Though moderators may disagree (hi, Lyrra, "the overworked"), this seems to be a topic relevent to the Poser forum (since ALL we do is NVIATWAS renders) so I posted it here. Why? 'Cause I was a bit upset at the "beating" Geoegress took for a post a few days ago. I have, for a long time, refrained from hopping into controversial threads where people exercise (at liberty) the "freedom" to pounce on individuals with a veracity and verbiage they would NOT use if face-to-face. To do so, in my opinion, invites the "world" to jump on me. But, in this case, I don't really care. To be quite frank, and hoping to avoid any (sacred) TOS violation, I'm not picking on anyone in particular...I'm just espousing a few thoughts I've had about recent posts that anger me a bit that various people have diligently typed. Of course, like the three sacred topics one should never engage in--sex, religion, and politics--this has to do with nudity. I'm sick of people complaining about the lack of nudity flags because they can't sneak off behind the boss's back at work and "freewheel" around R'City on their boss's money. As if the boss wouldn't mind if he caught someone goofing off looking at, say, whale pictures yet would fire someone on the spot if he caught them looking at NUDIE pics. I'm tired of people wanting to restrict the posting of visual information and whatever degree of nudity it may contain due to their desire to browse images on the boss's timeclock. Nudity flags should be set based on, well, ACTUAL NUDITY! When an image contains the same amount of skin exposure as one may see on a beach in the US (I say the US because we are much more prudish than our European friends...a sad commentary in itself), then, it is not nudity (else people would be arrested left and right). SO, in my opinion, the nudity flag setting by any individual should NOT be concerned with the possibility that nuns in the Vatican might be sneaking peaks behind the Pope! It should be based on, well, how about this: WHETHER OR NOT THE FIGURE IS SHOWING PARTS THAT WOULD NOT NORMALLY BE SEEN ON A US BEACH. For female images, that means nipples and pubic hair. JEEZ! Second of all, since I've seen this before, too, this is largly an adult artist site. So, for those who have posted remarks that some of the images are inappropriate for their children who are looking...GET A CLUE! In my opinion, IF R'City bows to the lowest common denominator when requiring nudity flags, then we will be "censored" impassively by needing to consider that 13-year-old children going to school in Afganistan might be viewing unveiled imgages of females. There are a lot of you people out there who need to realize this is largly an adult artist site supported by adult artist money and quit getting upset because you just might pull an image up while you are at work that would offend someone or that your 9-year-old son might be looking over your shoulder.

I am horribly offended by that picture. The elbow and shoulder joints look badly posed. You should be ashamed of yourself. PS Any resemblence to humour in my post is purely coincidental and any similarity to actual humour is totally unintentional.

WHAT!? The elbow and shoulder joints look bad? Sorry, I could hardly keep my eyes off the other "more interesting" nude parts. DRAT! I'll have to take my nastiness to some sort of 12-step program to get cured! (LOL)

ROFL Chuck you made some very good points there. You did miss one vital point, no matter how realistic the models we use are they'll never be real people, they'll always be just a collection of polygons. If what Geogress had posted had been a photo of a real person then people here could rightfully get annoyed. message to people viewing from work Stop slacking off & get on with doing what you're paid to do.

Perhaps we could require churches to display a nudity flag outside if they have any pictures of naked cherubs, baby Jesus, etc within their walls.

Hasn't this already been beaten to death? Marque

"Hasn't this already been beaten to death?" Perhaps so but it seems to me the last thing to get beaten to death was geoegress for posting a (somewhat) similar pic. So, if the topic had REALLY been beaten to death, the matter would have been settled but there were some people who didn't think so and started again. The thread got locked befoe I could get my 2 cents worth. Of course, I could have looked at it from work, but I was too busy.

"I'm tired of people wanting to restrict the posting of visual information and whatever degree of nudity it may contain due to their desire to browse images on the boss's timeclock."

This has been mentioned before; it's unwarranted to assume that someone who visits Renderosity while at work is slacking off. A lot of companies have a policy that permits employees to use their computers for personal web browsing during their lunch hour and after work, as long as the employee stays away from porn sites, gambling sites, etc. Also, there are people who access the internet from free public terminals at schools or libraries that have similar restrictions.

