Attached Link: http://market.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=16435

Thanks boulder, I'll point this thread out to the MP team in case they don't spot it. Kevin.

I've contacted the merchant for new images.

-JH.
Renderosity MP.

Much better, Thanks for rewording your request

Attached Link: http://market.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=9545

.

Attached Link: http://market.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=6296&ViewImage=3#Image

Now this is going a tad too far, no? All of these promos are very innocent in content, and only a very dirty mind could see them as porno. Sorry, but if you get turned on by these pixels... (shrugs). You look at naked dolls all day long, I suppose, so what is your issue here, boulder?

Hmatienzo FRom "Product Submission Guidelines" "Child Nudity Due to legal liability surrounding Children and Child pornography, we will not allow any nude pictures of children in The MarketPlace. This includes products advertised as teens, pre adolescent, child like fairies, etc..." that's the issue here shrug

::starts to tell folks the legal definition of child pornography (as a dear friend reminded me) and then realizes it's not worth it cuz nobody will listen anyway::

i don't think it is so much that no one will listen- it's just that rosity (it seems to me but i could be wrong) doesn't want to hassle with it so they posted a no nude kid policy- just to be safe and just to not have to hassle over the definitions etc etc...

So, what's good enough for the Supreme Court is not good enough for Rosity... hmmmm. Mind you, I abhor children being used in lewd settings, but if you censor these innocent promos, you need to pull Thorne's fairies, as well... and many more. Where does this with hunt stop? Why can a flat-chested fairy show her naked upper body, but this boy render not his thigh? He didn't exactly wave his parts in our faces. But then, we are talking two things here, really... the cashcows vs the not-so-cashcows, and boulder's private agenda. And believe me, if you follow his rants in the forum, you'll know he has one...

I'm with hmatienzo on this. These images are in no way `sexual', and while I can understand Rosity's nervousness about any naked-kid images at the moment, that's about all I can understand. It's all getting a bit Taliban-ish. People in the UK have been dragged in for questioning by the police for taking perfectly innocent photos of their kids. Boulder's beginning to resemble the Witchfinder General with these frequent posts. Mick.

It would be useful to have an age given in that definition though. As it stands, it seems to define anyone under 20 as a child. If that's the intention, fine. But on such an inflammatory issue, a bit of clarity would help.

all you have to do it look at his gallery to figure out who he is too

From "Product Submission Guidelines" "Child Nudity Due to legal liability surrounding Children and Child pornography, we will not allow any nude pictures of children in The MarketPlace. This includes products advertised as teens, pre adolescent, child like fairies, etc..." Printed it again to try and make it clear. Pay particular attention to the 2nd sentence. If these are the rules then enforce them. Be consistant. If this message was bringing attention to nude kids in the gallery the images would be deleted immediately and the offendor warned or banned. Different rules appear to apply to vendors. I have nothing against the vendors that I have used as examples it's the inconsistancy in rule application I object too. In the 3rd example, I have brought attention to, two have been censored the other 1 hasn't. Again no consistancy of rule enforcement.

Please give us time to get things worked out here. This is a big site and we have members all over the place. The fact that two of the three have been changes proves that we are working on it.

I hardly can think of my 16 yrs old version of Mike as a child (children look much different, here at least they do), and even less I can understand why it was my product exactly to be put explicitely on the index by you, Boulder, but the fact that you got angry at me on a recent Forum thread must have something to do with it, eh, Boulder? Anyway, I learned time ago to just walk on and leave such mean things like this kind of vile revenges behind me... only, should you need a favor/help for anything, sometimes in the future... please look elsewhere, I will be busy. Thank you. Orio

As I can remember, when I was born I wasn't wearing any clothes at all. Who see dirt is because has dirt inside. Urgent!, we must hire more Inquisitors........

Kawecki and everyone else I have nothing against nudity at all and I don't care what the images are in the MP. My post was and still is to point out that the rules of Renderosity, whether by negligence or whatever, were not been consistantly applied. Also, there was no attack angainst the quality of the MP items or any personal attack intended against the vendors. The 3 examples I gave were the 1st 3 I came across.

i don't think they understand that rules should be applied to all, in a fair and respectful manner. shrug.

It's an unfortunate world out there, guys. You may not have any issue with the images, but there are people out there so obsessed with this that they'll whack off to photos in Sears catalogues -- which is pretty much why Sears doesn't show products like that any more. And yeah, Rsity has to follow the rules with a leaning towards the "safe" side of things. These days, they just don't have a lot of choice.

