Ok, I'm not complaining, and I am very truly sorry if anyone has been offended (or worse) because of an image I've posted in my gallery. I have recieved 1 (one) message from a member of a yahoo group that "reminded" me to warn of violence in my posts of images, and I really hadn't even thought of warning of violence because I don't interpret the scene as violent. Yes, I intentionally left blood out of the scene to make it more "pg" rated, but still didn't find the image to be violent. Heck, movie directors/producers do tricks like that all the time to get a lower rating. Anyway, I'm posting here so I can maybe get a little more insight as to what the general community feels is violence and not.

The image in question is: "Angel - Friend or Foe"

Thanks,
--Naylin

Yes, that needs to have the violence tag on, and I've flipped it for you. Our "rule of thumb" which we generally go by for the violence tag, is that any image which depicts blood, wounds or an act of violence should use the tag. Hope this clarifies things somewhat. Karen Poser Moderator

Thank you very much Karen. Your explaination definately helps. And thanks for the quick response. --Naylin

Attached Link: 1 thing you definately want to be shielded against

Argon, I think you'll find the artist's intention was humourous :-)

Naylin, One method I used to use when going through the gallery is "the ouch factor"... is it painful as well as deadly? Being stabbed in the stomach with a sword is going to hurt, if not kill. A light sabre might cauterize the wound, but getting an arm lopped off is going to hurt. Being electrocuted, bear-trapped, poisened, burnt alive, or having things inserted under the skin will hurt and maim even if there is no blood. Let's say that the anaconca is swallowing a 3-year-old or the alligator is going to have a tiny dog for a snack... violence? No blood, but the viewer is apt to be dismayed if s/he clicks on a pleasant jungle thumbnail dripping with orchids only to see something being eaten alive. And it's the viewers' reactions that we need to consider. If the tag says violence, and they click anyway, THEY have taken responsibility for seeing it. Carolly

Attached Link: http://homepage.mac.com/kflach/media/BabyS.mov

Even with cartoon-type violence, I'll still flag the violence tag. Just to be on the safe side.

Getting hit over the head with a giant mallet never causes any lasting harm in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. But technically, a thing is what it is.

Nearly every laugh in a looney tunes cartoon is brought on by some sort of fantasy violence.

Every writing course that I've seen advises the aspiring author to seriously abuse their characters........

......because human beings are naturally sadistic, and such things appeal to them. It generates interest in the story.

Who wants to read about a period of complete peace? What a boring tale that would be!

And we wonder why the world is the way that it is.......

;)

Ok, I see all your points, now another question... When does it become non-violent? What if the stabbed man were a skeleton with a sword sticking out of its gullet?

--Naylin

Message edited on: 05/24/2005 11:18

I wouldn't call that "violence" because I'd assume the skeleton had been dead a long time. Of course, I'm probably not the greatest judge. When I first posted that Baby animation I don't think I tagged it as violent because no one actually got violated on camera. Mods? Admins? What's the verdict?

If the skeleton was long-dead and weathered then I wouldn't think you'd need to tag it. However if it was a fantasy animated walking-dead type deal, or had strips of rotting flesh hanging off it... that might be different.

I guess the bottom line is that it's better to be "overcautious" when tagging your own postings than "undercautious." In my many years here I've never heard anyone complain that an image hadn't adequately lived up to its "nudity" or "violence" tag. ;-)

I used the violence tag in my lastest image... It is after the fact, but still needed it either way.

So, the Mummy picking the beetle out of his flesh and chomping on it is probably violent, even if his own nerve endings aren't quite all in place? ;^) I've certainly draped enough skeletons around dungeons, but if it has been dead long enough, there isn't the emotional punch of something which is alive being put into a bad way. A few years back, a cartoonist showed Pikachu caught in a mousetrap. Even though this was a totally fantasy critter, with no real-world analogues, it still carried a lot of impact. Carolly

Hold on a minute, why the hell is there a "tag" anyways.

The TOS states:

"No Torture [defined as: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, wounding, crucifixion) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure]"

Now if an image of the ccrucifixion is forbidden, why is there a "violence tag" at all to begin with? So let me get this right, it is ok to post up a Nekkid vicky in a temple running some poor sap through with a sword, yet its not ok to post an artists own impressions of the crucifixion, wich for many is not just a topic for an image, but also a deeply held personal religious belief!

Talk about hypocrisy, according to the TOS most of, Michael Angelo's work couldn't be put up here, yet this is an "artists community". And while we are on that, talk about real hypocrisy, renderosity, SELLS the props to make images depicting just that, as well as other items to create images showing other "bondage/torture" types of things. But hey, while we sold you the items to make the image to begin with, you can't post those images you make with them here.

