Renderosity Forums / Community Center
Welcome to the Community Center Forum
Forum Moderators: wheatpenny Forum Coordinators: Anim8dtoon
Community Center F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 08 1:01 pm)
Subject: TOS update
i should hope not. i child porn as i said be it virtual or real is filth. and as butterfly_fish this was copied from a earlier state ment that one made: Re: TOS update by butterfly_fish on 3/7/04 22:29 Not to add fuel to the fire, but I spoke with a sex offender tonight. He said that a place like Renderosity should certainly have this in their TOS. He told me that virtual or real, it does, in fact, "normalize" the act. It makes it seem like "everybody is doing it." He told me that people who have this sexual addiction need to keep ANY images of child pornography as far away from them as possible, as it exacerbates their problem. He also said that he applauds Renderosity for this measure.
Just as long as it's clear that child nudity doesn't equal child porn.
Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com
Attached Link: http://www.etsu.edu/philos/classes/rk/modernzenith/adobejpgimages/28deathcamplarge.jpg
Armor, I don't know where you get your information from, but the change in the TOS comes at the same time as the passing of a LAW that restricts that kind of image. I assume it is in compliance with this law that the TOS has has been changed. If R'osity had made this change as the result of you or any other group of users complaints, I would be flaming them full blast for catering to any ONE's moral sensibility. It would be like letting the Taliban dictate what could be posted here. There is no difference between what fanatic seeks to control what people are allowed to see. Be it their religion, or lack of it. "If you argue there should be censorship of any kind then you have just destroyed the very heart of your own argument!!!" Why? Because YOU say so? The line I draw is a very sensible one. Do I hurt some one in creating my art? In the case of any 3D representation, the answer is NO. In the case of photography the answer is yes. "Part of a successful ad campaign is to find the right image or combination of images to inspire a desire in consumers for what is being offered... in the ad biz there is no separation of pencil,cg,airbrush or photo-they are all viewed the same as the images are designed solely to entice the viewer into desiring what they see!!" You have OBVIOUSLY never worked in advertising. I have. I've had arguments over which shade of blue something should be, and over how saturated the reds are. No separation between pencil,cg,airbrush or photo? Are you INSANE? You talk about a medium who first law is Marshall McLuhan's famous phrase "The Medium is the Message". Ask a dropout advertising major, and they know those styles are NO WHERE NEAR interchangeable. "I'm not sure... but bet you don't do images of nude children in your work do you-if not,maybe that shows that even you draw a line you choose not to cross?" The point is that *I* get choose that line. Where ever I draw it is my business as long as I don't hurt some one else doing it. Now I don't have that choice. Did we suddenly cure every pedophile because we took away their CHOICE to be one? Of course not. You don't change a person's mind by silencing them. I CERTAINLY am not going to create or post images I find personally offencive. But looking at your examples: "an image of a group of klansmen lynching a black man in cg,a woman being gang raped by a group of black men or a child being molested by an adult white male." Every one of those images can be used to show the horror or the situation. They can make you sympathies with the victim and as a result tech you that doing those things is wrong. But not if you don't allow them to be created because you don't like the subject matter. Only a Klansman would look at the lynching and see some thing positive. Only the rapist would be aroused by gang rape. Only the pedophile would see themselves in the image of the child molester. A pervert can see a child being molested in a ink spot, or the cracks in his ceiling in the same way a religious nut can Jesus sweat stain. Are we all supposed to pay the price for one person being a pervert? Are we ALL guilty because some one is. Cain didn't kill Able in the Bible because he saw a picture of a murder. He did it because he chose to, and THAT was the sin. It wasn't the THOUGHT of killing Able that made him evil and wrong, it was the ACT he chose to do. It is you who are wrong. None of you arguments hold up to any form of logic. How DARE you think that your opinion is some how more valid than mine because it fits in with your own narrow faith or belief system. Everything you said can be summed up in one sentence. You're not allowed to talk about that. Well I believe I should be allowed to discuss ANYTHING, and YOU are no better than me to tell me otherwise. If we lived by your rules there would be no civilization because EVERYTHING humanity has become is based on our ability to WARN each other about the dangers in our world. You seek to end that communication, and all the lessons that go with it under some delusion that if you don't talk about maybe it won't happen. Check out the link above if you horrible images so badly. A Nazi would see and say it was picture of a great achievement. A Prude would see it and it was bad because it's got naked people in it. Me... I see it as an example of what can happen if you don't stand your ground and fight every day for rights against those who think they are right just because THEY say so. I see a lesson that a simple lack of communication can cause the death of millions. What do you see?
