Quote - Please read our TOS which gives you the guidelines to who the warnings, ban system works.  Everyone agreed to this when registering with our site. The guidelines are there for a reason. We do try and work with members as much as we can but when someone continues over and over again to violate the TOS then some kind of accountability needs has to be present for that member that just is disregarding the terms of service.

Well, that answers my question.

Thank you, Stacey. I'm bowing out of this thread now.

I'm bowing out of this too, no real reason to continue this.

Hasta la vista Baby!!!!!!!!!

I like how the "constructive" and "positive" spin was put on this and accomplished nothing.  I've been reading this along and letting my wife do most of the speaking but I think the whole issue with Aiko and Girl is dumb. 

I've seen every image that resulted in the temporary bans for Pete one was in clear violation but an honest mistake the others.... just ridiculous.  To the point where a JC Penny catalogue would be considered Porn (if you're a male you remember when you could make out the faint impression of a woman's areola ...well that's cause for a TOS violation) that's just dumb.  If any of you have a Renderotica account find the user named 1mind on the 8th or 9th page of his gallery he has a render that he was permantly banned for, Why Renderosity banned me is the title of it or something close to that. 

I was glad to see Cruzin put his two cents in because he works with a guy who was banned for some pretty BS reasons, I'm surprised that banned guy hasn't said anything here but I know he wants to protect his new secret username but it's BS because I like his Aiko work, Crusin features a lot of his Aiko work but he can only post V3 stuff because he likes to post his images and loves the free stuff on the site. 

Pete if you're reading this, I would just come out and say you're piece, if they ban you for sneaking back in Cindy will let you use her old Rendo account.

Thank you admins/mods for addressing and replying but  this whole thing could have been ended on page one if you all just came out and said "these are our rules, deal with them or leave" .

My wife actually thought you all were going to be open minded.  

aikofan,

I already stated we will NOT be discussing another members record or banning with you so please leave it out of this thread as that is not what this thread is about. The banned member knows full well the history with him and his account so, I'm going to say to you one more time that if the banned member has a concern or question, he can email admin@renderosity.com

I can understand that you want to ban people (I'm not always sure that I follow the reasoning in every case) but surely with today's technology there must be some way of banning a person from uploading images but not from the rest of the site - or at the very least allowing him or her still to purchase from the store if they want to. I don't see that unacceptable images or whatever have anything to do with buying things from the site.
You see I still can't understand fully that a site which is registered or whatever in the USA and must surely be covered by the USA laws can be as draconian as this site sometimes appears. 
I would have assumed that anyone would have the right of reply and appeal but it doesn't seem to happen here. 
Or maybe its just we don't hear about it. but surely it might be an idea to have a temporary ban of say a month or three months and then if people still post unacceptable pics then make it final.
But I am amazed to find people banned for what they say in the forums - unless of course they are totally foulmouthed. But if a person can carry on a heated argument without becoming too personal then why ban them? After all we are all supposed to be adults and I thought Freedom of speech was an important aspect of American life?

People aren't "banned" for whatever they say in in the forums unless its threats and the like. If someone continues to break the TOS (and I'll say it again, TO which they agreed) by continued negative commentary and that is ALL they are here for to try and stir negativity, then after attempts to communicate with them and it still doesn't work they will be banned.  Especially when we continually get complaints from other members that this trouble stirring member is affecting the time they are trying to spend here enjoying, it becomes a real problem. 

And unfortunately we all know there are people in this world that thrive on this type of behavior and I feel really sorry for them but we have to enforce the TOS when its warranted.

Stacey, I'm apologizing for my husband, we're both sharing this account now.  It's easier, since we don't post often.  :)
Cindy

Quote - Why is it everytime someone wants  to challenge or question the rules here, someone has to pop up and say "If you don't like it, you're free to leave"?

Has no one ever challenged or questioned state or federal laws? If they did, were they told they were free to leave the country?

Uhm.. Howevermuch Rosity may feel  like a Home on the Net, it's not. And it's hardly the same as being asked to leave your country. It's a bit out of proportions IMO.

