"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.