heroart is new to this forum, but not to the CG art communities in general. Here I was hoping to find a community based on love for art, with an ethical and supportive staff, unlike other venues I have visited. Unfortunately, I have discovered that this place is even worse. Recently, one of my favorite artists told me that she has had pictures deleted and been banned......not because she violated the terms of agreement here, but because she had the nerve to try to expose the staff for their false accusations. I have seen the pictures myself, and I checked the terms of agreement here very carefully. She did not violate the agreement. She has been banned simply because she dared to proclaim the truth. Is this the kind of community the members want? If so, it is a sad time for artists in this country.

yep life sux would explain my mood for the past week

If I were you, I'd wait until I've been here a while longer before passing judgment on what this community is based on... you never know, you might realize that even the mods are only human and that the majority of the members here are very helpful and friendly. France

Which "truth" did she expose? It's not whether we think the images we post don't violate TOS; it's whether the admins think they violate the TOS. If they were pedophile or porno images, there are other sites eager to host them. There may be some pedophile or porno images that slip thru the enforcement net, but they're only human - they can't catch them all.

France is right. Ignore all the the bad stuff and often silly arguements and you'll soon find stacks of talented, helpfull and friendly people here. It's more friendlylier than some other places out there.

I havent heard of a lot of folks being banned, around here, and if they have been they most likely had a severe TOS violation, something like child porn, or stealing other work, or even plagiarism. I don't know who your friend is or seen her work but she must have done something else than "try to expose the staff for their false accusations" to get her work pulled and banned.

Give the community a try, and don't guide yourself by what others say, you can push the envelope but dont cross the line, and you'll be fine.

As Francemi said, you should wait more than one day to complain about the website. Anyway, I hope we don't get a flame war here. <---signature---> Free your Maya Opaque3D http://www.digital-opaque.net

Is this the kind of community the members want? Well, we pretty much have to lump it or leave it, don't we? We have exactly two options: put up with it or leave. bonni

bonni, I love your style! lolll France

lol, that was a good one :p <---signature---> Free your Maya Opaque3D http://www.digital-opaque.net

Why do I have a feeling this is about 'HeartSong' again? ;)

I didn't say I was new to Renderosity, I said I was new to this FORUM. I'm not surprised to see the moderators like nemirc and and mateo responding with non-sequiturs in the form of grunts and hoots...I've heard it's their trademark after all, and allowances must be made for those of limited capabilities. And of course they will defend themselves and their cohorts as petty beaurocrats always do. Where else would they get any feeling of personal power? Certainly not from their own capabilities! mrsparky, thanks for the honest attempt at being helpful, but sometimes things are so badly wrong that you just have to speak out. galactron22 - of COURSE you haven't heard of a lot of people being banned around here! How would you hear about it? They are banned, and they are forbidden from showing their pictures in public to prove that they did nothing wrong!! If they protest their unfair treatment or ask for a public forum in which to air their greivance, they are banned permanently. The rest of you - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I second Birddie. *still keeping an eye on the thread* <---signature---> nemirc Animation Forum

heroart, YOU are part of the problem because YOU are creating a problem. GEEZ!!! First post you make and it is to critic ( c'est un euphisme d'ailleurs) everyone here except your "friend" and yourself. BTW, are you sure your "friend" is your "friend" and not yourself? A friendly community is composed of people who respect TOS, respect each other and respect themselves. People who don't know the signification of the word "respect" don't bring anything positive to a community. This is MHO and I don't like at all for a new member (ok ok you are not new to renderosity... but still you ARE new to this forum and thus, this specific community) to come here and start a flame war. So, to be more specific than bonni, if you don't like it here, go elsewhere and don't bother us. Thank you. P.S. IF ever I get banned for writing this, I'll live with it. Mais sert rien, les effront et les gens qui ne savent pas vivre, j'ai ben d'la mise avec moi! France

As with most sites where there are forums we are always in the hands of moderators, usually unpaid people.

This is part of the problem that leads to inconsistiencies, not just here. Unpaid volunteers are not always the best choice, however willing they may be.

Here, in the Poser forum, you sometimes need a thick skin when expressing opinions that others don't agree with.

The Poser forums at RDNA are generally friendly.

