I was looking at a Product Showcase pic of an upcoming Kiki texture. The product images had the chest pixelated to obscure it. And it just looked so odd on this clearly cartoony little character - I mean the notion that it even that needed pixelating. It made it look so much more like the character was involved in something "nasty" that needed covering than any idea one would have gotten if the chest had been exposed. That the person who created it had to go to that length out of not wanting to offend someone here (and because that's the 'rule') really is kind of incredible. And a product image is kind of clinical anyway - they don't often drip with Context and Content. I'm not against the nudity tag per se or that people want it here for some warning for art images whose CONTENT may be more than someone wants to see. But with all that's going on in the US right now about indecency and censored speech and the active BLANDING Down (Ryan Seacrest anyone?) of everything, it just caused me some overall wonderment and a little worry. And one thing I was wondering, for the people who do get offended here at breasts, etc. or who say, "My KIDS see this stuff", etc - I wonder, do these kids not see you work in Poser while you're working in it? Do they not the see the figures nude at that time? Or are the children dispelled from the room until you can quickly load and conform an outfit to the nude figure? To maximize the chance that these kids don't see the nude figure, do you plan beforehand what outfit you will quickly load and conform? ...How far could I go here?

I know that may come off as facetious - I don't mean it to be. I think those are valid questions really for any of the people who pipe in "Nudity! Nudity!" when someone neglects to use the tag - which this wasn't even about but is related. Because if this person hadn't pixelated the Kiki image someone would've said something about it. And I guess I can't believe it MATTERS that much. Here at renderosity, Here in the US, anywhere... We all have breasts, chests, genitals and even these children that must be shielded, have tiny ones. Did you know? Maybe these people who would cry havoc don't see that they're there. But they are... : ) Brother... Pixelated Kiki...

And the last thing I wonder I guess, is why does it really matter? Is there a concrete reason? A study result? Do people really organically think it matters or did someone TELL them it matters? I don't know...

Now for a little context on who writes this, I'm born and raised in NYC and I'll be 40 in a few weeks. So I'm not a hippie with memories of running nude in the mud and living devil may care. I'm fairly conservative and just slightly too old (or wise) for the Reagan and Bush (I) administrations to have had much influence on me. Later, Dave

Please not this again! Do people ever get tired of dragging this up? Marque

In this case, it is being told. It's also a matter of being safer than sorrier. Renderosity is, for better or worse, PG, in the marketplace. Places in the US where full frontal nudity is featured do not have the cache of common decency applied by the overarching cultural mores, and renderosity does not wish to be relegated outside that general group as a marketplace. Renderosity does not only sell Poser content. They sell content that is meant for several packages, many of which do not feature figures, and folks who may wish to purchase some of that may not wish to see nudity when they browse through a store. It is not an issue of right or wrong. It is an issue of courtesy and respect and tolerance -- both of wild hedonism and stoic conservatism. Very hard to tread the middle path without getting the vile little Mr. Seacrest involved. It is a matter of personal choice. Some persons care, some don't. In this case, the folks who own the market care a bit, and so merchants have to operate accordingly.

Well.. it's my picture, my product. I actually gave it some LONG and serious thoughts both before I pixelated those parts and before I put the nudity tag on the picture. I am pretty sure that had I NOT done it, there would have been people complaining over it too. Personally I found it utterly foolish to blur Kiki's non existing breasts/genitalia, but I opted for the "better safe than sorry" solution. Of course I could have put the bikini on her as well, but that would sorta ruin the point of showing a body texture... I agree that it's mostly a cartoon character and as such the nudity shoudn't reqally matter, but I remember all the recent fuss about Khrys' anime male genitalia where the pic was banned becourse the character didn't have any pubic hair and therefore was deemed underage. Kiki is, with her almost baby-like proportions, so definately underage. Funny enough, when I had made the pictures, hubby came by and asked me why she wasn't wearing any pants.... now THAT made me wonder more than anything else :o/ I mean.. it's a toon. it's a MESH... it's not a REAL KID for crying out loud. And he has been bathing our own daughters when they were babies without questioning that. So what is it in a nude render that triggers something in otherwise reasonable people?!

'reduction to the mean' is more then a scientific term- but the excuse of spinless cowards.

"So what is it in a nude render that triggers something in otherwise reasonable people?!" FEAR of being branded a pervert or a kiddy fiddler maybe. Here's an example of what I mean using photos instead of renders :) When I was 9 my brother & I used to play in a paddling pool in the garden naked (completely innocent of course) my mum took a picture of us playing & got it developed no hassles or comments (I have a copy of the picture as well). Not too long ago a family was broken up & the kids taken into care because the dad took a picture of his kids playing in the bath naked, the developer got onto the police & they took it from there. Now I'm not saying it's right for people to ogle pictures of kids but reason seems to have been shoved into a dark cupboard with the door locked these days.

One thing is pedophilia....the other is captureing an innocent happy moment. and people that cant see the difference need seriouse help. NOT everyone is a pedophile. and NOT everyone that looks at pictures of a kid{or takes them} in a bath is a pedophile. god what is the world comming to. it was common to have a pic of your kids in the bath or laid on the towel when they are giggling and rosey and beautifully pure. now you run the risk of being turned in as a perv??????? we need to pixilate kiki? please is this what it is all coming to? we can not even look objectivly anymore as A BODY TEXTURE? ~shakes her head~ time to hang it up and quit.

