I had recently posted this image in the photography section and I duly ticked the 'contains nudity' box. Today I received the following message from the management of Renderosity:
'Dear Member,
One of your gallery items has been removed by the staff at Renderosity.com for the following reason:
We received complaints on this image and after a lot of deliberation it was decided that this image is unsuitable for the gallery. It has an overt sexual feeling running thru it. In general images of breast touching haven't been allowed either, so that is another reason for it's removal. As this is supposed to be a PG-13 site something like this is probably better suited towards sites like Renderotica. I'm sorry for any problems this may cause you.

Thank you,
Michelle A.
Renderosity Moderator
Please keep this in mind when submitting future images.
Thank you,
Renderosity.com'

Now my question is: if one is disturbed by nudity, why doesn't he/she tick the filter which prevents him/her from viewing nude images? Why does he/she have to look nonetheless and then complain about something which is already dealt with by the 'contains nudity' box ticking? I can understand if the subject of the image was something really disturbing and pornographic, with extreme violence, display of genitalia, explicit sexual acts etc. In the past I had another image removed, but at that time I did not say anything as its content could indeed be rather strong for some. But in this case, nobody can say there is an explicit sexual act in this image. And if the kids are around, one more reason to tick the box to prevent the viewing of nudity.
Ok, I can agree that the tolerance for sexual content may vary according to cultural upbringing etc. and that it is difficult to draw a consistent line. But then why the negative judgement of a few should prevail? Why doesn't the management of Renderosity ask the viewers to vote whether a certain image should be removed or not?
But I have an even bigger problem here, i.e. consistency: the site is loaded with sexual images of all kinds. As a matter of fact, those are the most viewed. What kind of rules do you apply in picking on one particular image? I won't involve any other artist here, but just look at the rest of my work. There is some form of 'breast touching' in all the following images of mine posted here: Tribute to G Rigon, Tribute to M Payton, After the bath, Denise 3, Denise 1 (where not only the breasts are being touched, but even - God forbid - some lower parts, although through a conveniently positioned cloth); and last, but not least, Den & Nida,and Den & Nida 2, where one of the models' mouth is dangerously close to the nipple of the other. How do we deal with all this? Do we remove only 'Sultry'just because somebody got a bit too excited looking at it?
Finally, in this context, I don't understand the meaning of the invitation to keep this in mind when submitting new images: what is the criterion you use for exercising your censorship?
If you continue with this arbitrary acts of censorship I will have no choice but to leave this site. I have no problems with that, as there are plenty of other sites where one can post without suffering the rigors of such bigot censorship, but I would like to know first what the Renderosity community thinks.
Thank you

I am trying to upload the pic here

It didnt work a while ago.

well for few members many of us have the fabulous violence red write under theyr thumbs... i think that in a normal society the right think is to let all (ALL) the community to vote... but this is an art site so... there will be no action of censorship but great discussion an morality or something like that... so i'm confused... i'm wondering to delete my gallery and my account for more open minded and free galleries...but i will see how this story goes... may be i'm wrong

i think my next 3 artworks cannot be uploaded here at rendo couse of censorship problems... i'm feeling a bit suffocated :(

One more element here for you all to judge upon: I was trying to upload the incriminated image to give everybody a chance to judge, but it was being removed as fast as light by agentsmith, whose name reminds very much of a KGB spy. Looks like this is the climate we live in, here at Renderosity. Good to know though that Agensmith laughs about it and he seems to be is very proud of himself.

Gilo, I apologize if you took my "lol" incorrectly. I never like to delete anyone's pics, and I try to keep my messages of doing such light, which may be strange, I know. Sometimes it reads wrong. Sorry about that. AgentSmith

gilo i totally agree with you

But, basically if your pic was not allowed in the gallery's, it can't be allowed in the forums either. No, not proud, just abiding by the TOS and my job, is all. Again, sorry if it seemed like I was taking joy in what I was doing. AgentSmith

It is not an easy thing for us moderators to delete an image. It is not something that we like to do or enjoy doing. I am very sorry for the anger you are feeling gilo25. But I cannot apologize for doing my job as moderator. You must understand that there are rules, and we try to follow them as best as we can. This often involves a lot of deliberation and discussion amongst the moderators and administration before any piece of work get removed. I am not going to get into detail with your particular case, I don't feel that it is necessary, but I will say that in regards to the comment on inconsistency, it is often a case by case deliberation when it is felt an image is borderline in regards to TOS violations. So again I am sorry for your anger but I am simply doing my job as best as I can. Michelle A.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=1295107

This might help explain it (but not justify it). Go to Poser Forums to see the discussion preceding the complaints. At least it sure sounds like the same photos. Reader had nudity enabled for Poser images I think, and thus saw nude photography thumbnails. And reader feels that nudity in photography is in a diferent class to nudity in computer generated images. I'll never paraphase in a way that didn't include my own interpretations/bias so I'll leave you to read for yourself. The view got some limited support, but not much - except from the Moderators/Admins it would seem. Title "Is it me, or is photographic erotica offensive" or something like that. Looks as if artists need to be extra careful with the actual thumbnails they use, perhaps even more than with the pictures themselves.

