I really love Nicole Young's stuff there. Although I would rather it not be shadowed just because of the fact that if you flip or rotate something, the shadowing is then entirely off. It really does limit ones creative use of the kit. If they would just stop shadowing I would gladly shop there more often.
I really love Nicole Young's stuff there. Although I would rather it not be shadowed just because of the fact that if you flip or rotate something, the shadowing is then entirely off. It really does limit ones creative use of the kit. If they would just stop shadowing I would gladly shop there more often.
July 9, 2010 7:07 PM --------------------
I agree, Nicole's stuff rocks, I also really like Suzanne Walkers. Lauren Bavin does some stunning work, and Robyn Gough has a elegant but grungy style which I love also.
The shadows don't bother me, they are easy enough to remove if I need to rotate, but often you can just flip as well as rotate and that does the trick. The shadow removal doesn't have to be perfect when the element is in front of a paper (just needs to look right), and then you can just add your own.
Having the shadows already there, makes it so quick to make layouts and it is a rare occasion I need to worry about removing them.
I think it is a shame you avoid shopping at DSP just because of silly shadows, you are missing out on some gorgeous designs.
That place has nothing but garbage. Overpriced garbage at that. How could that possibly be a good career move?
July 9, 2010 9:36 AM
-------------
The world doesn't revolve around you and your shopping habits. Just because you don't shop there, and neither do I actually, doesn't mean lots of others don't
And here we go again....does this argument ever get old?!!!
July 9, 2010 7:02 PM
-------
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when everyone was going on about the garbage DSP spews out and how can anyone sell there, instead of somewhere else. Both arguments are old.
Although I would rather it not be shadowed just because of the fact that if you flip or rotate something, the shadowing is then entirely off. It really does limit ones creative use of the kit. If they would just stop shadowing I would gladly shop there more often.
July 9, 2010 7:07 PM
------
So, just change the shadows you can change so they match the existing ones. There's a thought.
If I pay for a kit I don't want to have to tinker with everything to be able to use it. I don't want to have to work around elements to make it look ok, what a waste of time and money.
If I pay for a kit I don't want to have to tinker with everything to be able to use it. I don't want to have to work around elements to make it look ok, what a waste of time and money.
July 9, 2010 8:27 PM ----------------------------------
It is actually a lot more work to have to put shadows on EVERYTHING than to have to edit the occasional shadow on something you specifically need to rotate. Most of the time you don't even have to edit the shadow, flipping after a rotate will often do the trick.
7:35 Elegant? Stunning? (Actually "some stunning") Have you taken a close look at these items? Did you not notice the blurriness? The stamps that get dragged and stuttered across to make the papers? The edges with a 20 px feather? The Filter Forge fills?
7:35 Elegant? Stunning? (Actually "some stunning") Have you taken a close look at these items? Did you not notice the blurriness? The stamps that get dragged and stuttered across to make the papers? The edges with a 20 px feather? The Filter Forge fills?
ROTFL. Nope, the argument never gets old!
July 9, 2010 9:28 PM -------------------------------------
Have you actually bought from there???
None of the stuff I have from DSP is anything but perfectly sharp and high quality.
I've never looked at DSP before, so I just checked over there. Yuck! I guess it's all a matter of taste, but I would never buy any of the crap I just saw, shadows or no shadows.
I've never looked at DSP before, so I just checked over there. Yuck! I guess it's all a matter of taste, but I would never buy any of the crap I just saw, shadows or no shadows.
July 9, 2010 11:03 PM ---------------------------------
Well I guess it is all a matter of taste, but crap it is not.
two of the designers kate CTs for were designers at Digital Candy when she and her husband owned the site. must have been two of the designers that actually got paid. hm.
One of them she was CTing with when the store was up, and that designer kept her on ever since - even as CT manager at one point (may still be, I actually stopped looking because it makes me ill).
I'm guessing it Rick and Kate payed anyone, they'd pay the designer who Kate was CTing for, so they could say 'we paid everyone, just like we paid you' and then have someone on their side.
I do not understand why a designer would believe that every other designer saying Rick and Kate didn't pay them was lying - and instead believe Kate, the pirate caught red handed who didn't even bother to defend herself and instead abandoned her site.
I don't see what's so special about DSP either but, again, it's just a matter of taste. Making something "quality" as in not blurry, no strays, etcetera, is mind-numbingly easy. Making something "quality" in the subjective term is just that, subjective.
BTW, I thought designers over there at DSP weren't allowed to use CU products? I might have misread that somewhere, though.
Why is it garbage? The designers there actually design instead of compiling scrappy scanned elements. They have more talent in one pinky than the vast majority of designers 'designing' now.
July 9, 2010 6:18 PM
--------------
Wake up call! It's not about having talent anymore, it's about what sells. A lot of designers "compiling scrappy scanned elements" are very successful. I know a bunch who make a few thousands per month and they make kits made of 100% CU.
I'll admit that I am new to digi-scrap and started around the time the Amanda Dyken saga broke. But what I saw and read was a lot of blaming of Kate when it finally came out that she did not know who LilyAnne Taylor was. And I am confused about this whole caught red-handed stealing thing. You are all accussing her of it and offering no proof. And she was not a designer, correct? So what was she stealing CU stuff for?? I am not arguing or saying anything you all have said is inaccurate. I am just saying proof would be nice, because not only is Kate being drug through the mud again, you have now involved other designers who she CT's for, hinting at some possible impropriety there. That is extremely dangerous ground to tread.
Wake up call! It's not about having talent anymore, it's about what sells. A lot of designers "compiling scrappy scanned elements" are very successful. I know a bunch who make a few thousands per month and they make kits made of 100% CU.
July 10, 2010 11:41 PM ------------------------------------- I call bullshit, no-one who's kits look like everyone elses could be making that kind of money. Doesn't make a speck of sense.
And I am confused about this whole caught red-handed stealing thing. You are all accussing her of it and offering no proof. And she was not a designer, correct? So what was she stealing CU stuff for?? I am not arguing or saying anything you all have said is inaccurate. I am just saying proof would be nice, because not only is Kate being drug through the mud again, you have now involved other designers who she CT's for, hinting at some possible impropriety there. That is extremely dangerous ground to tread.
July 11, 2010 12:23 AM -----------
She admitted to taking the CU items. If I can be bothered, I'll even go and look it up for you.
Wake up call! It's not about having talent anymore, it's about what sells. A lot of designers "compiling scrappy scanned elements" are very successful. I know a bunch who make a few thousands per month and they make kits made of 100% CU.
July 10, 2010 11:41 PM ------------------------------------- I call bullshit, no-one who's kits look like everyone elses could be making that kind of money. Doesn't make a speck of sense. July 11, 2010 12:49 AM
-----------------
But they do! They make about 10 kits per month (it's quick too just repack a bunch of CU) and then sell them at ridiculous prices.
But they do! They make about 10 kits per month (it's quick too just repack a bunch of CU) and then sell them at ridiculous prices.
July 11, 2010 3:04 AM --------------------------- Yeah and I bet they make a fortune with all those CU products they have to buy to 'make' every item in those kits. Talk about ridiculous!
Ok, yes I see that SHE admitted to taking a flower. So I agree it is likely she took more. But I do not see that she admitted to "stealing" or that she admitted to items in plural. You can argue that it is semantics, but again all I am saying is that FACTS are nice.
Is it likely she lied and if she stole one CU item then she probably stole more? Of course. But you know what they say about assumptions. You told me that link showed that "She admitted to taking the CU items" and in fact she admitted no such thing. Again, I do not believe the accident or that she borrowed it, BUT, she herself did not admit to stealing anything.
But I am quickly realizing here that everyone is just guilty and no one cares what is really said or what the truth might be.
But they do! They make about 10 kits per month (it's quick too just repack a bunch of CU) and then sell them at ridiculous prices.
July 11, 2010 3:04 AM --------------------------- Yeah and I bet they make a fortune with all those CU products they have to buy to 'make' every item in those kits. Talk about ridiculous!
July 11, 2010 3:45 AM
------------------------------
Are you SERIOUSLY arguing this?? Do you KNOW that people don't make thousands this way?? I can think of two designers who don't spend loads of $$$ on CU because every kit has the same flowers, buttons, ribbons, and other standard items, just recolored over and over and over again. And they both sell at multiple stores, making boatloads of cash, based on the number of people posting with their kits, who do not CT for them. Clearly you just want to tell people they are wrong.
I think the biggest red flag with Kate is how she ran away from her site. Innocent people just don't do that.
An honestly, is it OK to take even 'one' CU item from designers at your store? I don't think so.
If you read that entire threat at DSA - at first Kate and Rick defend Kate ... until people start asking more questions and saying that their answers just don't add up .. at which point they abandoned their site and that thread. I repeat - Innocent people just don't do that.
They also did not pay at least some of their designers their final payout.
As for dragging Kate through the mud again - she had no business trying to come back into the community under a different username. And then to go and actually CT for designers - that is HER putting their good name at risk, not anyone on this blog.
But given how self centered she proved herself to be, it's not really a surprise she didn't think about how she would impact those designers by being on their CT.
And how would she impact those designers's good name by being on their CT?
It's not like she can hurt other people by being on someone's CT, is it? If she happens to steal from the designers again (use their products she gets from CTing for something else) then it's only the designers that were hurt. In that case they have no one else to blame but themselves. Especially when you said the ones Kate CTs for are designers from Digital Candy, then they must be willing to take the risk.
Are you SERIOUSLY arguing this?? Do you KNOW that people don't make thousands this way?? I can think of two designers who don't spend loads of $$$ on CU because every kit has the same flowers, buttons, ribbons, and other standard items, just recolored over and over and over again. And they both sell at multiple stores, making boatloads of cash, based on the number of people posting with their kits, who do not CT for them. Clearly you just want to tell people they are wrong.
July 11, 2010 9:10 AM ---------------------------------
Are you even listening to yourself? Do you really think people would buy kits over and over again with the same recoloured elements in them? You don't think people would get sick of buying the same stuff in different kits?
It seems to me your assumptions are not based on fact but what you assume to be the truth, but your truth simply doesn't make sense.
You told me that link showed that "She admitted to taking the CU items" and in fact she admitted no such thing. Again, I do not believe the accident or that she borrowed it, BUT, she herself did not admit to stealing anything.
But I am quickly realizing here that everyone is just guilty and no one cares what is really said or what the truth might be.
July 11, 2010 9:05 AM
----------
She did admit to taking the flower, by accident. Please, get the heck over yourself. Don't lump me in with the everyone is guilty. I never said she admitted to stealing, I said she admitted to taking it.
Are you SERIOUSLY arguing this?? Do you KNOW that people don't make thousands this way?? I can think of two designers who don't spend loads of $$$ on CU because every kit has the same flowers, buttons, ribbons, and other standard items, just recolored over and over and over again. And they both sell at multiple stores, making boatloads of cash, based on the number of people posting with their kits, who do not CT for them. Clearly you just want to tell people they are wrong. -----------------
Fine, I'll bite. Who is it? Or is it some "hypothetical situation".
Are you even listening to yourself? Do you really think people would buy kits over and over again with the same recoloured elements in them? You don't think people would get sick of buying the same stuff in different kits?
It seems to me your assumptions are not based on fact but what you assume to be the truth, but your truth simply doesn't make sense.
July 11, 2010 5:31 PM ----------------------------------
Fine, I'll bite. Who is it? Or is it some "hypothetical situation".
July 11, 2010 7:47 PM
----------------------------------
OMG the arrogance of all of you here is insane. You think I am making this up? Fine. Check out Connie Prince. Tell me how she is so successful using the same flowers, buttons, string, ribbon, and other CU items in every kit. I am not in any way slandering her, she has a successful business, her kits are cute, and people love her. But before you act like I am this huge liar, go look at her kits at any one of her four stores and judge for yourself.