And then there are people like me, who'd just like a heads-up that I'm about to click on a picture of a naked person, that's all. :-)

Can't agree on this one. I'm an adult and I am not a nun, but I find plastic nudity as giant a bore as I do the predictable and endless attention-getters of S&M and violence. I don't like it on my television, in my movies, in my books, and I certainly could live forever without seeing another unlikely plasticized female or steroid guy clone flashing their short comings at me. It's not that I find T&A offensive. except in the predictability and lack of imagination much of it displays...I just want the nudity tag so I can skip past what will inevitably be just another cloned copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of someone's original idea. I can't say I've seen many nudes on the Poser gallery yet that held my interest...so I skip them all now. And I think I should have the right to skip what wastes my time. So what's the big deal about a nudity tag? It lets those who want to stare at naked representations do so without having to bother with those of us who prefer the wide range of other topics possible in pictures, and it lets me skip past the T&A as well as the violent pictures that hold no interest for me either. It's a matter of personal taste. Why inflict your taste on me? I don't care what you look at...I just want the opportunity not to have to look at what doesn't interest me. And I haven't done one naked Vicky in the Temple picture, so you owe me an apology...we don't ALL do them. The only nude I've done was a woman discreetly standing behind a screen and the nudity was in the mind of the beholder (and the only reason she was nude was because I wanted to play with draping material over the edge of the screen; so it seemed, at the time, to suit the picture though I'd probably not bother with it now). Imagination is richer than anything we will find thrust into our faces on the galleries. And I'm glad that's so.

I don't know why people have to push this issue. The baby above is nude. definition of nude.. Cambridge online dictionary nude adjective not wearing any clothes; naked: no where in the definition does it mention.. if hand in front of penis = not naked. final point.. Take a walk down main st. USA naked with your hands strategically placed over your privates. Get arrested. Try to convince the judge that you are not really naked because you've covered those areas with both hands and your friends at renderosity would agree with you. If the judge agrees and let's you go and then dictionaries all over the world start changing their definition of nude, then and only then post that picture above with out clicking on the flag. As far as nudity goes.. I love it.. can't get enough of it. porn.. sex..you name it. it has nothing to do with me being a prude. It's called respect, so let's us all respect our fellow members who do not want to be exposed to nudity and click that flag. Nick

Ya hnow maybe Im just dumb or somwthing but at the bottom of this box Im typing in right now there are adult content buttons, do they not work? Do the people that complain about naked inages not know how to set their prefrences to avoid them? When my Prefrences accidently got reset I couldnt accass any images containing nudity. So forgive me for being rude but perhaps these people should learn to set up their accounts instead of running of at the mouth ( or keyboard ). And most of us assume that if youre surffing Rosity at work that youre doing something youre not supposed to be doing. There are very few instances that someone shoud get any grief for posting an image here. Freedom of expression and all that,as long as it dosent violate the TOS we all agreed to, and if it does the moderators will take care of it. So if you don`t like it set up your account to not ciew it and leave the rest of us alone.

The subject here is the forums, not the galleries. Geoegress got ticked off for not putting the flag on a forum post that conatined useful information that you might well not want to miss even if you did have the no nudity option selected. So, dialyn, I'm afraid your arguments are irrelevant to this particular case. Incidentally, if we are going to play dictionary definitions, someone wearing a hat (and nothing else) is not nude. Is that right? Perhaps we need an "indecent exposure" flag instead. Ah, but I forget, Geoegress's image didn't have indecent exposure. The complaint was entirely about "no clothes". So add a hat and all is well. Good. Glad I got that straight.