Actually Rat I was in the ad biz for over five years and images are the single most important thing I focused on...it was my job and anyone with eyes can see that the art is designed exclusively to sell the product-sometimes its an actual photo,sometimes a little airbrushing,inks or even cg or paints as how its made makes no difference!Maybe you can explain how doing one image seen as offensive by consumers can destroy a multi billion dollar enterprise and put thousands of people out of work!!Doesn't matter if the image is painted,drawn,a photo or cg...if people find it offensive they'll find it just as offensive regardless of how its done!!!But since you were in the ad biz...you know that don't you (cause everyone else does)!
Lets say you argue that a cg image of a child being raped by an adult was wrong but a simple nude of a cg child female exposing her genitals was ok because she wasn't real...you cannot argue that the one is wrong "because Rat says so" and the other isn't!If its not real then it should mean nothing regardless of what the image depicts...you have the right to make a point,you also have the right to contradict yourself and be called on it!
As for the image and considering that I actually had family that died in those death camps,I can honestly tell you I see the death of innocents who fought for nothing more than the air they breathed!Isn't it ironic that you would use these people to make your point as they didn't die because they wanted to live in a world free of censorship,they were in fact among the worlds most repressive peoples when it comes to images of sexuality and yet you use them as an example...it was the nazi's who were unrestrained and who threw away the limitations we as a people impose upon ourselves-limitations we willingly accept by "sacrificing" personal liberties to ensure we are not the victims of those who believe they have the right to do as they please!
As for ending communication...seems you're the one that was in here telling people what they should think and that they were wrong because they thought differently than you!In a world full of Rats we'd see everyone crying for personal freedoms...then when they get into positions of power,the first thing they do is begin silencing anyone who disagrees with what they think...thats what the nazi's did so who's the nazi here and thanks for providing something I could throw back in your face!!!You may also remember how the nazi's plundered Europe of its art...they saw nothing more than canvas and oils with value,it was worth a buck and worth nothing beyond that!
You also speak of the law rosity was addressing...this law has been on the books now for a few years and the Supreme Court has yet to determine that cg images of child nudity are even truly covered by the Protect Act-its been held up and in initial conversations I had with the site owner here,she stated this to me herself as a reason rosity "did not" have standards prohibiting child nudity and that even if the image in question were a child it would not violate their TOS!!
Again,you know nothing about how this issue came about or why the TOS were changed...you make assumptions from an uninformed position!I still have the site owners emails to prove there was communication between us and I doubt they would deny it in any case as it is irrelevant save to you!!My initial post saying thanks in fact came as a direct result of an email from Tammy Choate containing the link asking me to check it out...I gave a simple thanks and departed because she already knew how I felt and that there was no need to say more.I then come back to find you muck raking the issue and trying to shout everyone else down.The nazi's were infamous for these type of brow beatings and I am deeply insulted by your comparison of myself to them when it is your behavior and beliefs that most relate to theirs!
Before you comment again...get a clue first as I didn't come here to argue,but I love to argue when I've already won the argument!I am a self prefessed pervert and proud of it...I do not support censorship and even have my own site with a Dungeon area for uncensored material!Yet,because we use a sense of reason...we don't allow images containing bestiality,scat or nude images of children!!We are more liberal in regards to "humanoid" figures with the definition being that they must look "anime" or possesses "faery" attributes...it is at our sole discretion that an image can be deigned as too much like a child and deleted!So again...you know nothing about me or my stand!Rosity is a huge site and they have to be tougher because they have way too many images being posted...this decision wasn't made because of the law or even as you state,because of me-it was made because the majority of members on rosity agree with me!Attempts to make the law address the issue of cg child nudity could have thousands of images taken from rosity and paraded before a public that pretty much doesn't even know rosity or cg sites like it even exist...just check the member homepages and you'll see that most "stumbled" upon it and fell in love!But,show the general public at large an endless stream of nude cg child images and the backlash would indeed destroy rosity...as for the law,all they would have to do is begin removing the images to comply with the law and nothing more would be done to them-so the change was in no way a matter of being forced to comply with a law!!
Sure the image of a black man being lynched would make a powerful statement "against" such horrors as would the image of a woman being gang raped or a child being molested...yet,I don't see people posting them as even though such images make a powerful statement-they also generate a lot of pain for those victimized by such crimes and being that you cannot seperate meaningful from exploitive in such cases-they are deemed tasteless and often banned or hidden!
