As a former mod, I'll confirm that decisions are team decisions. It isn't just one or two people who go out witch-hunting... but a committee of staff members who are ALL invited to review a questionable image. There is some discussion, but the final decision is one agreed upon by the entire staff. This is a good thing. Individual attitudes and biases get subsumed to a communal standard. There are procedures for removal of images where the member is notified exactly why the image was removed, the section of the TOS is quoted and linked, and the member is cautioned to refrain from continuing in the behavior causing the image to be removed. Members have complained about the form letter, but it does cover everything. If a member continues to flaunt the TOS and post objectionable images, there is a system of warnings leading eventually to a banning and then a permaban. There are some members whose images were (or are?) a matter of weekly discussion because they seemed to take delight in walking the edge of the rules. There are others who got caught, were embarrassed, might not even have thought about the effect of what they were portraying, and who decided to stay within the rules for this site when posting here. The rules CLEARLY say no exposed genitalia on humans or humanoids which appear to be under age 18. This rule is how old? 2 years? It has been a long time since tehre has been a change in the TOS and the changes were well-publicized and heatedly argued over. This includes fairies, satyrs, statues, babies in washtubs and boys at the watering hole. We might not as individuals agree with the rule, but that is the rule. It doesn't matter if the image is beautifully postworked, or if it is of a scene from the Sistine Chapel or The Library of Congress, or if it would have been ok 5 years ago... if the genitalia show they must be covered. That is the rule. No genitalia on underage figures. Considering the growing conservative morality of this country, the state where Renderosity is headquartered, the restrictions placed by PayPal, Visa, and the banks, and a host of other concerns, our desires for artistic freedom have little place in the balance. Currently. 10 years from now the pendulum might swing back. Once someone has had several images removed, as Heart'Song admits above, it is most certainly their responsibility to abide by the rules. How many warnings does it take? And if someone truly wants artistic freedom to post whatever they can imagine, they can build their own website or go to another. Last I heard, though, even Renderotica refuses child nudity. Carolly