Nudity flags should be set based on, well, ACTUAL NUDITY! .... which, duh, the picture showed. I swear, some people just seem intent on not getting it. Is she wearing any clothes? No. Then she's nude. That wasn't so difficult, was it? I didn't think so. You people seem to think the nudity flag is some kind of brand of prudish shame, to be avoided at all costs in the quest for individual expression (Add a few exclamation points if you want to make that phrase more effective.). Hate to disappoint you, but it ain't. It's just a signifier, nothing more. It lets the browser know in advance what to expect, nothing more. Folks around here have been using the nudity flag for as long as I've been a member here, and no one ever wrote in the threads, "Have you no shame! You used the nudity flag!" Jesus, people, are things so boring out there that you're reduced to bitching when someone points out the model isn't wearing any clothes?

Thank you for the nice suprise Chuck :)) One of the main points for me about the nudity falg is that for YOUR censorship you want me to ACTIVELY click the button. Now let me explain further. When we set the flag for the galleries, we set it so that an automatic system activates- then, and only then does your paticular choice weather or not to view nudity come into play. In the forums on the other hand, you want me to become 'ACTIVE' in your censorship. It is like if I come to your house for dinner- and you want me to 'LEAD' the dinner prayer for you, instead of sitting quietly while you finish your your prayer. Does that make any sence? Participation. Not everone follows your religion or taste- many many many of the ppl on this site are not christians- they are muslums- wicca- agnostic- budist ect...... in fact the number of ppl here outside the religious norm is stagering. And lets not even get into our foreign overseas friends with other outlooks on nudity Now- if 'osity wanted to make the nudity flag automatic for the forum also then this would be another whole conversation and the respect arguement would have more validity. But untill that happens YOU are the one not showing myself OR the mods respect- believe me- when the mods think something should be flaged- they will flag it- It has happened to me a few times from them- Let them do there jobs!!! ------------------- by keeping quiet when something is wrong we get; piss test for employment the patroit act Ashcroft FBI access to libary records property taken without trials people held in secret by the authorities (cops and feds) sneek and peek Florida

I think the nudity flag should be removed until we have a CLEAR definition on it from the mods. As it stands it is more than useless. Marque

All my renders will forthwith wear a bow-tie. They will be wearing something ergo they will be not nude. big cheesy grin Basically.... I fully agree with Chuck. However - maybe we should just have a "THIS IS A PIC OF SOMEONE NAKED - NO BOW-TIE EITHER" flag. Or maybe we should all just use common sense. If it's graphic nudity - i.e. images that are provocative for instance - then flag it. I read - and read again - any post or email before I hit "send" or "Post". I get riled too occasionally, sure. I will post screaming fits on occasion, sure. But it's one thing to get offended at someone intentionally doing something to offend, and quite another to get offended at missing a tick somewhere. And frankly - I would forget that too. And then the deed is done - because there is NO WAY TO EDIT THE POST. Sometimes I'm lucky and I can delete the previous one and redo it. But sometimes someone already posted and I can't really go ripping the post out of the middle of it. A simple EDIT option would negate all of that. If I forgot and realize later - Edit, tick box, submit - done. I wasn't gonna post it... but... I want a "Most Offended Renderosity Online Nitpicker" Flag. :-P Silke

