I used to be an active member on Renderosity in general and on the vue forum in particular.

I agree with the reaons mentioned above for the mass exodus of artists from this forum:

1. Admin is very rigid and hostile to any non-conformist idea. One of the main points of contention was their attitude to nudes. (not only in the vue comunity)

2. E-ons attitude to users qustions/bug reports was pathetic - users were supposed to put up with what they dished out without expectation of advertised features actually working. Unfortunately, they had many fan-boys (no doubt with perks from e-on) on this forum which hampered any attempt to discuss bugs/solutions freely. This resulted in an unpleasant atmosphere.

3. The overall look and features on renderosity are old fashioned and stagnating. Even after several years of absence no significant changes are obvious.

4. I am now focusing on traditional art rather than CG, in part becuase I cant afford to keep upgrading Vue. It's a shame becuase I enjoyed using VUE while I could and would have liked to continue with digital art alongside the traditional

 

Anyhow, When I left, the moderators of this forum, kept getting upset everytime there was a lively debate (most of which included me). Well, I hope they are happy now, it's more 'peacefull' here than in a graveyard...

PS if anyone is interested in my art now you're welcome to my pages on www.redbubble.com/people/artpearl or artpearl.deviantart.com

Attached Link: Orienting ecosystem instances

Orienting eco instances wasnt trivial (in v7, I dont know if things changed). I developed some techniques and metanode for orienting instances along a vector or in an arc, looking to the centre or a tangent or any other angle.  Maybe it can help you...

Thank you for your words of support, JonJ - you posted while I was writing my reply (and doing some other things...). It is illegal in the US too. I'm not an expert on these issues, but I read the BBB (Better Business Beurau) info about the issue, and what I'm saying is based on the info on their site, and their quotes of the federal laws (from the FCC documents).

Dear Peggy, did you actually READ what my complaint is before you get all rightous.

It is about TRUTH IN ADVERTISEMENT. I gave a link to their flash newsletter, I presume you read it?

It gives a name to the product eg 'v7c to v9c upgrade'. It gives a price $98.

There is a * refering to a disclaimer, specifying: this is a 'from' price; there are additional products on line.

A "from" price means there is at least one product fitting the description that costs no more than $98.

Armed with this information  I went  to the store on their site to buy this product.But there is NO such product for the price mentioned. This means the advertisemnet is untrue.

Instead of the supposed product they offer the upgrade only for $150, or upgrade + maintenance for $98+12x$12. This is baiting and switching. Namely, implying there is a cheap product in the advertisemnet and switching to more expensive one in the showroom. This is unfair practice by BBB and FCC descriptions.

That is the essence of my complaint. The fact that it is easy to go through most of the checking out process of buying without discovering that the maintenance component requires extra payment is an extra problem, but is not part of my original complaint.

Weather or not their offers are good deals or not is utterly irrelevant. If they gave the accurate pricing for the real products on offer in the advert, or even just added the disclaimer 'additional purchase required' I would not have any grounds to complain.

BTW, I did look for the real price they demand and thus didnt buy anyhing, so dont imply I'm stupid. But even trusting/gullable customers should be treated fairly, that is the point of having fair tradeing rules.

I understand you like vue and if you are happy with e-on's pricing and product (and having some income for yourself) I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else otherwise. But it is not your place to lecture others when they find flaws with e-on's behaviour and arnt prepared to put up with it.

I dont intend to go on and discuss this, just wanted to inform those who feel they are personally affected that I intend to ask BBB opinion about this issue.

Attached Link: E-On Flash News

@alex - I tried Carrera 7 as a tutor for geekatplay. Nothing wrong with it that I could see. It didnt crush even once, so thta's definitely better than vue7. However I dont use CG as much anymore - I do traditional painting (see rebubble.com/artpearl) and use XG only as a tool in studying form, lighting, perspective etc.  I dont want(and cant)  invest any more time or money with a new application. I still REALLY like vue in principle - if it worked as promissed it would be a delight. I was often told the problem is that it isnt as supported for macs. Now that they say they reprogrammed it from the ground up using cocoo I was wondering if It would work better, hence my renewed interest. The price of $100 was just about as much as I can allocate to CG, so I thought I'll give it a try.

