Quote - Out of curiosity, roughly how many complaints from different people really caused this policy change?  Fifty?  A hundred?  I find it pretty unlikely it was more than a hundred different people complaining, but maybe more?

They're not going to tell us things like that, it would make it too easy to organise skewing the next survey (remember the Hot20).

It was a rhetorical question anyway, I strongly doubt that more than a few people really complained.  I can count the number of times I was irritated by an "in your face" thumbnail on one hand (and not because the other hand is busy).

(From Fictional story above):

Quote - Perhaps simply one single complaint. For example (invented story): PayPal's manager, a 60 years old man, takes his laptop and surfs the web taking a view of some sites where he have his bank online. Suddenly, while he's visiting Rosity he finds a thumbnail with a huge boob in the middle. Inmediately, he takes his cell and says: 'Pete, please, send to Renderosity administration the usual nudity email, second version' 

And a Rosity administrator glups his coffee reading an email like: 'Dear Renderosity Administration: we're sad to tell you we comprobed your site and we're still founding nudity without warnings, so a software like CyberNanny couldn't detect it and OUR CLIENTS' KIDS would watch forbidden content. This is the second warning we send you requesting you need to extreme cautions because PayPal only offer its services to 'family friendly' sites. We warn you if we find again another example of carelessness we'll inmediately paralize our account with you. We hope next time blahblahblahblah...'

Fiction. Only a fiction... or not?

Ah, I hadn't thought of that angle... sigh... follow the money. That would be a real motive wouldn't it? After all, as has been said it's not the freedom or rights or any change of actual content that is driving this change. They (administrators of the site) have determined it is about tastefulness and professional appearance. The thumbnail is now supposed to reflect not what the image is about (despite what the TOS actually says, otherwise ALL thumbs would be merely down-sized versions of the whole) but whether or not those who have CHOSEN to view violence and nudity must now not see what they are looking for until they actually spend the time and bandwidth to download to their browser's cache the actual larger image... Oh wait, that will actually cost more money, won't it? Unless the motive is to dissuade folks from quite so many clicks on images of questionable content. Hmmm... Perhaps if we have to choose what to view more wisely...? This could get very convoluted in a hurry...

It turns out that "nekkid peepul" is sexually suggestive and cannot be used either.  

That's it, from now on any image I post with a content advisory will have a solid black thumbnail, this is getting retentive.:sad:

Here's the rub, more often than not I'll click on a thumb to see the main image if it looks like it will be interesting irrespective of whether it's nudity or not, with this "content advisory" thumb I'm not going to bother to look prolly, which is a shame because I may miss something worse seeing now!!

dphaodley @ thefixer
Do you really think they give a damn what gems you may miss?  They don't want youbrowsing the galleries anyway, they wanty you browsing the marketplace.
DPH

Well I'm glad the advisory icons will still be there for me.  On a good note, those artists get free hits from me, because when my kids aren't around I open them all up and look.

On the other hand - I have to agree with pretty much everyone else.  The decision is asinine if it only changes things for the people who WANT to view nudity.  That's like saying I want to walk in the rain but not get wet.  If I get wet, you'll have me on your hands god!

At some point people have to be responsible for thier own decisions.  So instead though, Renderosity has decided to step in and curb that decision making process.  As an artist I would not be thrilled with being forced to babysit others.   

It is certainly possible to make a thumbnail of nude art in a taseful manner that DOES NOT include nudity - on the other hand I can imagine situations where that thumbnail would be a poor representation of what the person was attempting to express.  I can't fathom the necessity of doing this for those who choose to "walk in the rain".

I'm wondering where artists will go now, or where things will  be sold.  Myself and others have mentioned that its a privately owned site and the owners have the right to do what they wish.  However (without looking up whether its private or publicly owned, just using an example)  I'm sure GM wouldn't fare well if they decided to stop caring what the MAJORITY of thier consumers wanted.

