Thank you, for locking the censorship thread, while I was in mid reply, to a thinly aimed veiled personal insult by a moderator made to myself and illusions. As to this matter being closed, I had a very polite response, pointing out this matter is never closed, since it will continue to rear up every time a work is deleted subjectively. Some of us were actually trying to get that point across. I am no no longer being polite, you took the very type of action that caused this mess in the first place, so you can have my response, IT WILL BE A COLD DAY IN HELL BEFORE I EVER SPEND A DIME IN THE MARKETPLACE AGAIN!!!!!!!!. X-per..... the obviously frosted off.

If you want to help define the rules of this site, We welcome that. If you feel that images are being pulled and should not be or for the wrong reasons, please tell your side of the story. As far as gilo25's image being pulled, that matter is closed. I locked that other thread because members were getting to the point where they were just slamming eachother. We will not allow member to break our rules to make there points. that will only leed to warnings. We welcome the members to get involved in how we deal with the removal of images. If you have an idea on how you feel this process could be improved, please, we would love to hear it. Most all the rules of this site were made by members getting involved. Trust me, If you put a good plan on the table, we will review it. As far as you spending money in the marketplace, well, that's up to you... Spike

I am going to try and answer this point by point, so you'll see why I am torqued off, one last time. "If you want to help define the rules of this site, We welcome that." That's what I was trying to do and got told to in effect sod off and mind my own business. This is not the first time either I may add. Since I started keeping a lower profile on all these sites, you may not remember me, but I have been here, under this user name since it was the Poser Forum. As for helping define the rules of this site, as a member, every time I have tried that I have got a variation of the sod off line, or treated, like a dog, and got a pat on the head and a bone, but no action on the issue, or no one listened. "If you feel that images are being pulled and should not be or for the wrong reasons, please tell your side of the story" Uhhh, that's what I was trying to do when the thread got locked. All I was getting, was non-answers and a veiled insult from the mod who did the deletion. "As far as gilo25's image being pulled, that matter is closed." The point has been, not the fact the image was pulled, which doubtless was done with the best of intent. The problem seems to have been the lack of a clear concise explanation as to WHY the picture was pulled. 4 different mods answered that thread, as to why the picture was pulled, and all 4 had a different reason. Also by one mods own words, the criterion for pulling the picture, was to paraphrase, "Is the picture suitable for a family oriented site." Now truth be told, nowhere in the TOS do I see anything about "Please restrict your artwork to things suitable to a family site." This leads those of us who asked for clarification to believe this was an arbritary decision, and not a consistent application of the rules. In effect the question became, was the picture pulled after an objectively as possible, comparison to the TOS, or more subjectively to another guideline. To give credit, one Mod did suggest the girl in question had one hand on her nipple or breast area in a suggestive way. That can be construed, even if a bit of a reach as a TOS violation, but that seemed to be an after thought side argument to the unsuitable for family argument. Obviously the IM sent to the artist was a little fuzzy as to the reason to the pulling, since the artists first posts were to the reasons why. Improvement needs to be done there in future cases. Hence the hammering away at the Mods involved for their reticience to answer questions. "I locked that other thread because members were getting to the point where they were just slamming eachother. We will not allow member to break our rules to make there points. that will only leed to warnings." I think you may want to reread that thread, the members were being very polite and controlled, it was the staff, namely a Mod doing the slamming. Of course that precedent, and double standard has been in effect here for a long time. "We welcome the members to get involved in how we deal with the removal of images." Then a Mod telling us in more subtle language of course, that we weren't involved, couldn't know what was happening, we were just trying to stir up trouble, and to butt out was all a mistake? Locking the thread where we trying to get involved, and help, doesn't lead me to believe that statement either. "Most all the rules of this site were made by members getting involved." Like the closing of the Complaint and Debate Forum? 'Nuff said. "Trust me, If you put a good plan on the table, we will review it." Possibly, in the past, and again in this situation, it doesn't seem so, but I'll grant this one, it could happen. Might be as likely as an drunk leaving a bar before closing time, but I'll take your word for it. "As far as you spending money in the marketplace, well, that's up to you..." You're quite right, that is up to me, and since it seems to be my only form of protest or to effect positive change, I will either purchase elsewhere, or do without, and be a bandwidth leech, until I see positive moves I can live with.

What is a bandwidth leech? The last time I heard that term, it referred to a site that posts direct links to thumbnails and images on another server (in other words, deep-level links). But this is probably impossible here, since it's likely Renderosity uses the standard htaccess script to prevent deep links.

Naaah, nothing so nefarious in this case, just simply perusing the galleries, posting periodically in the forums, using bandwidth, while surfing, but not buying anything, to offset the cost. In effect becoming a low level bandwidth leech, using, but not returning, or supporting. It is the only sure fire way I can think of to drive home my point.