And I'm all for discussing the rules here, and gawd knows I've been vocal, too, when something was implemented that I didn't like. Remember what I wrote: I DO NOT AGREE with their nudity guidelines. But if I want to be here, in their sandbox, and play with their showel and bucket, I have to abide by their rules. It's simple as that. If I won't, then I'll have to leave.

And again, some people has laid this hout like people are banned permanently the first time they have an image pulled. That is simply not the case. Get real, people. Rosity isn't the anticrist! Warezers and people who are abusive (like dear Karen's ex :lol:) are banned. Ordinary people are not! NOT even for bitching about the rules.

Oh but you won't see this. You've left the thread :o( Too bad.

Quote - Stacey, I'm apologizing for my husband, we're both sharing this account now.  It's easier, since we don't post often.  :)
Cindy

Well that's my kind of keyboard warrior!  One who sends his wife in to do his fighting AND his apologizing!

well, aiko, congrats on the upcoming blessed event, and keep a sharp eye on hubby. you know how these men can get one into trouble with their constant shenanigans :lol:

Quote - well, aiko, congrats on the upcoming blessed event, and keep a sharp eye on hubby. you know how these men can get one into trouble with their constant shenanigans :lol:

Hey now... just because we have Y chromosones, and we're slaves to our stomachs and our privates, and we can't pick up after ourselves, and we spend all our time watching sports and surfing the Internet, and can't seem to remember our phone number or anniversaries or where the socks are kept, is no reason to--

Er, well, yeah, I guess there is reason to, huh? :tt2:

:lol:@Capt.

Quote - Why is it everytime someone wants  to challenge or question the rules here, someone has to pop up and say "If you don't like it, you're free to leave"?

i hate it when people say that. a member should be able to have an opinion or dislike without being told if you don't like it leave.......that aside. my attitude to the staff here changed when i contacted one of them and they concidered what i had to say and i concidered what they had to say and they looked favourably on my point view. i won't say the outcome of the interchange but i saw that the person involved genuinely wanted to help.  they didn't want to ban or give a warning willy nilly. as it was, i deserved a warning for my actions, maybe even a ban. the person or persons gave me a chance and treated me with undeserved kindness. it's one of the reasons i'm not as mouthy as i used to be. i will still voice an opinion or dislike if i think it warrents it though. what i won't do from now on is  treat the staff like faceless robots who ban or warn as if they're on a power trip. i disagree with the way the images are classified and i've stated such in the forums. they make the rules or they at least enforce them and even though i don't agree with this particular one i accept it. 

now that i've said what i wanted, how about a suggestion forum where people can put suggestions forward. posts that berate or accuse mods or admin could be removed as could rants allowing only respectfull suggestions....you have a problem with under age image thing...put in a suggestion how you think it could be improved. you think something could be done better, put in suggestion as to how why and the implementation of the idea. this is justt a suggestion btw lmao

billy

Thanks Billy, that might be something to think about.  I'll give this some thought with the team.

yeah, it used to be called "C&D". :lol: we all know how fab that turned out :lol: but maybe some private suggestion box thing wouldn't hurt. something where nobody but the complainant and the staff could read it, to avoid lynch mobs and needless strife.

hi nancy.
i wasn't thinking of complaints...just ideas. people can complain somewhere else or mail the admin. if anyone posts a complaint in the suggestion thread it gets deleted simple as that. instructions how to post could be at the top of the forum.  maybe if we had such a forum it would cut a lot of the negativity away that keeps popping up. 
i think someone in this thread said instead of giving warnings for borderline images put them on moderated uploads of pics for a determined period of time if it's possible.  if anyone posts jump on the suggestion and turn it into a complaint the post gets removed. only constructive posts could be allowed etc etc

billy

I'm sorry but I just gotta laugh every time I see the whole "Freedom Of Speech" thing brought up.

This is a "Private" website, with it's own TOS, which have nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.

When  you signed up here...did you agree to a TOS?

Or to the American Bill of Rights?

Oh and speaking of TOS.

