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. 

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

Additionally, any post, image or writings can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community. 

the above is a line from the tos. if someone is banned and the staff think the gallery of of someone who is banned unsuitable then they can remove it. it what everyone  agreed too.

billy

Just a clarification BDC on this 

"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."

She was communicating to you about the contest rules for the future, not the TOS. It kind of sounds like above that you are referring to the future of the TOS but she was specifically stating the rules for contest since there was some confusion about the Halloween contest.

Y'all oughta seriously consider opening up a "Why Was My Aiko Picture Removed?" forum... ;-)

Quote - "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 - She was communicating to you about the contest rules for the future, not the TOS.

Yup, Stacey is correct, that was what my communication was aimed at...the contests, not the TOS.

(Long Version)My post regarding multiple TOS was intended to illustrate the absurdity of it, rather than to be taken seriously.

In case there was any misunderstanding.

(Short version)

It was a joke.

Tom

Wow.. Jumpstartme2 is a SHE?! I never knew! Seriously!

Live and learn :lol:

Aww crap, my secret is out.....here I had everyone thinkin I was a dude :lol:

:lol: Fooled me at least!

the new "why was my aiko image deleted" forum would be easy to manage. the same generic answer could be given for all questions: "aiko looks too young" :lol: I useta have some aiko renders at george's poserhome site, but it has disappeared. :crying: I reckon folks shouldn't be too surprised about mods being ladies, as they do alot better here than the men. more empathy (and more capacity for caring and sympathy) seem to translate into less job stress, and less tendency to become enraged by controversy.

I'm not the least bit surprised that some of the mods here are ladies. Quite the contrary.

I was however surprised to learn that jumpstartme2 was a female.

Quote - I'm not the least bit surprised that some of the mods here are ladies. ...

It would account for why this place is such a nice, calm environment. I've always believed that women are, in general, smarter than men, and much more capable of mature, even handed reaction to the world.

any news on the suggestion forum yet stacey?

billy

Quote - It would account for why this place is such a nice, calm environment. I've always believed that women are, in general, smarter than men, and much more capable of mature, even handed reaction to the world.

Well, most of the time...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3759514647895864529&q=screaming+woman&hl=en

No Billy, not yet. I have it on my list but have several priority things above it.

Quote - Well, most of the time...

Well, I suppose anyone can be pushed to the edge... :lol:

Quote - No Billy, not yet. I have it on my list but have several priority things above it.

okee dokey stacey and thanks.

billy

Stacey,

Forgive me for apparently not being clear enough, yes I was talking about the contest rules and not the TOS.  

Although I guess/assume one could say the same can be said of the TOS as well since it too is enforced across the board without respect for persons right? 

isn't every tos enfoced the same way. if it wasn't it wouldnt be a tos

the tos isn';t done for for us it's done for the sites conveinience and as such the only rights we have are the rights they allow us to have. (as it should be) otherwise the site would fail in a month

billy

I realize now that my image was reported because of the violence toward women.(Red Butt cheeks and the title"Not so hard").I thought it was cute and sexy and fun,but someone who had been abused didnt see it that way..i understand and appologize to the person who reported it..I didnt realize this at first and now agree that this image should have been removed (because of violence)and i will remove the V3 image i did with the same name..Sorry.and its not because of the rules i think it should be removed but respect for a fellow person and artist..but i still disagree that she looked underage...she was young and beautiful and not a child.and if i would have known the original reason it was reported ,i would have removed it myself.

I've always believed that women are, in general, smarter than men, and much more capable of mature, even handed reaction to the world.

You are a brilliant man, sir :lol:

Quote - You are a brilliant man, sir :lol:

Thank you. Women seem to be capable of thinking things through with their brains all the time, whereas we Y-chromosome types are forever being distracted by other organs. It just stands to reason that women would be smarter and more relaxed. :biggrin:

Now wait just a god damn minute!  You're honestly telling me that the reason said image got removed is because the implication was that A3 and or V3 got a spanking...?   That's it?  That's why it got removed?  This whole thing is because someone decided to project there personal trauma onto the work?  

