Renderosity and Bondware need to protect themselves from the misguided puritanical moralsts that pervade some American power structures. If they are don't some crackpot that has the ear of some minor polititian that looking for media cover for thier re-election. Hey thats enough U.S politico bashing... support the decision and remember you still have a place to voice it and to share your art work... R My two cents all art movements set rules to define the difference

I just wonder who is really behind this... is it the United Nations? is it the FBI? is it the Bush administration? When I was young, even a completely nude child was absolutely no big deal, and noone even paid much attention to it... it was a non issue of no importance. Look what it has become now... a horrible crime worse than murder! astonishing! I fear this new type of mindset might backfire and spur a flood of new psychotic behavior in our society, with tragic consequences.

" I just wonder who is really behind this... is it the United Nations? is it the FBI? is it the Bush administration?"

None of the above, my buddy max-

It's the united states of dollar bills. No VISA and No Paypal equal no Rosity. Those two got Rosity right at the cajones.

The commercial part of this site has grown beyond the community part of site. That's just reality. Even a large caliber Merchant like Blackhearted is out defending the big R's cause. Sorry Gabriel, I respect you as an artist, but I think you sold out, buddy. JV Message edited on: 03/22/2005 23:58

bonni, I would like to state for the record. I am from Europe. topless beaches and naked tikes abound. I am not against naked children frolicking on a beach with mom and pop and family around. I am against the perves cruising this site and others looking for a truly cheap thrill. it is sad. I remember the days as stated above, when a child on a bearskin rug or blanket laid out on the living room was adorable and found in nearly every album in the family. Now, a film developer may turn your film over to the police for investigation. it IS sad. it IS a loss. but unfortunately it is the current state of things. there are many "watchdog" sites out here now that will zoom in on one wrong pic in a site and that is it. a nude fairy that is lavish in her innocence,,,,naked with a smile can get the whole place in hot water if the wrong watchdog bites down on it. yes again SAD but unfortunatly....true.

DE, I know you're Spanish. ;-)

I don't have issues with "no child nudity" when it's sensible. Prohibiting boys on the beach and babies in diapers was just plain overkill, however. If someone is going to get some perverted thrill from the ugly Millenium Baby as a cupid, well, there's nothing to be done about it. Some people get sexually aroused by pictures of shoes, too, but we don't ban those. ;-)

I DO think that the American extreme sensitivity to nudity is bizarre, and I've thought it for a long time (since long before I left the United States; must have been that the years I lived in Europe as a kid corrupted my mind, hehe). That, however, has nothing to do with my objection to the too-strenously worded ToS revision.

If they actually do change it so that it permits the 100% totally innocent depictions of babies in diapers with bare chests and little boys playing in swimming holes or at the beach, I'm okay with it. I don't care if they allow nude children or not, to be perfectly honest. Policing such a thing is a big headache, and they do have better things to do with their time.

Everyone who thought I was some sort of "Naked Children Free for All" person can now pick up their jaws from the floor. I don't post pictures of nude children (well, other than the scandalous topless baby who has since been removed), and I do believe in following the ToS. I just also believe that a ToS should be reasonable, and banning babies in diapers isn't reasonable (banning nude children is a reasonable thing, though, IMHO, although it does bar many perfectly innocent images; it's the balance they've had to strike and I can live with it).

bonni

Message edited on: 03/23/2005 00:20

".it seem most of the bigger sites have very similar TOS conerning the same subject matter." And guess in which Taleban's country those sites are...

heh, naked mill baby...ew sorry the mill baby just..always gave me the creeps to begin with. the point I was making with the comment about the sndcastie pick(btw personally to my view that is so...un-offensive) was if they are going to state it that way they should back it up. even if it was one of their own mods. consitancy. actually backing their stance up. now some of the fae I have seen O.O....and sorry but when it comes to ages between 5(heck 4 sometimes) and say...15 sorry it is just to touchy right now in the world.16-18 hard call. open flat out sensuality...be careful. flat out sexual content heck no.

kawecki, seriously, to live under the taleban is NOTHING like geting a bit of TOS enforcement. no one is being murdered, mutilated, raped, bombed hijacked,having chemical and bio-chemical agents tested on them, no mass graves, no torture or anything else here. it is a small bit of TOS. not the upheaval of the "free"world.

naked mill baby...ew Yeah, but I was talking about one in a diaper. Under the ToS revision they presented originally, that would have been a violation. if they are going to state it that way they should back it up. even if it was one of their own mods. Well, yes, we'd ALL like to see that, I'm sure. ;-) bonni

;)@bonni

" kawecki, seriously, to live under the taleban is NOTHING like geting a bit of TOS enforcement. no one is being murdered, mutilated, raped, bombed hijacked,having chemical and bio-chemical agents tested on them, no mass graves, no torture or anything else here." Sure, nobody sold gases to Hussein, Guantanamo doesn't exist, the Abdhul??? prison cases are fantasy, schools are only bombed with cookies, torture??? what is that?