A link to a WELL respected art site:  (NUDITY ADVISORY)
http://www.art.com/asp/search/ProductSearch-asp/_/search_String--nude/posters.htm?filteroptions=0&isSearch=Y&ui=EFF670C7351942AD83DD8463575335F8

Bottom line:  It is possible to be professional and show nudes.  Since renderosity allows user submissions, the content advisory icon was just fine with me.

actually, that's the whole "professional" and "tasteful" part.  you can't do standard "censored" thumbs.  that's why jim farris' pic got pulled.  because he had black thumb with text.  i hasten to add that was how he did all his other joke renders.  you can't cover the breasts or other regions with censor bars or blurring or items that say "nudity," so dphoadley's solution is at best in need of a moderator's ok.

i've been holding back (hard to believe, huh?), but if we're going to get serious again....

i'm really beginning to get offended by the idea put forth that the only reason to post nude thumbs is to get more hits, and that such thumbs are only posted to get more hits.  and the notion that it's automatically easy to make a compliant thumb.   and also the notion that "pleasant" and "safe" thumbs will make this site "more professional."   acadia has once again stated that the galleries will be more "tasteful" now, and that simply insults my work.

my two most "high art" pics probably won't be posted here because of the new policy.   they're not t&a, and they're the only two of the nearly 30 of the past few years of work i've chosen for my gallery that i would actually be proud to show family and friends (though one is more clumsy than i like).  i don't think i have one other that i would.  too "low" art.  i can state, with absolute certainty, that any thumbnail of those images that did not include nudity i wouldn't find good or even decent.  if i end up posting them, it will be because i have accepted a thumbnail which is both badly composed and misleading by my own standards.   and i know because before this brouhaha began, i tried to make thumbnails that didn't include nudity.  just to be safe.  i tried different framing, different scaling, and nothing without nudity worked. 

i predict that about 3 or 4 unfinished works will have the same problem.  unless i decide to paint clothes on my nudes.

and there's work i'd like to do but haven't because i presently lack the necessary morphing and anatomy mastery.   i'd love to do a series of body close-ups, especially torsos.  for something of a reference, see mfenberg's gallery here, especially his earlier posts.  how would you do a suitable, non-misleading, and well composed thumbnail of an image that was just a breast?   personally, i at can envision an artistic  photo/render like that a lot easier than one with any bathing suit i can imagine.

on the other hand, all actual t&a shots have to do is pics of legs.    where layout  isn't a big deal and the only goal is titillation, it's pretty easy to make a thumb that says, "this chick is hot."  it's not at all easy if you wanted to say something more complex.

other sites unlike the erotic render site do allow nude thumbs. runtimedna, whose gallery i most respect in poserdom, has neither custom thumbnails nor any tagging for nudity.  posetteforever allows nude thumbs, and they're nothing like the site that can't be named.  theartdoor (formerly rendervisions) allows nude thumbs.  searching cgsociety i found absolutely nothing about nudity in thumbnails, and the guidelines for the thumbnail just mention filesize and dimension.  i just checked the deviantart t.o.s., and they don't even mention the word nudity.   artzone allows nude thumbs, though they're not included in global browsing results (you can see them in a person's gallery).  no traditional fine artist's gallery i've been to mentions nudity or warns people about the nudity on their sites.  when i was involved in teaching a course where fine art majors made online galleries, none of them mentioned nudity or even thought twice about using it on their home pages.  none thought twice about showing me works with nudity.  i suspect they have a fine grasp of the art community's professional standards.

this whole premise that nudity is less professional and that "safe" and "pleasant" is more professional goes completely against everything i've learned of the art community and of design.  i say that as someone who grew up around artists (mostly from nyc), who makes a living as a web & multimedia designer, and who constantly seeks out examples of high level design, illustration and art work.

unless i've grossly misinterpreted them, the new thumbnails rules are more restrictive than cosmo and g.q. covers.  or bazaar (see britney spears pregnant cover),  and vanity fair (see demi moore cover which preceded it, and her painted suit before that).   recently, i just searched for perfume ads as references for an image i was working on.  just about half of them wouldn't fit the new thumbnail standards, even though they were definitively professional and also part of mass media.  i recently bought a book of the cutting edge fashion illustration, and it's chock full of nudity.  heck, the contents of most professional design collections i've seen, such as ones that collect the best of ad design for the year, wouldn't fit the new thumbnail standards.   and that doesn't even address the professional photography collections i've viewed and own. 

and that's all commercial work meant for mass consumption, not fine art.

