Even though I am able to grasp the intellectual arguments about the TOS, I am unable to feel the logic that deems one thing "Porn" and another "Artistic" as arbitrarily applied here. I accept Renderosity's right to remove what they will. I am troubled by the prejudices and inconsistencies displayed. Not complaining...just musing!

illusions, in regard to your statement:
"Few of us have seen the image...and if you haven't seen it, you can't judge it's suitability. The purpose of this thread was to make suggestions concerning the process by which an image is removed, a members options when an image has been removed, and the adequacy of the TOS to define what is suitable."
In another thread regarding this issue I tried to explain some points to consider when dealing with "borderline" images. Here is the gist of what I said:

The gestalt of any given image is not simply the end product of one individual compositional element such as a specific body part, but is the sum of all the elements within the image. In figure studies, this includes (but is not limited to) the stance of the body, the facial expression, the way the limbs are held, the implied emotions and intent. A good photographer (in the example of photography) can impart these feelings from the way they compose, light and position their subject matter. These elements cannot always be broken down into specific rules or delineations, but need to be taken into consideration when viewed as a whole, in context...which is why we have to occasionally have to discuss & vote on some images. This is not about adequacy of the TOS...no set of written definitions or rules can cover every conceivable circumstance. Some of these things can not by their very nature of needing to be assessed in a wholistic context, be clearly defined by words (ie a specific TOS wording)

Illusions, also regarding your statement: "Many of us gave you ideas for handling image removal. Neither you nor any of the other Mods/Admins have acknowledge any of them or commented on them!"

I also replied in the other thread I mentioned earlier:
"gilo25 Some aspects of your email suggestions do have merit. I truly hope that both Renderosity and yourself can learn from these exchanges."

At no time did I receive any response from gilo25 that he had read, aknowledged or in anyway understood what I was communicating, or that I was even making a genuine and sincere effort to explain things. This is a pattern he seems to have followed with the other mods and Spike as well.

For someone accusing Renderosity and it's administration and moderators of poor communication skills I find this very strange. To communicate effectively one must also listen for any effective exchange. It seems to me that Renderosity have been listening and answering all along, hence the multitude of replies. gilo25 however does not seem to have shown Renderosity and it's representatives the same courtesy. He refuses to accept the answers and explanations given to him. He has been insulting, rude and then he demands apologies from Renderosity.

If I insulted, and continually haraunged other members (yes mods are members too), even to the point of accusing them of "lying through their teeth" with NO evidence...and comparing them to military juntas and dictators, If I ignored everything else that was explained to me because I wasn't told exactly what I wanted to hear, do you think others would regard my behaviour as reasonable?
In reference to the title of the thread originally coined by illusions, this is a "nice" abuse of freedom of speech and tolerance within this community by gilo25 I would say
P.S. Brendan, I too am sometimes troubled by the prejudices and inconsistencies displayed by some members when dealing with and voicing their greivances regarding this site...it seems to me these things surely work both ways? As you said, I'm not complaining, I too, am musing... ;-)> PunkClown (2D Graphics Forum Moderator)

Yes starshuffler I have been given 4 different explanations, and a lot of stories that did not satisfy me. That's the problem: I want one person to talk to me as representative of Renderosity. Your chipping in after reading in silence doesn't help. I have put down some requests and I would like an answer. Nobody has formally addressed the fact that I did raise this in private 'before stirring up a stink'. Therefore I reiterate here all I said before, including the unprofessional ways of the mods, at times. Still waiting.. And I would also like somebody to give an explanation on how you reconcile the market place with your TOS. That's a public issue, not a private one, Spike. Brendan, I love your musing.. ;)

P.S. Brendan, the woman in the example you posted looks like she is trying to tune in a radio station rather than being risque! :-)>

gilo25 re: "I want one person to talk to me as representative of Renderosity" ~ Spike has already offered to do that, via email or IM...why haven't you taken him up on that offer?

;) Punkclown, you are right, looks like she is tuning a radio.. but that's the problem, where do you draw the line?.. anyway, we talked about that, I don't want to 'stir any more stink'. What I want to say is that I did appreciate your effort. As a matter of fact I was referring to your sentence 'gilo25 Some aspects of your email suggestions do have merit. I truly hope that both Renderosity and yourself can learn from these exchanges" when I said that I was about to calm thing down, as I saw an effort from the mods (I was referring to you) to calm things down. It seems that you don't read either, have a look above! But the problem is that then Michelle came up with that very unfortunate comment saying that it was my intention to stir up a stink because had I bothered to contact you in private I would have received an explanation. How many times do I have to say that I did bother to contact you, I even pasted my email above. But I never got a reply. Maybe you guys did not receive it, but this doesn't authorize you to depict me as a trouble maker. it is unprofessional. The fact that I was really astonished by your censorship and compared you to a military junta doesn't allow you to insult me back, as I did somehow recognize somewhere above that my comparison was not on. But you never admitted that Michell'es words were inappropriate as well. And they were indeed, together with the locking of thread of Spike and other oobservations from the mod.And I repeat it here that she lied, as far as I know, because nobody officially told me that she never received my email. And this leads me to my last point. Guys, it's better if one of you makes the talks because by intervening at random, you don't make yourself a favour: you are just destroying each other's work. get your acts together and we are going to solve this, coz neither illusions, xperimental man or myself are here to stir up stinks. have you ever thought it is maybe because we like this site????? Of course, if you continue like this, obviously we do lose our patience. At least I do.

I haven't got any email yet. let me check. But it's early morning here, and I had some good time last night with my models tuning radios.. Can I have breakfast first?

gilo25, please check your IM's. X-perimentalman Thanks! We are working on it...

