You know, I am really sick of jerks who ignore the "Nudity" warning or whatever and write a rude comment and give a bad rating because of it. In all my time here, it has only happened twice and both by people who have not posted any images themselves. Still, it makes a person angry. We have open minds, weather the picture is about two gay people, a little girl without a shirt (fairies and such) , or a graphic image with someones head cut off. Why do people ignore the quality of the picture itself and post a bad rating/comment just becuase they find the images plot/idea offencive? It is really upsetting that they seem to ignore the nice comments by other commentors. Like I said it has been done to me and I have seen it in other peoples art, even the great artist Turtle had one bad comment because of a fairy smoking (Oh no!) :P Anyhow, I was wondering if you are allowed to ask for comments to be removed? Especially if they are very rude, do not make any sence or just accusations?

Yes, you can, ask the Mod for that gallery

Message edited on: 06/01/2004 16:20

Please send me an IM with specific links...I'll look into it for you..

I hear what you're saying but at the same time, people -do- get offended over various things and have a right to post a comment. If you post here, you're going to get that - the ToS doesn't under any clause or circumstance state that you have a right to be non-offended by any imagery people may see - try as it may at times. I don't think you should get the comments removed. Having been on the receiving end of shit like this several times for opinions stated in a forum, and not in my imagery, I suggest you develop thick skin, and let the pettiness of the action speak for itself. It's much more effective when you see it in contrast to the other comments your image has been given. On the other hand - someone asking a question about a technical detail in an image -i.e why a figure is naked, is a valid question, in my book, and not a negative comment by a jerk. Just my two... ~S

Tebook I agree. Thats why I say again, that the only one's who should be able to leave comments in the gallery, are those members who actually have a gallery themselves. Even if its only one image. Its real big of some isnt it, too sit and troll someone else's gallery all the while they themselves cannot and will not put anything of their own up for the same critical eye.

I do not agree, people have a right ( at least on this contenant) to agree or disagree and state there opinion. We do live in a couple of free counties ( I am in Canada)

and after looking at you gallery I do not agree even more, what is the reason with all the naked kids? I thought that we had a TOS that stated that you couldn't have nakid kids. And no I do not see you rgallery as 'fairy's'

Message edited on: 06/03/2004 12:23

No,the TOS stated that you could not show the genitals of anyone who was or looked like a child. If we are free to comment on what we want, then we are free to post what we want (Within the TOS limits)

I do not care about comments really, what annoys me is negitive ratings just because they find it offencive, even if the image is very good. The 'Nudity' Warning is there for a reason. If you do not want to see nudity.. here is an easy idea - Don't click on a link that had a nudity warning. Its amazing how many people click on it anyhow then are surprised to see gasp Nudity!

Message edited on: 06/03/2004 12:41

A lot of people log in anonymously in order to state their opinion, because they dont want the stigma of being attacked or having their galleries trolled when they -do- state an honest opinion. or take another example: One of my old teachers from art school is a luddite - he won't go -near- the new media, and he needs to be bullied into using his email. he's happiest with his thick paper and his box of Derwents. Imagine someone like that stumbling over the site - logging in, and then commenting or leaving critique at some images. Would the opinion be less valid because there is no gallery to show this man's competence ? Should any opinion from someone who hasnt got a gallery be discarded ? It's odd that this only comes up when negative comments are left - I have yet to see anyone holler over a "oh - cool! from someone w/o a gallery - which looks like people get more pissed at the lack of an ability to retaliate than anything else. A good image is always a very subjective thing, especially to the artist. What may be the best thing one ever did and may be very proud of, may look crap, and beside the point to another. I really dont think you can get better as an artist if all the comments you get are "oooh! Pretty!" and "Kewl" - specially not if you keep to that staple of imagery that gives you the kewlies time and time over. ~S

Wot spinner said... m.

Hmmm I see no nudity tags... {altho I did see at least one abuse of a 'violence' tag.} and I have to wonder also as ODOL...why all the nude kids?...{or rather nude young females, in various 'poses' as the young males are always covered from the neck to the knees} I agree that if an image is indeed 'tagged' with a nudity flag, then whoever clicks on that image anyway, and gets offended at seeing nudity, well tough..they shouldn't have clicked the image, and have no right to complain..BUT if an image is not tagged properly, and a complaint is launched against the image, then the artist shouldn't complain about getting a negative comment, or even having the image removed for TOS violations. I also dont think that just because some here have no gallery images up, that they should be silenced in their opinions of others work...some of us have galleries elsewhere, for various reasons..doesnt mean we are trolls, etc..

jumpstartme ok fine I grant you that may be the case, so my question is then, why dont some of these "artists", place links to their galleries they have elsewhere out there in cyberville somwhere? They could do so quite easily on their homepages here! Its free after all.

