Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=1546344

I haven't looked at the site rules to see why threads get locked. Perhaps there is a "We can lock any thread for any reason" rule. Mostly, I thought it was due to people getting unruley with other members (not the case in this thread as I read it) or requests for warez (certainly not in this thread). Perhaps there is a rule that allows thread locking if the information is considered improper for this site, such as how to build a pipe bomb or such. I can understand that.

But surely a discussion of what is nudity and what is not and how different parts of the world (or households/workplaces) perceive it is an appropriate discussion for the Poser forum (the most wicked of nude posters...sarcasm, BTW). If the discussion is civil and no personal attacks are occurring, why would a thread be locked? Because the mods decided the discussion was over? Because it is their site and everything is a privilage? If a discussion doesn't interest anyone, then the thread will die a natural death.

Since the subject has gone to 3 threads (in recent time), I assume some sort of resolution/discussion was of interest to many people. Especially to those who post an image in the Poser forum and have to endure the (somewhat) abusive comments because they disagreed with the lack of a nudity tag.

So, why was this thread locked?

:/

That thread was locked becuase the discussion was rapidly devolving to namecalling. Again. There is more behind the scenes which I am not going to go into, as it is only the business of the persons involved. If the members wish to start a new thread and remain civil, the thread can continue. Lyrra

Tks, Lyrra. Although, I'd have to re-read the thread to see the namecalling...I don't recall much of it...but I scanned some of the posts quickly. It's certainly possible that "groups" of people were "called names" but, IMO, the thread that was locked was civil. And, I can't comment on the "behind the scenes" stuff, as, well, it's behind the scenes. Perhaps that means people were receiving ugly IMs. If that's the case, then that would seem to leave the thread "innocent" as it were. Oh...and I think that's the best "beating a dead horse" image I've seen! Really nice one! Not bad for under 100k.

lhiannan surely the horse shouldn`t be moving? :)

LOL, xantor, I think if you WHOMP a club down on ANY dead being, it will, kind of, "jerk". So, it's probably realistically correct...LOL.

Exactly. :D

Especially to those who post an image in the Poser forum and have to endure the (somewhat) abusive comments because they disagreed with the lack of a nudity tag Not to mention the abusive commments we have to endure on the other side -- eh, Chuck?

"Not to mention the abusive commments we have to endure on the other side" What would that be if I may ask? After all, one of the things I mentioned was that people who disagree with a poster's choice of a nudity flag contact a mod, not go off on the poster. Especially if the main concern was that they might get in troulbe at work or that their toddlers may see it.

Hmm. Let's see. Derisive ones like "prudes". Completely OT ones like "Nazis". Those little gems have shown up more than a few times, so let's not pretend otherwise, huh? Insofar as the flag, as was pointed out in the last thread, Rsity has its rules regarding forum threads with images of nudes. If you don't like them, don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you're gonna ignore them out of some pretense of being a political victim (like a certain poster we all know), then you're gonna get jumped on, and the mods will sort it out later. But frankly, the mods have enough to do without worrying about whether or not folks around here are gonna play by one extremely simple little rule. So get over it and move on.

The comparison with Nazis was made, as I recall, with people who shout others down. Well, yes ... were the Nazis the only group in history to adopt that tactic? And do you realise that all Nazis had two legs? So anyone here with two legs - you're like a Nazi!

"you're gonna get jumped on, and the mods will sort it out later" Well, that's what I am trying to say. It's not anyone else's job to jump on people who may make a judgement that doesn't agree with yours. And THAT'S what I'm talking about when I mentioned posters getting jumped upon. "Rsity has its rules regarding forum threads with images of nudes." Actually, insofar was several people are concerned, the rules are a bit vague, seem to consider the US as the center of the "posting universe", and, incedently, don't reflect just what one may see on the side of the road on a billboard. Not to mention the people who are pushing toward the conservative side of posting by requiring posters to consider that they may be at work or have toddlers watching.