For the most part, dialyn, I agree with just about everything you say when you comment in threads. But I can't agree with you this time. It's not like I disagree, either...it's more like I think my point was not presented well enough or else it got lost in the fervent shuffle above. The only thing I really disagree with is, "And I haven't done one naked Vicky in the Temple picture, so you owe me an apology...we don't ALL do them" I don't think I need to apologize because, though it may be hard to "catch" it without benefit of speech emphasis and inflection, it was sarcasm: "the Poser forum (since ALL we do is NVIATWAS renders)" I was speaking to the reputation Poser people are branded with. I was attempting sarcasm. I realize not every image is a NVIATWAS in the gallery as much as I realize that everyone (including you AND me) don't do them. But back to the point I was trying to make. Ahem (clearing my "throat") Someone posts an image with a female nipple showing and doesn't check the nudity flag. That's wrong. Or if a penis is dangling and no warning in the form of a nudity tag. That's wrong. Someone posts an image like geoegress did with all the "shamful" parts covered up by camera placement and hands. But, admittedly, unclothed. Yes, the figure in the image was nude but you can't really see anything. My opinion, no nudity tag needed. But some people complain because she is unclothed. Take the same image and cover the same parts with a bikini. Again, no need for a nudity tag. And, I suspect fewer people complaining about the lack of a nudity tag (because NOW, she is clothed). BUT, someone MIGHT complain because THEY consider too MUCH skin the same thing as nudity. So, should we cater to those people and flag such an image with a nudity tag? THAT'S my point! IF we bow to ANYONE who is offended about the amount of skin shown, then pretty soon, female (yes, I know I'm dwelling on the female image) images will need to look like the Taliban dressed them. Because, believe me, there will always be someone who is offended and if people are "forced" to move the "line" that separates nudity and non-nudity to the more conservative side of the definition each time a complaint occurs, pretty soon, we won't be able to post images of humans at all. Is my argument TOO outrageous? Perhaps. But the problem with "creeping" censorships is that one day you look around and see that it has gone too far (because it happened a bit at a time). After all, federal, state and local governments have seen fit to dictate what my wife and I can leagally do in the privacy of our bedroom (yeah, I know it's not an example entirely related to the topic proper but it is an example of how some people think they have a right to inflict their ideals and beliefs about things to other people they will never even meet).

Lordie. :o Would it have been so terribly hard for Geoegress to hit the Nudity flag and/or those who complained to KINDLY ask him to hit it next time instead of bashing him into the ground? Why have so many people here been so inconsiderate and demanding lately? I agree with a number of points made on both sides, but isn't the bottom line that if everyone involved had used a little more common sense and courtesy, we could have avoided all this rambling? I'm sure most of us have more creative and productive things we could be doing. :) SnowS

One of the main points for me about the nudity falg is that for YOUR censorship you want me to ACTIVELY click the button Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Wake me when the pseudo-political rhetoric is over. >> isn't the bottom line that if everyone involved had used a little more common sense and courtesy What? Are you insane? We're artists! Common sense? Courtesy? Those are lesser beings, thank you! :)

It's only censorship if he wasn't allowed to post at all (and there is censorship on this site, and I think it is appropriate to set limits). But the figure can be posted and viewed by anyone who chooses to view it, which is not censorship. People have different levels of sensitivity. What appears discreetly covered to you may be be offensive to someone else (I'm not saying it is to me...I'm just saying it might be to someone). And some people find a person clothed more sexy than a dozen naked people sticking their butts in the air. It's all a matter of personal choice. You can find both on the galleries. I'd rather look at the clothed person than the naked derrieres. I should have that choice, shouldn't I? Otherwise you're not respecting me the way you demand that I respect you. And I do respect you. But I don't necessarily want to view the same images you do. That's okay. It's a choice. And I resent the idea that I shouldn't have that choice because my preference is prelabeled as censorship, and I'm labeled as a prude (as I have been in prior discussions) because it's easier to call names than it is to respect a difference in opinion. I'm not saying that all nudes or semi-nudes should not be posted. I'm saying, I want a sign to tell me that they are there because I have zero interest in them, and at my age, I really do know my own mind and interests. Maybe the answer is to have an all nude gallery, and all semi-nude gallery, and all almost semi-nude gallery, and a clothed gallery, and we can judge each one by the number of clothing worn and what each clothing covers. Perhaps that's more important than any other artistic concern. It would certainly clear out the Poser gallery if we did so. It seems simpler just to have a flag. You can see it. I don't have to. A simple switch. No big deal. The flip side of creeping censorship, is creeping "let it all hang out" itis...where someone uses the justification that one graphic is allowable and so more extreme graphic should also be allowed, and there it goes...before we know it, we have a twin of Renderotica and those of us who would like to create and view other art will have to go to another site. It's terribly hard to judge where the line should be drawn. You make it sound simple, but people will push and push and push the limits. And then you have to decide where it stops. Or if it's to stop at all. That's all. I'm more conservative than you are. So should I be forced to look at nudes because of that? I'm not asking you stop look at them because you're more liberal than I am. There seems something not fair about it being so one sided. I suppose the answer will be, well, just don't stay in the community. Leave and you won't have to look at the galleries. And I have to admit, I look at the galleries less and less. I guess that is an answer. And none of this is a comment on geogress or the graphics geogress produces, or speculation on geogress's intent in creating any particular graphic. The right to create and present a point of view is one that I defend. This is a completely general philosphical discussion on my part. With respect, Chuck, and I support your right to disagree with me. I take this time to wish you and those you love a most happy Thanksgiving. Take care. I'm gone. I've a dinner to go to.