More importantly though, I think the question that should really be asked here, is, (and the implication I got, was that you don't belong to this yahoo group naylin), but why is a yahoo group, worried about the way naylin flags or does not flag an image anyways? What they stealing naylins images to put em up in their group as many other yahoo groups have been caught doing?

Message edited on: 05/25/2005 23:26

Message edited on: 05/25/2005 23:30

BDC, Christian crucifixions are allowed. Read ALL the rules. Personally, I can't understand why they make that exemption. Torture is torture. If they say "but Jesus's death was so pretty" with sunset clouds, then what about getting broken on the wheel (St Catherine), getting pegged full of arrows (St Stephen? or Sebastion?), or raped (half the female saints). Saying that it is a religious image is an excuse for what? Anything? In order to be fair, a law must apply to all. Saying that one religious group can evade a rule weakens the reasons for having the rule AND gives special rights and privileges to a subset of the community. If torture (the deliberate infliction of pain and/or suffering and/or privation) is heinous and offensive, then all images glorifying torture should certainly be excluded. Carolly

BDC, Violence and torture are not the same things. A swordfight, a boxing match, these things are not torture. Not my cup of tea, but not torture, and so are allowed. But they need the violence tag. Karen Poser Mod

renderosity, SELLS the props to make images depicting just that, as well as other items to create images showing other "bondage/torture" types of things. Actually, they've changed store policy on these things. They've really "cleaned up" the store as far as bondage/torture type things go, and altered some of the rules on nudity in promo images. I, too, have thought it particularly hypocritical that they would sell these things when you can't post images using them, but that's slowly changing (for the better, I think). bonni

Well..., you can sell tables, ladders, knives, hammers, wheels, nails, benches, irons, braziers, torches, saws, etc.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=963836&Start=1&Artist=Natolii&ByArtist=Yes

Last time I went to Albertsons they would have happily sold me a condom. However, If I'd have tried to use it while I was there in the store... They also would have been happy to sell me toilet paper. However, if I'd have tried to use it while I was there in the store... They also would have been happy to sell me lighter fluid for my grill. However, if I'd have tried to use it while I was there in the store... Hmmm. If you think about it Renderosity is not that unusual. There are actually a lot of things that you can buy in a store that you can't use while you're there.

Thanks, Bobasaur, for today's set of unshiftable mental images ;-)

Bobasaur - Thanks ... 100% spot on with your observation. :) Clint

The folks in the hardware store probably don't have a sign saying "try before you buy" next to the hammers, either. ;^) And grocery stores get really upset if you nibble your way down the aisles. Considering that feathers, blackboards, leaky pipes, and recordings of most popular music can be considered instruments of torture in the wrong hands, stores would be awfully empty if the only things they could sell were "mostly harmless". Carolly

I don't think that comparing an online store for artists which is on a site that bills itself as an art community to a local drugstore is entirely appropriate. Of course you can't use the condoms in the store, because it's illegal to have sex in public. You also can't destroy the merchandise or wreck the joint (that's illegal, too). Posting images is not very similar to what may not be done in stores, y'know? NOT that I'm complaining about R'sity's policies (for once ;-), because I'm a big believer in sites being able to set whatever policy they want (and I have the right to say the policies are stupid if I think they are, of course, but I still have to abide by them or expect to be warned or banned or whatever). I'm just saying I find the comparison of a website to a shopping center not very credible, and not very apt as a metaphor. Or do people really not understand the difference between that which is known as "real life" and that which is known as "virtual" or "online"? ;-P bonni

"an art community"

That's probably the whole crux of the matter right there. If 'rosity simply referred to itself as a "Artists' Resource" or "Virtual Mall" or "Digital Gallery" things could be a lot simpler. However, the term "community" is broader and more open to subjective interpretation.

There are communities where people all live in the same building, have lots of sex, and don't take showers (at least there used to be back in the '60s from what I've heard). There are villages with small numbers of people who know each other well but they live in their own little houses. There are suburban communities where neighbors don't know neighbors and houses stand empty till all the strangers return home from work.

Each of these is different. But they all have some sort of order. My wife and I would catch hell if we were boffing each other out in our own front yard where everyone can see - using condoms we'd bought at the neighborhood drug store, laying on a mat that we'd bought at the local thrift store, using restraints we'd constructed from supplies we'd bought at the local hardware store, and whipped cream, chocolate syrup, and cherries we'd bought at the local grocery store, all while wearing leather attire made from materials we'd purchased at the local fabric store. Most communities have rules against stuff like that.

Damn them!

But I digress...

The point is that although a "store" is not exactly the same thing as a community, it's still an element of most communities. And with the exception of the most primal of communities, usually there are things you can get at the store that you can't use in public. There are also things you simply can't use anywhere within the community. For example most cities don't allow hunting within city limits even though you can buy guns.

