Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=429704

I know some people will just shrug this off as either a publicity stunt since I'm Neo's partner. But trust me it's not. The shock of seeing that comment was what spurred me to write the above.

The character does have very youthful features...but there is nothing sick about that. The sickness "could" come in with how the character would be used....so that sort of shows the mind-state of the person who made that comment. If someone sees sickness (or perversion) whenever they see a youthful model, they show where their own thoughts are...and that is sick (to me).

I'm hoping our posts will help Neo. I think she's beautiful. You guys did a great job. The eyes are amazing. Can the admins delete a post from someone like that? It's completely uncalled for.

She is lovely, and I certainly don't think she looks 11. Heck even my 14 yr old step gd doesn't look that mature. Where does this person meet these 11 year olds? And why?

Also no capitalization and no punctuation. What we have here is a 14-year-old boy with nothing better to do. It is summer, after all. God save us from bored 14-year-olds.

Yup comments like that usually say more about the mind of who posts them then the creater of the image it self. She'd easily pass for anywhere in betweeen the ages of 15-20. Some people look either older or younger then they are. shrugs Cheers, Axe.

Thanks guys - I'm sure Neo will appreciate your comments and support when he finally surfaces. And I do agree with Rawnrr - I think comments like this do say more about the commenter than the item commented on. You're probably right tho FyreSpiryt - it probably is a bored 14yo with nothing better to do than troll our galleries. Electra - unfortunately, I think the request to remove the comments have to come from Neo himself. Thanks again guys - it's nice to know that I wasn't alone in my disgust at this commentor's post.

The poster went about this all wrong - trolling is just an outlet for small mean-spirited minds. To even acknowledge a troll's comment is to give them some power over you. 'Nice' comments are well, nice, but uninstructive. Mindless negativity should just roll off your back. It's the thoughtful criticism that is pure gold. When I followed the link, I found I really liked the facial features not just because they're attractive but because it really shows a personality, so kudos on that! However, I've got to agree with his assessment of age +/- a year or so. That's an 11-year old head on a young woman's body. I compared it to pictures of known 11-ish year olds (makes 'em sounds like fugitives :) That's my opinion. The key words here are 'my' and 'opinion' - subjective and personal. Regards, Nancy.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/whosonline.ez

Dang it! I missed the comment! :) Gel

ladynimue, maybe you had better also remove all the comments heaping scorn on the comment that was removed, as they no longer make much sense. I completely disagree that this is a child's head on an adult body. She looks fine to me. Could be early 20s.

Looking at the face and the body, I can see what set the guy off, but I don't see anything sick here, just an incongruity. Nancy is right about it being "an eleven-year-old head," as far as I am concerned; the head has a bunch of pre-teen qualities: the size of the eyes, the depth of the profile and nose shape, the overall proportions. But to answer the guy's complaint, So what? Sally Field and Brigitte Bardot had "little girl" faces when they were 20-40 years old. The body is obviously mature, and the facial characteristics that white Americans regard as "immature" are actually common among mature people of other genetic backgrounds. I see a bit of Asian influence in her face, possibly Filipina, that contributes to the "immature" look. Give her National Geographic skin coloring, and there'd be no complaints. And yeah, she's lovely. Wish I had more mad money. M

Looking at the full on face, I can see where she might be eleven, or even younger, but the slight profile of the full figure makes her face appear to be that of a girl at least 15 years old. Dale LaRoy Splitstone

I agree with Nancy, that the more we discuss this youngster's comments, the more power we give to him. ....Wait a minute, I'm talking about it right now... ....I'm still talking about it..... (slightly revised Monty Python humor)

"No gallery. No free stuff. No artist page." What does that have to do with anything? I have no gallery, no freestuff, and no artist page myself. Does that mean that any comments that I make are have no merit or value? With the rampant stealing of art peices for tubing I've chosen not to post my pictures it's a choice. I've read over and over again this elitest attitude that if you don't post art or contribute free stuff you are nobody. it's offensive. I did not see the persons post so I do not know what they said. However, if all anybody wants is grotuitise praise to be posted as comments what is the point. Not everybody likes everything. I understand that it can be taken to far, purposefully hurt full etc. 1 bad post, 10 praises, hmmmm which is valid? don't allow the comments and then there wouldn't BE any more hurt feelings. (let the flaming begin)

