and thank you.

And what about the "suggestive" banners at the top of each page? There is one that starts "SEX" and then changes to something else... at least I hope so... I scroll down before seeing the rest of the banner. And what about all the lingerie banners? Or the "suggestive pose" banners? The figures may not be nude, but children can ask questions about those things also.

I don't know which are the insults you are referring to. I do not, and did not use, any insulting word. And when I wrote about the mentality that leads to the conception of the "nudity flags", firstly, I cant' see where the insult would be, and secondly, I did not refer to any individual specifically, but to the general concept, which I find aberrating. And I do not think I am insulting anyone if I say this. One thing must be very clear (and that's why I am back on writing on this thread): we are NOT talking about pornography. This is something everyone agrees we do not want to be shown to our children. We are talking about NUDITY IN ART. To me, the nudity flag concept is exaclty like prohibiting a child to see the David of Donatello, or to put a hand to cover a child's eyes when entering the Cappella Sistina in Rome. Aberrating. Because there is no contradiction between the nudity and the artistic beauty. I say: let the NetNanny and similar software filter out the pornography. Here at Renderosity there is already a strict rule for posting images that prohibits depiction of any contact of sexual parts with other sexual parts or objects, or any violence or rape scene etc. I think these are good enough rules to ensure that Renderosity galleries are a safe enough place. To get mad because female tits are visible in an artwork is, in my opinion, much farther from normal and due porn protection, and much closer to putting hands on the eyes of children in front of the Botticelli Naissance of Venus, or of the Venus of Milo, and so on. All the above, as always, in my OWN opinion. Which is my own opinion, and can be right or can be wrong, but it's my own opinion anyway, and I don't need anyone's dollars to change it.

I think the real issue here is not over nudity/non-nudity but over whether the galleries contain artistic nudity or soft porn. There are much better places than Renderosity to post soft porn. It shouldn't be a big deal to follow these simple rules: 1) If an image contains artistic nudity, check that flag. It keeps the prudes happy, and it's not a big deal to do. 2) If it's really soft porn, or could be construed as such, take it to one of the adult Poser sites instead. That just leaves the problem of those banner ads ...

"One thing must be very clear (and that's why I am back on writing on this thread): we are NOT talking about pornography. This is something everyone agrees we do not want to be shown to our children. We are talking about NUDITY IN ART. To me, the nudity flag concept is exaclty like prohibiting a child to see the David of Donatello, or to put a hand to cover a child's eyes when entering the Cappella Sistina in Rome. Aberrating. Because there is no contradiction between the nudity and the artistic beauty."

Orio, I would not have a problem taking my kids into any major museum. My kids enjoyed the Guggenheim in Vegas.

But the differences in the places you mention and the Poser gallery are that while there are some beautifully done nudes in the poser gallery there is also the type of work Peng mentioned above and two I came across the other day which involved the mutilation of a nude female. So since there is no way to separate the artistically beautiful renders with (forgive me but my opinion) the crap renders I, for one, will take advantage of the nudity flag.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But the topic did go way off from the original. I take exception to the attitudes of Bijou, Fishnose and Saie_Tahnn though when they attempted to move into the parenting issue on this. My kids aren't the only reason I mentioned. But, when I see a 9 year old relative bring over his R rated movies to watch as he spends the night with us (no way!), or hear about the grade school kids who knew how to access porn on the internet at school... I'm quite happy with my choices as a parent. :)

I'll end my rant with that and suggest that people consider that you don't have all the facts to make assumptions about people based on a couple of paragraphs of their words.

Attached Link: Bloodsong's nude

Kendra, I think that if there was a picture depicting the mutilation of a female, the fault was *before* the nudity flag point. I mean that according to the Renderosity rules, that picture shouldn't have been there any way, regardless of the nudity flag. Can you see my point? The picture should have been removed alltogether and the author warned. You make meaningful points, but when you point out that you can't accept a kid bringing adult rated movies, or learn about kids accessing porno sites... well you too can't but make examples of porno... not art. See what I mean? I first never justify accessibility of porno to the minors. My point is that a "naked Vicky in a temple" is NOT a pornographic image. It may be a bad taste image... might be bad art... might be tacky... but it's NOT porno! And if you require a nudity flag only because that naked Vicky shows a tit, then you may miss beautiful artistic nudes that you'll never see because of the nudity flag! I would like you to please see the linkedpicture and evaluate it? It's a nude by Bloodsong. Do you think it can be obscene to a child? Do you think it depicts the human body in an irrespectful way? I think not. I think it's a beautiful piece of art, that shows the harmony of the human body and how the human shapes can create artistic forms. I find this picture educative to the eye. To train the eye to recognize the beautiful in the things. Such beautiful pictures, will all be missed with the nudity flag. Unless your purpose is to simply remove ALL nudity from artworks... just because it's nudity... then your position and mine would be absolutely impossible to co-exist, because not only as an artist, but also as an art viewer, I claim the right of nudity to be used artistically, and I claim the right of children to be educated to see and consider the body nudity not as something sinful to be ashamed of, but as the trademark of the divine creation, the beauty of the human body being a direct representation and symbol of the beauty of the created things and of the universe all together. I think that artistic nudity can and should be part of a complete and balanced youth education. Learning to appreciate the beauty of a human body means learning to develop respect for it. I may be wrong, but I think that if the young people was taught not to be ashamed of the body, but to admire and respect it, we would have a lot less adolescents practicing body piercing and that kind of stuff... obviously their own way to protest by offending that body that they've been taught to be ashamed of. While it's the gift of God, what they carry their sould within.

"naked Vicky in a temple" is NOT a pornographic image. It may be a bad taste image... might be bad art... might be tacky... but it's NOT porno! And if you require a nudity flag only because that naked Vicky shows a tit, then you may miss beautiful artistic nudes that you'll never see because of the nudity flag! " So what? It's not your loss- you can still see it if you want. why does it bother you so much that some people really really do not want to see that?

Illusions: your sophisms like " I did not address it to you, so I can say whatever I want, while you did adress that to me, so you are insulting me"... sorry I don't buy that. You were not respectful in the first place, with what you said about that dollar. So what are you talking about now... I have not insulted anyone. Please quote precisely the insults that I would have said in your opinion. Please stop repeating that I have insulted someone. Either you can PROVE it, or STOP accusing me, or maybe even better, let's the moderator decide and either ban me for having said insults, or you for accusing me falsely. And... about the fact that one man's art is another man's porno, as you said... No, sorry, if someone thinks that Michelangelo's paintings are porno, this does NOT make Michelangelo a porno artist. Sorry. Michelangelo's art is a bit bigger than that person's narrow and prudish vision of it. And finally... like it or not, nudity flag IS censorship. Sorry. I like to call things for what they are. Cheryle: When people talk on a subject, it's not necessarily because it is regarding someone. Sometimes people talk about principles. There was a discussion going on, on this thread. I joined in and said what I think. If I see a man killing another man, should I just go on and walk because it does not regard me directly? If I see someone starving on the street, should I ignore that because my very own stomach is full? It would be very narrow thinking, to speak only about things that regard us directly, and ignore the rest.

I don't believe I questioned your parenting choicesand am sorry you got that impression however I do feel that you relied too heavily upon a mechanical device, the irreputable flag, too much. Visitors cling to it as a parenting savure from all unwanted art. Which you have stated and others, that, for whatever reason, has it's failicies. Be it human err or just mechanical failure. I don't think Orio strayed so far from the issue, Kendra brought up to the platenot only the flag and it's use or lack there of. Nudity and her children and work. And others seeing what Kendra deemed unappropriate for whatever reason. Oroh smiply stated Oroh's views pertaining to to those very things. I inturn stated the resposibility falls back on the viewer- where it began. I'm sure that when the 9 year old brought the R rated tape into your house you took and made your appropriate parenting decision. But what if 'you' bringing in the R rated tape? is the blame on someone else still? Of course not. In your opening statement, you state, 'you' brought in and open the Renderosity site. Knowing full well that it contains nudity. You did, not some 9 yr old or the gardener or someone else. And for what ever reason the flag was not in place or didn't work. Dispite the rules that we all understand by now of this site, it was or did not work. Yet you quicky push all blame on the "flag" filter and or artist. Which has been stated is a "curtisy" not a life saver. You expected obviously too much from this filter flag thing. Which I personelly could care less about. One way or the other. Do I think they're nessasary - no. infalliable - no. Nor am I ready to blame them if I happen to see something i thought would be filtered out. knowing I came to asite that containes the very thing I'm trying to filter. The viewer should expect or allow for the possiblity and probability that at one time or another it, the flag, is bound to fail. Dispite the reasons. And knowing full well there are no filters on the banners contained in this site, and that this site does contain nudity which "you" had to log into to get within this sites boundries. You, the viewer brought it into your home at your own risk for whom ever to see. Whether you find the art offensive or not. There fore final responsibility falls on ....the dog?...the cat?...the artist? When there is nobody or no-thing to point the finger of blame ....who's left?