This behaviour of the modeartors is really insulting. I was prepared to put this thing to rest, as some mods had given me the impression that they acknowledged the validity of the points I made, particularly those related to the fact that you could use better PR skills and justify better when you remove a picture from the gallery. However the way Michelle A replied to the very valid points of illusions (and the way Spike locked the tread) shows that you haven't understood anything and Michelle is also lying through her teeth. In fact as soon as I got that first email informing about the removal which DID NOT adequately explain the reasons why it was removed (I pasted it in my initial Forum message), I DID SEND AN EMAIL TO RENDEROSITY (by just replying to Michelle's message) in which I was stating my astonishment and although I was not asking specific questions, it was a CLEAR CRY FOR HELP: I WAS ASKING FOR AN EXPLANATION!!! BUT NOBODY BOTHERED TO REPLY AND THAT'S A WHY I POSTED HERE. I still have that message. I didn't want to make a stink about it, I just wanted to know better. Your attitude is insulting, Michelle and you should know it! the only reason why I wanted to post it here was because I thought this is a free place where things can be discussed. But it isn't. There was no reason to go publicly? WHY DID YOU NOT REPLY TO ME THEN??? because you were hoping that people would just shut up because you sent them a hasty email telling them not to be naughty next time? it is a shame that you still persevere in your attitude after what other people have said. You are the ones who made a stink out of it, because you didn't give explanations in the first email you sent me, you prevented me from discussing the pic here, you locked the tread, and you don't want to listen. You have the capacity of screwing up things that work with your attitude. Did you not realize that I was trying to calm down things? And you have the guts of accusing me of stirring up things? After you lie by saying that I didn't say anything after I got the message from you and went publicly right away? Shame on you! Now you can lock me, kill me, burn me..

This issue is not about gilo25's image. Like I said, that matter is closed and I am not going to talk about it in public. If you want to open up talks about how the rules of this site are unfair or need to be changed, Please bring it on. So far, I got that you feel the IM's sent to members about image removal might be unclear. Anything else? gilo25, Please take this issue to e-mail spike@renderosity.com

"Please restrict your artwork to things suitable to a family site." Until now I am breaking my brains trying to understand what the hell "a family oriented site" can be!

It was my intention to open talks when I replied to Michelle's removal message externating my astonishment. But I didn't get anything in reply. You will maybe say you didn't get it? maybe.. I had the same intention when I then started the tread here and in good faith I wanted to show the image for peple to be able to discuss. I was accused of stirring up a stink for that. So now all of a sudden you want me to bring up the matter?? I think it has been brough up already, quite thoroughly! This is not a matter between me and Renderosity any more. This is something which concerns the community. At this stage what I want is the following: 1. An admission and an apology from Renderosity's management for having sent me an inadequate communication when the image was removed. 2. An apology (or a reasonable explanation) for having ignored my message sent in reply to Michelle's first message. 3. An apology for the fact that Michelle (I am paraphrasing now, because I don't feel like going through all the exchanges again) said clearly that she did not feel necessary to go in more detail in this issue and explain further. 4. An apology for having deliberately depicted me as a trouble maker who wants to go public to create havoc, while this was caused only by the fact that my 'private' message was not answered. I am not questioning the removal of the picture, I am questioning the process followed by the mods, the unclear rules, and the total lack of communication skills displayed by the mods throughout this unfortunate episode. I don't have anything more to say in private. Everything that needed to be said has ben said. You have more than enough elements to start a review of your censorship system, I don't need to add anything and I do believe this has been helpful because whatever you say I am sure that deep down you recognize that the system is in desperate need of a revamping. I do think the Management owes me an apology for those 4 issues I just mentioned. It is up to you whether you want to do it in public or in private. I personally don't mind either way as far as the other points, but for point 4, since Michelle publicly accused me of 'stirring up a stink', I would like it to be publicly retreated. And I would suggest that the Management of Renderosity spend a few thousand dollars in a communication skills training for its mods. They desperately need it! I am a personnel management specialist in my 'real' life and I can tell you that any company who has communicators this bad in key areas of public relations is bound to run into troubles sooner or later.

I know this is getting off-topic, but: {IT WILL BE A COLD DAY IN HELL BEFORE I EVER SPEND A DIME IN THE MARKETPLACE AGAIN!!!!!!!!.} You may want to come up with a better threat than that. The new site design changes had a bigger, negative impact on the Marketplace than 1 person threatening to never shop here again. The admins of the site are so used to keeping sales low (and prevent the promotion of items) that 1 person not buying anything is not much of a threat at all. Now, if you said that you would be taking your $5,000 monthly purchasing budget to another Poser site, then the admins may take notice. Well, if you actually spend $5,000 a month, that is.

If you have "$5,000 monthly purchasing budget" please remember that I exist!

Still waiting for a e-mail from gilo25 Please send it to spike@renderosity.com And Some ideas from anyone else that wants to help improve the system..