How about this: geoegress considered the image, applied judgement on whether or not the nudity flag was needed and decided against it. That certainly seems within his rights as a member of this site. And, I think he made the right call. BUT there will always be someone who disagrees with his decision. I say geoegress fulfilled his end of the deal as far as posting goes and that if anyone else disagreed with it, they should have talked to a mod. It's not really their place to jump on him, now is it? After all, we (that would be myself and my wife) try to teach our children to take their disagreements to us to solve rather than apply their childish name-calling as a resolution method.

Personally I would look at flagging posts as a courtesy for people who may have some issues with an image. So I have always worked on the basis of "when in doubt, bow to the action which is most courtious". So even if an image may be of no offence to (or even to a majority of the people), on the chance that one person may be offended, it doesnt hurt to put the flag up....and someone may appreciate it. I dont think anyone has ever been grossly offended by having a flag on their post. LOL

"People have different levels of sensitivity. What appears discreetly covered to you may be be offensive to someone else (I'm not saying it is to me...I'm just saying it might be to someone). " That's my point exactly. If the nudity tag on images is required to consider the most conservative of potential viewers, then just about any image will offend someone and therefore require a nudity tag. I don't think we have to worry about the line defining nudity moving so far to the extreme that nipples (etc.) will be released from the nudity tag requirement. Rather that it will be moved the other direction so that a halter top and hot pants will require a nudity tag. Bottom line? Since different sensitivities from around the world are involved, let the mods sort it out. Offended by an image? Contact a mod...leave the other person, whose sensitivites may differ from yours (and rightfully so) alone!

"it doesnt hurt to put the flag up....and someone may appreciate it" And then suffer the attacks of those who accuse a person of putting a nudity flag on a post (when it didn't really need it) of placing the nudity tag there to gain "extra attention". I've certainly seen that kind of attack as well.

Ok, I have no problem viewing nude images. Geo's image was very very nicely done. In fact, it reminds me a great deal of a print my ex had hanging on our living room wall. Having said that, however, I really DO appreciate the nudity tag and here is the reason: My 12 yr. old nephew visits my home during the major school holidays. My grandchildren occasionally visit my home. My house is small enough that the only place with enough room for my computer is the dining room. My dining room is a major traffic area - you have to pass through to get to the kitchen, the basement or the back yard. This means that anyone passing by can see at a glance what is on my computer screen. The last thing I need is to have to explain to my nephew's mother or my son and his wife that the "naked lady" wasn't a REAL person, etc., etc. BUT, if the nudity flag is checked, I can skip over that particular post and view it later when I am either alone in the house or my nephew has gone to bed for the night. Saves me a LOT of hassle and explanations that way. And we won't even go into what would happen if my sister, the devout southern baptist, happened to walk past as I was viewing a post with nudity in the image. She wouldn't care if the "naughty bits" were covered or not and I would hear about it for YEARS. So please, keep ticking that nudity flag. It really makes my life a bit easier and cuts down on unnecessary hassle. Thank you for your consideration. Kate

I agree with chuckevans the nudity flag is a bit dumb and it is pretty pointless. Do people who don`t like nudity cover their eyes before they put clothes on their poser figures?

