So I'm browsing through the marketplace, and I see a character pack that looks promising--Vickie figure, hair, texture, a couple of clothing items--reasonable price. Only trouble is, the one nude render of the tex in question has a little censor-dot right in front of a particularly crucial area (to me, anyway, since almost all of my renders are nudes). No way I'm going to pull the trigger till I get some sense of the level of, um, detail--but ok, says I, I'll email the vendor, which I do. Vendor replies after a while and says it's basically not convenient for him to email me an un-obscured render, but I should be able to use my "imagination" and make a purchase decision based on that. Sorry, says I--I won't pay for a texture I can't see. I haven't heard back. Am I crazy, or does this seem like a big f*%k you from a vendor to a potential customer? Seems to me a number of our lovely marketeers still have a lot to learn about customer service.

I'm going to have to agree that was pretty poor customer service. I don't know how big the texure, etc., is, but it'd probably take about 5 minutes to open Poser and load up the figure. It doesn't have to be fine art, just something to show you the texture; default pose might even be fine. If it'd be a long render, set it to run right before going to bed. I'm glad to say that all of the people I have bought from (it's the third day of the month and my toy budget for April is GONE. But oy, was it worth it.) have had great service and products, and the few times I've had to contact one of them, they were always very nice and helpful. Take a bow, y'all.

I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't have a list of "difficult" vendors. They do this on eBay, which generally keeps everyone on their toes a bit. Given some of the horror stories, we could probably use such a thing as well. Then again, there might be legitimate reasons why the vendor can't do such a seemingly simple thing -- I mean, this does sound pretty brain dead, so, aside from sheer laziness, one has to wonder if there's something else afoot here. Did you inquire what they might be?

Mosca, did you ask why the render would not be provided? If it's the package I am guessing it is, I don't think the vendor is saying "f you" and that this has been a simple miscommunication.

There was a thread in the vendor forum from a vendor's point of view. I'm not saying it was the same vendor, since I wouldn't know. I won't go into what they said, but it comes down to different priorities and individual ideas of morality. In this vendor's case (who, again, I don't know if it's the one you're dealing with), it definitely was not laziness. In my opinion, if a vendor... any vendor... doesn't want to provide additional views of an offering because they object to what it's going to be used for, or don't feel that a section should be the deciding factor for purchase, then they're losing my business. But it is also their right to do so. I'd just move on to another texture and not worry about it. Tilandra

Sorry if this is going to sound flippant, but if the package is such a great deal, why are you worrying about what the... uhm... "package" looks like? If it's not right, you can always put in your own via Photoshop. It's not like these things are made in stone: God knows I rework a lot of the stuff I get because I'm never quite happy with the textures. But to write off the rest of the package because you can't get a good snatch shot? That seems a little silly, IMHO.

I find that, generally speaking, the level of vendor service in the marketplace is pretty bad. The site, on the other hand, has always responded quickly and professionally to whatever problems or concerns I've had. Fyre: A default-pose render would've been fine, indeed. Kiera: I said I wouldn't buy a texture I couldn't see, and asked again that a render be emailed to me. Never heard back from the vendor. Tilandra: it's certainly the vendor's right to do whatever weird-ass thing they want, if they don't object to losing my business. But if it's a moral issue--if they object to what it's might to be used for, as you suggest, why are they selling the product in the first place? Virtual: Variety is the spice of life, my friend. Why pay for a texture I'll end up altering so that it looks like a texture I already have? As you know, good snatch shots are what I'm all about.

I wouldn't speculate as to motive if I were you. It could be a very good reason that you would never even think of. I know if I were the vendor and I just had to deal with my own life for a day or two, I might say it was "inconvenient" and let it go at that. But I'd probably also offer to do it in a few days. What I'd do (and have done): ask for feedback from people who've used it. Or, even better, do a search in the Forums and galleries on the texture's name, to see if you can find other images done with it. Good luck.

Why pay for a texture I'll end up altering so that it looks like a texture I already have? If it already looks like something you have, then there's no point in buying it in the first place, is there? But that's aside from your first point -- the fact that there was all this other stuff that attracted you to the purchase in the first place. Is that now no longer part of the equation? As you know, good snatch shots are what I'm all about. Well, we all have our gifts.