Message edited on: 03/16/2005 22:11

The rest of you - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I'd like to know what you think we, "the members" might actually be able to do? Boycotting is a possibility, and I know lots of people who do boycott R'sity because they got fed up with it for one reason or another. Basically, boycotting is the same as "leaving". Denial of service attack? Illegal. Bitching loudly in forums? We do that already and it doesn't do any good at all. Post things on the net about how bad Renderosity is? Well, we could, but I dunno what more good it'd do beside bitching in forums... We could always go off and create our own 3D art community, as more than a few people have done (again, this is "leaving"). So, to me, it still seems like we may not like a lot of the stuff that goes on around here, but there's not much we can do about it other than leave. I've got plenty of arguments with the way they do stuff around here, but what am I gonna do? What are any of us going to do other than put up or shut up? bonni

I am not new to the galleries but I AM new to the forum. What IS happening to Heart'song's pictures? I have become fond of a few favorites here though I have never commented, peferring to just browse in silence, but lately I've noticed even older pictures being removed, and not just Heart'song's. I see the old bugbear "nudity" has reared it's head in another American setting! Also, I have noticed that when people question the removal of their pictures too vigourously the thread is removed. Looks like censorship to me. Of course this IS a privately run forum so the moderators can censor whomever they please, it just seems like intellectual cowardice. What's going on? One would expect a commmunity of artists to be one of the last bastions of DEBATE and conversation, especially concerning the age old "smut versus art" argument. I was (am) very fond of Heart'songs pictures, usually displayed with great feeling, but I have not seen anything resembling porn here...unless PLENTY of other pictures here look like porn to certain people also. And I am SURE someone here does think most of the scantily clad faeries are pornographic! How childish! Interesting parallels to the FCC "crackdown" and debates going on in the non-artist rest of the country. What a shame. I always expect art communities to be more comfortable with painted images and fantasies. Anyway, what did happen to Heart'song's pictures? And it seems logical that one would not hear of people being banned if they are BANNED!!! Banning, by it's very definition, means a loss of, at the very least, a voice.

Although I'm not a moderator here, nor an employee of any kind, I see I touched a nerve, so it must be about kiddie porn again, as usual. The admins here have made it pretty clear they don't want kiddie porn here, and it's their definition they use, not my definition, not the Supreme Court definition, not that of any member. They have to operate under the community standards of their location in the U.S., and for all I know that jurisdiction is very strict in going after kiddie porn sites. So perhaps for them it's equally disgusting for a newbie to attack them on a policy that they have no choice but to enforce. But like I said, it's no big deal. If you want to post kiddie porn, there are probably some members-only yahoo groups, as well as some websites that split off from this one during the vicious nude fairy debate we had, several years ago. Those more liberal sites may not want kiddie porn either, but your chances of an appreciative audience and a more permissive administration are much better there.

Not even Rotica accepts pictures of nude digital children... Just something I felt like sharing... <---signature---> nemirc Animation Forum

Looks like censorship to me. Welcome to Renderosity! bonni

Someone comes in here for one day, and then posts with attitude. I think that I am smelling the fresh-ground aroma of "agenda" steaming up from this particular cup....... I doubt that anyone will win any converts here. shrug ........not worth the trouble.

After 3 years, I've gotten used to the 'schedule'. They're are like holidays. - dufflebagism, - the changing of the guards (new mods every three months), - beating the dead horse, - baggering the top twenties, - and my favorite of all: 'the September Sweep!' << you veterans know what I am talking about. hehehe. I can actually find these activities amusing now.

I agree with you Xenophonz... dropping the topic now. France

The rest of you - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Kidding right?

Um, one point.... everyone keeps saying "kiddie porn" but weren't heartsongs characters wearing clothing?
If that's a fact then we do have a problem here with the enforcement of the TOS against an innocent person.

It's also worth mentioning that unclothed children are not automatically equivalent to "kiddie porn". There are plenty of reasons for innocent nudity in persons of all ages. Yes, some of the images that were pulled were clothed. One of them had a semi-sheer skirt and one had a decorative jeweled bottom type thing which mods felt "drew attention to the genitals" despite the fact that NO genitals were in ANY way visible. Another was nude but, in my estimation, not particularly childlike. ALL of the images were innocent, were not sexually themed or posed, and only a very sick mind would find them in any way erotic. However, the Powers That Be have spoken, and there's not a single damned thing any one of us can do about it. bonni

Don't feed the troll. Jack

heroart, you are completely right. I know whom you are talking about and I've seen all the pictures posted in a different forum. Where the TOS has been violated is a mystery for me. Looks like someone has an eye on that longtime Rosity artist and is just stirring up shit and nothing more. And now it's even forbidden to post an image that covers the genital area with a huge square because a square would not be seen as appropriate covering plus it's also verboten to post links to other Poser online stores.