in my experience, the professional fine art community views negative reactions to nudity as prudish and childish at best and oppressive and evil at worst.  i don't agree with that- i think it's fine for people to define their own comfort zone- but if you're trying to make this site more professional, i'd like to know who you think is going to be doing the judging of that.   work that looks professional, in both art and illustration usually looks "edgy."  safe and cool are basically antithetical.  i believe the new standards will only make the site more boring and unprofessional, with the same t&a  wrapped in spandex, lycra and even metal, while sending artists who like to actually push boundaries to other galleries.

if we're trying to make this gallery family safe, then just say that.  because kids don't hire designers or illustrators.   and it makes more sense to have a programmatic solution  than have  random cadre of people as arbiters of what is acceptable and what is not.  and if old thumbnails don't have to be changed, then what's the point?  i guess it's how rendo looks, not how our individual galleries do.  is "profesional actually "hobbiest customer friendly."    if that's so, then i wish they had just said,  "we'd like you to censor your thumbnails so that we don't offend those viewers who aren't part of the professional community, have never been part of the professional or trained fine art community, and haven't been culturally acclimated to nudity but don't want to use nudity filters."   personally, i think that's going to be problematic, because as i and jim farris pointed out, this is a large and culturally diverse community and there will always be a significant portion that finds certain things offensive.   nudity is only one of them.  frankly most professional fine artists i know would be (highly) offended by the style and composition (and often, lack of work), not the nudity.

i think if rendo wants galleries that promote a specific image, they should just approve each image and reward those accepted like daz does.

Surely, if I have ticked the option in my profile to allow nudity then that should be the end of it!

Surely it's not beyond the means of programmers to block thumbs with nudity, as the image will be marked as thus anyway so where is the problem??

Banning all thumbs with nudity instead of just making a programming change is extreme don't ya think???

Of course there would be a problem if someone forgot to hit the nudity flag once in a while but that could be dealt with in the usual way, either a mod doing it or slapping a warning on a persistent offender!

I can see why it's been done if it's for the little kiddies seeing it, fine but I'm sorry, it makes no sense to me the way it's being done!!

Quote - ... but I'm sorry, it makes no sense to me the way it's being done!!

And you're suprised by this ?

Attached Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070127/ap_on_re_us/anatomy_lesson

News like that make me think if I crossed through a worm hole and I'm now in a parallel universe

That's the same USA that few years ago brought sexual revolution, hippies, burn your bra, etc etc etc?????????????????

Re kawecki's link.

No wonder americans are so freaked out by nudity. How the hell is a teacher supposed to teach about human sexuality if he can't even draw a penis?

One of these days parts of America might enter the 20th century...

What I find slightly disturbing about this issue (the site one, not the news article), and similar things on other US-based sites, is seeing someone British involved in the admin & (apparently) quite happily supporting a policy that seems ridiculous to most British people.

Now I've never posted a pic here, so all the fuss doesn't strictly apply to me, but I do think the site admin have dug themselves into an ever-deepening hole that there's no real way out of.  To be honest, I foresee an increase in art sites based outside the US if this trend continues (I might even look into putting a gallery on mine ;) ).

PS.  This may be my first post, but as you can see I've been around for a long time, just usually either looking at the galleries (where the standard is generally better than others I could name), or gettin things from freestuff or the market place.

Renderosity is not work safe. It will never be, no matter what policies are implemented.

Why?

Simple. Renderosity does not have anything to do with work. And my boss does not appreciate me looking at sites that have nothing to do with my job. Nudity or no-nudity doesn't play any role.

That said, family-friendlyness is another issue. 

I do agree that people who have enabled the nudity filter should not see T&A in the thumbnails. Problem is, the majority of the images does contain nudity. So what does a viewer see when looking at a thumbail page? Nine out of ten thumbnails have this "content advisory" thumbnail (before this policy change), which is rather clumsy when browsing. These people would be better served if the thumbnails of nude images were fitered out.
And now, after the policy change? Nine out of ten thumbnails will be deceptive. They won't display nudity, but they do not represent the underlying image.

And this affects me as a viewer. When I browse the galleries, I click on thumbnails that interest me. They SHOULD represent the underlying image. With this new policy, it will not be possible to judge the image from the thumbnail. This is a disservice to the members.