OMG the arrogance of all of you here is insane. You think I am making this up? F ---------
All of us? Talk about arrogant. I don't see ALL of us arguing with you. I see two maybe three people arguing with you. I'm not sure how that translates to all of us, but go ahead, keep thinking it's everyone that's against you. What an ego.
Because someone said they didn't see where this is posted - this is from the previous page of comments:
On a totally different topic - the digi world needs to know that this woman is the Kate who once owned Digital Candy and abandoned it amid rampant accusations associating her with Amanda Dykan, as well as her unauthorized use of CU items from designers in her store.
And how would she impact those designers's good name by being on their CT?
It's not like she can hurt other people by being on someone's CT, is it? If she happens to steal from the designers again (use their products she gets from CTing for something else) then it's only the designers that were hurt. In that case they have no one else to blame but themselves. Especially when you said the ones Kate CTs for are designers from Digital Candy, then they must be willing to take the risk.
There are designers who were at Digital Candy who are still so angry and hurt by Kate that they won't even say the site name. I can't even fathom why the two designers she CTs for who were at DC want to have anything to do with her, so I can only guess that she strategically paid a few so she could make an argument that she paid and have people back her up.
Someone else said that but dragging Kate's name through the mud we were impacting the designers she CTs for - simply by them being associated with Kate. My reply was if that is true, then it was Kate who put them at risk, not anyone on this blog.
Some store owners have an agreement with the designers that they can use the stuff sold in their store for their own personal use. That does not mean in any way that the store owner can take CU stuff and use it in items they then sell themselves. It was this scenario that Kate abused. I don't see how she could "accidentally" use any of the CU stuff being sold in her store by other designers. It's nothing more than BS.
I agree Kate's explanation that she accidentally used it was BS. She obviously knew that because she didn't even stand behind it, she just disappeared.
Are you kidding? There's a huge difference between taking and stealing. If you took the cookie, it doesn't mean you stole the cookie, does it? ___________________
LOL are you serious? *face palm* If the person at the store handed you the cookie and said, "Here, enjoy this free cookie," then no, you didn't steal it. If you took that cookie without anyone seeing you and said cookie was inside of a package of cookies for sale on the shelf and then you walked out the door without paying and just secretly shoved the thing down your gullet, YES. You stole the cookie.
Kate secretly shoved the cookie down her pie hole and hoped no one would catch her.
From the front page of the Divine site: "After two devistating and horrific months, The Divine Digital site & community are back!" Oh yippee! 8-|
The hubris of Royanna never ceases to amuse me. Devastating? Horrific? More so than losing your house (twice, or was it three times?) or your parent/brother (or whoever it was)?
And how I love that she can't even spell devastating correctly!
The hubris of Royanna never ceases to amuse me. Devastating? Horrific? More so than losing your house (twice, or was it three times?) or your parent/brother (or whoever it was)?
I absolutely agree with you. Having your site go down is certainly NOT devastating or horrific. War, natural disaster, death ... these things are devastating and horrific.
I can't believe there is a thread at DST about how 'great' Royanna is.
Are you serious? Did you see where I was explaining? Or did you just skip that part?
Wording is everything in these situations.
I'm not sure what part of the wording you are caught up in. Kate took and used at least one piece of CU without permission. That's theft, no matter how you word it.
She defends the use of a yellow flower as an accident - which isn't at all believable - but it wasn't even the piece in question. She gave no defense of the use of the piece in questions - she just vanished.
I'm not sure what part of the wording you are caught up in. Kate took and used at least one piece of CU without permission. That's theft, no matter how you word it. ---------
Oh for heaven's sake!!! No one is disputing that. Please read the whole frigging thing and think!!! Someone said that Kate admitted to 'stealing', when, in fact, she did not. She barely even admitted to 'taking' anything.
For crying out loud, why is it any time people don't get your point you tell them to 'think'?
Could it be maybe YOU ARE NOT BEING CLEAR?
You sounded like you were saying Kate didn't 'steal', she only 'took'. Now that you have clarified, I see you were referring to what she said not what she actually did.
All of those comments were made in June! They aren't recent. I understand the snark comment but not the frustrated one. I tend to get snarky with people who take old news and try and present it as new.
You sounded like you were saying Kate didn't 'steal', she only 'took'. Now that you have clarified, I see you were referring to what she said not what she actually did.
Speaking of new news... Anyone seen the new designers that are going to save Elemental Scraps? They should have kept the old ones who left. If this was the best of who applied, I shudder to think of the worst.
Speaking of new news... Anyone seen the new designers that are going to save Elemental Scraps? They should have kept the old ones who left. If this was the best of who applied, I shudder to think of the worst. July 12, 2010 11:03 PM
I can't believe there is a thread at DST about how 'great' Royanna is.
I did not say a 'new' thread. It is on the first page in the scrap talk section so it's not like its pages back and lost in oblivion.
Your snarkiness was that it wasn't a love fest, but I show you how it was and you change to your snarkiness being because it was a thread started in June. Pick your snark and stand by it girl :P
Speaking of new news... Anyone seen the new designers that are going to save Elemental Scraps? They should have kept the old ones who left. If this was the best of who applied, I shudder to think of the worst.
Who are they? They are so unremarkable that when I look at their designer list I don't even really know what changed. Or have they not opened yet?
I can't believe there is a thread at DST about how 'great' Royanna is.
I did not say a 'new' thread. It is on the first page in the scrap talk section so it's not like its pages back and lost in oblivion. -------
No, you did not specifically say that it was new. However, in light of the conversation about Divine Digital finally being back up and then you post this, you inferred it was new.
The beauty of snark is that I can apply it when and where I want.
Ironically, some of the ones who left went to Funky Playground Designs which also requires exclusivity (they are allowed 1 other store max).
What ES did was "exclusivity with a 'twist'" ... which is basically, 'if we are afraid to lose you because your sales are high, we won't apply the same rules to you.'
I'm not surprised a bunch of designers left. I would have.
The ES designers that stayed seem to fall into two groups. The money makers that the new rules don't apply to (Conne Prince, ChrissyW & Bella Gypsy) and the one's that are crappy and have nowhere else to go.
What's up with Polka Dot Plum? Their designers seem to be leaving left and right too.
Love this comment about the thread in the lovefest for Royanna:
After two months of PURE TORTURE....We have OVERCOME!!!! Divine Digital has been ressurrected!
Seriously? Pure torture? What a load of crap. Royanna's not a saint--not by a long shot--and the idea that being without a store is "torture" is laughable (at best). The only part that was maybe torture was that Royanna wasn't able to pull a scam on unsuspecting customers for two months!
The ES designers that stayed seem to fall into two groups. The money makers that the new rules don't apply to (Conne Prince, ChrissyW & Bella Gypsy) and the one's that are crappy and have nowhere else to go.
What's up with Polka Dot Plum? Their designers seem to be leaving left and right too. July 13, 2010 1:12 PM
----------------------
There are a couple more on that list who sell at multiple stores, so I suspect they must be exempt, too (Sherri Tierney and JennCk Designs come to mind).
Did anyone find out the 'exclusive with a twist' requirements? I'm dying to know.
Polka Dot Plum is just like all the other stores that try this 'exclusive' crap - they fail. All talk, no customers.
I like to think that most customers fall into the same category that I used to fall into. They shop and buy what they like and care less than .0000001 percent about how "popular" or "exclusive" a designer is. I used to have a style that I liked and shopped around that style, just like when I buy a shirt or a pair of shoes. Other than that, I couldn't tell you designer names or what store they sold out of.
I long for the days of being a naive regular customer just looking to scrap a page. Today, I have seen far too large designer egos being huffed and puffed as if they're god's gift to digital design, which has almost completely turned me off to buying anything anymore. I hate it when I see a designer describing their product or skills as superior. *vomit*
I can't imagine JennCK reading the 'target' sales level required to have multiple stores, as she is brand new to designing and has diluted herself across so many stores it's absurd. The fact that they have let her stay shows that it really is just the owner playing favourites.
I can't imagine JennCK reading the 'target' sales level required to have multiple stores, as she is brand new to designing and has diluted herself across so many stores it's absurd. The fact that they have let her stay shows that it really is just the owner playing favourites. July 13, 2010 5:26 PM
I just looked her up and she has two stores? How is that diluted? And if she is at stores like Elemental Scraps and Scrapbook Bytes, it sounds like she has traded up and left lower performing stores - which all the designers do.
A couple of the 'money makers' listed have tons of stores - Connie Prince has 4 and Bella Bitchy has 3.
I can't imagine JennCK reading the 'target' sales level required to have multiple stores, as she is brand new to designing and has diluted herself across so many stores it's absurd. The fact that they have let her stay shows that it really is just the owner playing favourites.
July 13, 2010 5:26 PM -------------------------------------
I don't think it's a matter of "letting" anyone stay. The new changes don't begin until September from what I've heard.
JennCK must have pared it down, because she used to be at at least 2 other stores (Inspiration Lane and SUN). I actually stopped looking at her stuff and at her blog because I was sick of seeing her all over the place. So I missed that she left the other two. I take back my 'diluted' comment with apologies to JennCK, but I don't think she is even CLOSE to being like Connie Prince or Bella Gypsy (is she bitchy? I've never chatted with her).
Polka Dot Plum is just like all the other stores that try this 'exclusive' crap - they fail. All talk, no customers.
I find it really interesting that they were more well-known before they went exclusive than they have been since they made the change. Their forum is practically dead except for team members. So much for everyone who insists exclusivity works.
I find it really interesting that they were more well-known before they went exclusive than they have been since they made the change. Their forum is practically dead except for team members. So much for everyone who insists exclusivity works.
JennCK, but I don't think she is even CLOSE to being like Connie Prince or Bella Gypsy (is she bitchy? I've never chatted with her).
July 13, 2010 6:09 PM
--------
Close in what way? I just checked the products of all three and they all look the same. In fact, they look so much the same, I thought I had clicked the same designer each time.
JennCK must have pared it down, because she used to be at at least 2 other stores (Inspiration Lane and SUN). I actually stopped looking at her stuff and at her blog because I was sick of seeing her all over the place. So I missed that she left the other two. I take back my 'diluted' comment with apologies to JennCK, but I don't think she is even CLOSE to being like Connie Prince or Bella Gypsy (is she bitchy? I've never chatted with her). July 13, 2010 6:09 PM
You'd really hold it against someone for leaving SUN and Inspiration Lane? I'd say those were smart moves especially since I agree with the other poster that she did trade up. Didn't SUN go exclusive anyway? That really helped them. -eye roll-
I wouldn't think a new designer could be anywhere near in sales as someone designing for 3-4 years like Connie Prince who is also in 100 stores. Seems odd to expect it.
I don't know if Bella Gypsy are bitchy, but I do know they are two sisters and not one person. Share the gossip!
Close in what way? I just checked the products of all three and they all look the same. In fact, they look so much the same, I thought I had clicked the same designer each time.
Sorry I meant close in hitting whatever bizarre sales targets ES has in place. Shes just too new for that.
Close in style, yes. Also close in using the same CU over and over again, and pumping out kit after kit after kit that all look the same.
You'd really hold it against someone for leaving SUN and Inspiration Lane? I'd say those were smart moves especially since I agree with the other poster that she did trade up. Didn't SUN go exclusive anyway? That really helped them. -eye roll-
Oh no I don't hold that against her at all. I said I stopped following her when she opened her 4th store and therefore lost track of the fact that she had left SUN and IL. So my 'diluted' comment was unfounded and I retracted it and apologized.
