DDs and Den of Angels...

Just had a thought... Once DOA is back up would it be alright to post links here for relevant DD/DOA threads? I would really love to see what's going on over there as it pertains to the DD but simply don't have the time to sort through what feels like ten gazillion threads.

 

~Sister Kyoya

Just had a thought... Once DOA is back up would it be alright to post links here for relevant DD/DOA threads? I would really love to see what's going on over there as it pertains to the DD but simply don't have the time to sort through what feels like ten gazillion threads.

 

~Sister Kyoya

When DOA's back up, I can find the threads you're looking for

Thank you very much!

 

~Sister Kyoya

If you're not a member of DoA you won't be able to read the threads anyone posts links to here on the forums. Just sayin'....

 

 

Billy

If you're not a member of DoA you won't be able to read the threads anyone posts links to here on the forums. Just sayin'....

 

 

Billy

 

i'm happy to send anyone here a DoA membership invite as long as they aren't using it to cause trouble or anything (not that i'm implying you guys would, but i have to cover my back!)

Doesn't matter, once DOA comes back up, they're planning on opening up non-invitation registration for a few weeks.

I voted. I think they should be opened to more dolls honestly especially as now I have been changing my focus from BJDs to FR's/Obitsus/Volks...after 6 - 7 years I guess Im just feeling burned out. I currently dont have a DD, but I have had them, and I have never concidered them being a toy/action figure and I agree that they are via the term "ball joint" plus with the history, i mean bodies are getting more and more improved over the years - String or not shouldnt be a reason.

 

I have two of the Dollmore Fashion Dolls, which are off topic - "Although made of resin, these dolls have a westernized fashion aesthetic and often have bodies that lack detail, as the dolls are meant to be clothed" ....and I argue about this because they are in scale i think with the chic lines (I havent seen one to compare them with) and there is nothing lacking at all in their bodies. They look like mini versions of the bigger bodies, are better detailed then the soom minigems (double jointed and all). I even have the one girl with the massive bust >_> Granted they are memorial dolls for family members, but I would like to share them more then just once a year.

I just have to say that in several years of being reasonably active on DoA, I've never had anybody give me a hard time, and I've almost never seen any elitism. I've seen about 100 times more complaints about the supposed elitism on DoA than I have elitist incidents.

 

I'd also say I've seen more of it in the DD community than I have on DoA. (Not so much here but a lot of flickr, twitter, Figure.fm, etc.) There are people who constantly rub their doll collections in everybody's faces, there are people who make a big deal out of how long they've been in the hobby, there are a whole ton of cliques that are hostile to everybody from outside their group, there's no shortage of people who look down on non-Volks vinyl dolls, etc.

 

I do think that DDs should stay on DoA, but I'll agree that they're not really BJDs. They wear the same clothes and shoes as resins, the same wigs, the same eyes, etc, though, and in my mind that makes them more relevant than Pullips or the like.

I do think that DDs should stay on DoA, but I'll agree that they're not really BJDs.

 

Technically, though, they are, right? I mean, all their joints are ball joints... yeah?

 

I think when you start getting into "aesthetic" you walk a fine, tricky line... it's why, on this board, we've considered everything NOT a Volks made Dollfie Dream to be Off Topic. That is a very, very clear cut line... and one not defined by aesthetic.

 

Would I ever say a DD isn't a BJD? No. Would I agree that the visual look and feel of most DD is different from that of most resin BJD? Yes.

 

Trying to define the boundaries of what is, and isn't "On Topic" by using aesthetic guidelines is just a huge headache waiting to happen... because there is almost always a good argument as to why, or why not, a thing should be allowed.

 

DoA would probably be better served by getting rid of their "choosing things based on aesthetic properties"... I have a feeling it's the cause of many a headache for them.

They're not actually ball joints though are they?

 

And yeah there certainly are DD cliques :p

I just have to say that in several years of being reasonably active on DoA, I've never had anybody give me a hard time, and I've almost never seen any elitism.

Heh. You must have never talked to any of the goderators, in that case, or been paying attention when they did any sort of rule-setting or enforcement. The DoA mod squad really does like to be worshipped, obeyed in all whims no matter how illogical, and be treated as vain gods of their own little world. They are also vengeful gods who overreact to everything, no matter whether a real problem or an imagined one. Hence, goderators. It's a perfect example of how NOT to moderate a forum...