Well of all the... Listen, hon, whomever you might be I got news for you:

Okay so you were abused at some point.  Got news for you.  You're not alone, it happens alot, deal with it however you gotta deal with it but don't go projecting your personal trauma onto someone else's work.  That is not cool.  Hit the back button and get over it.  Sorry if that sounds cold but I've had to much crap happen in my own life and lost to many good friends... meaning dead... okay?... To evil bad horrible stuff and now I hear someone's getting uptight over some reddened butt cheeks?  That's an insult.  We're stronger then that. 

I see a ton of material on this site that dybics all kinds of horrible, nasty, abusive, terrifying stuff.  But it's artwork and or stories, not an actuall event having to actuall people.  I may find of it personally horrifying, but I deal with it personally and I also recognize that just because I see and interpet an image one way does not mean that the next person is going to do the same.  I don't go crying and whining to someone because it got my nickers in a bunch seeing something that reminded me of a personal trauma in my life.

If said person does not have the personal emotional stablity to recognize things like that then they should not be on looking at such things now should they?  Frankly I have my doubts that said person should even be on this site, or at the least be looking at Nude and or Violent material that has warnings attatched to it.  It's the purest idiocy to say, "Oh well, I've been warned theres a big scary monster on the other side of this door but I'm kinda curious as to exactly what it looks like or how badly it will scare me so I'm gonna open the door anyways..." and then get scared and run screaming and crying as if you've been terribly wronged in some way.

I'm in the sci-fi section.  That's my baby.  I comment on everything I get a chance to see, everything, even the ones that make me personally sick to my stomach I still try to find something good about it if only something like the colors being vivid or whatever.  Okay, that's me.  I don't expect most people to do the same.  What I do expect is that people have enough of a mature attitude to recognize straight off what they can and cannot handle, and PERSONALLY censor there viewing options appropiatly rather then go screaming to the poor mods about it everytime they see a image they can't personally handle because of something that happened in there life.

Now I sympathize with the trauma said individual has been through, okay?  I've been though alot bad stuff and seen it destroy people I loved deeply.  But that's my cross to bear as they say.  What I remember most about those times is feeling like the world didn't make sense, personal shame and... oh heck I'm not going to go into all that.  Point is, while I could look around and see and hear people saying and doing things that I found personally insensitive to my situation, I also recognized that said people had no idea that what they were saying or doing was effecting me that way, and if made aware would not have stopped right away.

Case in point, Primal pointed out that if he had known the reason he would have pulled the image in question himself rather then have it traumatize that person.  

I don't think that anyone here want's to be insensitive to what other people might have experienced or gone through.  But at the same time I think it's important to recognize that this like any other place is not a vacume.  The monsters aren't going to disappear.  They'll always be out there in life, no matter where you go.

I would argue too that there is a great deal of existing material on this site that could be interpeted as abusive, exploitive, monsterous, etc.  But then art is interpetive you see.  No two people are going to see things exactly the same way.

It's time for people to start taking personal responsablity for there viewing habits here and to stop putting it off on the mods to remove every image you find personally offensive.

In addition to the back button on your browser, there are options in your profile that allow you to personally censor the type of material you are going to be viewing.  So if you find nudity or violence generally offensive, censor your viewing habits.  If you see a thumb nail or title that rings a warning bell in your head, don't click on it.

And if, after all that if you choose to view the image in question and find it personally offensive or traumatizing, hit that back button on your browser, move on to something else, and leave it at that.  It's really that simple.

I've seen a bunch of images removed from the galleries, some of them which had been up for months, that I did not personally see anything wrong with, alibite maybe said images were not to my personal taste but I would be hard put to find the reasons why they were removed.