Actually MachineClaw has a point. You can, for various reasons, choose not to have a gallery and Free Stuff.. Well, some can/will provide it and some just don't. That doesn't make them a lesser member of the community IMO. The Artist Page... Well, I'm enough of a narcississt to love seeing my own mug online G but some people just don't HAVE a digital pic of themselves. Even Graphic artists exists who haven't got neither a scanner nor a digicam :o) That said, I think the "supposed-14-year-old" chose his (her?) words badly, but that COULD be becourse it was written by a non-english speaking member. I didn't see the remark as a troll remark. a harsh remark yes, but not a troll. I don't think the face looks like an 11 year old. My daughter (ok she's 12) looks far more mature than this. The character DOES remind me of Bjork. But then she has allways liooked strange to me LOL as her face and her body doesn't seem to belong to an adult either. If you're going for a Bjork-like character you've made a very very good one :o)

"No gallery. No free stuff. No artist page." "What does that have to do with anything?" I think it's because seemingly every troll appears to be a non-contributing member of the community who's only here to cause trouble. If I went to another art site where no one had ever heard of me and starting posting harsh criticism of everyone's work, you couldn't blame them if they told me to go take a hike too. ;) SnowS

I have to agree with MachineClaw and ernyoka. In fact, I've been saying the same thing around here for years. I have no gallery, never render in poser. All I do is make models. But I've been a fashion photographer for 20 years, so I think I have as much right as the next person to pass a comment on an image. I have no problem with this thread. I think trolling is spiteful and mean-spirited, and definitely says more about the troll than the victim. But let's judge people's comments by their content. Not by whether or not they have a gallery. mac PS I like the figure and don't find her overly youthful. Certainly not to the point that she could be considered offensive. There are plenty of working fashion models who look much younger than that.

Hey, SnowSultan. I cross-posted with you. You have a valid point, but I think the key phrase is 'non-contributing member of the community'. The lack of gallery is the obvious thing to jump on when these people post, but I'd hate to be considered a 'second-rate' member because I do my images with a camera and not with poser. sigh I keep meaning to do some wonderful renders, honest! But I never have time. LOL. mac

PS Bjork Rules! Totally cool. mac

Haha, but we know you're an intelligent artist who has created many useful things for the various communities. I've never seen any of your photographs myself, but I wouldn't take thought-out criticism from you as a flame or trolling. :) Maybe saying "a contributing member" isn't exactly right; perhaps we just want to know that someone has a basic understanding of what it takes to create art before they badmouth our own. We often assume that if someone doesn't have a gallery, they're afraid of being criticized themselves and thus shouldn't be finding fault with others' art (the "people who live in glass houses..." concept). :) But like you said, it is indeed the comment itself that ultimately needs to be judged. Thanks, take care. SnowS

Attached Link: http://web.infinito.it/utenti/m/maclean/

Machine Claw writes: "No gallery. No free stuff. No artist page." What does that have to do with anything? - Quite right. Open your newspaper at the arts pages and read the reviews. They are written by critics, whose skill is criticism not creation. They don't need to be artists themselves. That doesn't mean that the offending comment in this case was not a troll attack (I never saw it so I can't say), but the comment must be considered on its own merits (if any), and whether the commenter is an artist or not has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE. If the only people allowed to view and comment on our pictures are other artists, we might as well all pack up and go home. I do feel rather strongly about this, so please excuse the block caps.

