I recently had a render deleted by the admins here and the action was explained in an email stating that the image was 'not convenient' for Renderosity :)

I'm not angry about this - just a little amused. I know the render was a bit racy but it didn't violate the TOS. My intention was to promo the G3 Genital product by insomniaworks in a way that was at least reasonably tasteful.

If such an action is going to be taken something more that a form email with boilerplate text should be required so that the offending member can do his/her best to be more of a 'convenient' member here - whatever the hell that is! LOL!

btw - how was Renderosity inconvenienced when I'm the one who had to reupload it to Renderotica! LOL!

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/index.ez?viewLink=193

We had several complants from the Renderosity community concerning your image only moments after it was posted. Due to that, and the image's sexual nature, your image was removed for the following reason; which is listed in the Renderositys Terms of Service: Any post, image or writings can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community.

Thank you for your consideration and understanding in this matter.
ladynimue

As Renderosity has the catch all clause "Any post, image or writings can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community." Why bother with the rest of the TOS?

I can understand the reasoning concerning misunderstandings of the text I used to 'sell' the render and I have been posting renders here long enough to have a feel for renders that skate the edge of the TOS.

I didn't mean to sound flippant with my remarks but I was really just making light of the situation. What I really wanted to know however was exactly what was deemed unsuitable about the render.

Was it the graphic portrayal of a detailed female genital? Was it the application of body piercings? Was the overall theme inapropriate?

I'm not making a big deal over this but as is stated in the post above the reason given me is so wide and unspecific a catch-all any render could be arbitrarily deleted.

I don't know who or how many complained about the render but if anyone was to recieve a form email it could just as easily have been them. The image did not violate the TOS (except for that huge catch-all) and I took suitable precautions to prevent it from being viewed unvoluntarily. Anyone who viewed that render knew what they were in for and so why complain?

To be fair, I think the staff has a difficult job in assessing the suitability of renders and handles the task with a degree of seriousness and concern - if it was just a judgement call, I can live with it. I would however like to know specifically what was considered unsuitable :)

I agree with Richabri in as much as he should have been provided with a reason other than it was done so at the staffs discretion etc. How can admin expect people not to commint the same 'infringement' if they don't explain what that infringement was. Not knowing what to avoid will just mean more work for admin in the long term. Membership at this site does not enhance ones phychic or mind reading abilties... I agree Richabri staff do have a difficult job. I don't envy them at all. Helen

I didn't look at the image, but if it shows all the anatomical detail, then it has to violate the TOS. Why? According to my limited medical knowledge, all the parts aren't fully visible in 100% of the population without complete arousal. Some are more or less visible, but not all the instances, all the time. Thus, one must err on the side of caution. But it's hard to describe the violation in any more detail without violating the TOS.

Hahahaha - that's true to a point but if you noticed in the first post I was specifically making a promo render of the G3 Genital. You wouldn't make a decent promo render of a model of a Lamborghini if it was shown locked behind closed doors in a garage! LOL!

Excuse my ignorance here, not being a poser expert, but is the G3 Genital a texture map or body morph for a female poser figure's genitals? What purpose are these "G3 Genitals" used for exactly? It would be a good idea to clarify the purpose these morphs/textures are predominantly to be used used for, because that may have a ramification on whether or not TOS is being broken. Richabri, being the poster of the image, what purpose did you have in mind when you created this (now removed) image and consequently showed it "for promotion"? What attributes of the product were you trying to show?

Here we go again? Please do not derail this discussion with redundant topics illusions, this is a new and different scenario surely? I have asked a simple question of Richabri, I would hate to see his answer lost in multiple posts about the issues previously discussed ad nauseaum in the "last time" you mentioned. Surely we don't have to go through all that again do we? Well, I won't be anyway... :-)>

...and by getting said answer, it might just be possible to begin to address the "specific and detailed reasons" you mention. :-)>

' ... Nudity has never been against the TOS. Without seeing the image it is difficult for me to judge...however, if the "nudity flag" was in use, if the image did not show a "sexual act", if nothing came "in contact" with the genitals...I can't imagine why there would be a need to remove it. '

This is why I felt the render didn't violate the TOS myself but admittedly the render had an overal fetish theme to it that some might find objectionable. I did apply the nudity flag and I made certain that the thumbnail wasn't misleading even for those who allow nude renders to appear. Also, in the title I included the words Very Graphic

I should also mention that I knew this render was a bit racy for Renderosity and was skating close to the edge of the TOS. I thought I was still within the TOS but a judgement was made otherwise - what can you do?