I'm the only Mod who posted in the "Poser vs. Photography Nudes" thread and here's what I said:

*Poser vs. Photography - It's probably the difference between seeing a fight in a movie and seeing one in real life. I can watch car wrecks all day in movies, but the few I've seen in real life bothered me for days, even if I only saw the aftermath of the wreck.

If there's a picture that seems over the line, though, please let us know. MichelleA and starshuffler are really good about patrolling the galleries but even they're not perfect. As well, we do allow a certain amount of sensuality in photographs as long as they don't break TOS.

Cheers!*

That's hardly a condemnation of nude photos in general. IIRC, the picture in question was of a woman lying on the couch caressing her breast and playing with her nipple with a very ... suggestive ... look. It was very much in the style of pornography advertisements I've seen across the web. We have left in the galleries most of the photos that contain nudity, but we have removed a few that we felt were on the wrong side of the erotic/sensual vs. porn debate.

This is NOT to condemn pictures like that, to say they're evil, etc., but to say that they're not appropriate for this site. There are other sites where pictures like that will get a warm welcome, such as Renderotica.

Thanks,

Crescent

Please don't blame the mods of this site for there actions, They are upholding the rules of the site. The admin team stands behind the actions of the mods. They are doing a outstanding job!

"a woman lying on the couch caressing her breast and playing with her nipple with a very ... suggestive ... look" mmm i've only seen a woman with a hand posed on her breast... maybe the difference between a pornographic image and a simple nude image is in the mind of the observer.... i think i am a bit deranged or perverse but in my mind i haven't seen any caressing or playing in the gilos still!

Ya know, why argue about it? If the Admins and Mods say it is questionable, why continue to try and post it anyways? Why not just post it where it will be accepted...like Renderotica? Renderosity has to abide by the laws of the U.S. if they are to have a 'family friendly site'...If they think an image borders on pornography then they have the right and/or duty to remove it. They have an alternate site to post these types of images.... Just my 2 c's worth...

I agree with Egregore: the difference is in the mind of the viewer. It seems that nobody is able to address the point that I have at least another 8 images posted in which there is some 'breast touching' (I listed them above.) Can anybody tell me the difference between those and this one? On Renderotica: it used to be a good site and I used to post there (that's where I started actually), but I stopped because it has become a truly disgusting site, full of poor quality crap which mostly displays blurred genitalia or sexual acts.I don't think this image belongs there. To jumstartme2: I was not trying to re-post it in the galleries, I was trying to give an opportunity to people to view it here in the Forum to form a judgement. In any case that pic was by no means disgusting, violent, repugnant. -- The family friendliness of this site is guaranteed by ticking the box which filters all the nudes images: that's why artists who upload such images are required to tick it. If somebody doesn't tick it, views the image and then complains, this person to me is a hypocrit.

Regarding the observation of layingback, if I understand it correctly, I think the problem goes back to what egregore was saying: it's all in the mind of the viewer. If somebody doesn't like nudity, he/she shouldn't like it all the time: computer generated yes,but photos no? And then again, why just some photos? can somebody tell me the difference between 'Sultry' (the incriminated one) and Denise 1 or Tribute to G Rigon? I think it is hardly defendible that Sultry is offensive and the other one no. It can be, in the mind of one viewer, why not? but do we want to enforce censorship on such thin subjective basis?

I'll take another look, but I checked out all your pics in your gallery, and I didn't see any breast touching at all... AS

Nope, NONE of your pics have hands on any breasts. "Den & Nida", a model is positioned (way) in front of a breast. But it looks far and away more of an intentional statement than anything sexual. "Den & Nida 2" - Still, nothing touches the models breast/nipple, the other models head is resting on the middle of the chest. Nothing sexual in context either. (imo) My opinions on your Den & Nida pics are just that, opinions, other members and other Mods may see different. You're a good photographer, better than I could ever do. Many artists will post here at Renderosity, but will also post pics they can't post here at a homepage. Many do, little know, and very well known artists. AS