I guess this is the wrong time to bring up that we have a Photography gallery?..;) I do think that if you've posted a pic or two, that at least gives some frame of reference to the comments. The point is, is that criticism should be constructive in nature. You can be as mean as you wanna be, but if you don't have something to back it up with (whether pictures, or general art knowledge), it's kind of hard to take how serious someone is. I guess it's just a coincidence about the 'no gallery, no models, etc' business..;)

Having been one of the few who did see the original comment I can tell you that it was not in any way, shape or forum constructive or criticism. It was a nasty comment and boardered on a persoanl attack. It came out and said he was sick for creating it. I can say that it did smack of a troll. If the person was trying offer constructive criticism, he/she definitely needs help in how to say things so they come across correctly. The face may look young, but when combined with the figure, she does not look 11 to me. But I have seen real people who look like this, as many others have pointed out.

My apologies people... the no gallery, no free stuff etc etc was not meant to insult people who choose not to have a gallery here. I do know of a lot of great artists that choose not to have a gallery here, especially with the amount of theft and tubing that goes on. There was a reason for the comment - when someone writes something thats negative, the first thing I do is go and check what work they do - for point of reference. This person didn't have anything to back up their comments which were just meant to insult or hurt. In future I'll make sure I choose my words more carefully - mother always said I should count to 10 when I get mad before saying anything. Obviously I only got to 5. Nor do I want to see just positive comments either. If someone doesn't like something and can see how something could be done better then I'm all for constructive criticism. If someone is gonna post a negative bitchy comment just for the sake of it then thats trolling IMHO. Thanks to Lady Nimue for removing the comment - I mistakingly thought that Neo10 would have had to ask for their removal. I'll know better next time. :) I have found it interesting the number of people who have seen Ricci to be quite young in her features - I suppose being that close to her creation, I don't see the same. Also the fact that the image shows the non-makeup base skin and the hair from Dark Whisper's Teresa (the pre-teen V3) would lead to the effect of someone more youthful than intended. Thanks for all your comments and support. Again, mea culpa, my words were ill chosen.

if you didn't already, now you know why so many people have left the galleries...:>0

Well leave it to me to start something while i sleep lol.I myself didnt get a chance to see the comment but i gather it wasnt very nice lol. As for her age Ricci has a strange face as far as age. It can look really young but at the same time it can have a much older look to it.But like paul being so close to it's creation i couldnt see it lol. Hey if you guys like it thats all that counts

A rude awakening, neo? You see... sleeping IS bad for you. I always said it was. Well, I'm glad to see you're not letting it get to you. We all like her, so maybe that's some consolation. Guarie, I can understand you checking for a gallery after seeing the comment. It's only natural and I'm not blaming you for it. I just like to stamp on this gallery thing whenever I see it as a matter of principle. As I said, it's not so much when trolling is involved that it's important, but in general art discussions. I've had several people discount my opinions as not being valid just because I don't render in poser, which kinda narks me off a bit, as I'm sure you'll understand. pakled, Yup! I know there's a photography gallery, but I don't post pics there either. Mainly it's because photography is my job and, since most of my stuff is for editorial/commercial shoots, I don't really feel like spreading it around. My HOBBY on the other hand, is modelling, and if you go to 3d commune, you can find about 50 items in Freestuff by me. That's my equivalent of posting images in the galleries, I guess. But I take your point. 'if you've posted a pic or two, that at least gives some frame of reference to the comments'. Quite right. I suppose I should post something. Of course, being terminally lazy doesn't help me much. LOL. mac