Thank you for your answer Richabri. If it's a whole 3D model (human figure) why is it specifically called G3 Genital?

Generation 3 Genital is the actual product name. I've been making some promo renders for all of Marty's (insomniaworks) products. I'm not insensitive to the wider issue here. I know that Renderosity does not want to open the doors to a flood of renders that if done by others might be done in a sleazy or distasteful way. I'm a classy guy and I like to think I make classy renders of beautiful and elegant woman so I suppose I thought it was ok if I made this render! lol! I don't make renders of faeries, angels, toonanimals and such so perhaps all of my work is a little more adult than one usually finds in the Poser gallery :)

Oh I'm sorry, I misread your post - the G3 Genital is not a whole human figure, it's just a detailed conformable model of a woman's genital.

~kicks her server as it ate her other post~ ok I think abit of tolerance is needed in situations like this. I mean a penis is allowed in a apicture but not the outer shot of female parts? it is a promo pic for model of female parts..of course you are going to see the parts. and of course you need to see it as well...what is the use of buying something you cant tell if it even looks right? recently I voluntarily pulled one of my pieces and put a blocker on the female parts...I did this after I got a few comments that I was shocked at I wrote to ladynimue{who was very kind} and after speaking with her I removed it and replaced it. why? because as one person told me the female parts were "too" realistic looking. I do not understand this. we strive for realism...then frown when we get it. no there was no sexual content..no there was no sexual act no there was no touching of the parts and no it was not a "wide open shot" There needs to be tolerance. I understand the TOS and like many artist try very hard to stay with in those boundries. but when all it is ..is a correct depiction of the human form....I can not understand the problem. There are nudity flags...there are warnings...and in the case of a promo shot or market place item..if it says genital prop..you are gonna see......genitals. I think if the artist and renderosity is doing what they can to warn people befor they click the thumb ...I think then abit of tolerance is needed. 1-no one is being forced to view things. 2-if you see a nudity tag or the artist puts a warning..listen to it and if you are offended by that material do not look. 3-I hate to say it, but renderosity..if you have complaints on a piece like this perhaps you can have tolerance and explain to the person complaining that as it is a promo piece for a product they have to take that into account that the product has to be shown. 4-the term genitals should be taken into consideration..I mean if it says that on a product pic...you are going to see that so then if you are offended do not look. and if you do -choose- to look I really dont think you have right to complain then. ~sighs~ I do have to say this..Renderosity from what I have seen does try very hard to please near everyone. I think that those of us that view and post should also try to be tolerant and learn to deal with things abit better. We all know this is a site with mixed content..and mixed viewers. but each of us need to start taking responsability for what we choose to look at. it is not just renderosities responsability to police what is viewed. we have to police our selves. if that makes any sence.

Well to be fair this was not a Product Showcase render and nowhere was it mentioned that a render of the G3 Genital product was going to be viewed. I posted the render to the Poser Gallery and as I already mentioned, I thought that checking the nudity flag along with the thumbnail and Very Graphic warning was all I needed to do to prevent anyone who might be offended by such a render from viewing it. That a very vocal minority chose to view it anyway and then run crying to the admins that their delicate sensibilities were offended is a separate issue :)

but that is the thing..it was marked..noted flaged what ever you wish to call it and they still looked. how then can they complain? Renderosity does try I know they do. but really...if someone willingly goes and looks then how can they be shocked, offended or complain at what they saw? I know how they delt with me was very much appreciate it..and I understood their position..but there has to be a line drawn when it comes to some things..and perhaps explaining to a person that complains that if it is flaged then they have a choice to view it or not and it is not their responsibility then...would help.

