- Welcome to KatsBits Community.
KatsBits Community
KatsBits Knowledgebase Community for Blender
Recent posts
#21
Blog / Re: SCAM WARNING - Bitcoin Sex...
Last post by kat - June 12, 2026, 10:04:56 AMQuoteSubject: YOU ****, I RECORDED YOU!
Body: Hello!
Unfortunately, there is some bad news for you.
Some time ago, your device was infected with my private Trojan, R.A.T. (Remote Administration Tool).
If you want to find out more about it, simply use Google.
My Trojan allowed me to access your files, accounts, and your camera.
Check the sender of this email; I have sent it from your email account.
I RECORDED YOU **** THROUGH YOUR CAMERA!
If you still doubt my serious intentions, it only takes a couple of mouse clicks to share the video of you **** with your family, friends, relatives, all email contacts, on social networks, and the darknet.
After that, I removed my malware to leave no traces.
To ensure you read this email, you will receive it multiple times.
All you need is $900 USD in Bitcoin (BTC), transferred to my wallet address.
After the transaction is successful, I will proceed to delete everything.
You can purchase Bitcoin (BTC) from reputable exchanges here:
http //www coinbase com - Payment options: Credit/Debit Cards, Bank Transfers, PayPal (in some regions).
http //www binance com - Payment options: Credit/Debit Cards, Bank Transfers, P2P trading, third-party payment providers, and gift cards.
http //www bitrefill com - Payment options: Paysafecard, credit/debit cards, crypto, bank transfer, and other gift cards.
http //www crypto com - Payment options: Credit/Debit Cards, Bank Transfers, Apple Pay, Google Pay, and more.
http //www etoro com - Payment options: Credit/Debit Cards, Bank Transfers, PayPal.
Alternatively, simply Google for other exchanges.
Once purchased, you can send the Bitcoin (BTC) directly to my wallet address or use a wallet application such as Atomic Wallet or Exodus Wallet to manage your transactions.
My Bitcoin (BTC) wallet address is: [bitcoin address]
Yes, that's how the wallet address looks. Copy and paste my wallet address; it's case-sensitive.
A piece of advice from me: regularly change all your passwords and update your device with the latest security patches.
#22
Blog / Re: SCAM WARNING - Sexploitati...
Last post by kat - June 12, 2026, 10:01:09 AM16FnhJgft5PxM3QNRjq9FiafkKHAAv8Ngy
#23
News / Roblox Studio vs. Avatar Sourc...
Last post by kat - June 06, 2026, 05:26:10 PM
"Roblox Studio vs. Avatar Source Files: Key Differences & Tips" https://www.katsbits.com/codex/roblox-studio-vs-avatar-source/ taking a look at the difference between the Roblox official avatar files and avatars (any) exported from Roblox Studio + tips.
#24
News / How To Import Roblox Avatars I...
Last post by kat - May 30, 2026, 08:14:39 AM
"How To Import Roblox Avatars Into Blender" https://www.katsbits.com/codex/import-roblox-avatar-blender/ quick look at exporting an avatar from Roblox Studio and importing the model into Blender as a scale/size reference.
#25
News / Rotation Woes? How to Fix Mesh...
Last post by kat - May 25, 2026, 09:39:54 AM
"Fixing Mesh Orientation Issues in Roblox" https://www.katsbits.com/codex/fixing-mesh-orientation-roblox/ looking at rotation (orientation) issues of imported, Blender made, models/meshes in Roblox Studio (again despite using the correct game-entity settings or setup).
#26
News / Blender to Roblox: Which Forma...
Last post by kat - May 21, 2026, 06:52:44 PM
"Blender to Roblox: Which Format, OBJ, FBX or GLTF?" https://www.katsbits.com/codex/blender-roblox-which-format/ a quick look at the mesh (model) formats Roblox supports - originally a 'note to self' worth writing up.
#27
Blog / Re: Asking Ask Studio About Yo...
Last post by kat - May 17, 2026, 10:41:16 AMAside from the accusations of "Inauthentic Content", it appear YouTube channels are also getting hit if their main Google Accounts get flagged for violating Googles Terms of Services or Community Guidelines. Because there's so many conditions Users have to be aware of, it's easy to see how AI, if the assumptions are correct that Google/YouTube are actively using AI to search for violations, could find literally any reason to, at the very least, demonetise, demote, deprioritise and eventually disable accounts.