Some ideas from anyone else that wants to help improve the system. *Lower taxes *Driver's licenses should be valid for ten years, until age 65, then for six years *Pick up the pace for electric car research, and in the meantime, push the hybrid electric/gas car *Let Amtrak die a natural death and quit feeding it our tax money *Let's see some boobs on TV, like they do in Europe (And I don't mean the politicians) *Free health care and prescription drugs for all, regardless of employment or unemployment. Tax smoking and fast food to death to pay for it *Make superhero movies illegal I'm sure I could come up with more, but this gives you something to begin with right away.

Damm Mike, That is a good list..

Thanks..

Jeez, that's what I get for being in a good mood at the wrong place at the wrong time, LOL! Sorry, didn't mean to impose...carry on....

I have a clear idea of what constitutes appropriate content for a family-oriented site (no X-rated, R-rated or NC-17-rated images). But it may be a cultural thing that needs clearer explanation. In the meantime, those who don't have a clear idea of what constitutes appropriate content for a family-oriented site can absolve themselves of worry by allowing the moderators be the judges. There's always Renderotica available to accept images that are dubious here.

The other problem is that some people get bogged down in a subculture where pedophile, underage or sexually explicit images are the norm. They tend to associate and interact only with those who agree with them, so they lose sight of the conservative nature of U.S. law and custom in that regard. It must be a shock to them when they hit a PG-13 site like this. But it's a case of protecting the most vulnerable elements of the society who use this site, not a case of "anything goes" to cater to each fringe subculture.

Very well said!

I've been reading all the views on this and I still don't get it. Communication issues aside, what's the big deal? Stand too close to a cliff edge and sometimes you fall, sometimes you don't. Solution: Don't stand so close. This site has the most relaxed rules of any reputable art site on the web - or at least of the 10 or so of which I'm a member. I don't particularly want the TOS to include every variation of what's acceptable and what's not, because I can pretty much work it out for myself. And if I decide to post some image of a woman's biff or a guy rutting a goat, I accept there's a chance it will get removed. C'est la vie. Next time I'll paint a flower. TafkaT

"But it may be a cultural thing that needs clearer explanation. In the meantime, those who don't have a clear idea of what constitutes appropriate content for a family-oriented site can absolve themselves of worry by allowing the moderators be the judges. There's always Renderotica available to accept images that are dubious here." Yes, telling artists to sod off and post at another site is a good answer.NOT I entered this fray, on the grounds of seeing what I believe are three major systemic problems with the process of pulling pictures. The first problem has been fairly well addressed now. An ambiguous or short I.M. is not enough when pulling a picture. A short I.M. telling the artist in question the picture has been pulled, and that a more specific detailed email has been sent to the email they used here to register with, would seem the least the mods could do. That seems to me, to be at least one way to combat the posts artists make wondering why their picture was pulled, or at least ease some of the confrontational nature of the posts. The second systemic problem seems to be the judging criteria. When I registered with this site, I read and agreed to a TOS. While I understand the TOS needs to have a broad range of discretionary powers, it is the standard we artists agreed to follow and our actions be judged by. If our art is to be judged fit for this based, on "a family oriented site", then the front page should say so. As I tried to say in the other thread, even though all moderator decisions will have some subjective elements to them, judging whether art is suitable for this site, really should be done as objectively as possible against the TOS. Not subjectively against another unwritten standard. I also see a third systemic problem. The first response from management, i.e. the mods, in the locked thread, were defensive, and refusing to answer publically. We are now as a society, demanding more transparancy in our governments, and businesses, simply because the light of day exposes inequities in any system. More transparancy to the members in these type of decisions, and the reasons as to why, when publically called on those decisions, couldn't hurt this website, only help. Star Chamber proceedings went out in the middle ages. Now to give credit, where credit is due, AgentSmith, in the censorship thread,did do an admirable job of just that, giving his reasons, keeping his cool, and explaining clearly and specifically why he felt gilo25's picture needed to be pulled. Those are and were my big beefs in this situation, as well as getting hit in the face, with the dead mackerel of an argument, "that this website is privately owned and can set the rules any way it wants." While true in most regards, the main thing the site doesn't own, and most needs is the actual artists. We are both commodity, and clientele. This site and it's management would do well to remember that. To take the art gallery analogy used in the other thread one step further, If you open the gallery and no one hangs any work on the walls, you're just another bankrupt website.