I see what you're saying, c1rcle. I have pictures of my oldest kid at about 3-4 years old, and nude. my daughter playing with the neighbour's son, out on the parking lot, with water guns :o) Totally innocent, but yeah, I'd reckon those pictures COULD mean trouble if they were taken today - and they WERE taken only 10 years ago. Within the last 10 years, you have been presented with one pedophile story after another, and naturally the awareness is growing, but growing to a point where reason and common sense has little room. It's like the people who equals nudity with sex and porn. None of us are (yet) born clothed so why is it that nudity is so frowned upon? Yes I am sure a lot of "normal" people are afraid to be labeled perverts, and that causes them to go to the other extreme. And to cases where things get way out of hand and leads to broken families and prison and public condemnation :o( Oh we still burn people on the stake nowadays. It's just a little bit more subtle. But only a little. When people starts to put up posters of SUSPECTED pedophiles we're not far from a public pillory.

I think most folks understand that it's just a texture on a bunch of polygons, but there are some who are offended, and I respect their point of view as well as the rest. I don't know why this keeps getting dragged up again. If you don't like the rules the site puts down, go. It's that simple. You know they are not going to change it no matter what your argument might be, so why keep wasting time on it? I don't care one way or the other. But obviously renderosity does or they wouldn't have written the tos the way they did. Marque

when I was a kid, my sister and I bathed in the tub in the basement, and we had this fun game, where we ran totally nude and wet up the basement stairs and tried not to be caught by our parents. one time we came storming up the stairs, my parents were ready with the camera and they took a picture of my sister and I in the buff looking quite befuddled! I remember that as a joyous time with loads of fun. but what if someone found that picture today? they'd probably accuse my parents of something they never would do. :P it's dangerous to live. :rolleyes:

Ya GOTTA love Political Correctness. I can't even refer to myself as a mixed blood anymore because one side of the other takes offense at the title. Lemme tell ya, it's no wonder we have so many schizophrenics and Dissociative Identity Disorder patients these days...no one knows who, or what, they are because someone, somewhere is going to take offense at something and make an issue out of it. I say bugger all that and let's just go back to being polite to each other and not hurting each others feelings on purpose, and when we do make a mistake, apologize for it and don't go looking for a lawyer to help put the best spin on the situation. But that's just me.

you cant say mixed blood???please tell me you are joking.

Hummm, who isn't mixed blood? I'm a heinz 57 myself. 8^) Marque

I have all kinds of blood in me.. gypsy, black, royal, swedish, danish..ANd the list probably goes on! but don't let the gypsy and black blood fool you, the sun and I don't agree, so i'm white as a sheet! LOL

SWEDISH too?!... EWWW! ;o) J/K...san da... LOL

I certainly understand following TOS rules and I don't say not to. I'm just saying the trend now is that if you complain (in this country; not so much literally at Renderosity) to the right somebody about something someone said or wore or didn't wear; it can be seriously considered no matter how ridiculous (like nudity for example which I already said is no mystery to even a child). And so the sight of little pixelated Kiki was like a beacon for how far it's gone. It was like the rule or notion of offense was suddenly as ridiculous as the pixilation looked. (It's a nice texture btw, ernyoka1) : ) That's all. And don't get me started on Political Correctness which basically means lying to people... "Don't say it looks bad. Don't hurt their feelings." I'm glad that seems to be on the way out. Dave again - who speaking of mixed blood is not only half-black and half-white but also my mother is from Wales making me half-Welsh as well as Half-American. So, you see, my views are fairly broad and accepting. I've seen and see a lot of angles. And there's a LOT more to be offended about out there. Being rather light-skinned and finely featured, can you imagine what I've heard when no one knew there was a black person in the room? : )

Yep,Dave, and everyone else, using the term "mixed blood," especially in an area where the majority of the population has "white mans paperwork to prove they are a red man" can get you smacked by both colors. When I was in the Navy, one of my "punishments" for being a big mouth about civil rights was to be made the "race relations facilitator" for my division. That was way cool, to me. My first main training session I was the only seemingly Anglo face in the room so I got to make the coffee, sweep the floors, empty the trash, clean up after everyone, and do the rest of the "menial" work so I would know what it meant to be a minority. No problems! To me it meant I didn't have to go back to a ship I hated and a crew I loathed. Besides, I grew up in an integrated household and most of my family either has, or does, work in social services. Race was never an issue when I was growing up. I had to go into the military to find out what it was about. It's good that we can discuss such things in forums such as this. Rational interchange and discussion make for rational people. I applaud everyone involved in this thread for their common sense and hope it spreads like a virus. (Can you say "virus" on a computer board??)

I dont get along with the sun either have an actual allergy to it. and I am spanish and cherokee. born in mardid. heh one side keeps trying to run the other out is what I joke. not very politcaly correct. only time I was actually scared due to it{have had a few probs but nothing big} was after 9-11 because I "looked like I could be one of 'em" due to my eyes and general features{I dont see it but apparently enough other people did,never mind I am just about as white as you are going to get with green blue eyes} it is all in some peoples minds. just like the nudity thing. it is all in there mind. if god {goddess/great earth mother/what ever deity you believe in} creats us naked blesses us to come into the world that way then why are we screaming it is bad and wrong? I just dont get it.

"If you don't like the rules the site puts down, go" and when live/modern society coms with insanely absurds or restrictive and overly cautious /correct rules what you do ? wel if i follow your idea, if i don't like th websiter's rule, i just quit the website, if i don't like life's rules, i just quit lie. ... hmm where did i put this damn gun ? my filthy head need some lead in it to correct my deviant mind ! when i read all again and agan about this inquisition like thing, this blatant paranoia , all i see is that because of such the fuss abotu it, medias and perople so far (in my coutnry a least) achieve the reversal effect: when shown how hard it was to track pedophils down, and how easy it was to step into it, in the past few years of mediatic pedophilia inquisition, the "known" and reported cases number grown by something like 300% at least ! in fact many "wanabe pedophiles" who were caught were in fact, in some way, made self confident in "trying" somethign hey would never even had the idea of, becase of tv. It also became a way to "burn at stake" anyone, just lik in inquisition, you just needed to say "she is a witch", no need to proove it... well nowadays it is the same, you do not need proofs, or details, just spit out the word loud at someone in public and the "target" is socially dead forever, no matter the efforts or the truth. you know what it reminds me ? it is like "retroactive" plants/fruits in terry pratchett's discworld, like retroactive wine, which gives you headache BEFORE you drink it, or retroactive grape, so, which you can harvest the year BEFORE you sew it (of coruse if you then forget to sew it after harvestign it, you just ruin the tspacetime continuum) this topic (and some similar ones) just keep sprouting every day, because of the fear, the doubt, the need of justification of people, the fear of being targeted (falsely most of time) or to preemptively affirm out loud you are in the "RIGHT" side before you risk being put by some in the opposit side. fear, paranoia, suspicion.. well all this has just gone INSANE ! so far it is the most accurate word i could came with. Nice to think that, as a word, insanity in english means what we know, but in my native langage, it means "vulgarity" too !!! vulgarity of the mind, what a nice word trick ! :)

I didn't say quit life, I said quit complaining about it. I get tired of hearing the complaining in a forum, go complain where it counts. A few people may read it here that agree, but for the most part, not enough to make a difference. You make a difference by changing laws, not by changing a forum's rules, especially when they are also a business. This site does not rule what I do in life, you can trust me on that one. If it did I would be quick to follow what the majority wants when in fact I follow what I feel is right. I don't try to push my rules on others but I do respect folks enough to let them have their say. It just gets old when you see the same arguement week after week after week. Tomorrow we'll probably be seeing the one about how poser folks aren't artists. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, or that the tos is right or wrong. I'm just saying that most of the folks who come here have already complained about the tos and it hasn't changed. Where is that dead horse pic when you need it? Marque

i think i just saw a dead hos pic in a topic from zarabanda in educationnal speech about digital cloning (see ? yet another annoying recurring argument about rampaging frantic copyrights paranoids... it is always all but the same old babbling all the time...)

Marque:-"Tomorrow we'll probably be seeing the one about how poser folks aren't artists" Nope, I think I've effectively seen that start (and helped it do so, sortof) already. This time starting from what looks like Poser users being shocked that other lowly talent-free oiks might produce "Instant Art" from clipart and/or DAZ Studio. I wonder - ought we to have a "sticky" FAQ which is always message #1? It could start something like: Q. Where can I get a pirated copy of A. Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. No, seriously, go away - you're not wanted here. Q. Does Poser produce REAL art? A. No - people do. Some of them might use Poser in the process. Q. I see there are "violence" and "nudity" tags - these don't apply to my posts though, right? A. Rules are for everyone. If they're applied evenly then they're easier to understand and work with. It is at best extremely impolite to ignore such rules. Q. Nudity - but that doesn't apply to ANIME-style cartoon characters, does it? Kikki, Sarah, Victoria 3 if I make her eyes a big larger..? A. Again it's easier to apply the rules across the board than to try and pick a slippery hard-to-define line between what's "pornographic" (however softly) and what's "art" or "too unrealistic to count". This is probably why the nudity flag is called nudity, and not "soft porn" or something similar. Q. Someone has blatantly ripped off my Arnold-whatshisface texture. They've changed the tint of the texture and a couple of other facets, but you can easily tell it's mine. It took me hours and hours to produce that, over a period of weeks, from several source photos I got from the net and I'm fuming about the copyright violation! A. Which one - the one caused by copying "your work" or the violations you perpetrated by copying from Internet photos? and so on and so forth. Actually, if someone with a better feel for sarcasm and irony than I could put together a betetr Q&A list... might it even be humerous enough to WORK, as a plan? (Assuming R'Osity could make it a sticky)?? Cheers, Cliff FWIW I don't necessarily agree with the rules or the laws (the law is an ass, after all!) but don't see the Poser forum as the place to fix these issues.