Why o why is it so difficult to do the obvious prudent thing: enable a thumbnail filter according to a member's nudity/violence filter? Is 10 minutes of a PHP programmer's time too expensive?

Has anyone noticed that admin seemed to have stopped participating? Methinks they are using the 'let the rabble rant until they get bored and it all blows over' tactic. Not that i blame them mind you, nothing the ,membership' say is going to change anything and nothing the admin say is going to placate those who are unhappy. We're howling in the wind now folks.

I'm just another browser who happens to like a beautiful woman every once in a while,
but I do like them naked, or semi-naked at least, and now thanks to this insane policy, even though I have personally PERMITTED being shown nude images, now I can't discern which are nude and which aren't nude.

But, really.. what gets me angry about this is that it's NOT about professionalism, this is about censorship in it's purest form. It's the application of a moral standard.
The reason I'm claiming this is because a) I can post a thumb of a nazi cross, a weapon and other offensive things and still not get moderated b) I can post the thumb of my male boobs and not get censored,

The smart approach would have been to get artists to check a "this thumb contains nudity/violence" box and then make a setting that reads "do not show nude thumbnails" that way EVERYBODY is happy. This addition to the TOS agreement is just stupid and inconsistent with the filtering of nude content.

Edit: I'm also considering leaving this place for some other community, if anyone has any alternatives, throw me a PM. Also, the part about posting my male boobs on renderosity for all to see becomes more interesting as time goes by.. I may actually do it. (again, I'm not a graphical artist, I'm a musician actually)

Quote - Has anyone noticed that admin seemed to have stopped participating?

While we are discussing about boobs in thumbs they are working on the next thing to be forbiden.

dphoadley @ lemur01

KING LEAR
Howl, howl, howl, howl! O, you are men of stones:
Had I your tongues and eyes, I'd use them so
That heaven's vault should crack. She's gone for ever!
I know when one is dead, and when one lives;
She's dead as earth. Lend me a looking-glass;
If that her breath will mist or stain the stone,
Why, then she lives.**
**

**
**

KENT
Is this the promised end? (King Lear: Act 5)

**lemur01 @ dphoadley

PUCK
**If we shadows have offended, think but this, and all is mended. That you have but slumbered here, while these visions did appear, and this weak and idle theme, no more yielding but a dream. Gentles, do not reprehend. If you pardon, we will mend. Else the Puck a liar call. And so good night unto you all. Give me your hands, if we be friends, and Robin shall restore amends. 

(Puck's closing speech A Midsummer Night's Dream)

dphoadley @ lemur01

**KING HENRY V
**Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

Exeunt. Alarum, and chambers go off within.

(Shakespeare. Henry V - Act III, Scene I. The eve of another big battle against the French)

LMAO

I am so not getting into a bard slinging contest, but for what it's worth I prefer this from Henry V

 This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
    He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
    Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
    And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
    He that shall live this day, and see old age,
    Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
    And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
    Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
    And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
    Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
    But he'll remember, with advantages,
    What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
    Familiar in his mouth as household words-
    Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
    Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
    Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
    This story shall the good man teach his son;
    And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
    From this day to the ending of the world,
    But we in it shall be remembered-
    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
    And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

dphoadley @ lemur01

*"...*For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
    And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

This has ALWAYS been my favorite, thank you!
David P. Hoadley

Consider this. Don't post in the gallery anymore. It is well known that the gallery images are the best advertisements for the store contents there is. Maybe when the $$$ start falling away, the rabble will get a little more attention. After all Rendo has made it pretty clear over the years that tbe dollar and illusion of respectability trumps anything remotely resembling artistic merit. Lets face it; if they intend to turn this place into a storefront on a 'family friendly' morality-laced wasteland, there's nothing we can do about it....except refuse to subsidize it.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/news.php?viewStory=13472

That's not true :)

We are in a transition period and it's affecting all of us, even the admins and mods who are having to weed through it all and we are all in a learning stage, both members and Renderosity staff.

Already as a result  of discussions Renderosity is now allowing the use of the standard Renderosity content advisory thumb for those who do not wish to make their own thumbnails for whatever the reason. It is the only "content advisory" thumbnail that is currently being allowed.

