"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." And how many times has this same circumstance appeared in thease forums, with the same questions being asked? Fairly often actually, though admittedly less since management folded the old C and D. However, I was going by what was already posted in this thread on this particular image, and what you now say differs markedly from what was said earlier in the thread. I refer you to post #34 by kbennet a moderator here, and self-admittedly a moderator on the team that deemed this picture unsuitable. "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." In his version, the complaints came first, but that is actually unimportant, the true important fact is statement #3. I'll quote it again, "3. The criterion for review was "is this image suitable for a site which aims to be family friendly?" So the bloody TOS had nothing to do with this image being pulled at all, except to retroactively covers some asses, as justification. The true reason this picture was pulled, was it was deemed "unsuitable for a family-oriented site." Well, I got news for you, I have read the TOS frontwards, backwards and sideways, and it mentions nothing about Please make sure your renders or pictures are suitable for a family oriented site. The criterion for removing a picture IS the TOS, and nothing else, anything else IS arbritary and subjective, and not in agreement with the TOS which we the posters agree with, when we post. Illusions is right, each artist who gets there artwork removed does deserve a detailed and specific explanation, not the treatment this artist got.

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. Yes, illusions that is true, and had the member bothered to contact administration or the mod who deleted the image (which would have been me) he would have been given a more detailed explanation promptly. However, he decided that he wanted to make a big public stink about it, and repost the image here after it had been deleted as unsuitable. I see no reason for me to go into details, here on this forum especially when many other mods already had given him a reasonable explanation as to why. I feel the initial notification explained it well enough, but if that wasn't enough he could have just asked. There certainly are ways of going about things. But then again there are people who just love to stir up controversy and call attention to all the unjustice they've been put through. NEVER should a member be told that a Mod does not feel it necessary to go into detail for that particular case. It wasn't necessary to go into detail publicly.....that is what I meant by my statement to him. Apparently I left off that very important word "publicly". As is the case here when, people who have no clue, get involved, twist things around, make issues bigger than they need to be, blah blah blah.....whatever. I'm done with it.

Michelle A.: "Yes, illusions that is true, and had the member bothered to contact administration or the mod who deleted the image (which would have been me) he would have been given a more detailed explanation promptly. However, he decided that he wanted to make a big public stink about it, and repost the image here after it had been deleted as unsuitable."

IMHO, gilo25's initial post did not have the "flavor" of making "a big public stink" about it. He was confused and concerned about the judgement based on other images he has posted and raised some questions regarding the difference between the removed images and the ones that were not removed, and the factors that were used to judge his image unsuitable. It was polite, and above all expressed concern and confusion over what factors he had to consider when submitting other images. He specifically asked for the criterion that would be used to judge their suitability...which was never provided to him in this thread (perhaps he was given it in email though I have my doubts).

He was told, in so many words, to "follow the TOS", advised that there were rules, but never given the criterion. The information he asked for was never given. A number of mods responded, but many responses (some fairly hostile) were pretty much limited to defending the removal of the image and not answering his questions. In fact, the only one that even attempted to answer his questions was AgentSmith!

It certainly is gilo25's right to direct his concerns publicly and in this forum, one of the purposes of this forum, after all, is stated right at the top of the page:

This forum is to be used to contact the administration of this website to address issues relating to the operation and well-being of this community.

Seems to me, standards and criteria for image suitability, relate to the operation and well-being of this community, and are legitimate discussions that any member can and should participate in. In fact, I have raised certain concerns and asked questions regarding this issue as well...none of which have been responded too. Had mods spent more time responding to the questions and concerns and less time on the defensive or trying to shove "like it or lump it" down peoples throats, this thread may have had fewer posts and less tempermental contacts.

Michelle A.: "It wasn't necessary to go into detail publicly.....that is what I meant by my statement to him. Apparently I left off that very important word "publicly". As is the case here when, people who have no clue, get involved, twist things around, make issues bigger than they need to be, blah blah blah.....whatever. I'm done with it."

All well and good, if you didn't want "go into detail publicly" you could have emailed him the information. You could have even stated in the thread you saw no reason to go into detail publicly so you emailed him your response. So, you can be done with it but the overall issue still remains unresolved...until the next time this happens and someone else tries to appeal and understand only to be accused of starting a "shit-storm".

I guess the only thing remaining to ask is who you were refering to when you made reference to "people who have no clue, get involved, twist things around, make issues bigger than they need to be, blah blah blah..." That sounds suspiciously like a personal attack, which could be a violation of the TOS...trust me, if it were me you meant...I have a clue...quite a few of them I might add, I get involved because I care very much about this site and the members here, I haven't twist things around, nor have I blown anything out of proportion!

This matter is closed. 1. This image was brought to our attention. 2. Once a image is brought to our attention, we must review it. 3. When we review images, we look for reasons to keep them posted, not for reasons to pull them. 4. This image went up for vote by the review board. 5. This image was voted not suitable for this site. That's it. end of story. If you want to debate the rules not this issue, that is fine, but this matter is closed. This member did get a IM on why his image was removed. Spike Moderator and Forum Manager www.renderosity.com

I locked this thread because this matter is closed.