Quote - Keith, I'm flagellating myself as we speak ;-)

I'm sorry, I thought S&M belonged over on the other site.

Jeez, what are we supposed to do when all the moderators seem to be so obsessed with carnal matters?

I just got round to reading the exact wording of the policy - it's dumb.  Nudity/Violence filtered thumbnails should be blank.  Default non-filtered thumbnail should be a reduced version of the whole image.  I do not get the justification for forcing everyone to make a custom thumbnail - it's the people who blow up the crotch shot so it takes up the whole thumbnail that are the abusers.  Punish them, not everyone else.

Default option for new users filters nudity and violence.  If someone explicitly allows nudity - because after all you have to register and go modify your user options to see nudity in the first place - I don't understand the justification for making everyone take these steps to take it back out again.  It's just a nuissance, it adds absolutely no value for the viewer OR the artist.

Karen, I'm just amazed. I opened this thread to tell a funny anecdote with my pic. But along six pages people are doing criticism (constructive, I think) and jokes about thumbnails and nudity policy, so talking about and against TOS...

and this thread is still opened

I don't understand anything...

Well, I did it.  I know I shouldn't have, but I did it.  ;-)

Click the thumb, above, to visit my gallery and see the image.

whats flaggylating? the image i have conjured up thinking about it is someone dancing noodie about the place, while slowly rubbing flags up and down thier noody body, all sensual like!!
is this the wrong image i should be conjuring or not?

Appropos of Jim Farfis' Tits, anybody know where I can find a female elephant freebie? ;=)
And no, my reasons for wanting it are NOT strictly honorable!
DPH

Quote - Well, I did it.  I know I shouldn't have, but I did it.  ;-)

Click the thumb, above, to visit my gallery and see the image.

This image is currently under review and cannot be viewed except by moderators and coordinators. :-))

Cross posted.

Quote - This image is currently under review and cannot be viewed except by moderators and coordinators. :-))

Yep, and my guess is there it will stay.  It's too controversial for Renderosity.  Naked tits, and all that.  Just too much.

Quote - Karen, I'm just amazed. I opened this thread to tell a funny anecdote with my pic. But along six pages people are doing criticism (constructive, I think) and jokes about thumbnails and nudity policy, so talking about and against TOS...

and this thread is still opened

I don't understand anything...

Sure, why not? Nobody's broken the TOS in this thread so why wouldn't we allow discussion?

Flagellating - "The act of whipping the (human) body." Don't spit out your tea, there, Vince ;o)

Jim you didn't get a site mail? I will send again, but basically we aren't allowing thumbnails which are effectively "censor" thumbs. Not very professional looking... which is one of the reasons for this change.

For those who are wondering what all the fuss is about, incidentally, the image shows a topless woman in jeans holding up two pictures, one over each breast.  The pictures are of two tits - small birds of the Paridae family, also known as chickadees.  There is a word-baloon by the woman's head where she says "Some of you people should be ASHAMED of yourselves", and the text on the image reads as follows:

"The tit, also called chickadee or titmouse, is a bird of the family Paridae.  Tits are are a large family of small passerine birds which occur in the northern hemisphere and Africa.  The name 'titmouse' derives from the 14th century, composed of the Old English name for the bird, mase (Proto-Germanic *maison) and tit, denoting something small.  In America, these birds are called "chickadees", an onomatopoeic name derived from their distinctive "chick-a-dee-dee-dee" alarm call.  The name 'tits', common to most of the remainder of the English speaking world, is simply a shortened version of 'titmouse', and simply means 'small'."

The thumbnail is complely true in everything it says.  It's a picture of a naked pair of tits.  The two tits shown in the image are not wearing clothing (as is normal for birds), hence, they are naked.  The woman is topless, there is nudity in the image, but it conforms to the TOS as it is tasteful nudity - the nipples are covered by the pictures she is holding up.  The image is a joke - a pun on the name of the bird.

Soooooo...

Someone had to have blocked the picture without even looking at it, just based on the thumbnail.