Lets have several:

You know...

One for the Forums

One for the Galleries

One for the Free-Stuff

One for the Tutorial section.

One for the Contests

One for the Chat

One for the Blogs

One for the Site Mail

One for the Moderators

One for the Coordinators

One for the Administrators

One for the Nicholas

One for the Tim

....Oh Yeah...and One for the Store.

Just agree and adhere to the ones that suit you.

Tom

I think its an excellent idea that you have different TOS for different sections. It already looks as if there are because there are certainly images of Aiko in the MP that could nver be looked on as over 18. 
Of course very site can have its own TOS no-one denies that - but I sometimes wonder if the TOS as they are interpreted are actually legal or if someone wanted to if they could be challenged in a court of law. (I am not just talking about this site's TOS here I am talking in general) 
I wonder also if this is actually classed as a "private site"  - its not someones website where they post things for their own enjoymnen. Its a business. It makes money and it pays wages. 
A shop in the high streeet can be privately owned - but it still has to follow laws laid out for commerce. 
Its like when you go in a store and the shop has something saying what its exchange laws are. If those rules aren't legal they can't be implemented. 
That's why I would have thought it better to ban people from the forums or from uploading images but not also ban them from purchasing items in the store.

yes it's a private site...it's called renderosity and they can allow or dissallow who they like. the tos is legal and anyone trying to take them to court for it would get severely giggled at. shops in the hign street can also tell you you can't shop there if they want. many wholesalers only allow you to shop with them if you're a business owner. as long as they're not racially or other wise discriminative.....saying you can't join cos you're fat or irish.... there within in the law. i could understand you if  you argued an ethical point but to start about the legallity of the tos is stretching it some.

and like tom i struggle to see what the freedom of speech has to do with anything in this thread.
can you tell  us what freedom of speech actually means. if i own a shop and you tell me...hey you're running this shop in the wrong way i can and will stop you coming in to it. freedom of speech does give one the right to be beligerant or demanding in any way shape or form. in fact freedom of speech gives you the right to air an opinion and another to dissagree with you which sorta kicks the freedom of speech out of the ball park...jmo

billy

You actually said it Billy freedom of speech allows you to air an opinion and for others to disagree with you. 
I am just asking can renderosity actually be a private site if they are a business?

yes but freedom of speech doesn't give us the right to say how rendo or their tos operate.  much of whats been said hasn't been opinion much of you're post said wasn't opinion

yes they can and if you think about it one goes hand in hand with the other. . do you know of any business that lets joe public run things.  isn't any site anyone sets up a private site unless they say it's a public site. if you have control over a site then it's private. business or no
and this is going way off topic.

billy

Quote -
I am just asking can renderosity actually be a private site if they are a business?

Your local pharmacy is a private business.  They pay their bills with the money gathered in that business.  The sidewalk outside?  That's public.  Same goes with the grocery store (unless it's a co-op, those are owned and operated by the co-opers), hardware store, sporting goods store, craft store, etc.  Even if they're Publicly Traded (as in Walmart, Target, etc), they are still a private business and do not have to allow you any Constitutional Rights.  Even if you work for them.  So, if you do something that they don't agree with (try standing in the middle of your local craft store and shouting.  Anything.  Either they'll do their best to hush you, usher you out the door, or call the cops.), they can boot you out the door.  They don't even have to have a set of rules posted for customers!  Imagine that!  WalMart doesn't have a posted TOS!  (Well, their no shirt, no shoes, no service rule, but, beyond that...)  Can you imagine someone walking in there with no shirt and no shoes on, being redirected to said sign, and demanding that the rule be changed right there and now?  Me, either.

Why would that change because a business is online?  It doesn't.  Just because it's open to the public does not mean that it is a public site.  Public sites are government sites.  A Private site may be open to the public, but still be private. 

