Why do I get the destinct impression that this thread is going to turn ugly? GOING TO???

nah it aint ugly till we post the mystery banner of the day ;) or - having no mystery banner- we post the ugly banner of the day ;)

GOING TO??? Ok, how about uglier? Cheryle: Ooh! Ooh! Can I post the upside down one?!! ;)

i don't know why are you all complaining. don't you see that renderosity actually supports other sites by letting best vendors go? when vendors go, customers will follow. it's more than fair of renderosity's chiefs to let the others get their piece of cake.

IB - There are some real differences in the scenarios that I'm sure you see. It seems you've made up your mind and that's fine. Perhaps you will come to a different point of view over time. I hope the members/merchants will judge us based upon their personal experience. The vast majority of customers or merchants will tell you they have been treated fairly in their business transactions with us. The exception may be folks who disagree (sometimes vigorously) with our business model or policies for whatever reason. When speaking objectively, even those folks would tell you that our core business functions such as customer support and merchant payment are honest and straight-forward. We are committed to an open-door policy for new merchants that want to sell products in the online marketplace. There are a growing number of sites/companies that are more restrictive as to the products or artists they allow to be sold on their site. Some days I think that is an easier model, but it's not our niche. Our model requires us to work with a higher volume of new merchants than other sites and that presents some challenges. This is further complicated when folks who disagree with our model choose to proactively work against it. Naturally, their preferred venue is the Merchant Forum. This is the problem the merchant forum access policy attempted to solve, but I agree there is room for improvement in the policy and the admin team will take it up for discussion today. IB - we've discussed it on any number of occasions and you know I make no apologies for running the RR community as a business. Without that, it truly would not last long and would not be able to serve the members over the long haul. Tim

Ooooh! I get it now! ::beams:: Anyone who disagrees and says so, or tries to debate merchant related business at Renderosity is just trying to stir up trouble. So if someone feels strongly that a Renderosity sales policy/whatever is going to be bad for business, and makes a convincing case of it to his/her fellow merchants; they're just causing trouble so they can manipulate things to suit their own advantage and agenda. Much better to institute policy like this and have a good portion of the active membership tell you you're wrong as well. This goes back to my point that Renderosity admin have a very difficult time admitting when they make a mistake, or have a bad idea. It's like they think it makes them look stupid to have someone point out that they are wrong about something and so do everything in their power to plow ahead and do it anyway, regardless of evidence that it's a bad idea. Why? Because the person who told them they might have a bad idea there wasn't part of the inner circle. Now it's time to clean house and make sure everyone on board is a well trained yes-man. As for your business model of high volume? I think you need to get another business model. This place is starting to look like an over priced dollar store. You've got a few high end vendors who consistantly put out quality merchandise that you put in the display window, but the bulk of the product here is filler. Page after page of rapidly produced files that may or may not have been tested for quality...or even if they work at all.

"I hope the members/merchants will judge us based upon their personal experience. " - tim Oh, but I am judging you based on my personal experiences and observations, Tim. Therein lies the rub... a lot of the people in this thread, and in the previous one(s) in merchants forum, and elsewhere, are judging you based on their personal experiences also. "IB - we've discussed it on any number of occasions and you know I make no apologies for running the RR community as a business." - tim And I'll make none for suggesting that when you aggravate as many vendors as I've seen in new policy "discussions" over the past year alone, you don't look to be wanting to run it very well as a business. "It seems you've made up your mind and that's fine. Perhaps you will come to a different point of view over time." - tim On what I said about you and CL's former management having similar business ethics? Not very likely. One practiced consumer fraud on it's customers, aided and abetted by your company. You're practicing deception, obfuscation, and thinly veiled protectionism under the guise of "simply business", against people who've been amongst your oldest members and supporters. I don't see a difference. Paint a shark in polkadots, and it's still a shark. My only lingerng regret at this point is that at one time I told Paul Pappathan, Harrison2, Lestat and a few others that they were wrong about you - I should have voted with my feet at that time along with them, and not lent my name to your brand of "bidness as usual". Well... that at least is a mistake I can rectify. With the removal of my store, my gallery, and my freebies, my association with you as an artist, a merchant, and a contributor is done here. I'll have my columns out of your database as soon as you and ClintH get around to it at your earliest convenience. Sadly, I think my association with you as a friend ended a long time before I realised it did.