I can't say anything more, except that while the new thumbnail policy is here to stay we are listening to you and taking notes and discussing certain aspects of the changes in more depth.  What this will mean regarding amendments, if any, I don't know.  But whatever rules are implemented affects all of us, so we want to make sure the changes are clear and fair and consistent.

So please, bear with us. It's not an easy time for any of us.

*Clear, fair and consistent

*I love that. Applying the nudity/violence filter settings to the thumbnail pages and art charts, now THAT would be clear and consistent, and I guess it would be fair too. 

As for the Art Charts argument, if a member does not wish to view nudity, why should he/she be presented with no-nudity thumbnails that lead to images containing nudity? Better to omit those thumbs altogether. 

I wholeheartedly agree that a policy change was needed. I wholeheartedly DISagree with the change that has been implemented. A disservice to both those who don't wish to view nudity and those who do.

Please reconsider. Please don't force the artists who create nude artwork to upload misleading thumbnails. Please don't mislead viewers who don't want to see nudity. Please don't mislead viewers who DO want to see nudity. 

Please apply the member nudity/violence filter settings to the thumbnails/art charts/ whatever.

Please do as you claim you wish to do: be fair, clear and consistent.

Quote - I wholeheartedly agree that a policy change was needed. I wholeheartedly DISagree with the change that has been implemented. A disservice to both those who don't wish to view nudity and those who do.

Please reconsider. Please don't force the artists who create nude artwork to upload misleading thumbnails. Please don't mislead viewers who don't want to see nudity. Please don't mislead viewers who DO want to see nudity.

I think you are all trying to do your best to not even bother to try understanding.

Renderosity is a business, and first and foremost they have to look after their bottom line while taking into consideration the community itself.

They want their site to appear more professional and not like some 3rd rate XXX porn site, why is that so hard to understand?

Prior to the change this is how the galleries were viewed:

Nudity Filter ON:

• No nude thumbs.  The filter picks up on the nudity flags and displays  dozens upon dozens of Renderosity "content advisory" thumbs like this

Nudity Filter OFF:

• Dozens and dozens of in your face tits and ass thumbnails that were more indicative of a 3rd rate XXX porn site than a legititmate business catering to the graphic community and which also happens to have an art gallery for their members to use to display their images.

Now that there is a change in the thumbnail policy, this is how it is:

Nudity Filter ON (no change in how the gallery is viewed):

• No nude thumbs.  The filter picks up on the nudity flags and displays  dozens upon dozens of Renderosity "content advisory" thumbs like this:

**Nudity Filter OFF:
**- People have their nudity filter off for a reason.... so that they can look at all images, even nudes.

• Just because someone likes to look at nudes, doesn't mean they want to see an onslaught of in your fact tits and ass like you would see on a porn site.
• Now when the nudity filter is OFF,  you see "nice" looking thumbnails that aren't indicative of having just arrived at a "XXX Porn Site", which was very much the way it was before.
• The thumbnails that people upload are not misleading. The flag says "nudity", so just because you don't see tits and ass in the thumb doesn't mean you won't see it in the actual image when you click on it. 

As a result, the gallery looks more professional.  We can all still look at nude images. All not having tits and ass in the thumb means is not getting a double helping of tits and ass. You just have to click the image now to get your fix.  Simple.

hmm..and I was so tempted to use "Warning, contains Violins" as the last thumbnail, though only really old Saturday Night Live people would understand..;)

Howl ye winds and crack your cheeks...let all Germans spill forth..;)
we few, we happy few...;)

Quote - **Nudity Filter OFF:
**- People have their nudity filter off for a reason.... so that they can look at all images, even nudes.

Where this all breaks down is - even with the "nudity filter" on, you can still look at all images, even nudes.  So this change is catering to some unknown number of people who think a 200x200 image of some miniature titties is "in your face".

Attached Link: A tribute to science!

The science behind it has been in process for years and whatever solution you're currently using has been built on the backs of geniuses. So, to me, all the gripers who don't mind "tasteful nudes" it's just the T&A they don't like, can go jump in the lake.

Oh and by the way, I've posted a pic featuring my own lastest skin shader hack based on the original work of Matt Pharr author of "Techniques for High-performance Graphics and General Purpose Computation," and converted by the talented Rotanev.