The only reason I can see for an "artist" too have no gallery here, and no gallery links on their homepage either, who want too run around here, and diss others works, is because they are too chiken shited too put some of their own work up to face the same exact kind of scrutiny those of us who do have galleries face. I mean if someone such as myself, who's no michaelangelo by any stretch of the imagination can put up some of their stuff up for that kind of scrutiny anyone can in my opinion.

Secondly, there have been in the past lots, and lots and lots of people who sign up, an have no gallery, simply because they are here for one reason only. To steal images that others create. Aside from the time its happened to me, here. How many times have we all seen artists we know, have images wind up on some msn groups somewhere being sold, or God knows what? Again making it a rule that you must post at least one thing of your own, whatever it be would cut down on alot of the peeps signing up just to steal images.

Least thats what I think, and the way I see it, for what its worth. LOL

Message edited on: 06/05/2004 14:18

Comments should stay as they are. By the way, I do not believe there is a "right" to post comments here. This is a private, moderated forum that requires membership -- if this were an extension of our "rights" we wouldn't require membership or logging in of any kind. But, to be honest, that is a tangent. What concerns me, frankly, is Tebok's utter disregard for differing view points. Newsflash, bud: some people find nudity offensive. Do I? No. In fact, most intelligent people I know are NOT offended by "artistic" nudity. But that doesn't mean that I don't know a few intelligent people who are prudes. Not many, but I personally know some people with strong religious convictions who are intelligent and still do not approve of nude images. That doesn't make them wrong, that just makes them different... which is what I thought tolerance was all about: accepting people who are different. To be VERY frank, the most intolerant people I personally know are well-educated (multiple degrees) and very liberal (pro-gay, pro-women's rights, pro-civil rights), and yet they are VERY hostile to Christians and people to the right of their politics. The part that bothers me is that they fail to see their own intolerance, or the inherent irony of their blindness.

why dont some of these "artists", place links to their galleries they have elsewhere out there in cyberville somwhere? They could do so quite easily on their homepages here! Its free after all. As I said, there are many reasons one might choose to not post their images here at RR..I in fact have my own personal reasons why I 'chose' to remove my gallery..and it wasn't for comments good or bad..I dont comment on others works here very often either. {altho I used to..} Also, I have chosen not to link to my images from RR, again, for my own personal reasons.. Its true RR has its share of trolls who have nothing better to do than sign up to steal images, or criticize others works just to get their fix on meanspiritedness..but I dont think that forcing members here to post an image is going to stop any of that..only by the members sticking together to stomp out that sort of behavior will anything begin to change..

Its true RR has its share of trolls who have nothing better to do than sign up to steal images {snip}..but I dont think that forcing members here to post an image is going to stop any of that.. Agreed. Actually they'd probably just post stolen images. (Suddenly Vallejos and Royos start popping up in the galleries.) ;-) -Heidi

For those of you who are asking "why all the nude girls?" Open the image consisting of the two daughters (the real people-not Poser figures) and read the story. See the names used? This person is from somewhere in Europe I'm guessing. And they have a different way of looking at children over there. It looks weird, suspicious, and feels dirty to us Americans. But as odd as it may seem to us mainlanders. Pictures like those are actually thought of along the same lines as pictures of puppies and kittens over here in the states. Strange?........ yes. But to them..... We're the weirdos ;-) -ScottA

As a European, I have to admit, we kinda adore naked kids in all shapes and sizes, the nakeder, the better !!! ~S

pictures of young nude girls being torchered are along the same lines as puppies, I hardly think so. The images (to me) speak volumes of dipravity.

Hey Spinner, Do you YeraPeeIns think us Mericans are as odd and strange as we think you guys are? ;-P Seriously. Some places over there are like another freakin' planet. But that's cool. That what makes planet earth the number one tourist destination in the Milky Way. ;-)

You want odd & strange? Come up to the mountains sometime. ;)

I dont think the image/s in question is Teboks image of his daughters Scott..nor the story with it. I could go on and point it all out the way I see it, but its not worth it really..just another flame fest waiting to happen I figure... {Egads at that thought} Things over there are seen different than they are over here...and artists opinions differ greatly..thats just the way it is. We're all just going to have to take the chips off our shoulders, realize we are all different to some extent, and ask nicely.."Why did you make that the way you did?" and answer nicely "Because such and such is the way I see things." Blah, blah ,blah.. One of these days we will get there I hope...

