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