"No gallery, no freestuff, no artist page." You know what? I check out this stuff too when someone's a jerk. Check that last part. When someone's a jerk It's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to me deciding "troll". These things, as well as length of membership, are simply indicators as to possible motive. If someone has been around for 2 days, has no contributions, and is posting "I could puke better art than this", then they're a flat-out troll and should be booted out from under our bridge. On the other hand, if someone has been around for a long time, or has freebies, or has a gallery, and says something like that, then they're still being a jerk. But at least they're being a jerk who's invested some time and effort into the community and isn't just swooping in to suck our creative energy in some twisted vampiric driveby. They've earned a benefit of a doubt and a chance to show that they're either having a bad day or they're under the delusion that constructive criticism involves statements like "I could puke better art than this." So those who like to grab at some umbrage like crazed parents grabbing at Harry Potter books in a Barnes and Noble clearance sale, those statements aren't directed at you and you know it. And if you didn't know it before, you do now. OK? OK. ::Deep breath:: Constructive criticism. Why the heck is this concept so difficult? You got the people who think that constructive criticism is all happy and sunshiney and flowery and completely blind to the most glaring of faults. Then you got the people who think it involves statements like "I could puke better art than this" and must be nasty and cruel and rip someone up one side and down the other and be completely blind to the most spectacular of good points. And they're BOTH wrong. You want to give constructive criticism, it has to be CONSTRUCTIVE. It has to help someone BUILD UPON what they have. In order to do that, you need to point out the flaw and offer suggestions to fix them -- after all, if the person KNEW how to fix them, they wouldn't be there in the first place, so just pointing them out without offering help isn't all that helpful. And at the same time, you have to let the person know what's RIGHT, what solid foundation they have that they can BUILD ON. So, for instance, if this Kevin dork was actually giving constructive criticism, it would be something like "She looks rather young to me. Maybe you could make the eyes smaller or the cheeks and nose less round to age her a bit more. On the other hand, the eye texture looks fantastic, and I like the realistic shading you put on her knees." Would that be so hard? ::'Nother deep breath:: OK, I'm done. ::steps off soapbox:: Next.

Validity is earned either by as said- time on site- having the balls to put yourself out there and post a pic, even if it's only one.- by being an active and interactive member of this community. Period. Any passer by can leave a comment- but it don't mean squat on an artist site that is a place for artist to get together if you don't have something to backup your opinion. Those without are more often then not trolls. Validity.

Good one, fyrespiryt. I like your rants. 'being an active and interactive member of this community' Well, geo, you won't find a gallery by me, but a search in the fora shows that I like to talk. LOL. mac

I'd meet that Troll under a bridge :P

You are welcome Neo. I agree, she really didn't look 11 to me either. ............... shrug......... but like you said we are all different and that's what makes this community well rounded.

MachineClaw your not calling her a troll are you? lolNow thats worse than the 11 year old crack lol.

I think everyone agrees that those who lack the good breeding or the common sense to express their opinions in a civil manner should be ignored. Life is too short to worry about every idiot along the way. I disagree somewhat with the "no gallery..." view. I don't think that art should be an incestuous endeavow where only those who create it have a right to express an opinion. It should be about the human emotions that it inspires in the viewer, any viewer, even if they've never picked up a brush or a mouse. Obviously, the figure seems to have inspired a negative reaction from this person and they were too immature or too stupid to express that appropriately. Unfortunately, some people are always going to view depictions of the nude human body through various moral, religious and other prisims that have little to do with the intent of the artist. Personally, I think it's a stunning figure, done exceedingl;y well. IMO anyone who thinks she looks 11 hasn't looked at many Asian women. I just did a quick Google search and looked at some Filipinas on a "marriage" site. A few that looked no older than Ricci turned out to be in their twenties and one is 32.

A day late and a dollar short but I got to stick my big feet in anyhow. Although the majority of the comments above are reasonable they do go some ways towards explaining why there is a dearth of constructive criticism on this site. One woman's "constructive criticism" is another woman's "personal attack." And this is without politics and morality rearing their wild-maned heads; hard is it indeed to point to a picture supporting a popular view (aka "War is Bad, Love is Good") and critique the technique without seeming to disagree with the message. Let me play a hypothetical critic, eager only to help the artist grow. Let us assume for this exercise that the artist, sensitive ego bruised, decides what I have said was meant in a hurtful manner, or is insufficiently supportive, or is an unrealistic expectation. If I have no gallery does that mean my comments can be dismissed? As the man said, how many movies has Roger Ebert made? But on this ground I will be attacked or ignored; I have no gallery, therefore, grass must be blue and the moon does not shine at night as I claim. All right. Still playing the hypothetical critic, I will create a hypothetical gallery of my own. Oh frabjous joy...now that angry artist has a target to vent her rage upon. My poor little gallery will be tattered and torn by the harshest criticisms the artist and her friends can muster. It is strange, but in this climate the critic takes a greater risk than does the artist. Little wonder we have so few plying that trade!

