Smitt: I HAD a gallery here, and why I removed it is no business of yours..I can still have an opinion here like it or not shrug And as for "Take My advise... DON'T quit your day job in hopes of a Promising career as an art critic." I would take that advice to heart for yourself.. Black: were talking about the contour of a hip, a hand covering a breast shyly, a partially undone blouse showing a hint of cleavage, etc etc. the only thing deviant here is the failure to accept that human sexuality, and nudity, is the most natural thing in the world. Wth was it said anything about 'the conture of a hip??' Id like to see that post.. could you find it and repost it for all of us? As for the rest of that statement, all your describing is a mild form of the females role in foreplay..and the very reason your images were removed probably* and doesnt help this discussion at all. You have totally taken this out of context and twisted it around to mean something that it doesnt. We asked for INDIVIDUAL FILTERS so that if there was something that we did not wish to see, we would have the option to turn it off. What we GOT however was stricter rules set in place for banner ads {How many F@!#$%@ times we gotta post this??} The banner ads that were objected to were the ones that were constantly flashed in our faces showing legs spread, with little or no cloth between them, provacative poses that could be used for nothing else than a sexual position, completely naked women with nothing covering them but tiny stars over the nipples, and so on.. What Im seeing from you and smitt, are a couple of male merchants who have no regard or respect for women in general, and the rest of the community members, and only care about 'money' As for your last statement Black.. i pray that they never have kids upon whose helpless minds they will impose such prudish values I'll thank you to not tell me how to raise my children, and dont try to impose your views and values upon me. Raise yours the way you see fit, and upon your head be it..Leave mine alone. ~J

Oh goodie, I knew the "no respect for women" card would eventually get played in this discussion, only didn't know how long it would be. NOW this is GONNA get interesting!! Jack

oh please, who said anything about the female form being deviant! I think that is taking it WAY out of context. I was getting sick of some of those erotic banners too. I'm not a prude, so don't even go there. Thing is I have kids, and I don't want them seeing ads about genital morphs or the lower half of breasts everytime they come up to me while I am on the computer to see what I am doing. They are young and shouldn't have to deal with erotica and sex whether in advertising or otherwise. Erotica and sex is ok, in there place. I am glad for the desicion for those that wanted it, doesn't affect me personally cause I block all banners and have been for a while. For the merchant, remember sex isn't the only thing that sells, use your imagination.

Taura, I really need to say this, you took and showed responsiblity!! Unlike others, you did so by actively taking measures and steps in which to protect your children (and possibly yourself) from viewing any questionable banners by filtering them out yourself. You took responsiblity for your Internet browsing, rather than tried to get someone else to accept that responsiblity. I commend you! I only wish there were more people who did the same in cyberspace!! Jack

items pertaining to pinup art, or sexuality, make up the VAST majority of this sites content, both in the marketplace and in the galleries and forums. so why dont YOU use YOUR imagination and figure out a way to change the current 'deviant and offensive' system without forcing your prudish way of thinking upon the silent majority. "The banner ads that were objected to were the ones that were constantly flashed in our faces showing legs spread, with little or no cloth between them, provacative poses that could be used for nothing else than a sexual position, completely naked women with nothing covering them but tiny stars over the nipples, and so on.." "You have totally taken this out of context and twisted it around to mean something that it doesnt. " regardless of what you WANTED, the end result was the deletion of a lot of banner advertisements that only a prude would find offensive. youre describing spread legs, pubic hair, erotic poses, money shots, breast closeups, etc - yet my ads were in this group of deleted ads. i didnt notice anything you mentioned in them. so im still waiting on your explanation on how they fall into the 'offensive' category.

and yes taura, you DID show responsibility, and TOOK ACTION!!! youve succeeded in protecting your children from the horrors of the internet - horrors like navels, kneecaps, collarbones and hips! but when your kids see a woman on the beach in a bikini or a young couple hugging at a bus stop, and have a nervous breakdown/conniption fit from the 'horror', you might wish youd have been a little more open-minded. the horror. the horror. you should live in singapore - youd love it there.