The problem is, Jen, is that Renderosity keeps on promoting itself as a 'community' thereby bluring the fact that it is a business. When people (members of said community) think they are in a 'community' they have the mistaken belief that they have some say in how the community they are members of is run. It's about time that Renderosity grasped the nettle and called us what we are ... customers. 
Jack

But a business has to follow legislation and laws laid down by government for example. I don't know what the rules are like in America - cos I've never been there. But you are not allowed here to sell something that won't do what you say it will do. You can't refuse to exchange something that is faulty. Walmart works to rules laid down not by them but by others - work health and safety, discrimination Fair trading etc etc . If they don't keep to these rules or they try to change them then yes you can complain to them or to whatever section of government's laws they are breaking.

well, Jack, again, even looking at the word "community", I'm going to play the devil's advocate again.  In your offline communities, such as the city you live in, etc, you may have a voice, but that doesn't mean it's going to be listened to.  And there are rules, lots of arbitrary ones I might add, that not everyone agrees on.  There are rules to be followed in every community....so why would an online community be different?  Your city had its' rules.  As does your state.  As does every workplace, store, etc. 
There's a bar that my sister and I go and sing karaoke in.  We used to compete, but have since been told that it's not fair (especially since we don't drink first).  We still go there, even after being asked not to sing.  Why?  The bartender is awesome.  The waitresses and waiter (yes, there's one) are the friendliest people you'd ever meet.  Most of the other customers are the most fun people to hang out with.  That bar, in and of itself, has its' own "community".  But they're also a private business.  We were asked to change what we did there, and did as they asked, because otherwise it would be either akward, or we wouldn't be welcome there anymore. 
Any business can set its' rules and keep them firm.  Even one billed as a "community".  Community doesn't mean "the people decide".  A community is somewhere where people get together for similar purposes.  Whether that be gettting completely hammered and singing horrible versions of "Come on Eileen" or discussing and creating art. 
We do get feedback from time to time, and change our policies according to that feedback.  Not always, but it happens.  Sometimes, people are happy (changing the price of the NameChange service).  Sometimes, people are not (the almost-2-year-old child image guidelines).  In life, you make a decision.  People will either like your decision or hate it.  It's the nature of human nature ;)

this is getting bizzar. the tos works within the guidelines of the state laws of tennesse. it says so in the tos. that said renod have a lot of leeway to set what rules they wish to set. 

the community and the business of rendo are two seperate yet somewhat symbiotic entities. whilst they interact to some degree one is not bound by the other. as in all communities people are in charge. not all communities vote on who is in charge.  the community can ask or complain if they wish. look at the boards and see that this is so. things wont always go as the community wants. you can't please all the people all the time.  we are not all customers. i haven't bought a thing from rendo. if you buy your a customer, if you use the forums your a member of the community. being a member doesn't give you a right to say how the community is run. only the chance to voice an opinion. jmo

billy

Quote - But a business has to follow legislation and laws laid down by government for example. I don't know what the rules are like in America - cos I've never been there. But you are not allowed here to sell something that won't do what you say it will do. You can't refuse to exchange something that is faulty. Walmart works to rules laid down not by them but by others - work health and safety, discrimination Fair trading etc etc . If they don't keep to these rules or they try to change them then yes you can complain to them or to whatever section of government's laws they are breaking.

Wait a minute.  Where is it said that Renderosity won't exchange faulty products, or return them?  I mean, yes, you have to go through the merchant first, but if that doesn't resolve it, the MarketPlace staff will resolve it for you.  Can you point me to somewhere where Renderosity has refused to refund ACTUALLY faulty product?

I haven't said you have. What I did say is that I believe like any other business you are governed by rules set down by external agencies.

Well, yeah.  No one said that they didn't.  I'm still confused as to why you brought it up, though, Bea.  There's making a point, and then there's saying something because there's nothing left to say.

Quote - There's making a point, and then there's saying something because there's nothing left to say.

Then, of course, there's those of us that talk and talk and talk, but don't really say very much...

(Hey there-- over in the corner. No, sit back down. I'm not talking about you. Smooth your ruffled feathers over. I'm making a joke at my own expense. :lol:)

Quote - this is getting bizzar.