But again...lets see you prove me wrong...do one of those images and post it to prove your point and not just post a link to an image taken or done by someone else!Put your money where your mouth is and back your words with your own work...if not,back off and lets let everyone else talk because you have become your own worst enemy in regards to making your point!
Sorry people...but I can make a better argument than Rat for "allowing" images of child nudity-I see both sides and both do have their strengths,just Rat here is playing on a weakness which is only hurting those who have posted objections to the changes-they have a right to be heard as well and not to have someone destroy their pov from within their own camp.Then again,if you're against child nudity...Rat here has actually served to prove the change was indeed necessary!Sorry Rat...but you seem to be the least informed of whats going on here and doing your own cause more damage than anyone else ever could!!
If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?
Well, what can I say. You seem to be a master of lying with the truth Armor. I'm sorry for any family you lost in WWII, and I can asure you I will "Never Forgot". I lost family freeing them. The rest of your arguing is bordering on nonsense to me, and while I would never let you work on ad campign, I will defend your right to spew it. Speech hurts NO ONE. It is only words. Pictures hurt NO ONE they are representations. Thoughts hurt NO ONE, they exist only in the mind of a person. Actions DO HURT people! Weather they are the actions of a child molester, a Nazi war Criminal, some one trying to stop words, pictures and thoughts by taking away our rights, or the ACTION of sitting idelly by and letting them do it. The question is what do we do about it all. I say listen, and hear everything. You can't do that if go around silencing people.
Somehow pedophilia, pics of nude children, porno, and child molestation all get jumbled up and the true intention of the thread is lost as usual. Pedophile predators are indeed prevalent in our society and it is a horrible thing...but check the statistics. The majority of cases of child sexual abuse occur within the family circle, and of those most happen within the immediate family circle. Not very supportive facts that simple nude graphic representations cause temporary insanity with the end result being molestation.
good rattler, you go make a personal website with all the ude children you want. just let us know if you can when your trial will be. if you can. if you are against censoring any thing that has nude kids in undress Renderosity has a responsiblity towards the communtiy as a whole. and if they break the laws, we lose a great site. unlike some of the artists i have seen here
"The majority of cases of child sexual abuse occur within the family circle, and of those most happen within the immediate family circle." What are you trying to say? It's OK to encourage it because it's just a family member? "Not very supportive facts that simple nude graphic representations cause temporary insanity with the end result being molestation." They don't. Any more than Judas Priest's music causes their listeners to commit suicide. Unfortunately, When someone is already mentally ill, they see things differently than the rest of us. Unlike the music-caused-my-kid-to-kill-himself bit, child pornography DOES encourage offenders. Don't take my word for it. Ask one. I did. Armorbeast: Thanks for the IMs. I see your point. -Heidi
One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam
Wow, this topic has really inflamed peoples passion. It is good that there is debate on it though. Sadly, it goes to show, that laws can be both good and bad. It is hard to get everyone to agree on the same thing. That is their right if they wish to agree or not. It is hard to keep a balance, when it involves the thoughts and feelings of another. You are dealing with anothers intellect. Knowledge is power and Ignorance is.... Much as I am for the protection for the rights of an individual, including a child. You do have to ask this question: How much freedom is taken away, until we take real notice? When it is too late? We do something drastic, so people take notice. I know this comment will get people's passion up. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist and vice versa. Think about it. If things get too much walk away. That is what I do!
I think that this is very difficult topic to debate, and I appreciate the reasons why renderotica needs to moderate its content. But I would like to raise a few points. If this is such a concern why doesn't Renderotica also ban the sale of characters and textures designed for the Millenium Children which clearly have genital depictions. If you use a texture produced by one of the vendors in the marketplace for the Mill Kids or Young Teen based models aren't the original artists of these products actually profiting at the expense of 'children' Why do you need genital textures of children anyway - if you are going to dress the models. I think it would be fair to say that whilst Renderotica will happily ban the posting of images - you can bet it won't remove those items from its store; images after all don't raise any revenue. So lets not be to hypocritical Guys - If you really want to help fight Virtual Child Porn - don't just ban the pics but be responsible - Ban the Child Porn Products !! If you take away the props it's got to make the production of these images harder. Pepsi
Err... Children have genitals. If you're doing a realistic texture, they're expected to be, well, realistic. Again, child nudity doesn't equal child porn.
Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com
Unfortunately the definition of pornography is so very open ended which is why it is so difficult to regulate and even more difficult categorise. Ultimately, if an image of a naked child, virtual or not causes any arousal or sexual desire, then that image can be classed as pornographic. Since it is impossible to tell what aspects of an image of a naked person cause arousal in any individual, it is equally impossible to make the distinction between what constitutes a pornographic image or not. Normally adjusted people can happily deal with child nudity, for example on a public beach or pool. Unfortunately our society has individuals which don't think that way and seek out these places to fulfill their voyeuristic activities. It is therefore the responsibility of those people that govern or run such places, such as Renderosity, to make them as safe as possible and to minimise the threat of a predatory individuals and not provide a 'honey pot' for the weirdos that seek out such images for personal gratification. Personally I can't think of any reason for posting an image of a naked child. Perhaps you would like to give some realistic examples of when it would be appropriate to post naked young teens and young children Caly, and perhaps some the other readers might like to comment on your suggestions; I know I will be waiting eagerly... Pepsi
Did I say Renderosity has to have nude kids? No. Just that child nudity does NOT equal child porn. Anyone that believes THAT has a problem, not I. As for when... You already stated places that it happens- like beaches and pools. Mom had nude pictures of me playing in a tub with toys. She also had another where she was in the middle of changing my clothes and I had crawled off to investigate stuff. Nude babies can make for beautiful paintings, especially as cherubs. Nude children can be found in paintings and photos- look through some online museums.
Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com
Babies are Babies Toddlers are Toddlers 8 - 16 year olds are are something else and it doesn't take a very big IQ to figure that. Also I'm sure your baby photos weren't on public display at the local town hall. Cherubs! - do I need to comment on that asinine remark. They are babies, in most cases depicting the innocence of the Christ Child. Context. Now point me at the renaissence galleries containing nude 8 - 16 year olds hmm, don't think there are any are there Quod Erat Demonstratum. Pepsi
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/gallery.ez?Sectionid=0&filter_genre_id=0&WhatsNew=Yes
Pepsi,as per your request.. Here is one link to a gallery where the image of a nude child can be tastefully displayed. You won't find any child porn there, as they have a TOS that guards against the exploitation of children as sexual objects (good for them!). But it does allow for the artistic beauty that is found in the nude rendering of all ages (again good for them!). Hope this helps,SWAMP
Attached Link: http://www.artunframed.com/images/jan/jan%20001.jpg
*lol* Seriously just look at any museums/galleries. The Louvre has nude sculptures of what look like teenage boys and girls. Look for galleries that have fairies & fae. Of course they don't come with ID, but plenty look young to me. http://www.faeriewylde.com/ Aa lot of paintings use transparencies... Nude, yet not. Regardless that's besides the point. Simply put nudity doesn't equal porn, regardless of age. *shrug*Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com
butterfly_fish, no I am not condoning child molesting [or kiddie porn] on any level...global or familial. Just pointing out that the 'majority' of these people are not mad persons roaming the streets seeking victims, but family members who have their victims close. As to asking "one" about getting heated up viewing kiddie porn, I am afraid "one statistic interview" is not very solid evidence for forming an overall criteria. Don't misunderstand me in my presentation, it is the whole censorship roller coaster that upsets me...something is allowed over a long period of time, suddenly it is no longer kosher.