It's not naked, it's got its coat on :)

A Dead Horse "With A Coat On" in a Temple with a sword? :OP I'll change the title, we know who(3d) suggested it. :O) It doesn't 'behoove" me to say "neigh", we know who(3d) is right. ;O)

I sit here, my equinemity unaffected, wondering if I should stop horsing around and go and do some work... nah! Never mind - soon we'll be able to use MILLENIUM horse images, from the product page (so no need to buy the model) to post to these oft-repeating threads :) Chers, Who...?

Stop!...Stop!...I give up! "...MILLENIUM horse images, from the product page", I saw a thread about the promo pics.I hope they correct that gaff quickly. Back to "Nudity".

Not a gaff, apparently, just DAZ being cleverer than everyone else. However, I sugegst instructing me "Back to Nudity" might be a gaff of tremendous proportions. I've put on weight in recent years (not a pretty sight). Cheers, Who...? (and with that, I'll leave insanity behind and put on my "straight man" face)

Look, quit the dead horses already, my life. The day we have forum software that keeps a topic alive as long as people want to discuss it, instead of three days max before it gets buried, is the day that people will stop reposting the same topics time and time again. It's not their fault!

Quote: Here it is; A Naked Dead Horse In A Temple With A sword. :O) OMG!! hahahahaha thanks for the horse-laugh, it does a body good hahahahaha :D

in fact i really don't understand why this archaic forum style is still up... someother board systems such as phpbb are much more convenient, at least for posterS/readers...

Marque, the point was not brought up with the desire to affect a TOS change. I'm not complaining about the TOS Rule! Marque! I'm was simply pointing out the trend to whitewash and censor these days - the kiki image was just a catalyst for holding up a mirror to a larger situation. Much too heady now I'm realizing for a forum topic... And since it is a little OT (Off Topic), I probably shouldn't have posted it here. But jeez, the post was not as base as "get rid of the nudity tag" and I'm sorry that that's all you're getting or got out of it. : )

However, I still really would like to know how the people who say "my kids will see this nude image" deal with what their kids see when they're using Poser. That was a real question... : ) Dave

Those people prolly have the genital option off, or they only open Poser when their kids are asleep L My kids have been playing with Poser as long as they were big enough to use it (and the big one has been playing ever since I got it) One time the little one came across a erhm.. VERY well-equipped character.. I didn't even know I had it, or I think I'd have steered her away from that folder, but she simply broke into abursting giggle.. "Mommyyy... look at his winkie GIGGLE-GIGGLE-GIGGLE isn't it GROSS?!" and then that was it. she still refers to it from time to time with a giggle but IMO she hasn't been permanently damaged L On the other hand I do NOT make Renderotica-pics in front of my kids. But I don't even do that in front of my HUSBAND either G Gotta be a LITTLE modest :o)

I dont have any kids but I do use poser on my laptop on the train (public transportation = zero privacy :) ) I opened up to default don casual character, zoomed in on his face, switched him out for M2, inserted clothes, conformed clothes, make sure genitals were off and zoomed out to continue. For next character, inserted don casual, and repeated the process.

well, my guess is people who don't do Poser (!) are far more sensitive to nudity. what we don't even see as nudity (like a product page of a texture - you look at the details and the quality, not at the nekkid person) can seem like a "nude picture" (and not art, for that matter...) ;) and about the issue of the same questions being asked all over again - don't you remember what it's like being a newbie and being told what you're doing isn't worth a damn thing because it's Poser?.. give them a break, they're just new around here.

Riddokun:

when shown how hard it was to track pedophils down... the "known" and reported cases number grown by something like 300% at least !

===============

The "nudity flag" is not an anti-adult porn, anti-pedophile or ant-job losing cind of thing alone. It's a rule which was created, I assume, based on a number of concerns (including all of the above and probably more).

I'm often astounded at the lengths peopel will go to APPARENTLY to attack this simple rule of courtesy. The rule does not prevent nudity from being psoted - post away! It is an enabler - it enables people to avoid a (rather broadly defined) specific type of image that FOR WHATEVER REASON they don't want to see. It sometiems seems like specific reasons for not wanting nudity to pop up on ones screen are being attacked in order to belittle those reasons and, eventually, the rule.

My apologies for this post, but Riddokun's post above hit a raw nerve that's been tingling during this thread. To start with, let me please state that if it's so hard to find out about these pedophiles then why has the detection rate increasd by "300%"? That seems to be somewhat contradictory. It could be, perhaps, that such disgusting behaviur is on the increase. Given the nature of technology I'd say it probably has - but to that degree? May I submit that contrary to snide and/or thoughtless comments that the detection and/or reporting rate has been increasing?

You see - there always have been a great number of sickos out there, but many of their victims have seriously been unaware that they were victims, or too ashamed to admit to what happened. I knew someone who suffered abuse as a child, and I saw them suffer agonies for months once they'd decided, as an adult, to report it. It's had a lasting affect on them, but judging by the last time we discussed it the fact that they "came out" and took it to court (and won) has been a tremendous vindication and boost to that person, and wouldn't have come about if our society hadn't started to try and make it clear that the law says such behaviour is untenable.

