Quote - 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.

As already stated. This change only affects thumbnails and only thumbnails that are placed after the date of the policy change. 

This policy change does not have an affect on the actual images uploaded to the gallery, just the thumbnails.

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

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

You can keep posting your nudes just the way you have been.  However, you are asked to take a more subtle  approach with the thumbnail and not include nude bits in the thumbnail.

"You can keep posting your nudes just the way you have been.  However, you are asked to take a more subtle  approach with the thumbnail and not include nude bits in the thumbnail."

I believe that Jim Farris did just this and yet his Posting was still deleted from the galleries!
DPH

People please stop picking on Acadia.  While I disagree with the policy, and think the policy is dumb, Acadia is a good person and has been TREMENDOUSLY helpful to many, many people.  If you have issues with the policy, it doesn't exactly set you up on the moral high ground to go beat the crap out of people on a personal level.

**thefixer
**Hoadley and Lemur 
They seem to have got in a blur
Now I am a poet
and I didn't even know it!

Regen1950:

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.

Nude images have a "Nudity" marker under the thumbnail, whether or not your filter is set.

Quote - People please stop picking on Acadia.  While I disagree with the policy, and think the policy is dumb, Acadia is a good person and has been TREMENDOUSLY helpful to many, many people.  If you have issues with the policy, it doesn't exactly set you up on the moral high ground to go beat the crap out of people on a personal level.

I'll second that. She's the newbie Mod, remember? Offal of this nature originates at a much higher level. Hall monitors don't make school policy; that comes from the principle's office, it does it does. And living in TN, I can say that there has been no recorded change in 'community standard' laws as of late (assuming they didn't bury it on page 1254678 of a road spending bill. They do that a lot around here....). So unless there is some wingnut procecutor looking for the 'Big Case' (tm) to get his/her sorry ass re-elected, the 'Servers in TN' excuse doesn't fly (And if there =HAVE= been such changes, it would behoove the rosity management to mention it and provide linkage to the actual text. Most of the people around here are pretty cool about following the law, no matter how insipid it is. But keep in mind that Thorne is in Middle TN as well...and Faeriewylde is still up and doing fine.....). Trying to have it both ways has never worked, for anyone. You can't be a true art community if you don't respect some of the basic principles of art. Art offends. It arouses. It hits you between the eyes and makes you blink. You cry. You smile. You laugh (and if its bad art, you groan. Loudly). Trying to make this place 'workplace safe' is not only futilely insane, it smacks of irresponsibility. Considering the vast grayness that current corporate thinking embraces regarding 'sexual harassment', anyone fool enough to try even accessing this or any other site in Poserdom is flirting with a pink slip at the least, and a SH suite more likely (and being a union shop steward, I do know what I am talking about here, folks. With SH, right now it's guilty unless you can prove otherwise). For those who have kids. If you the adult bring something you are afraid your preciouses might not be ready to see into your home, the responsibility is yours to keep it from them. If this is due to arm twisting from one or more of the financial processors, it would be in rosity's better interests to -tell- people. But like I said earlier; the easiest thing is to find other galleries, and let the chips fall...

This place is... amazing. It's a bit like touring a neocon bathroom. Penthouse tastefully hidden inside a newpaper, pictures of nude pneumatics with discreet Post-Its(tm) fixed, invoice for adult toys crumbled in the wastebasket. Oh, and the Whitman sampler: "NO wanging!!"

I drop by occasionally to see what the inmates are doing to visitors. It's heartening, but not persuasive, to encounter reasonable people -- visitors -- doing their best, like CobaltDream and Dale B, and sad to watch someone like Jim Farris move from amusement to disbelief and finally walk out shaking his head. No doubt he will turn up again some place less like a porn shop owned (but NEVER visited) by a pious deacon.

Thank you, CobaltDream, for the list of sites that are not pandering their soft core porn to "family values." I printed it, and maybe I'll start posting images again elsewhere. (I pulled my gallery after a sanity session with the admins that began when I got slammed for using the Nudity/Language/Violence tags unnecessarily! Never looked back.)

It is also sad to watch someone as pleasant as Acadia morph slowly into another apologist for R'osity's commercial hypocrisy. ... and become angry when we don't like the new look. I'll miss her.

For the record, the most pernicious notion that surfaced in the entire 11-page thread is that we all can agree on what is "tasteful." Implicit in that notion is the dogma that what the speaker considers "tasteful" is the Truth, and all opposing views heresy.  Those of us who genuinely express differences are "hypocrites" and, as I was, can be punished for "insincerity." This kind of close-mindedness, whether genetic or assumed for the rule of "hall monitor," leads to hatred and division.