I actually applaud her for leaving both of those stores.
I don't really hold anything against her, I just don't thinks she is selling at the level Connie Prince sells at. The fact that she is still at ES and to required to be exclusive causes me to believe that the 'with a twist' part of the ES required exclusivity really means 'unless we like you a lot.'
polka dot plum is not exclusive....sir scrap alot is at multiple stores
They do not require exclusivity of designers, but they do require products to be exclusive. You still see some products in the store that are available elsewhere because they were grandfathered when the store changed it's rules.
Kudos to them for that - grandfathering is the right way to do things when you change a contract on people.
That being said, I can't find a single thing there I'd buy. They had a free collab for NSD that was just awful.
Perhaps their lack of business has nothing to do with the exclusivity and everything to do with largely awful designers (with a few exceptions).
Tabatha is a cow and a pirate. The reason she left the digi design scene a few years back was because she got caught.
Seriously? I had no idea - I'm so new to the community. I have bought a lot of their templates ... now I am wondering if I should stop supporting them. What went down?
To be honest, I can't remember all the details, just that Tabatha got caught. It had nothing to do with Lena. It really was a long time ago, about three or fours back now.
I never knew that about Tabatha, either. Wow. The things you learn.
Say what you like about JennCK, but I worked with her at a store once. She was always the first to sign-up for site extras and the first one to help another designer. She was always on-time with everything and never whined about workload or anything. She engages customers and thanks them for every purchase (I still buy her templates). She'll tell you how it is - to your face - without talking behind your back.
I'd rather see someone like that sell like crazy than some of these whiney, lazy designers who just take up space in a store.
I really don't have anything bad to say about JennCK - my comment was more about the 'twist' at ES than JennCK herself. I don't actually know her at all. I just don't think she is selling at the same rate as people like Connie Prince and Bella Gypsy.
JennCK if you are reading, please accept my apologies as I wasn't trying to drag you down so much as make further comment about the slimy ES 'exclusive with a twist' setup.
Seriously? I had no idea - I'm so new to the community. I have bought a lot of their templates ... now I am wondering if I should stop supporting them. What went down?
Since you are new let me remind you that this is a smak blog and anything you read here you should take with a grain of salt. Most of the stuff here borders on possibly having some truth behind it to being totally rediculous and untrue. You have to learn to read between the lines. Many have just a bone to pick and would like you to believe that everyone mentioned is stupid, a bitch, can't design worth two hoots, etc.....need I go on!!!
I REALLY don't get why designers do the whole buy my store thing?
Why sell your store for such a tiny price, cutting incentive for customers to come back for more of your designs and selling your work for a fraction of what it is worth.
Deals like that just don't make sense to me unless you are going out of business or you are that desperate for money that you don't care what effect it has on your future sales.
Since people will be clicking that Joyce Paul link, anyway -- does anybody know the name of the font on the Wildflowers collab with Nicole Seitler? The title Wildflowers is written in it.
I REALLY don't get why designers do the whole buy my store thing?
She doesn't have much in her store. 3 pages of kits is nothing for a store so that kind of tells me that she isn't selling and is hoping to sell her store a few times to at least say she's selling.
Devient Scraps..not my style but some may like it. I see some talent there but also some who claim to have talent but just use extracted images.No talent in that. Someday maybe so called designers will realize that you can't just pluck any image you damn well please off google image search, extract it and then proceed to throw it in a kit or sell in for CU. (sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine)I don't call that designing.
What do you all think about Deviant Scraps? I like realistic elements, so I like the store. but I find their forums to be really cliquish.
July 15, 2010 12:53 PM ------
Not cliquish at all. If you look, you will see that every new member has been welcomed and encouraged to post. Cliquish to me is when no one welcomes you and or even bothers to look at your gallery.
Devient Scraps..not my style but some may like it. I see some talent there but also some who claim to have talent but just use extracted images.No talent in that. Someday maybe so called designers will realize that you can't just pluck any image you damn well please off google image search, extract it and then proceed to throw it in a kit or sell in for CU. (sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine)I don't call that designing.
July 15, 2010 2:00 PM =======
Who at Deviant Scraps does that? No one does that. If someone does, throw out a name, not just accusations. The designers at DS don't even sell CU! Damn, I hate when people make pointless accusations (it's a pet peeve of mine)
Devient Scraps..not my style but some may like it. I see some talent there but also some who claim to have talent but just use extracted images.No talent in that. Someday maybe so called designers will realize that you can't just pluck any image you damn well please off google image search, extract it and then proceed to throw it in a kit or sell in for CU. (sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine)I don't call that designing.
July 15, 2010 2:00 PM ^^^^^ 'DevIEnt' scraps? What the hell are you trying to say there? If you can't fucking spell then don't fucking post. (pet peeve of mine) I don't call that anything but ignorant. If you're going to complain then give an example dumbass.
^^^^^^^^ you must be the "welcoming" committee and spelling police at deviant scraps...sounds welcoming huh? ha makes me want to rush over and meet you perhaps some more warm fuzzies?
Dayummm! Take a chill pill. All that was said was, "Someday maybe so called designers will realize that you can't just pluck any image you damn well please off google image search, extract it and then proceed to throw it in a kit or sell in for CU."
"you must be the "welcoming" committee and spelling police at deviant scraps...sounds welcoming huh? ha makes me want to rush over and meet you perhaps some more warm fuzzies?"
Devient Scraps..not my style but some may like it. I see some talent there but also some who claim to have talent but just use extracted images.No talent in that. Someday maybe so called designers will realize that you can't just pluck any image you damn well please off google image search, extract it and then proceed to throw it in a kit or sell in for CU. (sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine)I don't call that designing.
July 15, 2010 2:00 PM ^^^^^ 'DevIEnt' scraps? What the hell are you trying to say there? If you can't fucking spell then don't fucking post. (pet peeve of mine) I don't call that anything but ignorant. If you're going to complain then give an example dumbass. --------------------- Geez, who pissed in your cheerios this morning? Perhaps it was a typo?
Dayummm! Take a chill pill. All that was said was, "Someday maybe so called designers will realize that you can't just pluck any image you damn well please off google image search, extract it and then proceed to throw it in a kit or sell in for CU."
I don't see DeviantScrap mentioned at all.
--------
She put that in the same paragraph as Deviant Scraps, so yes, she mentioned Deviant Scraps.
OMG, just went to the shabby pickle and can't believe how much almost everything new looks exactly alike, with just slight color differences. Exact same types of backgrounds in every single kit. Mostly one color or with gradient, no design other than darkened edges and maybe some sparkles or grunge. All the elements look the same to me: extracted leaves and other assorted mish-mash. Does everyone who goes into that store turn into look-alike assembly-line designers, or do they start out that way and just congregate there?
I guess I haven't done much digi-shopping in a while. please tell me it doesn't look like that everywhere? (maybe that explains why I haven't shopped!)
^^^^^^^^ you must be the "welcoming" committee and spelling police at deviant scraps...sounds welcoming huh? ha makes me want to rush over and meet you perhaps some more warm fuzzies?
July 15, 2010 9:26 PM
------------
What makes you think they even go there? Big assumption. Up to you if you go there or not but if you judge that site or any site by this blog, then you are doing yourself a disservice. Check them out for yourself, don't form opinions by the crap that's spewed on this blog.
guess I haven't done much digi-shopping in a while. please tell me it doesn't look like that everywhere? (maybe that explains why I haven't shopped!)
July 15, 2010 11:02 PM ----------
Sadly, it does. The designers that go to A5D, all started to look alike. The designers at SP did too. I hated it when Kasia and Holly changed their style to suit what the others were pumping out. I stopped shopping there. It's nice to see that Kasia has gone back to some of her old style and I'm hoping that Holly will too, now that's she left.
The designers that join SSD all start to look alike, so do the designers at the LilyPad. I guess the site owners are all looking for a certain style but when it all starts to look the same, there's a problem.
EW, this is without a doubt the creepiest and ugliest kit I have ever seen looks like some kind of alien babies http://www.shabbypickledesigns.com/boutique/product.php?productid=18770&cat=264
What makes you think they even go there? Big assumption. Up to you if you go there or not but if you judge that site or any site by this blog, then you are doing yourself a disservice. Check them out for yourself, don't form opinions by the crap that's spewed on this blog. _____________________
If they don't go to Deviant Scraps then why the hell are they cussing everybody out?
The op said they felt the forums were a clique-ish bunch.
The responses here from zealous CT members aren't doing them any favors.
^^^ ditto ... i'd never go based on the welcoming committee. you can tell a lot about the kinda store they run by the people who go there. just saying.
^^^ ditto ... i'd never go based on the welcoming committee. you can tell a lot about the kinda store they run by the people who go there. just saying.
July 15, 2010 11:52 PM ---------
How would you know if you haven't been there? Has it occurred to you that the so called supporters may just be trolls trying to smear DS? No, it probably hasn't. Just saying.
How do you know they are zealous CT members? You don't, you are just assuming. It's a dangerous thing to assume. _______________________
I'd say it's a pretty safe assumption since they are going balls to the walls defending the store.
Either way, zealous CT or zealous designers or zealous customers; foaming at the mouth b/c someone expresses an opinion that is different from their own sets a bad taste.
Like I said before, it's not doing them any favors
How would you know if you haven't been there? Has it occurred to you that the so called supporters may just be trolls trying to smear DS? No, it probably hasn't. Just saying. _______________________
Ever hear of Occam's Razor, genius? This isn't the first time people who are associated w/ that store have let loose in here. Just saying.
Either way, zealous CT or zealous designers or zealous customers; foaming at the mouth b/c someone expresses an opinion that is different from their own sets a bad taste. -------
Wrong, actually. The one person who wasn't sure about the place was advised to check it out anyway.
The rest of the crap was because someone said that the designers at DS were just extracting images from off the net, or the implied that was the case.
Occam's razor? Really? You had nothing better to say?
OMG that baby kit is terrifying. She took a bunch of random fetus/baby/pregnancy images and bronzed them. Like keeping baby's first pair of shoes, but a whole lot creepier.
The CT layouts are disturbing too - the first one is OK, but the other ones are all about disembodied and/or floating moms and babies.
Too bad I decided to look at that before heading to sleep .. it's gonna give me nightmares ... disembodied bronzed partially formed babies with alien eyes...
The designers that join SSD all start to look alike, so do the designers at the LilyPad. I guess the site owners are all looking for a certain style but when it all starts to look the same, there's a problem.
VERY TRUE and I TOTALLY AGREE! They might as well just take their individual names off the products. I like old standards as much as anyone else, they have their place. But NOTHING ever jumps out at me from SSD or TLP and makes me want to buy.
Did you check out the alpha for the pregnancy kit? It has sperm swimming towards the alpha, which looks like a woman's uterus. Yikes, so does one of the papers. Don't know whether to laugh or vomit.
Deviant Scraps peep or peeps--get over yourselves. You might want to go get a rabies shot. You're a little overboard.
I don't ever comment on a kit here. If I like I buy it or tell others I like it. That said, I agree with other posters concerning the pregnancy kit this time. The description says that it could be used for a personal layout or dealing with grief, maybe a layout you didn't want to share with others. That's not a kit that I would use for personal healing either.
'DevIEnt' scraps? What the hell are you trying to say there? If you can't fucking spell then don't fucking post. (pet peeve of mine) ........ Yeah ... ITA. It's easy to remember how to spell it. It's a rip off of Deviant Art. I wonder if Deviant ART knows that Deviant SCRAPS is piggy-backing off their name. for a store that claims to be original, it's not very.