Thank you for aknowledging my efforts. I would also really appreciate it if you actually addressed my explanation of judging the appropriateness of images that may not be completely covered by the TOS in the context of their whole gestalt:
"These elements cannot always be broken down into specific rules or delineations, but need to be taken into consideration when viewed as a whole, in context...which is why we have to occasionally have to discuss & vote on some images. This is not about adequacy of the TOS...no set of written definitions or rules can cover every conceivable circumstance or image. Some of these things can not by their very nature of needing to be assessed in a wholistic context, be clearly defined by words (ie a specific TOS wording)"
~ This after all, is directly addressing what seems to have been one of your major concerns...that you wanted to know on what criterion your image was deleted.
I have also have a major problem with this statement you have made: "And I repeat it here that she lied, as far as I know, because nobody officially told me that she never received my email" how on earth does that justify you calling someone a liar? "As far as you know" ~ as far as you know, you could be completely wrong (ie the email was not have been delivered for whatever reason), and therefore you are making statements based on erroneous information. Just because "no-one told you", how does that make someone a liar? Publicly accusing someone of lying is very serious and damaging. I personally think you should apologise to Michelle, seriously.

thisis for Crescent's message above. I have to comment on this message of Crescent (which is public); I hope I will be allowed, because it seems now that I should talk only in private; but since this is public, i would like to reply in public. I'll paste my comments in capitals, juts to differentiate them from teh text of Crescent, not to signify shouting. MichelleA did give reasons for the removal, the model was playing with her breasts. CORRECT, SHE DID GAVE EXPLANATIONS, BUT THESE DO NOT HAVE A CORRESPONDENT IN THE TOS. ALSO THE IMAGE OF BRANDAN IS ABOUT TOUCHING OF BREASTS. BUT MINE HAS BEEN DELETED, THIS ONE NO. OF COURSE THERE IS A DIFFERENT FEEL TO THE 2 PICS, I AGREE. BUT THIS ONLY IMPLIES THAT THE TOS THE WAY IT IS NOW IS NOT ADEQUATE. I JUST INVITED AN EXPLANATION ON THIS. If you want my blunt explanation - the picture looked like a porn site ad. We don't want this site to become another Renderotica. THAT'S YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, FINE. YOU DON'T WANT TO THIS SITE TO BECOME ANOTHER RENDEROTICA? HOW ABOUT THE MARKETPLACE? IS THAT FAMILY ORIENTED? 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. I WAS EMAILED, NOT IM'ED 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. I WAS NOT TRYING TO BE CLEVER, I THOUGHT IN ALL GOOD FAITH THAT THE IMAGE WAS BANNED FROM THE GALLERIES, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS ALLOWED TO DISCUSS IT HERE. I AM AWFULLY SORRY ABOUT THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK I COMMITTED A CAPITAL CRIME. I SIGNED UP 3 MONTSH AGO, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE RULES AND CERTAINLY THE RULE THAT IF SOMETHING IS REMOVED FROM THE GALLERIES IT CANNOT BE DISCUSSED HERE IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. SOME MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT. 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. WHICH I DID. YOU ALL SAW THE EMAIL I SENT TO MICHELLE. If the artist disagrees, they can go to the Admins or even the site owners to argue their case. IN FACT I DID SEND A MESSAGE TO MICHELLE WHICH AS FAR AS I KNOW WAS IGNORED. BUT I WAS NOT ARGUING AGAINST ITS REMOVAL: I WAS ASTONISHED THAT TEHRE WAS NOTHING IN THE TOS TO GUIDE ME AND WANTED AN EXPLANATION AS FAR AS THE DELETION OF THAT PIC WAS CONCERNED. The replies in the gilo25 thread weren't meant as "sod off" responses to people asking legitimate questions to better stand the TOS, BUT THAT'S THE WAY THEY CAME ACROSS.LOCKING THE THREAD ALSO SIGNIFIES 'SOD OFF' TO ME. 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, THERE WAS NOTHING PROVOCATIVE IN MY TITLE. WHAT'S PROVOCATIVE ABOUT 'CENSORSHIP'? OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD? THERE IS NOTHING PROVOCATIVE HERE EITHER. JUST A FACT.we've asked you and everyone else for suggestions on how to improve the TOS. I don't think that's treating members badly. NO IT'S NOT AND I (AND EVERYBODY) APPRECIATED THAT. Consider how the thread went: 1) gilo25 posts that we're censoring his pictures because one was removed. TRUE. ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT? 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.CORRECT. BUT THE TOS SHOWS NO CORRESPEONDNCE WITH THE REASONS BROUGHT FORWARD. HENCE THE PROBLEM AND TEH REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION. WHICH WAS NEVER ANSWERED. He also tries to post the image that he had already been told was rejected from the site. IN ABSOLUTE GOOD FAITH. I THOUGHT IT CAN BE DISCUSSED, AS I SAID BEFORE. 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. YES, BECAUSE I WAS GETTING ANNOYED BY THE FACT THAT MY PRIVATE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATIONS WENT IGNORED. 2) AgentSmith pulls the image. If it's not allowed in the gallery, it's not allowed in the forums, either. GOOD TO KNOW. 3) 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. YES, AFTER HAVING WRITTEN AND BEING IGNORED, AFTER TRYING TO GET A DEBATE GOING, SEEING THE SARCASM OF AGENTSMITH FRANKLY GOT ME AS MUCH ANGRY AS MICHELLE'S ACCUSATION OF STIRRING UP A STINK. BUT I DID SAY ABOVE THAT I DID NEVER MEAN TO LIKEN YOUR ACT TO AN ACT OF MURDER. 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. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE AGAINST HIM. IN ANY CASE YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT MY SITUATION WAS NOT THAT 'GLORIOUS', CONSIDERING HOW I HAD BEEN TREATED FOR QUITE SOME TIME, I.E. FROM TOTAL NEGLECT TO SARCASM. THAT'S WHAT I FELT, AND NOBODY CAN TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME. EXACTLY LIKE YOU FELT INSULTED BY THE COMPARISON WITH THE POLICE (WHICH BY THE WAY SPIKE HIMSELF HAS JUST BROUGHT UP, IN ANOTHER VERY UNFORTUNATE IM IN WHICH HE WAS IN REALITY SUPPOSED TO 'TALK' TO ME, A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE MODS AND POLICE. I AM PARAPHARSING HIM: HE SAID 'WHY DID YOU POST THE IMAGE AGAIN? WOULD YOU SPEED OFF WITH YOUR CAR IF YOU HAVE JUST BEEN GIVEN A FINE FOR SPEEDING? SO WHO IS TALKING ABOUT POLICE NOW? BUT I DON'T WANT TO DWELL ON THAT COZ I AM GOING TO BE CURSED, KNOWING HOW THINGS GO. ...) I FELT INSULTED BY BEING NEGLECTED AND LAUGHED AT. 4) 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.FINE, BUT WHERE IS THE EXPLANATION OF THE CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE TOS? They also state that we try to be consistant, BUT YOU ARE NOT, AS THE MARKETPLACE SHOWS. OF COURSE NOBODY IS PERFECT BUT SUCH BLATANT CONTRADICTION SHOULD BE EASILY AVOIDED. 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.) 5) There's some general arguing as to what pictures have breast touching and which don't. Other members join in. 6) 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. TRUE, I ALREADY SAID WHY I SAID THIS. 7) At this point, the Mods start getting annoyed, POOR THINGS. I HAD BEEN ANNOYED FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS ALREADY. AND CORRECTLY SO. including myself, being accused of having no regard for any members of Renderosity and of persecuting gilo25. THAT'S WHAT IT SEEMED, I AM AFRAID. 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. REALLY? WHAT ABOUT THE STIRRING UP STINK? WAS THAT NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT OF GETTING OFFENSIVE? 8) MichelleA actually did give reasons that the picture was deleted. YES WE KNOW THAT. 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. YES I DID. I PASTED THE MESSAGE ABOVE. (Or if he did reply, she never received it. VERY UNFORTUNATE, BUT WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT? IN ANY CASE YOU CAN'T PROVE SHE DIDN'T GET IT AS I CAN'T PROVE I SENT IT. WE ARE EVEN. MY WORD AGAINST YOURS. She asked the other Mods if they'd been contacted by gilo25 because she never had, THE MESSAGE IS THERE FOR YOU TO READ. that's how I know she hadn't been contacted. SHE THAD. AND THISLAST STATEMENT OF YOURS IS ALL TO BE PROVEN. SINCE YOU CAN'T, THE FACT REMAINS THAT I FELT INSULTED BY THE WORDS OF MICHELLE. YOU CAN'T DENY THAT. have no reason to believe she'd lie on this.)I DO, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER STORY. AGAIN YOUR WORD AGAISNT MINE. 9) With all the insults that gilo25 tossed at us, THE ONLY AND EXCLUSIVE THING WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN INAPPROPRIATE (BUT I DON'T SEE IT AS A BIG DEAL) IS THE COMPARISON WITH THE JUNTA, WHICH WE DEALT WITH ALREDAY. ALL THE REST IS JUST PURE FACTS, NO INSULTS AT ALL. I personally feel that "stiring things up" isn't that far from the truth. IT IS. AND HERE YOU JOIN HER IN INSULTING ME AGAIN. I DID SEND A MESSAGE AND YOU (AS MOD) HAVE TO WATCH YOUR WORDS AS MUCH (IF NOT MORE) AS WE HAVE TO WATCH OURS. He starts off swinging, threatening to pack up and leave and calling us bigot GS WORSE. censors. ARE YOU AFRAIA IF I LEAVE? WHAT KIND OF THREAT IS THAT STATEMENT OF MINE? If he'd simply posted something like, "Could you please clarify the TOS?" or "Could you please explain why my image was removed?" I DID BUT YOU NEVER REPLIED TO IT, AS I AM SAYING FOR THE 15TH TIME. and given us time to answer, then it would have been something entirely different. YES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. SO ARE YOU KNOW SAYING THAT YOU DID RECEIVE IT BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO REPLY? I hope this better clarifies NO IT DOESN'T. IT MAKES THINK WORSE

