Yes I agree that things (the pendulum) get out of hand swing too far the other way. In all the babble, (of mine) my position on the TOS was that I didnt really care, either way. I think it has been made a too huge of an issue. Prolly lose a few good artists because of it. I hate to see that~ But Im here, and (self proclaimed) Im really,really 'neat'

Birddie .. post #293. Heart'Song was a regular contributor here since 2001, with over 500 pictures in her gallery. Many attracted over 50 comments each .. some over 100. ALL positive. When the TOS was last changed here, the rules were applied retrospectively to pictures that already existed and which, at the time of posting, had been within the TOS at the time. 2 years later, someone complained about 5 of Heart'Song's pictures. None of them contravened the letter of the new, tighter, rules, except the part that allows the discretion of the Mods to decide suitability over and above the actual rules themselves. So far so good. Unfortunately, the first Heart'Song knew about the 5 'offending' images was when she couldn't access Renderosity one day. She called the Admins here who told her she'd been banned for 3 days and 5 pictures had been deleted for violating the TOS. I guess this was the crossroads. She could have said "Fair enough" and walked away (I wish that she had). But as the pictures were only against the new TOS because the Mods said they were, no element in them actually broke the actual rules, she decided to query it. She did so, privately, by discussing it with officials here. I do not know the details of those discussions. But there was clearly some disagreement about interpretations and, as is her perfect right, Heart decided to air the issue publicly. This is the place for such discussions. There were three threads on the issue because each got 'hi-jacked' by other members, and the Mods locked them before Heart got a sensible, consistent answer to her question about what was, and was not, allowed. Although tempers rose a little, all the posts were within the TOS. In the first thread, two of the Mods couldn't agree on their interpretation of the rules. I don't blame them at all .. it was good to see them thinking the matter through 'in the open', but it was clear that the case was causing some disagreement. Next thing we know, Heart has been banned permanently, her entire gallery has been deleted, and new draconian (and ill-thought out) rules are put in place. That is why a number of us are rather .. ummm .. upset. No disrespect, but there is some history here. I'm sure when things have simmered down we'll all reach a sensible compromise. After all, we do this hobby for fun. And the Admins and Mods are sensible, thoughtful people who keep this place safe and profitable (no crime in that). They've gone too far in this case, but I'm sure common sense will prevail in due course. mooch

Duffelbagism is rampant, and it's not even september. I wonder if they'll ban me if I can see up their noses.... bonni

I'm not here to start fights. So, I will not post to this thread anymore. I don't come here to be insulted. This will be my last comment on the subject: Personally: the new TOS doesn't bother me nor affect me. I only do renders of V3, SP3, M3 & A3 fully clothed. and, I maybe new here but not to the web or to graphics or art for that matter. I was a pen & ink artist ten years ago. I'm not a newbie to this game. I am an adult in my 40's and I don't need a history lesson regarding the members of this site and who's been here the longest. I'm not in a contest with anyone here. Either accept the new TOS or don't but don't take your anger out on me or personally attack me for no reason just because I state my opinions on the matter like everybody else. end transmission....

"I wonder if they'll ban me if I can see up their noses.... bonni" LOL ... maybe they should adjust the xrot since it's their fault then, not yours ;-)

Taleban is alive, Hallelujah!

Birrdie wrote in #201 "You'll all hate me for saying this, but, I think fairies should be removed from the uploading category then? Why not make it easier on the adims/mods by just removing the categories that are offensive?" Someone who comes in here and suggests to remove an entire categorie without even knowing what else is posted in this category should not be surprised when others feel like commenting on that. As I said before, making uninformed suggestions and comments and being a newbie won't make you any friends here. But I remember from another thread where you mentioned that you hate faeries because they are childish. Maybe you should not confuse faerie images with faerie tales - that is something complete different!

I think she was being sarcastic Punto.