Im sorry but that statement isnt fair to the store testers. They look at hundreds of products in a given week. Sometimes things are missed but for the most part they do a damn good job. Expecially for how few of them there are & how much volume 700 merchants can create.The testers can & have failed products based on quality.

clint said: "Hi Momcat - Becasue we like to get input from the merchants from time to time on changes we are thinking about implementing. All MarketPlace changes are shared with ALL merchants via a Montlhy merchant newsletter once they have been implemented. So if a merchant doesnt have access to the forum he will still be notified of changes made. " So if everything of a business nature that is important will still be sent to locked out merchants - what is the point of locking them out??? Momcat that was suggested in the merchant's forum by several merchants when they first wanted to dothis - IIRC only one merchant at the time agreed with it - and it was no surprise. tim said: "Our primary goal is for the Merchants Forum to be a productive place where real business issues can be discussed, and resolved in a positive, respectful manner." That would involve some serious change as to what is usually posted in there. As for the positive manner that depends on perception. If I or IB or anyone else point out discrepancies to changes or the ill effects it will have on merchants we are labelled rabble rousers in essence. What did one of your admins call us in the re-posted commentary from the admin forum - "pack of wolves" or some such thing? ( Talk about needing to protect your "secrets" I'd look there first....). Only once on this site have I ever attacked a member (he is now a banned member) disrespectfully. Getting to the point and refusing to be swayed by the newest "spin" doesn't make one disrespectful, only means they look at all the issues. Again as I said when this fiasco began and many have said multiple times - if you want to discuss top secret business do so in a special forum - it's a no brainer. And before you revise the "contract" and blow that too - contact an attorney ok? Generally you can't revise a contract with 30days notice - any revision has to be agreed upon by every party involved. Yes you have high volume here - so use a contract that works, many other sites do it. There is rarely a need to change a contractual agreement anyhow. Hey DAVO - you still here?? Maybe you are - this is only for certain admins and site owners after all.... Those site owners/admins who rarely/never speak up against the administration here are safely ensconced and allowed access to the forums so the policy is not evenly applied - period! Wait - you disagreed with them didn't you? Well maybe you aren't still here...

!

I'm sorry ivyroses but I disagree with you - if there are not enough testers to handle the volume of submissions then Renderosity should hire some more. Yes, their profit margin would be smaller, but customer satisfaction should be their prime concern. Especially since they do not offer refunds and/or store credit for any purchases that you are dissatisfied with. So basically all this crap since October is about keeping ONE merchant out of the Merchant's Forum? Gee, I wonder who that can be?

You guys sell here without a contract? Instead, you agree to a "merchant policy" that allows R'osity to change the terms at any time--so the policy protects them but not you? Lordy. No disrespect to IB or any of the merchants here, but under those circumstances, and given Tim's "shoot first" management style, I don't see how this kind of thing can come as a surprise to anyone. "Please give us a day or two to get this right." Translation: please give us a day or two to get our story straight.

Hehe....Hey ya know what? IB.....you still have a store at 3DC....and access to the vendors forum....LOL...tho no one uses it... Ok, so our site is boring....we still have good fun, and good stuff...... just fewer train wrecks. ;) Side note: Voicing an opinion does not make you a trouble maker. There are other places to go to support your friends and community. Renderosity is NOT the only place to shop. http://www.3dcommune.com/ http://www.poserpros.com http://www.3-darena.com http://www.animotions.com/ (sorry if I left anyone out.) Jackie 3D Commune Admin.