' ... We all know this is a site with mixed content..and mixed viewers. but each of us need to start taking responsability for what we choose to look at. ... ' My feelings exactly DarkElegance! Your point is very well made and very salient to this issue!!! I couldn't have said it better myself! :)

I can answer one part of this at least. "I mean a penis is allowed in a apicture but not the outer shot of female parts?" A flaccid penis is okay, but an erect one isn't. In the same way, a shot of a vulva (other than a legs wide open gyn shot) is okay, but in this particular image the glans clitoris (as opposed to the clitoral hood) was readily visible. To those of us who looked at it, it seemed that the woman was sexually aroused since in the majority of women the glans clitoris is rarely visible except in a state of arousal or inspection. I hope that clears up one point at least. Kev.

' ... in the majority of women the glans clitoris is rarely visible except in a state of arousal or inspection. ...' ... or there is the presence of a body piercing jewelry and incidently, the G3 upgrade is just that above mentioned gland :) I'm not going to continue on with this because it is becoming difficult to speak of this matter delicately. The judgement was made and I can live with it - nuff said :)

Illusions, I don't think you're the villain, but it looks like you're blurring the line between Renderotica and Renderosity too much. They created Renderotica to get the kind of business and clientele that wants to buy the G3 figure. Why deny Renderotica this opportunity to make a few bucks by asking Renderosity to duplicate Renderotica's functions? I don't see it as censorship, but rather as directing business to Renderotica to keep it alive and active.

O.o erm I know when I pulled mine it was not some witch hunt that seems to be attempted to be painted by some. it was very well handled. Sometimes all they can give as a reason is" we are geting complaints" no that does not satisfy all. I do think they need to widen the TOS or if nothing else so that some of the complainers can be told.."we need to learn tolerance and if you looked at it after noteing the tags and flags and warnings {lordy do we need red flashing lights too?} then it is your own doing not the artists" But renderosity is not some evil witch hunter prowling the waters like some half starved white shark of censorship. I went to rendererotica and didnt find the pic but if there was a piercing yes of course the part would be visable. and there are more then one sign for sexual arousal. but that is a moot point right now. ~sighs~ personaly if the thing is tagged and all and someone SSTILL looks and then complains I think renderosity should go.."erm..you "choose" to look it is not forced upon you"

Nowhere in my post did I attempt to paint you as a "villian" illusions.

as far as renderosity giving adequate explanation and possible fixed to a pic...I can not speak for all that have been in the situation but I know I was given suggestions. there for I dont see where renderosity has ignored it. can they or do they give an indepth synopsis of exactly what the complaints were word for word? no. they dont. should they? I dont think such indepth is needed. if they give the general suggestion that "we are geting complainted due to the nature of the pic/something shown in it/offensive pic be it violence nudity etc etc etc" then that is a general cover all that pretty much says what it needs to say. and yes the general air of the comment is that it is a which hunt. that renderosity just prowls around and pulls pic with no explanation at all. The fact that the explanation may not be what an artist wishes to hear ..that is a different matter. I know with mine, I was fairly shocked that I was geting the comments I did on it. to -me- there was nothing wrong with it. just like to -me- Ricks picture is not offensive at all. so there for when I hear there were complaints I am like "what the....??? why? what do they expect it is a render of a human being and in that position things will show" to me,then the complaints are not acceptable. -that is not renderosities fault per se- as I have stated...tolerance needs to be used. and also the acceptance that you are going to be viewing things that depict anotomicaly correct humans. they are not barbies. consequently, you will see genitals. If a picture if flaged and noted and warnings are on it..then if you look -it is your fault do not go complaining you were offended- I think that is where and when renderosity needs to hold the -viewer- responsible for what they do. not the artist. we talk about the artists responsability..what about the viewer? We need to stop bashing the artists and start holding viewers responsible for what they click on. Ok, if the pic is not marked or flaged that is a different story. but if the artist is taking every step to safe guard a viewer...and if they are marking,flagging, noted in the title..then sorry I think the artist should be cut some slack.