I haven't weighed in here yet, because I, well, I don't think that this forum is the place for talking about nature of pedophilia or crime rates or any of that other bullshit when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand in truth. And it doesn't. The subject at hand is a set of rules. What you are talking about is why the rules were put in place, and the simple, direct, genuine answer is because the people who run this place decided that them was gonna be the rules. Whew. Ok, that's out of me -- no offense guys. I'm just so fucking tired of reading stuff about all that. Now, as to the TOS change, well, shit. It directly affects me. As a merchant. I've just finsihed some fixes to a product that was advertised awhile back, and under the terms of the new policy, I essentially can't release it here now. The project? A swimming hole. Tire swing, trees, plants, stuff like that. Even poses for the young teens and the new preschoolers, along with swim trunks for the boys and swimshits for the girls. I can't sell it here, now. I mean, why the hell should I? No one can use it to make renders with that will be posted here. So gee, thanks, guys. I appreciate it. A lot. I'll take it over to Odd Ditty Foundry and Fairywylde. Really, really, really stupid thing to do. Indeed -- Shame on you.

this is truly sucks... I mean.. there will be pictures of things that offend people... I myself dont like ones with satan or devil in it... yet there are some around here and u dont see me complaining about it. I simply ignore it. i dont exactly see an outstanding number of pictures wiht nude kids... just a very few and not many at that. And now I can predict very easily you guys will lose some customers cuz of that stupid rule. it ought to be a bit more specific... because right now its pretty too general ... now im worried about my own picture very first one i posted may be breaking the TOS even though shes clothed... you barely can see it though and can easily assume shes nude ... O.O to people who runs around here... please wise up... make some adjustments thats my 2 cents cheers

While I was reading your post I thought about suggesting Faerie Dreams just to find out you've already thought about it. Yay, and over there people cannot even use it to make renders, they is allowed to post them as well ;-)

ynsaen, just make the boy suits the old fashion kind with the tank top style top. You'll make a small fortune since I don't think that kind of suit exists in the Poser-verse yet and it's the only kind we can use here. yo Morrigan, any new news, or are TPTB ignoring you now as well? A suitable protest if we are ignored may be just to flood the gallery with pictures outside of the TOS. If we get enough participents they can't ban us all.

thixen, I'm not being ignored, I'm just waiting to hear anything. And, I highly suggest against anything that violates the TOS ;). MorriganShadow Poser Coord.

well just keep in mind that after a certain point waiting for an answer becomes being ignored.

Meditate this: In the new CL Content Paradise, even the skeleton has a "nude" tag (yes - it's wearing no clothes...). :-D

Quote from the TOS: "Additionally, any post, image or writings can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community. Conversely there may be some images which, whilst in apparent violation of the rules, will be permitted to stay in the interests of free speech and religious tolerance. In such cases the artist may be asked to furnish reasons why the image should be permitted to stay and the decision of the Renderosity staff will be final." So pictures of the baby Jesus as show in the nativity would be allowed as long as I can furnish proof that I am a christian, and it's a part of my religious traditiion.

Huh?

Is it over?

Yes, if the great "Defenders of Freedom" had simply let the matter drop, then we wouldn't have arrived at this location.

I don't blame the PTB for their reaction. Most businesses would react in the same manner.

The goal is: peace and quiet. Even if achieving the peace & quiet requires upsetting a few people for a while.

The shouting will die down eventually. And then members will gradually come to accept the new TOS as being the status quo. It's happened before. Sure, a few people went away and never came back.....but lots more came in to take their places.

And some of them no doubt came back under different handles ;-).

This, too.....shall pass away.

As someone said many posts ago in this thread: the PTB are merely seeking to put a cork in it.

Disallow it all, and then the members can't squabble over the vaugeness of the rules (the 6" rule vs. the 3" rule). Now, instead -- they can scream about the unfairness of a total ban.....for a brief while.

And then -- most people will move on to other subjects. Like P6. And those individuals that are truly interested in certain art forms will move on to other sites -- sites more conducive to their particular style.

Case closed. No muss.....and only a temporary fuss.

It's impossible to please everybody. So......just remove the bone of contention from the throat.

From a purely practical standpoint, that's good thinking.

Are nude cherubs also part of some religion ? Kids playing at the pool too ? Mothers brest-feeding nude infants ? Sigh. It's no use thixen, you can try to convince those weird stubborn blind people 'till you die ;(. And yes, we are still being ignored. Any CONSTRUCTIVE comment from mods/admins, except "don't try to mass-violate new TOS" ? Maybe this would work :>

you can try to convince those weird stubborn blind people 'till you die How true, how true. It's difficult to see a forest, I know.