When this happens, because in Google's eyes there would be a chain-of-escalatory-custody (deprioritise > demote > demonetise > disablement > deletion) they have a built in rationalisation for eventually disabling and deleting accounts and their content. If it gets to that point, even if Users were able to retrieve their accounts, it would be of little use because deleting strips content and subscribers, making the accounts practically worthless.
Google holds all the cards, they always have.
When this happens, because in Google's eyes there would be a chain-of-escalatory-custody (deprioritise > demote > demonetise > disablement > deletion) they have a built in rationalisation for eventually disabling and deleting accounts and their content. If it gets to that point, even if Users were able to retrieve their accounts, it would be of little use because deleting strips content and subscribers, making the accounts practically worthless.
Google holds all the cards, they always have.
#28
Blog / Why IMVU arguments feel more p...
Last post by kat - May 13, 2026, 11:28:59 AM
There's an interesting Reddit post in r/imvu titled "Why IMVU arguments feel way more personal than they should and what's actually happening psychologically" (yes, we know, its Reddit. Ed.) that proposes something the author refers to as the "Identity Buffer Theory".
QuoteOn IMVU, the avatar acts as a psychological buffer which transforms social and emotional expression. When users interact through a created online persona instead of in face-to-face settings, their fear of embarrassment, rejection, exposure, or judgment is diminished. The avatar is not necessarily a fictional persona, but rather it creates an emotional distance which makes it easier to express certain feelings online compared to in real life.
In the post the author argues IMVU avatars function as a psychological buffer to help users process real-life fears like embarrassment, rejection, or judgment, etc., making it easier for them to connect with others.
Over time, however, the buffer degrades as the created avatar becomes deeply integrated with users sense of self, their iRL identity through validation, the habits and relationships they seek out. When these are challenged, these interactions feel intensely personal, leading to the volatile e-drama IMVU has become known for.
While the theory captures something real, it has some limitations in that it tends to conflate one common pattern of behaviour with the overall experience of the platform as a whole, underplaying other ways people might use avatars. Broadly speaking, users typically relate to the avatars in two distinct (though sometimes overlapping) ways;
1. Expressive
For "expressive" users, avatars represent a proxy for or an extension of the self. Users project important aspects of their identity, emotions, or idealised self-image onto it. This mode typically involves seeking out validation, belonging, and different affirmations of that idealised self-image. As personal investment here is high, challenges to the avatar (or the persona it represents) are experienced as personal attacks on the self. This group drives much of the intense emotional drama, jealously, escalations etc., seem in IMVU.
2. Imaginative
For "imaginative" users, avatars function primarily as an outlet or tool for creativity, for role-play, storytelling, and social experimentation. Avatars are treated more like a character or instrument for fun and interaction. Because of this, they are better able to separate the created digital proxy from their core identity, so conflicts or challenges are more likely to be absorbed as part of the game rather than personal threats.
The distinction matters because the motivational difference finds that expressive users tend to naturally show higher predispositions towards volatility as the emotional stakes in their avatar, the personal investment, are greater. While on the other hand, imaginative users tend to be more resilient to friction (perceived or real).
With that said, cross-over does exist, dedicated role-players can readily recount stories of "unhinged" individuals derailing sessions, but the difference in the motivational core matters. For general users, the upshot is that when navigating virtual spaces, strong or highly salient group identity signals are often a reliable indicators of predispositional red-flags and, by extension, higher potential for drama that need to be watched for.
#29
Blog / Asking Ask Studio About YouTub...
Last post by kat - May 04, 2026, 11:46:48 AMThere's a troubling trend on YouTube of seemingly legitimate accounts being hit with "inauthentic content" strikes that take them down[1]. Appeals don't seem to make any difference, especially for smaller channels that don't have access to an 'agent', so nothing seems to help.
If the situation is run past Ask Studio[2] (YouTube's AI helper) it'll respond with typical information pulled from the "Disclosing use of altered or synthetic content" and the "YouTube Channel Monetisation Policies" policies that should explicitly outline and define what "inauthentic content" is. Instead searching YouTube Help all that's pulled back is an 'update' message where "inauthentic content" is referenced in relation to renaming a previously disclosed "repetitious content" guideline[3]. Except that doesn't exist either, at least not as a specifically delineated "Repetitious Content" policy.