Anyhow, for those of you new and not entirely sure you came to the right place, welcome to the soft parade.

M

I am responding to this because my take is a bit different. While I do not normally post in the Poser Gallery and my work tends to be much more in the genre of landscape or science/science fiction, I consider my work to also be an artistic statement that often falls within postmodernism. I have attempted a piece that is poignant to this discussion (though my angle is violence rather than nudity) and was censored as a result. Yes, CENSORED. I know the argument is about thumbnails, and the new policy is an effort to clean up the look of the galleries for those who have set their preferences for nudity and/or violence (after all, this effects no one else). That part of the issue is moot. However, that part of the issue is based on ONE assumption: that the thumbnail is a separate entity from the artwork. Unfortunately, this is not always true, and ergo, this policy becomes a huge debate that is impossible to enforce on an across the board, equal basis (without individual review of each and every piece submitted). Many people have posted images that have thumbnails designed specifically to lead to the piece (whether you like their method or not) such that BOTH pieces are integral, one to the other. The Humor Gallery is full of such examples (I am surprised the Social Commentary Gallery has fewer). My piece Eye of God is a particular case in point. It is a cross genre piece that falls under Postmodernism (Irony, popular culture reference, multiple parts and seemingly disjointed concepts that rely upon the viewer and what they bring to the piece), social commentary, humor, space, science, science fiction and of course in this place, the ArtMatic Gallery since things here are also divided by medium. The thumbnail is specifically made as a commentary on this policy and is designed to lead the viewer to the rest of the artistic statement. It takes BOTH PARTS to make the whole. Either piece (or section if you prefer), by itself, is half a statement. The two (so called thumbnail and larger piece) rely upon one another to make a complete sentence. Many art pieces come in multiple parts, so this is not a special case or even particularly unusual. Just as telling someone they can only post half a sentence, and not a complete sentence (traditional censorship; see assorted government documents with blacked out passages), telling someone they can only post half of their piece of art is CENSORSHIP. This is my official response on this issue, this new policy is wrong and was a mistake for many reasons (regardless of the intent). My suggestion is this: that the administration simply admit this was ill conceived, rescind the policy, and follow up with something that makes more sense. After all, everyone makes mistakes and a committee is often even more prone to such. Admitting a mistake is much better than making enemies of a large portion your client base and that just makes basic business sense. Mitchell Davidson Bentley, M.A.

Well, I've been here since before this was Renderosity, when it was the Poser Forum. Every
change implimented in all that time made people react the same way. The change has no
effect on me since I have the nudity filter flagged. I do think people should realize one thing
though. This is a private site after all and any changes they choose to make are rarely affected
by disapproval. Oh, and insulting those who prefer not to look at nudity isn't helping either. Now,
I know some of you will say that you never did this, but it's what's being implied by some of the comments. I'm rather amused by the whole thing actually. I've seen this sort of thing countless
times in all the time I've been here. People never change, even if the world does. :)

Greywolf

Quote - > 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!

Acadia, I'm not trying to be malicious or to malign you, but the fact of the matter is that your sentence can be taken as implying that the people who post the images that the thumbnails are attached to are unprofessional.

Because the person did create the "unprofessional" looking thumbnail to go with their picture, and because the thumbnail is showing part of (or all of) the image, then what's so different about the image that it isn't 'unprofessional"?

And before you get upset again, let me make it clear that I know you didn't intend that, but not everyone will, intent is notoriously difficult to get across in purely written word. So don't pitch a fit at me for pointing out how something in your post could be taken differently from what you intended.

Quote - It is also sad to watch someone as pleasant as Acadia morph slowly into another apologist for R'osity's commercial hypocrisy. ... and become angry when we don't like the new look. I'll miss her.

You are mistaken.  I became angry when people started to accuse me of saying and implying things that I hadn't.

I'm not making any apologies for Renderosity, nor for my own personal opinion on what the gallery thumbnail pages looked like to me.

As for an "old" Acadia vs. a "new" Acadia. I'm still the same person. I know this may come as a bit of a shock, but "co-ordinator" status aside for a minute... I totally agree with the change in the no thumbnail nudity policy.  I thought the gallery thumbnail pages were looking very garish  and tacky and  tha was the primary reason I didn't bother browsing the galleries very much. Basically the only time I went to the gallery was to upload my own images, or click a link in the forum because while I'm not a prude and enjoy looking at all kinds of images (I even have some in my favourite images), I thought all of the T&A thumbs were out of control.

I am a person of integrity and I will not compromise myself nor my beliefs just because I've taken on a role to help out a community that I enjoy being part of.  I'm mouthy and tend to say what I believe, and that hasn't stopped either here on the forums or "behind the scenes".  TBH I'm surprised they haven't canned me yet because I do see both sides of the issue and I have been trying to be your voices where certain aspects of the change are concerned.  In that regard I can't say more.  However,  if you want to consider me a "traitor" for trying to fill up some of my idle time and help out Renderosity, then so be it.

Hamlet (III, ii, 239)

Quote - Hamlet (III, ii, 239)

LMAO

Thanks I needed the smile.  I've been quite stressed the past few days.  I seem to have picked the worse time to join Renderosity and to top that off  my friend's daughter got extremely sick 6 weeks  before her baby was due to be delivered by C-Section. She was found nearly dead by her boy friend Thursday morning and was rushed to the hospital where it was determined that she had a perforated bowl and require emergency surgery. She died in recovery. and never had a chance to see or hold her baby.  Only 20 years old.  The baby survived but is having severe problems breathing.

Acadia, DON'T let this get to you. I agree the gallery was looking garish and in poor taste of
late. I disagree about 3rd rate porn site though. I think you were giving it too much credit, try 4th
or 5th rate instead. I had to turn on the nudity flag, despite some of the awsome artistic nudes, 
in self defense against at the T&A of late. People were starting to think I was browsing porn. :)
Hopefully, I'll be able to turn it off again in a week or two. Gotta give the rebels and complainers
time to leave first. Heh. But, hilarity aside, don't let this stress you, Acadia. And if they choose to
misread what you said, well, such types always will in my experience.

Greywolf

I think this nicely sums up the absurdity of the situation.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1373068

Can anyone provide a single bloody rational reason why this image has a "DANGER WILL ROBINSON! SHIELD YOUR VIRGIN EYES!" warning thumbnail?

Anyone?

Quote - I know I'm blinded for life now. It's a scene which will forever be burned into my virgin memory.

Hi!  Maybe we all should go for trauma counselling!

Sheila

QUOTE:

"Can anyone provide a single bloody rational reason why this image has a "DANGER WILL ROBINSON! SHIELD YOUR VIRGIN EYES!" warning thumbnail?"

Easy, to get hits, of course. It's an old tactic. It could, of course, also be a lame form of
protest against the new policy. I've seen several of those too. SIGH. People just NEVER
change, no matter HOW much time passes. :)

Greywolf

Quote - QUOTE:

"Can anyone provide a single bloody rational reason why this image has a "DANGER WILL ROBINSON! SHIELD YOUR VIRGIN EYES!" warning thumbnail?"

Easy, to get hits, of course. It's an old tactic. It could, of course, also be a lame form of
protest against the new policy. I've seen several of those too. SIGH. People just NEVER
change, no matter HOW much time passes. :)

Greywolf

Which, of course, shows the utter failure of the way the system is set up.  What the policy in essence does is create the opportunity for this type of gaming which will, of course, makes the content advisory label absolutely useless.  It's as if movies were required to label themselves NC-17 if they showed any depiction of sex, even if ti was only one of those TV flashbacks (no total nudity, nothing naughty displayed, only a man and a woman making out in a bed) that you might see regarding two characters who had a history.

By insisting on the label you've lumped together a prime time network TV series with softcore porn from a pay per view movie channel.  You're providing zero useful information while allowing some producer to try and ramp up viewings by having a five-second shot that has utterly nothing to do with anything else in the film to bump up the rating.

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?

So...

nudity = unprofessional
nudity = 3rd rate XXX porn site

Gosh... Next time I'll visit Rome's Vatican Museum or Madrid's El Prado Museum I'll see them with different eyes... bunch of unprofessional and dirty ol' men...

... like Leonardo ... ;)

dphoadley @ Casette
Hey Casette!  Don't forget to look up when strolling through the Sistine Chapel.  Didn't Michelangelo paint a naked Man up there with a thingie hanging out, or did the 'rosity Admin. surreptitiously give it a fig leaf?
David P. Hoadley

Remember, some years after Michelangelo's death, Daniele da Volterra covered the genitals in The Last Judgement with vestments and loincloths. This earned him the nickname "Il Braghettone" ("the breeches maker")

So then Michelangelo was censored, Leonardo is censored now... Curse of Il Braghettone ;)

The governing hypocrisy of this site is pretty laughable. "We don't want to look like a third-rate porn shop...." In the first place, why "third-rate"? Would it be Ok if "we" looked like a "first-rate porn shop"? Air of Freudian slip there, ripe as puppy flattus.

Tell you what, folks, if you don't want to look like some Puritanical entrepreneur's idea of a porn shop, get rid of the number one most popular picture in the galleys. Yup, it's still the hideous beachball-breasted "Nude Raider." And purge all the other masturbatory fantasies in the "Most VIewed" list. I counted one non-nude on the first screen.

Then -- fasten your seatbelts -- get rid of all the "Come Fuck Me" advertising in the banners, and the marketplace come-ons that go with them, and the products whose sole purpose is to promote nudy pix. You people are so sure you can see the truth in our naughty souls, how is it that you can't apply the same arrogance to the guys who pay the bills?

Acadia -- Nothing personal. But there is a difference between having an opinion (I disagree with), promoting an opinion (I disagree with), and policing agreement with that opinion. When True Believers have the power to harm, they become very, very dangerous. After all, anyone they harm deserves it, right?

M

Like irony? Has it occurred to anyone that there is actually NO NUDITY WHATSOEVER here at Renderosity? What's that you say???? Yup. Think about it... Not a single nude picture. Huh??? Absolutely... NONE!! There are however an extraordinary number of pictures of unclothed 3D models. This is tantamount to a website dedicated to pictures of unclothed Barbie dolls... Oh and, no one has bothered to mention the one reason I posted above that brings a true Artistic argument as to why this is such a sham and absolutely wrong. Clearly, this site is not an ART Community at all.

That isn't true, there's a whole lot of really naked real people in Photography.  Sorry to pop your bubble ;)

Quote - But there is a difference between having an opinion (I disagree with), promoting an opinion (I disagree with), and policing agreement with that opinion. When True Believers have the power to harm, they become very, very dangerous. After all, anyone they harm deserves it, right?

No one can make you agree with any policy (and I for one will never agree with this one, I think it's dumb as hell) - but they can certainly make you conform to it.  They aren't the same thing.  While I strongly disagree with the policy, it's no horrible wrongdoing for the moderator and admin staff to promote it and generally talk it up.  Well, it's wrong in the sense that it isn't being carried out to terribly well, but I mean it's not morally wrong.

Okay, there may be real people in the Photography section... I admit it... I was wrong about that (frankly, I don't browse either the photography section, or the Poser section much the Poser section is just too large and unwieldy thus the need for some kind of policy like this... really, I get it, but there has to be a better way...). In my own defense, I will add that no one is talking about the REAL nudity here. HELLO? Additionally, I am not suggesting the policy is morally wrong. I am saying it is wrong from the censorship/artistic standpoint. This should be the main concern for an ART community. Clearly, the Artistic view is not the concern here; ergo, Renderosity has proved that it is not an ART community.

Well no, the policy applies equally to all gallery sections, and there's a significant amount of cheesecake photography that has to conform as well.  Not a particularly important point, just ... well, there.

I agree with you completely in principle Mitchman, but I think this decision was made more to appease an investor or something like that, than anything else.  It's not even the censorship that bugs me, it's the Dilbert-esque approach to policy rollout.  No open discussion beforehand, just a one-week notice for many hundreds of people to immediately conform to a new policy or be modsmacked.  I think Casette said it elsewhere, sounds like some business feed threatened to cut them off otherwise.

It's just such a goofy policy, I still can't make sense out of it.  Show me titties, but not in the thumbnails?  I want to be sure I do NOT see thumbnails that accurately represent their associated image?? 

Quote - My suggestion is this: that the administration simply admit this was ill conceived, rescind the policy, and follow up with something that makes more sense. After all, everyone makes mistakes ...

You are, of course, mistaken. The President of the United States, for one example, is on record as admitting that he cannot recall ever making a mistake. Mistakes are made by people who do not know the truth. In fact, what those of us who claim to be making mistakes actually are doing is WILFULLY and PERNICIOUSLY FLYING IN THE FACE OF A TRUTH EVERYONE KNOWS PERFECTLY well!!!!!

The truth, after all, is just common sense, like only eating with your right hand and bowing just the right amount and having beer with your football and wearing your caftan to bed but with a little hole ("No, honey, I didn't mean 'little' in THAT sense!") torn in it for your husband's convenience and loving whoever happens to currently have the biggest stick. We don't make mistakes; we PRETEND to make mistakes because we are carping negativists and haters and, of course, the perverts who buy the filth this site must, unfortunately, sell to serve the greater good.

You sound like sane fellow. I expect you are reasonably young and certainly idealistic. You need to understand that the Rules of Right do not work the way you learned Reason in school. You see, if you are bad, the good you do is bad (so, for instance, the people who opposed the war from the beginning are STILL wrong even now that everyone else agrees with them), and if you are good, then you can take bribes and rape pages, because they probably deserved it and you certainly do. It's called, ironically enough, Election, and once you have it, you are the instrument of Truth so you just don't make mistakes.

Ok, maybe little ones.
M

Quote - Well, it's wrong in the sense that it isn't being carried out to terribly well, but I mean it's not morally wrong.

Which is why I prefaced that remark with "Nothing personal." When you become a cop, you are not the same person you were before. And when you begin to enforce nonsense, what matters is not who you are but what you are.

M

Nobody elects Rosity administrators or those who write TOS... :lol:

Casette --
Being "Elect" is not the same as being "elected."
M

Quote - Which is why I prefaced that remark with "Nothing personal." When you become a cop, you are not the same person you were before. And when you begin to enforce nonsense, what matters is not who you are but what you are.

Nothing Personal does not go particularly well with your "what you are" wording following it up.  Man, I agree with you in principle but life is not that black and white.  If you have a full-time job in pretty much any field I can think of, I guarantee there are policies that you are required to abide by that are enforced by people who are just people like you and me.  You're basically saying (in a larger sense) that all cops are pricks because there are stupid laws against jaywalking and sodomy.  This is a dumb policy, and it is very unlikely to be reversed, but personally insulting the people who carry out the policy is pretty obviously not going to help get it reversed.

Sorry. My bad englizh ;)

just one moment, but yes "elect" does mean elected.  casette, your english is correct.  it just also means

1. select or choice: an elect circle of artists. 8. Theology. chosen by God, esp. for eternal life. according to dictionary.com.

Well now I see some aspects from both sides.

""Nude = pornography""

No she absolutely DID NOT say that.  Some people seem like they aren't applying any common sense here.  Though "Sense is never common", right?

A spread vagina with fingers holding it in the butterfly position being the entirety of the picture is porn.  Period.  AND you know it.

So here's what Im interested in now at this point.  Since you all feel apparently that ^^^ this is NOT porn, please describe what in your opinion is.

While I think some aspects of the policy are silly - don't make any sense at all even.  I can as a reasonable adult comprehend at least the meaning that arcadia is trying to get across.  I'm pretty sure if all of you stepped back for a moment you would realize you can as well.  It's almost as if that's what some of you came here looking for and you are fighting for it tooth and nail.  Well if that's the case, I can recommend much better "real" sites for it.

The problem is, or the thing that is just too bad is that it has to be applied across the board.  So that those who actually do NUDE ART are punished and thier work altered (yes the thumbnail is part of the work).  So that just plain sucks.

Here's a side opinion too.  Isn't nude art suppose to be some representation of appreciation for the human body?  If that is the case then why so often did I see women in the galleries with barbie like proportions?  Size 0 and Triple D chest.  In the real world, I've seen that ZERO times, with the exception of some help from dr.  silicone.   Maybe it's technically ~Fantasy~ art then, in the TRUEST sense of the word.

Quote - the real world, I've seen that ZERO times, with the exception of some help from dr.  silicone. 

Life imitates Art. 

But then again, a "A spread vagina with fingers holding it in the butterfly position" wouldn't be allowed on this site anyway, no matter what the thumb showed. And I agree with you that THAT sort of picture most certainly IS porn.

Quote - Gosh... Next time I'll visit Rome's Vatican Museum or Madrid's El Prado Museum I'll see them with different eyes... bunch of unprofessional and dirty ol' men...... like Leonardo ... ;)

Quote - Hey Casette!  Don't forget to look up when strolling through the Sistine Chapel.  Didn't Michelangelo paint a naked Man up there with a thingie hanging out, or did the 'rosity Admin. surreptitiously give it a fig leaf?
David P. Hoadley

as i recall leo and mike's works were anatomically correct.