Punklown, I totally agree with you. You seem to be the only one here who is capable of addressing and understanding the issue. I agree it is difficult to spell out everything. That's why you have to exercise extra care in the wording of the messages, be extra careful with the messages you receive in reply to your communications of deletion, and possibly come up with something better in the TOS which indeed allows you to make Renderosity a sort of mid way site as Crecent is saying and most importantly allows people to understand better what is allowed and what is not. That's all I am saying (and Illusions as well, I think). But I totally disagree with you on the issue of Michelle. She was supposed to measure her words more carefully, particularly in public. The fact that my words were strong doesn't allow a mod to accuse me of stirring up a stink because I should have contacted her in private. I did it, and my message was not answered, that's all I know. Her words added insult to injury. I have already said why in my reply to Crecent above. It is very naive of you if you think I will ever make an apology for what I said on this point. And as a matter of fact I am still waiting for a reply from the management on that issue.And when I say a reply I mean an apology.

If your going to quote me, please get it right. That is not what I said.

Ya know what? I think that if this is going to be a family oriented site, it should be a family oriented site..put up another gallery for art containing nudes. Remove anything in the banners that is not family friendly. Move all the stores that contain nudes, bondage gear, etc..to another place all by itself..on site, but not in the main marketplace. Do not allow nudity or sexually explicit photos {like the one above..I personally think that is a female pinching anothers nipple..I could be wrong tho...} in forums. {oh wait, my nudity filter was on, but shoot...someone forgot to tick the flag...>:( Do not allow foul language in the forums....blah, blah, blah.. I seriously doubt that this will happen..for we all know sex sells >:( Ok, I'll be quiet for awhile now :P

I am truly sorry that you cannot see my very seriously put point about publicly accusing someone of lying. I may be naive, but I honestly don't think that someone expecting others to "measure their words more carefully, particularly in public" can acheive any kind of credibility by failing to follow their own recommendations. In other words, please practice what you preach.

Punkclown, the same applies to you mods (and I am not talking about yourself); Spike, I don't have your instant message any more but this is what you said. Otherwise what did you want to say?

Spike I sent you a couple of IMs, in case you are interested. I am off now.

Ahem So I guess the image up there stays? Im getting a bit confused here myself now....

The problem is that Gilo25 is not a renacense artist, is very much difficult to ban classic art!

Doesn't anyone else think this issue is a little, how can I put it, dry? It's become some sort of self-feeding obsession with some people. Image went up. Image was deemed unsuitable. Image taken down. Artist disagreed. Decision stands. Who knows, perhaps it was a harsh decision. Perhaps there really are a dozen more suggestive images in the galleries that haven't been taken down. I didn't see the picture so I don't know. But so what? It's been established that such decisions are to some extent subjective, so people are bound to disagree. Perhaps another perspective would be to ask, "If the image really wasn't against TOS, why did the admins take it down?" One reason could be because they hate the artist and they're engaging in covert attrition warfare. Another could be that they get commission for removing images. Yet another that it's a ploy to ensure popularity of the forums by causing a 20 thousand word argument on the matter. Or is it simpler to assume that the admins genuinely believed the image was unsuitable and, for this reason, decided to remove it whilst at the same time proferring an apology? I know which I think is the most likely. Is there really anything more to say? If I doggedly pursued all the decisions or member remarks that I disagreed with or took offence at you'd need to open a new forum. A last point: If someone wants to make changes to the TOS, as a result of this issue or any other, then why not post a reasoned suggestion in the Suggestion forum? Then everyone can join in. Or is the only purpose now to find a chink in someone's argument, regurgitating vast reams of quotations until someone's caught out or banned or gives in and apologises simply because they can't stand it any more?