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 02:42

Yesterday I saw a billboard on the street and thought about R'osity immediately. It was advertisement of some kind of "mental help center". In the middle of the photo there was a giant leaf and there was a nekkid 4/5-years old boy (I think it was a boy because of haircut, no genitals were shown) laying on it. Quite artistic, child looked so innocent and lost... Anyway, I thought that if someone posted here similar render would be banned in no time. Dunno why, I asked my parents, my brother, my boyfriend and even two of my teachers - no one ever thought about billboard being child porn. They rather said it's sweet and impressive as a piece of art. So, no more rendered mothers with nude infants or nekkid kids on the beach/playground (common scene in Poland during hot summer days)? It's not that we're protecting child porn, but I guess we have a bit healthier look at the problem. In every community there are people who want to be more saint than the God. Always were, always will be. Not all moderators are suffering from the problem, but this disease is spreading on "normal" members too (remember thread about big-boobed Laura ?). No more posts from me on the topic. My rendered nude infants with faerie wings stay on my home PC ;) (no offence to faerie art)

I just looked at some gallery images and I think on this one the girl has a very suggestive look on her face ...

and this one draws the attention to her genital area. Wonder why they are allowed to stay?

And I wouldn't be surprised if I'd receive a warning now because I'm sure some won't like my examples very much :P But if you are going to apply the TOS equally start with your own gallery, mods!

Ever seen works by Raphael, Michelangelo, Rubens, Boucher, Van Eyck? No nude Christ child or angel can be considered pornography. Or Rembrandt's peeing infant Ganymedes that is abducted by Zeus in the shape of an eagle? But times have changed, the pendulum is now at about the end of the conservatist movement for whom even mysticism is either pure sex or something you can make money from. And usually both. The only way you can do something about it is by stopping to spend money. Don't buy anymore. That way Ebay/Paypal and other bigger and smaller moneymakers will change their minds quickly. But you must face the consequences as sites like Rederosity and Daz thrive on their marketplaces. And many merchants would lose an income. Or you could start a site of your own, and come here to ask the necessary questions in case you have something you don't understand. My friend is also a mod at a photoshop forum. Once they removed an image with link to real a "pornography" site. But usually they ask the creator to remove it her/himself, explaining why. moderating a forum is not easy, and it's done by humans. With preferences, and sometimes personal vendettas. Just like in real life. Not every police officer is a friendly "uncle copper".

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C. S. Lewis

Extract: "......not because she violated the terms of agreement here, but because she had the nerve to try to expose the staff for their false accusations. I have seen the pictures myself, and I checked the terms of agreement here very carefully. She did not violate the agreement." Comment: Utterly absurd. 1 - If she had not violated the TOS, then the images would not have been removed, unless you know of some particular personal vendetta and reveal the specifics. 2 - You speak of accusations. If so, then shut your piehole before you do any more damage to the case and take it to court. False accusations are not something to be handled in this manner. 3 - You apparently did not check the TOS closely enough, or grasp the full significance of two elements: 1 - the TOS clearly lays out they they are the interpreters and arbiters of it (something you agreed to, note) and what is not stated but shouldn't need to be: they own the damn thing and can do what ever they want with it. Ergo: she did violate the rules. You just disagree with the decision -- and on an emotional basis, at that, instead of a reasoned one. Extract: "How would you hear about it? They are banned, and they are forbidden from showing their pictures in public to prove that they did nothing wrong!! If they protest their unfair treatment or ask for a public forum in which to air their greivance, they are banned permanently." Comment: That is idiocy. Think about that one for a very long time before you respond. Extract: "The rest of you - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Comment: I see. That's an incredible simplistic worldview. Aside from being equivalent is social level to a third grader conceptually, it is on a level with "My commander made me do it" in usage. You say you are not new to the site -- perhaps you should exit this forum and return to the galleries -- less likelihood of your heartfelt frustration being mocked there. Or, better yet, leave this community. It is apparent that the standards to which it holds itself are not yours -- why give them the satisfaction of your eyeballs?