Thank you! Point #1 We send a e-mail or IM to the member when we pull a image. I tend to use IM because I know when they get the message. (Some members change there e-mail and or never look at it) We explain why the image was pulled to the member. 99% of the time we will not count this on there record because we feel most members might not be 100% clear on the rules and this will clear that up. 99% of the time this the member understands and it never happens again. Sometimes the member does not understand why. They then repost the image thinking they have the right to do so. This is where they get into trouble, That is the point when they break the site rules. At this point we must take action. Point #2 Our TOS is prety clear on what we will not allow on the site. We have put a lot of thought into the wording of it and feel if we add more rules it will only make it harder to understand. I don't think many members want out TOS longes or more complex. Point#3 We do not publicly tell the members anything about other members that is not their busness. (just like your real job) How would you feel if your boss posted a nice big note in the break room that he just ripped you a new one. Our TOS also states this. "Renderosity considers this information private and confidential." My mods did not tell you to "sod off". If they did, I will deal with them on that. They told you that this matter is not about you and you do not have all the facts. You are hearing one side of the story and are judging us on that. We are not going to post the facts of this issue in public as it does not involve other members.

"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." In the literal sense, no I wasn't told to sod off however, upon reading the above quote, which is directly copied from Michelle A's post, it is a natural conclusion on my part as to the intent of the statement, and certainly got that feeling. If it is a misunderstanding fine, no problems on this end over it anyway. I get told worse on a regular basis:} However the attitude certainly belies the members helping with the rules statement. The two are related, getting told you don't have a clue, certainly doesn't make a person think anyone in authority is listening. This next section is a direct quote from kbennet, post #34 in the other thread. "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." Note point #3, it bears repeating "3. The criterion for review was "is this image suitable for a site which aims to be family friendly?"" Again, please judge pictures against the TOS, and remove all violations accordingly. I firmly agree with that, but I would like to know where in the TOS or any printed list of rules this criterion is? I truly want and need to clarify my position on this point, it is the big sticking point for me, I as an artist, or reasonable facsimile there of, reads the TOS, and any other printed material pertaining to posting guidlines, posts a work, and then gets it pulled based on something that ISN'T in any of that, but another more nebulous standard, that I as the poster CANNOT have any idea as to it's presence or definition. Now do you see where the confusion and potential hard feelings come in to play? I am not saying the result in this instance would have changed the end decision at all. I am definetly not saying the end decision was wrong. All I am saying, is, if that is the criterion of judgement, then that criterion needs to be posted somewhere, so the artists know it exists, and can tailor their posts accordingly. As for the transparancy issue, certainly I agree with not going about announcing so and so had a picture pulled, but when the poster who has had a work pulled, comes into the correct forum, the forum specifically for contacting the Admins, and asks for a clarification, I think that clarification needs to be given. Obviously if that clarification of the reason for removal isn't rock solid. it's going to get some flack. Sometimes it may get flack even if it is rock solid. But as a poster here I do feel I should have the right to know and understand the process my posts are judged by. Since the only way to see the process is to either knowingly violate the rules, or question them in a thread, clear concise answers are appreciated when given.

Spike, I don't understand why you are waiting for an email from me. Did you read post #9? As I just said, I already sent an email to michellea@renderosity.com on 20/6/03, replying to her email telling me that the image had been pulled. I never got a reply. Therefore I started the thread that you all know. Now I am waiting for the management to contact me, addressing my requests laid out in my post 9 above.

By teh way, I am also amazed that, after all this, you came up with post 22 which just doesn't consider at all what has been said so far about the total inadequacy of your messages informing that an item has been pulled and you even dare insisting that, for you, the TOS is pretty clear and that you even have put a lot of effort in it!!!!!! You don't think members want longer TOS???? But, I am asking you, have you been reading and listening to all what has been said so far, i.e. that we DO need TOS which means something? We are all reday to read a few lines more, it's not a big problem, as long as thiose lines help understanding better what is allowed and what is not. I am also amazed (positively) by the patience of X-perimentalman who guided you through the issue once more. He really deserves a special mention, I am not being sarcastic.

Wow, my first forum post! I kinda wanderd in here by accident and got stuck. It was just way too enthralling. Quick question- if this is supposed to be a "Family Oriented" site, then why are there so many posts of naked people? Not that I mind, but this does not bring to mind "family oriented." Yes, yes...you say hat we can turn off the Nudity by clickig on the check box. Then wouldn't the image in question be filtered out anyways? Problem solved! Granted I haven't seen the image in question, so I may be completely off-base. But it does not say "Keep images family oriented" in the TOS. If the reason for the image being pulled was because it was not "family oriented" then you mods have a lot more work to do- there are tons more images that need to go. I'm not trying to make anyone mad at me (grin) but the TOS is there for a reason and if it needs to be changed, well then change it. Or maybe just come up with a better choice of words when pulling images. :) That's my two cents. I'm going to bed now. Good night, and good luck resolving this issue!

I don't know how else to explain this. MichelleA did give reasons for the removal, the model was playing with her breasts. If you want my blunt explanation - the picture looked like a porn site ad. We don't want this site to become another Renderotica. We also don't want to become another Disney, either. We're trying to be somewhere in the middle.

As Spike pointed out earlier, even if you post an image that's against TOS, you are simply IMed the reason the image was pulled. No action is taken unless you keep violating the TOS deliberately, such as posting kiddie porn, reposting the same yanked image over and over, etc.

Here's the general process for a disputed image:

1. Mod either sees an image they feel is over the TOS or receives a complaint about an image and tags it. (I don't know which it was for gilo25, and I don't care. The net effect is the image is brought up for a vote.)

2. Unless the image is seriously over TOS, such as kiddie porn which is immediately yanked, the image is posted for the Mods to look at and take a vote on.

3. The Mods vote, giving their reason(s) why the image should stay or go. Majority rules. (We don't always agree, but not even the Supreme Court has unanimous rulings and they're trained in legal interpretations.)

4. If the image is deemed okay (and, yes, this does happen sometimes) then it stays. If someone had complained about the image, they're informed that the image has been deemed suitable for the community. If the image is considered against TOS, then the Mod who asked for the vote IMs the poster and give the reason(s) why the image was pulled. Depending on the Mod, it might be a short summary or a longer description. The member is free to contact the Mod for a more detailed description.

If the artist disagrees, they can go to the Admins or even the site owners to argue their case.

The replies in the gilo25 thread weren't meant as "sod off" responses to people asking legitimate questions to better stand the TOS, but if you enter a heated argument, you may get some strained responses. Instead of telling you to shut up, despite a very provocative thread title, we've asked you and everyone else for suggestions on how to improve the TOS. I don't think that's treating members badly.

Consider how the thread went:

1. gilo25 posts that we're censoring his pictures because one was removed. As he quotes MichelleA:

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.

The message he quotes does spell out why the image was rejected. He also tries to post the image that he had already been told was rejected from the site. He also accuses MichelleA and the rest of us of being bigots in the first post:

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.

1. AgentSmith pulls the image. If it's not allowed in the gallery, it's not allowed in the forums, either.

2. gilo25 likens AgentSmith to the KGB and insults the Mods of Renderosity in general:

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.

This was partially in response to AgentSmith's IM to gilo25, where he put in a smiley face in an attempt to soften his message. This was taken the wrong way by gilo25 and AgentSmith did apologize to him for that misunderstanding privately, but not only was the apology not accepted, but the comments against AgentSmith continued.

1. At this point, AgentSmith and MichelleA both pop in and again say that this is nothing against gilo25 but the image does not fit the site. They also state that we try to be consistant, but with borderline pictures, it is a case-by-case basis. (I also pop in as well to try to explain the decision as my name was indirectly dragged into it with an incorrect reference to a Poser thread.)

2. There's some general arguing as to what pictures have breast touching and which don't. Other members join in.

3. gilo25 likens AgentSmith and Renderosity to a military junta:

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.

1. At this point, the Mods start getting annoyed, including myself, being accused of having no regard for any members of Renderosity and of persecuting gilo25. Until that point, all the Mod responses have been polite but firm. After the last accusation, the responses get blunt. Even though we've been accused of being on par with the Burmese militia, at no time do we start insulting gilo25 back.

2. MichelleA actually did give reasons that the picture was deleted. gilo25 posted it in the initial post of the thread. gilo25 didn't like the reason but gilo25 did not respond back to MichelleA's message for further clarification. (Or if he did reply, she never received it. She asked the other Mods if they'd been contacted by gilo25 because she never had, that's how I know she hadn't been contacted. I have no reason to believe she'd lie on this.)

3. With all the insults that gilo25 tossed at us, I personally feel that "stiring things up" isn't that far from the truth. He starts off swinging, threatening to pack up and leave and calling us bigot censors. If he'd simply posted something like, "Could you please clarify the TOS?" or "Could you please explain why my image was removed?" and given us time to answer, then it would have been something entirely different.

I hope this better clarifies things.

Crescent
Renderosity Moderator
(Writers' Forum. Does it show?)

gilo25, How many times do I have to ask you? If you are unwilling to work with me on this, this matter is closed. The bottem line is the image was pulled. We sent you a IM on why. You did not like what you heard and reposted the image. You broke the site rules by reposting a image that you were told not to, you also broke the rules by calling the mod team "bigots", "KGB spys" and "military juntas". You are pushing your luck here. The next attact on any member (including mods and admin) will get you banned from this site. IS THAT CLEAR? As for the rest of the thread,.... We will bring this to the table in the mod forum for review...