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=99959&Start=49&Artist=Brendan&ByArtist=Yes

More musings! with a conciliatory feel I hope? "The problem is that Gilo25 is not a renacense artist, is very much difficult to ban classic art!" On the contrary! it is very easy to proscribe art from any period in history. The phenomenon of censorship is as old as the act of creation itself. I must have been all of six years old when I first saw the painting removed from above. My junior school library had a very comprehensive art section, well thumbed by myself. Being too young to have any sex drive that could be corrupted I did not turn into a Lesbian because of the experience. One of the main stumbling blocks with the TOS is one of culture. Here in the UK we are used to controversy over questions of art but not very conversant with the fuzzy moral thinking of those that want to censor and silence anything that ruffles their own personal psyche. I have had a few run-in's with Renderosity in the past over some of my postings ( no Spike!, not the *Troll* stuff ) and have taken the line of least resistance simply because there is no solution that gets over the present status-quo. I suspect that whoever complained about the Photograph in question is the same sort of person that has difficulty with seeing breastfeeding in public. They are inhibited and unsettled by the most basic and natural manifestations of human sexuality and do not wish to be reminded of their own sense of shame. What many of us outside of the US must try to understand is that places like Renderosity are under scrutiny ( if not siege ) from all sorts of self appointed *Moral* watch dogs that would love the chance to tear the site from limb to limb on any pretext. One pernicious lawsuit from any number of *Moral Crusading* troublemakers would most probably bring the site to it's knees, I would rather that did not happen ( for very selfish reasons!). Though the standard message from Michelle is guaranteed to raise the hackles, I now understand that she is only the messenger and although I find Spikes IM's spiky in tone, I now accept that it is his way and try not to take it personally. Personally!, I would prefer the constant referral of deleted images to Renderotica to cease. It has a unpleasant taste of the qualitative and judgmental about it. I have had many spats with Members, Trolls, Mods and Admins in the past over all sorts of issues. I wish I could have the wasted time back now and reinvest it in something productive. That is a strictly personal view and not directed against anyone here. ********** I have taken the risk of appending a link to an image from the early days of my gallery, ( a badly disguised effort to get some viewing's and ratings ), question is! does this break the TOS in terms of not being *Family Friendly*?, is it perhaps, more suited to Renderotica?.... It could just be a work of art expressing an interior state of mind, albeit with a sexual undertow!. I have many notions of what would constitute a liberal Credo for the TOS. What is clear about the present situation is that we should try to find ways to confound the common enemy of the members and the team at this site. ********** gilo25! Please do not go, rather stay and fight the good fight by mustering your creative arsenal against the slimy foe that lurks around the galleries looking for things to be offended by. They are not as bright as they think! Miles of smiles for everyone!

"P.S. Brendan, the woman in the example you posted looks like she is trying to tune in a radio station rather than being risque!" In the pre-wireless days one had to tweak the Crystal tip for ages to get a clear signal!......yearns for the days when we had to make our own entertainment!....

Classic art is much difficult to censor, it can be done and was done, but today most parts of the world are interconected. What was the reaction of the world with the destruction of the Budhas by the Taleban?, the Budhas are not more there, Taleban is still there, but people like them? Something is wrong, this kind of discusion happenening here should never have existed. Is this site an "Art site" or a "Family site" ruled by dubious moral rules? Why we are not discusing about art, if the nipple radio buttons need postwork or not? I suppose that Renderosity is dedicated to ART, maybe I am wrong about this? ART deals with human emotions and expressions, you can find nudity, violence, eroticism and even porn. Look at the paintings in Pompei, they are porn! and also art!, the vivid colours of the paintings are still there after almost 2000 years. Art is all this, it can be a drawing, a statue, a sculture of a penis or a photograph of a cat, even a primitive painting in the Altamira's coves. Why let incult people's complain destroy some artistic work. If I am wrong and this site is not dedicated to ART, forget all what I have posted and forgive my ignorance, you can censor all you wish.

As this particular thread reveals so many fascinating conundrums to do with the spirit and interpretation of the TOS I thought I would re-read it (I am keeping an eye on a render, so have time to fiddle!). Instead of trawling the galleries for examples I followed what looked to be a tantalising link supplied by the site. Step one: Click on the link. Step two: Enter the gallery on the site linked. Step three: Open the first image "Mad Lab". How *Family friendly* is that?....personally I find it quite banal.

Brendon - I'll ask about the Digital Love Doll link. If a site changes what type of images it displays after they join the ring, we don't always know about it. Thanks for the heads-up. I hadn't seen the Mad Lab image before. As for referring some pictures to Renderotica, it's not meant as an insult to Renderotica nor the artist. To me, it's the same thing as suggesting that a cubist image might be more appreciated at a site devoted to modern art instead of one devoted to Rennaisance art. I'm not saying that the picture is horrid and that cubist art is the most evil thing on the face of the Earth, I'm simply suggesting a place where I think there will be viewers who will be more interested in the picture and will appreciate it more. Sorry if it seems like an insult. I suspect that pictures of a cat batting a butterfly in a meadow wouldn't be as appreciated at Renderotica as other pictures there because it's outside their normal theme. It's not a judgement on artistic merit, just on viewer interest. I've seen some beautifully done images with exquisite artistic technique that were not suitable for this site and had to ask the artist to post it at another site. Renderotica is the one that we usually suggest because it is more explicit yet the preferred artistic tools used there are the same ones used here. We also share some of the same members, so people here can go over there to see images we can't put here. It's meant to be nice to Renderotica, to get more people to them who appreciate their more explicit - some would argue more honest - subject matter. Cheers!