I hear storys about a fair amount of back-stabbing, spying, etc, etc.  Maybe some of that's true.  I don't know.  I think it rather sad and also somewhat ludercrous if it is, but again I don't know.

In general I think that we need to think more before we act.  Some censorship is inevitable of course in order to allow the site to conform to it's TOS and to protect it's viewers, artists, and the site in general.  That's not a bad thing.  But in cases like this, if I've read everything correctly this could have all been solved very simply with the person in question PMing Primal to make there feelings known.  Primal has already said he would have removed the image had he known how it was effecting that person, and I believe him.  

Most people are, I like to think, beyond all the BS, fundementaly decent people who will do the right thing if you give them the chance.  But you have to have enough faith in people to at least give them that chance.

All that said I also think that artists have a responsability as well not only to try and make sure there images conform to the TOS of the site, but also to ask themselves if the image they are putting up is potentially going to in some way offend of upset people (although I realize it can often be hard to predict these things) and if so, is there a way to rework the image in a way that would make it less potentialy problematic without compromising the essentials of the peice.   Some folks have expressed that they prefer to remain "edgy" in there style or "push the limits".  Okay but isn't it more of a challenge to do that in a way that still gets that "edgy" feeling across without actually stepping over the line?  

Anyways, just hoping that people will stop to think a bit about things.  I can't imagion this has been a great deal of fun for any of the parties actually effected by this, although I think it's fairly obvious that some here have decided to make this thread there own personal playgrounds.  I just skip over there posts now ^^

I just want to state for the record that we never ever received a report on the said image regarding the "violence" content, that never came up. It was due to the reasons stated, the underage appearance is why it came up for review in the first place and the reason for the removal.

Quote - > Quote - You are a brilliant man, sir :lol:

 

Thank you. Women seem to be capable of thinking things through with their brains all the time, whereas we Y-chromosome types are forever being distracted by other organs. It just stands to reason that women would be smarter and more relaxed. :biggrin:

Yes, yes.....women are never distracted by such matters.  They aren't prone to self-destructive behaviors, or to flying off of the handle for no reason, or to making fools of themselves in general.  Britney Spears comes to mind -- she's just one shining example of these truths.  And there are just a few other examples.  At least one or two.

While it's true that men succeed at the task of commiting suicide twice as often as women do -- it's also true that women attempt to commit suicide four times more often than men do.  Men, however -- tend to choose methods that are more certain to actually work -- such as shooting or hanging.  Women, by and large, tend to choose overdosing on pills, or wrist-slashing -- methods wihich aren't as certain to do the job.

People are individuals.  I've known wise and foolish ones -- irrespective of their gender.  In fact: sometimes you'll find both wisdom and foolishness mixed together in the same individual.  I believe that it has something to do with being imperfect creatures.

Isn't this thread dead yet?  I check back in once a week or so to see -- high levels of self-righteous outrage consume a lot of personal energy to maintain for extended periods of time.  It's bad for your health.

Quote - Yes, yes.....women are never distracted by such matters.  [...]  While it's true that men succeed at the task of commiting suicide twice as often as women do [...]

Goodness, gracious me... perhaps I need to use some sort of new emoticon to point out the lighthearted intent of some of my posts, other than the usual grins and smilies. My, my, my. Seems like quite a veering to one side to go from a semi-flirtatious comment about gender attributes to suicide statistics. My head is spinning, at any rate.

The important thing the remember is that all generalizations are worthless. :biggrin:

Quote - Isn't this thread dead yet?  I check back in once a week or so to see -- high levels of self-righteous outrage consume a lot of personal energy to maintain for extended periods of time.  It's bad for your health.

This thread shall never die! We shall go on to the end, we shall fight on the Internet, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our forums, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills-- huh? It's been done already? No kiddin'...