"don't try to mass-violate new TOS" ? Maybe this would work :> " well that was more just a musing then anything. Truthfully I wouldn't try. Not because a mod said not to, but just because outside of this (the poser) community people really just don't care that much about the TOS, and wont until some grand pap decides to post pics of his grand kids at the beach and gets warned about it. Even then the other communities aren't nearly as active as this one so he really doesn't have any one to complain too. Any form of formal protest by the members of these forums will go largly unanswered by the fact that Rendo isn't a poser exclusive site. In fact I'd say most users outside of the poser world doesn't even know the change has occured. I mean what does a Maya person who does mostly cars care about the TOS in regaurding to posting pics of kids. Anyway the point is that you're never going to get enough people who are willing to risk being banned to ban together and do any type of 'civil disobedance' (sorry about the spelling) type of protests Although I'm still currently ignoring most of what Xeno is saying to avoid a flame war. He does make one good point. In a tug of war, when neither side budges the rope is bound to break, and thats what's happened. The bible beaters vs Rendo should allow any content camps have tugged on the TOS so much that now it's truly broke. Everyone in the middle gets screwed.

*Although I'm still currently ignoring most of what Xeno is saying to avoid a flame war. He does make one good point.

In a tug of war, when neither side budges the rope is bound to break, and thats what's happened. The bible beaters vs Rendo should allow any content camps have tugged on the TOS so much that now it's truly broke. Everyone in the middle gets screwed.*

Ahhhhh......you've gotten THE point.

BTW -- the PTB at Rendo are actually the ones that are truly "caught in the middle" between two utterly intractable sides. One side yelling "NAZIS!" while the other side yells "PERVERTS!".

This TOS change is the administration's attempt to deal with the problem.

No matter what they did, somebody wouldn't like it.

BTW -- no need for a flame war. I'm hip to a reasoned discussion. With reasonable people.

According to what's been written by one poster in this thread, everyone who puts kids and baby's in their imagery is a child pornographer. That person did not use any religious beliefs to support their assertion. Therefore there is no basis to assume that they are a Bible beater. Apparantly other people have a difficult time looking at images of children without getting sexually aroused as well. In other words, it isn't just "Bible Beaters" vs. Renderosity.

acctually the ones in the middle is everyone not in either camp. TPTB, the general user, the merchants, everyone. All screwed by the broken TOS

Bible Beater ,as used here, is a general term that indicates anyone so far to the right that they wouldn't have anything but fully clothed asexiual images or images of inanimate objects. Not to infer any relgious context.

Basicly people who wouldn't be happy until everyone had to wear loose fitting turlenecks and slacks Ohh Xeno, I didn't really mean anything by that, except for most of what you've posted you need to look beyond what you said (the words you used) to WHAT you said (the meaning)

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 12:39

I can see how the PTB could be considered 'caught in the middle" but if that's the case, they might consider changing lawyers. Disney, Pixar, a whole slew of advertising agencies, TV networks, and other movie studios have lawyers that can successfully defend the position that not only are shirtless boys and baby's not pornographic but they are also approvable for all audiences (Rated G). If Renderosity's lawyers can't do that as well, then they must be grossly incompetant. By removing that incompetance, the PTB would remove itself from the middle - at least as far as legal hassle go. They're going to have to deal with issues from artists anyways. Why don't they just shut down their email accounts if they want to avoid that.? Just leave one open for store issues and shut the rest down? I bet they wouldn't get many complaints if they did that!

acctually the ones in the middle is everyone not in either camp. TPTB, the general user, the merchants, everyone. All screwed by the broken TOS If people were willing to be reasonable, then draconican moves on the part of the administration wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately, many people on both sides of this issue aren't going to give an inch. So.......quash the whole thing. And thus mitigate the problem. Under the circumstances, it's not a bad strategy.

Ohh Xeno, I didn't really mean anything by that, except for most of what you've posted you need to look beyond what you said (the words you used) to WHAT you said (the meaning) No offense taken here. I've developed a thick hide over the years. I try to be as straightforward as possible in my communications -- although I admit to loving word games. The problem comes in with people that......don't quite see the whole picture. Usually, they are too busy yelling to notice anything else.

