BOO! I think its about time I made a "Stalinosity" pic for my gallery now.

hello, this is something new we are trying. we'll see how it works out. sorry you are unhappy with the change... however, this change was prompted by heavy complaints from members about the existing system. members were upset that it was turning into a publicity/political contest as opposed to an artistic achievement recognition. thanks audre

Well put Audre.

So you remove the ability for the people that suppy you guys with content to choose who they think best fits the bill? That doesn't sound right. Have two AOM's then. One for US and one for the illuminatus you guys have assembled. As far as the "complainers", they can just cry all they want. The AOM was democratically chosen in the past, now you gotta be over with the committee just to have a chance at running for it. Here's an idea, return the ability of chosing a people's choice back to the people. This way, you will be appreciative of those that are responcible for keeping this place up in the first place. (that would be us, the folks that put our works on this site and give you content). You may own the webspace, but we keep people returning to it. If it weren't for "us", you wouldn't have this little nugget on your resume. Now give us back the AOM like a good little employee.

hello there, i don't believe i've given you a good reason to insult me, employee or not. i also don't believe i've treated you with any disrespect and would appreciate the same in return. >As far as the "complainers", they can just cry all they want. we try to listen to our members. if the maajority of feedback we get on an issue tells us something is wrong, we do our best to fix it. these aom modifications were a direct result of getting feedback telling us that the existing system was not ultimately what the community thought the AOM was about. thanks for your feedback. audre

"i don't believe i've given you a good reason to insult me, employee or not. i also don't believe i've treated you with any disrespect and would appreciate the same in return." You've taken away my ability to choose who I feel deserves an AOM nomination. Would you like me to inform you on why people get irate when the freedom of choice is taken away? "we try to listen to our members. if the maajority of feedback we get on an issue tells us something is wrong, we do our best to fix it. these aom modifications were a direct result of getting feedback telling us that the existing system was not ultimately what the community thought the AOM was about." Oh, so you'll listen to them....just sporadically and only when it suits your needs. Face it, some whiners bitched because they were jealous that their stupid vicky pinups didn't get them moninated. Big deal. That's no reason to screw everyone else in the R'osity community out of the ability to nominate and vote for whoever they choose. Lesse, people bitched about the so-called "joke patrol" because they felt that it corrupted the democratic process. Well, let's just take away the process altogether! That'll make EVERYONE happy! When exactly did Ashcroft and Bush take over this site, eh?

TwoBeans: The employees of rosity aren't the 'Illuminatus', I am. I arranged World War 1 in order to promote my own political and economic strength, and have continued to work on ruling the world, since. Renderosity's really not that important a player in the move to suppress your civil liberties or to acquire your servitude of my ultimate plan. I can assure you, as well, that though you believe nothing of what I have written here, that's the entire point. In other words, stop giving rosity so much credit. While, I'm pretty sure that the "Renderosity Final Solution" is big news to the world, and am surprised that nobody from CNN or MSNBC has sent investigative journalists to investigate the horribly opressive regime we are VOLUNTARILY supporting with our membership, I don't see any reason for name calling or meanness to good people. Paul P.S.: Next week I'll be using the current division in Middle East politics to raise gas prices in the U.S. Please don't complain, this trick is old hat by now. fnord

LOL :)

Entropic: "They" sent you, didn't "they"?

the idea of having a 'popular' member vote is definitely something to consider. as an addition to AOM, we can have a MOM as well... a Member of the Month, who is voted by popularity of the community. if this is something that you would like to see, why not start a thread in the community ideas forum and let's see what feedback we get. http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12375 thanks audre

Entropic: "They" sent you, didn't "they"? Nope. No one sends me anywhere. You forget, I control everything. Your entire life is in my hands. I should say at this time, however, that I am not the sole member of my organisation, but I speak for them if they need spoken for. For some reason it seems that eloquence is not a prerequisite for world domination, contrary to popular belief. Most of the members ( there are 5, called the Pentaverat ) lack a gift for words, so they ask for me to assume such responsibilities... I'm sure you understand. On a side note, and more to the point of the thread, I like the choices for AOM, and think that so long as the nomination committee stays on track, it's a good change. As a 3ds user primarily, I'm impressed with all the work of the nominees, and am glad that I have to spend time in consideration of my vote, and actually evaluate the talent of each, than to simply vote for someone who I've heard of. Paul P.S.: Sorry about the sarcasm, TwoBeans, but it's my best way of getting people to notice that they're taking things too personally. ;) Gotta keep perspective to survive here, right?