:lol:  <-- (Indicates that this is intended to be humorous)

@ the good Captain --

I should have been more clear in indicating that I fully understood your humorous intent.  My own more serious response reflected a visceral reaction to a couple of pet peeves of mine -- but it was also half-joking.  At least the part about Britney Spears.  I should have used a smilie :laugh:

And yes -- when a cause is worth fighting for...........by all means: this thread is IT!

Com'on -- WE'RE TAK'IN THE HILL!!!!!!

(Insert smilie here -- )

Quote - Com'on -- WE'RE TAK'IN THE HILL!!!!!! (Insert smilie here -- )

Cool! You take the squad 'round the right side, an' I'll see if I can take out that sniper from our machine gun nest. :tt2:

Let's go........they'll never know what hit 'em.........!

:scared:

Wait....what are who fighting for?  I just came in to see if I left my popcorn and beer in here.

Don't see any popcorn, but is this your beer?

Quote - I just want to state for the record that we never ever received a report on the said image regarding the "violence" content, that never came up. It was due to the reasons stated, the underage appearance is why it came up for review in the first place and the reason for the removal.

I think, if I read Primal's post correctly, as well as the others in this thread, that the image was reported based on "underage nudity" but that the actuall reason the person choose to report said image in the first place is that the title and redend condition of A3's posterior in some way reminded them of personal abuse they had suffered in the past.

One might speculate, and it is ONLY speculation that the person in question choose to report the image on a "underage nudity" basis because they believed, not without precident, that the image would be far more likely to be removed on that basis then if they reported on the basis of the implied spanking and/or title, even though this, if you wish to take Primal's testimony at face value, appears to have been the underlining motive.

Is it possible, had this person not reported the image, that someone else might have complained on the basis of "underage nudity" at a later time?  Maybe.  

Was the image justifiably removed by the Renderousity Staff based purely on the "underage nudity" completly ignoring the issues of title and implied spanking content?  That's not for me to say.  As has been said, the appropiate staff members got togeather, voted, removed the image, issued a warning (later withdrawn) etc.  When all is said and done one must rely on the judgement of this body of individuals to make such decisions, and abide by them even if disagreeing personally.

My point, once again, is that all of this could have been avoided had the individual in question contacted Primal by PM and asked that the image be removed on the basis of the title and implied A3 spanking, rather then going the rout that they did which resulted in this whole unpleasant situation. I believe Primal would, as he has said, have volentarilly removed said image on that basis, without objection.

And I have to say, Primal is a far more forgiving indivdual then I.  I'd probably be quite upset about it actually if someone poped in to say, "Terribly sorry about the whole 'underage nudity' thing, I was actually upset about... etc. but I didn't think they'd take it down for that so I used this instead"

What I find most disturbing is that the indivdual did not even bother to contact Primal first to voice the concern.  Also that the indivdual choose to report it on a different basis then what they were actually upset about.

Lemme dumb it down a bit.  You guys remember the South Park ep where the kids all tell the cops their parents molested them so they'll be taken away, basicly so they can go see a concert and then hang out without any parents around?

It's kinda like that.  Their parents didn't molest them, they just wanted to get  rid of them.

So in conclusion blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah.  Blah.  ^^

Quote - I realize now that my image was reported because of the violence toward women.(Red Butt cheeks and the title"Not so hard").I thought it was cute and sexy and fun,but someone who had been abused didnt see it that way..i understand and appologize to the person who reported it..I didnt realize this at first and now agree that this image should have been removed (because of violence)and i will remove the V3 image i did with the same name..Sorry.and its not because of the rules i think it should be removed but respect for a fellow person and artist..but i still disagree that she looked underage...she was young and beautiful and not a child.and if i would have known the original reason it was reported ,i would have removed it myself.

Sorry but I'm missing the part in primals post above where the person stated that they reported it for "underage" reasons rather than their true reasons due to the violence toward women? 

I applaud primals sensitivity toward a fellow member and artist and I'm sure had that person contacted him personally he would have understood then as well, I'm not questioning that. 