What she's saying is that Renderosity telling us not to put pictures of naked children on their server isn't equivalent to having your head cut off because your beard isn't long enough. bonni

Not yet, it's only a question of time.

Well, when Renderosity admins come to my house to make sure my kids are dressed, I'll agree with you. :-)

bonni

Message edited on: 03/23/2005 01:49

Texas, June 14 2010. Today John Smith had his death sentence executed in the electric chair, it must be remembered the horrid crime he has commited in Dec 2009 when was found in his possesion pictures of nude faeries once downloaded from the no more existent, thanks to God, demoniac site Renderosity.

Now this is cause for celebration. Two threads ont he same topic, both filled with people with the same desire to make a rule change on a privately owned site into some sort of societal attack on their rights as they struggle in vain to discern the motives behind the change in rules. Those of you doing so are all ever so enjoyably simple. The more I look around this place, the more I find cause for laughing out loud at the antics herein. The Reason behind the rule change is irrelevant. For those of you with less capable vocabularies, that means it does not matter why the changed the rule. The overwhelming bulk of this thread is filled with poorly concieved and utterly indefensible arguments, as well. We have consipracy theories, darwinism, social engineeering, religion, sex, perversion, and digital models of infants whose gender is impossible to distinguish without social clothing conventions provided seperately. Good lord, people. It is apparent that you are so desperate for some semblance of adult conversation that you are willing to accept this instead. Stop. Sit back. Breathe deep the gathering gloom. Then get on with discussing the actual issue at hand, not the assumptive why or the hand wringing worry. That issue is that a rule change has been made. That rule change has since been modified or is in the process of being modified. Talk about those modifications. I agree, incidentally, that it will raise the spectre of sexism in art, but that spectre has always been exactly that -- a spectre. A half formed phantom, an illusion -- something that is used to scare and or frighten young children and the feeble of mind. However, the changes do accomplish what needed to be accomplished. Instead of an outright ban that would, in effect, create a massive workload for the staff, they have gone with a much more sensible approach and made the limitations effect the dress conventions of the location in which the site operates. As for everyone else, piss off. You don't run the site. I don't, either -- but I'm not accusing people of pedophilia or censorship or trying to make it seem like they are some sort of "anti-art" or hate fairie pictures. Someone said that Renderosity is a "give and take" place. In short, your assumptive reasoning is incorrect. For a small fee of 30.00 USD, I will correct it for you, although in so doing you will lose the entire structure of your argument and need to repost. Someone else inferred that people have no place to go (as well as mindlessly stating that the efforts here, predominantly created by people having fun, are inferior to other CG sites, predominantly created by people trying to get a job or working in the field -- now that is a real winner of a thought loop) other than here. Aside from being patently absurd and obviously made due to a lack of awareness, it too is eligible for the previous offer. One thing that I think would make much of this less troublesome is for the administration to invest a few minutes in pointing out that while they might have an interest in what people think, they have no true need to make changes based on the views of membership. It is their right and responsibility to do what they feel needs to be done. Not what the members feel. Indeed -- my post here, and those posts of all those who I am mocking, are all violations of the Terms of service, and everyone involved in doing so could recieve a warning for having done such or summarily be banned (I expect to be so by the end of the year, myself, given my procliviities). Since I am feeling generous, a list (inclusive of my own, which I cannot number) of those posts which violate one or more provisions of the TOS -- but purely at the discretion of the administration of this site: 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 23, 28, 30, 34, 38, 45, 48, 50, 51, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 78, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 96, 97, 99, 104, 105, 107, 108, 112, 118, 119, 123, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138, 141, 142, 145, 146, 152, 153, 154, and mine. (at the time of this writing, there are 161 posts, so the above list may expand) So stop it. Now. Deal with what really is, not with what you think it might be or why it might be.

"I don't post pictures of nude children" I never made pictures with naked children, but I am a photographer and I like art, so I may well stumble in artworks that Renderosity consider to be banned. It may happen with the fresco picture I linked to previously. It was one picture out of an almost 30 pictures series (and I haven't posted all that I have), but as I said, shall I be forced to remove it, I will remove the whole series as a protest. Now I wonder, what if I decided to publish those pictures I made years ago in Oslo at the Vigeland park. Probably 1/5th of the statues there (publicly exposed statues) would be banned by this TOS. I really feel this as something that goes much too far in limiting the artists choices. But as someone says, I may also end up posting elsewhere. But it would make me sad to leave my gallery here.