Ps - Hello everyone - how I do love being made an exception of. lol hey kendra how was your day? (smile)you do make me feel exceptional.

.... sigh... :( Shame lies here.

You should keep in mind that there are other places Renderosity is viewed--it's not just a home/work thing at all. A patron viewing Renderosity nudes (even accidently) could get banned from a public library should a parent complain. You may stamp your feet all you like that the parent is being prudish and up tight, but the parent has a right to expect other adults will respect his or her restrictions for his or her child. He or she can choose whether or not to take a child into a museum, but the Internet sits inside of public and private buildings...it is a very invasive thing. Placing a nudity/violence tag does not censor the picture from being viewed...it simply is a way of respecting the rights of others NOT to view works that feature nudity or violence. You still have the right to create and view whatever you want within certain restrictions of the TOS...all Kendra is asking (and properly so) is the right not to have it shoved in her child's face. It is such a modest request. I don't understand why such a big deal is being made of it. Some people seemed so threatened by the idea that it is possible other people might want to have a choice of what to view in their own homes or at work or in school or at the library. It isn't meant to restrict you but to restrict what the child (or even the adult) views. It is simply having respect for the rights of others. You lose no rights in return.

"If this image contains nudity of any type, you must check the "Nudity" checkbox..." The last time I checked, MUST means you're obligated to do so. conceded point... Ironbear- since your up on these things -is there any where in the rules or TOS whatever, that states the 'flag' is to be used as a parental control of any sort? Or to be relied on as such? is 100% gauranteed not to fail? That no human err will ever acure? If not, then I rest my side of the "who's responsibile in the end"

Umm... no idea on current guidelines or how it's view, Saie. Keep in mind, I haven't worked on the "other side of the wall" here in a long time since that was put in place. To the best of my awareness, nothing stated that it's to be used for either parental control, guranteed to not fail. Human err is implied if you have humans. ;] But that doesn't rest your case any unless you studied logic in vastly different classes than I did: responsibility in the end rests equal on poster, viewer, and site admins/mods to see that it's used as designed. Responsibility for making sure the feature works on a technical basis rests on the site programmers and techs. shrug Doesn't matter what you or I think about artistic nudity in general. I've been a member of Renderotica since 2000, so I'm obviously pretty libertine on the subject, or at least you can hazard a reasonable guess that I am. Regardless of how I feel about it, a part of that responsibility rests on me everytime I upload a pic to gallery or forum here. If I take care of my responsibility to set flags when available, then what Kendra chooses to set in her options for viewing or not is her business. I did my end.

We must've been typoing at the same time, Illusions. Post crosted. ;]

I agree to the spirit and as mentioned what ever Ren recquires us to is fine with me - but in regards to the statement - Kendra 1st post -"I don't care but when my kids are in the room or I'm at work I shouldn't have to worry about it when the safeguard is an option." to this statement I rest my point

Heh. Ko.. so can we argue about Big Tits in the Gallery, Pro or Con now? ;]

"I think that if there was a picture depicting the mutilation of a female, the fault was before the nudity flag point. I mean that according to the Renderosity rules, that picture shouldn't have been there any way, regardless of the nudity flag. Can you see my point? The picture should have been removed alltogether and the author warned."

Should have yes, what happened was the person put a censor box over the most offending part and left the mutilation. That person "should have" realized how inappropriate it was in the first place. Since he didn't and didn't bother to check the nudity flag this is exactly the reason it's needed.

"And if you require a nudity flag only because that naked Vicky shows a tit, then you may miss beautiful artistic nudes that you'll never see because of the nudity flag!"

Orio, this proves you haven't read what I've written. I never said I never wanted to see nudes. I never said there was anything wrong with nudes. I did say I even work on nude renders.
What I did say was that there were CERTAIN TIMES in which I need the nudity flag on. It is during those times that I ask people to use it and not render it useless for those who need it.
And I am not about to discuss or evaluate anything with you because that was never the point.

"Such beautiful pictures, will all be missed with the nudity flag. Unless your purpose is to simply remove ALL nudity from artworks... just because it's nudity... then your position and mine would be absolutely impossible to co-exist, because not only as an artist, but also as an art viewer, I claim the right of nudity to be used artistically"

As do I. I also claim the right to view it at my choice of time, not yours.

"and I claim the right of children to be educated to see and consider the body nudity not as something sinful to be ashamed of"

You are not the parent to anyone elses child. YOU cannot claim any of those rights. If I want my children to wait till a certain age or maturity before I let them watch certain movies or visit certain sites it's MY decision. It's not for someone else to take it upon themselves to "claim" that "right".

You also do not know what I've allowed my child to see and not see and so YOU do not have the right to make any assumptions on my part. Which is why I said:

"I'll end my rant with that and suggest that people consider that you don't have all the facts to make assumptions about people based on a couple of paragraphs of their words."

I'm simply asking that the nudity flag be used. My reasons included the work place and my children seeing those images that get by the mods or are simply too graphic for their ages. No not all nudes are porn (I never said that) but not all nudes are artistic either!

Saie Tahnn, my day has been fine :) thank you for asking. How's yours?
"I do feel that you relied too heavily upon a mechanical device, the irreputable flag, too much. Visitors cling to it as a parenting savure from all unwanted art."

Some "unwanted art" is not good for developing children. The images I mentioned above are a very good example. The poser gallery is too diverse right now for me to trust it. And I'll remind you too that I never said I wanted the nudity flag on all the time. I simply wish for it to work under certain situations. As far as children are concerned, every parent has different ideas of what should and should not be acceptable for their children and it's not anyone else's place to decide that for them. (which is why I did not want to bring up the parenting issue) When a child is at the point where you are trying to teach them that their body is their own and not for anyone else to see or touch, what they see can affect that. It's not a time period that lasts forever but they don't understand the difference between real and digital. Like I said- and this is the point I don't thing people are getting- I would not consider that I could brows Renderotica with the kids at home or at work. That site is for that sort of imagery and there is no safeguard in place for it, this arguement would be ridiculous there. Here, however, there is. If people don't use it, it renders it useless. And if it bothers anyone else that some people do make use of it, that's just something they'll have to get over. I can't force everyone to listen to Opera can I? If someone can't handle it in my car, I'll gladly turn it down, off or give them the headphones to listen to something else. :) If I were in charge of this site and did the geocities style auto-start music thing and set it to play "La Donna E Mobile" over and over, it would be offensive to some. It's beautiful, artistic and thought provoking but not everyone likes it and those reasons aren't reason enough for me to push someone else to deal with it.

Anyway I said I wasn't going to get into the parenting issue and there I did anyway. I don't like feeling like I need to defend my stance but comments like "prude", "sensitive" and suggestions that I might cover my childs eyes at the sight of the Venus Di Milo did push me. I didn't give anyone enough information for them to start making judgements.

And yes, I know the flag fails sometimes. But 6 nude thumbs in the first 5 or 6 pages of the gallery (yesterday)to me suggests a lack of using it. Not failure.

~jeez I'm long winded tonight. I'm going to make dinner. :)

Lol - I'm with you Ironbear - you bring the titties, I'll bring the Beer

"it's not necessarily because it is regarding someone. Sometimes people talk about principles. " That does not apply here in this situation. This site states specifically in no uncertain terms. If there is nudity in your image- you MUST check the nudity button. This is Not about some high minded ideals not about museums not about any of the other smoke that is being blown around here. It's about the artists responsibility when using this site to use the nudity button. Its about the veiwerwho comes to this site and who chooses to not veiw nudity to make sure the no nudity button is checked in their profile. It's about this site's responsability to uphold the said terms of this site. Nothing else applies, no matter how much smoke you try to blow at it.

"this arguement would be ridiculous there. [renderotica]" - Kendra. True on the observation that there's no nudity flag to discuss. But I'll bet that bringing up "nudity in images, artists responsibility, and appropriateness of nudity" [for example, just to distill out a few themes froom in this thread] in Renderotica's Adult Graphics forum or at Thralldom would get you a pretty thoughtful and reasoned discussion for the most part. Natch, you'd get the usual joking around and inanity, but that's part of the fun. Flaming someone on their views there would get flames back, of course - hell, you'd have me and Legume to deal with in flames. But a reasoned discussion would probably get a mostly reasoned response in return. From a couple of people... an over reasoned and analytical response. ;] *************************** Comparative forum analysis aside, I think Cheryle just summed it up best, so I'll leave her to it. ;]

(shrug) I dunno... they could really use a "violence" flag over at 'rotica to weed out the violent and sadistic images from the gentler displays of erotica. I'll have to crank out an e-mail to Diane 'bout that sometime, but I've never really thought about it until now... /P

Do. Put it up as a suggestion for the new software. It's not a bad idea as a feature.

Why do i feel we should all be humming Onward Christien Soldeirs in the background...? Ironbear why stop there... we should catagorize the white nudes, the black nudes and the ones containing asian people as well...the members of the KKK and bigots from round the glode would certainly be more receptable to the site and be able to filter out those pics especially when there kids are around. And why stop there even we could seperate the ones with black rubber suits from the ones with white rubber suits - the good and evil thing. I sure ther are people that would appriciate that. Personally I like to see afilter for the ones with landscape in them, I only want to see ones from the city scape....where does it end folks?? I don't people ...I always thought this site was meant for artists of all kinds...and with that came the responsibility to protect the artist and free thinking. With out cencership - catagorizing sure - filtering - no. I would understand and be more receptive to an organized site which had catagories for art work but not the filtering thing. Chyrle - I'd have to refer back to Hawkfyr and say it's not what you, it's how you say it - if I have his point right. Not that I'm the most versed person in the world mind you. but I believe the issue of making sure the box was checked is a given at this point. And this has now developed into the related issues there of brought up with-in this thread. Which all corralates back to the original post. Art will always or hopefully be contravertal, at times appealing and at times disturbing. The masters tend to push the boundries of not only the media of choice but the boundries of what's socially exceptable. What your talking about with the 'Use' of the nudity button thether it's intent or not - is censorship.

Wouldn't you all agree that catagorizing would be better than 'filtering'? Kendra - if you came here and on the front page there was a list of all the catagories - Scenery - sci-fi, nudesand the sub catagories, sci-fi nudes, etc and no nude banners on the scenery sci-fi etc would that solve your issue to your satisfaction?

"And this has now developed into the related issues there of brought up with-in this thread. Which all corralates back to the original post." No -the issue always was and still is- use the nudity flag. Anything else is a separate issue and should be addressed in a separate thread. The rest is just hyperbole. This never was about principles etc. It has always been about the site's nudity flag, the responsibility of the artist posting, the veiwer and the sites responsibility for upholding the terms. Nothing else.

"I'd have to refer back to Hawkfyr and say it's not what you, it's how you say it " Why should i pontificate, lecture, hold forth and speel 12 paragraphs of drivial when i can say what i mean clearly and succinctly in 1?

hey! i was eating those! ( chex mix) That was my breakfast!!!

I can already hear the rebut coming so i answer - kids will be kids and granted with out a filter they risk getting into things they shouldn't or we would rathr them not get into as parents. playing with matches or knifes and not getting run over by a car things of that nature. Since we must preserve the rights of all - to have all availiable - wouldn't you agree as parents it's up to you as a parent to teach your kids to look both ways before crossing a street - Then this falls under the same cinario -you as a parent will have to teach your kids - whether you want them to see nudes or not, and which nudes or when you feel it's the appropriate time in life to view them. And learn to trust your kids a little as to what you as a parent have taught them. And sure they may get into the nudes or matches - but that's part of being a parent, you learn to deal with those situations just as they will as kids. heck i remember the first time i saw a playboy and snuck over to the tracks with my new to me, girlfriend - but those arn't bad memories heck i was laughing at the pictures and had no clue what a girlfiend was - they where still carrying kudies at that age.(though in a couple years I learned other wise:)heh heh give me them kudies girl I'm sure the girls remember there first kiss or the first time they saw that thang or had a drink. I'm sure your parents at the time or at some time did not approve, did you turn out to be mass murders or rapists? Are you bad people? Well I wish everyone a happy day and or night - I have work to do. Memories....aaaaahhhhhh

What part of- some of us have NO INTEREST in seeing nudes and use the filter as we are SUPPOSED TO do you not understand? Why is it such a big deal that some people have NO INTEREST in seeing nudes and do not wish to?

by catagorizing - you can still elect "not" to see them "so what differnce does it make"? to quote you. a filter removes - cencorship is just that the 'removal' of said items

lol! THX! ;) munches breakfast happily

"a filter removes - cencorship is just that the 'removal' of said items " No -the items are still there- the people who want to see them(have the see nudes in gallery option turned on) still can see them-nothing is removed.

censorship - defininiton - a system of censoring ie the prevention of according to my dictionary Why is it such a big deal that some people have NO INTEREST in seeing nudes and do not wish to? how is this accomplished - by placing a filter or system of cencoring

It would be censorship if people who wanted to view nudity were prevented from seeing it. This isn't the case. The nudity flag is to allow people who have zero interest in T&A from having it thrust willy nilly into their faces. This is not a hard concept.

correction - that's Websters new world dictionary

my point can only be realized if we agree on terms - do agree to the definition of cencorship according to Websters dictionary?

Saie do you even know how the profile options work? i am getting the feeling you don't. Here on this site- there are 3 things in place that accomplish the goal of allowing those who want to upload and view nudes to do so and to allow those who do not want to view them to not view them. To NOT view the nudes- one has to physically go into ones OWN profile and click a button. That only prevents THAT USER fromm viewing something they do not wish to see. THAT IS ALL> the rest who wish to view that item can. NOTHING IS REMOVED. It's all set by USER PREFERENCE! IN NO WAY DOES THIS FALL UNDER YOUR DEFINITION OF CENSORSHIP! Now, again- what is the diff between redesigning the site into nudes non nudes and one using the system in place? This system actually works when artists, veiwers and Admins//mods each uphold their end of the terms.

Is that the true concern here? - the desire or non-desire as to redesigning the site? I though we where having a simple discusion amongst members that was simply an interesting topic. it was brought up about nude banners and concerns of cencorship from not only the viewers side but the artists side as well,it was also brought up about the use of the 'filter' as a parenting control device. all related to the initially posted statement. an yes - I do know how to use the profile page - thats been stated umteen times

Lol, so in the name of "censorship" you think I should have tits and crotches shoved in my viewing sight whether I want them there or not? It's called a choice. And on the other end of my choice is someone elses respect for that.
Someone turning on the nudity filter censors no one but themselves. It's not censoring you, or anyone else here. It's simply a warning to me that I may not want to open the image if I'm at work or there is someone else near the computer that might be offended.

And example. My Grandmother would be highly offended by the nude images here including mine. She likes the cute ones though. Should I disrespect her wishes and email her one of my nude renders? If she doesn't look at it it's "censorship" in your mind. Is she censoring me by not wishing to see them?
A resounding NO.

Oh my GOSH! I just realized that I'm "CENSORING" Playboy by not buying their magazing or watching their channel. Someone sue me.

:)

• meanders through the smoke to get the bowl of thorazine laced chex* Ok for the remedial part of the class. The topic is Nudity flag- use it. This site states specifically in no uncertain terms. If there is nudity in your image- you MUST check the nudity button. It's about the artists responsibility when using this site to use the nudity button. Its about the veiwerwho comes to this site and who chooses to not veiw nudity to make sure the no nudity button is checked in their profile. It's about this site's responsability to uphold the said terms of this site. That's all this is about- the rest is smoke. I really don't know how to make this any clearer. It really is just that simple.

"Why do i feel we should all be humming Onward Christien Soldeirs in the background...?" I dunno... tell us why. These flags are used to react with filtering devices that the view sets on his or her browser. you wanna see BDSM porn and decapitated chicks getting ass-raped by a demon then set your own filter so that you can see 'em. (Renderotica has a real wide variety of imagery, and I mean real wide...) Otherwise, if you just want to see girls kissing or a couple going at it in the usual ways, set your filter for that and the blood magically never arrives on your browser. Of course, you could just take the time to read what you're reacting to which would save me from having to explain what I wrote for a second time. Ironbear why stop there... we should catagorize the white nudes, the black nudes and the ones containing asian people as well... Cool - Asian nudes are the cutest IMHO, which allows this Ozark hillbilly to get to 'em faster >:) the members of the KKK and bigots from round the glode would certainly be more receptable to the site and be able to filter out those pics especially when there kids are around. Having lived in and around a few Kluxers (Northern Arkansas, but they're a dying breed and rightfully so), I can tell you that most of 'em couldn't even spell "modem" with any certainty, let alone use one. However, that fact aside, most Kluxers avoid artistic sites in the first place. They tend to hate culture and arts in general (or anything else that requires more thought than the average television sitcom), since they're too consumed with their particular animosities to bother with the arts. Even as a guy who is NOT a Kluxer, I wouldn't want any kids to see half of the nudes in Renderosity's galleries... not due to skin color, but due to the fact that I would have to answer questions that no kid should ask, like: "Daddy, what is that girl on the computer about to stick up her butt and why?" /P