Our model requires us to work with a higher volume of new merchants than other sites and that presents some challenges Tim, this would be fine save that the merchants who have been locked out could be helping you with the new ones, teaching them the merchandizing tricks, all that stuff. By throwing out the very people who can help you, you've made your job tougher. Sorry, bud, but this is starting to look like a tap dance. Like you accused IB, you've made your mind up, and now you feel you have to justify it. The reasoning just stretches further and further. Your business model may provide you with challenges because of the nature of the product, but the rules and regs you're imposing ad lib are simply defeating your own methods: that's basic business theory. You're not like Sears, with a "house brand" in every department; online purchasing doesn't allow for that kind of exclusivity. When people buy online, they want, more than anything else, convenience: being able to make all of their purchases in one spot. I honestly cannot believe DAZ doesn't have a MP presence here, because if it did, the impulse buying would no doubt skyrocket, even if it was a couple of bucks more than buying at their home site -- it's all about convenience. I mean, think for a moment. A product gets mentioned in the threads (which they invariably do), and imagine how much more traffic the store would get if you could say, in almost every case, "Yep, we sell it here." "You want V3? She's right here -- two bucks higher than at DAZ, but she's here, along with almost everything made thus far for her." But to impose exclusivity as a merchant requirement? Sorry, Tim: this ain't Tiffany's or Neiman-Marcus. This is WalMart, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Ivyroses: That is my point exactly. How can testers be expected to keep up with such a high volume and maintain quality control?

IB - Your feelings toward CL and your getting sideways relative to your Beta testing agreement for P5 is well known, but you're sorta changing the subject. If you're going to call people "sharks", you need to be able to back that up or you will be quickly dismissed as irrelevant/irreverant (or something like that). We have supported CL over time because it was the right thing to do given the circumstances. Our partnership with them on CP hopefully helps a little given their current challenges. Tim

Sharks - A person who is ruthless and greedy and dishonest

I do not know about others, but even I have seen this type of behavior in my short tenure here:

When you arbitrarily change an agreement (dishonest), despite asking for and neglecting input (ruthless), for your own gain (greedy) it automatically casts a cloud of suspicion over your actions.

"I hope the members/merchants will judge us based upon their personal experience. The vast majority of customers or merchants will tell you they have been treated fairly in their business transactions with us."

Don't you think we are? You keep touting the marketplace as if money is the only important thing. I've been dissatisfied with purchases. I had conflicting license agreements in one zip and what I considered fraud based on very very small print mentioning something wasn't included even though every photo showed the not included item. And then there's no help files for programs. The first I was told they'd talk to the vendor. I follow the Renderosity License so their attempt to add to it didn't bother me. The second was somewhat satisfied by the merchant. The other, I'm wishing I'd not purchased but the merchant has tried to help.
I have a lot of respect for the testers for what they go through, they've always been helpful to me.

My point is that these are the members of this site. The people who make up this site are what make it. Not you, not bondware. Anyone can host this, provide a merchant account, and scripting. It's the people who've brought it to where it is that count and from what I can see, you've lost sight of that.

"Our model requires us to work with a higher volume of new merchants than other sites and that presents some challenges. This is further complicated when folks who disagree with our model choose to proactively work against it."

The fact is, anyone can render something and upload it at 800x600 72dpi, call it a background and become a merchant. But then in the merchant forum, they receive helpful advice from the other merchants who've been doing this longer and next thing you know, they've come up with a package more fitting with a lot more choices and worth offering. Who takes the credit for that? The members that's who. And why would they do that? Because they care about this site. Regardless of whether they have their own sites, this was their first home and they treat it that way.

I've yet to see any evidence of this subterfuge you allude to. I've seen well deserved criticism that you and this site deserve. I've seen praise of both you and this site despite having kicked out people who've helped you make it what it is. Was, actually. I greatly admire them for being able to do that.

CyberStretch - Can you lay out examples of our having been ruthless, greedy or dishonest? I would appreciate the opportunity to address those in detail. I'm sure I can rebutt those with numerous examples of having done things for the benefit of the community without regard to cost. That would include covering the significant costs of hosting this community before there was a marketplace. If you do not have specific examples, then ... well - what can I say? Tim

Um, Tim, you may actually want to read the post before you make a blatantly asinine comment. Hint: Look for italics.

"evidence" of Greed dishonesty and ruthlessness? I'm sure that if we began posting such "evidence" we would be banned. However, I'm sure there is more than enough if you'd REALLY like folks to post it. (3+ years worth?) Careful what you wish for.

