"We are making changes to the TOS as it stands now. Shirtless BOYS will be allowed. BABIES in diapers will be allowed." Grrrrrrrrrr !!!! You give Creepy his dream of a slight retirement and then you snatch it away ! That is soooo cruel !!! You should be ashamed !!! I think you explained about Creepy pretty well XenophonZ ! http://www.creepyclown.com A pervasive creation by the beloved Don Tatro. RIP. Btw, JVRenderer, ya better watch out ! The last time sombody used the dreaded word "Dufflebag", they were banned ! P.S. If you want to change the damn TOS could you put a friggin ban on people writing a damn novel every time they reply to a post ? Half the crap you people say could be condensed down into 25 words or less ! Sheeeeeeesh !

Mmmmm, more chocolate! Thanx, thixen, dearie. But better watch it with the flippin', otherwise you might give some people the wrong idea.^^ ;-)

Check out the team page most of our pics are on it :O) SndCastie

Gee, did the "Defenders of Freedom" actuallu accomplish something? Yeah. They did. What's happened since then was merely a slight adjustment to the result.

I think you explained about Creepy pretty well XenophonZ ! http://www.creepyclown.com Thanks! Creepy will continue on into P6 and beyond, I think. Talk about childhood fears.........

'Phonsie, you and I would disagree about the mass of the electron, much less anything like this. n common point of reference. Cset la vie. Personally, I think the great American experiment in keeping a diverse, pluralistic society intact is about out of gas. Just as a nation could not exist half slave and half free, I have grave doubts that it can exist much longer half red and half blue. It took partition, followed by four years of copius bloodletting the last time to reach some equilibrium. I see no reason to be sanguine about prospects for the fututre. Hopefully, we will find a way to accomplish it without bloodshed but who knows. It was a wiser man than I who said that the roots of the tree of liberty required periodic refreshing with O Positive from both sides. As Bette Davis said, "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night."

Actually, most of the U.S. is purple...neither far to the left, nor far to the right, but trying to do its best to hold on to a middle ground with radicals on either side pushing and shoving at us. Unfortunately, the middle grounders tend to be silent, for the most part, which gives the impression the majority doesn't exist and that gives an illusion of power to a minority of people. Too bad, really. As for the new guidelines. I don't care. Never did a graphic with a child, have no interest in children, could not care less about fairies of any age or sex. Maybe the guidelines are too extreme, but I suspect they came about because someone somewhere pushed at TOS until it finally broke down and had to be rebuilt of sturdier stuff. Shrug. Until I run my own site, or find one better suited to my ill-nature, I'm willing to play by the rules.

"We are making changes to the TOS as it stands now. Shirtless BOYS will be allowed. BABIES in diapers will be allowed." Thanks for using some common sense where this issue of child nudity is concerned.

"Unfortunately, the middle grounders tend to be silent, for the most part, which gives the impression the majority doesn't exist and that gives an illusion of power to a minority of people." That's true. Most people [white people] in 1860 were neither slaveowners nor abolitionists. In the event, those in the middle had to decide which side they were on. Unfortunately, at present, the purple people seem to have abdicated power. It's up to them to decide if they want to shift the political center of gravity back to the center.. If they don't then whatever happens will not be pleasant.

sarcasm<

I just thought of a workaround. Give all your characters pointy ears, claim they are elves. Since elves are close to immortal, a claim that an elf looking like a human child is actually 80 years old would not be disputable... See, we're all safe.

/sarcasm<

These TOS beat themselves. They only succeed in aggravating a lot of members. Silly.

I just looked up some legal stuff, including the PROTECT Act (thanks for the link thixen). As far as I know, that is the current applicable law. These TOS go way, way beyond what's in the PROTECT Act. Why? Just follow the law, and deal with borderline cases as they arise. The mods will have to deal with borderline cases anyway.

badco says:"Btw, JVRenderer, ya better watch out ! The last time sombody used the dreaded word "Dufflebag", they were banned !"
Don't worry, badco. I don't see the word "dufflebag" in the TOS.
And if they ban me, then they have to change the TOS again and create another 400 threads discussion.