Thanks Cresent. It could be that the real issue is one of language? I have received the standard email informing me that an image has been removed. Personally I find the wording brusque if not blunt. An idea to chew over is one of formulating standard messages to members, on issues such as deletions and of OTT slinging matches in the forums, in a more expansive (and possibly coaxing) tone? There is, without doubt, some difficulty in discerning the blurred edges of the TOS. Because it is impossible for Renderosity to cover all eventualities in one statement, a more conciliatory message informing the people involved would go a long way to calming the situation when it arises. What it boils down to, in my mind, is the way that the TOS is unavoidably vague in parts but the communication dealing with deletions can be read as very sharp in it's certainty. I, like many here, happen to be a very sensitive bunny when it comes to rejection. Couple with that the difficulty of being consistent about what gets removed and folks are bound to get aggrieved about what can seem unfair treatment. I second the suggestion, posted earlier in this thread, that perhaps it is time to shunt questionable ( if not all nude content ) work into a gallery of its own with the appropriate disclaimers. A facility for artists to submit images that are doubtful, before posting, might help. If there ain't one already?

No more radio buttons here? Taleban 2 x Art 0

"As for referring some pictures to Renderotica, it's not meant as an insult to Renderotica nor the artist. To me, it's the same thing as suggesting that a cubist image might be more appreciated at a site devoted to modern art instead of one devoted to Rennaisance art." Which is a fine sentiment, but I still absolutely detest the argument, "take it to Renderotica" and all it's variations, that appear in threads. Look at it this way, take this argument through to it's logical conclusion, and any time someone posts a costumed superhero in the galleries and we should all be yelling take it to Animotions. And before someone points out that costumed superheros are allowed under the TOS, they are today, what about tomorrow? The fact the banned picture was risque, is a blind alley in the argument about the process of picture removal. Meaning the differece is soley genre of art as far as the argument is concerned. Erotic or risque art is one genre, costumed superheroes is another. The argument is as equally faulty in both genre's. The actual desired end result is to work with the artists of this site and achieve compromise with the artists of this site, not drive them to another site.

We must all remember that this issue is not really about nudity per se. It's about the context of nudity in the image. (Please read PunkClown's explanation on how the different elements of an image play a role in giving context clues. Of course context is subjective to a lot of factors as well, hence the process of deliberation among mods and admins. Bear in mind that we come from different parts of the world as well, and may come to different opinions about certain matters due to our cultural diversity.) We really appreciate the input we received here regarding the TOS and the removal of images. Thank you for your patience as we try to work things out for the common good. :-) starshuffler Renderosity Moderator

"We must all remember that this issue is not really about nudity per se. It's about the context of nudity in the image. " Sorry but for at least 2 of us, the nudity and or context of nudity has nothing to do with our concerns at all. My concerns are simply with the process of image removal/notification and appeal venues. I also have some concern as to the public reactions of the mods in the first thread, note, I do not claim to judge on behind the scenes behaviour, just simply on what they publically posted in black and white in the first thread. Some mods reacted admirably, some regrettably did not. However that is a minor concern, to the main one, which has still gone unanswered, which is the standard the picture was held to. If it was held to the TOS and the TOS only, fine and good. Job well done to the mods. If however the picture was held to the standard of "family-oriented site", how can anyone get upset, is beyond me, when an artist reacts badly to the decision of picture removal, since the artist could NOT possibly have known this standard existed. Asking the artists to agree to a TOS, and abide by it's rules, and then judging by another unwritten set is ludicrous.

You have valid points, X-perimentalman. Sorry for not being all that clear, I was responding to the references to the use of the nudity flag. (To paraphrase my earlier post: There is nothing wrong with nudity per se, it's the context that puts it into contention. After all, it is this issue that has put forth the TOS discussion.)

If however the picture was held to the standard of "family-oriented site", how can anyone get upset, is beyond me, when an artist reacts badly to the decision of picture removal, since the artist could NOT possibly have known this standard existed. This, I think covers that question. Advertising or linking to any publications and/or web sites that are age restricted due to content, and/or pornographic in nature. Even tho we are all from different parts of the world, and come from different backgrounds/cultures, we must remember what state guidelines/rules are in the place where Rendo resides..which is in the U.S. Just because this site is owned by Bondware doesn't mean it can make all its own rules..it HAS to conform ALSO with states rules. {Also, if one posts content here that is deemed 'unsuitable' by Rendo...that is indeed 'advertisment'} This type of content is allowed in many places, but it HAS to be made unaccessable to minors..{or at least an attempt has to be made} on the part of Rendo, AND the parents of said minors. The site and Bondware can be shut-down if these attempts are not made. Rules are rules, not everyone is going to like them, but it doesn't give one the right to break them because of it.

Illusions, a question: "It is about a lack of understanding and little desire to attempt understanding." By whom? Are you refering to yourself. Let me put this another way...if this is about being fair then I would think that any reasonable person may say that being fair is reading the genuine attempts at explanations given and aknowledging them - even gilo25 aknowledged the point about not being able to cover every image/situation with a definitive "spelt out" TOS description. He then shifted tack to talk about the communications being sent out regarding images being removed perhaps being inadequate. This issue will be looked at, I am sure. The market place issues will be also be looked at I am sure. So where is the issue being misunderstood or no attempt being made to understand it? On which side of the coin? ~ perhaps there has been a bit of misunderstanding on both sides?...it can happen you know.
Where is being right more important than being fair? Once again are you refering to yourself? No, really...I could quite easily look at these (your) statements and think they were just as applicable to you, gilo25 and all the others who would criticise...you seem so determined and indignant in your "rightness" you may be blinded to your own behaviours. IMHO, if this is about being fair then I would also think that any reasonable person may say that being fair is not publicly accusing people of lying with no factual basis. Being fair is not being hypocritical and expecting standards to be applied to one group of people, such as mods and admin and completely failing to follow such expected standards in kind or expecting them to be followed by other members who happen to agree with your point of view. Being fair is actually acknowledging all the polite and sincere responses to address this issue.

Illusions, your post # 90 is spot on! It perfectly summarizes the issues in a couple of lines.