The landlords of this community have a definition of "community" that some of the members don't share, and vica versa.

Message edited on: 05/26/2005 12:50

In order to be fair, a law must apply to all.

I could not agree more with that. In fact its something I myself have been saying for some time now.

I am sorry if many disagree, and if many do not like it, but I am simply of the opinion that its absurd to call someplace an "artists community", when most of the works by undeniably great master artists like davinci, micheal angelo, and even some of picasso's works would be "inappropriate" and could not be put up in a gallery here.

I now know where the "curtains" that ashcroft had covering the statues in the justice department wound up.
P.S. And oh yeah, one more thing, I bet you, that if you could go into an image and ask the person laying on the altar, that nekkid vicki has just nailed em to with a knife through their chest, as they lay there screaming wether it was torture or not, they would tell you it is.

Message edited on: 05/26/2005 21:56

If 'rosity simply referred to itself as a "Artists' Resource" or "Virtual Mall" or "Digital Gallery" things could be a lot simpler. However, the term "community" is broader and more open to subjective interpretation. I agree with this completely. I do think that in R'sity's case, the term "community" is not entirely appropriate, and that it leads to certain kinds of discontent that might not be as much of a problem if people didn't feel they were community members. And while I do take your point about not being allowed to use certain things inside the store, I still think there's a world of difference between a traditional non-virtual shopping mall and an online store that happens to have a gallery and some forums attached. I just don't think the old "you can buy condoms at the drugstore but you can't use 'em there!" argument is especially applicable. And you'll note that I DID say that R'sity has greatly changed the store in recent months. A lot of the really blatant sexually oriented stuff is gone now. And oh yeah, one more thing, I bet you, that if you could go into an image and ask the person laying on the altar, that nekkid vicki has just nailed em to with a knife through their chest, as they lay there screaming wether it was torture or not, they would tell you it is. Of course. And the person who posted it would get a warning which they didn't follow up on, so if it got caught in the recipient's spam trap through no fault of their own, the person would never even know they'd been warned. And saying, "But it's my religion!" wouldn't help. The rules here are arbitrary, and there's nothing to be done about it. I am simply of the opinion that its absurd to call someplace an "artists community", when most of the works by undeniably great master artists like davinci, micheal angelo, and even some of picasso's works would be "inappropriate" and could not be put up in a gallery here. Yes, well, I do think R'sity should consider calling themselves something else. 3D Art Resource Site would be more appropriate, IMHO. bonni

Change the title to: Renderosity "Art & Stuff" [I will state publicly, however, that I do feel a sense of 'community' with the members here. Many of ya'll are friends - or at least close aquaintances - and I certainly know many of you better than the people that live next door to me. I enjoy socializing with you, bouncing ideas back & forth, learning and teaching, sharing, playing, encouraging, growing, debating (back when we could do that), teasing, admiring, mentoring, challenging, being challenged, and a bunch of other mushy stuff.]

"R'sity has greatly changed the store in recent months. A lot of the really blatant sexually oriented stuff is gone now. " And this is good or bad ?????

Oh ... the eternal topic again ... :(

maybe it could be: Renderosity Art Village and we could have the Village Idiot Forum instead of the OT forum. No, I wasn't being sarcastic. As a frequent participant of both The OT forum and The Den, I'm perfectly willing and qualified to participate in a "Village Idiot Forum." No one else comes to mind right now but I'm sure there are others... (grin)

I'd LOVE to participate in "the Village Idiot" forum. That would be just downright hilarious. Somewhat like the Three Stooges, only more so and with less smacking. As for the crucifix thing... the image that a crucifix invokes is not usually of pain and suffering but of love and compassion. This is not an especially good argument but could be the reason why it is allowed and not any of those other things (I haven't checked the TOS for myself BTW, just taking your word for it). It IS also generally considered art and not bondage (even though it's a naked guy being slowly tortured to death--don't mean any disrespect, but you have to admit that that is pretty much what it amounts to). Also, as I understand it, an image is only warned if someone complains about it. I'm not so sure that you couldn't post some of the other religious tortures (except for the rapes--that's a bit different from a crusifiction as it involves sex). As long as no one finds it offensive enough to complain about, nothing will be done about it (correct me if I'm wrong). You just have to portray it in a tasteful manner. Just my rather overlong $.02 (do I get more money for length? Or is it less?). =)

"R'sity has greatly changed the store in recent months. A lot of the really blatant sexually oriented stuff is gone now. " And this is good or bad ?????