To me, this simply brings the whole issue of the new thumbnail TOS to a head.  My image was blocked without even being looked at, simply based on the thumbnail, which is totally compliant with the new TOS.  But, because nobody actually bothered to LOOK at the image before they blocked it, they never saw that it was a joke - it's a pun.

My apologies to any moderators who are reading this and disagree, but I am afraid that the real problem here at Renderosity is that the administration has grown ridiculously puritanical.

Come on, now - we're talking about a picture of two little birds.  Someone needs to get a life.

Quote - Jim you didn't get a site mail? I will send again, but basically we aren't allowing thumbnails which are effectively "censor" thumbs. Not very professional looking... which is one of the reasons for this change.

Karen, it is not a "censor" thumbnail because there is NOTHING TO CENSOR.  It is a JOKE.  Look at the picture. 

I'm sorry, but if you're the one who blocked this image, I'm afraid I am VERY disappointed in you.  And Renderosity as a whole.  

**One requirement for deleting an image should at least be to LOOK at it.
**
And no, I haven't gotten a site-mail about it. 

Hi Jim, please read your site mail. Your image has not been deleted.

As stated, we are not allowing thumbs of this nature.

Quote - Hi Jim, please read your site mail. Your image has not been deleted.

As stated, we are not allowing thumbs of this nature.

Hi, Karen, please read your site mail.  The image has been effectively deleted, because it no longer appears in my gallery.  And it will not appear again until I submit a replacement thumbnail to you personally, which means that despite repeated claims that these decisions are made by consensus of the moderators, this is a decision made entirely by one moderator - you.  The thumbnail is not a "censor" thumbnail, because there is nothing to censor - please review the image.  As stated, you are censoring a joke.  And in the process, you are making the entire Renderosity administration look extremely ridiculous, to me.

Hi Jim, please read your site mail. The image has not been deleted.

Has anyone ever won an argument with site administration? :-)

Quote - Has anyone ever won an argument with site administration? :-)

To my knowledge, no.

I'm trying to decide what to do, now.  Either I obey and submit a replacement thumbnail to Karen, or I don't, and the image is never seen.  

Either way, as the joke was a pun that both pokes at the puritanital and the purient, this action basically makes the joke no longer funny, so it doesn't matter.  And either way, Renderosity ends up looking ridiculous.  So, neither result is terribly inviting.

Quote - Sure, why not? Nobody's broken the TOS in this thread so why wouldn't we allow discussion?

Flagellating - "The act of whipping the (human) body." Don't spit out your tea, there, Vince ;o)

So Karen... if you confirm me that comments and criticism in a funny ambient of jokes aren't against TOS...

... I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DELETED MY PIC AND I'M CONSIDEER OFICIALLY A DISRUPTOR BY YOU

:(

Well, it appears I need to correct myself.  It appears I was in error, and indeed, this decision was made by the entire moderator team here at Renderosity.  My apologies, Karen.

Regretfully, I cannot agree with this decision.  I am aware that disagreement means I put myself against the entire collection of moderators here, and the result of that seems painfully obvious - I wouldn't be able to blink without attracting sharp scrutiny.  I am aware that I do have the option of sending an e-mail to admin@renderosity.com to elevate the issue to the next level, however, this seems entirely pointless.  Upon reflection, this issue seems more to be a conflict between what I consider as "artistic expression" in a humorous thumbnail conflicting with what the moderators see as appropriate content.  As this is a consensus decision, it does not seem one that would be open to discussion in the first place.

So, no hard feelings, as they say. =)  It's been suggested many times that those who are unhappy with the way things work can move on to another site, or just set up their own site.  This is an entirely reasonable suggestion, in my opinion - and, I think I'll do just that. =)

I thank all of you deeply and sincerely for your kind comments to my gallery and my freestuff during the time I have been here at Renderosity, and I wish you and everyone here at Renderosity the best.  =)

but if i happen to be at a tea-tasting convention right now, i am gonna look like a right amature tea-tester if i don't spit it out,

(was gonna add a rude joke here but chose not to)

Way to go R'osity, you've just got rid of another artist!  His thumbnail wasn't 'professional' enough in your opinion.  Could that be because this whole sorry mess isn't very 'professional' in the first place.  His thumbnail was compliant with the TOS as stated until the mods decided they didn't like being made to look foolish.  Well, guess what, you all look pretty foolish to me now.