~blinks~ I dont think poser nudity is much different then photo nudity due to the fact that with the photo realistic textures in some renders you cant tell which is which. some of the renders are that good. The thing that is confusing me is if we all have a nudity flag...and the nudity is to warn people that there is naked flesh..and someone STILL looks why is the artist penalized for the CHOICE of the other person? I keep hearing ..well maybe they should go to renderotica..nudity is NOT porn. some of us that do nudes dont want our things in renderotica. I am just frustrated with so many people that CHOOSE to look at a nude picture then complain about it WHEN THEY KNEW IT WAS NUDE BEFOR THEY HIT THE THUMBNAIL. if you dont like nudes dont look. even after I hit the nudity flag I still put on the title nudity so that no one can miss it. if they still look then I dont think they have a right to complain. it was a CHOICE they made. no one is forcing them to look at it. I have a site that is art and erotic writtings, and I have as a pop up that comes up upon entering that states "if you are under 18 or offended by nudity or erotica leave now. if you stay and look then do not bother the webmistress as you choose to look knowing it was erotic subject mater that could be objectionable." when people CHOOSE to look..they cant bash the artist them for their vision. it is a choice. DarkElegance

Agentsmith, it seems that your zeal as a censor has suddenly taken a plunge. Are you saying that you looked at all my pics and you didn't see any breast touching? Are you really sure? What about Tribute to G Rigon? What about Denise 1? What about Tribute to M Payton?

Zeal? Plunge? I fully don't understand that at all. JEEZ...my stupid mistake, I'm so use to seeing a different color for gallery page numbers, instead of them all being the same color, I didn't realize at first that gilo25 had more than one page to his gallery. Which brings me to my next question...who are you? "ganda"? AgentSmith

Legitimate question. I am the model.

This is NOT a question of people who choose to see nudity and then complain about it. It is about any picture that goes against TOS, that's all, you may want to think it is so much more and so many different things, but it really is boringly simple. AS

Denise 1 - holding up/touching a scarf. Denise 3 - holding up/touching her top. After The Bath - holding up/touching a towel. Tribute to M Payton - her hand is resting on her chest (breastbone), not breast. Tribute to G Rigon - cupping not really touching. Now, I know that is a grey area, but, I can only tell you how I would call it at this moment. I cannot speak for whomever saw you earlier pics when you had first uploaded them, and what ran through their mind. so, take it however you wish. Bottom line. Renderosity has had its TOS for quite some time, we didn't just spring it on everyone last week. you were to read it and agree to it...when you signed up 3 months ago. AgentSmith

Duck tape is always useful

Egads....here we go again... AS: I dont think they get it. People: its not about the nudity...you can flag, tag, check, tick it all you want, but if it isnt what the admins and mods say goes with the TOS, they can remove it. From the TOS: Posting Unacceptable Images: No Rape. No Torture. No Sexual acts. No Physical arousal. No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. No depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. Images that are character attacks, which could be interpreted as defamation of character, slander, and libelious. Additionally, any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community. I haven't seen the image in question, nor do I have a urge to see it..but if it is a big enough concern to the PTB to remove it, then it is more than likely it should have been removed. Ya know, there are people out there that view nude art, but do not wish to see 'certain' types of 'art'...Im thinking that this is what got the complaints going.. {who knows}..so it might not be about 'someone who looked after knowing it was tagged with a nudity flag.' Regardless, its not my call...but if it were, Im sure I would've done the same... the admins and mods are doing their jobs.

I totally agree with you. As a matter of fact there was No Rape No Torture No Sexual acts no Physical arousal No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing in that image.

Correct Gilo25, but "Additionally, any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community." And your image was so deemed by the moderator team. We each looked at it and came to a decision. The image is unsuitable for this site. Kevin.

Taking a look a gilo25's gallery and specifically the images he points out are similar (i.e. breast touching) to the "removed" image...one can't help but wonder what activity was depicted that suggested such "an overt sexual feeling" requiring that image to be deemed "unsuitable". Much of his work, IMHO, suggests "an overt sexual feeling" which should not be considered "unsuitable" in general nor should it be mistaken for "prurient".

Looking at his other images, it could appear an inconsistent standard may have been applied, although it is hard to say without seeing the actual image. It would seem to me, especially if this were a case of only one member complaint and coupled with the quality and similarity of images already in gilo25's gallery, a much more specific and detailed explanation could have and should have been given as a courtesy to gilo25.

That said...perhaps it is time to establish a less vague standard than "unsuitable" and a tad less subjective then "discretion", at least to the extent that it serves as a basic guideline that the members can understand will be followed. It may also be time for the site to create an actual appeal process for such instances. A legitimate process a member can follow, that can be assured of fairness and legitimacy.

First let me say, gilo25 I am a fan of your work. You have a great eye. :) I seen the picture in question. I think it was well done and tasteful. However! They do have you on a technicality, two of her fingers were touching her one breast showing by the edge of the areola. I personally don't find that picture in bad taste. It's not like she was squeezing her nipple or pulling on it. But then again rules are rules and were do you draw the line. Make exceptions for this and not for that can lead to more problems. Hope to see more of your work gilo25.

Kevin, I am afraid you are talking like a spokesman of a military junta here: 'And your image was so deemed by the moderator team. We each looked at it and came to a decision. The image is unsuitable for this site.' Sounds like when they arrested Aung Sang Sukyi for her own good... mmhhh.. And, as it is often the case for the statements of military juntas, your words are not supported by facts. The facts are the following : my photo and the TOS. Based on the TOS, my photo should not have been removed, as simple as that. In fact the TOS says No Rape. No Torture. No Sexual acts. No Physical arousal. No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. And none of these appear in my photo. The TOS don't talk about areolas, nipples, fingers and things like that. It talks about sexual arousal, and nobody in good faith can say that there is sexual arousal in my photo. There may be sexual arousal in your minds, but not in my photo. It is also true that 'Additionally, any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community.**' But since there is NOTHING in the pic that would justify its removal when judged against the TOS, I am afraid that, as Illusions is saying (thank you Illusions), you should have had the decency of explaining better why in your opinion the image was not suitable AND you should have let me post it here in the Forum to allow people to dicuss it. Finally, as Illusions is again mentioning, it is advisable that you come up with TOS that can be more specific and address situations with greater objectivity. Removing images at your own discretion, with no support from the written rules, let alone from the viewers is rather irritating and abusive. Of course, it is again at your discretion, but if you are really interested in the well being of the community you should come up asap with detailed rules and as far as this image is concerned you should post it in an appropriate section and let people vote whether they feel it is suitable or not for the community. If the community votes in favour of his deletion I will shut up forever. But if it says it should be posted you should let it stay. This is what we call democracy, partiulcarly in a border line situation like this, for which rules were not adequaltely written up.

Okay, being polite isn't working. I'm going to be blunt. If it comes off as harsh, it's because nothing else seems to be working.

1. This is a privately owned web site. It is not the a government. It is ultimately up to the site owners what they want on their site and what they do not.

Would you go to the MOMA or the Louvre and tell the curators that they have to put your work up on their walls? If they said that they liked all your pictures except one, would you tell them you were being repressed, insult the staff and demand that they put all of your works up or else?

Can I go to your web site and demand that you put all of my pictures up?

1. The Mod who brought up the picture to the team asked for a group vote on it because it was borderline. For the few pictures that we do remove (I couldn't tell you the exact numbers, but I know it's very small), we often put it up to a group vote to make sure that it isn't a misunderstanding. (We've had a couple of cases where the Mod was tired and just completely mis-read the picture.) We've removed pictures from other people's galleries, and your other pictures are still in the gallery, so it's not like we decided to target you.

**In no way does taking down one picture compare to a military junta who has tortured and killed many people over the years, enriching themselves at the expense of 50 million people. Making that comparison is insulting both to the people at this site as well as the people of Burma who've suffered real abuse for decades. Ms. Sukyi may die soon from the conditions of the prison cell she was put into - an old dog kennel facility. And you can't post one particular picture here that you like.

I'm very sorry you think your tragedy is equal to, or greater than, her likely death.**

1. If the picture is not suitable for the gallery, it is not suitable for the site. Period. If we allowed unsuitable pictures in one area of the site and not another, that would be totally inconsistant.

2. There is no way that absolutely every single variation of what is acceptable and what is not could ever be written out. I've seen pictures posted (and subsequently removed) that technically did not break TOS but were most assuredly not appropriate for the site. (Pictures of women covered in semen and other body fluids for example. It was argued that it wasn't a picture of a sex act but an "after the act" picture.

Gee, why not a "No body fluid" rule? Well, then that removes all fluids, including blood, sweat, and tears. Personally, I would have thought semen on a person would be considered a sex act, but the poster argued it wasn't.

No, I am not saying your picture was in the league with the semen-drenched woman, but I'm using it as an example of why we have the "not suitable for the community" clause. The example picture, in strictest sense, did not break the letter of the TOS, but it did break the spirit of it.

1. I'm trying to be nice here, but the one picture that was removed really did look like an ad for a porn site. Between the expression on her face, the half-removed shirt, and the placement of the fingers, the woman looks like she was caught playing with herself, starting with her breasts.

And before you tell me that I'm obviously a prude, I looked at another picture of your pictures that was brought up for question - the one with a naked woman lying on top of another naked woman - and I said that it wasn't a problem. It could quite easily be interpreted as intimacy - caring lovers spending time together instead of being caught in the act of having sex.

1. There are many sites out there that would love to have all of your pictures. If you don't like Renderotica, there's plenty of other sites out there. If you feel that everything you put up must be accepted without question, then this is not the site for you. We do monitor this site, we haven't made any pretentions otherwise, and we do pull images that are not acceptable.

I'm sorry you feel so abused when 1 picture was pulled and 38 were kept.

"And, as it is often the case for the statements of military juntas, your words are not supported by facts." Wrong. The facts are simple. I'll go slowly. 1. There were complaints about your image. 2. As a result, it was brought, by a moderator, to the moderator team for review. 3. The criterion for review was "is this image suitable for a site which aims to be family friendly?" 4. Each moderator considered the image and placed a vote. 5. The result of the vote was that the image was not suitable. 6. Your image was removed. Would that sound like the actions of a junta to a reasonable person? No, I didn't think so. "This is what we call democracy, partiulcarly in a border line situation like this, for which rules were not adequaltely written up." The TOS is written as it is precisely for borderline images such as the one you posted. If we wrote a hard and fast set of rules, covering every possible juxtaposition of limbs, objects and other body parts we would have no discretion to remove images which don't directly break a precise rule but which nonetheless are over the line for a site which aims to be family friendly. Oh by the way, you want me to repost this in the Photography forum where you posted the entire previous contents of this thread instead of a simple link? Kevin.

"I'm sorry you feel so abused when 1 picture was pulled and 38 were kept" i think .. and this is only a thought that runs in my brain, that is not the picture itself.. reading the forums i've felt a certain malcontent growing.. started with the violence tag or increased with it... passing by annlee image and the site colors .. than gilo.. maybe others i can't be on line all teh time and i'm new here.. but .. i can feel a growing state of suffocation and limitation... "Would you go to the MOMA or the Louvre and tell the curators that they have to put your work up on their walls?" but can u go in a museum and say - this picture is disturbing me please cover it or remove it - ??? at least.. maybe.. i have a different concept of art than other people here :) just a thought not an attack :)

gilo - Your image did indeed fall into Renderosity's TOS the "deemed unsuitable for this community" clause. There is a line between artful-nudity and titillating-nudity: Your image crossed that line! Renderosity has no problem with members posting nude images within the galleries. However we do ask that the images fall within certain guidelines. We have received Many Complaints about your image Many members have viewed your photograph , of a young woman touching her nipple in a seductive pose, as better suited for Renderotica.com, instead of Renderosity. Renderosity is, after all, a privately owned yet publicly viewed site! The owners of Renderosity have been very generous to offer members Free Unlimited Space to post images All they ask in return is that when you post nude images, that they be considered tasteful nudes. Points to remember: Your image was taken to the Moderator Review Board After receiving numerous member complaints and it was indeed unanimously "deemed unsuitable for this community". This is not saying you cannot post your image to Your Own Personal Web Site or perhaps one of the above members who think your image is suitable for general viewing will allow you to post Your Image on Their Site! However, no matter how many threads you post to the Renderosity Forum The image in question Will Not be approved for Renderositys site! ladynimue Moderator Remember - Even Renderorica.com has Site Limits!

but can u go in a museum and say - this picture is disturbing me please cover it or remove it - ??? As Renderosity Does Not Approve Images BEFORE they are posted to the Galleries - your question is illogical - On the other hand - All Museums Do have Committees who give Prior Approval To All images Before they are hung on the museum walls. Your logic would be better suited to Someone walking into a Museum and placing Artwork on the wall without prior viewing nor approval - and being upset when one of the Museum members took it down because they had received many complaints.

ok i can't explain well in english but i think u've understood.... may be not "someone" that put his art on the wall.. but a "member of the gallery" that have done a "harder than his own usual" piece of art but.. finally i don't want to rise more the discussion

Bottom-Line ... Renderosity lets any member upload ANY image to its site! That Alone Proves that Rendersoity is a Non-Censorship Site! However If an image that is posted violates TOS, or gets Many Complaints [and ONLY after review is deemed non-suitable for the community] - it is removed!

There's nothing wrong with the site owners or the moderators. If the site decides that no pictures that use the colour blue are allowed, is their right! This is a private site not a public site, and a private site doesn't need to be democratic, it can be a dictature without any problem, is their right and we must respect this! So what was wrong? "1. There were complaints about your image." That's the point! If weren't the complaints the picture would be still here! There are people that are perturbed with anything related to nudity or sex, they thing that they have the right to be judges of deciding what can other people are allowed to view! This defenders of the "purity and morality of the kingdom" use any kind of presure against the site to achieve their wills. If these people would have the power they would have burned all the Louvre musseum due it's "unmoral" content!

We also vote sometimes that an image is suitable for the site even if there is a complaint. We don't automatically pull an image just because someone doesn't like it. We really do try to keep a good balance between "family friendly" and "thinking adults" images. We watch the galleries to make sure nothing against TOS comes in (unfortunately, we've even had full child porn get posted here) and if we get complaints, we review the images and decide whether or not we should pull the images. It's not an automatic yanking if there's a complaint. Yes, there are some who'd cover up (or destory) the statue of David, but there's also those who feel that they have the right to publish kiddie porn. We obviously don't believe in either extreme. We have staked out our area between the extremes and we try to remain consistant within it. It's not easy; we won't please everyone all the time, but we try to be reasonable and fair. Thanks!

Let's get some things straight. I am not arguing for allowing gilo25's image to be displayed. I did not say the mods should have had the decency to explain why the image was not suitable. I did say they should have provided a more specific and detailed explanation as a courtesy. But courtesy works both ways...you have to give it to receive it! It's one thing to disagree with a decision...it's quite another to attack the mods for the decision that was made.

Telling someone something is "unsuitable" without further explanation is like telling someone "just because". It's not a sufficient or credible reason...nor is it a reason easily respected.

Constantly thrusting the argument that this is a private site and the "owners" can do what they want does little to "create a thriving, productive environment that encourages an atmosphere of community, respect, collaboration, and growth for graphic artists of all backgrounds." as is claimed on the Renderosity "About Us" page.

It is hypocritical of this site to remove works deemed as unsuitable by arbitrary standards of a small group of people...when bondage gear, fetish outfits, and torture items The Judas Torture Chair are sold in the marketplace. For a site that wants to maintain a "family friendly" atmosphere, one can't help but wonder who in the "family" a chair with a spike in the seat (suitable for the impalement of an anal or vaginal cavity) is aimed at.

I'm not sure what the message is when the site decides to remove a supposed sexually suggestive image but offers a set of restraints to turn your Vicki into a bondage slave - MWBondageGear2, $16.00, includes bondage mask with with a BallGag or BitGag. How suitable are the LQ MM2 Poses 3, $11.95 "20 Mike & Mike Poses for Michael 1 or 2 to create 10 sexy scenes". The image depicting the poses show 2 Mikes embracing, preparing to kiss while one Mike's thumb rests on the edge of the areola of the other Mike. Perhaps the mods should take a look at them, after all...the half naked men, the placement of the fingers, the men look like they're engaged in foreplay.

I believe all the Mods try to evaluate questionable material fairly, but is it reasonable for them to be left "hanging in the wind" with only their own arbitrary standards to rely on. Maybe it's time for the site to define some basic, consistant standards to make room for "erotic" images protected from "sensitive eyes" by a nudity flag, or go over every product or image on the site with a fine tooth comb and send what isn't suitable to Renderotica...or does "unsuitable" only count in the galleries and not in the marketplace? :^p

I just posted a much longer message, but I can't see it. have I been banned?

Nope, if you were banned, you would not be reading this. If you took to long in typing your message, the system might have auto-logged your session out.

ok, so let me make some more eyes roll and just paste here what the options are when you are trying to enforce censorship (I personally don't think censorship should be enforced at all, but I certainly accept that this is the prerogative of the management of the site). However if you want to enforce any form of censorship here or anywhere else you must come to terms with one of the following scenarios: 1. You set up rules as detailed as possible and you are willing to work on their fine tuning when it is obvious that they don't address adequately all the situations. 2. If you don't want to work on rules for any reasons (because you don't feel like it or you think it's too difficult or whatever) you need to work on your PR skills. So, when you are faced with a grey situation like this you can tackle it by achieving what you want (i.e. enforcement of censorship) and minimize the risk of upsetting people. To help you, here is a draft message that you could use in the future. 'Dear ... we have noticed you have posted this and this image in such and such gallery. Although we realize that our rules do not cover this specific situation, we have discussed your posting and have come to the conclusion that it may be unsuitable for this community. Rest assured that we will work as soon as possible on the refinement of our rules in order to be able to avoid situations like this OR (if you don't want to work on the rules) We do feel it is very difficult to come up with rules wich are specific and consistent enough, but nonetheless our TOS compels us to enforce some sort of censhorship and we do feel that this posting of yours may be seen as unsuitable in this context. Much to our regret, we have therefore decide to remove it. We are aware however that since it is very difficult to enforce censorship in this context you will find a considerable amount of inconsistencies, in terms of the images posted. We would like to apologize for this from now, and hope you will understand that our task of having to apply generic rules consistently is extremely hard. Rest assured that we do appreciate your contributions, which are valuable for our site, and we would welcome to discuss with you any clarification you may require. Looking forward to your next contribution...' With a text like this you are likely to get rid of 95% of the problems. 3. If you don't want to work on specific rules and you don't want to work on your communication skills, then you need to let the community judge if a posting is suitable or not, as I said before. In this way, it is the community who decides, and you are totally discharged from any responsibility. 4. If you don't want to have specific rules, you don't want to refine your PR skills, you don't want to let the community judge, then you have to be prepared to have more often than not somebody getting upset at this rather arrogant attitude and addressing you wih less than flattering comments.

"1) This is a privately owned web site. It is not the a government. It is ultimately up to the site owners what they want on their site and what they do not." I detest this argument, every time I see it used as the hammer in these threads. Yes the site is privately owned, i.e. they own the software it runs on, the servers it sits on, and a domain name, and the attendant bandwidth costs that incurs. But that is all it owns, and yes that does allow the site management to make the rules. However, the management must remember what it doesn't own. It doesn't own the art in the galleries, that is owned by the private members who posted it there. It doesn't own the freestuff, hell it doesn't even host that and have the excuse of paying for the bandwidth, nor does it own the knowledge in the forums, again that is members, helping other members. Does this entitle the members to make the rules? No, but it does entitle them a say and air their feelings, and honest explanations, backed up by hard facts. And the thing this site most needs, and doesn't own, is an all access pass to my credit card, that has to be earned, and situations like this do NOTHING to earn my trust, and my patronage. Websites like this run on appearances, and likely through the best of intentions, removal of this piece gives the appearance of arbritariness, and high-handedness, mostly because of the very greyness of the explanations given. And that is a terrible appearance to give.

I do have to agree with X-perimentalman to a large extent. Even though this is a "private" website...it's member credit cards that keep the site afloat. It would seem "management" would much pay more attention to members comments, whether they concern censorship, the look and feel of the site, or anything else. It shall be interesting to see if the PTB just let this thread die, or if they respond to my comments and concerns raised in post 42.

Attached Link: TOS Quick Link

Well; (re: post #42) This is not a private site, it is a public site. Yet, like pretty much everything, it is owned by someone. And, like ANY establishment it has some rules. This is not a difficult fact to understand, imo! I can't think of one business I can walk into and do anything I want to do. There are always some basic rules. Having rules...has nothing to do with deterring productivity, collaboration, etc in a community. Having NO rules leads quickly to the death of well, anything community-wise. This is why we have the TOS. Arbitrary standards; that's funny. Actually, we work from the TOS, which if anyone doesn't realize, is a "definition of some basic, consistant standards". And, we actually do have a "nudity" flag...and I'll say again, this was NOT an issue of the nudity flag. I just don't know how more plainly to put it. And, again, we don't truly have only our own "arbitrary standards" to rely on, again...we rely on the TOS. There isn't some set of hidden secret rule here, it's all public, it's all there from the beginning of a members enrollment. This is again, a repitition of some of the same things I've said before, but I didn't want anyone think they were being ignored. We do read these posts, and we do listen. An explaination. I don't have one, (I didn't pull the photo)but...if I were to give up one right now, off the top of my Mod head, here is what it would be; No Physical arousal. No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. This is actually IN the TOS, please review. Thanks. AgentSmith

"No Physical arousal. No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing." I think in this case the only physical arousal, and genital contact was in the people viewing the thing.:} AgentSmith, I do know what is in the TOS, I am not some stupid child that needs to be patted on the head. The point I am trying to make is about appearances, so since my point wasn't clear enough, I'll try to illustrate my point differently. This picture was of a girl lying back on a couch, with one hand on her breast. The impetus for it's removal was two fingers on her nipple, and a suggestion of sexual desire. Since, the artist himself has stated that all his/her pictures have the same sexual overtones, and the rest of the artist's work is still posted, the sexual overtones are patently not the reason this picture was removed. That leaves the hand on the breast as the offending element, that caused this picture to be removed. In your own posts, #18 and 19, you specifically state that the artists other works are approved, because there is no nipple touching, therefore not sexual in nature. Okay, groundwork laid. Since, the offending part was the hand on the breast, if I were to render a picture, or take a picture of a girl standing there, nude, with her hands over her breasts, covering her nipples, smiling at the camera, in a non-sexual way, it too would have to be removed, since it breaks the same part of the TOS as the other artists work did. If it wasn't the breast touching, but the sexual overtone, then ALL that artist's work needs to be removed, as well as most of the galleries. Anything less is inconsistent. Now, I think you may see what I mean, about arbritary, or appearance of it anyway. It becomes hard for the artist to know what is legal here and what isn't. Sexual overtones are good, unless, there is self breast touching, but breast touching is okay without sexual overtones, and who decides what constitutes the overtone? Now see where the confusion comes in, and the confusion is enhanced by the lack of explanation on the Mod/Admin end of the reasoning for the picture's removal. You, AgentSmith, say it is the hand on the breast, but you didn't actually remove the picture another Mod did, and the only Mod who gave the appearance of doing the deed, Michelle A said she wasn't going into the reasons for it in this thread to paraphrase. So my overall impression is, the artist is left not knowing what he/she did wrong, and how to avoid repeats in the future, and certain parts of the TOS are now being used to retroactively to cover the reason for the pictures removal, and those reasons are stretched really thin to do the covering. The appearance being given is the picture was pulled to placate some complaints, not on it's own merits.

The image was already being debated upon when a complaint came in. So no it wasn't removed to placate a complainer it was removed for all the reasons already stated numerous times above. How many times does it need to be repeated? The image was debated over by many moderators. I just happened to be the one doing the removal. Nothing is cut and dry it is impossible to write hard and fast rules to cover every possible senario that could be thought up. The guidelines are as consistent as they can possibly be.

Once something falls outside the vague limits set by the TOS, then individual standards of each mod are used to determine the suitability of any questionable image. That makes those standards arbitrary because they depend on individual discretion not a definition...and there is nothing humorous about that!

Now, no one is saying there should not be rules...what is being said is there needs to be rules that are not vague and are applied reasonably, fairly, and consistently. Also being said is, yes this site is owned by someone...and since that someone is able to maintain the site and profit to a great extent, from the purchases by it's members...the site owners should pay more attention to the wants, needs, and concerns of the members!

Having arbitrary rules and vague standards has everything to do with productivity, collaboration, etc. Without consistent community standards and values productivity, collaboration, and most of all...creativity are stiffled. We do understand you rely on the TOS which is a good general framework...but in many respects it's vague enough that a mod could abuse the application of the TOS to censor images or speech that they dislike or disagree with.

Let's look at the TOS:

Members/Users will not use this community for;

o Any practices that affect the normal operations of the community (Admins will take whatever steps are necessary to restore service)...extremely vague, Mods don't like your topic or don't want a topic raised and you raise it...bang...TOS violation. Lots of room for potential abuse here.

o Transmitting any libelous, defamatory, or any other material that could give rise to any civil or criminal liability under the law...fair and pretty easily determined.

o Personal attacks. This includes but is not limited to, destructive, abusive, defamatory communications in any form, and retaliatory attacks from personal attacks. If you need assistance, please communicate with someone from our Renderosity Team...a bit vague, could be abused (has been a few times in the past). There is a wide latitude to arbitrarily decide what or who is destructive, abusive, defamatory, retaliatory.

o Destructive commentary/communications made with the intent to disrupt or attack (Trolling). This applies to any communications within this community, whether in the forums, art galleries, graffiti wall, chat, or IM...(see above) very vague.

o Advertising or linking to any publications and/or web sites that are age restricted due to content, and/or pornographic in nature...hmmm...Renderosity is age restricted due to content here, makes this a bit vague as well.

o Posting Unacceptable Images:

o No Rape...understandable, most people could agree what a rape depiction is...there are some exceptions that could be argued, but for the most part it's pretty clear.

o No Torture...a bit vague here, one could consider an image of Christ on the cross as depicting torture, especially since crucifixion was meant to be torturous. An image of Ben Hur at the oars being whipped could be interpreted as depicting torture. An image of the Spanish Inquisition could be ruled as unsuitable.

o No Sexual acts...vague enough so that an activity that has nothing whatsoever to do with sex could be interpreted as a sexual act causing an image to be removed. When is touching a breast sexual and when is it not? Is a hand resting on a pubic mound that is covered by cloth or clothing a sexual act...it might be. What about 2 nude men wrestling...one man holding the other in a headlock with his hips pressed against the buttocks of the man in front...it could be a sexual act.

o No Physical arousal...extremely vague. When does an erect nipple constitue physical arousal and when does it not? What about flushed cheeks and a flush across the chest...both are signs of sexual arousal in some men and women.

o No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing...when is an object not an object...when it's a body part! By definition a hand could be touching genitals as long as there is no physical arousal nor a sexual act taking place. That's easy if it's a man's genitals that's being touched...if the penis isn't flacid, it's likely that the male is aroused...er, unless he needs to use the bathroom that is.

o No depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context...ok, a little vague but fairly well defined, and won't cause any problems as long as it is applied as a "child pornography safeguard" (although fairy images could be a problem).

o Images that are character attacks, which could be interpreted as defamation of character, slander, and libelious...fairly easy to intrepret.

Additionally, any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community.

Another vague, all purpose "rule" that has great potential for abuse can be found under:

Conduct - Zero Tolerance

o Intentional practices that affect the normal operations of the community (Admins will take whatever steps are necessary to restore service)...very vague...what practices are they? Is that specific only to something that interupts the site preventing connection?

Now certainly, no one expects what's acceptable to be defined microscopically, but there's a lot of room for improvement here. Certainly some things need to be left up to the discretion of the site representatives...but they should not have such vague standards to base their determination on. It's because those standards are vague and in most cases so open to interpretation that could cause one image to be removed and a similar image to remain...and that's what creates controversy.

Since there is no defined appeal process that a member can follow, it causes even more consternation because the member feels the only recourse he has, is to attempt to involve the membership, especially when he is given no specific, defined reason for his image to have been removed, and is continuously given only vague references to certain sections of the TOS.

Every member deserves a specific and detailed explanation of the reason for an image's removal. NEVER should a member be told that a Mod does not feel it necessary to go into detail for that particular case.