This thread started getting bizarre on page 2  :ohmy:

What colour is it? I prefer purple ones.

 any post, image or writings can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community. This one rule is kind of a blanket rule for all the rest..But i still think rules about the age of a 3D characters should be written so that the artist knows what is expected .not left to a group of moderators..I think young girls are beautiful and would like to be able to use them in my art..and after raising a family of girls,the last thing i would want to do is exploit children or be accused of it...this is just an oppinion and a suggestion..

I started this thread because i had an image of Aiko removed that i thought was just fine..but the moderators did not...i was accidently issued a warning(as first time child nudity offenders just get some education)and also had a warning from 2003 over an eract penis in my image( i missed that part of the TOS.lol.)so i thought 1 more and i am out of hear...since then i have gotten an appology for the mistake,also had my 2003 infraction removed and Stacey has worked very hard with me to make sure nothing else in my gallery breaks the rules, and told me that anything already in my gallery that might get a future complaint,we could work thru without any warnings just complience with the rules...i found this to be very good treatment and do think bringing up my gripe has helped...and i want to thank Stacey for all her help..and i appologize for the accusations that i made also.

i still think that if i am unhappy hear with something or happy about something that this is the place to discuss it and our cats and freedom of speech an even marriage ....lol..

i also have a very different view of what a community is...and in the communities that i have been a part of, the community decides what the community does..(Just my experience)

Hi again Jen (just back from work). I agree with everything you said in your reply, everything. The problem, however, appears that for a lot of people when they see Renderosity advertised as a community they think commune. Hence often irate and irrational tirades over things which members see as affecting their commune. Shrugs

There are myrid definitions of community too. A good example would be the European Economic Community where each member state does have an input into community policies. In fact, i think a lot of europeans will have this type of community in mind when they see a site advertising itself as a community. I don't think DAZ and Poserpros (first names off the top of my head) have the sorts of problems Renderosity does. Maybe because they are not calling themselves communities? I don't know about 3D Commune, never been an active member there but it would be interesting to find out lol.

Anyway, must go... ravenous 15 year old to feed.

Jack

each member state but not each member of a state..,,,,same with our government,  we elect them of course but then they make the laws and the rules. when you agree to the tos your in effect electing rendo to run the community, to modetate it and make sure it runs okay. to make sure certain things and rules are followed.  the only time individual members of have a say re europe is in a referendrum. and that is only by the grace of those in power.

the european community you speak of would only be analogous to a business guild where each business has an input.

billy

That's what i said, each member (state) of the EU. And again, i agree with what it is you are saying regarding Renderosity. But the point i was making (perhaps not well) is that because Renderosity is advertised as a community it is assumed by some of its members to be a commune.

Anyway bedtime pour moi... have to be at work at 7am.

Jack

i can see what your saying but here you would have to look as each forum as a member state and the mods as the ones who run each state and have the say in how its done. in that context they're not so different.. and not sure but i think a commune and a community are two different things.

billy

Just for reference, this is the "right to free speech" that people keep talking about:

Quote - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(Emphasis is mine.)

Note that this amendment to the U.S constitution does not, in itself guarantee anybody the right to do something, but rather restricts the government from prohibiting it. Also, please note that this right to free speech does not say anything about anyone being provided a free soapbox from which to speak their piece.

Renderosity has graciously provided us with a soapbox, but has implemented rules limiting how we may use it, which is their right. By denying anyone usage of the soapbox, they are in no way abridging anyone's "right to free speech". This is more a case of "you can't talk that way in my house, go outside". The U.S. government will, by constitutional law, not stop you from expressing your opinions in a peacable manner. But Renderosity is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to provide us with a place to do so. And they are completely within their rights to, arbitrarily even, deny access to this forum. It is quite legal for them to make up a rule restricting the use of their private property (yes, this web site is private property, deal with it) and is not in violation of the laws of Tennessee, the United States, or the constitution of either governing body.

Quote - Just for reference, this is the "right to free speech" that people keep talking about:

Quote - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(Emphasis is mine.)

