Heads up Porn and violations of NEW: Child Image Guidelines

It's probably best to PM individual mods and give them the exact URL. bonni

Thanks. This place is so big it's hard to know just who and how to let people know. I'm not often shocked but both these step over the mark, IMO, for a nice place like this.

Every forum has a list of moderators and coordinators for that forum. Those are the folks to contact. You can just click on the link and send them a PM. :) bonni

WHOA!!! That was totally unnecassarry to see!!!! Thanks kaveman!! Hope someone will delete it ASAP!!! I can handle "Poser Artistic Nudity" (I make enough of it!!) BUT I can't stand porn!!!!!! Bleahhhhhhh!

Ok, you can do it this time because it's back;-) It in the Gallery not a forum. So do you have to go the their Forum and IM them from there?

I already IM'ed a Mod. Should be gone soon.

The people listed at the top of the forum ARE the people to contact. You wanted to know who to contact, and that's a good way to figure out who. If it's in the Poser gallery, contact a Poser mod/coordinator.

EDIT: I just went to have a look. Looks like a digitally edited photograph, but it's in the 2D gallery. You can try contacting a MOD from that area (2D) but really, any mod who's available will do.

To find that out, click the "Who's Online" link at the very top of the site: http://www.renderosity.com/whosonline.ez

Also, that's a TOS violation not because it involves virtual children, and was a violation before the recent changes took place. That sort of image has been a violation of TOS here for a very, very long time. ;-)

bonni

Message edited on: 03/27/2005 02:14

Well the poster was thoughtful enough to give credits. I'm not going back, but just wondering if it got any comments or votes.

Hrrrm, maybe I'm seeing a different image. Presumably the original one has been removed already? But there's still a pretty raunchy photograph in the 2D gallery (which doesn't involve children). And yes, I've PM'd a mod. bonni

I see nothing but a pure Porn image! Very Disgusting!

bonni, I was just being sarcastic about the image, but I just saw it again (I'm really trying to look at the gallery)and it's does now have a ranking and comment (plus 57 viewings).

It's gone now, but yes, it did have a lot of views and a comment. That's why it's generally better to PM a mod rather than post in the forums, because posting will often get a lot more views than it would otherwise have had. ;-) bonni

Thank God, its gone!! I've seen some strange things posted here, but that was just sick, and I'm glad to see it is gone. -The Starkdog

Good! Guess it's not true you have to but boobs in a thumbnail to get hits after all (rolls eyes). Anyway have a Happy Easter guys & gals. SWAMP

I think it's meant to be unsettling. Lots of art is. However, I don't see anything in it that's a violation of TOS. Mind you, I'm not a MOD, but "unsettling" isn't a TOS violation as far as I'm aware. ;-) bonni

Sorry, I though half naked children were off limits, especially with the implied sexual connotations. I agree that there nothing wrong with it as Art and I think it's message is very relevant. We must listen to the children! If these where PoserKids, would the issue be view differently? Like you I just live here, trying to understand the rules.

"implied sexual connotations' ? Where ? It's a nice piece of art, without any sick "background".

Sorry Folks, must be me, all the anti nude children threads has me confused. URL deleted.

I saw a child who looked like a boy, wearing pants and no shirt (not a TOS violation), and two other children, both fully dressed, playing in a yard. The observer in the background was ambiguous, and could be taken to be a threat or a guardian or any number of other things (a ghost, even, who knows?). Definitely unsettling, but not a violation (and that's only my personal opinion). Still, if you have concerns, and you've a right to that, contact a MOD with the URL and they can sort it out. :-) bonni

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/whosonline.ez

Thanks guys, here's the best way to bring pics like this to a Mod's attention: Click the Who's Online link in the top site menu. Names of Admins, Mods and Coords who are online are listed at the top of the page. It's not always possible to get the person in whose area the pic falls (i.e. this was in 2D but there isn't a 2D mod on) so you can just IM any staff member if need be, we all cover for each other. This image has now been taken care of. Karen Poser Mod