It's not the actual age, but the apparent age. Presumably if we were talking about the photography gallery then a20 yr. old who looked under 18 would qualify, ID, birth certificate no matter. The answer is simply to render only nude children with progeria.

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.

Well, that's reasonable. I mean, I could make a bunch of arguments about how one baby/toddler looks like another so who's to know if it's a boy or girl when it's wearing a diaper, and I could argue that a flat-chested little girl looks pretty much like a flat-chested little boy when you can't see their genitals and they have similar haircuts, BUT.... I won't. That would be extremely annoying and nitpicky, and it would open a can of worms the size of New Jersey. ;-)

Yes, I think this is reasonable as far as limiting child nudity. And I will now (amazingly) shut up about it and stop complaining, although I may make the odd ironic observation as I am wont to do. I am a big fan of "reasonableness" (despite my occasional lapses outside of it when I'm very annoyed ;-). Reasonable is good.

So, hey, carry on boys and girls. Be sure to bring in a bunch of wholly irrelvant stuff to your argument. It makes it just that much more fun to watch.

Popcorn, anyone?

;-)

bonni

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 21:10

A little scenario: Someone posts an image of a nude young woman with fairy wings attached. No sensual posing, just a fairy flitting through the woods. A mod comes by, he/she thinks "Hey, she looks a bit like my niece. My niece is 15." So the image gets deleted and the poster gets a warning. Same image, another mod. Now the fairy reminds the mod of the girl next door. She is 22. All is fine and dandy, image stays in the gallery. How realistic is this scenario? I'd definitely like to know how the moderators are supposed to apply the TOS equally and fairly. One way would be to have all mods evaluate every potential TOS violation. An impossible amount of work regarding the popularity of the fairy genre. The TOS are clear about erotic content. What is allowed and what is not allowed is well defined. Very small room for error there. This new addition has an enormous room for error. So the only think it will accomplish is many bitter disputes over yanked images that are completely innocent by all definitions and laws (except maybe the most extreme puritan views).

svdl - Any time an image appears not to follow the TOS, it is brought under review by the Mod/Coord team. That way the decision is not left up to the discretion of one member of the team. MorriganShadow Poser Coord.

"How realistic is this scenario?" Very. It happens in real life. I used to get carded when I was in my late twenties (ah, those were the days). That's why if you want consistency, you either have to ban non-sexual nudity entirely or allow it. As you say, it's much easier to have objective rules like no toucha da peepee. The best thing I can think of is to use the same type of polity that businesses use regarding alcohol and cigarette sales, card/ban every faerie who looks under 25 to give yourself a margin of error. If you want to avoid arguments--or at least lessen them, you have to eliminate the entire category of youthful looking characters about whoom there could be any potential disagreement. Call it collareral damage. Perhaps Daz with their team of anatomical experts can develop a Poser add-in that watches your morph settings and flashes a red light when any of them combine to produce a ban-able body. They could even take ethnicity morphs into account but then we'd see a flood of 25 year olf Phillipino faeries. Of course why the phantom pedo menace supposedly wants to lurk here to get off escapes me. Dudes, go to Barnes and Noble who successfullf fought to keep bringing you Sally Mann, David Hamilton, Jock Sturges, et al. Why would they want to look at often crudely rendered Poser images with distracting wings when they can see all the real nude children they want there, not to mention what a Google search will turn up for those so inclined. But I suppose the ways of the wicked, like those of the almighty and the bureauracry are not for us to understand. "Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things." - George Carlin

To be sure, I'd have to conduct a physical examination. Unlike Bill Frist, I need to see the patient in person. Please send the young lady to my home and I'll get back to you in a couple of months.

You insist? Somewhere between 16 & 20. Would you pick her up without seeing plenty of ID? Unless you were in Arkansas and she was your cousin that is?

ingenue

an artless innocent young girl (especially as portrayed on the stage)
Category Tree:
entity
^object; physical_object
^living_thing; animate_thing
^organism; being
^person; individual; someone; somebody; mortal; human; soul
^juvenile; juvenile_person
^ingenue

"juvenile" Red flag, Danger Will Robinson.

Lucky Poser 6 has everyone gaga or we'd be roasted by now for daring to continue after Pax Romana has been declared.