If using the term DEVIANT is "piggybacking" on other stores then I guess all stores with DIGITAL, DIGI or ELEMENTS in the name are all piggybacking too. Get a grip!
Since people will be clicking that Joyce Paul link, anyway -- does anybody know the name of the font on the Wildflowers collab with Nicole Seitler? The title Wildflowers is written in it.
If using the term DEVIANT is "piggybacking" on other stores then I guess all stores with DIGITAL, DIGI or ELEMENTS in the name are all piggybacking too. ---------
The description says that it could be used for a personal layout or dealing with grief, maybe a layout you didn't want to share with others. That's not a kit that I would use for personal healing either.
July 16, 2010 4:50 PM
---------
Except for the babies, there's nothing wrong with the kit. Some of you should get over yourselves.
If using the term DEVIANT is "piggybacking" on other stores then I guess all stores with DIGITAL, DIGI or ELEMENTS in the name are all piggybacking too. Get a grip! .........
are you kidding me? are you for real? digital/digi/elements, they all explain the type of products and actual products they sell. it makes sense to include those names. deviant, on the other hand says what? deviant ART was original, deviant SCRAP, it's totally unoriginal, borderline intellectual theft. they even have daily deviations, just like the original. i mean, come on! for real?
deviant ART was original, deviant SCRAP, it's totally unoriginal, borderline intellectual theft. they even have daily deviations, just like the original. i mean, come on! for real?
Ya it was a pretty ballsy move, which caused me to not ever even click on the site, nor will I ever do so. Not only are they piggybacking on the name, they are piggybacking on the branding ... cool, unique, artsy ... and maybe they are over there, I'll never know, but even if they are they should still have done their own branding.
branding ... cool, unique, artsy ... ------- Yeah, coz nothing in the world before the creation of Deviant Art had that particular branding *rolls eyes*
deviant, on the other hand says what? deviant ART was original, deviant SCRAP, it's totally unoriginal, borderline intellectual theft. July 16, 2010 9:41 PM ----------
Are you for real? The term deviant art was coined long before Deviant Art came around.
Definition of deviant is Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society. So, are you saying they shouldn't use the word deviant because it doesn't suit you?
they even have daily deviations, just like the original. i mean, come on! for real? ====================
Did you actually check out what the daily deviations are? They are just product announcements. It has nothing in common with the daily deviation at DA, except the name, which, I can assure you, is not unique to DA.
It's just another CU pack. There are gazillions of pointless and downright ugly things out there for sale.
What's pointless is putting her TOU in the product description and doing it without any formatting or clear separation from the actual product description. Well, maybe not pointless but truly annoying.
did the SPD designers ever get paid? I see they have a couple unsuspecting new ones. *************************** The majority of the designers did not get paid for May, especially those with the higher sales. That was an important month to many since it included iNSD sales.
For me it is a proof that digiscrap is not a real craft, just an extracted/recolored version of other crafts! LOL! __________________________ Precisely. Overrated, over-priced, over-hyped, scrap-booking lookalike clip-art.
Okay I know she said "If it bothers you, please ignore this thread." But isn't it enough already? Why do some people need to label themselves (and others) so much?!?
did the SPD designers ever get paid? I see they have a couple unsuspecting new ones. ***************************
The majority of the designers did not get paid for May, especially those with the higher sales. That was an important month to many since it included iNSD sales. ***************************
How pathetic and dishonest, I'm surprised that store is still in business, who would sell there? Money was stolen, oh really? How exactly? And how is it the designers fault if the money was stolen? What an amazing coincidence that it happened to be that month.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If designers have not been paid for May, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more of a stink about it. I'm not buying the "money was stolen" story. That card has been played before.
Besides, do I want to trust a store that has bad security? If they can't safeguard their funds, how do I have any confidence that they safeguarding customer information?
well, I just contacted china and they are not amused...according to china's tou you can not use any of their merchandise as a resell. why can't you just contact the country before you spew out your pie hole?
If designers have not been paid for May, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more of a stink about it. I'm not buying the "money was stolen" story. That card has been played before.
Besides, do I want to trust a store that has bad security? If they can't safeguard their funds, how do I have any confidence that they safeguarding customer information? ***************** That is an excellent point. I am surprised that they are still in business too. It looks like Laura may just get away with this though.
^^^^ Or it may not be true. The fact that nothing has been heard about it except on this blog, makes me think that someone may just be causing trouble.
Or it may not be true. The fact that nothing has been heard about it except on this blog, makes me think that someone may just be causing trouble. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If you are referring to Shabby Pickle it is absolutely true that many of the designers did not receive their money for the month of May. The owner claims that the money was mysteriously diverted before it ever reached Paypal. I am sure you must have noticed that many of the designers left all at once and that is why.
I noticed the designers left. Where was it posted that money was diverted? +++++++++++++++ I know it was posted in the SPD forum and I know one of the designers came to this forum and asked what she should do about not getting paid.
I am just an average scrapper, not a designer. I am not active on any CT's, although I have been in the past. I am not active in any "scrapbook community", I don't post on the message boards, and I don't post my layouts online anymore. I read the Digi boards for entertainment, and am constantly amazed at what people share on the internet. I freely admit to reading the scrapbook smack blogs, it is a guilty pleasure.
You can email me at: DSTHallofFame@gmail.com
1,657 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 of 1657 Newer› Newest»LOL never. Personally, I'd much rather scrap with extracted items than the preshadowed rubbish at that store.
I really love Nicole Young's stuff there. Although I would rather it not be shadowed just because of the fact that if you flip or rotate something, the shadowing is then entirely off. It really does limit ones creative use of the kit. If they would just stop shadowing I would gladly shop there more often.
me too
me three
I really love Nicole Young's stuff there. Although I would rather it not be shadowed just because of the fact that if you flip or rotate something, the shadowing is then entirely off. It really does limit ones creative use of the kit. If they would just stop shadowing I would gladly shop there more often.
July 9, 2010 7:07 PM
--------------------
I agree, Nicole's stuff rocks, I also really like Suzanne Walkers. Lauren Bavin does some stunning work, and Robyn Gough has a elegant but grungy style which I love also.
The shadows don't bother me, they are easy enough to remove if I need to rotate, but often you can just flip as well as rotate and that does the trick. The shadow removal doesn't have to be perfect when the element is in front of a paper (just needs to look right), and then you can just add your own.
Having the shadows already there, makes it so quick to make layouts and it is a rare occasion I need to worry about removing them.
I think it is a shame you avoid shopping at DSP just because of silly shadows, you are missing out on some gorgeous designs.
That place has nothing but garbage. Overpriced garbage at that. How could that possibly be a good career move?
July 9, 2010 9:36 AM
-------------
The world doesn't revolve around you and your shopping habits. Just because you don't shop there, and neither do I actually, doesn't mean lots of others don't
And here we go again....does this argument ever get old?!!!
July 9, 2010 7:02 PM
-------
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when everyone was going on about the garbage DSP spews out and how can anyone sell there, instead of somewhere else. Both arguments are old.
Although I would rather it not be shadowed just because of the fact that if you flip or rotate something, the shadowing is then entirely off. It really does limit ones creative use of the kit. If they would just stop shadowing I would gladly shop there more often.
July 9, 2010 7:07 PM
------
So, just change the shadows you can change so they match the existing ones. There's a thought.
If I pay for a kit I don't want to have to tinker with everything to be able to use it. I don't want to have to work around elements to make it look ok, what a waste of time and money.
Er, if you have to put shadows on non shadowed elements, how's that tinkering?
If I pay for a kit I don't want to have to tinker with everything to be able to use it. I don't want to have to work around elements to make it look ok, what a waste of time and money.
July 9, 2010 8:27 PM
----------------------------------
It is actually a lot more work to have to put shadows on EVERYTHING than to have to edit the occasional shadow on something you specifically need to rotate. Most of the time you don't even have to edit the shadow, flipping after a rotate will often do the trick.
7:35 Elegant? Stunning? (Actually "some stunning") Have you taken a close look at these items? Did you not notice the blurriness? The stamps that get dragged and stuttered across to make the papers? The edges with a 20 px feather? The Filter Forge fills?
ROTFL. Nope, the argument never gets old!
7:35 Elegant? Stunning? (Actually "some stunning") Have you taken a close look at these items? Did you not notice the blurriness? The stamps that get dragged and stuttered across to make the papers? The edges with a 20 px feather? The Filter Forge fills?
ROTFL. Nope, the argument never gets old!
July 9, 2010 9:28 PM
-------------------------------------
Have you actually bought from there???
None of the stuff I have from DSP is anything but perfectly sharp and high quality.
Filter Forge? Who the hell cares???
I've never looked at DSP before, so I just checked over there. Yuck! I guess it's all a matter of taste, but I would never buy any of the crap I just saw, shadows or no shadows.
I've never looked at DSP before, so I just checked over there. Yuck! I guess it's all a matter of taste, but I would never buy any of the crap I just saw, shadows or no shadows.
July 9, 2010 11:03 PM
---------------------------------
Well I guess it is all a matter of taste, but crap it is not.
two of the designers kate CTs for were designers at Digital Candy when she and her husband owned the site. must have been two of the designers that actually got paid. hm.
One of them she was CTing with when the store was up, and that designer kept her on ever since - even as CT manager at one point (may still be, I actually stopped looking because it makes me ill).
I'm guessing it Rick and Kate payed anyone, they'd pay the designer who Kate was CTing for, so they could say 'we paid everyone, just like we paid you' and then have someone on their side.
I do not understand why a designer would believe that every other designer saying Rick and Kate didn't pay them was lying - and instead believe Kate, the pirate caught red handed who didn't even bother to defend herself and instead abandoned her site.
I don't see what's so special about DSP either but, again, it's just a matter of taste. Making something "quality" as in not blurry, no strays, etcetera, is mind-numbingly easy. Making something "quality" in the subjective term is just that, subjective.
BTW, I thought designers over there at DSP weren't allowed to use CU products? I might have misread that somewhere, though.
BTW, I thought designers over there at DSP weren't allowed to use CU products? I might have misread that somewhere, though.
July 10, 2010 12:21 PM
-------------------------------------
They don't use CU products, they can use plugins tho.
Why is it garbage? The designers there actually design instead of compiling scrappy scanned elements. They have more talent in one pinky than the vast majority of designers 'designing' now.
July 9, 2010 6:18 PM
--------------
Wake up call! It's not about having talent anymore, it's about what sells. A lot of designers "compiling scrappy scanned elements" are very successful. I know a bunch who make a few thousands per month and they make kits made of 100% CU.
I'll admit that I am new to digi-scrap and started around the time the Amanda Dyken saga broke. But what I saw and read was a lot of blaming of Kate when it finally came out that she did not know who LilyAnne Taylor was. And I am confused about this whole caught red-handed stealing thing. You are all accussing her of it and offering no proof. And she was not a designer, correct? So what was she stealing CU stuff for?? I am not arguing or saying anything you all have said is inaccurate. I am just saying proof would be nice, because not only is Kate being drug through the mud again, you have now involved other designers who she CT's for, hinting at some possible impropriety there. That is extremely dangerous ground to tread.
Wake up call! It's not about having talent anymore, it's about what sells. A lot of designers "compiling scrappy scanned elements" are very successful. I know a bunch who make a few thousands per month and they make kits made of 100% CU.
July 10, 2010 11:41 PM
-------------------------------------
I call bullshit, no-one who's kits look like everyone elses could be making that kind of money. Doesn't make a speck of sense.