Your message doesn't explain anything. The issue is: I am a disgruntled customer, end user, whatever you want to call me (yes we are customers, we are not being made a favour by being allowed to post here, it is the other way around). The initial removal message which informed me why the image was pulled did say why it was pulled but the problem is that a correspondnce in the TOS is nowhere to be found. The messaqge is inadequate because it doesn't say 'the image was pulled based on the TOS which says...'; as a matter of fact teh message can't possibly say that because there is no correlation between the current TOS and the reasons indicated in the message for the image to be pulled. Your interpretation of the TOS is just an interpretation, because if you read the TOS, it does not contain adequate elements that would tell the 'poster' that the image he/she is about to post is unsuitable. The TOS talks about sexual acts etc, but not about touching of breasts. Moreover, there are a lot of inconsistency because the site is full of sexual images which has no more right than the one at issue to reamain, based on the TOS. Let's not forget also about the Chair of Juda which you will agree is not a feature odf a family oriented site. We are therefore asking for a revision of the TOS, and if you were receptive enough you would have already agreed to it. That's all. Here is the message I sent in reply to teh message I was sent when the image was pulled out: 20/06/03 10:08 AM To: michellea@renderosity.com cc: Subject: Re: Your image 'Sultry' was removed from our galleries. Dear Michelle, I am truly astonsihed by this decision. As you know my nudes are not sexually aggressive, as all the comments testify. If someone saw it and found it 'unsuitable', it means that he/she did not have the access to nudity turned off. So it means that he/she is not disturbed by nudity. If he/she actually forwarded a complaint for an image like this, which has no explicit sexual content (the nipple is NOT being touched, there is just an allusive gesture), I think this person has a problem with his/her own percption of what is sexually disturbing. I don't think this should influence the decision of Renderosity, which in any case doesn't cause any particular problem to me, as I will simply switch to other sites. But it will cause a problem to Renderosity itself as for the pruderie of one viewer, hundreds of viewers will be disappointed not to see a certain type of images any more, which certainly gathered the highest number of views per day. But it seems that Rendersosity has made its choice. I would still like to know where it says that the image at issue is not suitable, while all the rest of images is. All the best G' I never got a reply to this. You are now saying you didn't get it. Fine, but this doesn't allow you to insinuate that it was my intention to stir up a stink. I therefore still insist on an apology from Renderosity as requested in points 1 to 4 in post 9 above. Also, since the situation is getting more serious, I would like to invite Renderosity to choose one person who will be the official represenatative of the site. I will not reply to messages of the umpteen mod who is chipping in without me knowing whether he is representing the site or him/herself.

I am pushing my luck? Who is threatening who here? Why do you assume you are authorized to assume a tne like this? I did not break any rules by trying to re-post the image in the Forum, I was in absolute good faith trying to discuss something openly. Or is this a new interpretation of the TOS?

Oh for cryin' out loud.....I understand the TOS, and it doesnt have to be numbered 1-1000 etc. etc. for me to figure out what is allowed, and what isn't. * (the nipple is NOT being touched, there is just an allusive gesture),* This statement tells me IMO, that the intent was there..and from reading in the other thread, the 'poser' had a certain degree of satisfaction showing on her face...this would {to me} be one of the reasons the image was pulled..and I would say that this part of TOS: * Additionally, any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community.* would just about cover that. As for waiting for an apology...with all the insults being thrown at the mods/admins...I wouldnt hold my breath... sorry, just had to post my 2 c's worth again...:D ~Jani

If somebody was insulted that was me (accused of trying to unlawfully re-upload the image, stirring up stinks) and the otehrs who were told to basically mind their own businesses. Plus the action of locking the previous thread. Let's not forget the title of the thread we are writing on now, which is more than deserved. So whatever I said doesn't seem so far fetched to me and certainly was not as insulting as what myself, illusions and the others got from the mods. I am not holding my breath (;)), I can assure you I am breathing very nicely throughout this thing. But I insist on a apology for a very hasty and undeserved treatment.

"yes we are customers, we are not being made a favour by being allowed to post here, it is the other way around" You must live in la-la land. I've seen a fair few similar threads but this these take the biscuit. Dude, try this. Take up a few memberships with some of the major art sites. Try posting some risque stuff and when it's rejected, which it will be, carry on about it like you are doing here. In 12 hours time, when every one of these sites has banned you without bothering to canvas your opinion or spend hours politely justifying their decisions, I reckon you'll have a sunny new appreciation for the way things work around here. But Illusions is right, this thread was - as I understand - in order to make suggestions about the image removal problem. So, here're my suggestions:- Stick a line to the TOS, just after the list of no-nos, stating something along the lines of "In addition, images that are deemed to be generally offensive, excessively adult in nature, or simply not compatible in theme with a public site, as defined by the admins, will, at the complete discretion of the admins, be immediatley removed and a full reason provided to the artist at the point of removal." What I do NOT want to see is the TOS stretching for pages and pages detailing every possibility that might arise. Forget dodgy images, it would make obscene reading in itself. I mean, hell, does the law state that it's an offense to be "lewd in a public place" or does it state "it's an offense in a public place to... get your dick out, jack off into a jar, stick a flag in your ass and do a handstand..." and ten thousand other possibilities? Of course not, because any right-minded person can make an intelligent interpretation of the word "lewd". Please don't get the idea that I'm advocating that nobody should complain about anything, because obviously that's nonsense. I've complained about loads of things and no doubt I'll continue to do so. But I try to keep a sense of perspective and not get an inflated idea of my importance to this whole community. When I'm getting something for free I tend to be a little more generous in my opinions than if I were paying for a service. And I try not to make statements like AgentSmith being in the KGB. I mean, that's crazy... ...his hair's too long ;)