--- "Man Accused of Having Relations With Cows" http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=534515 Now this guy has the ticket. Cows aren't humanoid, they're always fully clothed, in leather no less, and they're probably as many zoophiles in Congress as PETA advocates.

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 23:42

lmckenzie, having read the TOS again recently, I must point out to you that the link provided includes accounts of beastiality, which is specifically against the Terms of service, and may well get you banned. svdl, It is not our votes that count. What "we" think means absolutely nothing -- your post 368 does little except to show off a fine piece of work in modelling. Unless you want to count using it as an excuse to poke the administration in the eye. Your previous post, however, raised a good question which was addressed directly.

Perhaps I should have included a huge render of tongue poking cheek to indicate that my comment was: A. A humorous comment to svdl's post. B. In any case, a comment on the gentleman's liftstyle choice, not a suggestion, threat, incitement or other concept related to creating images to be posted here. Of course, I have to assume you're being facetious or is humor, even if you don't see it, now cause for banning threats. SVDL, are you poking anything? I've warned you about that. Your question was addressed. Now be quiet before we piss off anyone else who is actually still reading these. I'm still using Poser 4 so I have no incentive to venture outside into the Poser 6 blizzard as long as being here doesn't offend anyone-which it obviously does.

what? me? Facetious? I would never be facetious. That would require me to cease mocking others. I live to mock. or is that smock. Perhaps de-frock. The most subtle and refined form of humor is the absurdity of the truth. Not only was I being humorous -- which your perceptiveness is quite good at discerning -- but I was also being truthful. It truly is against the TOS. If, of course, you were to look at it from the same POV as so many herein have done thus far. Always a matter of perception. Mine is flawed by the overwhelming desire to laugh at people and point.

As this thread is now drifting to a close, may I ask the Mods to please reconsider the permanent ban given to Heart'Song? I don't ask on her behalf, and I don't know if she'd want to rejoin if she was so allowed to do .. but could the PTB not go halfway and at least offer the chance for this to be healed? The stricter TOS are less open to interpretation (though I still am not clear if a bare back of a female figure under 18 is ok or not). You've made your point and listened to members .. it's Spring - a new beginning - please be courageous enough to offer out a hand to a wayward daughter. Thank you.

Nice try, Renderosity, but no cigar. First make such an unreasonable TOS change that everyone whos not a complete idiot HAS to cry foul, then backpaddle a few inches to make you look oh so , well "understanding". Sorry, folks are not that stupid. And the old "You asked for it" routine to shift blame to the victims doesnt work neither. This is just a small aspect of a cultural war going on between religious cultists and the science based community. Nothing new, besides the fact that the cultists now have managed to seriously curtail the freedom of what has been the most progressive country in the world. Its all about power. How do we stay in power: By control. And what is better to control humans than making them loath themselves ? As long as you live you cant run away from your body, and if youve been taught by your parents and society to hate it, youll invariably will hate yourself. Make them feel guilty and unsecure, so that you can control them. Its brilliant, isnt it ? This is JoePublic speaking.

Extract: This is just a small aspect of a cultural war going on between religious cultists and the science based community. Comment: Do you seriously believe that? A deep and abiding conspriacy in the battle to save the unfettered minds of the oppreseed under classes... Who is the one under some form of mind control? Incidentally, there are couple of "science based" groups using "science" and doublespeak to ensure that evolution is not taught in schools. And winning. You speak of cultists, ignoring the nature of a cult, to which many "true believers" in science are also members of the Cult Of Science. Cultures do not engage in wars. Cultures essentially bleed into eachother -- and the dominant, more structured, more forceful one will always win. But let's ignore that for a moment, and go with your idea. It is a war. War is won by the best orgnaized, most efficient, best strategists. All of those things exist ont he side of your "religious cultists". So you've lost already -- you are just deciding on how to lose.

svdl - As far as the image goes, She's clothed, so there is NO problem. A bathing suit/bikini is just fine! As far as whether I could, right here right now, determine the age....I can't. Simply because I would have to wait to get AT LEAST one moderator to voice their opinion on it, and in the meantime, other members of the coord team would let me know what they think. Every image pulled is brought before the whole team as a committee. moochie - Member bannings are not discussed in the forums, or with anyone but the member. JoePublic - As the 3D community goes, Renderosity is one of the last places to adopt such rules. The Admin of Renderosity have been considering these changes since 2004, and they have come to fruition now. MorriganShadow Poser Coordinator

This debate still going on?