I wasn't thinking she was a troll with a staff, more a troll-ip, she kinda scares me with that look in the eye and holding that staff "ahhhhh has daddy been bad?" Charlie - hahaha. nice.

Roger Ebert has made 3 movies.

Geoegress writes: "Validity is earned either by as said- time on site- having the balls to put yourself out there and post a pic, even if it's only one.- by being an active and interactive member of this community. Period." Again I disagree. Validity is entirely determined by the comment itself. If it's a negative, spiteful attack, it doesn't matter if it comes from someone who's posted a stackload of stuff, and if it's calm, reasoned criticism it can come from the newest member (who may still happen to be a major artist in conventional media). It just happens to be more likely, statistically, that troll attacks are made by people with no history in this community (others know better or have left). Therefore, in checking the credentials of someone posting a troll attack one may confirm one's suspicions that this is the case once again. But posting or not posting a picture to any gallery in no way gives you more or less credentials for making reasoned comment.

" Roger Ebert has made 3 movies." LOL! That's too great! MachineClaw, that is my little slice of sunshine for the day.

How many albums has Simon made?

Actually, I knew Roger had made a movie or two. I used his name for the instant recognition and the high respect his critical skills are held in (and I hoped no-one else would remember the movies). But if he hadn't made them, would his criticisms be invalid? Trolls are a problem both for the hurt they do to the individual target, but even more for the flame wars they ignite. However, let us not let fear of trolls be the worse threat. I would rather not have us walk in the fearful silence of self-censorship. I admit to being personally split here. It is so nice to have a place where artists can congregate and share, sheltered from the harsh world. It is wonderful to have this place where artists just starting out can take their tentative steps in relative safety. Some of us are harsher towards ourselves and our own work, however, and hunger for critiques that will help us learn and improve. God...could I alliterate more? Here is my compromise. I will keep my commentary bland when I visit the galleries. But if you come near me in chat, where you are there to defend yourself personally, I will assume a desire to be critiqued.

"Again I disagree. Validity is entirely determined by the comment itself. If it's a negative, spiteful attack, it doesn't matter if it comes from someone who's posted a stackload of stuff, and if it's calm, reasoned criticism it can come from the newest member (who may still happen to be a major artist in conventional media)." This is probably the most true statement so far. With some artists I have established validity, in so far as they generally interpret my negative comments in a positive manner, but some times I speak too soon, and have to retract what I have said because I realize that my initial comment was made before I could appreciate the particular aspect I commented on. If for no other reason than to minimize the chance of posting a comment contrary to final impression, one should take the time to carefully phrase a comment in the most diplomatic light possible. I have found that sometimes, as I am attempting to come up with the right phrasing, this process can itself aid me in seeing the viewpoint of the artist, and realize that my comment is not constructive. Dale LaRoy Splitstone BTW, I am not an artist, but hope to be able to post renderings that I find interesting. Knowing I am not an artist, I would welcome any criticism, civil or not.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is sweet Neo!!!!

There are different kinds of criticism. There is technical criticism: 'You should add a fill light there,' or 'Try using the xyz filter set at 50% to tne edges,' etc. If you disagree with such comments, I can see wanting to see if the person making them has the "credentials," though not having a gallery doesn't necessarily mean that they don't. There is, for lack of a better term, perceptual criticism: 'Her armor's too skimpy for fighting dragons,' 'It's too dark, I can't see her face.' There is emotional criticism: 'It makes me happy,' I cried because it remeinded me of my little dog that passed away.' Anyone and everyone, artist or layperson has a right to their perceptions and their emotions. One assumes that eliciting them are one of the primary motivations for creating art and displaying it. There is moral/values based criticism: 'Making pictures of huge breasted women is demeaning to females,' 'You're a pervert for doing pictures of naked little girls.' I presume that the comment that inspired this thread fell into the latter category. If you're not prepared to have your morals and values questioned, contradicted and even perhaps changed on occasion then you shouldn't go into art galleries. Unfortunately, not everyone can follow that simple dictum.

Neo- hahahahaha :)