Yeah... and DaVinci was a homosexual who had to argue for his life against conviction when he was caught en flagrante (conviction for a second offense would mean burning to death on a grill in the public square... a new definition to hot-crossed buns... not fun). There is a charming notation in his workbooks where he talks of the acquisition of a pretty 14-year-old boy! He made great art. He was a genius. However, he didn't do it on the Internet where there are laws about what can be shown. Bringing up a legion of famous painters of the past is NOT going to change the rules governing Internet commerce today. According to the TOS, no genitals can be displayed on figures which appear to be under the age of 18. What part of NO is so hard to understand????? That includes babies and toddlers and humanoids... not just fairies (this is not a war against winged folk! but adding wings is no excuse for breaking the rule repeatedly). The descriptions of nudity include sheer cloth... if you can see the crack of the crotch or the color of the nipples it isn't covered enough, and needs the nudity flag. If you can tell that it is a little boy or a little girl, it probably needs more coverage. If it is posed provocatively, it will also be pulled. So, yes, paintings in churches such as the Madonna nursing a naked-with-penis-showing baby Jesus would be pulled from this website... no matter how holy, reverent, or well-painted. Some of these images get refused as postage stamps, too... because various communities enforce even tougher decency standards. Saying "so-and-so does it" or "it is allowed at such-and-such a site" is totally irrelevant. It is not allowed here. Someone who has had a number of warnings (this is not a sudden or unforeseen event), even leading to banning, and still is shrilly rousing the rabble, directly or through surrogates, might want to consider thinking about community and disruption... or consider why she wants so badly to place her images where they are not allowed? She can take them to FairieWylde or some other site where naked kids can run freely and where the audience of viewers appreciate them. Or she can work to replace conservative people in government. Or she can write to the organizations which govern the banks and ask them to open the rulings. Any of those choices will do some good. She might also consider the idea that Renderosity's policies are affected by the laws of the State of Tennessee, the laws of the ISP/webhosts, the laws of the FCC (or how many other agencies get involved,) and the laws of PayPal and CitiBank and Visa and all the others who facilitate the transactions. Does she really want to bring down the entire site because Visa froze the accounts? PayPal has been known to act against other sites... this is not an idle threat on their behalf! Or maybe she'd prefer to have Ashcroft and several irate Congressmen cobble together even stiffer anti-child-pornography rules? If 20 people rise to her defense, she might feel vindicated... but if the community as a whole is damaged, what price such shallow victory? This stuff tends to snowball. The pendulum will swing (I remember the Summer of Love and the feeling that we could change the world). Carolly

I doubt anyone has seen the images in question that suddenly were in TOS violation. I have seen them and there were nothing that would have violated the TOS because there were no genitals showing on this images. Talking about something you haven't seen is pointless since you take the mod's word for it and constantly assume HS would have been doing anything that would justify their actions - she did NOT!

The last image showed a new dolly used on V3 with a H U G E square covering the lower area with a written link on it to another online store - and no, it was not a link to Renderotica (oops, can we say that). This is all just plain word is censored by the poster, fill in anything you might see fit! and nothing more. Some mods obviously enjoy the power given to them too much, me thinks.

"She can take them to FairieWylde or some other site where naked kids can run freely and where the audience of viewers appreciate them."

Carolly, I would appreciate you stop such comments in future because they shed a bad light on our forum. I hope you consider this when you feel like comeing to FaerieWylde the next time because there is some freestuff to download ... or should I delete your membership?

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 06:06

I may be confusing the merchant rules with the regular gallery rules, nevertheless: Is it not true that usage of censor tags and items similar to them is specifically forbidden since that provider debacle that forced the changes to the store? Not that they impacted what my son makes (thus far only a boat), but I recall reading that they were speciically prohibited. I also vaguely recall being told that the store rules were applied to some extent to the galleries -- but that one may have been a cynical expectation expressed in frustration.