MorriganShadow: The opinion of the mods on Ingenue Vickis age is very relevant to me. I have used her quite often (along with Eternal Judy, Eternal Posette, AnAn, Farrah and of course the Mil people), I almost always do multi figure renders and I want some other female body/face types than V2/V3 to appear in my images. If she is considered too young, I'll have to delete about a quarter of my gallery. Then I'd have to delete half of the remaining gallery, since many of the images that would be considered offensive are part of an ongoing story. With a lot of chapters missing, the remaining images would be pointless and must go. I'd have to remove some items from freestuff. In other words, I'd have to remove just about everything. If that is the case, I have no longer a reason to remain a member.

Forgot to add: I'd hate to leave. I've met some wonderful people. So I won't delete my gallery - yet. I will await the mod's answer.

"This is just a small aspect of a cultural war going on between religious cultists and the science based community."

Hardly. The only one's bringing religion into this are the ones falling back on a convenient scapegoat without really and truely looking at the whole picture.

At the core, this is about the climate surrounding the amount of child predators that seem to be coming out of the woodwork lately and the reaction to that. Suddenly innocent images of children in the bathtub are "suspect", Lawyers who take it upon themselves to sue "on behalf" of "victims", and the fear the whole thing creates.
There's the image processing employee who took innocent bathtub pics to the police who blew up certain elements of them to show the courts. The mom was found not guilty but not until her life was turned upside down. There's the couple and their new baby on the beach who had CPS called on them when they gave the baby an innocent kiss on the diapered butt.

It's about what you have on your computer and how it might be percieved by someone else. It's not about religion.

Sadly, 'better safe than sorry' is the drink of the day. I'm glad to see TPTB turn reasonable, I just wish they would stop making things up as they go. Establish a TOS and THEN inform individuals. I do hope they give everyone the chance to comply before handing out warnings like a cop on a power trip though (another thing they need to make improvements on) and consider that many are on holiday the next two weeks.

ok well anyhow I just got done reading the 'new' update to the TOS and...

..personally I think the new TOS is reasonable.

I know everyone wants to do naked little feary pics, and as it was pointed out there are places that specialise in that kind of stuff. The stuff that I and I think most here was concerned about is the stuff that doesn't apply to feary world so wouldn't be approprate for the fea sites. Those issue have been addressed.

Besides a lot of the feary pics I see around here would acctually look better with clothes on. There is nothing to say that in a modern world that they wouldn't adopt a more moderate clothing sense. (if they didn't GW would be squishing them with a fly swatter anyhow)

If the forward and back stunt that TPTB pulled was intentenal (sp) to bring in stricter TOS with out ppl really fighting their final outcome, then well I think that was a smart move that worked. Can't fault them for that.

If it was a 'Gee we never thought of that' type of oversight, then shame on them, but hey they're only humans (i think, we don't have any fearies, dragons, greys, or elf admins do we?) so this is excusable.

If they intended for the very strict TOS and then came to their senses, then well they should be commended for atleast coming to the senses at the end.

BR>All and all I don't think that the outcome was too bad.

moochie I can't say for sure, but the TOS says "No child nudity of any kind which includes exposed chest on females, buttocks or genitals"

so bare backs would be allowed as long at the butt or any part of the chest isn't shown. You would really have to watch the pose though to make sure it was pretty non-stimulating.

with post 386, If I were a mod/admin I'd have to say it would highly depend on the pose/background of the render. Which way I'd vote.

My advice would be would be for anything boarder line really concider:

1. the environment that the model appears in. Backgrounds can infer alot about an artist's intent.

2. Pose - shocked, imbarrised, bashfull, or nervious poses often infer a more youthfull appearence where more confindent poses age a model. This is due to the fact that as a women ages she get more comforable with people seeing her nude body and being nude in general.