Although I said I wasn't going to continue persuing anything more about this matter I must say that I'm surprised and dissapointed that although a number of very good points are being made by both Illusions and Dark Elegance nothing more is being added by the admins/mods here.

That other artist's are not responding I assume is because it's not their ox being gored so it's easier to just run and hide rather than take a stand one way or another. This is an unfortunate consequence of changes that have been going on here for a long while. The same goes for the people who chose to view and then complain - public disclosure I'm sure is not your style!

This is the Forum News & Team Contact Forum isn't it? If the admins/mods disagree that a member should be provided with more info on why an image was deleted or that the complainers should take more responsibilty for what they choose to view - then shouldn't you publicly say so to put an end to this?!

Your silence is deafening.

Let a Renderosity Admin step in for a sec. We agree that you should get a better reason as to why your image was removed and we are in the process of working on that now.. "Was it the graphic portrayal of a detailed female genital?" Yes it was... we will not allow GYN shots... Also, if we want to get right down to it, it can also break this one.. "No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing." We are in the process of adding something to our TOS that will clear this up...

Thanks for stepping in Spike. I already mentioned earlier in the thread that I knew my render was 'edgy' and I wasn't angered or surprised that it deleted. I accepted kbennet's explaination and as I said - I can live with the desicion and I'll just move on to the next render. No problemo :)

I'm glad this thread didn't devolve into an advocacy for the right to make 'GYN' shots because clearly that wasn't what I thought was at issue. I don't usually make that type of render anyway and so it was never any big deal to me.

If this thread will prompt a discussion about the content of notifications among the admins than that is all I could have hoped for or wanted.

To a lesser extent I hope that some of the lurkers will also concede a certain amount of responsibility for what they choose to view. You are not the unacknowleged morality police on the site - all the more so if you choose to act under the cloak of anonimity. As was mentioned earlier by Dark Elegance, this is a site with mixed viewers and mixed content. If something is not your cup of tea then move on to something that is - no one is forcing you to do otherwise.

Alrighty then - NUFF SAID! :)

I have had images removed for a lot less, and with a lot less explaination. If you can get them to clear this up, I for one would commend you!

Thanks, We do want to provide each member with a clear understanding of why a image is pulled. We are working on a way to clear that up some. We agree, if you don't know why, how will you know what not to upload next time...

In regards to me accusing you of being a "villian" when you say "PunkClown, accusing me of trying to derail a thread sure sounds like you were" ~ well I am sorry if it seemed that way to you illusions, that was just your interpretation. I certainly have noticed a fairly hostile stance and reaction from you to certain members of the admin and moderator team in the past, Spike and myself included. This is just my interpretation, but the way you worded your last post did seem agressive and sarcastic to me. In regards to my requesting that you do not derail the thread; as you know I have sent you an IM regarding the comment:
"The image was no more risque than any number of photographs currently in the Photograpy Gallery."
I have asked you to provide genuine examples of images as risque or more risque than the image in question (and you have not provided me with any so far ~ only the dictionary definition of risque, which was not necessary and completely ignored the reasonable request of examples)...unless you can provide such examples to back up your statement I feel it would only be proper of you to withdraw that particular statement, as it may be interpreted as an an attempt to derail the thread with perhaps disingenuous and untrue comments confusing the issue.