Some other suggestions: Since this is primarily a "graphic arts" community, and not a "photographer's community", remove the Photograhy Gallery. That way, any argument over inappropriate images can be reduced to a "but it's only a mesh made up of 1's ans 0's". The bottom line has been stated above (and in numerous other threads): "Any image can be removed at the sole disretion of the admins." If you post a "G" rated image, you have nothing to worry about. If you post a "risque" image, you run the risk of having your image removed. I don't think it gets any simpler than that. If you want to make images that are "on the egde", then you have to be willing to accept the fact that it may be removed. And I don't get the idea of this site trying to be "family oriented". On the one side, mods will remove images that are deemed too "risque" from galleries that are only accessible to members. Yet, on the top of every page are banner ads... some of which are very racy (non-nude, but images of lingerie, seductive poses and textures and so on). Yes, it's "art" and yes the items are for computer characters, but I know I wouldn't want my kids to see banners like that.

It seems like the site has improved with the rules which currently are in place, those rules do place more of a burden on the admin/mods to monitor and or lock threads but I think the result is more professional in the long run. Has there always been a debate about where the "adult" versus "family" rating on images should be set...YES. Even the Supreme Court of the United States admits that pornographic is subjectively defined, even the "no redeeming social value" is subjective...but as was further noted by a Justice "I know it when I see it". Now I don't know about everyone else but if one has children it is a bit easier to find a subjective definition of family orientated. Renderotica has been set up to bridge the gap so to speak in terms of a subjective standard, there you can post what is not acceptable under the TOS here. So I am always amazed at the insistance that an image be posted here...what's the point? Why must a "family orientated" site accept sexually explicit images or be under attack?...the censorship idea is a red herring...the site rules are clear on the point of who is going to be subjective about the content of an image....what part of NO needs to be explained the N or the O? The image can be posted at any other site that accepts that type of artwork, the artwork can be re-worked to fit within the site rules...again the TOS are the equivalent of notice. For one I am all for debate, but this is a site where the majority of artists work hard not to be lumped in with "porn" and although some fantasy art is risque by a pure "family" rating, it remains subjectively within the rules of this site....

I totally agree with the suggestions of illusions above in post 37. That would solve the problem or at least improve significantly the situation. As far as the observation 'You must live in la-la land. I've seen a fair few similar threads but this these take the biscuit. Dude, try this. Take up a few memberships with some of the major art sites. Try posting some risque stuff and when it's rejected, which it will be, carry on about it like you are doing here. In 12 hours time, when every one of these sites has banned you without bothering to canvas your opinion or spend hours politely justifying their decisions, I reckon you'll have a sunny new appreciation for the way things work around here.', I would like to say that I do have a few memberships with some other sites and, first of all, there is no 'risque' stuff there, everything goes (and they are not porn sites, as a matter of fact they have much less vulgar stuff than Renderotica); and if there are limits, those are spelt out clearly, in a way which resembles very much the suggestions put forward by illusions. So if you are banned, there are reasons. Therefore I am afraid I won't have any 'sunny apprecaiation for the way things work here', on the contrary, as this is the only site IO found where mods tell you to shut up, lock threads, insult members by accusing them to stir up stinks, etc etc. In this respect, I am still waiting to be contacted on the issues I raised in my post above.

Sorry, I meant 'I found'..

gilo25, I am taking this to IM. This is not a public matter.

Again, what is a "Family site"?, if nudity, breast, nipples, etc are not allowed in a family site, then I conclude that museums and art galleries are places where a "Family" never can visit!, imagine what a child or grandmother can find there! I never had a problem with my pictures in any site, but I have the right to choose which image I want to see and which do not, and NOT that someone else decide what I am allowed to see!!!!

Your right, you do have the right to view any image you like. The ones that are not allowed on this site can be viewed at othere sites.. When Members join Renderosity thay read this: "Due to the content and issues discussed in our forums, we ask that anyone under the age of 15 receive written permission from a parent before joining our service." So think of the site as PG-15..

othere = other

"I can't help but wonder how many under 15 year olds there are here, and how many of their parents have mailed written permission." More than you think... But most were faxed in.. "PG-15...I don't know of many parents that permit their 15 year olds to view bondage, fetish, or sexually oriented material such as those found in the Marketplace. The site can't have it both ways...if you can't see it in the galleries...you can't sell it in the Marketplace! " This is why we made some of the merchants change there banners... Remember all the stink that caused? Ya see, We try and clean it up from one end and get hammered. We try and clean it up at the other and get hammered. It's funny that no matter what I tell you guys, some of you just want to drag it on.... Seems some of you realy don't care about the issue at all, but only care about winning the fight. In my mind, there in no fight to be won. I said that I was going to bring this issue to the table, and I have. We are talking about ways to improve how we deal with letting members know why we remove images..

