that I don't mind in the least to facilitate, even if it's to the detriment of the lovey-dovey Pixelation mood. Furthermore being apologised to on the internet for bad bahaviour is especially rare an occurence and this is unjust. People think just because it's the internet, it's okay to be assholes and just sign off when they're done. This isn't how we play here.

The whole situation is momentarily unpleasant, but it's good karma, and sets good precedent. If it spells it loud and clear that rippers and manipulators are not welcome here, and that we don't have the ruleset just for show, I don't mind taking the 'helm is a meanie!' hit. It isn't the first time it won't be the last.

Offline .TakaM

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1178
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • Fetch Quest

Re: Takam's mistake.

Reply #14 on: August 14, 2007, 02:34:02 am
I was wondering when this would come back to bite me in the ass :yell:

I'll start with the thought process when I started those tiles.
Some of you might remember I started with some trees and cliffs, then some thatch roof cottages and terrain tiles.

Then I didn't touch my tiles for a long time
After a while of playing tales of the tempest, I found myself wanting to translate the tiles to 2D, and I made it so they'd fit in with the set I had already started.
I knew I wouldn't be able to use these for anything commercial, and I knew they were ultimately a waste of time.
When I started making the water tiles, I hit another wall, and made the topic with the tiles this topic is about.
I got lots of helpful advice on the water, and some extra advice for the buildings.. I didn't really want to say, nah don't worry about it, I've stolen the design and I'm not using the tiles anymore, and hopefully avoid a fiasco similar to this.

What did I learn in the process of ripping the design? just that it was an enormous waste of time.
I am truly sorry for leading you all to believe the tiles were of original design, my use for the tiles didn't really go much beyond framing the water tiles I wanted help with, but I know it's silly to justify it.

However, a hypocrite is not what I'd consider myself.
Since I got introduced into pixelart through fangame communities, abusing IP's and copyrighted content, I've learned that it is the slowest way to improve in this medium, I've learned there is no respect in it, and when I see someone following the same mindset I once followed, I want to steer them down a different path - avoiding my mistakes.




about this public calling out, I don't feel offended at all, rather relieved that I have been called out, and it wasn't made into a personal attack as it easily could've been

edit-
Takam: be patient for a while...
I was wondering what I'd be waiting for :P
« Last Edit: August 14, 2007, 02:37:37 am by .TakaM »
Life without knowledge is death in disguise

Offline am_pm

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Lurker supreme
    • View Profile

Re: Takam's mistake.

Reply #15 on: August 14, 2007, 02:41:17 am
Not related? It's TakaM's hypocrisy on Jericho's piece that spawned this request for a public apology.

Ah, I see what you mean. If we're talking about efficiency, just banning when I was shown the reference would indeed be optimal as this situation right now would not have existed. However efficiency isn't the topmost priority, and such discussions though they might at this point seem unpleasant are not unwelcome. Regardless of where this leads for Takam (who I wonder if he'll even show) this thread is for the best of the userbase of Pixelation, myself, Jericho and ultimately himself as well. Owning up when your bullshit catches up with you is a very valuable life lesson and one that I don't mind in the least to facilitate, even if it's to the detriment of the lovey-dovey Pixelation mood. Furthermore being apologised to on the internet for bad bahaviour is especially rare an occurence and this is unjust. People think just because it's the internet, it's okay to be assholes and just sign off when they're done. This isn't how we play here.

The whole situation is momentarily unpleasant, but it's good karma, and sets good precedent. If it spells it loud and clear that rippers and manipulators are not welcome here, and that we don't have the ruleset just for show, I don't mind taking the 'helm is a meanie!' hit. It isn't the first time it won't be the last.



I don't think your mean at all Helm, I'm just throwing in my $0.02

Offline Zero

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Takam's mistake.

Reply #16 on: August 14, 2007, 02:42:19 am
There is in my eyes - and I've been doing this for a long time - no doubt that Takam referenced that image. Down to the ornamental patterns around the brick contour of the walls. Benefit of doubt is one thing, actively disbelieving insurmountable evidence in order to give me a hard time, completely another. I don't think anyone taking this seriously cannot spot the lift.
No no, I understand that part, it's obviously based off that pic. What I meant was that you should have given him the benefit of the doubt, since it was possible he wasn't trying to claim the ideas in the image as his own, which as he just said, turned out to be the case.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: Takam's mistake.

Reply #17 on: August 14, 2007, 02:44:51 am
Quote
I am truly sorry for leading you all to believe the tiles were of original design, my use for the tiles didn't really go much beyond framing the water tiles I wanted help with, but I know it's silly to justify it.

This'll do as far as I'm concerned. What we find detestable in others is often what we hate about ourselves.