For giggles I went back through the last ten days of the Bryce gallery with this new criteria in mind (as opposed to just exploring the images as usual). I saw three possible offences I thought might transgress the forthcoming utopia. Since this period translated almost precisely to ten pages, you're talking essentially 3 images out of 240 posted over ten days. Is that really a problem worthy of this sort of officious intervention? I mean, seriously, submitting scene files for proof?!

How many more suspicious images do you see in that period, ICM, with your keen eye trained to this issue? Twice as many; three times as many? Call it nine images - what the hell: twelve! How big a deal is that?

The problem, such as it is, seems to be that some Renderosity members don't organise their galleries in the same way as ICM. I say that because he keeps offering his as an example of proper procedure. Well, so what? What does it matter? Who, or what, is harmed if someone puts a portrait photo in front of a Bryce backdrop and posts the result in the Bryce gallery (along with, say, "Fantasy")? Does it matter if the photo was dropped on in post or inserted via a 2D pict object within Bryce? The result is the same - what's the problem? And who is to say (fairly), other than the artist, whether the photo or the backdrop is the focus of the piece?

So some members, a tiny ratio it seems, post images in one gallery category that some other members, an even tinier minority it seems, think ought to be in another category. For this irrelevant non-problem that Renderosity has somehow managed to survive for nearly a decade, new rules are to be introduced and members images arbitrarily moved, with backroom staff discussions and file inspections part of the delightful process.

 

Just whose kids does this help?