Quote - > Quote - **Nudity Filter OFF:

**- People have their nudity filter off for a reason.... so that they can look at all images, even nudes.

 

Where this all breaks down is - even with the "nudity filter" on, you can still look at all images, even nudes.  So this change is catering to some unknown number of people who think a 200x200 image of some miniature titties is "in your face".

The change was made based on several factors as stated several times on the site already. Its not based on one thing alone, just fyi

"Dozens and dozens of in your face tits and ass thumbnails that were more indicative of a 3rd rate XXX porn site than a legititmate business catering to the graphic community and which also happens to have an art gallery for their members to use to display their images."

Acadia, you stated this twice in your post and while I know this will just fall on deaf ears, I feel the need to say it anyway.

Renderotica and many porn sites out there ARE legitimate businesses. If you are selling sex, you are going to have your merchandise displayed. That does not mean you are not a legitimate business.

BTW, at least the porn sites are honest about what they are selling and who their customers are. You have sexually provocative material all over this site. And a lot of it involves clothing, not nudity. You are selling outfits in the store that would make a hooker blush. And just how many ridiculous half-naked "armor" clad warrior women do you have to see before you realize what people come here for? Without this clearly sexual content, I doubt you'd have nearly as many members and your store would certainly not make as many sales, yet you try to pretend it doesn't exist by stating over and over that you are being "serious" and "professional" - whatever that is.

Quote - The change was made based on several factors as stated several times on the site already. Its not based on one thing alone, just fyi

I've heard it, but I haven't seen a clear statement of anything besides "naked people in thumbnails is icky because we say so".  Popular demand is pretty clearly not the justification, seeing as at least as many people are complaining about it as are approving of it.  The Art Charts justification isn't too good either, since as I recall bringing it back was pretty overwhelmingly rejected the last time the userbase discussed it.

Quote - "Dozens and dozens of in your face tits and ass thumbnails that were more indicative of a 3rd rate XXX porn site than a legititmate business catering to the graphic community and which also happens to have an art gallery for their members to use to display their images."

Acadia, you stated this twice in your post and while I know this will just fall on deaf ears, I feel the need to say it anyway.

Renderotica and many porn sites out there ARE legitimate businesses. If you are selling sex, you are going to have your merchandise displayed. That does not mean you are not a legitimate business.

BTW, at least the porn sites are honest about what they are selling and who their customers are. You have sexually provocative material all over this site. And a lot of it involves clothing, not nudity. You are selling outfits in the store that would make a hooker blush. And just how many ridiculous half-naked "armor" clad warrior women do you have to see before you realize what people come here for? Without this clearly sexual content, I doubt you'd have nearly as many members and your store would certainly not make as many sales, yet you try to pretend it doesn't exist by stating over and over that you are being "serious" and "professional" - whatever that is.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that such sites aren't legitimate business, because they are.

However, it's not the route that Renderosity is wanting to take. That's all that I meant.

Well, they got me for the "Content advisory - Extreme Violence" thumbnail I had up on my nebula. It is after all the most violent thing I can think of... blowing up entire star systems and wiping out entire planetary populations. Sounds like violence to me. Of course they are saying it is not violent and the thumbnail is in violation. Here is my response: Acadia, Gee, I did that in order TO COMPLY with the new rules... Did you actually READ the text that went with it? The new rule says: No Sexually Suggestive Language No "Censored" language/images (some examples: "Warning: Nudity Inside" or black bars covering breasts/genitals) And in fact my image does NOT have either sexually suggestive language nor does it have censored on it. By the rule, IT COMPLIES. If you dont think blowing stuff up is violent, perhaps you should visit Iraq for awhile... Since I cannot both comply AND not comply simultaneously, and I have in fact followed the rule as it is written, I am left very confused. Would you care to clarify this for me? Mitch What do you all think? Am I nuts, or does this new policy have a serious problem with wording and implementation? I mean, if they say one thing and then slam you for trying to comply, what's the deal?