Instead what we have is a lot of implied and half explained language where "repetitious" is used to define content in various contexts that cannot be monetised, "content must be original and non-repetitious", as a paragraphed explainer on "What kind of content can I monetize?", but no distinct policy definition as the note on "YouTube Channel Monetisation Policies" implies.
It should be a relatively easy omission to fix by publishing a document where "Inauthentic Content" is a main page or sub-heading that has its own distinct explanation below. Simple. Of course doing that would mean YouTube no longer being able to rely on vague posting about and equally vague interpretation of their monetisation policies, thus giving them all the latitude needed to respond to disputes with more boiler-plate disclosing vague-posting.
Getting hit by this looks like the user is left with little proper recourse.
Footnotes
[1] the "strikes" and "take down['s]" in question seem largely related to demonetisation, flagged accounts are being removed from the monetisation program; ad revenue share, paid chats, subscriptions etc. is being revoked, and not necessarily account closure (although this does appear to be happening in some instances).
[2] Ask Studio provides the following explanation; Definition of Inauthentic Content: This refers to mass-produced or repetitive content that shows little to no variation across videos or is easily replicable at scale. Examples include content produced using a template, image slideshows with minimal commentary, or readings of non-original materials.
[3] "inauthentic content" 15 July 2025: We're making a minor update to our 'repetitious content' policy to better clarify that this includes content that is repetitive or mass-produced. We are also renaming this policy from 'repetitious content' to 'inauthentic content'. This type of content has always been ineligible for monetisation under our existing policies, where creators are rewarded for original and authentic content. There is no change to our reused content policy, which reviews content like commentary, clips, compilations and reaction videos.
If the situation is run past Ask Studio[2] (YouTube's AI helper) it'll respond with typical information pulled from the "Disclosing use of altered or synthetic content" and the "YouTube Channel Monetisation Policies" policies that should explicitly outline and define what "inauthentic content" is. Instead searching YouTube Help all that's pulled back is an 'update' message where "inauthentic content" is referenced in relation to renaming a previously disclosed "repetitious content" guideline[3]. Except that doesn't exist either, at least not as a specifically delineated "Repetitious Content" policy.
Instead what we have is a lot of implied and half explained language where "repetitious" is used to define content in various contexts that cannot be monetised, "content must be original and non-repetitious", as a paragraphed explainer on "What kind of content can I monetize?", but no distinct policy definition as the note on "YouTube Channel Monetisation Policies" implies.
It should be a relatively easy omission to fix by publishing a document where "Inauthentic Content" is a main page or sub-heading that has its own distinct explanation below. Simple. Of course doing that would mean YouTube no longer being able to rely on vague posting about and equally vague interpretation of their monetisation policies, thus giving them all the latitude needed to respond to disputes with more boiler-plate disclosing vague-posting.
Getting hit by this looks like the user is left with little proper recourse.
Footnotes
[1] the "strikes" and "take down['s]" in question seem largely related to demonetisation, flagged accounts are being removed from the monetisation program; ad revenue share, paid chats, subscriptions etc. is being revoked, and not necessarily account closure (although this does appear to be happening in some instances).
[2] Ask Studio provides the following explanation; Definition of Inauthentic Content: This refers to mass-produced or repetitive content that shows little to no variation across videos or is easily replicable at scale. Examples include content produced using a template, image slideshows with minimal commentary, or readings of non-original materials.
[3] "inauthentic content" 15 July 2025: We're making a minor update to our 'repetitious content' policy to better clarify that this includes content that is repetitive or mass-produced. We are also renaming this policy from 'repetitious content' to 'inauthentic content'. This type of content has always been ineligible for monetisation under our existing policies, where creators are rewarded for original and authentic content. There is no change to our reused content policy, which reviews content like commentary, clips, compilations and reaction videos.
#30
News / Toolkit - Furniture Node Setup...
Last post by kat - May 01, 2026, 10:24:01 AM
"Toolkit - Furniture Node Setup for Classic" https://www.katsbits.com/codex/toolkit-furniture-nodes-classic/ taking a quick look at fixing the incorrectly positioned furniture Handle issue in IMVU Classic Editor/Client when using the Toolkit for Blender