Well, I must say that I do appreciate it very much when the cutesy warning is placed at the header of threads that concern topics that literally scare the heck out of me. But seriously, (on the topic of nudity and the TOS), I think ones own personal views of the world will affect how each of us perceive a naked woman or man or a fully clothed person for that matter. In Disney's "beauty and the Beast" (rated G)isn't Beauty under a form of bondage in beast's castle? One could almost use that movie as a case study in how abducted women fall in love with their captor. Everyone sees the world through their own point of view. And if the nudity warning is going to be enforced equally than perhaps when someone uses nudity as a heading and the thread does NOT acually contain any nudity will mods act upon complaints? That would be silly. But I do think that before folks are ready to 'lay down the law' they better not complain when the rules come back to bite them. I also notice this phrase being said a lot lately "I'm not a prude, but...". It's being used so often that it's kind of funny - like Larry Flynt saying "I'm not a pervert, but...." fin out the side door before the rotten refuse flies :P

Well the "I'm not a prude, but..." sentence could very well be said by me. PERSONALLY I don't give a flying [anything] as to whether or not a person on a picture is nude or not. I have no problems watching it, neither at work nor at home, BUT SOME PEOPLE MIGHT and by not checking the nudity button in those cases where the picture DOES INDEED contain a naked person, you are imposing YOUR wievs and beliefs upon other people. Just becourse YOU want to look nudes doesn't mean that the whole WORLD wants to look at them. So give people the CHOISE! They can choose NOT to look or they can choose to do so. Or they can choose to do so under certain circumstances, but by posting un-flagged nudes YOU are taking that choise away from people! That is dictatorship (nazism if you want) if anything is. I like nudes. I like porn. I look at porn. I make porn (in Poser, that is) but does that mean that everybody here should like porn and look at it all day long? Does that mean that I somehow have a "right" to post porn here? NO! Coz that's what places like Renderotica is for!

I could see why this argument continued on if someone's rights were really being trampled, but that's not what is happened. In the real world, I can choose to go into a gallery or a museum. I get a little brochure and it tells me whether or not what is inside is something I want to view. If I am not interested, I can leave again. There is a big difference between that and the intrusive world of the Internet where things appear on my screen that, given any choice, I would not view. The flags act in place of the little brochure, signaling me what I want to view. Why is it that you feel the artist should have a choice but the viewer should not? Why stoop to labeling me with derision when, in fact, all I want is a signpost that directs me elsewhere when something is shown that I know I have no interest in. Forcing me to look at what doesn't interest me isn't going to make me think better of the artist. And I will see that as a sign of immaturity, not adulthood. To me, being adult has nothing to do with staring at body parts. It has everything to do with respecting other people and not calling them names just because you disagree with them. If our children acted on the playground the way we do in the Poser forum, we would sit them in a corner until they learned to play better with others. Again, I have no children in my house and my issue is not viewing at work. It is a personal choice I make and, since I hurt no one with my choice, I don't understand why some people want to take the choice away from me. I've never asked anyone's graphic to be removed...I've only asked for a little sign of content. That's it. Why the big deal? And the moderators can't be everywhere. They can't view all the pictures or read all the threads. If someone signals them that something inappropriate is being posted, then we should thank that person for their concern and interest instead of berating them.

In this thread, Lyrra wrote: "That thread was locked becuase the discussion was rapidly devolving to namecalling... ...If the members wish to start a new thread and remain civil, the thread can continue." Whereas in that thread, Lyrra said: "sighs Locking this thread too. One more time round on this topic and I'm going to start getting severely irritated. I think we all get the point. New topic please Lyrra the Irritated (Moderator)" I'm sure anyone could be forgiven for thinking that the reason the thread was locked was because the topic was 'officially' unwelcome. Of course, I point out this contrast merely because I am constantly amused by the situations Renderosity puts itself in, and wish to squelch around in the mud a bit myself. The notion of a nudity tag being required for images that do not feature nudity is so silly as to not warrant a serious contribution. I suggest that everyone applies the nudity tag to all of their images, regardless of content. That way those who choose to view all images can view all images, while those who may be offended will never be offended. Surely everyone will be happy then? ;-)

I usually try to stay out of these long threads and read them for amusement only, but in this case, I thought I'd throw in some thoughts on the topic.

ChuckEvans wrote in the other thread...:

(1)... BUT, I can tell you right now, if you are up on workplace sexual harrassment, if someone walks around the corner and sees this bikini-clad image on your monitor you're in trouble! After all, it is generally accepted in the U.S. (the center of the universe as several might have you think) that posters and calendars of such pinup material is NOT acceptable.

If you are being investigated for sexual harrassment, you are asking for trouble by visiting 'rosity in the first place!