As a European, I have to admit, we kinda adore naked kids in all shapes and sizes, the nakeder, the better !!! Um, Spinner, did you see his gallery? I don't know. I guess I just see naked baby pictures as being in a different category than naked young girls hanging on meat hooks. And naked little girls time traveling. And naked little girls wandering around playing we-got-away-from-a-witch-in-the-forest-and-just-bumbled-into-some-little-boys. Looks to me like his gallery is centered around soft-core kiddie porn. Is this really what you meant by Europeans adoring naked children? Just curious. FYI Tebok, I didn't leave you any bad ratings. In fact, I didn't leave any ratings or comments at all, so please don't think I'm trying to drive down your numbers or whatever. If the ratings thing bothers you, maybe you should just stop letting people rate them. People can still vote for you if they like the image, and they'll still tell you how much they like it in the comments. -Heidi

• Looks to me like his gallery is centered around soft-core kiddie porn.* I was wondering if anyone else saw what I was seeing...which is why Id like to ask Tebok why he portrays all the young females in the way he does..{after posting the image of his daughters, and the heartfelt concern that any parent should express..some of those images dont jive well} Its a bit disturbing....

I wouldn't mind hearing the answer to that, either. Not trying to attack anyone, but I'm really interested in his POV. And I didn't see any actual "nudity" flags. As fas as faeries, shouldn't they have wings?? Not too many wings in evidence there.

I'm so, so, sorry. I forgot Mericans don't do irony very well. FYI: The debate -started- on negative comments being pulled in the gallery. I have steered clear of the gallery content debate because a) it's most definitely not my cup of tea and b)I find most of the kiddie porn debates at rendo fairly tedious; I've yet to read a good debate that didnt deflate into some animal farm barn mentality. (As in Orwell, not Hotmail) My comment was intended to take the piss out of the dimwitted comment inferring that Europeans see naked children as portrayed in the imagery as "normal, and that we're relaxed about it" - Nothing else. I put it in the same category as us Scandinavians being so horny we fuck polar bears in the street. So, back to the beginning - I don't think comments, even trolling ones should be removed unless a direct violation of ToS, and I DO believe in the validity of at times nasty, even trolling questions. Even if I also do think a trolling question shouldnt always be answered. The gallery comment page asks you to upload helpful comments. Lets turn it upside down and start a crusade on the "oh - kewl!!" school of artistic commentary - it's not very helpful to have THAT in your gallery either. 'k ? ~S

's cool dude! Shoulda put a blinky guy. ;-) Sorry I misinterpreted you. I was busy being told how stupid I am over in the copyright forum for making a joke about the possibility of Disney being in copyright infringement because the Lion King is too much like Hamlet. (You'd have to read the thread.) -Heidi

Actually, I thought it was so obvious it was irony, that I didn't use a blinky guy. ~S

http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=565756&Start=73&Artist=Telgar&ByArtist=Yes Please view this persons image above and then read the comments. You will see it also got an "excellent Rating as well" Nudity regardless of age is not Child Porn. Porn = Sexually explicit Material. The reason for my art work: I try to portray young girls in Survival/Heroic situations. YOu do not find many young heroins in the books and movies -they are either boys or girls older than 18. Girl's always play the poor helpless damsel in distress. While boys struggle for survival in 'Lord of the Flies' girls get parts like 'The Little Princess' and 'Harriet The Spy' If anyone has ever seen the Movie Ella Enchanted - the original story was based on a girl of about 13 years old who goes on a hard quest to find a cure for her curse. In the movie adaption the character is 18 years old and the movie is a big comedy. As for the half dressed girls running into boys in the woods - it is just comedy. Imagine how a boy who thinks girls have cooties would react if a naked/half naked girl were to walk out of nowhere. Most of my work is rated 'Excellant or Good' so it goes to show that most people are not TRYING to look for porn but admire the image, which I had hoped. I have many no nude images, I have images not even based on young girls. I have one about a crippled girl rising out of her wheelcheer while her surprised mother looks on and I have a strong message about protectiong your children at: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=609814&Start=55&Artist=Tebok&ByArtist=Yes Yet no one here mentions those.. they are to busy trying to hunt out the 'Child Porn' they see... :(