Note that this amendment to the U.S constitution does not, in itself guarantee anybody the right to do something, but rather restricts the government from prohibiting it. Also, please note that this right to free speech does not say anything about anyone being provided a free soapbox from which to speak their piece.

Renderosity has graciously provided us with a soapbox, but has implemented rules limiting how we may use it, which is their right. By denying anyone usage of the soapbox, they are in no way abridging anyone's "right to free speech". This is more a case of "you can't talk that way in my house, go outside". The U.S. government will, by constitutional law, not stop you from expressing your opinions in a peacable manner. But Renderosity is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to provide us with a place to do so. And they are completely within their rights to, arbitrarily even, deny access to this forum. It is quite legal for them to make up a rule restricting the use of their private property (yes, this web site is private property, deal with it) and is not in violation of the laws of Tennessee, the United States, or the constitution of either governing body.

 When Renderosity asks that you "agree" to that TOS, and you click that little "I agree" option you are electronicaly signing a legal agreement between you, and Renderosity. 

Wich means that the TOS legally is a contract between you the member and Renderosity. 

As I have already pointed out, for some of us, "oldtimers" when we electronically "signed" that TOS agreement, there was not a clause that allowed for changing the TOS at all whatsoever. 

At that time the TOS here, did not adress that particular issue at all in fact. 

As there was no clause that allowed for changing of the TOS at the time some of us  electronically signed the TOS, legally any changes to that contract (TOS agreement)would have too be approved or "agreed" too by both party's to the original agreement for it to be binding upon one party or the other.

Otherwise the original signed agreement applies.

Let me give you an exmaple:

You sign a contract to rent an apartment. (TOS)

In this lease it says the landlord will do A, B, and C. The lease you sign makes no provision for changing any part of the lease whatsoever.

Later on, six months into the lease, the landlord decides he wants too change parts of the lease, so that in addition too A, B, and C.  you must also now do D,E,and F.

So the landlord draws up a new rental agreement, in wich he inserts a clause that allows him/her too change the lease, wich was not in the original lease, and further making changes too A, B, and C requiring you too now do D, E, and F.  He/she posts the new "rules" in the lease in the hallway.

Guess what, 

Unless the tennant, were to voluntarily agree to those changes they can ignore them all they want too. And the landlord, legally cannot evict them for it either. In fact, if the landlord even tried too, the landlord could be sued.

Becaue, legally that is a new contract, and the tennant is not under any obligation to sign a new contract either unless, and untill, their original lease expires.

Since legally it is a contract, It is the same with the TOS here.

Private business or private citizen,  once you sign a contract with someone, you cannot after the fact go back and change it unless the other party agrees to the changes or, there is a clause in the contract that allows you too do so.

The TOS since this site has been Renderosity has had the sentence that says

"**Renderosity reserves the right to change, alter or modify the Terms of Service as needed. All postings, past and present are subject to the most current terms of service. "

Quote - Wich means that the TOS legally is a contract between you the member and Renderosity. 

Umm... no, 'fraid not. The TOS is not a legal contract, because it lacks the principle feature of a contract, namely, an equitable exchange. In your rent agreement example, the landlord exchanges something of value (use of the apartment) for something of value (rent money). The TOS is not a contract, it is a list of provisions limiting the usage of a publicly available, privately held facility. Our agreement, tacit or otherwise, to abide by these provisions is an act of willful subjugation on our part, not anything legal.

The fine folks here can refuse access to this site, in whole or in part, for almost any reason. And, they are allowed to do it whether we actually agreed to the TOS or not. Also, they can change the rules any time they want, and they can, if they like, refuse access to people based on the new rules.

There is no legal contract that exists between us the users and R'osity with respect to our usage of the forums, or posting images. None whatsoever. We are, quite literally, at the mercy of the whims of the administrators of this site (fortunately, they are some of the finest folks around!) because there has been no equitable exchange of prodcuts or services of value with respect to our usage of the site. Even people who buy things from the site only have a limited contract related to the sale and usability of the merchandise or service. They invited us in to their house to play, and they can ask us to leave if they want.