Quote -   The Art Charts justification isn't too good either, since as I recall bringing it back was pretty overwhelmingly rejected the last time the userbase discussed it.

huh? The Art Charts are and have been around since we converted the galleries to the php platform so I don't know what you  mean by "bringing it back"???  Are you referring to the Hot20? It isn't coming back and has been gone since the conversion as well

Oops - now I really don't get it, as nearly everyone in the Favorite Artists primarily does girlie pics, and Favorite Images is about 1/3 nudes.  Tail really wags the dog around here.

You mean in the Art Charts right now? They calculate once a week so the Art Charts are showing images/artist favorites from the time period before the change took effect.

Quote - I think you are all trying to do your best to not even bother to try understanding.

Renderosity is a business, and first and foremost they have to look after their bottom line while taking into consideration the community itself.

They want their site to appear more professional and not like some 3rd rate XXX porn site, why is that so hard to understand?

As a result, the gallery looks more professional.  We can all still look at nude images. All not having tits and ass in the thumb means is not getting a double helping of tits and ass. You just have to click the image now to get your fix.  Simple.

You keep writing about professionalism, but continue to handle a simple policy change like a bunch of rank amateurs. Think about what you're writing. What you are continuing to do is call every artist who posts renders with nudity here 3rd rate, tasteless and unprofessional. That's going to get some people unhappy. Simple.

And by the way, you can't spell ART without the T&A!

sheesh...next they'll say it's because the servers are in Tennessee..;)

You know, I'd accept that because it'd be clear and it would make perfect sense.

acadia - i really don't know how much more insulting you can be to the creators of the contents of the galleries.  and frankly, the idea that getting rid of nudity will make it more "tasteful" instead of like a "3rd rate XXX porn site" is ludicrous and goes against everything i've ever experienced of the professional fine art, illustration, graphic design and commercial art communities.   it's simple.  if you want your galleries to look better, actually set it up so that you cull for quality.  a bunch of poorly lit mediocre renders look bad no matter whether they have nudity or not.  if you don't like the style of the galleries, then a positive way to change them would be to do something like daz and reward people for renders you like or coming up with simple blanket rules instead of having an open galleries with complicated, misleading rules.  i'm sorry but yes, just saying something is a nude and having a picture of an elbow tells you nada about the pic.

basically, what you're saying is you'd like to hide works that don't meet the your collective standards of taste.   and you're trying to do it with the blunt standard of nudity.  there's about 5 or 6 different programmatic/site architecture solutions that would be positive reinforcement, but instead  the autocratic, punitive method was chosen.  seriously, the only other site i found when searching with this weird hybrid policy of allowing nudity, hiding nudity from people who don't want to see it, and but not allowing nude thumbs for people who deliberately choose to see it is poserpros.  one site. and i never thought of their gallery as better than here.  in fact, i always thought this was a much better gallery overall, with more interesting and inventive art.   if anything, i find it a mostly portrait and  pin-up t&a gallery of highly variable skill level, with a few notable exceptions.  versus the open runtimedna gallery, where i find consistently interesting and meaningful works.

you wonder why people are making such a fuss, and i think the crux of it is in your phrase, "Dozens and dozens of in your face tits and ass thumbnails that were more indicative of a 3rd rate XXX porn site than a legititmate business catering to the graphic community and which also happens to have an art gallery for their members to use to display their images."  i don't know about other people, but i took a whole week (i was off from work) to choose images, prepare each one,  and create thumbnails for multiple sites.  i made my thumbnails very deliberately, trying to accurately depict my work but also make a positive graphic impression.  what you're basically saying is, "your work isn't good enough for us.  hide that fact and make it look more like we want it to look.  you're making us look bad."  and you say you don't know why people are reacting badly to that?  or do you just think people are making mountains out of molehills like always?  what you're doing is insulting people's work, en masse, with the least professional rubric possible so that things can look better in your opinion. 

a few examples of actual professional galleries
http://www.howardschatz.com/portfolio/ - his out of print books pool of light and waterdance (with nude covers) sell for between $150 and $350
http://www.mckean-art.co.uk/ - dave mckean, long time illustrator and fine artist whose works have appeared in comics, books, advertisements and movies
http://www.designchapel.com/ - highly popular new media illustrator with an incredible amount of experience
http://www.blaugallery.com/shop/gallery1_thumbs.php - collective gallery of several accomplished commercial artists
http://www.ericfischl.com/images.htm - professional artist with decades of experience and formal training

Quote - What you are continuing to do is call every artist who posts renders with nudity here 3rd rate, tasteless and unprofessional.