And since primal's post didn't mention it, I clarified with my last post.

If I read your post correctly Stacy, you said that, "the 'violence' content never came up" and that you never recieved a report or complaint to that effect.  The reason as you stated for the removal, was "the underage appearance is why it came up for review in the first place and the reason for the removal."

Now in Primal's statement he says that, "I realize now that my image was reported because of the violence toward women.(Red Butt cheeks and the title"Not so hard").I thought it was cute and sexy and fun,but someone who had been abused didnt see it that way..i understand and appologize to the person who reported it.."

Since as I think everyone can agree, the issue of 'violence towards women' was never brought up, and that "the underage appearance is why it came up for review in the first place and the reason for the removal." I think it is a reasonable inferance that the person in question reported it on that basis rather then 'violence toward women', which if you believe Primal's post is the primary reason the person wanted the image removed.

Again, I'm not saying that the image itself did or did not deserve to be removed purely on 'underage appearance' issues.  I am simply pointing out the ironic fact that if the person in question had contacted Primal first with there concerns regarding "violence towards women" it would have been removed on that basis alone, if you believe his statement to that effect and I do, and by the way I join with you Stacy in applauding his senstivity on that.

The point I'm trying to make is that if we talk to each other more rather then rushing to dump it all on the Moderators to deal with, that I would think (or would hope at anyrate) that many members would most likely remove the objectionable images for reasons such as those the person stated privately to Primal.

This I think would benifit everyone in the sense that it would mean less regulating work for the mods, better and more understanding relationships between regular community members and so on.

I'm not suggesting that everyone is going to be as understanding as Primal when PMed with another members concerns about an image.  But again I think most people can be pretty reasonable about things if you give them a chance.... well... sometimes... mostly.. er.. occasionally... ums... it could happens... maybe...

But I don't know.  I can also see alot of folks taking things the wrong way and stuffs and it leading to ill feeling between folks.

It would be nice though, if more people could work things out between themselves or at least try to first.

I can dream can't I ?  ^^

Well the point of my clarification was so that primal would know that this is the first the violence toward women issue came up in regards to that image. Since only the person that made the report and the team would know exactly what they stated when reporting, I wasn't sure if the person led him to believe that they reported it due to violence reason which would contradict the basis for the removal and I just wanted to be clear on this.

Quote - Well the point of my clarification was so that primal would know that this is the first the violence toward women issue came up in regards to that image. Since only the person that made the report and the team would know exactly what they stated when reporting, I wasn't sure if the person led him to believe that they reported it due to violence reason which would contradict the basis for the removal and I just wanted to be clear on this.

 

Fair enough, best to keep things clear and unmuddled.  To be honest, I've been glancing at this thread periodicaly since it started effecting various regular artists from my section (sci-fi) and this is the first I've heard of it as well.

I'm rather suprised given that the general level of both open and implied violence, towards both women and men in various renders is quite large that someone would take issue with a pair of reddened buttocks.

Heck I'd take a spanking over a bullet or blade in my body any day of the week, but that's just me. ^^

Edit: Oh and violence towards aliens, robots, and other creatures.. and, heh, heh, I just remembered a image I saw a couple months back that had a space type nurse giving little aliens shots, and some of the poor little guys had (gasp) reddened buttocks! 0.0' Save the poor little aliens! ^^

Well, I think we should all gather up at the local church and burn every thing Aiko!  

I was just wandering through the galleries and thought to myself "ooh they let that go by and that, and that".   There is so much here that looks like the underage Aiko nudes and I'm inclined to think, that either the mods are sleeping or we are starting to look at nude Aiko in a different light.

I'm not sure, someone clear this up for me, because I'm just going "wow, that's risque" but the images still remain...answers please.

If it's the case of mods sleeping well that happens....no one's perfect.

If it's the latter, perhaps some message where we can all know.

Quote - Well, I think we should all gather up at the local church and burn every thing Aiko!  