@Steve - I attached the link to the newsletter they sent, with the pricing that implies v7c->v9c costs $98. The * note on the right hand side only says these are "from" prices and that other products available online. So even if you looked carefully there was nothing to indicate the pricing requires extra purchases, so it isnt your fault you fell into the trap. It's theirs.

In fact, their pricing as given on their site are even worse. I just tried to go through the purchaseing procedure to see where the maintanence fees are added. It says the product is "v7c->v9c + maintainance" and the cost is $98. NOWHERE does it mention extra payments will be required. I got up to the stage they request serial number of v7 and I didnt want to look for it, but that means the info about the real total price  is way way burried...

Anyhow, I asked them in my ticket to forward my issue to higher managment. I'm not holding my breath...A BBB complaint still on the cards, but I think this was the final nail on vue's coffin for me. Sad.

Renderholic, I'm talking about their newsletter. Did you see it?

It is advertising a product that they dont really offer for sale. They say I can upgrade from vue7 complete to vue9 complete for $98. That is it. No mention of extra payments or being conditional to additional purchases. Not even as a small print.  I wanted that advertised product at the price they advertised.  That is the definition of truth in advertisemnet.

What they did is baiting - mentioning something cheap in the advert and offering something ELSE, more expensive in their showroom=upgrade page.

Baiting and switching isnt considered fair trading practice.

It isnt about the information available on their site. It is about their advertisemnet.

 

By the way , your statements arent accurate either, they dont reflect the real price -

They are not offering as  you say "V7 Complete to V9 Complete, it's $98 with subsription" V7c to v9c  with subscription costs 98+12x12 = $242 (in whole dollars).

SteveJax, and everyone else who fell into the vue trap of dishonest advertisement -

I nearly  had a similar problem - tried to upgrade from v7 complete to vue9 complete. The neweletter claimed this will cost $98. The '*'  was explained in unreadably small print on the side that this intends to mean 'from' (and that there are other products on line).

"From' implies that there is a 'cheap' product you can get at the advertised price but also more expensive ones if you want bells and wistles. After a protracted discussion via tickets and phone calls they admit there is no  such product. You can buy the upgrade at the price mentioned only if you get the maintanence, an additional $150.

I gave up on buying the upgrade but intend to file a complaint at the BBB at Oregon, based on 2 points:

1. Their advertisement is deceptive - they claim there is a product for $98  and there isnt.

2. They are advertising one product(upgrade) and in their 'showroom' they try to switch the buyers to another, more expensive product, a bundle of upgrade & maintanence. This is IMO a 'bait and switch' tactic which is illegal according to FCC regulations.

I dont have the time or money to go for letigation but I want a complaint logged with the BBB.

If anyone wants to add their experience to the complaint, or file their own please let me know.

Pnina

Has anyone had problems that their e-mail account associated with e-on/cornucopia has been compromised? Someone has sent e-mails supposedly from my e-mail address to addresses I corresponded with in the past. The e-mail just included a  link to some web site (havnt clicked on it - best to be safe).

I have no evidence that this is connected to the dos attacks on e-on, but the coincidence would be a bit much. I only use that e-mail account for CG related sites- renderosity, e-on, daz etc.

I changed my password on that e-mail account, so that hopefully solved my problem.(Which is the only thing the service provider suggested too).

Perhaps you folks should consider changing your password on associated e-mail accounts too just as a precautionary measure.

Cheers

I buy metal frames from

https://www.framesbymail.com/

An economy metal frame size  8x11  is approx $6. They are in MO but I dont know if they charge less if you're closer - they charge 13.5% for shipping but min of $6.95.

They will also do mats+ backing+ Plexiglass if you need it.

I havnt found anything cheaper locally (Denver)

What my last post was about is clarity and transparency in the flow of information and communication with members. Ignoring points I raise or just saying "this is a bad idea" without giving reason is not an acceptable way to conduct business. Telling me to make my own site when I offer suggestions of improvements of this site is not a grown up behaviour. I expect information to be available about what is being accepted/considered/rejected even if implementation may take time. I dont expect things to change over night, but I'm no spring chicken so I worry I may not live long enough to see any of the implementation.

I'm pleased to hear "many of them changes that you, yourself, have asked for!". I wasnt aware I asked for "many" or maybe it's been too long for my elderly brain to remember, but it's nice to know. Wish you could give some hints what they were about. Perhaps I would have been less likely to conclude there is no real 'list' of user suggestions if information was kept about the general status of suggestions along the way.