. And then suffer the attacks of those who accuse a person of putting a nudity flag on a post (when it didn't really need it) of placing the nudity tag there to gain "extra attention". I've certainly seen that kind of attack as well. ... which is just as stupid, AFAIC. Insofar as people jumping on poor, misunderstood Geo, consider his post above, in which he rants about political oppression. Take a look at some of the wonders in the original thread, who considered the simple request of asking that the rules be followed to be some kind of black-shirt Hitlerism at operation. Sorry, folks, but this is a non-issue. The chick was naked, pure and simple. I don't give a wuss if the "naughty bits" were covered or not. She's naked. Use the damn button. And if you have to use it just to get someone to read your otherwise lame post, then a pox on you as well. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. :)

So, Joey, if the same parts had been hidden by a bikini, no nudity flag needed? But one needed if the bikini wasn't there yet you could see no more? See, that seems strange to me. Best advice I can give to people...just put it on all the time...that way, you are catering to every sensibility and age group that may be looking over someone's should. Or don't make anything resembling a nude at all...that's sure to please a lot of people. The same kind of people who worry about what I do in my home. And to all the people who will ever view something that the poster thought DIDN'T need a nudity tag yet you were positive one was called for, leave the poster and his idea on what is and isn't nudity alone and complain to the mods. Just as you want people to remember you when using the tag, remember them when you disagree. Done with this thread. It's like arguing abortion.

Look, guys, it's really simple, so I'll write it once more: Is she wearing anything? No. Then she's naked. Hit the nudity flag. Discussion on that matter closed. Now, let's look at the other side of the coin, as was suggested earlier in this thread. Someone looks at Geo's original thread and posts an image of a naked chick that doesn't have the discrete covering of arms and well-placed legs and doesn't bother to hit the nudity flag since, "Well, Geo didn't, so why should I?" Shall we continue that particular point to its logical conclusion? We become another renderotica. If that's what you want, go there. How difficult is that? >> The picture is question broke NONE of these rules Hey, was anyone talking about SEXUAL CONDUCT? Gosh, no -- we were talkijng about whether or not the young lady in the original thread was NAKED. Which she WAS. Wow. What an insight. >> You are actually not allowed to treat people disrespectfully in this forum<?i> If it's stupid like a duck, I'm gonna call it a duck. Sorry if that upsets anyone (including the ducks). But after reading this thread on the heels of the similarly absurd one over "Well, gee, Mom, why can't I post more than one image a day?????" whine-fest, I'm tired of obtuseness being passed off as victimhood. "I'm politically oppressed when I have to hit the nudity flag!" -- oh, please, spare me. Hit the damn button, then get a life and move on, huh? Until the mods decide to change that particular rule, it's in effect FOR EVERYONE, even the politically oppressed.

this is a tired old topic

Thank you, illusions. You said what I meant much better than I did. I appreciate it. And I do think you are right. In situations like this, no one will be convinced of another's point of view...best to step back and take a breath or too. Meanwhile, I'm off to play with Vue.

tisk tisk tisk- such a black and white world

Sometimes it's a little better to have it black and white than a whole bunch of greys that make everything so muddy you can't tell anything at all.