I was just wandering through the galleries and thought to myself "ooh they let that go by and that, and that".   There is so much here that looks like the underage Aiko nudes and I'm inclined to think, that either the mods are sleeping or we are starting to look at nude Aiko in a different light.

I'm not sure, someone clear this up for me, because I'm just going "wow, that's risque" but the images still remain...answers please.

If it's the case of mods sleeping well that happens....no one's perfect.

If it's the latter, perhaps some message where we can all know.

I think if I read the previous posts right that the mods typically only view specific images if there is a complaint about said image, or if it happens to be done by someone who is on a watch list for previous misconduct or stuff like that.

No doubt the advise will be that if you have a specific complaint about a image to let them know via PM or something.

I'd also point out that all viewpoints are subjective.  What you see as a potential underage version of A3 might not be seen the same way by the folks making a decision as to if a image stays or goes on that or any other bases.  So it is also possible that the images in question were previously viewed, reviewed, and judged not to contain potential underage nudity content or other material that violates the TOS guidlines by the staff.

Finally I don't mean to appear antagonistic so please don't take it that way, but I am alittle curious.  What exactly motivated you to start combing the galleries looking for potential underage nude renders of A3?  Just wondering.

"I'm just going "wow, that's risque"

very dramatic but do you really give a toss one way or another. if not why are you bothering and if so why don't you do as the admin ask and mail them the pic or pics in question. 

i guess some people have certain needs

billy

We (the mods of the different software areas on the site) go through the galleries daily.  Some of us have the luxury of doing it in spurts throughout the day, others have to set aside a time after work to go through the galleries.  Sometimes, we miss something, either by simply overlooking an image, or by multiple uploads while we're going from one page of images to another.  If someone reports an image, if it could be construed as a TOS violation (sometimes, people hit the report button and think they're writing a note to the artist), we bring it to the team.  We don't all have the same viewpoints or ideals, and sometimes, it can be a while before we come to a conclusion.  We don't just pull it because it was reported.

If you know cruzin like I know him, he's being a smart @ss.  He's been sending me links to "underage Aiko nudes" for the past few days...because of something I sent in an email to him.  I asked the same question "why you looking?"  
Simple answer...he's a much bigger Aiko fan than I, and he tries to view everything Aiko.  Speaking of underage nudes, I guess if they have pointy ears and wings they're not underage?
I was looking through the fairy galleries then went to most viewed...see the link below.  Now if the mods missed that?  I checked the artist no longer seems to post. The same can be said if you go to the most viewed in Poser/Anime section too.  I've watched a number of artist leave from there over the past few months but in the defense of the un heard or those who have gone into hiding and now only use V3 (you know who I'm talking to you, you big fakey and I know you're reading this)...I can see why multiple mistakes are made.  

(just saw something odd gotta start a new thread)

[Link removed by Mods. Please don't point fingers at other members publicly. Thank you.]

oops! she's also grabbin' herself "down there" :lol: not that I object, mind you, but it's yet another example that will freak out the anti-aiko faction :lol:

This is pre-Aiko, by the looks of it...and the numbers of people banned for underage nudity and this is there?  If I saw something like this I would post a nude render of Aiko and think nothing of it...multiple times?  I think not but I can see why those who are gone probably did.  I would see this and think underage girl, but it's a fairy and those rules I guess are different.  Now I'm being sarcastic, hungry...Thanksgiving left overs here I come!  

But if one of the mods can explain what's the deal?  I'm not saying you guys can see everything but with this many views...hard to believe.  I'm working on a render for the fairy gallery so if they are bare chested is that good as long as no one else is touching her?

From Jon

If this is still up, I think Rendo should really say something to those members it banned, especially if the last straw was a Girl or Aiko render because looking at that render...and thinking someone could be banned for the Girl or Aiko being nude...{edited by Cindy for submitted but in agreement with hubby}

Quote - oops! she's also grabbin' herself "down there"

Yep, it looks like she's "killing time" to me, and has also given ol' gavangar more excitement than he's had from the missus in 40 years.  I wonder if he died at his keyboard?