And I am confused about this whole caught red-handed stealing thing. You are all accussing her of it and offering no proof. And she was not a designer, correct? So what was she stealing CU stuff for?? I am not arguing or saying anything you all have said is inaccurate. I am just saying proof would be nice, because not only is Kate being drug through the mud again, you have now involved other designers who she CT's for, hinting at some possible impropriety there. That is extremely dangerous ground to tread.
July 11, 2010 12:23 AM
-----------
She admitted to taking the CU items. If I can be bothered, I'll even go and look it up for you.
Here you go:
http://digiscrapaddicts.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19034&postcount=99
Wake up call! It's not about having talent anymore, it's about what sells. A lot of designers "compiling scrappy scanned elements" are very successful. I know a bunch who make a few thousands per month and they make kits made of 100% CU.
July 10, 2010 11:41 PM
-------------------------------------
I call bullshit, no-one who's kits look like everyone elses could be making that kind of money. Doesn't make a speck of sense.
July 11, 2010 12:49 AM
-----------------
But they do! They make about 10 kits per month (it's quick too just repack a bunch of CU) and then sell them at ridiculous prices.
But they do! They make about 10 kits per month (it's quick too just repack a bunch of CU) and then sell them at ridiculous prices.
July 11, 2010 3:04 AM
---------------------------
Yeah and I bet they make a fortune with all those CU products they have to buy to 'make' every item in those kits. Talk about ridiculous!
They don't use CU products, they can use plugins tho.
____________________
if you say so.
She admitted to taking the CU items. If I can be bothered, I'll even go and look it up for you.
Here you go:
http://digiscrapaddicts.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19034&postcount=99
July 11, 2010 2:29 AM
**********************************
Ok, yes I see that SHE admitted to taking a flower. So I agree it is likely she took more. But I do not see that she admitted to "stealing" or that she admitted to items in plural. You can argue that it is semantics, but again all I am saying is that FACTS are nice.
Is it likely she lied and if she stole one CU item then she probably stole more? Of course. But you know what they say about assumptions. You told me that link showed that "She admitted to taking the CU items" and in fact she admitted no such thing. Again, I do not believe the accident or that she borrowed it, BUT, she herself did not admit to stealing anything.
But I am quickly realizing here that everyone is just guilty and no one cares what is really said or what the truth might be.
But they do! They make about 10 kits per month (it's quick too just repack a bunch of CU) and then sell them at ridiculous prices.
July 11, 2010 3:04 AM
---------------------------
Yeah and I bet they make a fortune with all those CU products they have to buy to 'make' every item in those kits. Talk about ridiculous!
July 11, 2010 3:45 AM
------------------------------
Are you SERIOUSLY arguing this?? Do you KNOW that people don't make thousands this way?? I can think of two designers who don't spend loads of $$$ on CU because every kit has the same flowers, buttons, ribbons, and other standard items, just recolored over and over and over again. And they both sell at multiple stores, making boatloads of cash, based on the number of people posting with their kits, who do not CT for them. Clearly you just want to tell people they are wrong.
I think the biggest red flag with Kate is how she ran away from her site. Innocent people just don't do that.
An honestly, is it OK to take even 'one' CU item from designers at your store? I don't think so.
If you read that entire threat at DSA - at first Kate and Rick defend Kate ... until people start asking more questions and saying that their answers just don't add up .. at which point they abandoned their site and that thread. I repeat - Innocent people just don't do that.
They also did not pay at least some of their designers their final payout.
As for dragging Kate through the mud again - she had no business trying to come back into the community under a different username. And then to go and actually CT for designers - that is HER putting their good name at risk, not anyone on this blog.
But given how self centered she proved herself to be, it's not really a surprise she didn't think about how she would impact those designers by being on their CT.
And how would she impact those designers's good name by being on their CT?
It's not like she can hurt other people by being on someone's CT, is it? If she happens to steal from the designers again (use their products she gets from CTing for something else) then it's only the designers that were hurt. In that case they have no one else to blame but themselves. Especially when you said the ones Kate CTs for are designers from Digital Candy, then they must be willing to take the risk.
Are you SERIOUSLY arguing this?? Do you KNOW that people don't make thousands this way?? I can think of two designers who don't spend loads of $$$ on CU because every kit has the same flowers, buttons, ribbons, and other standard items, just recolored over and over and over again. And they both sell at multiple stores, making boatloads of cash, based on the number of people posting with their kits, who do not CT for them. Clearly you just want to tell people they are wrong.
July 11, 2010 9:10 AM
---------------------------------
Are you even listening to yourself? Do you really think people would buy kits over and over again with the same recoloured elements in them? You don't think people would get sick of buying the same stuff in different kits?
It seems to me your assumptions are not based on fact but what you assume to be the truth, but your truth simply doesn't make sense.
You told me that link showed that "She admitted to taking the CU items" and in fact she admitted no such thing. Again, I do not believe the accident or that she borrowed it, BUT, she herself did not admit to stealing anything.
But I am quickly realizing here that everyone is just guilty and no one cares what is really said or what the truth might be.
July 11, 2010 9:05 AM
----------
She did admit to taking the flower, by accident. Please, get the heck over yourself. Don't lump me in with the everyone is guilty. I never said she admitted to stealing, I said she admitted to taking it.
I haven't been able to find where it says what Kate is using as her username now. Could someone enlighten me, please?
Are you SERIOUSLY arguing this?? Do you KNOW that people don't make thousands this way?? I can think of two designers who don't spend loads of $$$ on CU because every kit has the same flowers, buttons, ribbons, and other standard items, just recolored over and over and over again. And they both sell at multiple stores, making boatloads of cash, based on the number of people posting with their kits, who do not CT for them. Clearly you just want to tell people they are wrong.
-----------------
Fine, I'll bite. Who is it? Or is it some "hypothetical situation".
Are you even listening to yourself? Do you really think people would buy kits over and over again with the same recoloured elements in them? You don't think people would get sick of buying the same stuff in different kits?
It seems to me your assumptions are not based on fact but what you assume to be the truth, but your truth simply doesn't make sense.
July 11, 2010 5:31 PM
----------------------------------
Fine, I'll bite. Who is it? Or is it some "hypothetical situation".
July 11, 2010 7:47 PM
----------------------------------
OMG the arrogance of all of you here is insane. You think I am making this up? Fine. Check out Connie Prince. Tell me how she is so successful using the same flowers, buttons, string, ribbon, and other CU items in every kit. I am not in any way slandering her, she has a successful business, her kits are cute, and people love her. But before you act like I am this huge liar, go look at her kits at any one of her four stores and judge for yourself.
OMG the arrogance of all of you here is insane. You think I am making this up? F
---------
All of us? Talk about arrogant. I don't see ALL of us arguing with you. I see two maybe three people arguing with you. I'm not sure how that translates to all of us, but go ahead, keep thinking it's everyone that's against you. What an ego.
Because someone said they didn't see where this is posted - this is from the previous page of comments:
On a totally different topic - the digi world needs to know that this woman is the Kate who once owned Digital Candy and abandoned it amid rampant accusations associating her with Amanda Dykan, as well as her unauthorized use of CU items from designers in her store.
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/2485185-post9.html
I am sickened to see her getting more and more involved in the digital community (under a different username of course).
For details you can read this old thread at DST:
http://digiscrapaddicts.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1942&highlight=digital+candy
I never said she admitted to stealing, I said she admitted to taking it.
That is the difference?
And how would she impact those designers's good name by being on their CT?
It's not like she can hurt other people by being on someone's CT, is it? If she happens to steal from the designers again (use their products she gets from CTing for something else) then it's only the designers that were hurt. In that case they have no one else to blame but themselves. Especially when you said the ones Kate CTs for are designers from Digital Candy, then they must be willing to take the risk.
There are designers who were at Digital Candy who are still so angry and hurt by Kate that they won't even say the site name. I can't even fathom why the two designers she CTs for who were at DC want to have anything to do with her, so I can only guess that she strategically paid a few so she could make an argument that she paid and have people back her up.
Someone else said that but dragging Kate's name through the mud we were impacting the designers she CTs for - simply by them being associated with Kate. My reply was if that is true, then it was Kate who put them at risk, not anyone on this blog.
I never said she admitted to stealing, I said she admitted to taking it.
That is the difference?
^^^
Oops I meant Wat is the difference.
I never said she admitted to stealing, I said she admitted to taking it.
That is the difference?
^^^
Oops I meant Wat is the difference.
July 11, 2010 10:42 PM
-------
Are you kidding? There's a huge difference between taking and stealing. If you took the cookie, it doesn't mean you stole the cookie, does it?
OK then to be clear - she admitted that she took it WITHOUT PERMISSION.
So not at all like just taking a cookie.
^^^
It is if you took the cookie without permission.
Some store owners have an agreement with the designers that they can use the stuff sold in their store for their own personal use. That does not mean in any way that the store owner can take CU stuff and use it in items they then sell themselves. It was this scenario that Kate abused. I don't see how she could "accidentally" use any of the CU stuff being sold in her store by other designers. It's nothing more than BS.
And how would she impact those designers's good name by being on their CT?
___________________________
To me, if a designer is willing to allow somebody so unethical to be on their team, it says a lot about that designers own ethics.
I will not frequent the stores of desiners that have taken her (or anybody else with such a bad reputation) on.
I agree Kate's explanation that she accidentally used it was BS. She obviously knew that because she didn't even stand behind it, she just disappeared.
The fact that she started to explain one flower, when one of the designers was talking about another flower altogether is also suspicious.
What usernames is Kate going by in forums? Anyone know?
Are you kidding? There's a huge difference between taking and stealing. If you took the cookie, it doesn't mean you stole the cookie, does it?
___________________
LOL are you serious? *face palm* If the person at the store handed you the cookie and said, "Here, enjoy this free cookie," then no, you didn't steal it. If you took that cookie without anyone seeing you and said cookie was inside of a package of cookies for sale on the shelf and then you walked out the door without paying and just secretly shoved the thing down your gullet, YES. You stole the cookie.
Kate secretly shoved the cookie down her pie hole and hoped no one would catch her.
From the front page of the Divine site: "After two devistating and horrific months, The Divine Digital site & community are back!" Oh yippee! 8-|
The hubris of Royanna never ceases to amuse me. Devastating? Horrific? More so than losing your house (twice, or was it three times?) or your parent/brother (or whoever it was)?
And how I love that she can't even spell devastating correctly!
Kate's current username is : mom2my2monkeys
This is her - she has removed all her CT blinkies from her signature ... guess someone is reading this blog:
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/2485185-post9.html
The hubris of Royanna never ceases to amuse me. Devastating? Horrific? More so than losing your house (twice, or was it three times?) or your parent/brother (or whoever it was)?
I absolutely agree with you. Having your site go down is certainly NOT devastating or horrific. War, natural disaster, death ... these things are devastating and horrific.
I can't believe there is a thread at DST about how 'great' Royanna is.
I can't believe there is a thread at DST about how 'great' Royanna is.
_________________________________
WTF !!!! are you serious ?
LOL are you serious? *face palm*
---------
Are you serious? Did you see where I was explaining? Or did you just skip that part?
Wording is everything in these situations.
I can only assume that the thread about Royanna is the DCR as I cannot find it in the public forum. If it's in the public forum, care to link us up?
This is funny, when I was searching for the thread at DST, my word verification was divine stenches.
starts out as 'what is happening at Divine Digital' and becomes a big Royanna love-in *puke*
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/scrap-talk-65/does-anyone-know-what-happening-divine-digital-245312/
Are you serious? Did you see where I was explaining? Or did you just skip that part?
Wording is everything in these situations.
I'm not sure what part of the wording you are caught up in. Kate took and used at least one piece of CU without permission. That's theft, no matter how you word it.