Is there not some mechanism whereby a member who disputes a TOS violation decision by a mod or mods can appeal? If not.... maybe there should be. Jack

I have not seen such a mechanism, nor do I feel there should be. Strikes me as a waste of time -- either they can live with their decisions -- and we, as persons who agree to do so when we sign up, can do the same obviously, or we would not be signing up -- or they cannot. They want visits. If they cross the line enough, enough people will not do so, and they will change. This is much like how it was in the days of mining towns -- miners had to die, and it was ultimately court rulings that decided the outcome, not the occasional irate miner's revolt.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/index.ez?viewLink=193

Puntomaus, I have seen large chunks of her gallery... I had gallery duty here when I was on staff. I have also participated in many staff discussions here about whether certain images by a number of artists broke the TOS. Very few actually get reviewed in the staffroom and even fewer get pulled. It didn't matter if the work was good or whether it was art or whether it had been painted by a genius. A piece would be pulled if it was deemed by the staff to be in violation. The mods aren't out to stifle anybody's creativity, BUT they are supposed to uphold the rules of this particular site. Not FaerieWylde, not Renderotica, not RDNA, not DAZ... this site. A member who joins this site agrees to abide by the TOS. When a member uploads an image, they are asked to review the TOS... with a direct link. "Acceptable Image & Writing Guidelines Please review our TOS." One click. If an artist feels that the TOS is repressive, they can try to exhibit their images on another site with different rules, OR they can set up their own website and show whatever the hell they please on their own nickle. That is freedom. I'm linking to the TOS again. Someone might want to explain to her supporters that "false accusations" is a serious charge which might fall afoul of this part of the TOS: "Transmitting any libelous, defamatory, or any other material that could give rise to any civil or criminal liability under the law." Carolly

Wow, looks like it's been a long night in here...

First of all, Heart'Song was not the lone wolf when it came to posting figures of fae that ended up getting pulled. Many others have been asked to remove their images of fae that could be considered the bodies of humanoid characters under the age of 18. Giving a nude model that has the appearance of a small child, pre-teen, or teen wings does NOT make it ok, and it's not automatically a faerie. To tell you the honest truth, since I became a coordinator, the most beautiful pieces of fae art that I've seen here had wonderfully intricate clothing. Others have appeared to be nothing BUT an excuse to post naked kids with wings on.
Simple fact is, the TOS is clear on this:

"No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 where genitals are displayed and/or in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team."

hopefully, this won't go on as long as it did on Saturday. The point is, if you create a fae/cherub/other naked child character, at LEAST clothe or cover the groin area. AT THE VERY LEAST. Some that I've seen post naked fae children are great at creating props....why not take those modelling talents to make little fae clothing?
I really don't understand why we have to point out the TOS every 10 minutes sometimes. I mean, honestly....think about other sites...not just Poser related, either. When you join, you agree to abide by their rules. Sometimes, those rules may take away some of your expressive freedoms. That is because the internet is NOT a democracy, no matter where you go! Every website has a TOS to be followed, and when the rules are broken, there are only so many slaps on the wrist you can give. Heart'Song had a LOT. And, ya know what? They dated back a couple YEARS, so it's not like she's been singled out. ANYONE who posts an image of an humanoid character that is given the appearance of being underaged is at risk of having the image pulled. Heart'Song just happened to yell the loudest.

MorriganShadow
Poser Coordinator

*edited for clarity

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 06:34

What part of NO is so hard to understand?

The part where a clothed figure with NO genitalia showing is targetted because there might be genitals under their clothes or something.

Seriously, an image where the figure was wearing a jewelled sort of bikini bottom. No hint of naughty bits anywhere. Pulled. The bottom "drew attention to the genitals". What kind of pervert looks at an image and thinks "Wow, I'll bet that fairy has GENITALS under that jewelled bottom!" and why are they the ones being catered to?

My point is NOT that the TOS shouldn't be followed, only that it should be clearly defined. Just what sort of clothes aren't figures allowed to wear?

The point is, if you create a fae/cherub/other naked child character, at LEAST clothe or cover the groin area.

Unless the covering you choose, which is not see through and is in no way erotic, makes certain viewers think about genitals.

bonni Message edited on: 03/17/2005 06:44

LOL @ bonni

Do not use squares, one mod already refered to them as not appropriate clothes - even if they are huge, solid and opaque and cover everything. Squares is a big no no :P But I am not sure if this rule applies to triangles and circles too ...

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 06:49

Maus RULES!