CyberStretch - Okay - let's break it down that way. "When you arbitrarily change an agreement (dishonest)" To which agreement are you referring - we have a merchants guidelines document that we change from time to time to reflect the latest policy guidelines. In the past we have made no representation that we would not make changes to this document. In fact, it changes frequently to reflect the latest information. I fail to see the "lack of truth" normally associated with "dishonest". Are there other instances that you have in mind? I'll address the other claims individually. Tim

"despite asking for and neglecting input (ruthless)" This does not line up with the definition of ruthless according to Merriam-Webster. having no ruth : MERCILESS, CRUEL In the worst case, it might qualify as "insensitive". In the case you cite relative to site policies, it usually not the best idea to take business policy verbatim from any one faction. I assure you all input was seriously considered and will be going forward. Were there other examples of merciless or cruel behavior by Renderosity or it's staff? Tim

we have a merchants guidelines document that we change from time to time to reflect the latest policy guidelines And see, this is where you can get in trouble, Tim. Basic contract law says it has to be mutually decided once it's entered into. If a merchant decides he/she wants to change Rsity's cut, you both have to agree to it, of course, but if Rsity decides to change exclusivity clauses, you can't grandfather it without agreement from the affected merchants. That's just wrong. Hell, even the banks have to give proper notification when they want to change banking fees so the patron can have the choice whether or not to accept them. Sure, the patron can leave (just as the merchant can go from here), but you can't just change the contract and then throw the merchant out. That would be, as you can see in just this thread, a really bad move.

Kendra - I agree with most of what you say. It's that some of the claims are exaggerated or simply not corrent. I take exception to those and will address them in detail to all who will listen. Tim

"for your own gain (greedy)" There certainly is a business component to Renderosity for which I never apologize because it makes possible the services that the members enjoy. The potential to make a profit is what fuels continued investment in any enterprise. Otherwise, sites like RR grow until the bandwidth bills overcome them, then they shut down or scale back to a shadow of their former self. I know there are some who would favor that sort of outcome for Renderosity. That's not my preference and we will continue to conduct business in a manner geared toward preventing this. If this matches your notion of "greed", then I plead guilty. Tim

*""When you arbitrarily change an agreement (dishonest)"

To which agreement are you referring - we have a merchants guidelines document that we change from time to time to reflect the latest policy guidelines."*

4 months ago it didn't matter where else you worked online and didn't state this on the upload page, and still doesn't. And then one morning it did matter. Your sparsley worded agreement on the upload page didn't say they couldn't work elsewhere. It only stipulates the exclusivity of the product. You added to the "agreement" and implemented it in hours. And this implies that you made a change to a feature that was previously implied and accessible to all merchants. That is not what those merchants agreed to when they uploaded. And that was dishonest.
The merchant forum is implied and is automatically accessible when a first product is accepted. It may not say that it's included in the agreement but it doesn't say it's not either. It doesn't stipulate situations that would make one merchants access different than anothers.

Now I think you must be at least a smidge paranoid. No one wants to see Renderosity shut down, or otherwise impared. What we (at least I) do want, is accountability, honesty, fair play, consistancy, and perhaps a bit of humility from time to time with regard to compromise.

"I know there are some who would favor that sort of outcome for Renderosity." Who Tim? Personally, I really don't think anyone wants to see Renderosity go down the tubes. We all pretty much started here...or PFO.... Why would we want a huge part of our lives gone? It is not the "site" people have problems with, so much as it is the lack of common sense used in running the joint, and in the treatment of it's members.

*"Kendra -

I agree with most of what you say. It's that some of the claims are exaggerated or simply not corrent. I take exception to those and will address them in detail to all who will listen."*

Everyone interested in repairing the rifts around here would be interested in listening.

Thanks for responding.

The way I see it, R'osity is paranoid concerning the very populace that earns them a 50% cut on their own products; in fact, the very populace that placed R'osity on top of the other sites. After all, it would definitely serve the merchants to try to kill off R'osity so their potential market and profits would be adversely affected; now that is a sound business practice! BTW, that was semi-sarcastic for those who like to be literal.