Oh goodie, I knew the "no respect for women" card would eventually get played in this discussion, only didn't know how long it would be And one wonders why you thought that would be said..or better yet, why it shouldnt have been.. You took responsiblity for your Internet browsing, rather than tried to get someone else to accept that responsiblity. First off, Renderosity had that responsibility Jack.. Second, The rest of us might not have wanted ALL the banners taken off..ever think of that? read the threads over again, and maybe a little slower if ya missed it Maybe we didnt want to change everything we see on the net, by blocking ALL ads in our browsers. That might be fine for some, but not for all. Talking to you people and trying to get you to see our point is like talking to a stump..worthless and a waste of time.. Why we should even remotely bother caring about your views and opinions is beyond me, Altho, we DID attempt it as you do not do the same in return.

yet my ads were in this group of deleted ads. i didnt notice anything you mentioned in them. so im still waiting on your explanation on how they fall into the 'offensive' category. Why dont you ask the PTB, they're the ones who deleted them. horrors like navels, kneecaps, collarbones and hips! but when your kids see a woman on the beach in a bikini or a young couple hugging at a bus stop, and have a nervous breakdown/conniption fit from the 'horror', you might wish youd have been a little more open-minded Now there is brilliance at work...

blackhearted, I don't think so.

J said: "And one wonders why you thought that would be said..or better yet, why it shouldnt have been..." Me: Well that might be because I've seen that sort of approached used so many times one would think ALL women were oppressed, mistreated and slaves under Gor. Next will come the arguement that if people think that it is okay to do it to a virtual 3D mesh of a woman then they will think it's okay for it to happen to real women... you know, the moral majority view regarding censorship of porn arguements will soon follow. A real hoot to watch!! I so look forward to it!! J said: "First off, Renderosity had that responsibility Jack.. Second, The rest of us might not have wanted ALL the banners taken off..ever think of that? read the threads over again, and maybe a little slower if ya missed it" Me: Renderosity OWES no responsiblity outside of the Agreement and TOS that vistors MUST accept before becoming members here. In fact, though I am not sure if it is still in place, but I remember a clause that stated that you had to be over a certain age or have parential permission before becoming a member here. Did I ever think of that? Well gee, considering I told everyone that I didn't see the filtering option coming to pass when this subject first arose and even asked that they'd consider it rather than the road that they choose on your behalf, I'd say I had a pretty good handle on the whole development, thankyouverymuch. And your particular brand of sarcasm is duely noted as the cannon fodder that it is. J said: "Talking to you people and trying to get you to see our point is like talking to a stump..worthless and a waste of time.. Why we should even remotely bother caring about your views and opinions is beyond me, Altho, we DID attempt it as you do not do the same in return." Me: Perhaps you need to go back a few threads, yourself, to see that I DID see the points you were trying to make and WHY I DON'T agree with them. The addage of: "Practice what you preach comes to mind here" and also should be applied to taking responsible for your own Internet Browsing. Your feeble attempts at "trying to get us to see your point" comes across more like an attempt to convert us to Christianity or the Watchtower. Made EVEN more apparent when you add the line: "Why we should even remotely bother caring about your views and opinions is beyond me" I never asked for you to bother caring what my views were or what my opinion may be, I only asked that Renderosity be mindful of them while passing a judgement that you asked to have enforced. I don't need to be "Saved" from banner advertisements. I don't need to be "Saved" from embarrassement at showing this site to my family members, friends or kids. I am not the one that is asking Renderosity to "SAVE" me from the evils of merchandising, sexual conontations, innuendo or the barest hint of synthetic flesh... if memory serves me... that would've been... oh yeah... YOU. Save your religon, viewpoints and opinions for someone that would actually give a fuck about them, don't try selling them to me... I am happy with the way I am. Jack

Blackhearted, you're acting like anyone who complained about tacky banners targeted you specifically. I think I've read all the complaint threads and I don't recall seeing you mentioned. The admins, instead of deciding to filter out the tacky ones about pubic hair and genital morphs and teen characters with tape looking like porn rejects, decided to get strict with all nudity. Yours were not the problem and I don't see any of the members saying they were. You've chosen to lump yourself into the few banners that were complained about when you really weren't there in the first place.

I can only speak for me but I don't think a total nude ban in necessary. I don't believe breasts or genitals belong in the banners simply because they can't be filtered. IF they could, I'd say go for it. But they can't. I don't know if yours would bother others or not, they look fine to me but you're insulting a group of people who don't deserve it, don't think that your banners were offensive and haven't insulted you in this.

Something to think about.

The nyquil's kicking in, sorry for any spelling errors. I'm going to bed.

kendra: "You've chosen to lump yourself into the few banners that were complained about when you really weren't there in the first place" regardless of what banners were complained about, mine were both deleted, and THAT is my point, and 'why im here', and 'lumping myself' into the banner threads. jumpstart: "Talking to you people and trying to get you to see our point is like talking to a stump..worthless and a waste of time.." i couldnt have said it better myself. "Why we should even remotely bother caring about your views and opinions is beyond me, Altho, we DID attempt it as you do not do the same in return." again, its the misguided moral minority who just happen to squeal the loudest (due to much practice, no doubt) that decide the fate of almost 800 hardworking merchants and nearly 100,000 renderosity members. you should care about my views because decisions like this, while momentarily placating you and quelling your incessant bitching, adversely affect me and other merchants who form the financial backbone of this site and provide for its continued operation - as well as the silent vast majority of members who arent sexually repressed and have no problem whatsoever with the human body. and the not-so-silent majority whose pleas for a reasonable solution to this situation are being ignored by the administration in their quest to nerf this site.