So - I'm giving up on this thread yet again. I left it for a long time as I didnt see any likelyhood of progress. If it wasnt for random27's enquiry and your reply about the new "sane" interpretation I wouldnt have returned in hope of further developments. But your subsequent replies indicate there is no real change. Without major new policies and clearer well publicized information to the users about what's nudity, what's commercial posting, what's the status of their suggestions - I dont see any way to resume posting on this site.

I shall check in from time to time to see what are the new things you hint are about to happen, but I'm not holding my breath...

I presume you were trying your best - thanks for that, but sorry so far it wasnt sufficient.

Dont worry. For a minute, when you changed your mind about the need for nudity flag on my image I thought I could hear the sound of reason and sanity returning to renderosity. It was obviousely just a fluke, things are as arbitrary as they have  been before.I presented perfectly logical arguments, and instead of answering those or accepting them, you come back with 'That's the way we do things here. Like it or lump it'

Kids who are stamped and cant find a a sensible answer in an argument often weasel out of the situation  with the declaration 'I dont want to play with you anymore, go play somewhere else'. I see you think this approach is appropriate for an adult in an official capacity...:)

That was quite entertaining. Thanks for that!

"The TOS does NOT need to be fixed, nor does any of the wording need to be fixed at this time.  The actual TOS has not changed."

How can that be? as random27 said in his posts, and I just checked again, the thumbnail rules in the tos state "No nudity in thumbnails. This means no clothes,..." Image A of random27 and my image 'Pearls place' include no clothes. Yet you say the new guidlines allow it. How come? does not seem consistent to me. Back to confussion and conflicts...Clarity of rules and guidlines to artists and moderators is the absolute minimum requirement. They have to be clearly visible to all. As far as I know your new more sane guidlines have only been mentioned here, not enough for everyone to know and understand.

"the staff is working to better serve the membership and make this site a better experience, and I meant it every time.  "

I have no reason to doubt you have good intentions and you mean well, but the actions suggested so far on the issues I've raised do not improve the situation in any significant manner. Is there more in the new guidlines than you mentioned here? It should be made public, preferably inluded in the tos so everyone is aware.

"Nothing else will be changed, and the "not suitable for prudes/sensitive people" idea is, in and of itself, offensive to those who simply wish to not view nudity, Artpearl.  Wanting to filter nudity from viewing preferences does not make one a prude.  Sometimes, at least on this site, it simply means one is under 18."

It isnt about the wording. If my statement seems offensive use another one. How about

"not suitable for all viewers' or 'not suitable for under 18s' or 'for mature viewers only' or 'not suitable for office viewing' or just 'content advisory' or any other judgemnet free statement. The point is enabling the artist to flag their gallery as a whole with a warning, and enable viewers to filter out such galleries if they want too. If the artist can avoid decisions about flagging specific images, viewers who by their own judgment are mature can watch without censorship, and viewers who object to nudity arnt confronted with it. What's the flaw in this scheme?

"I was not at the yearly admin meeting, as I am not an admin, I am simply a senior moderator.  "

I dont know what the administrative structure of renderosity is, and I dont want to know. I posted my concerns and questions in a renderosity forum and I presumed renderosity people who answer have the knowledge and authority to do so. If a senior moderator cant answer, for whatever reason, they should refer the issue to the powers that be with the knowledge and authority, and ask them to come on th eforum and answer.

(Please dont advice me to e-mail admin privately. I posted in a public forum becuase these are public issues, I expected to have a public answer. Any answer I would get in an e-mail I'm not allowed to quote, so I wouldnt be able to inform the rest of the public)

 

What about my questions about posting paintings? what are the rules and guidlines with regard to those? If I am to return to posting here I need to know these rules as I will probably have more paintings then CG images to post.

What about my question about the need for clarification of the rules/guidlines about commercial posts? there are still no explanations in the vue forum, and there are still questionable posts. There may well be guidlines for moderators, and there is a 'stickie' for poser users, why nor for vue users?

What about my original questions about updates to issues raised in the suggestion box forum? Can anyone who was in the last meeting give us any information?

Quote - > Quote - Jen,

So does that mean that my image I used as an example in my first post in this thread

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1991601

Will now be exempt from a nudity flag & special thumb nail, as genitals are not shown?

I hope that's true...