Boulder, now you play the role of the quiet defender of the justice, but your first thread on this subject was so inflammatory that the moderators have been forced to delete it. This truth has to be underlined, because now that your message has been deleted, it would be too easy -and too comfortable for you- to pretend that it did not exist. It existed, and his content was reputed as HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. And you are still responsible of that, even if that message you wrote is not there to be seen anymore. It was there, it was an attack, it was offensive, it was made public by you, and it has been read by people. And speaking about rules, there are rules not only for nudity. There are also rules for offenses and harassment to other members of Renderosity, and with your first post, you did break both. And to my knowledge, there were no 3 links in your first post, but just ONE link, the link to my product, and the post was a direct attack against my product. So it is plain FALSE what you write, that "there was no attack against the quality of the MP items or any personal attack etc...". There was indeed a CLEAR OFFENSIVE ATTACK against me and my product, and it was RECOGNIZED AS SUCH, not by me, who could be partial, but BY THE MODERATION. And it was judged so MUCH offensive that the MODERATION evaluated necessary to DELETE your post. This is the TRUTH and this truth has to be recalled here, in order for the readers not to be fooled into thinking that Boulder came into this subject riding the white horse of justice. He came as the most straight and offensive of forum flamers. Cheryle: As far as the "fair and respecful manner" goes... if the fair and respectful manner of doing this is publicly flaming someone (me and my product) on a forum, as Boulder did, I don't think that the moderators agree at all on your point.

I don't actually care about your issue with boulder- that is between you and him. If your image did indeed include a nude of someone under 18 (what's considered "legal age" in the United states- where this site is hosted), then you have to abide by this site's stated rule of No nude children images. None. It's not you who would have the explaining to do, nor would you have to come up with legal fees- even if the image was found to be "innocent" enough by the Supreme court or a lower court- rosity still has to pick up the legal fees defending themselves- not to mention loss of servers (confenscated as evidence) while it gets sorted out.

Cheryle, as I said to the Administration here, I thought that the nudity flag that was present on the product upload page was the instrument to take care of nudity problems. That's what I always read on the various forums, where everyone says "please check the nudity flag"... So I checked the flag, and I thought I was done. I didn't know of any special US laws regarding no nudity below 18. I don't live in the US, and if someone does not tell me, I have no way to know. Now the point is: if someone told me "please censor the images, our laws does not allow the full nudity", then I would have done that immediately, which in fact I did: less than 30 minutes after I read Jeff's message asking me to apply the censorship, I had already uploaded the censored images to the Renderosity server. It's not like what you imply, that I wanted to cheat, and besides, it would be stupid, because if there is a rule, there would be surely someone to make it work, so why bother to try to cheat. But mostly, I always do respect the rules of the place I am, provided of course, that I know those rules. So it was not a nice thing of you, to imply like you did, that I wanted to cheat. This is a thing not nice to say, especially since you don't know me. I would like to see more respect brought to others in this place. I for instance do respect you, and I would never dare to say that you are unable to understand something, like you said of me. That was also quite a bad thing to read. Lastly, about Boulder. It's not anymore between me and him. It's never been actually. He didn't write to me privately, he published two threads on this forum, so HE made it public in the first place. I (not the rules) was his obvious target, he flamed me rudely. So that is why I needed to make clear some things publicly, too. You may have a concern for the rules, but Boulder didn't have a concern in the first place. He did have a target, and the target was me.

I implied nothing. You can read into my post whatever you want. I clarified what was written in the product upload page. If you missed that, then you missed it- but it is there.

I implied nothing. Then could you please explain what else does the following sentence mean: "i don't think they understand that rules should be applied to all" To me, it sounds like you were saying that I wanted to cheat. If this is not what you meant, then I would like to understand better. Thank you.

sure! Right on the product upload it says - no child nudity- yet you uploaded it, and when someone pointed it out- you got all wound up talking about diff threads etc etc shrug none of which has anything to do with following the rules.