I never said any such thing. Please don't put words where there were none.

What I said is that all of the in your face tits and ass thumbnails were giving the gallery the look of a 3rd rate porn site. I never said that the artists making the images were 3rd rate, tasteless or unprofessional. 

I doubt very much this policy would have even been implemented if  so many of the gallery thumbnails for nudity weren't filled with such thumbnails to begin with. It was obviously getting out of hand and the only way to reign it in was to introduce a change in the thumbnail policy.

There are sites that relish those types of  thumbnail / images on the front pages of their galleries. Renderosity doesn't want to be one of them, so they have adopted a no nudity thumbnail policy. 

I don't know what else to say because no matter what I say you see/hear what you want anyway.

I am not going to be drawn into a debate or argument about it because it's pointless.  The policy is here to stay and the best thing to do at this point is to adapt to the new change in policy and carry on having fun with your grophics and to stop dwelling on the negative.  You can still post your nudes in the gallery, just change the way you were presenting them to the world through the thumbnail.

Quote -
a few examples of actual professional galleries
http://www.howardschatz.com/portfolio/ - his out of print books pool of light and waterdance (with nude covers) sell for between $150 and $350
http://www.mckean-art.co.uk/ - dave mckean, long time illustrator and fine artist whose works have appeared in comics, books, advertisements and movies
http://www.designchapel.com/ - highly popular new media illustrator with an incredible amount of experience
http://www.blaugallery.com/shop/gallery1_thumbs.php - collective gallery of several accomplished commercial artists
http://www.ericfischl.com/images.htm - professional artist with decades of experience and formal training

And if you go and look at those you won't find anything even close to the type of thumbnails that were being posted in the gallery here prior to the change in policy.

Yes, I do see a few nudes in thumbs at a couple of those links, but I don't see close ups of boobs or butts like were being posted here.

Anyway, as I've already stated. I'm not going to get drawn into a debate or an argument about it. I am not responsible for the change.  I've tried to get people to see the positive about it several times, but no matter what I say my words are being twisted around.

Renderosity has decided to make changes to the thumbnail policy for a number of reasons.  We've all learned from past experiences with other changes that the changes are here to stay.  And because of that we can either accept it or not. But ranting about it isn't going to make it go away. If I've learned nothing else  in the years that I've been here, it's that.

Those reasons have been stated many times.  You can read them here at this link  and in Stacey's comments  throughout it.

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

goes back to lurking and anticipating the arrival of my new computer

Quote - They want their site to appear more professional and not like some 3rd rate XXX porn site, why is that so hard to understand?

While you may not think so Acadia (and I don't think it was your intention), the above sentence implies that people who do nudes are unprofessional and probably better off posting on some 3rd rate XXX porn site.

So you may not have said it outright, but it does look like you're implying it.

Quote - > Quote - They want their site to appear more professional and not like some 3rd rate XXX porn site, why is that so hard to understand?

While you may not think so Acadia (and I don't think it was your intention), the above sentence implies that people who do nudes are unprofessional and probably better off posting on some 3rd rate XXX porn site.

So you may not have said it outright, but it does look like you're implying it.

That was NOT my intention.

I was simply trying to get my personal point of view across about how the gallery thumbnail pages (as a whole) were looking like the back pages of sex magazines.

I never ever said or implied  that the people who are creating nude images in the gallery or the old types of nude thumbnails were 3rd rate, unprofessional or anything else for that matter, and I'm very dismayed and disgusted  that you think that I had implied such a thing. My comments were confined to the appearance of the gallery thumbnail pages as a whole, not to the individual thumbnails of the artists or any artist in particular.

It's not in my nature to be malicious or intentionally hurt or malign anyone, and I'm deeply upset and rather angry that you or anyone else would even suggest that I was capable of such a thing!

So if having nude thumbs makes the place look like a porn site then doesn't having thousands of nude images in the archives make the place an actual porn site? So why not just get rid of the nudes altogether?... ah right, that would mean a massive loss of revenue so that wont happen.