 

I actually had a couple accounts permabanned from there once for the heinous crime of having more than one family member who liked dolls. True story.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Guest

They're not actually ball joints though are they?

 

I thought they were... all their joints are the ball and socket joints:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_and_socket_joint

They're not actually ball joints though are they?

 

This depends on what you categorize as a balljoint.

 

This is for instance a balljoint off a 70's Volvo:

(okay, maybe a offtopic joke, but I thaught it was amusing)

 

Its a technical difference I guess. Resin balljoints operate with a ball and cup rotating against eachother with the string holding it together and all rotation to all angles and directions happen in this one joint.

 

Wheras DD's mostly have a hook pinned in a ball setup, which is more hingelike in nature, and requires a separate pivotshaft for rotation... if I explained it difficult enough.

 

But the main technical difference is a DD requires two or three separate acting joints and hinges for the same range of motion as a SD's one.

 

But non the less two different solutions for the same result, which in my mind qualifies as a balljoint.

But the main technical difference is a DD requires two or three separate acting joints and hinges for the same range of motion as a SD's one.

 

I have a SD resin doll. For the same range of motion as DD she has to have double joints.

Unless the joint looks very strange like wide open gap with a string from one part to another

Really, poseability of many resins is not that great.

And - for example - standing without a stand is in most cases impossible, they're much heavier.

I have a SD resin doll. For the same range of motion as DD she has to have double joints.

Unless the joint looks very strange like wide open gap with a string from one part to another

Really, poseability of many resins is not that great.

And - for example - standing without a stand is in most cases impossible, they're much heavier.

 

I was really focusing on a single joint, for instance the shoulders, and elbows, and how they work, which is the main case in point: DD's require the shaft pivot for rotation, and then the ball hinge for angle, whereas resins only have the single ball and cup joint that does both at the same time.

 

Id rather not drag general overall body posability into the mix, since its not whats beeing debated.

I have a SD resin doll. For the same range of motion as DD she has to have double joints.

Unless the joint looks very strange like wide open gap with a string from one part to another

Really, poseability of many resins is not that great.

And - for example - standing without a stand is in most cases impossible, they're much heavier.

 

I was really focusing on a single joint, for instance the shoulders, and elbows, and how they work, which is the main case in point: DD's require the shaft pivot for rotation, and then the ball hinge for angle, whereas resins only have the single ball and cup joint that does both at the same time.

 

Id rather not drag general overall body posability into the mix, since its not whats beeing debated.

 

Right, I was thinking the base shape of the actual joint area... there is a ball there, there is a cup... ball-joint.

 

Although, if people want to debate the whole stringing issue... the first DDs were strung and their joints were exactly like resin BJD... so there's another level of "omg, what to do" for DoA if they're going to nit-pick so much.

Although, if people want to debate the whole stringing issue... the first DDs were strung and their joints were exactly like resin BJD... so there's another level of "omg, what to do" for DoA if they're going to nit-pick so much.

 

That's part of why they were grandfathered in as far as I understand it. I know the Unoa lights were decided to be off topic once they became vinyl because they had rooted hair and painted eyes. But the original resin ones are still on topic.

That's part of why they were grandfathered in as far as I understand it. I know the Unoa lights were decided to be off topic once they became vinyl because they had rooted hair and painted eyes. But the original resin ones are still on topic.

 

I own a new vinyl Unoa light, and I've seen in person the old Unoa Lights that were resin... and yeah, the new ones are much more "Fashion Doll" than the old ones (although they don't fall apart like the old ones did!)... so I get that... but either way... DD, new or old, all still have removable eyes and wigs, the only real difference is the internal skeleton system, which, when viewing the doll normally, isn't really visible, unlike the painted eyes and rooted hair of the new Unoas.

 

I just get the feeling that if they use that as an excuse for banning them, that's all it is, an excuse.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong either way... I love this forum and don't even go to DoA... I'm just saying their lives might be easier if they stop trying to make excuses for "why" something is suddenly OT, and just figure out some solid guidelines and stick to them (which I realize has got to be a heck of a lot harder there than it is here). I do NOT envy them their jobs!

 

It seems like they're getting ready to lay down a new set of rules, hopefully they've figured out something easier for them to deal with!

 

Can-o-worms!

 

I think when you start getting into "aesthetic" you walk a fine, tricky line... it's why, on this board, we've considered everything NOT a Volks made Dollfie Dream to be Off Topic. That is a very, very clear cut line... and one not defined by aesthetic.

