I have to agree with Beatrice aswell.

I'm a member of cgsociety.org where I, according to some of their members, had the impertinence to create my little portfolio with poser images. Talking about an elitist site with people who have their noses in the air so high they drown every time it rains (thnx for that brilliant quote Dadchamp, I love it) And they bash me down there but I couldn't care less what they say since I don't see any of them working for Disney or Pixar,...or creating the next cola commercial.

But it isn't a 'fun" and "sociable" community. It's a "get them before they get me" community, keeping strict and suspicious eyes on each other since commerce is involved and copy-rights and idea's need to be protected. Because they want to land themselves a good job in the commercial or CG-industry they have to show their work but on the other side the competition is watching...

Now, when it comes to art or images, I really don't care what people say or how they act around it. But when you have a freebie site/free file host like this I don't think that going for an highly exclusive site with an "elitist" attitude is the thing to do.

 Greetz Pommerlis.

The idea, as formed, would go along the lines of what Irishlostboy is talking about.  A plurality of artists, representing a broad swath of artists using different skills, would be forced to judge people's artwork, not just one person with their particular preferences.

That said, the work will have to be good. It will be "elitist" in the sense that, on some level, and not a superficial or corrupt one, it has to be done well. For example, I think Azhrei, a Poser user, makes quite good art. He woudl therefore get one vote from me. Perhaps another vote would be against him/her from a snob, but if we select the right people, the snob will be drowned out by other people's opinions.

-Jake 

I'll second Dadchamp.  I find that alot of the poser bashers are amature artist or artist that haven't worked in the field that long.  Most of the models created for poser, studio, or Iclone are build in max, lightwave, and Modo.  I texture most of my products in Z-brush and Deepaint. Poser is designed to allow the novice artist to have fun and express themselves.  Keep in mind most of he magor poser models are build in the higher end software packages. 

Also being able to put models together and render a scene doesn't make a good poser maker. One should be a creator of the models / textures.

Edited by Arotech on 01/14/08 12:04 PM.

Well the Poser:  good or spawn of evil discussion aside, I do believe that a group of people can fairly judge for their own speciality, BUT!  (You knew that was coming!) 

I would like some clearly defined guides for people to discuss the judging with the judges. 

Those could be simply a thread where the people wanting to know why they were rejected (or accepted) can ask the judges what's up.  With, of course, the caveat that web manners are fully in effect:  The judges don't need to be screamed at for being elitist pigs, and the candidates don't need to be looked down on for being "new" or whatever. 

yea, some people dont like poser. some people dont like cats either. as has been stated, whether or not someone has personal oppinions on a program shouldn't, and in theory, wont make an impact on moderation.

yes, poser has a lot of users for pre-viz etc. even our course coordinator uses it on occasion. poser has a bad reputation among some people. but said people cant argue with the attitide that, "the tool does not validate the artist, rather the artist trancends the tool" kinda thing. i dont use it myself. i am a low poly 3d modeller. so its no use to me. i tend not to like the mostly naked barbydoll stuff that a lot of people do, but thats their crap art, not the tool.

ok, so the poser issue is pretty much dealt with i think. lets not turn this thread into a "poor poser" thread. we all get stick from other areas of our craft. i get it from the high poly cg guys. they just dont understand the limitations of good low poly stuff, but hey, thats life.

as re; the keeping private of the upper tier members; i dont think that is a good idea. personally i would prefer as transparent an operation of sharecg as possible. i think that it should be clear who is where, but that anyone  can acheve the higher tier if they want through hard work. and of course that anyone can lose their higher tier position through abuse of their position.

on the nature of moderation. i think that for removing stuff of suspect quality, it should take 3 members to vote it out. say, a "kick" counter, that once it reaches three will be removed. i also think that all moderators should leave a comment as to why they are kicking the work, validating their position. that way no one can be accused of being too harsh, or unfair. 

i am sure it will take a while to iron out the final plan.  

Rofl! Barbie dolls don't bother me so much as seeing them standing in the snow facing monsters with nothing but scraps of cloth and a designer sword to protect them! Is real armor and warm clothing for these ladies too much to ask for? Or are these artists really saying they wish these poor gals to die a grisly death by monster or hypothermia? Hm... put in those terms... maybe it's option b?

In any event, I'm all for the two-tier system. As long as there are clear guidelines for what is to be conisdered 2nd-tier work and what isn't, and how one can qualify for it, I really don't see anything wrong with it, myself. As long as I can continue to use ShareCG to upload my work as a 1st tier user, I'm pretty happy with the idea.

Lol! You can blame the plethora of "Barbie-doll" barely clothed, if clothed at all with a sword images on Boris Vallejo and Julie Bell for inspiring such things (and yes I'm guilty of creating such as well).

Anywhoo....I like the two-tiered system idea.  Obviously as stated already, it is really going to take a lot of thught as to how it gets implemented and managed.

First, the uploader is going to have to decide wether they think it is good enough for Second Tier and should IMO have to provide not only a description of the item, but a written justification upon upload as to why they think it is worth getting paid for.  This way whoever is "judging" the item has a better idea of what they are looking at before ever opening the file.

Some items that could be included in the uploader's justification:

- Amount of time spent creating the item

- Amount of time spent on testing the item prior to upload.  This would include testing time spent by others (outside beta testers), if any.

- What features does the item have that makes it stand out from other similar items?

Now granted this would mostly apply to models, plug-ins, software and software content.  Images and animations naturally would be judged by simply viewing them, but then you run into the potential for biased judging as an image may be wonderful, just not to the taste of the person(s) judging it, at which point you'll either have worthy pieces getting rejected becasue of bias, or you'll get crappy pieces accepted because of the fear of being labeled as biased.

I just hope it doesn't become a popularity contest...

I very seldom post in forums... I do lurk alot. But unless I really have something to say, I just read, to keep up to date. What I would be concerned about is if someone get's well know here 'in the community', they're a show in to the high-tier, but someone who's quit, and busy creating content has a problem being recognized.

JMHO ~ DraagonStorm