Just say 'no nudity' and have done with it!

BTW if this offends the TOS, so be it.

Hi Rafa,

Well, if you disagree with actions taken on your record, please drop an email to admin@renderosity.com and they will review the action/warning. If they feel it was given in error then they will remove it.

I wasn't here when this whole thing with your poncho lady started, I was away for a couple of days with my sister. So I don't feel I can comment on your case.

(This goes for everyone - we've said it before but it bears repeating. If you're unhappy with the team decision, you can always contact admin@renderosity.com and they will review what has happened.)

Jim, I'm sorry to see you go, I hope you find a gallery more to your liking.

CardinalBiggles,
His thumbnail was compliant with the TOS as stated until the mods decided they didn't like being made to look foolish.
No it wasn't, which is why it was removed.
Just say 'no nudity' and have done with it!
We've already said "no nudity in thumbnails".

Vince, I bet I can guess what you were gonna say, LOL

I must admit that I find it more than just a little curious why the TOS does not allow a thumbnaill that even uses words that describe nudity! This really is going too far IMHO!

Guys, I know that there are all sorts of people of various ages, moral values and with restrictive big-brother company surfing rules but really, I am 39 years old and surely as a concenting adult if I chose to view images and thumbnails that contain nudity then I should be able to? Especially on an open art community like 'Rosity?

This all throws me back to the way we were treated back in school (ending 22 years ago!) where our minds were made up for us instead of giving us the freedom to make our own choices in life. And BTW, for those that know what I am referring to I was born and raised in South Africa, a more verkrampte (erm, staunch, authortarian, a....y retentive? in English) nation back then than most non-SA citizens could imagine. English-speaking people also had it worse!

If the current system of filtering out nudity does not filter nude thumbnails then surely this is what should be addressed to resolve this sort of situation rather than hacking and slashing away at the community members like this?

I'm sorry but living in a country where 'political correctness' has become a fanatical part of society I find this whole situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

If I have offended the 'Rosity staff then I apologise. I am only excercising my freedom of speech. There are parts of this community and site that are wonderful and a pleasure to use and be a part of, but unfortunately this sort of development is not! :unsure:

It's too bad that I was siding with the site on the new policy right up until this very point.  I went to that artists gallery a couple of times, and I very much enjoyed all of his thumbs.  Oh well this is a case of a rule being made and it being taken to ridiculous extremes because people like to be power trippy.  Unfortunately I had really thought that there was good intent behind this new rule.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/news.php?viewStory=13431

The rules for thumbnails are as follows:

• No nudity. This implies no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images.
• Tasteful breast exposure. No areola or nipple exposure, and no transparent fabric.
• No exposed buttocks – more exposure than a standard bikini bottom would constitute nudity.
• No exposed male or female genitals
• No Sexually Suggestive Language or "Censored" language/images

The reasons behind making these decisions are covered in the front page article (link attached.)

Just to put something in context here:
Yesterday there were 605 images uploaded.
Only 19 fell afoul of the new thumbnail rule, that's 3%.
Of these, twelve did it on purpose because they thought it was funny, witty or insightful.
The remaining seven hadn't seen the front page article, or hadn't fully understood it.

Just some facts and figures there that may entertain or enlighten ;-)

Serious Question:

re: Exposed Areola - I assume this is still permissible in the case of renders of male human figures without shirts.

Quote -
CardinalBiggles,
His thumbnail was compliant with the TOS as stated until the mods decided they didn't like being made to look foolish.
No it wasn't, which is why it was removed.

My understanding is at fault then, I stand corrected.  However I do understand that it is the moderators that enforce the TOS and their interpretation is correct.

I have a (brilliant) idea! Please hear me out...

