Quote - I hope i can explain you my opinions. ( my english is not the best) .

No, you're doing fine. I don't know any useful words of Italian, so you're way ahead of me.

I think it's important to note that we don't know why the TOS guidelines exist. Assuming they are there to protect children is a possibility, but we don't actually know that from the TOS. The TOS explains what is acceptable, and what our responsibilities as members are, but it doesn't explain itself. Some possibilities include:

1. The rules are imposed or derive from some legal authority.
2. The rules exist because of a contractual agreement between Renderosity and some other business entity.
3. The rules reflect the sensibilities of one or more of the owners.
4. The rules are arbitrary and mean.

Could be some, all, or none of those reasons apply. We don't know. Without knowing why they exist and what problem they are addressing, we can't really begin to make useful suggestions for altering them in any way.

I feel compelled at this point to point out that "Aiko" is not a toon, not a child, and not an adult. "Aiko" is a suite of data files, a bunch of Poser CR2 data and a not unreasonably large Wavefront OBJ file. The problem is not about what character or rendering product was the source of the image. You can finger paint a picture by staring out the window at birds and thinking about Aiko, if you want, and the issue still exists. The TOS guidelines apply to images submitted to Renderosity, not what they are made from.

I am clear on the idea that, in your opinion, the image originally referenced by primaltruck, many others, and perhaps any image created based on Aiko does not fall within the definition of a file which should be removed. Myself, I'm neutral on the issue. To render my opinion about a particular image, I'd have to see that image. It doesn't affect the issue at hand, because neither of us is part of the team that makes the official call on this, and it's certainly possibly that our opinions will differ, in at least some cases, from theirs.

About the comment that the image in question didn't break the guidelines: just to make sure that it's clear and we're on the same sheet of music, an image breaks the guidelines when the R'osity team says it does. End of story. At the point that they make their decision, it becomes a fact. Black and white. The image broke the guidelines. You don't think it did, primaltruck doesn't think it did, and I might not think it did. But when they say it does, it does. That's how it works. It's like if you go to court and the judge says you're guilty. Whether you did, in fact, do the crime is not the issue; you are guilty because the judge says so.

I get what you're saying. You are confused about the nature of the rules and why they exist, you are angry about the current enforcement of the rules, and you are saddened by how you perceive some artists have been treated. I get that. But you haven't answered my question. What do you want to do about it? What do you think should be done? Do you think anything should be done at all? Do you just want to wring your hands and say it's a shame? I respect your right to do that, but I keep hoping that you'll offer some thoughts on specific actions that can be taken to help reduce the distress that started this thread in the first place.

I don't have any ideas on what can be done. My opinion at this point, based merely on my very limited exposure to primaltruck in this thread, is that there's not much to be done. I think his ego was bruised, and he wanted to yell about it in a way that would elicit responses of sorrow, commiseration, and indignation on his behalf. I further think that he got sulky and angry when he didn't immediately get his wish. Based on these opinions of mine, I don't think there's a practical way for Renderosity to enforce their rules AND keep everyone from being distressed. I'm hoping that you have some ideas of how something like this might be accomplished.