 

As there are no genitals shown, you may remove your flag/thumbnail if you wish.  

 

Thank you - that was a most beautifully executed U-turn!

I must admit I did not expect Rendo authorities to admit it isnt nudity, after such categorical declarations that it is. I was wrong - they are capable of listening.

Of course I'm happy my initial posting without a nudity flag was declared correct, and I will repost it without the flag and special thumbnail.

However, it doesnt fully solve the problem. It is still open to confussion and arguments(as random27's arguments point out, for example). Are you saying, Jen, that the tos will be fixed so the term 'no clothing' as defining images with nudity will be omitted? or is it a modification for moderators guidlines only? Are there other changes to the rules? when and where will all of these be announced?

Seems to me it is still left to random/arbitrary interpretation  by the moderators.

What about images with less than realistic representation of the human body? When are they 'nudity'? This is particularly pertinant for paintings. My painting 'links', I gave as example in my first post, was removed becuase I would not add a nudity flag. 

(you can see it at http://www.redbubble.com/people/artpearl/art/4799945-1-links )

According to the new 'sane' guidlines, can I now post it with no flag? the genitals of either character arnt visible. Her nipples are within sight line but arnt painted with any clarity. I think this is not more nudity than if she was painted wearing a body suit. What's the verdict here?

If you think I only care about my own images, another example, perhaps more extreme: The artist Anaber has the most beautiful drawings/paintings with figures who some might  interpret as wearing no clothes, but there are no specific brush strokes defining the genital areas or breasts. Are the figures in

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1957685&user_id=599251&page=3&member&np

nude? there is nothing to suggest clothes, nothing to obstract the body areas from line of view, but would anyone sane claim it requires a nudity flag?

Look at her gallery (worth it in any case)-she has some similar paintings in terms of partially abstract body representation, some are flaged for nudity and some arnt. Cant blame her- the rules are not clear, it's up to individuals how they interpret what they see.

I still maintain it is extremely hard(maybe impossible) and time consuming to device and police a good scheme for nudity flagging. Which brings me back to my original suggestion.

Allow me to flag my whole gallery as 'not suitable for sensitive people'. Make viewers declare themselves as 'sensitive'. That will activate a filter which will prevent them from seing any of my images. They will be saved from seeing my subversive/deviant posts. I can still post freely. I will NOT miss them, I dont care if they dont see any of my non controversial posts.

The issue of the netnanny was brought up earlier in the thread as an analogy why not to declare non-nude images as not suitable for all viewers. I dont understand this attitude. If site owners chose to encrypt their site, and dont mind if that loses them possible audiences, what right have you to complain about it? isnt it their perogative to limit their audience, isnt it? If you think your kids are missing out, check it out yourself.(or educate your kids to make the right decisions themselves. You trust an electronic brain more than your child's?)

Similarly in this case, if the artists dont mind losing a section of the audience, why should rendo make it their business to prevent that?

So, I know you had your yearly stuff meeting recently. Was this suggestion brought up?

What was the conclusion? why do you consistently refuse to  give me any feedback on that?

Thanks for listening. I'm hoping the trend towards sanity will continue.

 

Jen,

So does that mean that my image I used as an example in my first post in this thread

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1991601

Will now be exempt from a nudity flag & special thumb nail, as genitals are not shown?

I hope that's true...

**StormysMom
**It is obvious you didnt bother reading what I actually said about the subject.
I'm not trying to force you to see the nudes i'm posting. I've put forward a suggestion that will enable me to post them and enable you to avoid them. For your benefit I'll repeat what I said:

"I do have a solution which would put the onerous of action on them.  Let me flag my gallery  as a whole as ‘not for the puritans’ . Let them flag themselves as ‘puritan’.  All images  or at least all thumbnails of images by artists defining their gallery as not for puritans will be blocked/masked for all puritan members. People who see nudity automatically as obscene are not welcome in my gallery as a whole I shouldnt need to  flag specific images.
(By the way having images blocked from overly sensitive people is not a new idea it exists, for example on redbubble.com, so it is perfectly feasible to implement)."

The moderators chose to ignore my suggestion without a single word of explanation. You can chose to ignore it too and  confirm that this is for you and the moderators  a "tabu" issue - you dont want to think about it rationally just in case you'll see your opponent's opinion is actually quite reasonable and considerate.