Why don't we ask the R'sity administrators/moderators/TOS-Makers etc etc to provide us with ready-made TOS compliant Thumbnails?
Better even... Why don't we ask them to provide us with ready-made TOS complant Gallery Pictures, covering all possible areas of artistic expression?

This way we'll be sure not to break any rules/laws/obligations/directives etc and R'sity will come up clean, safe, family friendly, peace on Earth and goodie-goodie, a place that someone eating breakfast could visit without fear of having a pair of tits (birds) jumping at his face?

I am dead serious! Let's ask them (it will come to this soon enough anyway)..............

P.S. Please someone tell me I am just having a bad dream.............

Hi infinity,

Yes, male chests are fine :-)

Quote - P.S. Please someone tell me I am just having a bad dream.............

I wish I could.

karen1573 - did you look at the rest of his thumbs?  his style was never photoreal- hence my statement about constructive criticism.  much more comic book style than anything else.  as a thumbnail for his gallery, that was a completely congruent and highly professional thumbnail.**
**

How could a filter determine the binary content of an image file? IMO, that an unreasonable request. The only alternative would be to completely eliminate any links or thumbnails to images with nudity tags.
As it is, the moderators will have to view each and every thumbnail, which is a colossal waste of their time (and I feel sorry for them), and only because some of the members aren't responsible enough to abide by the terms of a site providing a free service (for most).
As the owner and site admin for a fairly large racing community for over ten years now, I tend to view most of these squabbles in a different light, and my skin is a good bit thicker than most.
I'm sure that everyone had to agree to abide by the TOS in order for their registration to be confirmed, and remember that free speech only applies to your own web site.

FWIW, JMO, and blast away, I'm used to it.

cobaltdream, sorry, I'm not sure who you're referring to.

I only want to tell that following karen1573 note I emailed Rosity administration and I've just received their aswer: no changes. They consideer I violated TOS, I'm guilty of disruptive behavior  and my pic remains banned. Funny because it only was a joke and in the same amused intention than all our comments or criticism here

I disagree. But I accept their decission

So oficially I'm a troll... :$

O tempora o mores...

EDITED
Case closed for me. Mo more words about it

Quote - > Quote - All Renderosity is asking us to do is to make a tasteful thumbnail that doesn't have "in your face" boobs, butts and genitals.

Why is it so hard  to crop a tasteful portion of your image that is 200 x 200 pixels and simply upload that when you upload your nude image?

Quote -
One day Renderosity is going to get so sick of dealing with these types of issues and the revoltes that happen when they try and make a change to better the website and make it appear more professional and tasteful, that they may  one day decide to stop allowing nudes in the gallery period!

to make it more clear, "more professional"  and "tasteful portion" and "tasteful thumbnail"  all say that thumbnails without nudity are "more professional" and "tasteful," while basically saying that ones with nudity are unprofessional and tasteless.

Not necessarily.  It could be saying that a thumbnail with nudity could be professional and tasteful, but that a thumbnail without nudity would be more professional and tasteful.
Think of it this way.  A wool shirt is warmer than a cotton shirt, but that doesn't mean
a cotton shirt couldn't also be warm.

Quote - My father always said that woman should have breasts in the back.

But basically that's what the butt is. Or more acurately, the purpose of the breasts
is to simultate the butt, after people went from rear entry sex to frontal sex.

"""The rules for thumbnails are as follows:

• No nudity. This implies no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images.
• Tasteful breast exposure. No areola or nipple exposure, and no transparent fabric.
• No exposed buttocks – more exposure than a standard bikini bottom would constitute nudity.
• No exposed male or female genitals
• No Sexually Suggestive Language or "Censored" language/images """""

I still fail to see how birds fall under these guidelines.  As someone else said, that particular thumbnail was in line with the rest in his gallery and adhered to the TOS guidelines as well as allowed that artist to maintain his particular style - I'm guessing you'd be  hard pressed to find someone who finds his gallery distasteful or vulgar in anyway at all.  I wonder if you removed the pic in his gallery with the mice showering too.....I know little mice boys around the globe were irresponsibly exposed to something they should not have been.

karen1573 - um, the individual whose thumbnails you guys pulled and about whose thumbnail you personally said:

Quote - ...basically we aren't allowing thumbnails which are effectively "censor" thumbs. Not very professional looking... which is one of the reasons for this change.

jim farris, the professional writer and artist that was pushed into leaving. 

dbowers22 - not in this context.  this is: " put on a wool coat.  you should wear something warm." that implies what you are presently wearing is not warm.