Interesting... This is one of those things that if it had been set up this way from the beginning, it'd be no big deal - everyone would be used to it. Since it wasn't, it's going to cause some controversy. To some, it's always going to look like a reaction to appease the complainers. I think that as long as the panel making the nominations are skilled and unbiased, and non-political, it has some potential. For one, it potentially eliminates a lot of the "the same people get nominated over and over", or "the AOM is rigged" complaints. Potential anyway... If there's ever a question about how the panel does the choosing, all of those come back fourfold. Big question is wether or not we [staff] have the credibilty still to make this change without generating still more controversy over it. That's something only the members are going to be able to answer.

Well I took a look at the nominated artsts........ the committee has great taste, I will say that, there's some great talent there! May I ask how the committee arrived at their choices, and is there anyone that can be contacted to submit someone for consideration? "Artist of the Month" isn't important to me, I'm not even close to the caliber of some of the great talent here, if I were I might feel differently. But I always vote, as I read the various forums it is important to some. This statement worries me somewhat though: "the idea of having a 'popular' member vote is definitely something to consider. as an addition to AOM, we can have a MOM as well... a Member of the Month, who is voted by popularity of the community." I really believe the membership is just too large to have a popularity contest and will foster more negative energy than positive. Just my two cents, ~j~

Maybe it's one of this "different cultur" thingy, but "The AOM committee members shall remain anonymous" sounds indeed alot like stalinism and totalitarianism to me. And besides this, I wonder what this committee has to hide? Ok, time for the usual saying: It's your side, do what ever you like as long as I'm not supposed to be a part of this farce >:{. But maybe you should consider how the honored artists feel about this. Maybe that's just me, but I wouldn't feel much honored if I were nominated by an anonymous committee. Hope you'll find enough members who are willing to vote under this conditions. As far as I'm concerned, I never cooperated with "anonymous committees" and I'll not start to do it now - I'm out of this AOM thingy! regards Thomas

BOO! BOO! BOO! If Renderosity was the only site on the Internet, it could get away with this. As it is, I'm sure any artist who received the insult of being selected by a committee designed to avoid controversial or interesting candidates will immediately turn elsewhere. Let me ask: would this "anonymous committee" even CONSIDER someone like a Legume or a Codini? Utterly ridiculous. If I were either of those two genuine artists, I know I would demand to be removed as AOM immediately, to avoid being put in the same crowd as Rosity's sponsors' pet candidates. If you want to have two winners, then leave AOM as it is, and add Lackey of the Month so there's no confusion between the genuine and the rigged. Gallery pulled.

There's already a popularity contest out there - it's called the Hot 20. Personally, I like this change. Asking members to nominate and vote for AOM was becoming less and less viable as the commmunity grew. I'm not, however, sanguine about the anonymous committee. Surely we have a right to know who is making these decisions, given that there's still a popular vote involved? Or at least how many are there, and what their qualifications are? I mean, is this a way of saying it's "admin's choice", or are they members? Are the committee people whose artistic opinions the members can respect?

It is self-evident that the express purpose of the anonomous committee is to make sure that interesting choices like Legume never happen again. Otherwise, there would be no reason whatsoever for committee members to be anonymous. If Renderosity was at all interested in a fair system, they would at least allow all former winners of the AOM to be a part of the committee... but what, honestly, do you think are the odds of that?