"Nude children can be found in paintings and photos- look through some online museums. " They can also be found running down the street- I was 9 months pregnant with my second child, trying frantically to potty train my first child ( he wasn't quite 2 at the time) and he slipped out the door and ran down the sidewalk nude- laughing at me as i ran (waddled) after him, trying to catch him-now that would have been a hilarious photograph to send to all my relatives or put on a homegrown web site for family to view and dl and print out for their personal family albums. nakid child= porn? not when it's innocent in context, as long as they aren't in provocative or compromising positions. But then again, pedophiles don't actually care if children are naked or not- there's one dispicable site that's famous for pedophiles stealing family pictures of peoples children,( you know, home grown web sites of the " here's my lovely family" flavor) posting it on their forum and talking about what they would like to do to those children. That site is monitered very closely btw. It's a good thing it's not "monitored" by me- I'd have to hunt them down and kill them. There is one particular poster/merchant here who makes my stomache turn. No matter how much this person says their images are innocent, - it reeks of "sick pedophile" to me, but the images are allowed to stay. This same person also has the habit (according to a 3rd party) of when being brough to task or critisized for these same images, they push the line even harder- to tweek the ones critisizing them- also reeking of a phycological disorder. I'm just glad this person lives no where near me and my children. My gut-o-meter doesn't go off very often, but when it does- i listen- it's usually right. People have complained and brought these images to the PTB 's attention, yet they remain, while others ( not belonging to that particular person and no where nearly as graphical in nature) are pulled. The whole problem//issue here is and always has been- inconsistancy of application of the tos. While the PTB may try to be consistant, it hasn't happened yet, nor is it likely to happen any time soon. Best just to use some judgement, common sense, and if one gets slapped every now and again.. scream and rant about it in a forum thread, then wait for the next biggest crisis or fire to happen- cause there's always another on the way ( ok that last part was a bit tongue in cheek..) ;D
I am a little irritated that my first response was not posted in here, basically what i said before was what WhildCHild said ......why does renderosity ban the images but not the products, why do young children and im talking like under 10 looking need to have fully rendered textures. The question I had though and was not adressed and i feel it should be....many "Real" women either have very mature bodies and young looking faces or some have very petite bodies and young faces even in there mid 20's how can one judge if its a child, and not some one of age, it is not like they are real and can be carded...so what are we as artists to do when we do a fairy or a person with smaller breasts does that constitute as a minor....I agree with a majority of you that these are computer generated figures and whether a child or not they are protected under the first amendment the catch is we are using someone elses website. But seriously ....how can one judge age of a wire mesh, height alone is not a factor....look at many of todays leading men such as Elijah woods ...OMG he looks young and is a HObbit ....so height varies upon the creature created as well do the facial features such as fairies who to me embody the spirit of eternal youth. So just tell me how do you judge age on a wire mesh that isnt real.
I just had an interesting conversation with one of our European members regarding how Europeans view this issue in regards to art...he said that most Europeans truly do not understand the American view on this because they've never been here.He lived here for several years in the 80's and rightfully pointed out that most churches here have nude depictions of children in statues,imagery,stained glass windows and that even most bibles contain some level of nudity.Europeans tend to have the view from Americans crying out about the loss of freedoms and libertys regarding sexual imagery that there's a ban on all such images...from his view and rightfully so,its more an issue of Americans trying to exercise some restraints on the libertys we promote and that most Europeans either don't have or take for granted.He reminded me of ancient Greece and Rome...look at those peoples then and compare them to their contemporaries and you find a huge difference in moral values!
He was quite upset that many European commentors have made all Europeans look as if they condone not only child nudity but child pornography...like myself,he believes that they just aren't in an informed position and that the constant reference to cherubs is an indicator of this.
Cheryl brings up another interesting point as pedophiles do not need images of nude children to get their jollies...nor do they have to be images of real children.Pedophilia is a sickness and the issue before us isn't that we're feeding this sickness...the issue is what we are doing as a society in regards to right and wrong.
Some people make a lot of the fact that we don't allow nude images of children because it protects our children...at no point does it protect anyone as laws cannot prevent these crimes from taking place!These laws are designed to stop those who "perpetuate" these crimes by viewing or presenting the material for viewing...thats why the law goes after site owners and anyone caught viewing such images-other laws are called into play for those who actually commit the crime!Likewise,the law equally applys to images "portraying" children for the same reason...it perpetuates or acts as a supplicant to the real thing.We as a society ban many things that most are grateful for...scat for instance,I don't care if its real or not real,I don't want to see anyone taking a dump rofl!!
People who say its not real are merely making excuses,its not whether the image is real or not but what it represents!I make a challenge to these people to do an image of a cg adult having sex with a 3 year old child-every one of them refuses because on a personal level they would never make such an image.But why not?The reason is that their own sense of morality won't allow it...no matter how much they argue,they know its wrong from their own sense of right and wrong-and "it does not matter if its real or not"!They aren't arguing right or wrong...they're arguing the right to do it period!!Even if most will not do it,having that right will guarantee that many who have no such inhibitions will...at times every society sacrifices certain personal libertys simply to prevent this from happening!Even if it fails to totally stop it...it provides a means for dealing with it and helps a society establish the standards that define it.
If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?
"Well, what can I say. You seem to be a master of lying with the truth Armor.
I'm sorry for any family you lost in WWII, and I can asure you I will "Never Forgot". I lost family freeing them.
The rest of your arguing is bordering on nonsense to me, and while I would never let you work on ad campign, I will defend your right to spew it.
Speech hurts NO ONE. It is only words. Pictures hurt NO ONE they are representations. Thoughts hurt NO ONE, they exist only in the mind of a person.
Actions DO HURT people! Weather they are the actions of a child molester, a Nazi war Criminal, some one trying to stop words, pictures and thoughts by taking away our rights, or the ACTION of sitting idelly by and letting them do it.