Tim,

As Kendra has already pointed out the matter regaring the agreement, I will spare you the repetition. We will not even start to talk about the AOM/AOY topic again. I am sure you will be able to find all the pertinent info if you read the threads. I am sure that if you want all of the dirty laundry to be aired again, there are long-standing members that would be more than welcome to list them for you.

"I assure you all input was seriously considered and will be going forward."

Perhaps in the minds of those making the decisions. When people are asked for suggestions and input, then are banned before they respond or as they are responding, that does not bode as "considering" their point-of-view.

Here again, look for the thread regarding the suggestions on the AOY process and tell me where R'osity paid any attention, after requesting input.

"There certainly is a business component to Renderosity for which I never apologize because it makes possible the services that the members enjoy."

Like constantly trying to show R'osity the errs of their ways and decisions? Or, perhaps, by showing current and potential merchants that if you go elsewhere to sell your products and decide to assist administering other sites that your priviledges here will be revoked? Or, perhaps, that members here can be banned for speaking truthfully here or on other sites or for bringing up past issues?

R'osity is supposed to be a site where ART maters, not profit. Without the members, R'osity would be nada, nil, nothing. When the PTB make decisions solely based upon R'osity's gain vs the membership to which they supposedly serve, that is what I consider greedy (aka for one's own benefit at the expense of others).

In fairness, Cyber, without the profit, there is no site. I think we can all agree to that, because with this many people logging on, the bandwidth expenses must be crushing without some kind of income. The point, Tim, is that no one grudges the store or its profit for Rsity. And yeah, sometimes difficult business decisions have to be made... but they should be smart ones, and I mean "smart" here in the sense that they're good not only for the site but the basis of the profit margin that supports it as well. IMHO, the decisions here haven't been so much smart as predicated on situations that, frankly, don't exist as threats. Granted, I'm not a merchant, but when some of them are telling you that the Merchant Forum isn't the hush-hush bin of trade secrets that it's presented to be, maybe you should be listening to them. If the extent of the trade secrets is how much Rsity gets for each transaction, that's not much to throw out merchants over. And if they're being asked to leave because they admin another store, then I think you should be asking yourself some pretty tough questions -- i.e., does the inventory at that other site really hurt mine? We can prattle on and on about business philosophies, but all of that becomes irrelevant when you stop to think that the oly thing that REALLY matters is the product you carry. People don't have the same brand allegiance they did maybe 20 years ago because it just doesn't exist any more. Levi-Strauss found that out the hard way when they opened their own stores. People didn't care about the "Levis lifestyle"; they just wanted a pair of jeans - and it did't matter if they bought them at Macy's or Sears or the Levis Store. If one were of a truly Machiavellian stripe, of course, one could invite the dispatched merchants back with a huge show of outstretched arms and welcome home banners, secure in the knowledge that the visibility of the act would ensure a whole whack of sales, not to mention some darn great PR. It's just a thought, of course. :)

Also, in fairness, VS - without consumers/merchants/members there is no profit. I have never seen more than 2000 members at a time logged on this site - ever! 2000 members, even if only on one server, is not exactly over-taxing the servers nor the bandwidth.

Online Fun Just for shits & giggles, I looked at the who's online list.. At the top of THIS page, it said this: 1649 members currently online Bottom of Who's online page it says: 1012 members currently logged in. Actual in list: 996 Actual without multiples: 896 Yeah, I counted.. I know...too much time on my hands. LOL

That post was in re to Cyberstretches 2000 members online thing. Wasn't meant in any way to "poke fun" at the "site".

"If you're going to call people "sharks", you need to be able to back that up or you will be quickly dismissed as irrelevant/irreverant (or something like that)." - tim I've always been irreverant. It's part of my charm. ;] Irrelevant is a bit beyond your ability to make anyone. Dismissed is something I've been watching you do to anything that doesn't match your world view for a couple of years here. *********************************** Shark. For examples, browse your own forums. Better yet - browse your own press releases. I don't have to dig up links for you that you're probably not going to read, or grab quotes from your previous posting and the postings of the people working under your direction and policies - not my job any more to do your researc into community perceptions. It's your job to dig 'em up on your own. I can - and will - simply chuckle and say "if you say so, Tim", and watch and see which of us is dismissed as irrelvant by whom after all the smoke clears. ;] This is all about perceptions Tim. Perception is everything on the 'Net, as Tammy was once fond of quoting me on. I can kick back easily, and gamble that over the past two years, I have a pretty solid basis that people can draw their perceptions of me from - from my words, my actions, and how they measure against each other for consistency and veracity... Can you?