Try this... go to a restaurant, walk into the dining room, and start screaming foul language at the people dining there. When you are escorted out, claim that there is a legal contract between you and the restaurant that is limited to "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" and that you never agreed to even that, anyway. Then, sue the restaurant for "breach of contract". 

Finally, listen to your lawyer giggle his ass off at you.

Stacey,

Thanks for the prompt reply. It is my understanding it doesn't nessicarily have too be called a contract to be one.

It's my understanding, and of course this is based upon law in another state, but often times its the same no matter what state you are in, (you'd have to check for the Great State of Tennessee) but any "agreement" in wich aeither both or one party is required too sign stating they agree too, and will abide by the terms in said agreement, then legally, under the law, it is considered as a contract.

Even if, the agreement statement, or the terms themselves do not specifically state within the "agreement" that it is or is not a contract.

That is the way I am seeing it Capt. Sorry I'm no lawyer but I do see it as policies/rules in place to participate here and not a contract per say like darth was referring to in his earlier post. I don't think it compares at all to a landlord/renter situation.

I was thinking of the Walmart senario of entering the store with the no shirt, no shoes policy and being asked to leave if you aren't in compliance with that stated policy but if Walmart wanted to add "no blue jeans" to the policy and enforce that, then its their right to deny anyone not adhering to that stated policy. Because I think by entering the store you are in essence agreeing to it (cause its posted) and if you don't abide, you will be asked to leave.

I may be way off here but I don't at all compare a TOS that doesn't say its a legally binding contract to something such as a renter/landlord contract

I personally (and this is me personally talking here) don't see it that way at all. I did a little research and I respectfully disagree with what you are saying by what I read. Especially the part about "even if it doesn't say "legally binding contract" entered into by both parties."

Regardless of whether its a "contract" or not ( you might be right about that, the internet is sooo confusing, lol) we reserve the right to modify/change the TOS at any time as has always been stated in our TOS which I think is what your original post was about. Just to clear that up:)

it is indeed a contarct. though not in the sense you say it is. ..it's a terms of service, a one sided contract which if you join you agree to abide by and if you don't agree to abide by you can't join.
it's a conmatract that binds the member into using the site within the terms of service laid down. it is not a contract rendo  could be sued for. it is not a contract rendo could breach within the terms defined. basically it's an acceptance contract signed by a member and no one else. as such rendo can ban the member when when and for why it chooses without any worry of them breaching any contract. throught the tos rendo state at their discretion or words to that effect re removal of images. this means you have no say in what gets taken down or why.

billy

Now just to ask, what of those members who pay for the gallery plus option, they pay to post images, now if the image violates the TOS, yes it should be taken down, but what if an image doesn't and a member who paid to have it posted is banned and the whole gallery is taken down.  Does that  constitute a breach of contract.?  A service has been exchanged, a fee has been collected. 

Honest question, I really came here hoping the thread was finished....apparently not, got to reading and that q popped in my noggin.

Stacey as you said, Im no lawyer either, lol, although they are not far from the sith......

Just so you know, my question/post comes from a discussion I was having with someone else, in wich I took your view as well. 

Thanks for settling a long running "arguement" for me. LOL I stand corrected, and now, so will my friend.

As for the "rules" not being fair, or not clear.

Her dark majesty , queen jumpstartme2, a Goddess among the sith, has decreed to me, that in the future all the rules are to be explicit, clear, and enforced across the board without exception. As it's never wise to cross her dark majesty I am quite sure this will be the case in the future.

Quote - Now just to ask, what of those members who pay for the gallery plus option, they pay to post images, now if the image violates the TOS, yes it should be taken down, but what if an image doesn't and a member who paid to have it posted is banned and the whole gallery is taken down.  Does that  constitute a breach of contract.?  A service has been exchanged, a fee has been collected.

Nope, 'cause the contractual arrangement would have been voided by violation of the TOS. The pertinent phrase in the purchase agreement for the Gallery Plus product is:

Quote - All uploads must adhere to the gallery upload terms.