I disagree with what Punkclown is saying above, but I will not reply to it any more, first of all because it has been said already, and secondly because my comments are not welcome by the admin. I have been formally warned 'in private' by Spike to basically shut up since the case is closed. Of course Spike will deny that, but I can send the relevant IM's to whoever is interested. I would continue this debate, if I felt that there is a genuine interest to change things. But now I know that there isn't. I would like to thank all those who contributed significantly to this discussion. I won't mention anybody in particular, because I may forget somebody. I will definitely stop posting here until I see some significant improvements in the direction we suggested. So I will observe quietly. I will try my best not to bite the bait and reply to any more provoking statements from the mods. Depending on the developments, I may decide, at the end, to pull down all my work, if that's the case. If somebody wants to view my work, just send me an IM. I am now putting it up now on another free site. All the best and thank you again.

Punk Clown, illusions answer was to obviously to jumpstartme2's answer to my post above it. jumpstartme2 looked at a very narrow view, meaning the fact the image of gilo25 was perceived to either be porn or to risque anyway for this site. illusions answered quite clearly what I have also said several times in this thread, the fact that this particular picture was pulled for that reason, has nothing to do with the issues both illusions and I saw in that first thread.The reasons for the image being pulled is simply a red herring in relation to those issues. The genre for the next picture to be pulled may not be risque art but something else, and all those arguments fall by the wayside. However the things illusions and I have pointed out will still be there, risque art or not. As to your hypocritical statement, I don't see anything the least bit hypocritical in expecting the mods and admins to be held to the same standard of behaviour and the TOS as the members are. When the mods and admins start tapdancing around the TOS to get their sarcastic digs in, which happened in the first thread, is when I really wonder if there is anything about this site left worth banging my head against the wall for.

Or to put it another way ~ I don't see anything the least bit hypocritical in expecting the members to be held to the same standard of behaviour and the TOS as the mods and admins are. I agree completely, what I was suggesting was that the members should also exhibit the same standards that they expect of the mods. To deliberately ignore the points made in my last post about the issue of fairness will not change the fact that what is being preached by some members is not being practiced.

I didn't deliberately ignore the points, I was politely trying to defend illusions, and myself by extension, of the wording, from the accusation of being hypocrites. " Being fair is not being hypocritical and expecting standards to be applied to one group of people, such as mods and admin and completely failing to follow such expected standards in kind or expecting them to be followed by other members who happen to agree with your point of view." That is your exact quote, as well as "to you, gilo25 and all the others who would criticise". I mean, lets be fair here, those statements read to me pure and simple that those of us who dared to criticize the process and or decision of removing this picture are being hypocrites. As to the rest of your points, since I haven't personally accused anyone of lying, since I HAVE acknowledged in more than one of my replies by name and group those moderators whom I thought did a good job in the first thread, where tempers were flaring, and since I have not given anyone a sly little backhanded insult, like was given to me in the first thread, I personally want to know where in the hell I just deserved to be called a hypocrite, and told I am both operating at a lower standard than you are, and deliberatley ignoring your points. Which I find highly ironic, since I have had one question and point, completely ignored since the first thread, and I have made a point to bring that question up every response to this thread, and never get an answer.

However that is a minor concern, to the main one, which has still gone unanswered, which is the standard the picture was held to. If it was held to the TOS and the TOS only, fine and good. Job well done to the mods. If however the picture was held to the standard of "family-oriented site", how can anyone get upset, is beyond me, when an artist reacts badly to the decision of picture removal, since the artist could NOT possibly have known this standard existed. If its about the picture, how can that be a narrow view? This issue about the TOS and fairness arose because of an image being pulled...and from all that I read, none of the reasons seemed to be good enough. Whatever...lets just switch to the fairness act..I agree that ALL here should be treated fairly..one set of rules for everybody. I never called anyone a hypocrite, so that couldn't have been aimed at me :P Oh, and Illusions and I get along just peachy, so dont worry about defending him {from me anyways} He's not biting me, and I'm not biting him :P ~Jani

jumpstartme2, it wasn;t your post I was defending him, and by extension me from, it was punkclown's. In answer to the narrow view, to try and put my meaning into perspective, it's not neccessarily about this particular picture. I have never said anywhere in either of these two threads, that this particular picture should still be in the gallery. This picture was just a catalyst, these arguments I have been trying to make about the process could just as easily apply to the next Mr. Fluffers type picture, which aren;t the least bit erotic. it's why I have said, the erotic nature of this particular picture is a red herring to the arguments of the removal process. and no the hypocrite wasn;t aimed at you, just boomeranging off of me back to whence it originated from.

Oops, me bad. Sowweeee :)

Your very first statements, X-perimentalman, just to try and get my head around what your concerns are in this thread:
*"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.... 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!!!!!!!!".

Later you say:
"However that is a minor concern, to the main one, which has still gone unanswered, which is the standard the picture was held to."
~ Here you are referring to the standard gilo25's picture was held to (and any future potential problematic pictures, I gather) - further along you say:
"It's not about a particular image...It is about vague, unclear, and contradictory standards."
...so then it's not about any particular picture, but the standards it's being judged by...then further on again you say:
"I mean, lets be fair here, those statements read to me pure and simple that those of us who dared to criticize the process and or decision of removing this picture are being hypocrites." ~ again the reference to the process and or the decision of removing the image. You have taken up this call; you are basically repeating gilo25's concerns, yes?
Well let us be fair here, yes, let us...
From your initial statement I got the impression you were upset because a reply you were making to a perceived insult was locked. You accuse Spike of an abuse of power. Later you talk about images being removed subjectively...quickly I will address this: images are not removed subjectively, the decision is always talked about and voted on, this has been explained previously, but obviously ignored.... later you talk about the process of judgment, you want definitive wording to cover every possible circumstance that may arise necessitating an images removal? Let me restate what I said in post #67:
"...judging the appropriateness of images that may not be completely covered by the TOS in the context of their whole gestalt: These elements cannot always be broken down into specific rules or delineations, but need to be taken into consideration when viewed as a whole, in context...which is why we have to occasionally have to discuss & vote on some images. This is not about adequacy of the TOS...no set of written definitions or rules can cover every conceivable circumstance or image. Some of these things can not by their very nature of needing to be assessed in a holistic context, be clearly defined by words (i.e. a specific TOS wording)" ~ This after all, is directly addressing what seems to have been one of your major concerns...that you wanted to know on what criterion your image was deleted." ~
So X-perimentalman, isn't this what you said your concerns were too?
Or was it the insults (thinly veiled) ~ Which was your major concern?
Now you want to take my hypocrite statement as an insult too? Well as I said before, the greatest insult has been deliberately ignored and not addressed by you X-perimentalman. You started this thread on the basis of a thinly veiled insult, an abuse of power, ~ all these words you have thrown around, and yet you dont want to defend an honest member who also happens to be a mod? You dont want to address that insult that occurred in your thread too? You dont want to examine that issue? No?just look the other way and concentrate on your other agenda which was what again? Oh, thats right your major concern of standards & decision making in image removal. Of course that is far more important issue than a little libel being raised in your thread eh? (YES, I'm being sarcastic) Well, as I said, that particular issue (standards & decision making etc) was addressed already in #67.
Coming back to the libel thing though, even though the statements that I regard as libelous and insulting in the extreme werent made by you - seeing as you started this thread on the basis of insultsyou dont think its just a little bit disingenuous of you that you chose to ignore that interjection into your thread, not address it just a little, say thats not what you wanted to talk about and it was not a fair statementconsidering you go on so much about being fair later on regarding other things? Why not? Because it was made by someone whose complaints originally started this whole discussion, whose ideas you seem to be championing, the one that you and illusions wanted to join in the chorus with too, in your criticism of aspects of Renderosity, its mods and so on? Maybe that's why I got a feel of hypocrisy, but perhaps hypocrisy was the wrong word (except I do believe it does apply to gilo25 and I will stand by that for all of the reasons I have stated before) Perhaps I should be talking about a cynical and opportunistic use of the thread for what constructive purpose I really dont know, but it certainly doesnt seem to me to be a fair one.

