@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: