A week ago I posted an image in the gallery and haven't been to this site, due to work commitments, till yesterday evening. I discovered a thread in this forum which is a personal attack on me and my image. Thanks to those who defended me in my absense. When I did reply, yesterday evening, the thread was locked after 7 days. The reason given was that the thread was getting personal. So I am unable to respond to the many points raised. What I would like to know is why the thread wasn't locked earlier as the thread is an attack on me and nothing less. Now I don't care about these silly comments that some people make and would prefer if the thread wasn't locked at all but if you are going to lock threads for these reasons why did it take a week?

Dear Mark, The original message was a posted as a protest, not a personal attack, at least as far as I can tell. We made the decision that your image was within our TOS and let it remain in the gallery. Not everyone agreed with our decision. The disagreement with our decision was being expressed. When I saw a shift in the tone of the posts to a more personal nature, that is when I locked it. Best regards, LillianH

It didn't start as a personal attack, but whether the image was allowed on Renderosity and whether there was a copyright violation. I viewed it and agreed with some other admins that there wasn't a TOS violation or copyright concerns. Wanting to address any concerns other than that are not needed and only cause debate which lead to TOS violations. That forum was getting personal. A warning was given, it continued, and then it was locked. There are thousands of active threads going on at any given time. We can not monitor single threads continually; therefore, it can sometimes take time to realize there's one that needs attention. If you have such concerns about why it took a week, maybe you should have been monitoring the forums. We have a lot of work commitments too (outside of forums), and would appreciate a little respect. Please understand that this is an art community where any concerns or topics should be directly related. You consider political/war images art. That's fine. But please know that posting images for political purposes will cause a certain amount of backlash from other members. Jenifer Keeling Renderosity Admin

Oh ok It was all my fault.

Personally I don't condone personal attacks. I would just tell them to ignore your images if they're upsetting, but it's hard for them to keep quiet when strong feelings are aroused. Perhaps a more conciliatory, less anti-American approach might win more hearts and minds over to your point of view. If you want to persuade them, you may first have to avoid offending them.

You know I'm beginning to hate that expression "anti-American" It's the standard response when there are no logical arguments and US citizens are the only people I know who use that argument. There is nothing anti-American about my image. It is quite the opposite. I am not attempting to win more hearts and minds over to my point of view nor am I trying to persuade anyone about anything. The image mourns the senseless loss of life of young American soldiers.. How can you interpret that as anti-American?

Mark_uk, Threads change direction and shift just like any other current where there's wind, water, sandbars, logs, crocodiles, and the occasional snag or wreck... much less the swimmers and guys on jetskis dashing through! We can not possibly monitor every single post to every single thread as it happens.. nor can we tell in advance which threads will flame out or which ones start nasty but turn civil. Civility and fair exchange of ideas has been known to happen and we need to allow for that possibility, too, rather than locking every thing on site. If something looks like it is degenerating, we will often post a request that folks stick to the issues, hoping to redirect commentary. If the thread continues to go downhill, we will act as needed. Would you rather that we marched through in jackboots and immediately curtailed all discussion that wasn't 100% technical? With freedom comes responsibility, and you are also responsible for your posts and for monitoring the reaction. If you feel that you are being attacked, it is better to send a staff member an IM with link, because that should get attention to the problem area more quickly. Carolly Renderosity Moderator

refer you to post 4 as it's obvious you haven't read my initial post in this thread.

Nothing on my part was meant to be a personal attack on you, Mark_uk. Perhaps you are not understanding the difference between what Americans see (generally speaking) as improper handling of our dead soldiers pictures. Our media/news reporters are not allowed to show dead Iraqi soldiers on the news for the same reason of respect for the dead. Yes, it hampers freedom of speech a bit, but it is for a good reason. Simple respect. Therefore, if dead soldiers are shown, usually they will blank out, or blur the faces of the dead person. It is one thing to use such photos on the news, and quite another as a political statement. There did not appear to me there was any such respect in your post. You say you were mourning the senseless loss of life. If so, then respect those dead soldiers in those photos and handle them properly. A simple blurring of their faces would have gone a long way to justifying your message. Also, we are quite aware in America of the 1,000 dead in Iraq, and no one needs to remind us of that fact.

Oh. You're back.

This is not directed at you mark_uk, But since you bring it up..........

I would just like to point out that I for one do not think that calling someone's veiws anti-american is a "personal attack" to begin with, as it is a descriptive term used too indentify someone who is in alignment with a very real political movement that does exist in parts of the world.