It depends on your point of view, but in my mind "good" and "bad" don't really enter in to it. I see it as more appropriate for the image Renderosity wants to try to present. They like to claim they're "family friendly" or words to that effect, and they want to attract a "more professional" clientele. Having very blatant sexually-orented things in the store doesn't really go with that image, so removing them makes sense. Is it good? I dunno. Maybe. I've heard that the sales and membership reports since these changes took place are encouraging. My biggest argument was not with posable genitals (I have no issue with genitals, posable or otherwise) or whatever, and I wasn't bothered by having them in the store. What bothered me and many other people was the enforcement of some sort of false "family friendly" image while still selling those things. It was the apparent hypocricy of that which bothered me. bonni

Violence as a topic doesn't appear to stir up much violence.

That's a good thing........

And, yes -- Rendo's numbers just keep goin' up.....Up.......UP!

How contrary to the predictions of some.

How droll.

;)

I like other sites, too.

But I've never seen the need to create wars where none need to exist. Besides: this way, everybody's got a place to go. One that fits their particular inclinations.

Or several places to go -- for those of us with eclectic tastes.

Or several places to go -- for those of us with eclectic tastes. Well, exactly. (Oh, no, I'm agreeing with him again. sigh) There are many art/3D type sites on the web, suitable for any taste and interest, from completely or nearly G-rated right on through hardcore sex and violence, with many variations in between. I don't, personally, see the need for R'sity to be everything to everyone, and I don't think they can. I just want to see consistency. If the site says "We're PG-13," then they should be that throughout the site, not just where and when they choose to enforce that. bonni

And what is "family friendly" or "more professional"?????

And what is "family friendly" or "more professional" Well, exactly. bonni

"I just want to see consistency. If the site says "We're PG-13," then they should be that throughout the site, not just where and when they choose to enforce that.

bonni "

I too agree with and feel that way, however, it is I am afraid, a point that is lost upon the ptb, and many of the members here.

Message edited on: 05/28/2005 09:57

Well, besides, different people have different ideas about what's PG13 and what's not. If we go with what the MPAA says, then we'll have R rated stuff on here (or stuff that should be rated R lol). By signing up here all of us have agreed that we will allow the staff of R'osity to be the ones who decide what is "PG13" and what isn't. Personally, I think there are plenty of other ways to express yourself besides nude Vickis, children, torture scenes, etc. If someone is offended enough to complain about one of your pix, then no problem, just express it another way and repost. It's not worth having people going on to the site and seeing things that offend them. Eh?

just express it another way and repost. It's not worth having people going on to the site and seeing things that offend them. But you can find something that offends just about anyone, for example people from PETA could be offend by images of Vicki wearing furs. are we going to find other ways of expressing that? What else would it be? How much would be left if we starting thinking that way? Shouldn't others take more responsibility for what offends them? Instead of trying to force others to eliminate it, and make the whole site conform to their vision, why not allow other people the freedom to look at what they want as they look at what suits their tastes?

Well, exactly. (Oh, no, I'm agreeing with him again. sigh)

Yeah.

Not all habits are bad. Being right is a good habit.

;)

BTW -- there are some that would say that the sky was red......just to avoid agreeing when others of us say that it's blue........

After all, we've got a forum formula to follow here.

Many will never stray from established patterns. It's a general principles sort of thing.

"But you can find something that offends just about anyone, for example people from PETA could be offend by images of Vicki wearing furs. are we going to find other ways of expressing that?" True. But as has been said before, there is an image that Renderosity is trying to create. My point is not that we cater to the minority. Sorry, guess I wasn't terribly clear there. My point is that there are other ways to express the same things and it's not the end of the world when some rules are tightened and/or already exist. Just a thought.

Xeno-- What are you talking about? The sky isn't red. It's green! =)

What are you talking about? The sky isn't red. It's green! Actually, it's purple with pink polkadots. But it's not an issue worth arguing over. ;)

The sky is red, sometimes. And orange. And gold. And I've seen green. Sometimes the sky is nearly black. Many times, the sky is multi-colored. Arguing about the color of the sky is kinda pointless. It all depends on your point of view and the time of day. ;-) bonni

It all depends on your point of view and the time of day. ;-)

I'd surely agree with that, which is why I can't understand why some try to force a single point of view on others and insist it's the only correct one for everyone, instead of choosing one for them and allowing others to choose their own. Message edited on: 05/28/2005 20:11

I still say that it's purple with pink polkadots.

instead of choosing one for them and allowing others to choose their own

Hey -- if that's the case, and someone chooses to say that the sky is purple with pink polkadots -- then it must be. At all times and in all places. For them.

Even when they are 100% wrong.

In any case: the point wasn't that the sky is sometimes blue - or red - or gold - or whatever. The point was that some individuals disagree for no other reason than the fear that they might appear to be agreeing.

.......ironic, isn't it?

I love this.

It's just silly enough to be somewhat interesting.

;D

You're not allowed to post images of a pink polka-dotted purple sky here. You could once, but they've changed the TOS. bonni