Of course no written set of rules, can cover every set of situations that can arise, and since you've gone back and read my posts, you'll see that in both threads, I have said on more than one occasion, that the TOS does have and needs a broad range of discretionary powers. You'll also note I have stated repeatedly that in this particular instance of the removal of the picture that IF the standard of removal for this picture was the TOS then, job well done to the Mods. You should also note that I have repeatedly expressed a concern over what the actual standard this picture was held to. Since it was posted, by a MOD in the first thread, the standard and criterion this picture was held to was "is this picture suitable for a family oriented site?" My question, and concern regarding this criterion, which has gone unanswered, for two threads now, is simple, is this the criterion all pictures here are judged by? or was this criterion created for this SPECIFIC image? If the answer is the first, then it should be added to the TOS, or the posting guidelines, if the second, why, and why not just the TOS, which is the defining rules, and more than adequate for the situation. None of this, or very little was addressed in post #67, or any other post in these threads. As for defending a moderator from what you call libel, I am not in a postion to do so. As far as I can tell that argument is over whether gilo25 attempted to contact said mod, via IM or email, he says yes, she says no. Since I have no insider information, or contact with either of them, I have no idea if he did or didn't, and no way to prove any opinion I may hold on the subject anyway. So since I do not rush to defend your ally, when I can have no possible idea if your ally is right or wrong, that makes me a hypocrite or at least cynical and opportunistic. Nice touch. As to the insults, all I see from you, is the same I see from the last thread, a pretty little attempt by a moderator to make an end run around the TOS and belittle and insult members who dared question either the reasons, or process of this images removal. That is in fact what got the last thread locked, and started this one, creating this second mess. Something that I am sure is about to happen to this one.

Ok I will try my hand at answering questions pertaining to the process that All Gallery Images are put up against when reviewed [I am not going to go into specifics of any one image as this thread was to be an over-all discussion of the process in which an image is reviewed however, please note: this is the review that all images go through)

{The following is also listed in the Renderosity's TOS}

When viewing an image to see if it is Unacceptable for the Renderosity Galleries the following TOS are taken into account:

1. Does the image contain rape, or the direct implication of it?

2. Does the image depict any form of Torture [Nailing any person to a cross other than Jesus {as he is particular image is considered a religious icon} is considered torture].

3. Does the image have any Sexual acts - this includes sexual acts between either sexes.

4. Does the image contain any Physical Arousal?
   Although this is an easy call when viewing male figures [for obvious reasons], it can be subjective when viewing a female character. Some factors that are taken into consideration: facial expression, hand placements, body placements, etc.

5. Do any of the figures in the images come in contact of the Genital region, with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing.?

6. Does the image display depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context.

7. Does the images portray a character attack, which could be interpreted as defamation of character, slander, and libelous?

8. Lastly: If an image is considered to be "Deemed unsuitable for the Renderosity Community in general" - that image can be removed at the discretion of staff!

As you know, Renderosity does not have a preview-before-you-post policy, and any member can upload any image to their gallery! [A few members, either do not read the Image TOS, or just wish to ignore them, and post images that do indeed violate Renderosity Gallery Terms Of Service].

As moderators we spend a great deal of our time viewing gallery images. Some of the galleries have hundreds of posting per day, while others only a few per month. As much as I would like to say that we view every image the moment it is posted - this is just not a physical reality We as moderators only have so much time we can be online, and at times images that do violate the TOS do go unnoticed

That is why we also depend on Renderosity members to bring any images that they feel violate the TOS to the attention of the Mods or Admins.

If we receive a complaint about an image from a member [it does not matter if it is a complaint by 1 member or 20 members] the image is brought to the attention of the Moderator-Image-Review-Board. This board consists of the moderators and Admins, with a wide range of cultural and artistic background who are well versed in Renderositys TOS.

Within the Review thread is a link to the image in question, so that it can be viewed by all board review members. A discussion is held referencing all points made that would either deem or redeem the image as to TOS violations. After this deliberation the image is either removed or allowed to stay.

If the image is allowed to stay an IM is sent to any member who voiced a complaint letting them know the image was not in TOS violation.

However if the image is in TOS violation, it is removed. An email is sent to the member with a brief explanation of why the image was removed, along with a copy and paste of the exact TOS violation, and a link to Renderositys Terms Of Service web page.

In the majority of cases, the artist will reply with whoops, Im sorry or Oh I didnt realize that my image violated TOS.

In a very few cases, artists will email back disagreeing with our decision and include Their Explanation of why they think the image Did Not Violate TOS. In the rare case when this does happen, an email is sent back to the artist, advising them that their image will be put back before the review board along with the artist views as to why they feel their image should not have been removed.