We do NO need hysterical East-German style informers screaming their heads off and everybody goes 'Ugh, disgusting' about something (whatever it was) they don't like. Shit, is this an 'artist's community' or is it a heap of knee jerk reactionaries? Aparently several different images got people all uptight here - boys with no shirt on ((GASP)), some other porn related image ((GASP)) and so on. Grow up already. And hey Kaveman, don't drag the kids themselves into this. DON'T say something stupid like "We must listen to the children!" since you obviously have no idea what they are saying. Be certain that kids just want to be left alone and not be sexualised by people like you. They're perfectly happy not wearing shirts when they don't feel like it, thank you. I think this whole business is obscene and unpleasant, far worse than the supposed TOS violations that someone apparently may have made. :] Fish

Excuse me Fish, Firstly, someone had posted PORN to the gallery as a personal attack on one of the moderators? or member of this organisation, no art involved. I was unaware as to how to notify the moderators, and I now know so I will not post this type of topic again. Secondly, I wondered, in passing, if another item was again a violation of the new and improved ToS. It seemed it isn't. No big deal. As to your "Like you" statement. Do you know me? because if you do then I'm quite happy to meet you face to face and sort that comment out! If not keep your abuse to yourself!

FishNose: almost posted the same myself. The Vigilantes are what is disturbing :)

For those of you that don't mind viewing "porn", as art and there are valid arguments for that and I make no judgements on others tastes, then there are some specific sites available where you can do that without any restrictions. We all know where and who these sites are. If you want to view or post that sort of stuff then do it there. I don't se why you can't post/view both here and there if that's what takes your fancy. If you post here though then just respect the TOS here, not too much to ask I would have thought!!

I have't looked in the gallery 15 times in 8 or so years. If I do go to the galleries it's to search renderings of either a product or program.

The vigilante mindset is what upsets me. Using children as a weapon is disturbing - when used by either side don't you think? Using children as a power play is worse. And these types of posts do USE children as a power play. Saving and Listening to the children is the job of the parents of the children and not the next regimes slogan (complete with armbands). I'm sick and tired of having to carry a whole lot of extra weight in my life because those "with children" need extra consideration: they can't work holidays...have to be with the children; they can call in sick at work anytime they please (and take advantage of the fact) "my kid is sick"...they have to leave early (got to get the kid); well, YOU chose to have kids...YOU shoulder the responsibilities and don't shove them off on others. And I do a LOT of work with kids so don't start the "kid hater" crap either :) Good Day

Message edited on: 03/27/2005 08:04

Shit, is this an 'artist's community' or is it a heap of knee jerk reactionaries? Both, but it's the second that makes the rules... I don't se why you can't post/view both here and there if that's what takes your fancy. If you post here though then just respect the TOS here, not too much to ask I would have thought!! Or just find one place with a reasonable TOS that doesn't change on the whim of the oral minority so you don't have to worry about it. There are plenty of respectable gallery sites out there.

Actually, the first image that was in the 2D gallery and which has been removed was absolutely and unmistakably porn. I'm not easily offended (almost nothing actually offends me, to be honest), but I do know porn when I see it (it had nothing to do with children, FWIW).

That particular image was absolutely and definitely against the TOS here.

The other image on which I commented was something else entirely (and the link to that has been removed, which is good).

bonni

Message edited on: 03/27/2005 08:06

I didn't see them, but it sounds like it was a blatent statement in reaction to the new posting limits where children are concerned.