(3) People are asked to consider what is nudity in the US (like, walking down the street). Yet, since this site is very worldwide, why is the US the denominator? Because the site is located in Tennessee?

Since the site is located in Tennessee, it is subject to Tennessee state law and U.S. Federal law. So, yes, location is a determining factor in how the site is operated. Like it or not, we have legislators in this country that think they can control the Internet.

Finally, IN THE US, I have seen billboards showing females clad similarly to the one that geoegress posted (that started all this again) in an advertisement for radio stations (96 Rock in Atlanta...part of the "thumper belt", and PETA messages...against fur). The image geoegress posted was no worse than those.

Do you know if anyone complained about the billboard? I don't know either, but most likely someone did. Mabye there was not enough complaints and pressure to take it down. In Peoria, Illinois, a billboard advertising a tanning salon was taken down because the city council felt that it was too racy. The billboard showed a woman in a bikini of acceptable coverage laying on her side. There is a saying in the entertainment business: If it plays Peoria, it will play anywhere. Why? Because Peoria is one of the most conservative cities in the country. Different parts of the country have different attitudes.

And I thought I had too much time on my hands. Geezz, as Lyrra stated: "This is not exactly a high stress thing here guys. Please relax a bit.." I'm waiting on some laundry, so yes, I do have some idle time on my hands. :-) Take things with a grain of salt people. How many times does this need to be said: This is a privately operated site. You have no rights or freedoms here. You have the privilege of being a member, being able to post messages, and being able to post images in the galleries. "Rights" and "freedoms" have no bearing on the policies and TOS of this site.

milamber: Some good points there. A few added remarks if I may... I wasn't suggesting, in my "workplace" example that someone was under investigation. It's improper to hang a pinup calendar (and similar material) in the workplace. Investigation or not. So, seeing a similar type image on a monitor is just as bad as having the month od December showing. You support part of my argument when you post about Peoria. Meaning, let's suppose I did a render exactly like the billboard you refer to and because the figure had clothes (any number of people having provided difinitions), I did not check the nudity tag. What if one of the same people from Peoria saw my image and decided it should have been tagged and began posting to me about it (complete with exclamation points and uppercase printing)? That's one of the points I've been trying to make...there is ALWAYS someone who is going to open a message containing an image THEY felt was improper, be it someone from Peoria, Saudi Arabia, or Vatican City. And if artists start bowing to every person who complains because they can't browse while at work or browse while their children look or are offended because of the community/state/country they live in or, finally, because of their religion, then pretty soon, there will be no nude images on this site, period. That is the "creeping" I've been referring to and, though it's an extreme example, it's something that can happen on a similar scale. As to the location of the R'City site, yes I understand they need to follow the laws of the place they live. However, I sincerely doubt R'City would get in legal trouble for the topic we are discussing. Additionally, I suspect R'City has to be worried about worldwide laws. I'm no legal expert but I DO know that Ebay and Amazon have had to make various adjustments to their site due to breaking the laws of other various countries (most notably, Germany). You are correct in that it's not an "end of the world" topic. It's just the principle of the thing that irritatates me...that people can disagree with the person who didn't use a nudity tag and then proceed to berate them for it for various stupid reasons which sets the stage for the poster to defend her/imself. All I'm saying is let the poster make his or her decision and if a viewer doesn't like it, let them "run" to the mods.

check the archives concerning censorship, adverts, products in the marketplace etc. why don't we all do something important instead? lets make some art! oops... me said bad thing. this site is for moaning, complaining, bitching and generally contributing to the global cult of negativity. Khai - who unlike it seems most is still a positive person and comes to this site for artwork, not endless rehashed moaning.

Why don't we all just add nudity tags to any image that contains a figure, 'cos in some Muslim countries even a woman showing her face in public isn't allowed. Catlin

All I'm saying is let the poster make his or her decision and if a viewer doesn't like it, let them "run" to the mods. In other words, the original poster should feel no sense of responsibility to his fellow members whatsoever. It's all about "ME" and "MY art", which is really what you're saying, Chuck. It's all about "REPRESSING ME as a political act", right? I had no idea this site was becoming that selfish and egocentric. Thanks for letting me know.

Could someone just clarify something for me? Did all this kick off because of the pic that was posted in the original thread - the one with the cop and the girl IN A DRESS in it? If so, I am now totally bewildered, 'cos I didn't spot any nudity there. Perhaps I need my eyes tested, or perhaps I've totally misunderstood - someone help me out here!