To belittle the attempts that have been made to make people more aware of pedophilia is, to me, disgusting. To use such an offensive attitude in an attack on a rule on a web site to limit images from appearing if the viewer so chooses seems to me to be totally inappropriate. I can't put myself inside the head of someone who has themselves suffered - I'm not imaginative enough. But I have seen at least some of the distress that it's caused, and some after-effects many years after the fact. I can't imagine how anyone who has been affected personally by sexual assault feels whenever attempts at "PG" morality are ridiculed, but I don't imagine they make them feel any better.

Laws, rules, guidelines are generally created by (or based on) mass agreement. "Morality" is variable, for example - the mores of the day depend on the civilisation of the day, there is no fixed "good" or "bad" per se. At the moment ON BALANCE it's felt that allowing people to not view nudity on Rendersity, if that's what they wish, is a good thing. Is it SO terribly wrong for artists/brokers to shy away from suggestions of pedophilia if they want to? Should they or civilisation REALLY be criticised for trying to draw a line, however arbitrarily? Is it REALLY "sad" or "terrible" if someone feels that they should censor the undeveloped sexual body parts of a model designed to appear childlike? Why? Who does it REALLY hurt? Can you, for example, only judge the quality of a texture by the nipples?

Sorry for going on, it's just that I can't shake Renderosity by the shoulders and shout "WAKE UP".

I have one child. He often sees me posing naked dragons and dinosaurs. As it happens Poser starts up with the wooden mannequin, but that's only because it's a light character that I fancied on the day I set the default up. I'd imagine he's seen Posette and Victoria2 naked various times, but not so much that he's ever mentioned it. I don't think nudity is automaticlaly bad by any stretch, but I think if peopel don't want to see it (or voilence for that matter) then they have a perfect right not to. That R'Osity makes it possible to avoid nudity in forums and gallerie s(and I assume the marketplace) seems to me to be only sensible. For reference, I allow adult images on Renderosity at present (this may change as my sone gets older, or it may not). I wouldn't dream of allowing naked or violent images to show up when at a clients site, however (my nearest equivalent to "at work" where there may be anti-nudity rules if one wishes to remain employed).

Cheers,

Cliff

Now I am asking.. Please don't misunderstand me, I'll try to be as square as possible... Since this whole discussion was triggered by one of my pictures, I of course have quite a lot of feelings involved here. Should I remake the picture? Should I put the bikini on Kiki? Or is the pixels ok? Does the PIXELS make it "worse" so that I should rather have her unpixelated and just with the nudity tag? btw I deliberately DID NOT make any nipples on that texture. As well as no genitals whatsoever. So the pixels are actually hiding ... nothing. I am honestly trying to find the best type of promotion picture for Dot, where I can show the texture without stomping on anyone's toes.

OK, I've gone and had a look (hadn't bothered previously) although I seriosuly doubt your images are the cause for the thread - it just happened to be the image that provided the impetus... it could have been any of a number of other images, I suspect. Heh, cute but I see what Dave says about it appearing incongruous - definately out-of-place. Personally I don't think it really needs changing, but if you were to change it you have 2 problems: 1. If you don't put a bikini on her then you'll risk offending those who don't like seeing nekkid humaniforms (perhaps especially children rather than "even children"). 2. If you do put a bikin on her (I'd go with blue myself, at least that's what I pictured) you risk offending people who buy and then complain "where's my bikini? There's one on the image, surely that means I bought a bikin as part of the pack??". Or to put it another way, you're in a no-win situation. I think on balance you have already taken the most "sensible" approach - as out of place as it looks - seemingly avoiding either of the major pitfalls while managing to find your own niche pitfall (callign attention to sexuality by smudging). I suspect that there is no win-win situation with this liek there's no win-win situation in many of lifes little trials. At least you got your product talked about (as a neat side-effect!). Cheers, Cliff PS if my diatribe above has anything to do with your becoming concerned at the images use then please discount it - it really is a reaction to a few recent posts which apparently belittle current "anti-pedophile" attitudes which set me off, and neither the model nor your texture in any way concern me. I'm daft but I'm not THAT daft!

well, I honestly don't know anymore! :) I see nothing offensive in your image, but I don't see anything offensive in product pages of textures for the MilGirls when they are all young and naked - I see it as a product page.. and please don't get me wrong - I think pedophilia is disgusting and absolutely terrible, but I don't see a picture of a naked girl to showcase a texture as pedophilia. I'd leave it as it is... who3d is right, there's always a chance you'd hurt someone feelings no matter what you do.

I would have the picture unpixelated. If there's nothing to hide, don't try to hide it. It's like trying to put underpants on a Henry Moore.

Would it have been better (as in more acceptable) if I had put black(or whatever colour) bars over the pixelated spots? Or would that make it worse? If there's anything I DON'T wan, it's to make little Kiki (or Dot) appear SEXY in any way... shes a little KID! I pixelated it to not offend people. Now it seems that was exactely what happened. You're right, Cliff, this IS a no-win situation :o( sigh Phantast, forgive my ignorance, but.. what's a Henry Moore?