The Moderator-Image-Review Board will take a second look at the image and take into account the views of the artist, and in a few cases the image will be allowed to be resubmitted to the gallery sometimes with simply modifications. However, due to the strict First Review process that each image goes through before it is removed the decision is rarely reversed: but it has happened. One case in point was an image that appeared to have genital contact with an object the artist sent us several different angles of his image and the decision to allow his image to be reposted using one of the alternate views was granted.

Please note If the image is in clear violation of TOS Example: a savage rape of a young girl the image is immediately removed without first going through the review board., however, as above, on all removed images an email explanation is sent to the artist when an image is removed.

---

Do we restrict certain artwork from being posted on this site? Yes

All sites have their own set of TOS Gallery Guidelines. I have recently visited several sites to see how Renderositys Gallery TOS compares, and even I was surprised at how restrictive many of the other sites are compared to Renderosity! I invite you to do this as well. Even adult oriented sites have TOS restrictions!

Are we censoring artists from posting their images? No
All artists are welcomed to post any image that Does fall Within Our TOS, on any other site that will accept the image under that sites TOS.

So, what does the clause 8 [If an image is considered to be "Deemed unsuitable for the Renderosity Community in general" - that image can be removed at the discretion of staff! ] mean? Isnt that rather vague and doesnt that give the Review Board the power to delete any image they want just because they feel like it? No

If an image is deemed unsuitable for the site, you can be assured that it has been discussed at great lengths by all Board Review Members Images that are "Deemed unsuitable for the Renderosity Community in general" can fall into several criteria:

One example would be: Overtly sexual in content: An analogy: An erotic image that would be suitable for penthouse, no matter how artistic would not be suitable for the majority of other magazines on the market. As for that matter An image that appears in hustler magazine would not be allowed to be featured in Playboy.

If you feel that there should be no restrictions placed on an artists artwork, and all images should be allowed to be posted No Matter What the Content You will need to find an Art Site without any Terms Of Service, or Create your own web site and post your images to that site.

Are Renderositys Gallery Terms of Service more restrictive than the majority of Art Gallery Web sites? As I have stated above, I have recently checked the TOS from a wide variety of sites and Renderositys Image guidelines are right in line, and in some cases more liberal than most

I hope this helps to clarify our policies on: Reviewing and Removing or Approving Gallery images, as well as our policies on contacting artists whose images were removed.

As Spike, and the other Moderators have mentioned above if you wish to make any constructive changes to the Gallery TOS, we are very eager to hear what you have to say.

For those who say that Renderosity Never Listens to their members: Consider the recent addition of the Gallery Violence Alert Button this was implemented because members requested it.

So, Please keep your TOS ideas coming in The time and thought that you put into your constructive ideas for change is very appreciated! ladynimue moderator

Thank you for your courteous reply - I must however respectfully disagree with you on a couple of points.

1. First and foremost - I am no different than the rest of the Moderators on Renderosity - We are all very dedicated to not only the Renderosity Site, but especially to its members. We are however, also human, and although we try to always explain things in a manner that everyone can agree to and understand, sometimes the "typed word" just does not come across the way we wish it to be perceived. I am no exception to this I have had my share of mis-typed-understandings.

2. Every point that I mentioned in my above posting, has also been mentioned by the other moderators - I just gathered everyone's thoughts and words into one posting.

3. I promise you that all constructive comments and suggestions made within this thread are being taken into consideration!

4. I agree that unfortunately, sometimes threads get confrontational in content - and I am sure that you will agree with me that most of this stems from frustration. The downside of online communications is the lack of eye-contact or voice-reflection typed words get jumbled and content can be misread and thus misunderstood.

5. I promise you that this is not a Mods against Members issue - after all the Moderators are members too :)

6. Renderosity really is open-minded, and really does allow members to state their views as everyone who has posted to this thread can verify your views have not been censored and have been read; and those that are constructive are being taken under consideration to improve the site.

As a side note - My favorite TOS can be found under:
Member/User Conduct:

Members and users are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is constructive and respectful of others at all times. Additionally, we would hope that each member/user would do their best to facilitate a culture of collaboration and positive reinforcement, so that we can all share our passion for art while realizing our personal ambitions, and developing friendships.

Bottom-line: Artists are a Passionate Lot that includes the moderators we do our very best to make your time on Renderosity as pleasant of an experience as possible honest, cross my heart we do :)

ladynimue

You have a system in place. You know it's not perfect. But you do your best to be fair. I know first hand from the mod. forum discussions that you folks try to be fair. Even if it doesn't always work out that way. That's good enough. It needs no defending. Why do I continually see mod after mod. Pour into these threads trying to defend the administration's decisions? It's ugly. Get a grip on your team Spike.

......?.......cough!......................................................................... ................................................................................?.................. ..................................................shuffle...................................... ......................?............................................................................ ..................................................................................................... ...........................................................................yawn................ .........blink.....blink..............................................................?.....

Thanks Scott for posting that. You are 100% right. Take it from a Ex-mod that has seen it from both sides. This thread has gone to the point where it's just members wanting to fight. I am no longer going to post to this thread. It's over...

Personally! I think some progress has been made. ..unless I am to disregard what ladynimue has being saying recently? It would be nice to know who's voice is to be taken as the official view of the administration. Brendan. 101% sure that this thread has had some value for the community.

You're welcome ;-)

ladynimue, thank you for your concise post to this thread. it does actually answer some outstanding questions,even if you do feel it is a recap of other statements. Since the notification issue is being looked at, and likely will be improved. A set appeal system is already in place. other issues like the dichtomy of bondage gear in the marketplace and overtly sexually overtoned banner ads, compared to the standards in the gallery will likely get some more looking at. (Not that I have anything against either bondage gear or sexually overtoned banner ads, I personally like both.:}) So that leaves my major issue, the judging standard of "family-oriented" as opposed to or in addition to the TOS. As I have posted several times in both these threads, if something is posted such as a friendly reminder in the posting guidlines, mentioning that standard, so new or newer artists know it exists, that would really help there. No great re-writing of the TOS is either required or desired. Those steps would certainly go along way, in my opinion anyway to diffuse these situations in the future as they occur. That leaves the bunker mentality that exists on both sides of these issues. To be honest if I knew the answer for that I could run for God.