Well creating a third party that wont give an inch doesnt help anything either. I guess a little common sense (by all parties involved) is a little too much to ask. Ohh and try this one on for size... If all you do is yell, then how can you hear yourself think?

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 12:56

Well creating a third party that wont give an inch doesnt help anything either. I guess a little common sense (by all parties involved) is a little too much to ask.

Yes, it's too much to ask.

Read backwards through the forum archives. Common sense -- not to mention common courtesy -- is hard to come by.

When dealing with the rude, one is forced to speak to them in a language which they can understand.........more often than not, any attempts at subtlety go right over their heads.

If all you do is yell, then how can you hear yourself think?

That's true.

But I wouldn't look to the forums for a solution to this problem.

I'm not yelling. I just hope (stupid me !) that someone will read all of those posts, kick incompetent lawyers in the butts and make R'osity more peaceful and artist-friendly again. Stupid me.

I don't think any one said you where vilian, but if you look back tbere are some posts where people were practically banging their show on the podium. (history ref there)

the point is though that 99% of the people making a fuss would be happy if the TOS allowed topless infant and boy characters. Everything else I totally get and would be defending the TOS at the moment reather then the contrary, as I believe a majority of the people here would. But by letting this go and not making a statement either justifying their reaction or making that small change it ferthers people perceptions that TPTB just sit in their towers and ignore the people below.

MorriganShadow has been the only one to even attempt to answer any of this, but it's obvious that he/she (sorry morrigan, I'm really not sure what pronoun to use. Never asked your gender) isn't the one that are making these rules and isn't getting any more answers from those above her/him then we are.

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 13:31

..if anyone's interested... shirtless boys allowed baby's in diapers allowed toddlers (male) allowed topless. ok.. thats cherubs allowed again.. valentines is safe!! I return you all to your ranting.

Re 'Bible Beaters:
If you want a restrictive TOS, it would be hard to beat the Bible's:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth... Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female...

When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger:

The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,

The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth...

I believe that Islam has similar strictures, and no mosque is allowed to contain a representative image (hence the fractalish, abstract artwork associate with Islam).

Hey, all, quick message. We are making changes to the TOS as it stands now. Shirtless BOYS will be allowed. BABIES in diapers will be allowed. Shirtless MALE toddlers will be allowed. NO shirtless females appearing to be under the age of 18 will be allowed AT ALL. I know that everyone's stressed out, and I can understand. I want to thank you guys for being so civil. I've been following this thread, and, I've got to tell you, I expected a bigger explosion. Thank you for proving me wrong ;). MorriganShadow Poser Coord

(btw, thixen, I'm female ;) )

ya might just wanna consider this:

Those objecting to nudity on religious grounds haven't got a leg to stand on. According to the Bible, God created male and female, and they were naked and without shame. And God saw that it was good. Otherwise S/He would've put clothes on 'em both right away.

Now into the Garden cometh the Serpent, Satan, who told them they were naked and either said or implied that it was A BAD THING so they covered themselves with fig leaves and tried to hide away. Note: IT DID NOT WORK. So much for cover-ups.:P

It is a well know fact the Devil can quote Scripture to suit himself. It is equally well known that he is the Father of All Lies. Therefore this whole "Naked is Evil" idea is completely and utterly fradulent. An invention of Satan, yet one bought into by the Puritans, the prudes, the so-called Moral Majority and others of that ilk, including the outright whack-a-doodles. But a worshipper of God is supposed to reject the devil and all his evil works. Why, then, are they choosing to believe Satan's canard about the "wickedness" of the unclothed human body instead of the Almighty's own truth about its goodness and beauty? Or has that thought ever once occurred to any of them? Alas, I do not think so.