The question is what do we do about it all. I say listen, and hear everything. You can't do that if go around silencing people."
Ratteler...my family in Germany wasn't a direct lineage and so glad you point out how you lost family to free them as I did as well!!You keep saying that I'm trying to silence people yet you're the one shouting to force people to accept your view...you say I'm a liar yet it seems that the ol Ratteler is the one with venom in his mouth-its the armored beast thats immune!!Hitler did nothing but speek and so glad you agree he had the right to do so...as he inspired one of the most evil period of bloodshed in world history with "harmless words" and maybe we should have stopped him-yet,he killed no one and committed no crimes-he merely gave the orders and aren't those harmless words?So glad you have just cleared Adolf Hitler of any blame or accountability for what happened in WW2...after all,the only crime he committed was speaking and thinking of what to say-he didn't commit the crimes himself!
Sitting by and doing nothing isn't an action ...its a choice and you choose to put the rights of an individual before the majority!True,at times the individual should have more rights because they are the same universal rights that everyone possesses yet are being denied...some people believe pornography is art and I include myself among them in that pornography "can be" art-but not every pornographic image is art and everyone including the artists themselves agree with that.The same rings true of imagery in general...just because you do an image doesn't make it art,its the judgement of others that make it art.Thats why one image is judged pornographic by some and art by others...likewise,the image of a nude child can be seen as art or pornography!Some people may look at a nude cg child and see pornography...that same person may look at the image of a real nude child and see art!!Art is indeed in the eye of the beholder...but society as a whole does not have one set of eyes and so we have a majority rule issue!
In reference to me being a liar,just contact the site owner as I still have the emails and could post them...but why not let her tell you herself as I think watching a ratteler swallow a crow would be quite humorous rofl!What harm do you really see in covering a childs genitals in an image ratteler...you make it sound as if first its this and next we're all in chains being marched to market!!I'd say that by allowing full upper body nudity rosity is still somewhat in violation of the law which says that its not the law they're trying to comply with...they're only trying to set a standard and you're the one saying they have no right to do so!!Its not even a total ban...but then again,maybe next they'll ban showing any animal with balls-course,snakes don't have those so you're ok there my friend!
I for one fully support this move and think they've drawn an excellent line not to cross...the issue of merchants though does bring up another sticky issue as it was actually one of my focus points-I wanted to know whay the merchants were not allowed to show the genitals of mil kids in the marketplace and yet could in their gallerys!With this change in TOS though,its rather a moot point but to answer-these characters can be morphed into adults and there are several such characters that have no childish features at all.Thus,it really isn't worth fighting over as long as the TOS are in play...but it is an interesting pov nonetheless. And ratteler...you don't need me to do an ad campaign for you-you need a psychiatrist and there I must profess I have no credentials. With that I say adios...only came back because someone copied "forked tongues" comment and sent it to me-had to see if it was true and think calmer heads with different pov's should take over since me and rat have slugged it out.I'm just not one to back down from a fight worth fighting...rat just loves to fight even if there's no fight to be fought,he's just gotta sink his fangs into the topic to spread some poison!
If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
"66. Re: TOS update by seansan2 on 3/8/04 12:00 ...However, whoever makes such images, actually, who ever floods the poser gallery with massive amounts of porn, period, should be at r'otica,..." I beg your pardon? Ok, porn yes, definitely, and lots of it >^_~ but child porn? No. From the TOS at Renderotica: "You may not post any images of the following on this website: CHILDREN DEPICTION OF CHILDREN OR CREATURES RESEMBLING CHILDREN (INCLUDING IMAGINARY CREATURES SUCH AS FAIRIES) UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN, EVEN IN NON-EROTIC SITUATIONS. As a rule of thumb, make sure that all your models, virtual or real, look clearly over 20. We realize that this is subjective and hard to determine with virtual figures, but we prefer to err on the side of caution in this matter. PICTURES THAT INCLUDE A TEXT SPECIFYING OR IMPLYING THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE CHARACTERS IS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, OR THAT INCLUDE PROPS AND SCENERY IMPLYING SUCH, ARE FORBIDDEN. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of "teen" anything, high school desks and classrooms and other words and situations implying that one or more of the participants is under 18. IMPORTANT: In the case of photographs where the age of the model may be in question, please send a copy of all models IDs, or proofs of age, to the moderators PRIOR TO POSTING." Please do not infer that Renderotica tolerates child pornography again. I find that personally insulting.