It's self-evident that the express purpose of an anonymous committee is to make sure people aren't sucking up to the committee to try and get a nomination, and to make sure someone who fails to be nominated doesn't decide to start attacking committee members on a personal level through IM or email or forum posts. Considering the contents of this thread, and some of the vicious attitudes regarding the subject, I can see why they're being cautious. Some artists on this site seem a bit unstable. Crap, people, it's not like AOM comes with a cash prize and an instant job offer. It's a spotlight to showcase good talent, show R'osity members artists that are exceptional that they might have missed.... considering how many images are posted every day, it's easy for good images to get buried. AOM is not for ego stroking, or to give your buddy a payback for some nice comment they made on your gallery posting. AOM is something to inspire us; seeing truly exceptional work gives our own creative spark a jolt. I just can't believe how vicious in tone this thread is... R'osity's AOM is very small compared to the global 'big picture'. Tilandra

It's self-evident that the express purpose of an anonymous committee is to make sure people aren't sucking up to the committee to try and get a nomination, and to make sure someone who fails to be nominated doesn't decide to start attacking committee members on a personal level through IM or email or forum posts. yes this is the primary reason that, at this time, the AOM committee is anonymous. perhaps as time goes on, and things stabilize we can adjust this process. as i've stated, this process is subject to revision based on overall member feedback and participation. there is no perfect system that would satisfy everyone, but we feel confidant that with a bit work and perhaps a few tweaks we can get something in place that fits the bill. thanks everyone for taking the time to feedback. i know this is upsetting to some of you and you see it as an attack or threat, it's really not the intent. the intent was to bring the process back in line with what most members envisioned the AOM to be in the first place. audre

Dammnnn, and i had cookies for all the committee members... bribing the members?? moi??? hehe

I agree with you, Tilandra. If a site, where I found inspiration and that was filled with the spirit of respect, helpfulness and freedom is turned into a virtual "Archipel Gulag" then this is not the end of our civilization nor is it of any universal relevance.... ...but I once loved this site and I hate to see what they accomplished lately. So sorry if I'm not particulary amused about that and if you want, feel free to call me unstable for that. :o) "the intent was to bring the process back in line with what most members envisioned the AOM to be in the first place." The process was fine and I enjoyed it and now just a farce is left. Of course, if the expectation of these "most members" (LOL) was to let their "Stars" constantly become the AOM, without the risk that other members inadvertently nominate the "wrong" artist, then indeed, you did a great job. But in this case I would prefer a bit more consistent: nomiate and vote what ever the several "pressure groups" here likes to see as their AOM in your "anonymous committees". This would be at least a bit more honest and a bit more comprehensible for me. regards Thomas

But in this case I would prefer a bit more consistent: nomiate and vote what ever the several "pressure groups" here likes to see as their AOM in your "anonymous committees". >This would be at least a bit more honest and a bit more comprehensible for me. i am sorry i don't quite understand what you mean. i am very open to suggestions and truly am looking for a way to satisfy as many members as possible. just not following what you mean. thanks audre

stupid...utterly

yes this is the primary reason that, at this time, the AOM committee is anonymous. perhaps as time goes on, and things stabilize we can adjust this process.<<< Okay, audre, I understand that. There has certainly been enough unpleasantness around here recently for people to be justifiable wary of attack. However, my original point still stands. Without naming the "committee", I still feel members have a right to some information about the type of people invited by the admins to do this. How many are there? Are they admins? Merchants? Ordinary members? People who are also artists...and if so, does serving on the committee bar them from being an AOM candidate themselves? Let me repeat: I absolutely support this move. I think it's a good thing. I'm simply asking for a little openness about it.

I like the idea in general.. I do not have time to go through every single gallery .. and uploads being what they are I often miss things.. I like the idea of a committee that goes through every thing first and picks out the artists that really stand out .. it makes voting a lot more pleasurable for me and I am more likely to vote. As far as the committee being anonymous ..I think there is a bit of a trust issue here between the members and the Admin at the moment (state the obvious much?) and until that is resolved perhaps by time, we members are going to be suspect as to the motives of Admin with something like this...and what with forums being very controlled and threads being locked or deleted .. members being temporarily banned.. well perhaps the Admin can understand why folks are feeling a bit threatened and defensive. At any rate, that said, I can understand the need for anonymity ..I sure as heck would not want it known if I was one of the judges.. can you imagine ;-)??

I agree with eirian. I have no problem with the anonymity per se, but knowing something about the makeup of the committee would be good. Also, I think it would be helpful to know what criteria are used for selecting the nominees. Just my .02.