Quote -

But if one of the mods can explain what's the deal?  I'm not saying you guys can see everything but with this many views...hard to believe. 

Our current Child Image Guidelines went into effect in early 2005.  This image was uploaded in 2002.  At the time we implemented the guidelines, we strongly urged members to clear out their galleries and/or contact staff for gallery reviews. 
We currently take a lot of time to try to get through the current galleries.  There are 8+ years worth of images in the galleries. 
If you find an image in the gallery that you feel violates Renderosity's Terms of Service, rather than passing links amongst friends who can't do anything about it, there's a handy link under each image that says "report".  Or, you can contact a staff member (Link on the right, toward the bottom "Renderosity Team") and let them know about it.  Public finger pointing does nothing more than frustrate and or hurt feelings of members. 

Jeni

Quote - Public finger pointing does nothing more than frustrate and or hurt feelings of members.

Yeah, look how far it got the Republicans!

Quote -
But if one of the mods can explain what's the deal?  I'm not saying you guys can see everything but with this many views...hard to believe.  I'm working on a render for the fairy gallery so if they are bare chested is that good as long as no one else is touching her?

please use some common sense here - have a look into the galleries - per default you'll see  "what's new" , I am sure you have been there before, and perhabs you may have noticed that there are SEVERAL HUNDRED PAGES which sum up to to SEVERAL THOUSAND new pictures each and every month - and let's not forget the MILLIONS of pictures that are already uploaded - it's unavoidable that images get overseen with this amount of stuff and the size of the team (of which a lot of people voluntueer and sacrifice their sparetime for free to help), even pictures you may deem "highly visible" - for this reason the "report" button was created in the first place - so YOU too can help in a constructive way - isn't this a good thing to acknowledge?

And concerning fairies, they don't have  bonus as you hinted. It might seem, that in this category are more questionable pictures, but this lays within the very nature of this category, because most people imagine and therefore depict fairies as (ever)younglooking, petite creatures.
Concering your WIP: she can be barechested as long as she is does not appear underaged; additionaly she is of course allowed to be touched but not in genital area or on her breast other then covering (see TOS - it's actually quite explicitly described). If you have any doubts or questions as it is the case now, then you and everybody else is welcome to contact us and we will seriously work we with you to achieve a solution which is confortable for both sides - we always tell and emphasize this to members, because naturally we too prefer, as CrimsonDesire wished for**, ** a constructive dialog in order to avoid bad feelings...

if you think something breaks the rules and you;re not happy with it just mail a mod i could understand a little if the new images were laden with underage pics but come on its from half a million pics before the rule change. i know if i see a an underage fairy in one of your downloads i'll complain voiciferously to the ptb...i wouldn't as a rule but i think in your case i'd make an exception.

billy

"They say that dying animals bite at their own wounds" ~ Hauptmann (captain) Kramer, The Bridge Over Remagan

Can any of you honestly say you believe that combing the galleries with the intent of finding different renders of A3 that might violate the TOS is going to bring back or in some way justify the images and/or members that have been removed, warned, or banned for similar works?  

The arguement that one possibe and previously unreported violation of the TOS potentially justifies others seems to me to be somehow flawed.

I think both JenX and Hypernaut provided ample explanations as to why some older images that might potentially violate the new TOS may still be in some of the galleries.  They also gave, as more then one Moderator in this thread has previously done, given explanations as to what the proper course of action is if one comes across an image they think might violate the TOS and how to accomplish it.

The link posted earlier has been removed. The image in question is under review by staff. It's very rude to post links to members' images in public forums for the purpose of discussing potential TOS violations. The correct method of reporting is to mail a staff member or use the "report" facility under the image. I have no idea why you would choose to do otherwise.