@Karen1573

Thanks for the link Karen. I have read and understood it. I still believe though that my point earlier about banning the use of words to reference nudity being a bit much is valid. 

The word 'tits' is not nudity, its more like vulgarity, but this again depends on its usage. In JimFerris' case it was an accurate albeit misleading and provocative description of part of his image.

@bevans84

Quote - How could a filter determine the binary content of an image file? IMO, that an unreasonable request. The only alternative would be to completely eliminate any links or thumbnails to images with nudity tags.

I was not suggesting that the thumbnails be inspected at a binary level to try and establish whether they contain nudity or not. I was referring to the current method of filtration based on nudity tags. Each user's profile contains flags indicating whether they want to receive the newsletter or not and whether they subscribe to nudity in the gallery or not. It wouldn't be a coding impossibility to simply apply this same system of filtration to the newsletter generation in order to respect the wishes of the recipients.

As has been suggested elsewhere, the new TOS for thumbnails also has its down side. If someone likes viewing artistic nudity but not gratuitous in your face nudity, how are they going to differentiate between the two types of images if they can't see thumbnails of them? They now have to open the image itself and run the risk of being offended by it, totally negating the whole system.

Quote - As it is, the moderators will have to view each and every thumbnail, which is a colossal waste of their time (and I feel sorry for them), and only because some of the members aren't responsible enough to abide by the terms of a site providing a free service (for most).

Well the way I see it, short of some sort of miracle binary level inspection software, the mods will always have to view all the thumbnails to ensure that they are not in violation of the TOS. There is no way to get away from this, Besides which, before the introduction of the new thumbnail TOS they would still have had to check the gallery images to ensure that they don't violate some other part of the TOS like sexually explicit acts, under-age nude models etc. Then of course there is always human nature to contend with, in that there will always be someone willing to push the boundaries regardless of how restrictive or relaxed they may be.

Oh, and lets not go down the previously debated and  well-travelled road of this being an art site for the community, but it places restrictions on what those artists and their followers are allowed to see.

Quote - I'm sure that everyone had to agree to abide by the TOS in order for their registration to be confirmed, and remember that free speech only applies to your own web site.

Unfortunately you have again misinterpreted what I was saying. I was referring to my freedom to express my opinion on this matter here in the forums, not to violate the TOS of the site. I have the right to freedom of speech here as much as anyone and anywhere else. If the mods or site owners don't like it they too have rights, like the right to ban me.

Quote - FWIW, JMO, and blast away, I'm used to it.

O_o     And there I was thinking that I was participating in a heated and contentious but rational and intelligent debate! :lol:

Hell, my post wasn't even directed at you. :)

Actually, the progression of this topic has been completely predictable, except I figured it would be Casette instead of Jim. Pity, because Jim is quite talented and an obvious asset to the community. Looks like he just got caught up in a battle that wasn't even his and got himself forced into making a stand. I guess we all make choices.

Quote - Hi urbanarmitage,

The rules for thumbnails are as follows:

• No nudity. This implies no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images.
• Tasteful breast exposure. No areola or nipple exposure, and no transparent fabric.
• No exposed buttocks – more exposure than a standard bikini bottom would constitute nudity.
• No exposed male or female genitals
• No Sexually Suggestive Language or "Censored" language/images

The reasons behind making these decisions are covered in the front page article (link attached.)

Just to put something in context here:
Yesterday there were 605 images uploaded.
Only 19 fell afoul of the new thumbnail rule, that's 3%.
Of these, twelve did it on purpose because they thought it was funny, witty or insightful.
The remaining seven hadn't seen the front page article, or hadn't fully understood it.