Maybe a "mission statement" from the AOM committee would be a good idea here. One where they lay out the basics - AOM selection criteria, committee member representations (how many people, ratios of admin to mods to general members, etc) without mentioning any specific names, of course, as I agree that personal anonymity is the best way to go for a committee of this sort. Kate

"i am sorry i don't quite understand what you mean. i am very open to suggestions " Hmm, maybe if I put it this way? If the owner of this site wants to keep under control who gets AOM here and don't want the members to decide on this, then at least don't offend us with a caricature of a vote. Choose your AOM, or let some etablished artists and their fan groups do this job. (that's the reason for this change anyway, isnt it?) Just don't bore us with kinky "anonymous committees" and don't pretend that we members have any influence on who gets AOM. That's what I would call a bit more honesty. Furthermore, if I make a decision about whatever, I don't need to hide myselve behind a "anonymous committees" only people who plan to abuse their privileges or are unsuitable for a certain job have a reason to stay anonymous. And if a commitee don't respect the members here but is just so afraid of them that they don't dare to tell them who they are and who they nominated, then all this AOM voting don't makes much sense anyway, does it? Feel free to ask again if you still don't get my point. ;) As for a suggestion, nothing was broken so don't try to fix it! kind regards Thomas

What eirian said. :)

I think that TwoBeans owes Renderosity a large debt of gratitude. The overwhelming theme of his renders is a perpetual attack against Renderosity. If it weren't for Renderosity his gallery would be empty :) I wonder how he squares his 'totalitarian' theory with the fact that his gallery is allowed to remain in spite of that fact.

Heh. I think, Richabri, that once a person has made up their mind
on something being bad and evil, they usually refuse to actually
consider it as anything else. I'm here every day, several hours a
day, and I've noticed an unfortunate contingent who feel some need
to rebel against everything that this place does. Frankly, I think
that once a person compares an online site to Nazi Germany or
Stalinistic Russia, their argument loses all merit... but that's
just me. Paul >Have you been consumed by your stupid conspiracy
lately?

Side Note: Do people really feel that the Renderosity staff is out to get THEM? I think psychologists might find some interesting things to say about that theory. ( delusions of persecution come to mind )

I don't feel the Renderosity staff is out to get ME or anyone else. The folks I've dealt with have all been upfront, helpful, courteous - what I expect from an admin. I admit to being disappointed with this solution. Although I understand the thinking behind an anonoymous committee, I do not agree that a committee should chose the nominees for AOM. As you can already see, this move opens up a whole new can of worms and in my opinion doesn't solve the original complaint. If I had realized that our feedback would have led to this, I would have voted for the AOM to stay as it was. I also have to admit that I am disappointed that I had put forth a valid and what I felt to be a fair solution, which seemed to appeal to some that posted to audre's earlier thread. my three cents... Sihn

I've just got to disagree with you, zardoz. Don't forget - I've been on the other side of the fence as well for almost two years. There's good reason for keeping a committee anonymous that have nothing to do with conspiracy. In the past year and a half, I've gotten tons of IM's and emails from members who've either been or felt they're being harrased over one issue or another... all of those have to be examined and looked into. It doesn't take much stretch of imagination for me to picture members of an AOM committee getting deluged with "nominate me or else blah blah blah" IM's and mails, "what's wrong with my gallery"?, gallery links, "why wasn't I nominated?", "you guys suck" abuse, "this is rigged because... " mails... ad infinitum. Even potentially "I'll give you ALL of my store products FREE if you nominate me!" emails. ;] Man, I know that you're as imaginative as I am. We've been in the same forums too long, bud. You can see the potential for that as well as I can. Look at all the controversy that's happened over vote soliciting in the current system. Sounds silly when you type it, but this sort of thing is important enough to some people that they'll go over the edge on it. So, I don't have a real problem with the anonymity on the committee. Saves them a lot of potential abuse and personal harrassment.

{{{{It is self-evident that the express purpose of the anonomous committee is to make sure that interesting choices like Legume never happen again.}}}}

It is self-evident that the express purpose of the anonomous committee is to make sure that EMBARASSING choices like Legume never happen again.