"I though we where having a simple discusion amongst members that was simply an interesting topic." No- We were talking about members not abiding by this sites rule that when one is uploading a nude image- one MUST use the nudity flag. Hence the topic name of "Nudity flag is there for a reason." "it was brought up about nude banners and concerns of cencorship from not only the viewers side but the artists side as well,it was also brought up about the use of the 'filter' as a parenting control device. " All which were brought up in a feeble attempt to sidetrack from the original topic of- "nudity tag is there for a reason" and has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic, which revolves around the artists responsibility when using this site to use the nudity button,the veiwer who comes to this site and who chooses to not veiw nudity to make sure the no nudity button is checked in their profile and this site's responsability to uphold the said terms of this site. Hey Illusions- uh who was the thorazine for? oh never mind- i ate half of it already- so it doesn't matter anymore! I always did want to do the Thorazine Shuffle"..

If we don't agree on the definition of cencorship as stated the point that I'm trying to make here will not be seen. perhaps you've eaten from the blue bowl and not the red by mistake. Just as, if you misinterprete my words or exlude the ending on which I validated my meaning. My point is that if used in conjucntion with a filter, as you so attamently insist is not a "system of censorship", or at least at this point this point we haven't agreed to, (whether it can be turned on or off is a mute point and irrelavent to the deffinition of a system of cencorship - a lght bulb can be turned on and off but it's still a light bulb.) just as pop-up stoppers are a form of censorship, so true is the nudity button or an orange button or a green button if it filters out those colors or whatever it might filter out. Arkansa is not the only place the KKK live and I too have known members, whether I agree with their statements or not is irrelavent, but I never under estimate their intellegance nor their desire for culture. They have their rights as well.

If the nudity/violence/etc filter is voluntary and is set or unset by the user at their whim, then it is not censorship. If the artist is required to set those filter flags as a condition of posting their imagery, it is still not the form of censorship you have railed on about, because those users who want to see the kind of art the artist produces can still see it in spite of the flags, and no one else is forced to. In short, everyone can still see or not see whatever artwork they desire. How much simpler does the explanation have to get? And yeah, the Kluxers are in a lot of places... they are stronger North of the Mason-Dixon line these days than south of it (esp. in places like rural Illinois and Indiana.) I also know that the vast majority of Kluxers I have seen or spoken to live by a narrowly defined set of "ideals". Most white supremacist groups absolutely hate the US gov't, and see technology as a means by which the government can intrude upon their lives even further...) Now, if you would be so kind as to get off of your soapbox long enough to see what everyone here is trying to get through to you, and read it with an open mind, you would see that there is no problem with the filtering that Renderosity has here. Last mention I'm making on the subject. /P

And all of this has what to do with this site's rules which state use the nudity button when uploading a nude image?

Frankly, I've got a hangover headache before I've had a chance to party. I think Saie_Tahn wants (a) attention and (b) to promote an agenda and (c) has no interest in the rights of anyone but Saie_Tahn, ignoring the fact that none of Saie_Tahn's rights are threatened by the judicious use of the checkbox, so I can't figure out what the argument is. It is not because Saie_Tahn's graphics are in danger of not being viewed because none are posted in the gallery, and Saie_Tahn can view anything without restriction. It makes no sense. sigh. So much of what goes on makes no sense. Happy New Year to you all. I am spending mine at my house. I hope you all have a safe and happy entry into 2003.

Some people make sense...some people make nonsense...some people don't make any sense at all LOL! The new motto for Renderosity????

Happy new year to you too Dialyn- hope your doggie is feeling ok and hanging in there too! And i am pretty happy- i just finished scarfing down the rest of Illusions thorazine chex mix LOL ;D and yep that would be a good tag line LOL!

Illusions actually- i haven't figured out how to get html working properly in here so i end up resorting to caps and asterixes a lot for emphasis. Yah i know caps is yelling but i am too uncoordinated to do html in forums! LOL