It keeps coming up, Lyrra, because the discussions keep getting stifled. If you'd let it play out, it wouldn't keep coming back. :)

Whether or not it comes back would have little or nothing to do with it being stifled. It has much more to do with someone trying to impress on or with their supposedly higher standards of morality, which just seems to go away when placed behind a closed bedroom door. Sorry, kiddies, but when the veneer of "being refined" or of "Culture" is stripped off, there are only basic humans left, and many people find that impossible to live with, especially when applied to themselves. "Art" has even less to do with it, just who is the "Art" supposed to please, if not the "Artist"? A commercial artist working on an advertising project may indeed be an artist, but when working on a project for someone else, to someone else's ideas is at those times merely an illustrator, the artist is not free to express him/herself to the extent that would qualify the work as art. Far as nudity goes, if man didn't find woman attractive, we wouldn't be listening to dead end arguments. We wouldn't be here.

i don't know why i'm posting.. i just thought i would.. since i've never been in one of these pointless arguments that gets brought up ever day or so... grins oh, and wanted to say, Love the beating of a dead horse.. ~Dragonsbld

I am so smart. Superior intellect. Just assume everything is offensives and you're set to go. That's the way China treats the internet. In fact, when the UN takes over the internet they'll mediocrisize it into the ground like they've done everything else.

runs naked thru the thread

I've been coming here for over three years and I'm getting so sick and tired of these threads, which seem to get started just to stir things up. AGAIN. Each and every person AGREED to the TOS of Renderosity when they became members here. That some people think they can post whatever they want, whenever they want and not follow the same rules the rest of us go by sickens me. And when someone else restarts a thread with the same complaints over and over and over again makes me want to vomit. This isn't about art or even nudity, it's about following the TOS. And if you don't like it go somewhere else. PERIOD. Stop coming here to spew your crap all over the place just because you don't like the rules. Now I'm off to the hospital to be with my hubby who is dying of cancer.

Actually, Fly, I think someone else pointed out that there is no violation of the TOS when one does not flag an image with nudity. So, assuming I read that fellow correctly in another thread, you're wrong.

Sometimes it can be really hard to figure wether or not to put up a nudity flag. This image was rendering while I was reading this post (untouched Poser 5 render, with lettering in PSP8 for technicalities). So what do I do with her ? Surely whe would not be allowed on the streets in such an outfit (at least I would not allow my daughter to go downtown wearing this). Yet you cannot see much of her skin. I cannot call for my "common sense" on these matters, because I'm french. (and we have quite a hard time here deciding what should be done with women openly wearing the islamic veil...). I cannot take advice from what I see on US TV : Beyonce would have a hard time walking down the street in the attire she wears for her clips... I'd be tempted by the "heck with it, I'll put a nudity flag on every girl I render." But then there are those who come saying "it's not fair, you put a nudity flag on it to attract people to see it". So, please moderators, what should I do with pics in the same vein as this one ? (and I'm quite serious here : the only other option I see is Islamic art, where depiciton of human body is prohibited altogether...).

Compiler, that image doesn't appear to qualify as "nudity". But if you put a nudity flag on all your images, then the easily offended people won't see it, so they're safe and you're safe - unless trolls attack artists who use the nudity flag in a gratuitous manner. I think they had to close the other thread because the word "Nazi" started popping up. When that happens, it's the death knell for any thread.

Mateo, as far as I can see nobody in that thread called anybody a Nazi. The word "popped up" in exactly the the same way you are now employing it. I got a bit cross and posted to the thread because, frankly, this is a VERY tiny corner of the world, having some expertise in a, fairly obscure, piece of software gives nobody the right to ridicule the views of others in the way that some were doing. It really doesn't help that some people were trying to make points in a language other than their mother tongue, makes them really easy pickings for those who wish to jeer in their own language doesn't it? I think the real point is just the interenet itself. Whether you're in Tinytown, Idaho or Beijing you've either got to stop people accessing it or go with the flow. Welcome to McLuhan's global village! John

It isn't the word "Nazi" but the implication that somehow asking people to have a little courtesy to other people is the equivalent of genocide. That seems a bit of a hyperbole, don't you think? I think the real reason the thread was locked is that the arguments were going no where but in a circle. And it continues to spiral down and around without getting anywhere.