Ironbear - Let me see if I'm understanding your message clearly. Is it "Nuke them (Renderosity) from orbit, it's the only way to be absolute certain" to use your favorite quote? Does that factor in what's best for the majority of Renderosity members or is that a personal point of view? Tim

sigh Children Please! yes IB and Tim I'm talking to you and I don't care who you are. leave the testorone macho bull in priv's or IM's or Email. Not in a public thread. Kai

"Nuke them (Renderosity) from orbit, it's the only way to be absolute certain" I KNOW Ironbear doesn't need anyone to step up and stick up for him but if you'd read the posts pertaining to that signature you'd have known why he used it. This whole thing is ridiculous. Do you seriously think that people are out there trying to 'get' Renderosity? Paranoia plus. I'm privvy to any conversation that goes on in the admin forum at Poser Pros and I can tell you right now there are no secret plans to steal TIO's darkness generator and launch a massive attack on the Renderosity death star. We have more important things to do, like run our site in a way as to not piss off our top selling merchants and push them away to other sites where they make us no money. Like keeping our membership happy with helpful tutorials, full-fledged discussions with no bannings, even when Doc goes nuclear with the cussing :) Get off the paranoia train Tim. We cold care less if Renderoisty fails or survives. Nothing we do (and take that as an inclusive 'we'of everyone you think is out to get Renderosity) will make an iota of difference now anyway. YOU are the one who is going to either frell the place completely or change your attitude and take it back to the way it was 2 years ago. I just hope it isn't the first option. This was my home once :/

No offense meant here, Tim, but I think what Ironbear is touching on is the fact that (and I agree with him) he has more good will generated with this Community than you do. Sorry, it's true. For the last several years, Ironbear has proved himself to not just vocal, but an integral part to the growth of this Community... a position, which oddly enough, you put him in. You gave to him a voice by giving him the Tavern and the C&D forum to run... and it was there (along with his Radio Free Ironbear threads) proved himself to be a voice of reason and fairness. He states his opinions without being overBEARing (sorry couldn't resist that pun) and he backs the things he says up with words and actions, which has helped to establish him in this Community and gain the respect he deserves. Only till recently (more to the point this thread) have you poked your head out, walked out of the ivory tower of business and actually sort of mingled with the peasants... only to find that they are a bit miffed at you. Why? Because you've been in that tower for so long (like three years now). Sure you might've had hard times (who hasn't even I am still struggling to this day)... but one day you gave Ironbear a voice here and he used that voice to champion for the members of this Community and established himself as an individual who actually cared about more about the members of this site more than just the money that rolled in from the online store (the only other Admin/Mod that comes close IMHO is Clint, who now heads up the store). Because of that, you will find many of the Community listen and respect Ironbear and his opinions. And since his reputation in this Community is so firmly established, unlike your own, you are going to have a tough time competing with that. That's just fact and having a pissing contest over it is a serious waste of everyone's time. Jack

.

agrees with Jack

While thinking of the economic aspects brought up by VS, I was thinking about how one would run Bondware/R'osity. Perhaps others would like to speculate on it as well?

Bondware is in the business of selling e-commerce solutions; and Bondware owns R'osity (confirmed by checking the domain info). So, how do you market your e-commerce solution? Why, with a live, working Demo, of course! What could be more compelling than directing potential buyers to a fully functional site that uses your software?

So, let us think: E-commerce, ie. buying on the net. In order for e-commerce to thrive, you need products (supplied by the merchants), a solution to sell them (Bondware), and profit potential (50% of sales).