I saw the one with the little kids sitting playing in the garden with their Grandad (possible ghost) watching over them, only someone with a truly sick mind could see anything sexual in that picture. Why not just go all the way & ban children totally?

kaveman: "Sexualised by people like you" - perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of that. 'Sexualised' doesn't mean actually doing anything to them - it means seeing them as potentially sexual in some way. It means simply, don't create sexuality when there is none there - the sexuality of kids with no shirts on is entirely in the eyes of the beholder, not the kids. The eyes of both the moral vigilante and the pedophile. Leave them to their innocence instead, don't create guilt in the minds of kids unnecessarily. Remember the old stories about the Victorians of the 19th Century and their table legs? That's a good example of sexualisation. Seeing table legs as potentially exciting so one has to cover them. Now don't add to society's apparent need right now to do that with our children. They don't need it. So make sure you understand the meaning of the expression before you get mad. I never said that you see kids as sexual yourself - just don't assume others do. I do NOT. Kids are welcome to run around naked. I don't care. :] Fish

I love these threads.
Definition of PORN:

• pornography: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire

and the argument continues..

Message edited on: 03/27/2005 09:10

I refuse to post any sort of picture on this site anymore. There is alway some nut who is going to take offense and start screaming TOS.

What argument- preaching to the quire? Artificially creating a "I'm superior and all others are inferior attitude" Never assume there is a rational conversation involved in any of these threads. Most often it is just 'opinion' offered as fact. And it's not even based upon any evidence beyond "this is my belief/opinion", so it must be right. And MUST be imposed upon all others. The concept of pluralism is not even a factor in this methodology. When a psychic/medium makes a statement it is nothing, just a thought, an opinion! An opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them stink! To base public policy strictly on opinions is the road to tyranny. Only with pluralism will the truth become evident. You take the high road and I'll take the low road and I'll be in Dublin before yee....(singing) Preaching to the quire is, well, outright unamerican!

I think we should start an anti-naked Vicki thread...

There is alway some nut who is going to take offense and start screaming TOS. Bingo!

Let's keep it civil in here, guys. kaveman was just trying to bring an image to our attention, and didn't know how. And, for those who did not see the image, yes, it was a blatant pornographic image, and it had nothing to do with children. The image would have broken the old TOS, anyway. Thanks MorriganShadow Poser Coordinator

PapaBlueMarlin, Start an Anti-Naked Vicky thread!! Oh blasphemy!! Oh how would the gallery survive??? T&A rules!!!

Attached Link: http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/05/Floridian/Real_Florida__Red_fac.shtml

In the minds of the beholder

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=917801

Wow! I'm amazed! As the poster of that image, I am truly stunned that it could be seen as porn. Just shows how absolutely crazy the climate is in this place. Thank you for the few rational individuals in here who saw the image for what it was... elizabyte, PapaBlueMarlin, vilian and others. It was not a digitally redone photograph. It was handdrawn, with photoshop layers underneath the outline. I've reposted it, and put a shirt on the one figure that viewers assume is female, just to appease the morons in this place, who no doubt have some unresolved "issues" of their own. The man in the background is my grandfather--he had a neurological disorder and was painfully self-conscious, always staying in the background. After he died, I was finally old enough to understand, and felt badly that I, like most of the relatives, had avoided and even been scared of him. You people who were screaming "kiddy porn" are absolutely nuts, but you're certainly entitled to express your lunacy in any way you see fit, as long as you don't rain on my parade. Thank you very much...with all your dopey remarks, I'm sure it will draw more people to view and judge the piece on its own merit. Thanks for the hits.

TOS 2B or not 2B?

pookah, at the time that the second person went to the gallery, the first image they saw was yours, and they assumed the first poster was talking about that image, which is fine. The actual image in question has been removed (several times, I might add). MorriganShadow Poser Coord

Just to clarify, because I'm going to lock this thread since people are approaching personal attacks, and I really don't want to be handing out warnings. The original piece that kaveman posted was a pornographic photograph which has been repeatedly posted today to various galleries by a noisome troll. It was a photograph of an adult woman engaged in a very explicit sex act. I explained above the best way to draw a mod's attention to these issues is to PM them, so I'm sure everyone's clear on that now. ...and that's it, goodnight all because this thread is going to sleep.