you just have to get the last word don't you

this is a tired old topic

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

MY GOD Joey? Do you HAVE any clue to the irony of your position? First of all... YOU ARE NO ONE to close any matter. You're not a mod. You're not the owner of the site. You have absolutly NO MORE say in the matter than me or any one else. "Hey, was anyone talking about SEXUAL CONDUCT? Gosh, no -- we were talkijng about whether or not the young lady in the original thread was NAKED. Which she WAS. Wow. What an insight." Ok, class... quick poll, what catagory would you put "Nudity" under. If, as you claim, the Nudity tag has no bearing on the TOS rules of sexual conduct, then there are NO RULES about it. ANYWHERE! So shut up. Cause no one is breaking any rules. No that we HAVE established there is no RULE. Let work on the higher level or respecting each other. You still haven't addressed the INTENT of the nudity flag. If it's just clothes, then hat's and bow ties will mean the character is NO LONGER NUDE. We can post as much indecency as the TOS will allow without hitting the nudity flag, by your narrow definition, and screw any one who doesn't like it because "She's clearly wearing socks." Quite frankly, I think our definition that goes by standards set by TV and other popular media is far more compliant with the INTENT of the nudity flag. If she's showing certain area's, hit the nudity flag. My only problem with that is sometimes I forget. Sorry. I'm only human. By your narrow definition every post that shows a fist, or a Naked Vicky in a Temple with a Sword must have the violence tag set because there is a hint of violence. Now watch this trick... If it's [oppressive] like a [Nazi], I'm gonna call it a [Nazi]. Sorry if that upsets anyone (including the [Nazi's]). But after reading this thread on the heels of the similarly absurd one over "[How dare you question the] one image a day [rule]?????" whine-fest, I'm tired of obtuseness being passed off as victimhood. "[My delicate sensibilities are offended when I see nudity]!" -- oh, please, spare me. [Ignore] the damn button, then get a life and move on, huh? Until the mods decide to change that particular rule, it's in effect FOR EVERYONE, even the politically oppressed. Gee, do you understand my side better now that I've plugged my desires into your exact same tyraid. Of course not. It's still inflamatory BS. I can never convice the mods to change any rule unless I can discuss it. I can't discuss anything if you're going to go on a personal attack every time you don't like my opinion. You're a hypocrit. ">> You are actually not allowed to treat people disrespectfully in this forum If it's stupid like a duck, I'm gonna call it a duck." You tell all of us to follow a nudity rule that doesn't exist, yet openly refuse to follow the published rules of this forum, repeatedly. Then openly make a statemtn that your going to continue to NOT FOLLOW THE RULES!!!! If the rules are so important to you, follow them all. If you get to pick and choose which rules you follow, why shouldn't we? Are you some how special that the rules DON'T apply to you? If you read the TOS, you'll see that those rules about not abusing fellow members are higher up than ALL the sexually releated rules. That ussually means they are MORE important. And lastly.... You still have yet to show a single fact that supports your decision. While I've presented resonable alternatives, in civil manner, with several referances to who, what where, how, and why my opinion is what it is, your logic to this point has been NOTHING but "Do it cause I say so." And you are in NO position tell any of us anything. Let's put it to a poll of everyone here. No matter who's opinon you agree with. Which one of us has been more reasonable and respectful?

I'm just saying "Hi" to everyone here before it gets locked.

Thanks for listening. Have a nice day. ^_^

And yes, she is nude. All she's wearing is a faint smile.

I thought that while we are discussing women, nudity and morals, I would have the perfect opportunity to plug my new full body photo realistic body texture for V3. I thought that seeing as some people might be offended by nudity, but they would also like to have the texture, I would have to present it like this. Any suggestions or comments to improve the texture. I am a bit worried about the seem on the left hip.

PS Any resemblence to humour in my post is purely coincidental and any similarity to actual humour is totally unintentional.

And the correct way to spell "seem" appears to be "seam". (Smacks his own hand and goes back to English classes for foreigners.) PS Soon I wil be abel too speek Inglis very gud and then I two will be abel too get a gurlfriend and I wont haf too come hear two look at piktures off nakid womin.

I think Renderosity should have separate forums and galleries....a place for people that can just view, converse, and enjoy the place without something getting them upset...and another place for everyone else. although the first would probably be empty

the second one would be complained about.

You people freaking amaze me, you know that? ONE LAST TIME: IS SHE WEARING ANY CLOTHES? Uh, no. THEN SHE'S NAKED. Good christ, is that so difficult to understand? Whether or not I'm a mod or an oppressive Nazi or anything else is really irrelevant. SHE'S NAKED, KIDS. SHE'S NOT WEARING ANY CLOTHES. SO THE DAMN NUDITY BUTTON APPLIES. Good lord, with 200,000 members, I find it difficult to believe the collective IQ would drop this low.

Screw it. You guys don't seem to give a damn about anything than your precious "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION", so do whatever the hell you want, which you will anyway. This really is no different from the whiny little jerk who bitched that he couldn't post seven pics in one day, because if they did, they'd get lost in the shuffle of everyone else posting theirs, and he just didn't like that (to be read with an appropriate stamping of the foot). Now we have a bunch of people who think their unfettered right to all the naked tit they can watch is being oppressed and restricted and subject to censorship, which is probably the biggest piece of horseswallow to be posted in here in a really long time. So tap dance around the subject and make all the cutsie little posts you can. The simple fact remains: SHE'S NAKED. THE NUDITY BUTTON APPLIES. Don't like it? Go to Renderotica and give the rest of us a freaking break.