If you were a potential Bondware investor, you would probably want to see how the system works. So, you sign up to the live Demo site. Well, the forums are a small part of the overall package and most e-commerce sites really could care less about forums. So, you show them the internal workings of the e-commerce functions, including The Merchant's Forum; after all, you want to see how the people using the e-commerce solution think and feel about it.

But, there is a problem: Merchants in the Merchant's Forum are questioning the business acumen of the owner of the site and Bondware. We cannot risk having potential investors see this. Why, if the owner of R'osity/Bondware is seen making a business blunder, and people are pointing it out for everyone to see, an investor just might think twice about investing. After all, how can you claim to know e-commerce (aka e-business) if you are shown to continually make business blunders?

It seems that most of these questions come from a core group of, say, 15 merchants. What do these people have in common? They run their own competing sites/stores (aka e-commerce solutions) or share admin responsibilities for them. Who would know more about e-commerce than someone actively involved in running one or assisting in running one? So, how can we stop them from interjecting the business sense they have acquired from the outside and questioning the owner of R'osity/Bondware? If they are not allowed to post, then the investors are free to roam at will. Brilliant! So, let us fabricate some lame story about "trade secrets" and ban them from the Merchant's Forum on that premise.

Since Bondware owns R'osity, I would gather that Bondware pays for the servers, salaries, operating costs, etc; or they are shared between the two (like the Name Servers as shown in the whois info). Actually, to read the Bondware site, they are also in the hosting business, and "A Basic Bondware site can be had for only $49.95 per month with a one-time startup fee of $199.*". So, in essence, your operating costs for R'osity is most likely nil, or maybe half what the community expects. We all know from the griping of the mods/admins they get "little to nothing for compensation", so they are out of the financial equation. Also, let us not forget the tax write-offs for business expenses.

So, Bondware buys R'osity to be a live demo for their core business of selling e-commerce solutions. By extension, you could also presume that R'osity beta tests any code changes to Bondware. Therefore, the merchants are being used not only as a live Demo, but also as paying (50% profit paying) Beta testers. In the meantime, Bondware, er, Tim, makes 50% profit off the Demo site from other's work. Not a shabby deal, eh?

Does this sound familliar? Think back to some of the discussions surrounding P5 and other software.

Also, if Bondware is making all this money from shared servers and resources, why does it take a 50/50 split from the Merchants when other smaller sites can survive with a more equitable split? Because they can tell the community that they bear the brunt of all the costs (when, actually, it is all Bondware-related costs anyway) and need the extra money for running R'osity - the live Bondware demo site. After all, when you are the "Big Dog on the porch", who is going to question your motives?

Perhaps this is the fabled "trade secret" that is so super-sensitive that Tim's gone on a paranoia trip over?

what's really stupid.. and sorry it is .. but what is really stupid is that every feature, every forum, every enhancement made to this site since it opened has been at the request of members/merchants. These members/merchants go to other sites and ask for the same thing, and rosity thinks that it's all their idea.

reads up and through CyberStretch's post And perceptions can be so very damning, can't they Tim? The actual quote is "I suggest we take off and nuke the site from orbit - it's the only way to be certain." - Ripley, Aliens. Not that it's a neccessity. When I'm ready, I'll just turn and walk away - and listen behind me for the eventual implosion. ;]

tim said... "Can you lay out examples of our having been ruthless, greedy or dishonest? I would appreciate the opportunity to address those in detail." ummm tim.. the history of this place shows your greed, ruthlessness, and dishonesty. From the break up with willow to the Jack/Ed thing a couple years ago. more examples? actually those are good to start with.

i always wondered why I've had access to the merchants forum for seeral months without any products for sale since I had them deleted, while others it would seem suffer... serioously, I've had access for months. oh well, I care not either way, go IB! heh heh

I am pointing out the fact that my well worded points about legitimate legal concerns were parried with an emotionally based response, (Why do you hate us?) inteneded to cloud the matter by causing distraction and argument. I refuse to be party to such tactics, which have been used repeatedly since in this thread. I merely reiterate my earlier points. Business equals disclosure equals legal procedure equals accountability equals professionalism. Period. You haven't addressed one point in a direct manner, Tim. Why are you wasting your breath and our time?

Attached Link: Update on Merchant Concerns