 

Would I ever say a DD isn't a BJD? No. Would I agree that the visual look and feel of most DD is different from that of most resin BJD? Yes.

 

Trying to define the boundaries of what is, and isn't "On Topic" by using aesthetic guidelines is just a huge headache waiting to happen... because there is almost always a good argument as to why, or why not, a thing should be allowed.

 

DoA would probably be better served by getting rid of their "choosing things based on aesthetic properties"... I have a feeling it's the cause of many a headache for them.

 

 

What aesthetic really means? If DoA make a bjd off topic because of the aesthetic that means because the bjd is to ugly??

 

I have this questions because my friend have one of the cutest bjd ever but is off topic on DoA for the aesthetic reasons. But I think the bjd is not ugly and to be honest I have seen really ugly bjds on DoA that still "on topic". But I agree with you I think deciding if a bjd is "on" or "off" topic because of the aesthetic is a headache even for the people that are not only trying to classified them but for the people who are trying to figure out what is wrong with the bjd looks to be made "off topic". After all I think it really doesn't matter the doll looks as long as is a ball jointed doll. That's why when I vote for DD to be kept on topic I vote for them to get rid of the aesthetic thing too.

 

Here a picture of my friend of topic bjd. Isn't he adorable?http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6213/6310644512_db5b03ba70.jpg

 

For me DDs are BJD too because besides of the skeleton and the material in which is made I don't find any difference between my resin bjds and my gorgeous DD.

The doll that your friend has is a 5StarDoll Aiden, they are off topic mainly for two reasons, their one larger arm of the default set made them impossible to dress, which is one thing DOA usually counts, the reason he was considered off-topic aesthetically is because he lacks a lower lip which makes him very "off" compared to other on topic doll sculpts. It has nothing to do with them finding the sculpt "ugly."

 

What aesthetic really means? If DoA make a bjd off topic because of the aesthetic that means because the bjd is to ugly??

 

 

Aesthetic here isn't about whether it's ugly or not... Here's an example of typical "ideal" BJD aesthetic http://www.eluts.com/shop/step1.php?number=5747

And here are a few BJDs that are off topic because the aesthetic is too different

http://www.leekeworld.com/En/Product/p_view.asp?it_code=4378

http://www.goodreaudoll.com/Pages/10_17inch_FrannieR.html

 

I think it's difficult to say at what point a doll is aesthetically off topic, and so a lot of people are left confused and angry...

But just 'cause a doll you like is off topic on DOA, doesn't mean you can't buy and love it!

But just 'cause a doll you like is off topic on DOA, doesn't mean you can't buy and love it!

 

Heck yeah! No one will stop my army of Pure Neemos! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ... and there isn't even an active Pure Neemo forum to share them on -_-;;

 

I appreciate Averis allowing us an OT section where I can share them, lol.

I'm glad to learn about the poll so that I could vote. I enjoy being a (not active) member of DoA, and I think that Dollfie Dream should still be allowed.

I wonder what resin dolls people are talking about when they say that they can't stand unsupported. Only one of the BJDs we have has any trouble standing on her own, and that's only because she's too tightly strung. The rest can all be stood up on a table or whatever with no real worries. DDs are exactly the opposite, getting them to stand up takes several minutes of pose tweaking and careful positioning, and then they'll fall over if you look at them funny.

 

I think maybe older BJDs (and maybe Volks's own BJDs, which are kind of dated in terms of body design) might have had problems supporting themselves, but the new ones all have latches or similar systems engineered into them that make them rock solid when standing. Stands are still a good thing to use, of course, and all of our dolls are either sitting or on stands when stored, but I'm much more comfortable standing my BJDs up than my DDs.

I wonder what resin dolls people are talking about when they say that they can't stand unsupported. Only one of the BJDs we have has any trouble standing on her own, and that's only because she's too tightly strung. The rest can all be stood up on a table or whatever with no real worries. DDs are exactly the opposite, getting them to stand up takes several minutes of pose tweaking and careful positioning, and then they'll fall over if you look at them funny.

 

Don't have any resins, so I can't say anything there. But wow... I've never had problems making a DD stand up. It doesn't even take a minute for me to get them balanced. And the balance I give them is pretty solid, where they don't fall over. But I did grow up playing with articulated action figures (GI Joes, superhero figures, etc) that are *really* terrible at balance due to either weak legs/joints or the figure itself having odd weight distribution. So DDs feel incredibly easy in comparison.