She defends the use of a yellow flower as an accident - which isn't at all believable - but it wasn't even the piece in question. She gave no defense of the use of the piece in questions - she just vanished.
starts out as 'what is happening at Divine Digital' and becomes a big Royanna love-in *puke*
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/scrap-talk-65/does-anyone-know-what-happening-divine-digital-245312/
July 12, 2010 6:20 PM
-----
Where? I saw and read that thread and still can't see the so called love fest? Are you prone to exaggeration?
I'm not sure what part of the wording you are caught up in. Kate took and used at least one piece of CU without permission. That's theft, no matter how you word it.
---------
Oh for heaven's sake!!! No one is disputing that. Please read the whole frigging thing and think!!! Someone said that Kate admitted to 'stealing', when, in fact, she did not. She barely even admitted to 'taking' anything.
Do you understand now?
For crying out loud, why is it any time people don't get your point you tell them to 'think'?
Could it be maybe YOU ARE NOT BEING CLEAR?
You sounded like you were saying Kate didn't 'steal', she only 'took'. Now that you have clarified, I see you were referring to what she said not what she actually did.
I do 'think' thanks.
Where? I saw and read that thread and still can't see the so called love fest? Are you prone to exaggeration?
Are you prone to being easily frustrated and snarky?
'Royanna is fantastic anyway and she will be back with bells on'
'Yes, I see the wonderful graphics again'
'Royanna ... has been a one-woman 'work-horse''
'Royanna has been burning both ends to get us up again'
'I can only imagine how hard that Royanna is working.'
^^^^
All of those comments were made in June! They aren't recent. I understand the snark comment but not the frustrated one. I tend to get snarky with people who take old news and try and present it as new.
You sounded like you were saying Kate didn't 'steal', she only 'took'. Now that you have clarified, I see you were referring to what she said not what she actually did.
-------------
She got it! Yah!!!
Yawn. Snooze.
Speaking of new news... Anyone seen the new designers that are going to save Elemental Scraps? They should have kept the old ones who left. If this was the best of who applied, I shudder to think of the worst.
At leest you can scrap with it, unlike half the crap that comes out that everybody raves over.
*** least
Stupid keyboard.
Speaking of new news... Anyone seen the new designers that are going to save Elemental Scraps? They should have kept the old ones who left. If this was the best of who applied, I shudder to think of the worst.
July 12, 2010 11:03 PM
-----------
I have not. Who are they?
This is what I said:
I can't believe there is a thread at DST about how 'great' Royanna is.
I did not say a 'new' thread. It is on the first page in the scrap talk section so it's not like its pages back and lost in oblivion.
Your snarkiness was that it wasn't a love fest, but I show you how it was and you change to your snarkiness being because it was a thread started in June. Pick your snark and stand by it girl :P
Speaking of new news... Anyone seen the new designers that are going to save Elemental Scraps? They should have kept the old ones who left. If this was the best of who applied, I shudder to think of the worst.
Who are they? They are so unremarkable that when I look at their designer list I don't even really know what changed. Or have they not opened yet?
This is what I said:
I can't believe there is a thread at DST about how 'great' Royanna is.
I did not say a 'new' thread. It is on the first page in the scrap talk section so it's not like its pages back and lost in oblivion.
-------
No, you did not specifically say that it was new. However, in light of the conversation about Divine Digital finally being back up and then you post this, you inferred it was new.
The beauty of snark is that I can apply it when and where I want.
I inferred nothing. You assumed.
^^^^
Whatever.
Here's the designer list from ES 7/13
Angie Kovacs
Bella Gypsy
BZB Designs
Chrissy W.
Connie Prince
Flutter Expressions
genia Beana
JennCk Designs
Jessica Edwards
Lucky Smith
Luv Ewe
Lynn Overend
Nathan Design
Paper Planes Designs
Project B Designs
Sharia Braxton
Sherri Tierney
Threeology
Valarie Ostrom
Mega Kits
Not sure who's new and who's been around. Too hard to keep up. I do know a bunch left. Why? Because ES wanted to go exclusive?
Ironically, some of the ones who left went to Funky Playground Designs which also requires exclusivity (they are allowed 1 other store max).
What ES did was "exclusivity with a 'twist'" ... which is basically, 'if we are afraid to lose you because your sales are high, we won't apply the same rules to you.'
I'm not surprised a bunch of designers left. I would have.
The ES designers that stayed seem to fall into two groups. The money makers that the new rules don't apply to (Conne Prince, ChrissyW & Bella Gypsy) and the one's that are crappy and have nowhere else to go.
What's up with Polka Dot Plum? Their designers seem to be leaving left and right too.
Polka Dot Plum was the "hot new store" that went nowhere so everyone left. See also: MScraps.
Love this comment about the thread in the lovefest for Royanna:
After two months of PURE TORTURE....We have OVERCOME!!!! Divine Digital has been ressurrected!
Seriously? Pure torture? What a load of crap. Royanna's not a saint--not by a long shot--and the idea that being without a store is "torture" is laughable (at best). The only part that was maybe torture was that Royanna wasn't able to pull a scam on unsuspecting customers for two months!
According to Elemental Scraps' newsletter, the following are the new designers: Luv Ewe, Nathan Design, Paper Planes Designs and Valarie Ostrom.
Yawn.
The ES designers that stayed seem to fall into two groups. The money makers that the new rules don't apply to (Conne Prince, ChrissyW & Bella Gypsy) and the one's that are crappy and have nowhere else to go.
What's up with Polka Dot Plum? Their designers seem to be leaving left and right too.
July 13, 2010 1:12 PM
----------------------
There are a couple more on that list who sell at multiple stores, so I suspect they must be exempt, too (Sherri Tierney and JennCk Designs come to mind).
Did anyone find out the 'exclusive with a twist' requirements? I'm dying to know.
Polka Dot Plum is just like all the other stores that try this 'exclusive' crap - they fail. All talk, no customers.
I like to think that most customers fall into the same category that I used to fall into. They shop and buy what they like and care less than .0000001 percent about how "popular" or "exclusive" a designer is. I used to have a style that I liked and shopped around that style, just like when I buy a shirt or a pair of shoes. Other than that, I couldn't tell you designer names or what store they sold out of.
I long for the days of being a naive regular customer just looking to scrap a page. Today, I have seen far too large designer egos being huffed and puffed as if they're god's gift to digital design, which has almost completely turned me off to buying anything anymore. I hate it when I see a designer describing their product or skills as superior. *vomit*
God, get over yourselves already. It's sickening.
I can't imagine JennCK reading the 'target' sales level required to have multiple stores, as she is brand new to designing and has diluted herself across so many stores it's absurd. The fact that they have let her stay shows that it really is just the owner playing favourites.
I can't imagine JennCK reading the 'target' sales level required to have multiple stores, as she is brand new to designing and has diluted herself across so many stores it's absurd. The fact that they have let her stay shows that it really is just the owner playing favourites.
July 13, 2010 5:26 PM
I just looked her up and she has two stores? How is that diluted? And if she is at stores like Elemental Scraps and Scrapbook Bytes, it sounds like she has traded up and left lower performing stores - which all the designers do.
A couple of the 'money makers' listed have tons of stores - Connie Prince has 4 and Bella Bitchy has 3.
I can't imagine JennCK reading the 'target' sales level required to have multiple stores, as she is brand new to designing and has diluted herself across so many stores it's absurd. The fact that they have let her stay shows that it really is just the owner playing favourites.
July 13, 2010 5:26 PM
-------------------------------------
I don't think it's a matter of "letting" anyone stay. The new changes don't begin until September from what I've heard.
JennCK must have pared it down, because she used to be at at least 2 other stores (Inspiration Lane and SUN). I actually stopped looking at her stuff and at her blog because I was sick of seeing her all over the place. So I missed that she left the other two. I take back my 'diluted' comment with apologies to JennCK, but I don't think she is even CLOSE to being like Connie Prince or Bella Gypsy (is she bitchy? I've never chatted with her).
Polka Dot Plum is just like all the other stores that try this 'exclusive' crap - they fail. All talk, no customers.
I find it really interesting that they were more well-known before they went exclusive than they have been since they made the change. Their forum is practically dead except for team members. So much for everyone who insists exclusivity works.
Polka Dot Plum was the "hot new store" that went nowhere so everyone left. See also: MScraps.
July 13, 2010 1:39 PM
--------
It was once a hot new store? News to me.
Polka Dot Plum is just like all the other stores that try this 'exclusive' crap - they fail. All talk, no customers.
July 13, 2010 3:20 PM
---------
What, like SBG? They are exclusive and I wouldn't call them a failure.
I find it really interesting that they were more well-known before they went exclusive than they have been since they made the change. Their forum is practically dead except for team members. So much for everyone who insists exclusivity works.
July 13, 2010 6:30 PM
---------
It does work, but you have to do it right.
JennCK, but I don't think she is even CLOSE to being like Connie Prince or Bella Gypsy (is she bitchy? I've never chatted with her).
July 13, 2010 6:09 PM
--------
Close in what way? I just checked the products of all three and they all look the same. In fact, they look so much the same, I thought I had clicked the same designer each time.
JennCK must have pared it down, because she used to be at at least 2 other stores (Inspiration Lane and SUN). I actually stopped looking at her stuff and at her blog because I was sick of seeing her all over the place. So I missed that she left the other two. I take back my 'diluted' comment with apologies to JennCK, but I don't think she is even CLOSE to being like Connie Prince or Bella Gypsy (is she bitchy? I've never chatted with her).
July 13, 2010 6:09 PM
You'd really hold it against someone for leaving SUN and Inspiration Lane? I'd say those were smart moves especially since I agree with the other poster that she did trade up. Didn't SUN go exclusive anyway? That really helped them. -eye roll-
I wouldn't think a new designer could be anywhere near in sales as someone designing for 3-4 years like Connie Prince who is also in 100 stores. Seems odd to expect it.
I don't know if Bella Gypsy are bitchy, but I do know they are two sisters and not one person. Share the gossip!
polka dot plum is not exclusive....sir scrap alot is at multiple stores
I don't know if Bella Gypsy are bitchy, but I do know they are two sisters and not one person. Share the gossip!
July 13, 2010 6:51 PM
------------
Tabatha is a cow and a pirate. The reason she left the digi design scene a few years back was because she got caught.
Lena is ok, but she did use to whine a bit on DST about her health issues.
Close in what way? I just checked the products of all three and they all look the same. In fact, they look so much the same, I thought I had clicked the same designer each time.
Sorry I meant close in hitting whatever bizarre sales targets ES has in place. Shes just too new for that.
Close in style, yes. Also close in using the same CU over and over again, and pumping out kit after kit after kit that all look the same.
You'd really hold it against someone for leaving SUN and Inspiration Lane? I'd say those were smart moves especially since I agree with the other poster that she did trade up. Didn't SUN go exclusive anyway? That really helped them. -eye roll-
Oh no I don't hold that against her at all. I said I stopped following her when she opened her 4th store and therefore lost track of the fact that she had left SUN and IL. So my 'diluted' comment was unfounded and I retracted it and apologized.
I actually applaud her for leaving both of those stores.
I don't really hold anything against her, I just don't thinks she is selling at the level Connie Prince sells at. The fact that she is still at ES and to required to be exclusive causes me to believe that the 'with a twist' part of the ES required exclusivity really means 'unless we like you a lot.'
polka dot plum is not exclusive....sir scrap alot is at multiple stores
They do not require exclusivity of designers, but they do require products to be exclusive. You still see some products in the store that are available elsewhere because they were grandfathered when the store changed it's rules.
Kudos to them for that - grandfathering is the right way to do things when you change a contract on people.
That being said, I can't find a single thing there I'd buy. They had a free collab for NSD that was just awful.