• Can a "child" 15 years old boy something at the market place? - If a 12 years old child want to view something, he will do it, no mater if the parents permit or do not. If he want to view porn pictures, he will find a way and find a correct link, parent can put firewall, he will break them, in most cases the child/teens are very much knowledge about computers/internet that their parents have. It is only an illusion of the parents that are controling something. The story was the same for my father, for me, for my sons, and so on. Have you forgotten when you were a child or teen what you have done and how you find a way for doing it? - Someone has decided that I are not allowed to see Gilo's image. It wasn't me that decided if I want to see it, so I lost my decision right! Probably, if I had the right to decide, I would never seen the image because I seldom visit the photo gallery. - The problematic image was within the TOS and was removed due the subjective opinion of what is suitable for a "Family Site", but what is a family site was never been defined, only the TOS, and the image was within the TOS! - Yes, all the problem is about NUDITY! In all the cases with conflicting pictures removed, nudity was involved! With few exceptions, No nudity-No complains-No pictures removed!

The matter about this image in not open for debate. The change of our TOS is. "- Someone has decided that I are not allowed to see Gilo's image. It wasn't me that decided if I want to see it, so I lost my decision right!" Wrong! Help yourself! If you want to see his work, please go to another site. It's up to you, we are not keeping you from it. Help yourself, have a good time, enjoy your stay. I Spike, ruler of all "porn like" images give you permission to go to another site and freely view as much "porn like" images as you want.

BTW "Can a "child" 15 years old boy something at the market place?" Yes he can. Paypal!

Oops, I retract the paypal part. But a minor can get a cretit card here in the US as long as the parents agree to the terms.

And they can send in a money order too...

So if a "child" has a credit card, there's any difference if he buys something here, at another site or at some porn site?

a child under 18 is not liable for debts incurred. so, any fool that gives him/her a credit card is doing so at their own risk. jack d. kamerar did not set up renderotica as a "bridge" between what is acceptable at renderosity and "adult" art. he was pissed and set off to make his own reality. i was here for years before this was a "family" site. it used to be an "artist" site. spike...you turn me on, so, when you utter the lil phrase "porn like"....yoowza, yoowza, yoowsz.....can you whisper it? but, sadly, you seem even more excited when you proudly announce such phrases as....sing it to me honey, with feeling....PAYPAL....and MONEY ORDER. not all transparencies are in maps for renders. sigh. artists we all are, right? unnnn hunnnnhhhhh... spike..you were decent at modelling, more than decent. i am shocked at this turn.

If a 12 years old child want to view something, he will do it, no mater if the parents permit or do not.
If he want to view porn pictures, he will find a way and find a correct link, parent can put firewall, he will break them, in most cases the child/teens are very much knowledge about computers/internet that their parents have.
It is only an illusion of the parents that are controling something. The story was the same for my father, for me, for my sons, and so on.
Have you forgotten when you were a child or teen what you have done and how you find a way for doing it?

Renderosity is practicing caution by means of the TOS with regards to underage use. But what the child does at home is beyond Renderosity's capacity to protect the child from such actions. IMHO, it is the responsibility of the parent or the guardian.

JohnRender - deleting the Photography section in Renderosity will not solve the problem. Moreover, if you say that this is a graphic artist's community then maybe we should not allow purely hand-drawn work here either?

I have been following this thread in silence, and I think this has gone for way too long already. As a moderator, I am insulted by the sweeping generalizations made by some entities, and I think it is unfair to say that my hardworking co-moderator is 'lying through her teeth'. What will Michelle A. possibly gain from doing that? We certainly do not draw gratification from deleting images and deliberating over fuzzy issues.

gilo25, you have been given four (possibly more) different explanations on why your image was removed. I don't see why you need a detailed explanation anymore. It is unfortunate that you are disgruntled with the incident but I don't think an apology is in order either. The Renderosity team is simply doing their job.

I'd appreciate it if all business is conducted in a very cooperative fashion. We must help each other to solve the problem. I have heard your side and I have given mine.

I do not like to end things sourly. But if you are not happy with the way things are running here, I believe there are other options, and those options are all up to you.

Thank you for your time.

starshuffler
Renderosity Photography Moderator

Also, before I forget-- we appreciate the suggestions given here. Thanks,people. :-)

Spike, thanks for tabling the ideas to the mods forum, that at least is a good start.