End of sermon. You may quote/borrow/steal all you please if it helps enlighten any one. Me, I'm off to hunt for a brassiere that fits Luke and/or David (my favorite Hy Pr models, I use M3 for S*e). Have a nice day. :D

Thank you Morrigan and the rest... I can crawl back into my shell now...(lemur in a shell? shrugs) Jack

Well I see that we were heard, and I for one am satisfied. I can see logic in restricting bare chested female characters under the age of 18, thats been a long standing tradition in most of the world. So I put on a smiley face. Thanks again MorriganShadow "(btw, thixen, I'm female ;) ) " ohh yea? You cute? j/k :p

"Duffelbagism is rampant, and it's not even september." As cooler informed me, it's always September somewhere on the web :) "And the Admins and Mods are sensible, thoughtful people who keep this place safe and profitable (no crime in that). They've gone too far in this case, but I'm sure common sense will prevail in due course." Really? You think they will admit they were wrong and re-instate Heart'song? Would be nice but as Bonnie pointed out, dufflebagism is rampant, but it IS always September. :)

We are making changes to the TOS as it stands now. It was Bobasaur's newsletter, I tell ya.

ROFLMAO.

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 14:11

"It is a well know fact the Devil can quote Scripture to suit himself... You may quote/borrow/steal all you please if it helps enlighten any one..."

I presented the quote for information purposes only (or maybe the devil made me do it).

When I searched the Bible on 'graven image' I was surprised to find that the 'TOS' is so restrictive and so unequivocal. I don't know of any Christian denomination which actually adheres to the admonitions to never make any sort of representative image ever (or how would they deal with driver's licenses with pictures on them?)

I just thought it might be interesting to compare Rosity's TOS to the higher power's (in light of earlier comments about the Bible and its adherents).

Graven image, in the specific translation you noted, means something which is a sacred representation of a supernatural force (such as a deity). Remember that the Bible was not written in English, and in translation often loses a great deal of the context and subtle nuance of language. In particular, idiom and connotation are frequently not easily transliterated, and such is specifically the case here. Your driver's License example is faulty in extreme. Christianity and Islam also accept much of the core elements of later books than Genesis, and it is there that you find that, yes, indeed, while God did make Adam and Eve in the buff, he did it in a location that was not harmful to them -- Eden. Within Eden, they dwelt primarily in the Garden -- a nice, neat, park like setting that approached the sterile in some respects. Once they were cast out of that Garden, they were required to wear clothing to protect themselves from the ravages of the world and to remind them of that original sin by God. So that argument is fallacious as well. Tsk tsk. Religion, perversion, science, philosophy, history, art, sex, drugs, and rock and roll. I am definitely going to hang around and mock this place more often. Even my regular haunts aren't this entertaining.

I know that everyone's stressed out, and I can understand. I want to thank you guys for being so civil. I've been following this thread, and, I've got to tell you, I expected a bigger explosion. Thank you for proving me wrong ;).

Oh, well.....obviously someone isn't trying hard enough.

I believe the the admins here at good 'ol RR deserve kudos once again.

You've managed to do the best that you could under the circumstances.

Some won't be happy with the (amended) change......c'est la vie.

BTW - some might use the amendment to start arguing over the 6" rule again. Just a thought.

Well.....what kind of bathing suit........?

Sin be damned! Eden was a climate-controlled isolated area, the rest of the world ain't. It's the weather, I tell ya. Even in summer it gets so chilly that Adam & Eve -- and any stray nudists -- would freeze their what-nots off where I just happen to live. ;-)

Nice explanation, jcbwms. I was going to point out that those verses referred to creating idols to be worshipped - essentially the same thing... That subject, however, is way OT. ------ I believe that Morrigan is a choice name for an Irish lass... ...but that, too, is probably OT. Unless she's done a self portrait in Poser that fit's within the TOS.

Have to add it here since I couldn't edit my last post: P.S. Any bets on how soon it'll be a'fore someone gets the notion the new TOS is gender discrimination and starts hollerin'? P.P.S. Maybe even alien species discrimination, too. Ferengi females of all ages are forbidden to wear clothes ;-) P.P.P.S. If you take these addenda seriously, you're crazier than I am. And everyone who knows me sez I'm a total loon. tweet!tweet!

Gee, did the "Defenders of Freedom" actuallu accomplish something? Oh, I forgot, it was all their fault to begin with. Yep, SpiceHD, she does look kinda naked and that dark shadow in the crotch area well... Now, is everyone happy? Let's all go render some girls with big American breasts--SNL "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." Charles Austin Beard

hits byrdie with a pie, flips her the byrdie and runs off hay I'm sill waiting for an answer to the: is Morrigan cute questions. :p humm I guess I shouldn't hit on the mods.

ahem lol, 'specially when they're married ;)