Could somebody please help me understand the distinction between "Nudity" and "Mild Nudity?" I've noticed gallery postings that are labelled with one or the other. I'm assuming "Mild Nudity" would refer to an image including--but not featuring-- female breasts, and not containing any hint of pubic hair, or areas of skin from which the hair has been shaved. But this is just my guess... Might the "mildness" of the "nudity" then have something to do with the actual size of the breasts, not relative to the image size, but perhaps relative to the model's size...if so, is there a dial setting for the breasts which changes the nudity level from "mild" to just plain "nude?" Finally, I'm assuming that the depiction of male breasts, which after all, are not typically subjected to extensive morphing, would not cause the image to be labelled "mild" or even "nude"--but that inclusion of the male genitalia immediately qualify the image for "nudity" and never "mild nudity." Please validate.

Speaking of male breasts, there came about a phrase: "NYPD Blue disappointing" because in an apparent jab at the blue noses, for a while the discalimer at the start of the show would be "This program contains partial nudity". And all it would be was Medavoy's pudgy body in the locker room with his shirt off. So maybe mild nudity is partial nudity?

Fazzel, if what you're saying is true, which "parts" qualify as "partial nudity?"

Butts can be shown and breasts if the camera angle is such that the nipples can't be seen. Basically no nipples on females, no bare pubic area including pubic hair on either sex.

I've seen gallery pictures labelled "mild" or "partial nudity" which contained full frontal nudity, so I think some people's definition is very different to others! The nudity flag must be checked whether you feel the nudity is "mild" or "partial" or "full-on-extreme-dude!" I would advise if you're surfing in an environment where you don't want nudes popping up on screen, to set your nudity to not be shown, from your profile. Titles aren't reliable since only some people do this. Karen :-)

In my experience "mild nudity" in the galleries is most often used when there is transparent or semi-transparent clothing that exposes butt, or female breast. I have also seen it used when only the butt or female breast is exposed (no cover at all).

I've had a similar TOS issue with one of my Poser illustrations. I asked the mods to review the imagess, based on the new TOS guidelines, and got conflicting guidance with one mod saying the image should be removed or the figure clothed and another who was fine with it. I referred the latter to the former to see if I could get a consensus and not have to worry about any adverse actions being taken. I'm not blaming anybody for the TOS issues--that's being crammed down their throats. All I'm looking for is a consistent position.

If each mod's or admin's opinions differ, then they can't give mutually consistent views on allowable nudity if they are asked independently, behind each others' backs. That's a sneaky way of doing it, since it pits one against another. So it might make everyone happier if the mods and/or admins gave their consensus view on any image, and didn't leave it to the vagaries of any one person. Then they can issue a majority opinion when somebody asks if an image is o.k., assuming they can find enough staff personnel who don't mind spending a few minutes or hours per day judging nudity. The downside to this is that it can be considered sexual harrassment if somebody is asked to view porno or nudity against his or her will. So they would need a committee of 5, for example, all of whom state beforehand that they won't be offended by viewing images of nude women or men.

Hi gagnonrich, I'm sorry you were put in this confusing position. Could you please IM me with the details of who you contacted, as I am concerned that these staff members did not post your image in the staff forum for discussion. This would be our normal procedure, so we can reach a consensus agreement. Thanks, Karen Poser Mod

I think it may be a bit of confusion on the mods part. If your like me, you asked more than one mod not knowing which would get it first and hoping it would speed up the process. when the mods got it they didnt view it as a complaint about the image, so they each just gave their opinion and didn't put it up for staff discussion as would be procedure for a complaint about the image. Everybody did what they thought they were supposed to be doing, but it came out all confused.

For me is very simple, nude means a total absence of clothes. Vicky with only shoes is not a nude Vicky!

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=922440

If your like me, you asked more than one mod In my case, I visited the Child Image Guidelines and followed the note that stated that URLs, of images which need to be reviewed, should be forwarded to admin@renderosity.com Exactly what the process is for how an image gets reviewed once a post has been sent to the above address, I don't know, but I got two emails with conflicting positions. The reason I sent the URL, of one of my images, to the admin team is because one used a Thorne fairy. Since Thorne's Platinum Club fairies are based on the Millennium Girl mesh, I felt that I should notify the admins and get their position on the image. Many of Thorne's fairies are clearly adult, with Lisha having a chest that would make Britney Spears pout in envy. Still, the mesh is based on the MilGirl (which is based on the V2 mesh), so I wanted to be safe and get an official position on the image. DAZ, by giving a smaller version of the image an honorable mention in the PC banner contest, has already tacitly endorsed it as not being controversial content. I can understand both positions. One is just more conservative than the other. I doubt that the conservative stance was taken because of any direct objection to the image as much as was taking a strong view of the guidelines. I certainly wasn't trying to be controversial when I created the image. Like a lot of the work I do, it starts with a vague notion and I let it organically grow. In this instance, I wanted to make a PC banner wholly with Plat Club products. I flipped through my content and decided to do something with one of Thorne's gorgeous figures, settling on the one with the best profile, and built an environment around what was initially going to be a figure completely silhouetted against a sunset. When throwing all the lights behind the figure gave a nice rendered contour, I shifted to playing more with that and a lot of Photoshop layering resulted in the final product. There aren't any naughty bits showing, not even the curve of a breast. Anybody can look at the rest of the images in my gallery to see that I'm not testing the boundaries of the TOS. I had qualms about submitting the image for review because simply that act puts the reviewers in a bit of a defensive position. Why would someone send an image to be reviewed if there wasn't something wrong with it? That puts the reviewer in the frame of mind where a position moves the line in the sand separating what is acceptable and what is not. In some ways, I wish I had left things alone because it is highly unlikely that anybody would ever object to the image.

The final consesus was that the image did violate the new terms, so I've taken it down. I'll add it to my DAZ gallery as is since it wasn't considered an issue there. I might have some time later this week to add some clothing to the image so that I can bring it back here.