BTW, did I mention that Doc Legume has his own forum over on www.poserpros.com, where he expresses himself and his unique artistic vision freely?

Why not just avoid all the controversy and let the members choose AOM? Is this still a community? Maybe the voice of the membership is becoming an embarrasment for some reason. If there was an abuse of the system, you fix the abuse, you don't silence the members. Another bad administrative move that is only further alienating the site from it's members.

Why not just avoid all the controversy and let the members choose AOM? hey russ, long time no see. the direction we are heading when we started on this was trying to address the two largest areas of complaint and perspective... one was the 'intent' of the AOM... the other was a popularity vote. i think we can satisfy both issues here by addressing each with it's own event, have an AOM (not sure if the committee is going to be permanent or not but we'd like to see how it works for a bit), and a Member of the Month, where members of various groups and user-group-circles can vote to show their appreciation of someone they consider special. the whole point is to get as many members as possible into the spotlight. we have such a diversity of talent and interest here that i think the aom was just not satsifying to enough people. now, i realize that my words are going to be dissected and trashed and stomped on... that's okay... i know that some folks are really upset. what i want to stress is that we are really trying to work this out for everyone's benefit if you will work with us, we can eventually work out some solution that will satisfy both camps.

dissect trash stomp Oh... wait... Here's a solution: Force anyone who wants to be AOM to fight it out in a ring before fifty million viewers. We'll call it Rosity Death Match! The winner gets to live and be AOM. Pay-per-view income alone should cover the cost of site operations and litigation! I know, I'm wierd. I'll shut up now. Paul

"now, i realize that my words are going to be dissected and trashed and stomped on..." Certainly not by me. I don't play those word games. You're basically saying that the administration is trying to appease those complaining about the "popular" vote of the membership in who they would like to see in the AOM spotlight? And from what I've read, the "Member of the Month" is going to be random, not voted for. How does that let the members vote their appreciation for anyone, as you say?

Hrm... From what I read, she's saying the MOM will be exactly what the AOM was... Did I miss something? Paul

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/index.ez?viewStory=1522

yea the MOM is a different animal...and is exactly that... voted for by the community... someone special whos friends think they belong in the spotlight that month. the voter of the month was a way to recognise another member for taking the time to vote. one of the other feedback trends we got regarding the aom was 'what's in it for me, the voter'.... so this was our first stab at getting as many members as possible into the spotlight as possible. did that make sense?

Makes sense to me, audre. You're just saying Voter of Note and Member of the Month aren't the same, which is probably why they're not called the same thing, or talked about in the same way, and in fact, appear completely unrelated. Paul

Oh the MoM was not yet official... we were still trying to get feedback on it... i asked about it way up inthe beginning of this thread but the feeding frenzy had already started. this whole change was our first attempt of addressing the various 'groups' of complaints we got regarding the existing AOM process and results. DOH and sorry for the bad grammer. i was busy responding to too many emails and thread. but i think you got the idea inspite of the word repeats and typos.

Noted, audre. FWIW, I think MOM is a good compromise to the changes with the AOM. Is there going to be a thread in Community Ideas to gauge support? Paul

Thanks for clarifying. You have to be very careful when the members see their rights being further restricted. But ... I'm sure you already know that. ;)

members rights are not being restricted in any way. that is how these reactions start... when someone starts with a wrong assumption... that's how members begin to 'see' things that aren't necessarily there. what is being done is the AOM and it's purpose, value, and process were re-evaluated based on the plethora or ongoing and vehament complaints we've recieved by members. do you honestly think we would have touched this if there weren't large numbers of complaints? do i look suicidal?

i would love to know what people think of the MOM idea. please don't be bashful chuckle

Well.... one quibble Russ. I haven't precisely seen that the community/popularity vote exactly cut down on controversy any. ;] Remember the monthly "WHY IN THE HELL DID SO AND SO GET VOTED AOM?!?!?!?!!!!????" Threads in C&D? snicker And always starting with "I certainly don't want to insult so and so, but... "

Do keep in maind - I'm of the school of thought that controversy isn't a bad thing. ;]

plethora or ongoing

should be

plethora of ongoing