The vendor in question may also be a little nervous about sending "nude" pictures by email to someone they are not sure about. It's one thing if you have purchased something. there is an agreement/contract. But to respond simply to an email address and who knows who's on the other end...might be someone's kid, might be the Toadsuck Georgia police department..... Scarab

Scarab has a very good point. You can't be too careful when various people are conducting anti-porn witchunts. If this is the vendor's concern though, they should have simply stated that.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

I agree on both points. I hadn't thought of the witch hunts, but simply saying that they were concerned about the legal consequences would have been polite. I guess part of it comes down to the exact wording of the response. Also, thinking about it, the vendor may have misunderstood and thought the second e-mail was a simple "I'm taking my business elsewhere" and that a response wasn't expected. Man, I hate these sticky situations. I'm going back to my own little world. The "Real World" is hard. ^_~

I'm sorry, but I see this in a very simple perspective: If you're going to work with the human body, you shouldn't be afraid to see or show it. I can't even remember any characters or texture presentations that didn't show the entire body. We're not talking about porn shots. You can easily show the entire body, tastefully. It's done all the time in the Gallery. You shouldn't need to take your own time to ask a vendor to show something that should be shown upfront. A vendor has a right to do anything he/she wants. A vendor also has the right not to accept my money or yours. Ron

Ron, the issue isn't that simple. Scarab has a very good point in that someone out of the blue sends an e-mail and says "Send me a crotch shot" is a situation fraught with peril. You have no way of verifying that the asker isn't a kid or a "law enforcement officer" with a box of doughnuts and a computer that's out there looking for trouble. Sending it could get you the possibility of being busted for trafficking pornography across state lines in more than a few areas in our glorious, freedom-loving union. I can almost sympathize with Mosca's plight, but I damn sure wouldn't send it. And if the rest of the package was as good as Mosca says, then to get all upset because the vendor wouldn't send me a snatch shot seems a little... well, silly. Yeah, in an ideal world, this should be no problem. The problem is, it ain't. Right now people are so borderline hysterical that they'll find evil in anything, no matter how seemingly innocuous. And it's just not worth the risk. If the genital area isn't as wonderful as Mosca could hope, he can rebuild it to suit his particular tastes.

I hear you. I don't think we're talking about a crotch shot. As I stated, it is normal to have tasteful images showing the entire body. That should be up front when the product is presented. That way you avoid any potential concerns about requesting crotch shots, etc.

If the product in question involves underage characters, then the "crotch shot" is indeed fraught with legal implications.

I don't know if it applies in this case, but for instance, in the country in which I am currently a resident, it is illegal to exchange uncensored images, wether art or photographs, over the internet or any other network including snail mail, for that matter, when they show certain parts of the anatomy commonly found in the south of the equator, so to speak. Its OK to make them and have them, you just can't exchange or distribute them. As in, major jail time and fines, folks. Where I am, though, some magazine publishers made a big deal of flaunting the law a few years ago. A CEO or somebody got jail time, but was let out later and now the Gov. looks the other way re. major magazine publications provided there is no sexual contact portrayed, and the central portion of said anatomy is covered by hair. It is very easy for those in the US and some parts of Europe etc. to forget how free they really are. Just because somebody has a dot.com address, doesn't mean they live in the US. There is even a certain city state in the eastern hemisphere where they censor uppor body exposure in videos, for instance! Go figure.

Kurikinton.. I lived in Japan for two years. I always thought it was odd that the government allowed pictures of naked children to be published in nudist magazizes so long as they didn't show pubic hair. I also used to wonder who had the job of marking out the pubic hair on the imported Playboy and Penthouse magazines. :) The only good thing about the law in Japan is that no matter where you go, the policy and the penalties are pretty the same. Even though the standard seems a little outdated for 2002, you never had to worry about community standards being really different from one community to the next. In the US what's OK in San Francisco and NY is likely to be really offensive and against the law in Alabama.