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.