3. Title - often the first impression people get is from the title of peice. My peice Bobbee's wedding night (modeled off of a 23 year old girl I know) seems look 20+, but title it 'trying on mom's clothes' and it suddenly look 16-17.

If you take all of this into account and you're still in doubt host it somewhere, IM a few people (and not just the admin/mods) and ask, or post something in here like "Does this look good, IM me for the link" and see what others think.

to help with that here is a dandy little link that I came across a while back
Image Shack
they'll host images for ya free.
and if your image doesn't pass, TPTB have asked as to be mature when giving/recieving critism from other users/artists, do the same when they critise your work.

Sorry this was a little long winded, but personally I think the main issue at hand has been solved so this will probably be the last post in this thread.
BTW - a forum is a collection of threads,
a thread is a topic with a collection of posts and a post is what everyone does in a thread.
sorry just a pet peeve when ppl call posts threads.

Message edited on: 03/23/2005 13:49

Oh well - it's drawn to close - sort of a win for the "Good Guys" but I still have to wonder if there isn't some double standard when you have rules like this thread was about but it is perfectly OK to receive the "Market Place Flyer" with DD Breasted over 18 females parading around in School Uniforms..... Not that it personally worries me - but there are some strange types out there that may just get the wrong idea and go on to be sexual preditors... With that I shall remove my tounge from cheek and resume normal programming - apart from the fact - seriously consider the above point - it does raise questions...

Think your example falls under costume play. Lotsa folks into that, both in RL and 3d. Can be used in many ways, Halloween Party renders come to mind. That said, too bad it won't fit M3 or David. ;-)

ohh you can make it fit. Although I never tried it, try rescaling in a zero pose, exporting as a prop, reimporting it as a prop, and clothifying it in the cloth room. Like I said havn't tried it, but should work.

I hate the cloth room, only thing worse is the hair room. Makes me start pulling out my own. But I might take a crack at it sometime, I've a yen to do some cosplay pieces, inspired by some fanfic I've been reading and an idea for a parody that just won't go away.

Attached Link: http://http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=63024

Um, the link's not quite working. Had to copy & paste to edit out the second http. Then it took me to "Ophelia". Very nice, btw.

The original link took me to microsof.com, the edited link took me to Ophelia too!, and where is the dragon?????

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=630244

Now is working, nobody can censor the dragon. Isn't it a bestiality case, well..., maybe not, a dragon is not an animal....

Trying to be objective as my view of reality will allow, I agree there are multiple forces/trends at work around us, powers and principalities even. I do hoverer thing that it is naive in the extreme to assume that the hand of the religious right doesn't own the biggest thumb pressing on the scales. In the wake of the Jon Benet Ramsey case, I don't recall any sustained outcry to stop dressing little girls up as vamps. I really don't think that the media flood concerning a few selected (IE. white middle class) child atrocities would [absent the tremendous influence of the theocons] have led to the current climate of recasting what was innocent into something suspect of being sinister. By the same token, we wouldn't be making a federal case about Sponge Bob and Buster Bunny promoting the "gay agenda." Nor, would a family dispute in Florida suddenly become a Congressional crusade, challenging the very bedrock of federalist democracy. Is there a direct influence on events here? How direct is a matter of opinion. I don't think it's accurate to suggest however that it is non-existent. Events don't occur in a vacuum. If you pull back and look at the big picture, the climate as opposed to the weather, what is the single most influential cultural phenomenon of the last decade in this country? Hint, it isn't Hip Hop or child abductions. Perhaps you disagree with my thesis. That's fine and I hope I am pr oven wrong but still, you might want to spend just a second pondering the words of prominent and influential Evangelical leader Rev. D. James Kennedy. "As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."

Now that is one damned scary concept. And lest anyone think me an unbeliever, I'm not. I've simply come to realize that God and Religion have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Sounds weird I know, but it's true.

That quote is scary indeed. Sounds like fundamentalist rethoric. Osama bin Laden probably says something similar before sending off his terrorists to blow up innocent citizens... Byrdie, your conclusion sounds perfectly logical to me. I've come to the same conclusion, many years ago.