"Maus RULES!" Not here, unfortunately ;-)

"But I am not sure if this rule applies to triangles and circles too ..." oh no - shapeisim :)

I think the miner's revolt, to use jcbwms example, would tire it self out faster if simply left alone. People will get tired soon enough and go back into the pits until the next cave in. Returning to quote the rules every 15 minutes only pisses people off more. I know that the PTB feel they're being maligned unjustly by the rabble but it copmes with the job. Repeating rule 13c subsection 2 paragraph 19 simply reminds people how much they feel that the rule wasn't broken. Disagreement, human nature no changing it, tomorrow's another day. That's the way I'd handle it at least, thank the Goddess it ain't my job. Hey, you boys over there, git that dang saloon gal down offn' that chandyleer! Gus, I said no horses in here damnit!

Ok, maybe we were wrong about the ONE image. ONE out of MANY that we had to review. From ONE gallery. Like I stated Saturday, until we can train computers to do our thinking for us, humans are monitoring the galleries. But, just because ONE gallery image among MANY had the genital area covered does not mean that Heart'Song was innocent. As for the box....we knew it was a protest, HOWEVER, covering the area with a box stating "Censored by Renderosity" is NOT following the TOS. It is being smarmy and thinking she could get away with it. We asked her to remove the image, or replace it with one that covered the genital area. Should we have been more clear? Possibly. Did we think that she would do that? Obviously not, otherwise we would have specifically told her to clothe the model. We are trying to see if we can make the rules more concise. When we do, we'll let you know. But, PLEASE, please, be patient with us. Changes take time. This isn't a life or death situation. A member broke the rules. Repeatedly. They got in trouble for it. Again, please be patient on any changes...things take time. MorriganShadow Poser Coordinator

Ok, maybe we were wrong about the ONE image.

Well, at least you'll admit that much. ;-)

So, can I clothe my fairies in jeweled bottom thingies that might or might not draw attention to their genitals without getting banned? Just askin'. (And yes, I'm also teasing. I do NOT envy the job of moderator even a tiny little bit.)

Also, in my mind this isn't about innocence or guilt or anythign else. I just sincerely want to see the TOS enforced evenly, and I want to know what is and is not allowed, for my own information (I do obey the TOS to the best of my ability).

We are trying to see if we can make the rules more concise.

Good. Thank you.

But, PLEASE, please, be patient with us. Changes take time.

Oh, I've been around here long enough to know that. It took months of constant complaining just to get them to fix a problem with the site design that was causing problems for people, making pages not load, etc. I can only imagine how long it would take to tighten up the Terms of Service.

I also think it would be wise to institute a policy of sending both an email and a PM to people who are receiving warnings. In the case of Heart'Song, her spam filter (which was installed and is maintained by her ISP as far as I can tell) caught all of the previous warnings, and apparently not one admin or mod bothered to follow up on it.

MorriganShadow, I, for one, know that this is NOT something you personally did or anything of the sort. The lack of communication, of follow up, of even TOS enforcement, etc., has been around long before you stepped into the unenviable position of moderator. You've just had the misfortune of having to deal with the trouble caused by this instance of Renderositism. ;-)

bonni Message edited on: 03/17/2005 07:19

It's always been my belief that my complete freedom of speech and expression applies only to MY web site (where the ultimate responsibility for content belongs to me). When a web site reaches the size of Renderosity, it becomes more businesslike, can't be helped. It assumes responsibility to advertisers, merchants, and a host of others including the community it resides in as well as the community it serves. Compromises' are unavoidable. I actually find it refreshing that those who disagree are able to voice their disagreement so strongly. :-) In the words of the great thinker, Yogi Berra- "Nobody goes there, it's always too crowded."

In my reading of those now locked threads, it seems one moderator in particular has unilaterraly rewritten the TOS.
Where the TOS states "...no genitals..."
This moderator (and perhaps others) reads "...no genital area..."
Hence an image with no genitals can be banned!

This seems to have been done without consultation. No other moderator has corrected him/her. Instead those threads have unprofessional sniping and belittling (from moderators)
The section of TOS was posted again and again by moderators with aspersions on others intelligence if they continued to protest, without the realisation that it was the moderator who was reading something that was not there.

If you want something to be read between the lines you should write between them.

Message edited on: 03/17/2005 07:38