For the merchant, remember sex isn't the only thing that sells, use your imagination Like that will ever happen....... :)

Save your religon, viewpoints and opinions for someone that would actually give a fuck about them, don't try selling them to me... I am happy with the way I am. This is exactly my point..Stay who you are Jack, Nobody tried to sway you anywhere.. But my advice to you is..get off that damned high horse your on, before you fall off and hurt yourself :| Kendra: I dont think a nude ban is what we need here either, and agree with you about the banners and needing a filter.. which 'some' of these people dont get yet.. sigh Im going to bed too..

J said: "But my advice to you is..get off that damned high horse your on, before you fall off and hurt yourself :|" Don't you be worrying about me, I never said I was on a high horse, if I am, then its only because you are putting me there by your viewpoint of me... Though I do find it interesting that in one breath you are saying: "Nobody tried to sway you anywhere.." and then in your next breath you add: "But my advice to you is.." Jack

Jack: Never said you had to take said advice..if you fall off, you fall off..and by no means did I put you that high.

as well as the silent vast majority of members who arent sexually repressed and have no problem whatsoever with the human body And you've consulted with this 'silent majority' on their views? And who are you to judge whether a person is repressed? you should care about my views because decisions like this, while momentarily placating you and quelling your incessant bitching I wasnt aware that I was doing any 'incessant bitching' until you and others came along and attacked me for no reason other than I wasnt being 'silent'...and at one point I did care about your views, and every other merchant, and I still do. But making me a target alone here is not fair, nor do I deserve it just because my views are different than yours. Again, we asked for one thing and got another. The fact that we asked for something is not in most places considered 'whining, or bitching' Im sorry that your images got deleted, and in truth I see nothing wrong with them..Apparently the PTB did..which is whom you should be asking questions, and directing your anger towards..not me. I see images still that need to be 'adjusted, not banned' that are wayyyy worse than yours. I never asked for this rule, all I asked right along with others is that we have the same type of filter incorporated into the banner ads, as is in the galleries..what is so hard to understand about that? It was meant to be for individuals, not site wide. Im usually pretty quiet about things around here, but when I saw others that were just as uncomfortable about 'some' of those ads for reasons of our own, I felt the need to support the idea of filters. Look at Illusions, he doesnt mind the banners, but felt the need to to support the idea as well because we are all of different backgrounds, cultures, etc. etc.. I just think that this is getting way out of hand, and your anger and others, is misdirected.

Uhhh, JSM2? Read the following quote: "Again, =we= asked for one thing and got another. The fact that =we= asked for something is not in most places considered 'whining, or bitching'" I added the = = to bring your attention to the fact that you kinda set yourself up as a target, as you are claiming in your verbiage that you are some sort of spokesman for 'the group' that was uncomfortable with some of the banner ads, and like it or not, -are- partly responsible as a group for the course that the PTB took (and I think that Jack's point is that anyone with half a frontal lobe would have been able to guess that 'Rosity, being a business, would have taken the cheapest way out). And before you try and claim you didn't, consider this. You have a group of 100,000 people. A literal handful step forward and make a complaint, and use that all inclusive 'we'. If the rest of the group behind them don't speak up, then the only assumption that can be drawn is that they agree with the handful. And that the one speaking in 'we's' is the spokesman. And for several posts, you have been talking using 'we', as if you -are- some kind of spokesman for a group. I am not a part of that 'we'. So far as I've been able to determine, there were no 'real' women in any of those banner ads; just Poser meshes. So unless the model in question was Dina (no longer brokered here), Natalia, or one of DAZ's meshes morphed or modified in some way, there was no representation of genitalia to display. And little stars over the nipple area meets the legal requirements in Tennessee. As for poses that can 'only' be used for sexual situations....I'd like to meet that pose. Most of my work uses 'those' poses, because with a little tweaking here and there, you get excellent and dynamic fighting poses, everyday poses, pratfall poses, crawling through the dark poses, etc. Just as dancing, fighting, arguing etc poses can be easily tweaked to be some of the most explicit postures you can imagine. I have no sympathy for the few who complained about their kids walking in on them and being embarassed by racy banner ads. There are more than enough freeware and 'included in our package' retail software versions that -no one- has any excuse save laziness for not using one. And every one that I checked out required at most 4 clicks to enable or disable. Most only need 2. Not exactly registry hacking, is it? This particular ruling has no immediate effect on me, as I use an ad blocker always; I have a partial-complex siezure condition, and far too many of the little nuisances insist on strobing. Frankly, -I- had a far more legitimate concern than embarassment; that strobing could trigger a siezure, which could have injured me physically. I protected -myself-, instead of jumping up and down and waving the ADA in the air. Took a lot less time and energy, and didn't infringe on others. What concerns -me- is the very poor precedent that this sets. It would take over 1,000 separate people complaining to approach a 1% dissatisfaction rate. The actual number (barring a flood of emails and IM's; could the mods give us a rough percentage of the -actual- complaints on this?)is considerably less than .1%. That gives the next 'group' who wants, for an easy example, EloronceDark's bondage gear sets simply gone from 'Their Family Oriented Site' (which is utter BS, since you have to be of age or have a signed parental permission slip, the last time I looked) which shouldn't carry =anything= of 'that' nature a precedent (=Excellent= sets, btw, EloD. Have them all.... :P ). Namely that the complaints of a fraction of a percent of the membership should have sway entirely out of proportion to what it should have. The precedent is set. Remember who set it when it comes back and bites you.