Saying someone is being "attacked personally" when they are called anti american after they consistently express what are anti-american viewpoints, is like saying a member who consistently espouses repbulican views is being attacked when someone says they are a rebublican. LOL

Besides wich, if a member is here consistently putting down the U.S. and openly speaking of their hate for the U.S. and calling for the destruction of the U.S. what else should we call those views? Pro-American? LOL

Message edited on: 09/17/2004 04:06

Message edited on: 09/17/2004 04:08

Lillian H, Complainging about an image someone puts up is NOT a personal attack. While I would never presume to be so arrogant as to say the ptb here would be wrong about something, I for one do see a basic question of fairness in this scenario. And since the question was not answered in the now locked thread I will again ask it here in this one. The Original Question: "Why is it that this image is ok? When another image, by someone else, that was depicting dead people, was removed after some members complained about it?" On the basis that it violated the no "torture" clause of the TOS. I fail to see any fair application of the TOS in that. And as for locking that discussion, could you show me please the exact post in the thread where it became a "personal" attack? Sorry but I for one just dont see it.

:rolling eyes:

What a bogus, phony thread. I suspect you knew exactly what sort of reactions you would get by posting your dead American soldiers pic. Well you got your reactions, good for you. Job well done. But what is laughable is that you start a whiny protest thread about being attacked. You already made your protest when you posted that pic, now you need to learn to suck up the crap people will fling back at you for it, and quit crying about it.

Well, because of over- and misuse the term 'anti-american' became a quite meaningless blanket-statement. Everything ist 'anti-american'... french fries, artwork, attitudes...

The amount of things, which are not 'anti-american' is dwindling fast.

bshafer try reading the thread before you post your childish comments

bjergtrold

I refer you too post # 13

Look folks,

Anti-americanism does exist, (so does anti Europeanism by the way)

Some art is anti-american. Some is anti european.

Some attitudes are anti-american as well, some are anti european. I mean what else do you suggest we call it, when the aims of of one nation is directly contradictory to the aims of the U.S.?

(ex: saying one is glad sept 11th happened, or that one is glad 3,000 were killed that day) both of wich I remind you actually were posted here in some threads, by some the day of, and following the attack.

If a person spouts off with those views, or creates art to express those veiws, then they should not cry to the ptb when someone says that they or the piece in question is anti american.

Because well thats exactly what the descriptive term for it is.
And again I must re-iterate, my problem is not really with the content of the image in question, in fact my problem is a much bigger one that deals with the apparent unfair application of the TOS. I say that due to the fact that I know of at least one other member here, (not myself either) who posted images of dead terrorists that way, and had their image yanked down after a complaint.Given that why then does the same not happen in this instance?

Message edited on: 09/17/2004 07:17

Message edited on: 09/17/2004 07:22

Mark_uk,

Try understanding what people are saying about your pictures before starting your childish threads.

Judgement is a matter of making distinctions.

There are many images of horrible violence which are not torture and some images where the violence isn't as apparent which I personally consider torture: sleep deprivation, bright lights in eyes, and continuous music (and I'm sooooo tempted to add whiney threads and bitchfests to the list ;^) ), however the TOS has specific words under the "no torture" clauses and when an image is reviewed by the team we have to look at those phrases when making a judgement.

Torture isn't just hurting and killing... it is done for perverse reasons such as extorting confessions or getting a sexual high or punishment/revenge/humiliation... and the deliberate and prolonged infliction of pain is more important than whether somebody dies or is dismembered. If they are dead they aren't suffering any more, and the torturer is no longer entertained.

In hunting, the infliction of pain is unusual. Trapping is another matter, but even there the infliction of pain isn't a goal. In warfare it is of lesser importance than just killing the enemy and adding a notch to the stick.

A gruesome image of a child with feet blown off from a land mine or napalmed and naked are not torture because nobody applied pain to those kids just to get their yucks. Casualities of war. A soldier with a hole in him from a bullet is no different. Casuality of war. A victim in an automobile accident or a plane crash can be just as shockingly wounded, but that is not torture, even if it took place on a battlefield.

So in an image... is somebody suffering? Why and how and for what reason? Did they voluntarily get into that position and can they get out? (bondage and sexplay issues) There are a LOT more questions than whether the image shows a dead body or shows somebody in manacles.

We do not pull images lightly: there has to be good justifiable reason... and the artist gets both an IM and an email stating the specific reason(s)... and there is always the possibility of review by an Admin if the artist disagrees with the decision of the team.

hauksdottir
Renderosity Moderator

Message edited on: 09/17/2004 07:33

While I was typing, this thread started going downhill even faster. Before there is any more mud-slinging, I'm going to lock it... and ask that in the future you all stick to the issues and not the personalities. hauksdottir Renderosity Moderator