"Two threads ont he same topic, both filled with people with the same desire to make a rule change on a privately owned site ...... The Reason behind the rule change is irrelevant. For those of you with less capable vocabularies, that means it does not matter why the changed the rule." You must rememmber that this site is composed by the site owners, the artists, the merchants and the purchasers. - If the site owners decides to close the site, the site ends. - If the artists decide to withdraw, the site ends, maybe remain only a shop and nothing more. - If the merchants decide to go away, say goodbye to the site, no money no site. - If the purcharsers decide to not buy anymore here, the site ends too. You can see that this site is not so private as you think, it's a big partnership with many people. Any change done and not well accepted has as inmediate consequence artists going away, maybe some merchants too and many members not buying anymore here, making the merchants more pissed of with this site. Maybe some artists, merchants and purcharsers that had left can be replaced by new ones, but it's uncertain at what point are able to repair the damage done by who had say good bye to this site.

ok i didnt come here for long but it seemed it finally went to the worst :)

so far it seems now that Mayadoll, Animedoll, Aiko3, Tenten or An an shoul dbe banned from all galleries then

great...

lets also make "illegal" the existence of asiate girls as a global way of thinking :)

i didnt come in RO for long but it seems for now it will only be a past purchase record holder and nothign more... i'm off with this mess, i feel betrayed and also sad for all the works of some artists like Maya, Yamato and such too i also like the part of "adult size breasts does not spare from breaking tos with childish face", yet the reverse aint tru, no matter than in real life there are petite builds of women RO will never allow them anyway as believing they are adult, yet as soon as you have a litle roudn face you are labelled as under 18 welcome in a world of big boobed artificial looking vickies whores that look liek ezvery magazine stuff.... btw tell me: how do you distinguish a 18yo girl from a 19yo one ? (especially in some ethnies like asiate countries) just curious anyway ok, this place is just over for me, fan art banned, anime banned, asiate banned, everything that dont look like RDA swimmer or tall highheel bigboobed slut banned :) enjoy this place much and wish you farewell....

Message edited on: 03/23/2005 06:19

So if I type in 'pompous art links' in Google I should get a link to Andy K's website then..Well, don't you have a lot of strings to your bow. Why, I feel as if I'm in the presence of a God. If your comments on the work shown here anf your responses to the posts are anything to go by then you must be a joy as a teacher. Who are you to criticise and denigrate the work of others? Even if you're the most talented artist the world has ever seen it doesn't give you the right to insult and offend. By the way...it's not the tools or media that one uses that classifies a creation. You remind me of those idiots who slagged off acrylics. Oh no, if it isn't in oils or gouache then it's not art..give me a break. So..off you go to look at my gallery and then you can come back and bitch just like a real critic. You know what they say...those who can, do...those who can't, teach...and those who can't teach, teach 3D art

Just goes to show, you can't please all of the people all of the time. You want my tppence on the subject, here goes. Firstly being in the UK, we have different ideas about what constitutes what, take for instance David Hamilton's collection of Photographs, "the age of innocence" lots of sexily posed very young girls, but not pronographic, hence the allowability of such imagery. Also UK law interprets "inappropriate" images of children to be real images. If you made a child porn movie in CGi, it would be perfectly legal, just as it's legal to murder a and mame a dummy animal on a film set, but not a real one. The great idea that is often taken into account when things are placed for the public to view weter they seek to or not (ie advertising) is, would the average person believe it is real. Of course this a national policy issue which doesn't apply to rosity (being US) but I think the ideals can still be applied where they do not contraveine law. I can understand wanting to tone down on images of kiddies, but I can't understand the need to tone down the renders. Who cares if you post a naked child faerie, or alien, or whatever else. I honestly believe that "synthetic" imagery needs to be fully free of any such restrictions, otherwise a great many things could be taken in the same light. So I can't post renders of naked children, which have involved no child in their making, but a render (or probably even a photo) of a mutilated copse with blood and guts, that's ok. Basically, I think that when guidelines or policies of this nature and instigated within any community/society, they need to be formed from a view point of actual human decency, and not from issues that create general "knee-jerk" reactions from people.

Extract: "You must rememmber that this site is composed by the site owners, the artists, the merchants and the purchasers." Comment: You mumble in error. This is a monarchy, and we are visitors. The Rulers have laws that you must agree to when you arrive. If you do not like those Laws, you either leave, or don't sign up. The store did not exist when this site was started, and, in truth, could be closed tomorrow and the site would continue. The value of this site is not the store. The value of this site is in the Galleries. They can make any rule they want to make about what goes into it, and that won't change the value of the galleries. There are 6 Billion people on the planet, more coming everyday. Even if they only allowed people to post variations on mondrian designs, the site would still exist. So, no. Your assertion of a partnership is both lacking in understanding of the actual reality of the situation and inflating of your own importance. On an average day they recieve over 50,000 individual visits that never even touch the forums, store, or ancillary areas. They come just for the images feverishly uploaded every second. A great many of those image uploaders don't care about this, and will continue to upload them. Everyone who has read even a part of this posting can up and disappear right now, and it won't make one whit of difference tomorrow to this site. That's what this is.

It seems there is a lot of personal mud slinging going on in here and so I am now locking this thread before it crosses the line and we have to issue warnings. Thank you, Stacey Community Manager