I haven't mentioned those because to be honest, your imagery is not my cup of tea and while I think it's cool that you have found your artistic niche, please understand that I will not rave over imagery that doesn't do anything for me. Please also note that I have kept to adressing the trolling comments issue, and not whether your gallery is child pornography. If your images get that good a rating on average, why is it so important for you to have only nice comments in your gallery ? I am not attacking - I am curious. ~S ~S

Tebok, it could be more of what is 'suggested' in your images that is causing all the ruckus to be honest. Its not even so much the nudity of the young girls, {to some it may be} its what is 'suggested' that raises eybrows. {Ive not seen the comments or ratings except the 'nice' ones..so I cant be certain exactly..but can only leave my pov on the subject} Case in point: Altho there is no nudity in "Not Interested" there is a strong suggestion of a child no more than 12 yrs old, who is more interested in sex than the stars. {judging by the pose of the Poser child, and the suggestive text below the image} I see no heroism in that image. Im not knocking your works by any means, but trying to get you to understand others views, and why they see it as 'bordering' on child porn, or rather skating on the edge. {At least thats what I'm talking about, others may see different things. If you post images like this, some may think its great and innocent..others may not..some may think its excellent work..then again others may not..and they have the right to say so in comments {within reason} and in ratings..{if you choose to enable ratings}..its just something you will have to expect and let roll over and off of you. I think Spinner said it best, Develop thick skin ;)

<<"Not Interested" there is a strong suggestion of a child no more than 12 yrs old, who is more interested in sex than the stars.>> No no not sex, just childhood romance. :)

See?.....This is what I was talking about. People see things and express them way differently in some places around the world. You can't just look at at it and go "Yup..He's a pervert". Positive things can be twisted into looking bad if expressed in a manner that we're not used to seeing. -ScottA

Part of being an effective illustrator (and that's what these are, illustrations) is being able to convey the message clearly. If a lot of people are seeing a negative message in naked children placed in nightmare situations (and yes, some of those are nightmares I might have had as a child, as I had a pretty unpleasant childhood on many counts), then the problem may lie partly with the viewers, but the message isn't being conveyed quite as effectively as the illustrator would like. It's quite true that not everyone sees things the same way, but effective communication means that the communicator has to make every effort to communicate, and the receiver also has to make the effort to understand. Please don't take my comment on the nightmarish quality of some of the images as a slam. I really did have nightmares about being naked and in pain and pursued by witches or demons or whatever. And for what it's worth, I loved "The Little Princess." It IS a story of survival. The child is abandoned, helpless, alone, shuffled off to live in a fithy attic and forced to work like a slave, and yet she survives to become the princess she always knew she was. Seems like a pretty positive message to me. ;-) bonni

Please notice that I said "soft-core." I didn't see anything in your gallery that could be considered hardcore pornography. I certainly wouldn't go write negative comments in your gallery about it. I just don't understand why "young heroins" need to be naked. As for there not being any heroines under the age of 18... Hermione Granger (Harry Potter series), Susan and Lucy Pevensie (Chronicles of Narnia), Polly (also Chronicles of Narnia), Meg (A Wrinkle in Time). Just off the top of my head. And they all wear clothes. Going to look at your link now. -Heidi

OK, Tebok. I will tell you the issue(s) I have with the image you linked to. First, it is a photograph of an actual 13-year old (at the time) child. It is not a 3D character. Second, her mother's presence is really beside the point. I don't know the mother, so I don't know her motivation. Can anyone say JonBenet Ramsay? The issue with the specific outfit is likely the chains. This is not a bathing suit, it is a fetish-style outfit. Go through the marketplace here and see what an outfit like that is sold as. It's classified as fantasy-fetish wear. It just doesn't look like a fairy picture to me. It looks like an adolescent wearing fetish wear with some wings slapped on as an excuse. And before you call me a puritanical Christian prude, let me say that I am none of the above. I just don't care for the image. -Heidi