: ) well since I posted originally, in regards to changing the image I'll say I don't think you have to change it. I guess people probably won't have the heady reaction I had to it. It's likely not too many will think anything more about it than its cuteness and the TOS rule being followed - which it is and which is fine. It's funny though that you confirm that the pixelation is covering nothing (ie no nipples, etc) because that's what it looks like. Which I think is what got me thinking in the first place. How ironic to have to cover... nothing... my point completely. : ) Maybe you can appease the masses by having the character holding little feathered fans over her chest and panty-area like a little Kiki Rose Lee... : ) (Now I'm being facetious). Dave

Okay... I realise that me daring to reply to an insult/assault upon me by a rigtheous flawless influent member of RO communauty as yourself will surely bring upon me shunning and despise because I should not even dare to explain myself, reply to your insults, and moderators/coordinators will come to the rescue and either delete my posts or lock the thread.. but sorry i am a lame bastard and usually when i am kicked unfairly, i use to fight back instead of giving next cheeck for another beating... So for sure, i can tell i am REALLY impressed by such desmonstration of might and "legitimate anger" speech of yours, really; i hesitated a few second between going back to my rat hole and hung myself in redemption for my sins, or simply calm down and have a laugh at how funny it is !!! so for all of you folks who did not understand, i will summarize briefly who3d's high opinion about my lame poor self : i am a damn pedophilia supporter that is always on the run to any opportunity to contest/overthrown simple courtesy rules as nude flags, that i sure want to be removed !!! wooow how laughable. I know my english is not good because not my main langage, and many ethical or philosophical or technical discussions can put me short of correct words, btu my english is poor ONLY if you take the time to READ IT of course, not scannign through a few triggering anger words to build up a nice shiny armor to put yourself in the "right side" and punishing a bad guy. I really wonder if you ever tried to read and understand my point or what i said. but i won't repeat it or explain it because i think it was simpel and clear enough for those who took the time to ead it. for you i'll simply quote your message step by step : --- The "nudity flag" is not an anti-adult porn, anti-pedophile or ant-job losing cind of thing alone. It's a rule which was created, I assume, based on a number of concerns (including all of the above and probably more). --- So i am an idiot twho do not understand the meaning and goal of such a simple courtesy feature such as nudity flag ? well i am an idiot, and what i understand of nudity flag is: whenever a character is naked on a picture (mine, other's), i put the flag on; if the character is not naked i don't put it. Simple and easy, even an idiot like me could understand such a simpel thing. Oh wait.. but what does naked mean ? Take a look: nudity as a flag is aimed at recognition of possibly offending material for unsuited viewers (either childrens, or people who do not want/like to see nudity, regarding either their custom/believes and the place where they browse RO.. at office sure it is embarassing) I am an idiot so i keep focusing my mind on the most influencable and vulnerable viewers concerned by the nudity flag: childrens ! what kind of nudity could offend them, what kind of nudity they would need to be protected from that the outside real world is not already assaulting them with ? It may be contradictory but so far i choosed to stick on the definition of nudity (for RO flag regards) as needed for "bare chested" females, and entirely naked characters regardless of sex. It is strange because one should view MALE bare chest as much nudity as female one, but our society and custom is "indulgent" over topless males, but female breasts seems to be an issue (but again, another paradox: what are babies sucking usually for milk ? and so older siblgings do see in such a moment... let it pass and forget it). Now for some fun, nudity or "offensing" nakedness even depend on cultures !!! For a muslim person, swimsuits are as much nudity as total nudity as far as they are concerned. I am sure some muslim fellow are working/using RO too and they are offended whenever they see a swimsuit dressed character, while they sure did turned the nudity off their profile ! lets back to our sheeps: i am idiot and take some drastic decisios, would they soudn paradoxal or flawed: Naked character: nudity on Top naked female: Nudity on Other than that: Nudity off... --- *I'm often astounded at the lengths peopel will go to APPARENTLY to attack this simple rule of courtesy. --- so do i, when i read you !!! it is the same way of thinking, but on the behalf/service of the opposit side; so it does not worth MORE no matter the meaning, as the way to express it is the same... I mean, nudity tag is a courtesy, it is to allow people who think it is unsuited or uninteresting for them to see, or let see, pictures of naked/nude characters (they have their reasons, i don't care about, it is theirs.. what matter is they have a way to apply their freedom of thinking and use the website accordingly). Of course it is not (in its initial aim/goal) a antiporn/anti anything measure. but while many people see nudity flag just for what it is: courtesy, and a flag, and a end by itself (on, off, need to switch it or not, end of the speech), others are really eager to see it as ONLY a FIRST STEP towards a rigtheous and morally acceptable way ofr tghinking/life they really would like to enforce upon others, using "self guilt" feelings to cast upon people who dare no think like them. so sorry who3d, but while nudity flag is supposed to just be a convenient tool of courtesy, some people want/like to TURN it into a weapon or a ramp to jump further ! While i wont question the reasons of someone using the flag according to his needs and feelings, i seriously doubt of the fairness of the other kind of people i described here... --- My apologies for this post, but Riddokun's post above hit a raw nerve that's been tingling during this thread. --- let me remind you one of the first lesson on Internet you sure had learned before me, and i hope, not as hard the way as i did: you NEVER can assume to knwo everything/rightly the person you are speaking too ! Oh sorry i tickled a nerve on you ? too bad.. did you ever considered that THIS thread triggered a nerve on me TOO, for me to answer on it instead of just reading it and having a good laugh abotu how it was ridiculous and all again all the same ? Hmm so now your clever mind quickly ellaborate smart deductions so taht if it triggered my nerve and i replied the way i did that offended you SOOOOO much, i sure MUST be a damn bastard pedophil freak that clumsily try to "DEFEND" his deviance !!! If you manage to get such an explanation, without prooves and no matter the reality, then you are REALLY REALLY strong, have a crystall ball ? well then please wash it a bit because it is blurry !!! I know enough on pedophilia, i just hope you do not know as much as me about it becasue of same reasons or else i would be sorry for you , no matter our argument ! What i just stated is that simply overexposing it by the medias, it had twisted effects, far from the "protection/information" goal people wanted to achieve ! Aside from a dangerous thing tat existed since many years ago, now it is also an inquisition tool with which anyone can ruin his neighboor's life, as much as witch factor during inquisition. Of course you catch monsters, that's good, but how many peopel use this to also sacrifice innocent people ? (yes sometimes there are "setup" traps around it, but no matter truth is discovered, once "labelled" or targetted with the so frigthenign word, you coudl even rather go straight and do it for real, because een if innocent, once accused you are guilty, no need of proofs...). The other effect it had (so far in my counry) is that we discovered moe cases taht ocne before would have been hidden (good thing) but also gave idea to people who never tried it, turning more people into monsters than there were already in store. I am idiot, btu if capturing one mosnter also sacrifice 1 innocent and create two more monsters in the process, well i check back my maths but at the end you loose ! (numbers are purely example...i hope the proportions are not that simple...)