It was my but that did it, wasn't it? Come on, I can handle it. sob

Nudity = wearing no clothing. If the female breasts are fully exposed, or the genetalia for males and/or females are fully visible, then it is also considered nudity for purposes of flagging the picture. This allows other forum users to make an informed decision about whether to check the forum post, whether due to personal preference or logistical difficulties. This has nothing to do with restricting artistic expression. This has to do with courtesy and respecting the fact that a person may not wish to view an artistic nude, or at least not at that time. compiler - that figure is wearing clothing. The nudity tag is not necessary. The analogy about "would it get you arrested if a cop saw you like that" is a rough analogy because people started making extreme examples, likening the guidelines to the Taliban's insistance on women wearing the burka. While people here are from all over the world, for the most part the laws are relatively similar in regards to public nudity/indecency. Summary: *Nudity = no clothing. It's not just a Renderosity guideline, it's the definition of the word. *Hands in strategic places do not count as clothing. They are body parts. *If the nipples of females are exposed, or the genitalia of either gender is exposed, then it counts as nudity for purposes of flagging the picture. *If you can't tell that the person isn't wearing clothing - a facial shot, for example - then you don't have to flag the picture. *If you can't tell the person has clothing on - a completely transparent body suit, for example - then please flag it. Thanks, Crescent

I think it's a conspiracy to drive all the Mods dealing with this issue completely and utterly insame.

the saddest part is: all these threads got started because a member got overzealous in sharing a FREE, NEW MESH with everyone...and, in his exuberance, forgot to punch the nudity button. courtesy is a virtue...so is understanding, being thankful for another's generosity, and, above all, TOLERANCE...a bit of which each one of us needs now and again. pop...pop...Poppi

A friend of mine would say that's not a drive but a short putt. Fortunately Crescent and Lyrra are incredibly patient people.

OK, I'm out of here. But I really think it would be a good idea if people read what others had actually written, not just what they wanted them to have written.

Thank you Crescent - FINALLY some common sense. Those guidelines should be posted where everyone who's tempted to rant about Renderosity restricting their artistic freedom can get a good long look at them. SnowS

Thank you, Crescent! The patience of our mods is extraordinary. Well said, SnowSultan.

Do buttocks count as genitalia? I mean, I don't think they can be classed anatomically as "genitals" but I would think a picture of someone pulling a moony (thank you igohigh, that picture will stay with me a long time) should be nudity flagged... I would flag it. Although I probably wouldn't put poor Vicky in such an undignified position anyway. Probably. Heheh.

Oh for an edit button!

I think it's a conspiracy to drive all the Mods dealing with this issue completely and utterly insame. "The only thing that helps me maintain my slender grip on reality is the friendship I share with my singing potatos."

the threads wouldn't get 'stifled' if the members could manage to remain civil. If you all play nicely you can talk till you are blue in the face and I don't care. as for the issue I just feel its a tempest in a teapot. But if you want to talk about it, knock yourselves out.

Although not actually listed in Crescent's summary above, Karen, I think she want's you to also consider if it could get you arrested walking down the street. In the US, I believe. If so, I hope all those who live outside the US are familiar with the various laws here. And, of course, a lot of those rules get discarded during Mardi Gras, Spring Break in New Orleans, etc. So, also remember that. But, I don't speak for Crescent...I was just assuming.

Attached Link: http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/stardiaries.htmlhttp://

The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiousity of potatoes. Stanislaw Lem, author of Solaris.

Attached Link: http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/stardiaries.html

Small correction to jwhitham's link. Excuse the intrusion.

Cheers dialyn, spent ages trying to work out why it broke. Fairy obvious really though isn't it? D'oh.

It happens to just about all of us at least once. :)

. and, in his exuberance, forgot to punch the nudity button When it was pointed out to him, Poppi, he immediately went into "victim" mode and starting going on about political repression and some other such nonsense. Even now, we have folks who think that it's easier to play semantic games than just hitting the damn nudity button. Common sense says, "No clothes? Then the person's naked. Hmm, I guess the nudity button applies." But see, that's too narrow a definition for some folks. This whole thing is starting to sound like, "Well, I guess it depends on your definition of are", to quote the Clinton impeachment. Have fun, kiddies. I'm outa this one. It's all become a tad too stupid for my tastes.