My understanding of the original thread was that someone asked that in the future, please use the nudity tag when posting nude images. Then it turned into a flamefest. Seems it's still a flamefest. Personally, I don't understand why it's such a problem to just tag the image to begin with if it's questionable. When in doubt, flag it. That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. How that impedes anyone's artistic freedom I honestly can't figure out. Well, it's just a good thing I'm wearing my absestos suit (and therefore don't need to flag the content advisor). :) bonni

Main Entry: nude Function: adjective : devoid of a natural or conventional covering; especially : not covered by clothing or a drape Main Entry: naked Function: adjective : not covered by clothing JoeyAristophanes, by the above definitions, even if she was standing in a box, she would still be nude, and the nuduty flag would still apply, right. Oh, sorry, then it would not be neccesary. What if she was standing behind a screen? Flag or not? But if she covers herself with her hands, or maybe a fan, or a big gun, or a sheild, then the nudity flag must apply. Right? That means it is all a question of the interpretation of nudity. Of how much flash can be seen, not whether the character is actually naked or not. And personally, saying that someone is nude or naked doesn't mean the nudity flag must apply, only when the nakedness is visible. PS I find your tone very insulting. You scream about nudity, but you feel free to use the term "Good Christ" freely. I am not a Christian, but I do rememeber something about not using the lord's name in vain. So you are offended by nudity but feel free to use religious profanity. Do we need a special "religious profanity" flag for you. While we are on the subject of IQ, which is a meaningless concept anyway,

belief in god is like belief in the easter bunny. Any way I will end this topic by saying the nudity flag is useless. Could this topic be locked AND deleted now, please.

Why not instead of a nudity flag say on the main renderosity page there is some nudity on this site. So the people who have to surf the net when working will know not to perv-I mean look here.

• Elgyfu takes one look at this thread then runs to hide in a nice safe place *

This arguement revolves around weather it's nudity or VISABLE nudity Preception vs objective reality Just another attempt to change the site standards to suit a few. To have mob rule(precieved preception) instead of MOD rule Some ppl here would like Poser banned like it is in some middle eastern counties. Yes Joey- "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION" is more important The most important thing in the world right now in fact. Without it there would be no newspapers- no books- other then state approved ones. No TV shows not approved. Only ONE state approved religion. Only one news cast every night. Only one state approved point of view on EVERYTHING. It seems that is what YOU want- well, go bugger yourself!!! I served this country many many years doing things you can't even imagine to protect your freedoms to disagree with me- But not to be bullied by you. You argue in a most illogical way- completely ignoring everything that was said and posted above in most threads- I noticed this trend in other threads before. You quote then make a commentary instead of a rebuttal or comment. My mom allways said- say it loud enought and long enought and you can make anything sound true. The contract as a merchant and the agreement as a member here say NOTHING about you being the 'moral' watchdog. The overlord in charge of 'correctness' and 'right thinking' Bet you didn't even know that the last pic I made several weeks ago is a totally RELIGIOUS one!!!

Screw it. You guys don't seem to give a damn about anything than your precious "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION"... I'm printing that on a T-Shirt with your handle under it!!! You DO know this is an artist community? Right? TOS Violations: FREE. "I find it difficult to believe the collective IQ would drop this low." "whiny little jerk" Irony Violations :-p FREE "... he just didn't like that (to be read with an appropriate stamping of the foot)." "So tap dance around the subject..." Oppressive loud mouth trying to make the rules violation: FREE "Don't like it? Go to Renderotica and give the rest of us a freaking break." Compleatly ignoring every logical argument in favor of a tantrum: FREE (Too numerous to mention.) "Cutsie little post" that shows he's got no point: PRICELESS!

Naked Vicky in a Box (NVIAB). She's not wearing a stitch, so I've a carefully checked the nudity flag. If she had a sword, I'd have set the violence flag as well.