Perhaps their lack of business has nothing to do with the exclusivity and everything to do with largely awful designers (with a few exceptions).
Tabatha is a cow and a pirate. The reason she left the digi design scene a few years back was because she got caught.
Seriously? I had no idea - I'm so new to the community. I have bought a lot of their templates ... now I am wondering if I should stop supporting them. What went down?
^^^^
To be honest, I can't remember all the details, just that Tabatha got caught. It had nothing to do with Lena. It really was a long time ago, about three or fours back now.
Have you found any great new designers? I'm looking for something fresh, with great quality. Thanks!
I don't think it's a matter of "letting" anyone stay. The new changes don't begin until September from what I've heard.
July 13, 2010 5:38 PM
_________________________
Exactly what she said. Some may be waiting it out. I expect you will see more leave before September.
did the SPD designers ever get paid? I see they have a couple unsuspecting new ones.
I never knew that about Tabatha, either. Wow. The things you learn.
Say what you like about JennCK, but I worked with her at a store once. She was always the first to sign-up for site extras and the first one to help another designer. She was always on-time with everything and never whined about workload or anything. She engages customers and thanks them for every purchase (I still buy her templates). She'll tell you how it is - to your face - without talking behind your back.
I'd rather see someone like that sell like crazy than some of these whiney, lazy designers who just take up space in a store.
Have you found any great new designers? I'm looking for something fresh, with great quality. Thanks!
July 14, 2010 8:59 AM
---------
What sort of thing are you looking for?
I really don't have anything bad to say about JennCK - my comment was more about the 'twist' at ES than JennCK herself. I don't actually know her at all. I just don't think she is selling at the same rate as people like Connie Prince and Bella Gypsy.
JennCK if you are reading, please accept my apologies as I wasn't trying to drag you down so much as make further comment about the slimy ES 'exclusive with a twist' setup.
Have you found any great new designers? I'm looking for something fresh, with great quality. Thanks!
July 14, 2010 8:59 AM
---------
What sort of thing are you looking for?
---------
Realistic stuff.
^^^^
Altered type or just normal?
Seriously? I had no idea - I'm so new to the community. I have bought a lot of their templates ... now I am wondering if I should stop supporting them. What went down?
Since you are new let me remind you that this is a smak blog and anything you read here you should take with a grain of salt. Most of the stuff here borders on possibly having some truth behind it to being totally rediculous and untrue. You have to learn to read between the lines. Many have just a bone to pick and would like you to believe that everyone mentioned is stupid, a bitch, can't design worth two hoots, etc.....need I go on!!!
http://tinypic.com/r/8y9toi/3
Most of the stuff here borders on possibly having some truth behind it to being totally rediculous and untrue.
-----------
The word is RIDICULOUS not REDICULOUS. When the hell are you gong to learn to spell it properly?
Why don't you take a look at Joyce Paul's stuff at MScraps -- buy her whole store for $10.00.
Probably the best bargain in Digiland
http://www.mscraps.com/shop/manufacturers.php?manufacturerid=1
I REALLY don't get why designers do the whole buy my store thing?
Why sell your store for such a tiny price, cutting incentive for customers to come back for more of your designs and selling your work for a fraction of what it is worth.
Deals like that just don't make sense to me unless you are going out of business or you are that desperate for money that you don't care what effect it has on your future sales.
Since people will be clicking that Joyce Paul link, anyway -- does anybody know the name of the font on the Wildflowers collab with Nicole Seitler? The title Wildflowers is written in it.
http://www.mscraps.com/shop/product.php?productid=12&cat=0&page=3
^^^^
Don't know but it looks a font would look if the fonts Violation and Windsong had a kid.
I REALLY don't get why designers do the whole buy my store thing?
She doesn't have much in her store. 3 pages of kits is nothing for a store so that kind of tells me that she isn't selling and is hoping to sell her store a few times to at least say she's selling.
Oh, look. Miss Tiina has a brand new store and a designer call! I can't wait to watch this unfold. http://misstiina.com/
What do you all think about Deviant Scraps? I like realistic elements, so I like the store. but I find their forums to be really cliquish.
Devient Scraps..not my style but some may like it. I see some talent there but also some who claim to have talent but just use extracted images.No talent in that.
Someday maybe so called designers will realize that you can't just pluck any image you damn well please off google image search, extract it and then proceed to throw it in a kit or sell in for CU. (sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine)I don't call that designing.
^^
Who does that there? I hope not Hollywood. I really like her stuff, but don't like to support poachers.
hmmm anyone know what is up with oscraps?
Store Maintenance has been completed!
hmmm anyone know what is up with oscraps?
July 15, 2010 3:12 PM
---------------------------------
I'm guessing maintenance as the huge graphic that pops up when you visit the forum, gallery, etc suggests. The store is working.
I don't buy from Scrapartist anymore. Do you?
Yup, sure do.
I hate it when I see a designer describing their product or skills as superior. *vomit*
God, get over yourselves already. It's sickening.
July 13, 2010 5:04 PM
-----------
LOL, you are soooooo jaleous!!!!!!!
jaleous? Sorry, I left my Moron-to-English dictionary in my car. Care to elaborate?
What do you all think about Deviant Scraps? I like realistic elements, so I like the store. but I find their forums to be really cliquish.
July 15, 2010 12:53 PM
------
Not cliquish at all. If you look, you will see that every new member has been welcomed and encouraged to post. Cliquish to me is when no one welcomes you and or even bothers to look at your gallery.
Devient Scraps..not my style but some may like it. I see some talent there but also some who claim to have talent but just use extracted images.No talent in that.
Someday maybe so called designers will realize that you can't just pluck any image you damn well please off google image search, extract it and then proceed to throw it in a kit or sell in for CU. (sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine)I don't call that designing.
July 15, 2010 2:00 PM
=======
Who at Deviant Scraps does that? No one does that. If someone does, throw out a name, not just accusations. The designers at DS don't even sell CU! Damn, I hate when people make pointless accusations (it's a pet peeve of mine)
Devient Scraps..not my style but some may like it. I see some talent there but also some who claim to have talent but just use extracted images.No talent in that.
Someday maybe so called designers will realize that you can't just pluck any image you damn well please off google image search, extract it and then proceed to throw it in a kit or sell in for CU. (sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine)I don't call that designing.
July 15, 2010 2:00 PM
^^^^^
'DevIEnt' scraps? What the hell are you trying to say there? If you can't fucking spell then don't fucking post. (pet peeve of mine) I don't call that anything but ignorant. If you're going to complain then give an example dumbass.
^^^^^^^^
you must be the "welcoming" committee and spelling police at deviant scraps...sounds welcoming huh? ha
makes me want to rush over and meet you
perhaps some more warm fuzzies?
Dayummm! Take a chill pill. All that was said was, "Someday maybe so called designers will realize that you can't just pluck any image you damn well please off google image search, extract it and then proceed to throw it in a kit or sell in for CU."
I don't see DeviantScrap mentioned at all.
Lighten up!
"you must be the "welcoming" committee and spelling police at deviant scraps...sounds welcoming huh? ha
makes me want to rush over and meet you
perhaps some more warm fuzzies?"
______________________________
No Joke! But LMAO @ your comment!
You = 1
Welcoming Committee = 0
Devient Scraps..not my style but some may like it. I see some talent there but also some who claim to have talent but just use extracted images.No talent in that.
Someday maybe so called designers will realize that you can't just pluck any image you damn well please off google image search, extract it and then proceed to throw it in a kit or sell in for CU. (sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine)I don't call that designing.
July 15, 2010 2:00 PM
^^^^^
'DevIEnt' scraps? What the hell are you trying to say there? If you can't fucking spell then don't fucking post. (pet peeve of mine) I don't call that anything but ignorant. If you're going to complain then give an example dumbass.
---------------------
Geez, who pissed in your cheerios this morning? Perhaps it was a typo?
Dayummm! Take a chill pill. All that was said was, "Someday maybe so called designers will realize that you can't just pluck any image you damn well please off google image search, extract it and then proceed to throw it in a kit or sell in for CU."
I don't see DeviantScrap mentioned at all.
--------
She put that in the same paragraph as Deviant Scraps, so yes, she mentioned Deviant Scraps.
OMG, just went to the shabby pickle and can't believe how much almost everything new looks exactly alike, with just slight color differences. Exact same types of backgrounds in every single kit. Mostly one color or with gradient, no design other than darkened edges and maybe some sparkles or grunge. All the elements look the same to me: extracted leaves and other assorted mish-mash. Does everyone who goes into that store turn into look-alike assembly-line designers, or do they start out that way and just congregate there?
I guess I haven't done much digi-shopping in a while. please tell me it doesn't look like that everywhere? (maybe that explains why I haven't shopped!)
^^^^^^^^
you must be the "welcoming" committee and spelling police at deviant scraps...sounds welcoming huh? ha
makes me want to rush over and meet you
perhaps some more warm fuzzies?
July 15, 2010 9:26 PM
------------
What makes you think they even go there? Big assumption. Up to you if you go there or not but if you judge that site or any site by this blog, then you are doing yourself a disservice. Check them out for yourself, don't form opinions by the crap that's spewed on this blog.
guess I haven't done much digi-shopping in a while. please tell me it doesn't look like that everywhere? (maybe that explains why I haven't shopped!)
July 15, 2010 11:02 PM
----------
Sadly, it does. The designers that go to A5D, all started to look alike. The designers at SP did too. I hated it when Kasia and Holly changed their style to suit what the others were pumping out. I stopped shopping there. It's nice to see that Kasia has gone back to some of her old style and I'm hoping that Holly will too, now that's she left.
The designers that join SSD all start to look alike, so do the designers at the LilyPad. I guess the site owners are all looking for a certain style but when it all starts to look the same, there's a problem.
EW, this is without a doubt the creepiest and ugliest kit I have ever seen looks like some kind of alien babies http://www.shabbypickledesigns.com/boutique/product.php?productid=18770&cat=264
^^^^^^^
That is indeed f'ing terrible. Yikes....
The whole kit isn't ugly, just the babies. But real babies don't look that great when they are born anyway.
She put that in the same paragraph as Deviant Scraps, so yes, she mentioned Deviant Scraps.
____________________________
Are you retarded? She started a whole new paragraph for the Google images and cutting.
Learn how to read, before making an ass out of yourself.
What makes you think they even go there? Big assumption. Up to you if you go there or not but if you judge that site or any site by this blog, then you are doing yourself a disservice. Check them out for yourself, don't form opinions by the crap that's spewed on this blog.
_____________________
If they don't go to Deviant Scraps then why the hell are they cussing everybody out?
The op said they felt the forums were a clique-ish bunch.
The responses here from zealous CT members aren't doing them any favors.
^^^
ditto ... i'd never go based on the welcoming committee. you can tell a lot about the kinda store they run by the people who go there. just saying.
Are you retarded? She started a whole new paragraph for the Google images and cutting.
-----
Yes, I'm retarded, but I'd rather be retarded than a fuckwit.
If they don't go to Deviant Scraps then why the hell are they cussing everybody out?
--------
Cussing everybody out, are they? I see one person and they were picking on spelling, rather than supporting. Prone to exaggeration are you?
^^^
ditto ... i'd never go based on the welcoming committee. you can tell a lot about the kinda store they run by the people who go there. just saying.
July 15, 2010 11:52 PM
---------
How would you know if you haven't been there? Has it occurred to you that the so called supporters may just be trolls trying to smear DS? No, it probably hasn't. Just saying.
The responses here from zealous CT members aren't doing them any favors.
July 15, 2010 11:50 PM
-----
How do you know they are zealous CT members? You don't, you are just assuming. It's a dangerous thing to assume.