I feel no need to apologise for anything I have said illusions. Furthermore if you insist on being so strangely literal (or strangely receptively dysphasic) in your interpretations of my words in every exchange we have, then clear communication and understanding between us will never be achieved.
As you were talking about "risque" in reference to Richabri's image, I was refering to images showing the kind of "blatant clitoral exposure" which Richabri's image showed...but you conveniently decided to ignore the context of your own words and concentrate on the dictionary definition of risque...is it any wonder I feel you are sometimes being disingenuous in your comments/replies? Re your examples: the first shows a woman holding her breasts together...where is the the "explicit sexual conduct (masturbation)" there? The second one shows no masturbation either...have you followed the line of the limbs out of frame? The limb positioning precludes masturbation, unless the womans anatomy is deformed...so your statements that these show "explicit sexual conduct (masturbation)" are disingenuous as far as I am concerned...oh, but that's right - you cleverly put "suggests" in your statements preceding these claims didn't you...which probably gets you off the hook in your pedantic interpretation of the english language...but really, how can something suggest explicitness? As for the "bondage" image and your suggestion of torture~ are you serious? If anyone else thinks the subject in that image looks like she's being tortured I would be very surprised.
The poser gallery images I didn't check, as we were talking about the photography gallery. In short none of the images described above are as risque or more risque than Richabri's Admittedly the last example may come sort of close, but you had to be looking very closely at the image Paul, as I could not see what you described on my monitor - it was far too dark and the resolution wasn't great. Your "piece de resistance" looked more like mud to me, and not the blatant in your face gynaecological detail that I saw from the removed image...but no doubt you will continue to want to split hairs on all this. Paul, my native language is English, but not the type you speak obviously, perhaps you should try for politics, you seem so good at it...on that subject, you did say (and this is your own words) "The image was no more risque than any number of photographs currently in the Photograpy Gallery" (something you still haven't proven IMHO) - you did not say: "there were images that were not any more risque than Richabri's" ~ really Paul, what are you trying to do, obfiscate things even more with a bit of doublespeak? BTW, when have I ever tried to shut you up? (as if that would be possible)...perhaps you are being a bit paranoid or hypersensitive. I will try not to offend you any more, perhaps the only way I can do that is if I shut-up? I will now do so on this matter. Also I will try to behave "properly" in my position as moderator according to the law of illusions, thanks for putting me in my place.

ooops! I forgot to put a ;-)> after "Also I will try to behave "properly" in my position as moderator according to the law of illusions, thanks for putting me in my place." to show that I wasn't taking myself too seriously and just responding "in kind" to your "good-natured ribbing" LOL...taking a leaf out of your own book wouldn't hurt every now and then Paul...as for the rest of what you said in your last response...if you actually believe all that then I feel sorry for you. Take care.
:-)>

"..not the blatant in your face gynaecological detail that I saw from the removed image...but no doubt you will continue to want to split hairs on all this." Hurr hurr :) M. pp Finbarr Saunders

why dont you post these genitalia promo renders at Renderotica? That's where all us hard core perverts would love to see your work. ;) Seriously, I would never sell an adult oriented prop here, ever. I would put it where I know the store is behind my topic matter 100 percent. Actually, I am not quite sure why these things are not sold at Renderotica either. The paypal agreement is pretty clear about not wanting adult materials being bought over their service, and I am sure an explicit model of female genitalia falls under their (admittedly anal-retentive) rules...

I give you credit for trying to keep this controversy going Paul but in view of recent events this issue has been made into a small sideshow! LOL! Nothing kills a controversy faster than a bigger one! Hahahahaha :)

Renderosity rules have nothing to do with Paypal rules. as long as you accept Paypal as a payment method you have to agree to their user agreement. That means no adult wares sold. nah, I am not telling the gang there that its allowed here, because I know its not. I follow the TOS here and don't post the racier stuff. Nudity is ok here, just a closeup of a female genital is considered adult (or even obscene) by most anal-retentive American business standards, and that includes Paypal for sure. It simply ticks me off a bit as these things should be kicked over to Renderotica to be sold. I like erotic art, and if people want to support the posting of erotic artwork, they should support financially the venues where people can post it freely.

The thing to do! is to get a Web Ring Link for Renderosity to sponsor in the side bar. Then you can disregard the TOS and Admins and Mods are powerless to remove you from a Family Friendly viewing arena. That makes for a convenient way of maintaining double standards. Serious anatomy / nudity studies not allowed. Kitsch and titillating porn most definitely allowed.