no child nudity- yet you uploaded it My product is not a child. Children look different. I didn't even worry about the possibility of such a problem with Loris. It's only now, that I learn that in the USA everyone below 18 is a child. I did not know that. And as I said, I thought I was OK with the nudity flag. To my sense of logic, that was the meaning of the nudity flag. What else should it be there for? It's only now that I learn that the nudity flag does not mean a thing, in fact. I checked it, and it was exacly like if I haven't checked it. Now I wonder: why leave it up at all? It's useless. Worse than that: it confuses people. It surely did confuse me because I thought it was the way of taking care of a nudity problem! > when someone pointed it out- No Cheryle, sorry, it's not that someone "pointed it out", it's that someone RUDELY ATTACKED ME with no respect for my person and no respect for my product. And the proof of it is that his message was deleted by the moderation. If it was a normal "pointing out" the message would still be there. What I can not understand and can not ACCEPT is that Boulder made it a PERSONAL case against me, by linking to my product and by flaming it and me. Boulder should have either posted a generic, no-names post of complaint, or, if he wanted to make my specific name, then he should have written to the moderation staff privately, to let them handle the matter. They would have informed me, as they did, and I would have censored the images without the need for Boulder to build up a case, court and public trial against me. He should have done either one thing, or the other. A personal attack publicly done is unacceptable. No, sorry, pointing out is one thing.... Boulder rudely FLAMED me.

oh stfu already! You're whining!! If your item was under age then yes it should not have been uploaded. If it was of legal us age then yes the nudity flag would cover it. I saw no such attack in this post- if there was another i did not see it. my comments are based on this thread only. apparently the issue which you speak has been taken care of by the mods. You seem to be making a few retaliation remarks back by continuously bringing up something that has been deleted. Look you now know the rules. I can understand not knowing legal us age if you are not from here but you now know them-follow them.

But then get rid of Thorne's naked-breasted teeny-plaything, too, fair is fair!

yep it does say child like fairies right in there... shrug guess we will see if there is any consistancy... for all.... so can we get the email on post thing to work please? i keep unchecking it but keep getting ebots ;P

Actually the models can be sold- just the pictures can't be naked. Does having ebot on reply in preferences over ride the unchecked email when someone replies box below?

Is the RMP having a special on martyr complexes ?

ROFL .. hey, you got no REAL problems over in the States, huh? Besides that: that are no children but virtual models. Hope anyone will ever understand the difference.

What eludes me in all this -- and forgive me if this sounds like a silly question -- but who's monitoring this stuff before it hits the MP? Supposedly you guys run a product through tests to see if it's MP-ready; isn't there a similar mechanism to check the ad pages before they're released? And insofar as oh stfu already... not a wise response, IMHO. Orio makes a good point about cross-border cultural differences: if the breakdown is a difference in the perception of what is or isn't a "child", then maybe the upload page needs to make it clearer for non-Americans to understand the situation on this side of the ocean?

What I am trying to make clear is that I am not objecting a rule or it's application. I am protesting the publicly offensive way I have been attacked using that rule as an excuse. If it was really the concern for a rule, the thing could be done without any problem by simply and quietly letting the moderators or even directly me know about it. But as I said already, Boulder did not have a concern about the rule. He did have a target and the target was ME, not the nudity. That is why he flamed ME. His was a personal attack on me and THIS is what I can not accept. Is it clear now?

"And insofar as oh stfu already... not a wise response, IMHO." you are right. my apologies.

Actually illusions, it needs to be more specific still. It ought to say: Due to legal liability surrounding Children and Child pornography in the US we will not allow any nude pictures of anyone under the age of 18 in The MarketPlace. The word 'children' means different things in different places: here in the UK, it means under 16. And the bit about "advertised as teens" needs to be sorted out too. 'Teens' means 'between thirteen and nineteen inclusive'. If eighteen- and nineteen- year olds aren't children, then they shouldn't be included. Considering the amount of hassle this subject has caused over the last couple of years, I'd have thought someone would have the sense to get rid of the sloppy language and remove any room for doubt. Once it's specific, it's easier to enforce.

I'm pretty sure Vicki, Mike, and even the P4 folks were all coded after 1984. That would make them all under 18. Of course, they are also not people. There's no law against nude images of ferrets, regardless of age. Ferrets hardly ever live past six years. Lets see, the millenium kids came out in early 2002, right? Does that mean it's okay to post nude images of them in late 2016? I am so tempted to make a character advertised as 'full-grown adult with the same disease as Emmanuel Lewis'. God, I wish Emmenual Lewis would do porn. That would piss so many people off and leave the laws so confused as to what to do. I mean, what do you say when a what, 22-year old now?, in perfect accordance with the law, goes ahead and does the nasty with six girls and maybe some guys? It's perfectly legal. Even if they do still look 12 and only measure 42 inches tall.

Besides, Emmanuel Lewis? Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

I didn't say I would rent it. B^) But you know that the ACLU would fight that all the way to the bloody UN world court if it came down to it. That's midget discrimination.

Oh, and they'd win, eventually, too.