Just some facts and figures there that may entertain or enlighten ;-)

Dang, looky looky what a mess. It's your site RR and all the mods. and ops., and everyone that believes that it is for the better good that changes like this are to be made. That being said, and since you like to look at the numbers I hope you like the ones that you can't see yet, which is the future posters or more to the reason your here "profits".

Keep your rules, keep your poser figures, and keep your clothing lines for your bendy stick figures that look almost real geezzzz ...

It's all just one persons or the admin.s opinion on what is allowable here period ...  I choose to leave it to seek true art ....  It's things like this that end up with you having to press 1  for english.
Just put on the blinders and follow everyone.

PEACE

Quote - Hell, my post wasn't even directed at you. :)

Oops! Sorry :lol:

This whole situation should have been a "no-brainer".
It wouldn't exactly be rocket-science to change the database query that displays the gallery pages to take into account whether the client browser has the "no nudity" flag enabled and then construct the page html based on a query result that doesn't include thumbnails from images that have the nudity/violence flag enabled.
There would be then no need to have separate rules/guidelines for the creation of thumbnails, people who wanted to see nudity could whilst those who didn't wouldn't.

The only flaw in this scenario would be that some nude/violent thumbnails could get through the filters if their parent image wasn't tagged correctly in the first place, and since this would already be a breach of the TOS the normal mod/admin procedures would apply.

Sorry, there is yet another flaw in this scenario..... it would involve RR in having to pay a php coder to actually do the work rather than getting the users to do it for them without having to change the code-base.

Quote - ... and remember that free speech only applies to your own web site...

I am sorry.... I must be missing something here.... Is Freedom of Speech applied selectively and conditionally in the United States?

bevans84 - i don't think you read the posts accurately.  he didn't get forced into making a stand, or get caught in an argument that wasn't his.  he made a joke, which is basically what he had been doing from the beginning.  he posted a thumbnail which was identical in nature to just about all the other thumbnails in his gallery.  and because this one had to do with nudity instead of all the other  jokes he had made, they pulled it.  he tried to explain why this didn't make sense- the policy applies to thumbnails of nudes, and this wasn't a nude it was a joke.  if anything, it was more in favor of the new policy- it ridiculed people seeking out pictures of tits.  the mods weren't flexible enough to see the difference nor the similarity to all the other thumbnails they didn't pull.  so he just decided to stop dealing with them.  not take a stand, as i saw it, but just cut his losses.   when one keeps acting in a way one sees as sensible and rules keep being applied in a way one sees as arbitrary, sometimes the easy response is just to stop dealing with the arbitrary individual(s).

badmoon - this is precisely how theartdoor, formerly rendervisions, works.

Quote - > Quote - ... and remember that free speech only applies to your own web site...

I am sorry.... I must be missing something here.... Is Freedom of Speech applied selectively and conditionally in the United States?

Actually, yes - First Amendment protection really only applies to things involving government.  Private sector can censor as they please.

Note that I don't have issues with the censorship itself, just in how stupidly it's being applied - is the goal to just make it irritating for the typical person uploading to the gallery, or to protect a few stupid people who check "show me nudity" and then - for some reason I have failed to grasp, though I've tried - are shocked by the nudity they asked to see.

People have made the argument that it's for the non-registered users ... non-registered users cannot view the gallery.  Why prohibit nudity in thumbnails but allow it in the gallery?  It makes no sense!   

Quote - This whole situation should have been a "no-brainer".
It wouldn't exactly be rocket-science to change the database query that displays the gallery pages to take into account whether the client browser has the "no nudity" flag enabled and then construct the page html based on a query result that doesn't include thumbnails from images that have the nudity/violence flag enabled..

Guess what:  It already does that.

Quote - > Quote - ... and remember that free speech only applies to your own web site...

Quote - I am sorry.... I must be missing something here.... Is Freedom of Speech applied selectively and conditionally in the United States?

 

Quote - Actually, yes - First Amendment protection really only applies to things involving government.  Private sector can censor as they please.

Most illuminating pjz99, most illuminating! Thank you.
In this case I think I'd better stick to my modelling..............:ohmy: