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.