"...God and Religion have absolutely nothing to do with each other." Amen to that. The plethora of people who all have different versions of the truth (each one being the "real truth" of course and worth defending by killing those who say otherwise; tells me that Judgement Day will be a great shock for many and I don't mean the wicked. They'll probably be preaching to the damned though. I guess that's why they call it Hell.

I keep reassuring myself with the thought that some day these arrogant dunderheads are all going to have to explain how the outrages they are perpetrating could ever possibly be the will of God. Who will then proceed to demonstrate in very graphic (maybe even painful) detail that they are (a): dead wrong and (b): S/He is NOT amused.

There was a huge outcry about beauty pagents and dressing up little girls to look older after the Jon Bennet case. Hell, every talk show host in America covered it. I refuse to watch talkshows and even I heard it over and over.

My point is that there is no religious group on Renderosity demanding changes and each and every broad sweeping statements to that effect is misplaced. (not to mention unproductive)

You might find it interesting to read some of the articles on the "Celebrity Atheist List," not regarding atheism per se, but rather because there are some interesting insights on how various people have developed their personal philosophies regarding religion. In particular, linguist Noam Choamsky and Artificial Intelligence pioneer Marvin Minsky have really fascinating comments. Minsky says in part: "When children keep on asking, "Why?" we adults learn to deal with this by simply saying, "just because!" This may seem obstinate, but it's also a form of self-control. What stops adults from dwelling on such questions endlessly? The answer is that every culture finds special ways to deal with these questions. One way is to brand them with shame and taboo; another way is to cloak them in awe or mystery; both methods make those questions undiscussable. Consensus is the simplest way -- as with those social styles and trends wherein we each accept as true whatever all the others do. All human cultures evolve institutions of law, religion, and philosophy, and these institutions both adopt specific answers to circular questions and establish authority -- schemes to indoctrinate people with those beliefs. One might complain that such establishments substitute dogma for reason and truth. But in exchange, they spare whole populations from wasting time in fruitless reason loops. Minds can lead more productive lives when working on problems that can be solved." Of course, they have the likes of Monica Lewinski, listed as "ambiguous," and Matt (the Simpsons) Groening listed as agnostic, for more fun :-) http://www.celebatheists.com/ Cut 'n Paste. I'm not gonna have anyone saying they clicked by accident and were traumatized by thinking. :-)

MorriganShadow wrote (#376) "Member bannings are not discussed in the forums, or with anyone but the member." Ex-member. I know and it's none of my business. But perhaps the issue could be raised amongst the Admins to see if you can perhaps drop Heart a line and offer a way to rebuild the bridge? Tha's all. Cheers. mooch

Kendra: You have a point. I don't think there is a religious group with that kind of influence on 'rosity either. I'm not so sure about pressure from the outside. If this James Kennedy for instance is as influential as lmckenzie states, chances are that Renderosity might find itself in trouble over these innocent images. And then the changes in the TOS are needed to have the site survive. I don't like it. It would be giving in to the demands of fundamentalists. But it's reality.

"As the vice-regents of God..." And who the hell appointed this chowderhead to talk for God? What arrogance! Like Byrdie, I would like to be there during their judgement. And like Svdl, I see the sad irony of their similarity to Osama and the Taliban. I grew up in a fundy church until I was a teenager and wised up so I know waaaay too much about these people. I'm still a 'conservative Christian' but that is my own personal code of ethics. My new church has a strong history of being apolitical - and gets crucified by the fundies for it. And I don't see anything wrong with cherubs and fairies, nude or otherwise. I'd love to hear their Biblical justification for that one. But even the threat of these bozos and the fear of being labled 'child pornographers' has driven Rendo to this point. Was it only two years ago that we were all celebrating the Supreme Court striking down CPPA and that 'the faries could fly free again?

Attached Link: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0316/p16s01-lire.html

In the interest of completeness, please read the entire article containing the Kennedy quote ftom the Christian Science Monitor, "For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America'".
NB I've watched Kennedy quite a few times on his Sunday broadcase. He's a charming and persuasive speaker. I don't think I've heard him make such a sweeping statement as that quoted but then again it was given at a church conference where I suppose pretense can be dispensed with.

Message edited on: 03/23/2005 18:15