How do you know they are zealous CT members? You don't, you are just assuming. It's a dangerous thing to assume.
_______________________
I'd say it's a pretty safe assumption since they are going balls to the walls defending the store.
Either way, zealous CT or zealous designers or zealous customers; foaming at the mouth b/c someone expresses an opinion that is different from their own sets a bad taste.
Like I said before, it's not doing them any favors
How would you know if you haven't been there? Has it occurred to you that the so called supporters may just be trolls trying to smear DS? No, it probably hasn't. Just saying.
_______________________
Ever hear of Occam's Razor, genius? This isn't the first time people who are associated w/ that store have let loose in here. Just saying.
Either way, zealous CT or zealous designers or zealous customers; foaming at the mouth b/c someone expresses an opinion that is different from their own sets a bad taste.
-------
Wrong, actually. The one person who wasn't sure about the place was advised to check it out anyway.
The rest of the crap was because someone said that the designers at DS were just extracting images from off the net, or the implied that was the case.
Occam's razor? Really? You had nothing better to say?
Hey Retard. Fuckwit here.
According to the Online Slang Dictionary, we're related.
Retard: (noun) unintelligent person, idiot
Fuckwit: (noun) unintelligent person, idiot
Other words meaning the same thing -
40 watt club
ass
boob
cheese nug
choad
Expanding your vocabulary one insult at a time.
You're welcome.
WV: idotarau (idiot - it was meant to be)
Occam's razor? Really? You had nothing better to say?
_____________________
I'd bet you had to look it up.
You lost your bet, I didn't. Assumptions are dangerous.
^^ *-YAWN-*
^^^^^
You know, only dumb people get bored.
^^
Not bored, just tired of your extremely lame attempts.
OMG that baby kit is terrifying. She took a bunch of random fetus/baby/pregnancy images and bronzed them. Like keeping baby's first pair of shoes, but a whole lot creepier.
The CT layouts are disturbing too - the first one is OK, but the other ones are all about disembodied and/or floating moms and babies.
Too bad I decided to look at that before heading to sleep .. it's gonna give me nightmares ... disembodied bronzed partially formed babies with alien eyes...
^^
Not bored, just tired of your extremely lame attempts.
July 16, 2010 3:01 AM
-------------
You don't deserve anything else.
The CT layouts are disturbing too - the first one is OK, but the other ones are all about disembodied and/or floating moms and babies.
-------
All of those pregnancy kits and CT layouts are disturbing.
The designers that join SSD all start to look alike, so do the designers at the LilyPad. I guess the site owners are all looking for a certain style but when it all starts to look the same, there's a problem.
VERY TRUE and I TOTALLY AGREE! They might as well just take their individual names off the products. I like old standards as much as anyone else, they have their place. But NOTHING ever jumps out at me from SSD or TLP and makes me want to buy.
Did you check out the alpha for the pregnancy kit? It has sperm swimming towards the alpha, which looks like a woman's uterus. Yikes, so does one of the papers. Don't know whether to laugh or vomit.
Deviant Scraps peep or peeps--get over yourselves. You might want to go get a rabies shot. You're a little overboard.
^^^^
What?? Where did you see sperm in the alpha? You are so perverted.
^^^^^^
http://www.shabbypickledesigns.com/boutique/product.php?productid=18858&cat=0&page=1
Yep, I see the sperm. Ewwwww!
Why is she perverted? Just factual, as far as I can tell.
I don't ever comment on a kit here. If I like I buy it or tell others I like it.
That said, I agree with other posters concerning the pregnancy kit this time. The description says that it could be used for a personal layout or dealing with grief, maybe a layout you didn't want to share with others.
That's not a kit that I would use for personal healing either.
'DevIEnt' scraps? What the hell are you trying to say there? If you can't fucking spell then don't fucking post. (pet peeve of mine)
........
Yeah ... ITA.
It's easy to remember how to spell it. It's a rip off of Deviant Art.
I wonder if Deviant ART knows that Deviant SCRAPS is piggy-backing off their name. for a store that claims to be original, it's not very.
If using the term DEVIANT is "piggybacking" on other stores then I guess all stores with DIGITAL, DIGI or ELEMENTS in the name are all piggybacking too. Get a grip!
Since people will be clicking that Joyce Paul link, anyway -- does anybody know the name of the font on the Wildflowers collab with Nicole Seitler? The title Wildflowers is written in it.
http://www.mscraps.com/shop/product.php?productid=12&cat=0&page=3
-----------------------------------
Petras Script EF
http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/ef/petras-script/
If using the term DEVIANT is "piggybacking" on other stores then I guess all stores with DIGITAL, DIGI or ELEMENTS in the name are all piggybacking too.
---------
I'd have to agree with this statement.
The description says that it could be used for a personal layout or dealing with grief, maybe a layout you didn't want to share with others.
That's not a kit that I would use for personal healing either.
July 16, 2010 4:50 PM
---------
Except for the babies, there's nothing wrong with the kit. Some of you should get over yourselves.
Petras Script EF
http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/ef/petras-script/
July 16, 2010 7:50 PM
------------
Thanks.
Petras Script EF
http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/ef/petras-script/
July 16, 2010 7:50 PM
======================
Also available here, about half way down the page:
http://scrapvillage.com/fontsp.htm
If using the term DEVIANT is "piggybacking" on other stores then I guess all stores with DIGITAL, DIGI or ELEMENTS in the name are all piggybacking too. Get a grip!
.........
are you kidding me? are you for real? digital/digi/elements, they all explain the type of products and actual products they sell. it makes sense to include those names. deviant, on the other hand says what? deviant ART was original, deviant SCRAP, it's totally unoriginal, borderline intellectual theft. they even have daily deviations, just like the original. i mean, come on! for real?
deviant ART was original, deviant SCRAP, it's totally unoriginal, borderline intellectual theft. they even have daily deviations, just like the original. i mean, come on! for real?
Ya it was a pretty ballsy move, which caused me to not ever even click on the site, nor will I ever do so. Not only are they piggybacking on the name, they are piggybacking on the branding ... cool, unique, artsy ... and maybe they are over there, I'll never know, but even if they are they should still have done their own branding.
Except for the babies, there's nothing wrong with the kit. Some of you should get over yourselves.
Ironic coming from the person who apparently believes HER opinion is correct and everyone else's is wrong.
Ironic coming from the person who apparently believes HER opinion is correct and everyone else's is wrong.
-------
No I don't dear and you used the word ironic incorrectly.
branding ... cool, unique, artsy ...
-------
Yeah, coz nothing in the world before the creation of Deviant Art had that particular branding *rolls eyes*
they even have daily deviations, just like the original. i mean, come on! for real?
July 16, 2010 9:41 PM
------
Really? Where? I've never seen them. Unless it was only just introduced this minute.
deviant, on the other hand says what? deviant ART was original, deviant SCRAP, it's totally unoriginal, borderline intellectual theft.
July 16, 2010 9:41 PM
----------
Are you for real? The term deviant art was coined long before Deviant Art came around.
Definition of deviant is Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society. So, are you saying they shouldn't use the word deviant because it doesn't suit you?
they even have daily deviations, just like the original. i mean, come on! for real?
====================
Did you actually check out what the daily deviations are? They are just product announcements. It has nothing in common with the daily deviation at DA, except the name, which, I can assure you, is not unique to DA.
I've seen some really pointless designer resources/cu products, but this and the rest in the series seem to be the most pointless
http://www.scrapartist.com/shoppe/product.php?productid=5606
Aside from being fugly, what would you use them for?
It's just another CU pack. There are gazillions of pointless and downright ugly things out there for sale.
What's pointless is putting her TOU in the product description and doing it without any formatting or clear separation from the actual product description. Well, maybe not pointless but truly annoying.
Is anybody else having trouble getting into DST today?
closed for maintenance.
closed for maintenance.
I've seen some really pointless designer resources/cu products, but this and the rest in the series seem to be the most pointless
http://www.scrapartist.com/shoppe/product.php?productid=5606
Aside from being fugly, what would you use them for?
July 17, 2010 2:25 AM
For me it is a proof that digiscrap is not a real craft, just an extracted/recolored version of other crafts! LOL!
did the SPD designers ever get paid? I see they have a couple unsuspecting new ones.
***************************
The majority of the designers did not get paid for May, especially those with the higher sales. That was an important month to many since it included iNSD sales.
For me it is a proof that digiscrap is not a real craft, just an extracted/recolored version of other crafts! LOL!
__________________________
Precisely. Overrated, over-priced, over-hyped, scrap-booking lookalike clip-art.
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/scrap-talk-65/art-craft-247879/
Okay I know she said "If it bothers you, please ignore this thread."
But isn't it enough already? Why do some people need to label themselves (and others) so much?!?
did the SPD designers ever get paid? I see they have a couple unsuspecting new ones.
***************************
The majority of the designers did not get paid for May, especially those with the higher sales. That was an important month to many since it included iNSD sales.
***************************
How pathetic and dishonest, I'm surprised that store is still in business, who would sell there? Money was stolen, oh really? How exactly? And how is it the designers fault if the money was stolen? What an amazing coincidence that it happened to be that month.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If designers have not been paid for May, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more of a stink about it. I'm not buying the "money was stolen" story. That card has been played before.
Besides, do I want to trust a store that has bad security? If they can't safeguard their funds, how do I have any confidence that they safeguarding customer information?
And here you have it, folks. The first digiscrap $1 store.
http://scrap99.com/digital-scrapbooking/home.php
If you want to talk about pointless CU, this is what you need to avoid. Not really pointless as much as it is just plain B-A-D.
http://digiscrapwarehouse.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=5959&limit=recent
I don't have to buy it to know it would be a shitty waste of money. WTF do these "designers" take us for?
@ 8:16--
You get what you pay for. Do they say "Made in China" on them? LOL
well, I just contacted china and they are not amused...according to china's tou you can not use any of their merchandise as a resell.
why can't you just contact the country before you spew out your pie hole?
for those who can't see sarcasm...this is it!
scrap-booking lookalike clip-art.
-----------
What is scrap booking look a like clip art?
just had to kick it over
For me it is a proof that digiscrap is not a real craft, just an extracted/recolored version of other crafts! LOL!
---------
The stuff is crap, but that doesn't mean the whole of digi scrapbooking is crap and not a craft.
That's like looking at some godawful quilts and saying it's proof that quilting is not a craft.
What is scrap booking look a like clip art?
______________
scrap-booking wannabes.
I saw some of Michelle Underwood's old kits at the .99 store. I think one of them is at least 5 years old because I bought some similar to that.
If designers have not been paid for May, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more of a stink about it. I'm not buying the "money was stolen" story. That card has been played before.
Besides, do I want to trust a store that has bad security? If they can't safeguard their funds, how do I have any confidence that they safeguarding customer information?
*****************
That is an excellent point. I am surprised that they are still in business too. It looks like Laura may just get away with this though.
^^^^
Or it may not be true. The fact that nothing has been heard about it except on this blog, makes me think that someone may just be causing trouble.
Or it may not be true. The fact that nothing has been heard about it except on this blog, makes me think that someone may just be causing trouble.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you are referring to Shabby Pickle it is absolutely true that many of the designers did not receive their money for the month of May. The owner claims that the money was mysteriously diverted before it ever reached Paypal. I am sure you must have noticed that many of the designers left all at once and that is why.
I noticed the designers left. Where was it posted that money was diverted?
I noticed the designers left. Where was it posted that money was diverted?
+++++++++++++++
I know it was posted in the SPD forum and I know one of the designers came to this forum and asked what she should do about not getting paid.
Post a Comment