Positive things can be twisted into looking bad if expressed in a manner that we're not used to seeing Granted, that may be true Scott...but then some things need no twisting...they just look bad, and some may not see the positive in them at all. I agree with Heidi, that Im unclear why the 'heroins' need to be naked... Let me just throw out a couple things I see...not to bash, but just to give a better understanding of my pov. 1. Naked/non-naked young girls in poses that lean more towards an adult nature. {innocent childhood romance to me consists of holding hands, and maybe kisses on the cheek..as far as 12 yr olds go imo... not legs spread, or objects of clothing thrown on the ground, or even legs thrown across a male crotch..yep, that may be a bit harsh, but its what I see} 2. I only have seen 1 image of any heroism..where the scantily clad young girl is punching the man..{why is she dressed that way?} 3. many of the images, show young girls again scantily clad, or tattered clothing being chained to a wall or pole..this is seen as a form of torture...not heroism. 4. In other images still, there is no other things that bother me, except the way the young girl is dressed..always in some scant clad clothing..being a mother I guess..this bothers me.. I may 'just not get it', but then there are others here who apparently dont get it either so Im not alone in this one ;) I wouldnt go as far as going to Teboks gallery and leaving bad comments, but I wouldn't seek out his gallery either now knowing what kinds of images he prefers to do. @ Heidi: Heh, if ya get called * a puritanical Christian prude* let me tell ya, your not the first..I been called that and worse..you are always welcome over at the new OT place ;)

I just like them to look like they've been through a lot and/or they do not have much to help them out with. I mean a girl stranded on an island/ lost in the woods, etc that is neat as a pin and wearing a back pack full of everything she needs just does not look right to me. Imagine any of my images with the girl naked or in tattered clothes replaced with clothes, well supplied girls. I think that would take the some of the 'drama' away from the scene. When I get a move that says the people "Struggle for survival on a barren island" and instead I see them sitting in some abandoned old shack eating the canned food and wearing the clothes that washed up in the suitcases with them... it's not survival - it's camping. The girls tied to a pole by the dragon for example - Would their clothes not be tattered? Even if not, the tattered clothing makes them look like they have been through a lot more than 1 hour of time there.

I forgot, Jumpstartme, reffering to the girl hitting the guy you asked why she was dresssed like that. I do not understand? She is wearing normal girls clothes, a shirt and a skirt. I see girls walking around here if tank tops, shorts and flip flops all the time. If your reffering to the 'leather like texture' you have to understand I drew those clothes on her, like I have done with 80% of my work. Since they were not the usuall tattered clothes I needed to make them look good so I used the 'Plastic Wrap' Option in Photoshop to get it to look like it had folds. If you go back to 'I miss my Mommy' you will see how terrible the girl's dress looks. And by the way, did you read the message under the image? I did it right after that poor 11 year old girl was killed in Florida and it is a message about protecting your kids and how kids can protect themselves. I am sorry but the fact that you saw the clothes she was wearing over the Message of the image is upsetting.

jumpstartme2: I may just end up over there. ;-) Tebok: Yes, the girl tied to the pole having tattered clothing is probably appropriate. But time traveling? Never saw Dr. Who naked (perish the thought). Or the guys from Sliders (now that I would have watched ;-P). It just seems like you have them naked or barely clad whether there's justification for it or not. And if you get lost in the woods, your clothes don't fall off. Think Blair Witch or Hansel & Gretel. Maybe they get ripped, but you wouldn't be naked. JMO. -Heidi

Yeah but who wants to spend time drawing all those clothes? :) I do not have much other then the basic poser 4 and 5 clothes and I have yet to master other conforming them and adjusting them. So I do not have much of a veriety. Drawing them half naked or in tattered clothes is a good excuse anyhow when I have to draw my own :) Maybe if you were lost in the woods for a week, nothing much will happen. But get lost for many months. Also - If the girls are alone, no guys around, they may just say f*ck it and get rid of the muddy ragity shirt. Same with time traveling, READ the story - she lost the time machine... she's been lost for a while trying to find it. :) Ohhh... I also do not have any good older characters. Victoria and them cost about $39.00. The preteens sell for 12 - 15 dollars. Hell, even you see that I am still using the poser 4 boy for some of the images. If you have any good cheap older characters, I'd be happy to use them too.

LOL! OK, I get it now. :-) Maybe you should post on your images that if people want to see the girls wearing clothes, they are welcome to kindly donate you some. That should shut the rest of us up. Hell, you could even include a link to your homepage here with your wishlist on it! It's worth a shot! ;-) -Heidi

"Yeah but who wants to spend time drawing all those clothes? :)" Thanks for confirming a theory I've had about the large amount of nudes in Poser art. I've always thought that a huge amount of Poser users either couldn't do clothes, or didn't have the time to mess with them. And that's why many people are scantily clad in the Poser world. -ScottA