very well said, dale.

blackhearted with all due respect......ill say it again....your banners i thought were tasteful......but were removed.....why?...probably because if they werent ....a merchant or 2 who made genital morphs and pubic hair textures would of complained to the administrators and asked why your banners were not taking down....so the adminstrators decided to not single anyone out and take yours down with the rest of the banners......but i have a question for you......is it really hard to put a bikini on your figures? ....or are you too proud to swallow your pride?......if you want to leave ....then leae......but if i were in your shows....i would stay and try and make more of a buck than if i were to leave......i have nothing against you.....but it just seems your fightinhg a lost cause....all this time you took to write on this and another thread you could of put bikini 's on your banners and have them uploaded already.....tkae it with a grain of salt and move on to better things

Im not the spokesperson for the 'group'.. never claimed to be. Just because I posted and the others didnt, actually Kendra did once that doesnt make me 'the one'..Draw your own conclusions if you must..

opps sorry bout the spelling it should of been if i were in your shoes and not shows.....and what ever else i mis spelled :-)

the silent vast majority of members who arent sexually repressed and have no problem whatsoever with the human body You know, I see this line a lot, and I'm getting really tired of it. It's not the human body you purport to be celebrating. It's one particular kind of human body: the gorgeous supermodel with perfect hair and perfect makeup. That right there is your rallying cry and your standard to hoist, and anything else, as far as you're concerned, is a waste of time. So if you're as true to this belief as you claim, prove it. Let's see a first-rate image of a nude study of an overweight, middle-aged man. Not a laughable cartoon, but one that shows empathy and a real desire to celebrate the naked human body in all its diversity, instead of just the one that happens to sells. I'll bet right now that none of you closet sexists can do it.

A point to ponder:

A lot of numbers have been thrown around and taken as factual. R'osity may have (or had) 100,000+ members, but does this reflect the actual number of "active" members; or is it a marketing ploy to say "we have had over 100,000+ members join (and, most likely, the majority of them leave) since we opened our doors"?

I am willing to bet that the "active" members list is more in the single digit thousands, at the absolute best. I have never seen the Online count go above 2000 - which is a 2% participation rate by those standards.

So, do not make the presumption that there are actually 100,000+ members here unless you know that as a fact and that they are "active" and not one-time clones or Freebie Leeches, representative of those come and gone, etc.

You know, I give up. I've attempted to indicate an interest in the middle ground here, I compliment the loudest protesters' past banner (and meant it) and I've proven that I see both sides of this and agree to a degree with both. Still he refuses to do the same and even CONSIDER other points of view or opinions and continues to insult any and everyone who's opinion is not the same.
I'd equate you to a 5 year old but even my 4 year old is capable listening to a different opinion than hers. Keep insulting everyone Blackhearted. It only hurts yourself.

Cyberstretch; Conceded. A more factual representation would be that I personally have not counted more than 10 people who apparently have problems with the previous banner ads. That is still -not- a signifcant sampling of the total active membership, is it?

This thread is over. When some members can learn to go over a subject without tossing shit at eachother, we can stat over on this subject. Please do not attack other members when debating an issue. Thanks Spike