post was too long, splitted it, following goes below: --- To start with, let me please state that if it's so hard to find out about these pedophiles then why has the detection rate increasd by "300%"? --- but also people are now AWARE of the +300% deection effectiveness increase.. we saw in TV news regularly how policemen do work in this matter and such. As this, all it coudl achive is that would be monsters would be far more cautious than before to avoid such "increased detection", other former monsters would avoid now "on spot" ways and hid themselves even further. What would have been a benefit for such "detection increase" would have been not to expose it in detail to the public, and keep it for the law enforcers. Once one know he is tracked, and how the hunters work, it sure help him more than anything ! All it seems to me is like a giant handbook tat says "how to become a pedophil withotu risk", explaining how it is easy to become one, where/how to do, what you shoudl avoid and such... for the medias to be such a source of information is a disturbing thing to me... but the medias in my counry are doin far worse on this matter... --- To belittle the attempts that have been made to make people more aware of pedophilia is, to me, disgusting. --- well for me it is disgusting at the moment it makes the pedophiles as aware as the potential victims, because then it is a draw ! so i do not oject/contest in the need to inform and make peopel and society aware, i am just strongly revolted at the clumsy and inneficient way it is done, because it does as much good as it does bad ! speak of it:ok, speak of it and helpign it grow in the same time: no ! want an example right here ? as you seem very responsable person, and you begins such responsability with you own family (that's good), you already are takign precautions, like in your poser installation, okay. But well, how on earth he world/society did run/work before our so modern enligthened knowledge of this thing ? i am sure that before, some cildrens (you, me in our very early days) were exposed to nudity. We were not turned into sickos, or traumatised by it for our whoel life at that time. Why ? we sure had seen naked skins before we were intended/supposed to (magazines of daddy, tv, addvertising on the street etc). But at that time there was not a rampaging paranoid feelign abotu it. Often, when nudity wasinvolved in a genuine and not "sick" way, there was NO NEED to shout out loud for childrens and say we were protecting them. It is by screamign otu loud moe than we should or more often that it would have been reasonnably required that we too conribute into traumatisign childrens... My parents often had pictures of me naked at 3 or 4 in my little plastic swimming pool at summer, on our shelves... Now i am sure they wouldn't dare keep such photos, no matter how innocent they were thinking when taking them, becasue any guest in the house could sue them ! or i could. See how far it went ? what would never had been doubted (sincerity, genuineness) 30/20 years ago are now a raw material to torment people whenever one need. Now everyone has to double or triple check his acts before makign anythign, because it MAY be misunderstood or used against them. so much pressure.. and the real monsters are still at large and without much fear . We are too busy to pedophilia-charging ourselves each other to ever be able to act accordingly against real danger ! sorry i find it sick, that's all ! see, in beginning of RO, no one would ever had think abotu the urgent and imperative need to pixelise a nude texture showcase ! now, we must remember to do this, "just in case", woudl it ever offend someone or give ground to suing or assault ! I don't think RMP merchants are all but dangerous sickos that censor themselves not to bring attention on their filthy habits they in fact do not have. once i learned a motto/saying that said: "beauty is in the eye of the one who behold. Well i can also apply this here: sickness, or evil or sin can sometime only be on the eye of the one who behold ! now what you make me think of is someone who REALLY need the shinny armor routine to clearly state loud you are on a crusade against evil (me actually), adn you rather move first, adn shout otu loud to claim how rigtheous and saint you are before anyone may have an oppotunity to put you on the bench of the wrogn side (without proofs and be it wrong, of course) so you prefer strike first and give a "sacrifice" to would be angry mob, before this mob find yourself being an as good sacrifice/scapegoat. Strike first before someone ever think of striking you ! how nice... now i repeat: i understand (maybe wrongly, but at least a bit) the concept of nudity flag, i udnerstand the danger of pedophilia too (unreated to this topic, so let pierce the wound for good and get rid of it) and i am in favor of information and warning towards would be victims; i am not in favor of such good ideas and behaviors to be used in favor of either integrists, "holier than you" people, or monsters we try to protect ourselves from. If those tools become their weapons, then they are not efficient to me. want a good example ? here at rosity: GalleryImage608787.jpg (sorry rebuild the direct link yourself) i did not even keep it on harddrive, but i noted down the file name / RO number on a postit for further referrence... The goal of the artist/author was to deliver a warnign message toward children and caring parents. That is oki with me, it is a good and legitimate idea. But this image/picture disturbed me much in fact, because akaic, it used a legitimate/good intention, but expressed in a rather paradoxal way. I left a comment on it, about me being very "surprised" about the clothes of the younger kid featured on the picure. Sorry pals, you all are all but better than me and such, but if i focus myself in a "parent mind" way of thinking, i would NEVER let a 7-9 years old girl go oustide with very short skirt and bra in tight vynil, half naked. Sory but for me it is out of question. I emitted courteously my surprise and feeling in the comments fo the picture but no one even dared to follow me on this path ! So, sorry but i don't reward hyppocrisy, or clumsiness, no matter how good the cause they defend ! now please do me a favor, KEEP YOUR so clever and accurate judgment about me you had, don't change, i'm okay with it... --------------------------------- sorry for others about long post...

I'm sorry ernyoka1. I really didn't mean for it to become a big ta-doo. I wasn't offended by it - it just struck me as ironic and I merely wanted to post a wow, look where we've come type of post. But it was early on taken as an attack on the TOS rule. If you're worried though - I would put the bikini on her and put the old "Clothes not included" disclaimer on the images. The hair isn't included either is it? So you'd have had to disclaim that anyway. I think in the end pixelation or black bar is just going to look so incongruous on this character that a bikini not included disclaimer is less hassle. But truly I'm sorry to have cast a stronger light on this than I meant. Dave

heh, storm in a tea-cup. I have to agree with Dave on this - I don't think black bars would be any improvement (probably worse actually). I would like to stress again that I don't believe your product or your image are in any way "the cause" for this thread or how dire it's got - Renderosity threads have something of a habit of wandering. Neither, incidentally, do I see Dave's wry inquiry as to how far down this version of "Politically Correct" we've gone, and where we'll end up, as necessarily going this way either. Threads have a way of unravelling all by themselves at times. My apologies to you both for any upset that my contributions may have added to your lives :( As to my being an influent member of Renderosity (yeah, I read some of that response) - LOL! I wish! Very few people - almost no-one - in Renderosity would even recognise my nick in a thread, much less pay heed to my comments/suggestions! Cheers, Cliff

A_ : "well, I honestly don't know anymore! :) I see nothing offensive in your image, but I don't see anything offensive in product pages of textures for the MilGirls when they are all young and naked - I see it as a product page" One problem with people is that they are weird. Hugely, terribly, wonderfully, strangely, convolutedly and bizzarrely weird. At best. There are models of allsorts of clothing in the various stores - let's eschew Dot (poor goil!) and stockings, suspenders and the like and move on to the less obvious shoes. Imagine if you will a catalog of all the Shoes available for Poser (yes, even horseshoes) rendered equisitely and showing nothing of the "human" models above the ankle. To you and I and, I expect, the majority of people that's a catalogue of shoes. To a foot fetishist it's an equivalent to PlayBoy (crude analogy). That doesn't mean that the modellers/texturers/catalogue producers made porn - the fetishist gets excited by something regardless of the artists intent. When people choose to self-censor has to be down to them. Personally, as a closer example, if I was selling models I wouldn't think twice or care if strange people clutched renders of the latest in "shoe fashions from the house of Who" to their bosoms and got all excited about them. With luck it'd increase sales. People are, on the whole, strange - you simply cannot judge everyone by your own standards :( Who...cares?

Well.. I may end up with a bikini. And no, Cliff and Dave, I know it has nothing personal to do with my picture. It was only the catalyst :o) (did make some more people look at it though G) The reason why I didn't put the bikini on in the first place is that Kiki's "bikini" is actually quite LARGE... It would cover a great deal of her body and then people wouldn't be able to SEE the texture. After all it's the TEXTURE I'm trying to sell here... I know the pixelation blurred some of it too, but it was still a less amount that what the bikini would have covered. I made this texture to help out a friend (the money from the sales goes to him not to me) and now it seems like the product is cursed by bad publicity :o(

there's no such thing as bad publicity! :) don't worry. :)