I don't remember ever seeing 'David packing a fire hose' or 'Mona’s unnaturally large antigravity breasts.'

whoops.  there went another post.  i really am not getting along with this js editor.

first i want to say, acadia, i'm so very sorry about your friend's daughter.  it seems like such things shouldn't or don't happen in this day and age.  good friends of mine lost their daughter just one day before she was due to be born, about a year and a half ago.  they never did find out what went wrong.  it's a terrible thing to have to make a life after losing a child, and my utmost sympathies go out to your friend for what she's going through and to you for what you will undoubtedly have to see her through.

second, i want to say i was disagreeing with you as an individual, not a moderator.  from your first post, i considered you speaking for yourself, though not out of step with your moderator compatriots.  i haven't seen anything inconsistent in your opinion.  i still see you as the nice, helpful and kind person you've always been.  i disagree with you, and while i do personally feel your statements have insulted my work as part of a collective recipient of your statements, frankly, i don't think that makes you a jerk or a bad person in anyway.  even one's best friend will occasionally say something one finds hurtful or rude, even if that person doesn't mean to.   i know for a fact i have opinions some would find insulting.  that said, i don't believe i have misinterpreted or misunderstood your statements.

if i might paraphrase, it seems like you're saying, "as a whole, the old thumbnails have been tasteless and unprofessional, making the site look like a 3rd rate porn site."  as mitchman pointed out, you can't separate thumbs from the rest of our work.  more than that, several of us are saying that the previous thumbnails accurately represented the works they led to.  so in effect, your statement applies not only to the collective work that is our thumbnails, but the collective works they lead to.    and as someone who will have to cut images out of their gallery to fit the new standard, or post thumbnails i feel are unprofessional and tasteless, i'm rather insulted by the implication that the only reason to post nude thumbs is to advertise t&a.  and just because you didn't single me out, doesn't mean your statement is any less insulting than, for instance, cgsociety members who make general statements about poser work.

also frankly, that was not how i viewed the galleries here.  in fact, i've felt that less about here than poserpros.  which again, is the  only site i came across with the same policy.  and yeah, i think viewing the galleries like that is disrespectful to renderosity artists as a whole, and somewhat distressing in someone who is now a moderator.  on top of that, your statement that all other places except for sites like rend****ica had the same policy either shows you didn't check (which would be preferable) or that you just lump every site that doesn't have the same rule into a single category (which would show a certain prejudice and circular logic).  that said, i personally would have found it a lot less offensive if the statements being put forth both by you and your team were much less absolute and stopped using such insulting terms.  because it's pretty obvious to me that you're all voicing an opinion, and one that runs counter to any notion of objective professionalism in design, illustration, fine art or advertising that i know of (and i've yet to find a common notion of "tasteful").  you want the galleries to have a certain "look" no matter what a viewer's preferences, and one that frankly isn't necessarily professional so much as particular to a certain audience.

is there some influence you're not telling us about?  because "professional" and "tasteful" keep recurring as if they're from a missive, and plain old viewers can just toggle off nudes.  is rendo having a problem with advertisers?  and if so, are they advertisers within or external to the creative community?  because i could definitely see the nudity as unprofessional to someone in non-creative field.  inside it, and frankly, it's not the breasts and buttocks.  craft, talent and the nature of the content determine professionalism.  if this site looks unprofessional in comparison to cgsociety, or other professional illustration or design communities, it's because we're not (in general).

and these are the images on each of those sites with torso close-ups.  the difference is execution, not content.

design chapel 1
design chapel 2
dave mckean  (thumb is just smaller version)
howard schatz 1  (thumb is just a smaller version)
howard schatz 2
blaugallery 1
blaugallery 2
blaugallery 3
eric fischl (thumb is just a smaller version)

imho, debating content after this is really splitting hairs.

aiieeeee, titties, titties!! MY EYES!!!
:blink:

Quote - > Quote - Which is why I prefaced that remark with "Nothing personal." When you become a cop, you are not the same person you were before. And when you begin to enforce nonsense, what matters is not who you are but what you are.

 

Nothing Personal does not go particularly well with your "what you are" wording following it up....You're basically saying (in a larger sense) that all cops are pricks because there are stupid laws against jaywalking and sodomy.  This is a dumb policy, and it is very unlikely to be reversed, but personally insulting the people who carry out the policy is pretty obviously not going to help get it reversed.

You are putting words in my mouth. "What you are" is a cop. That's what I said. I have nothing against cops, but when my friendly neighbor is in uniform what matters is not that he's my friendly neighbor but that he is enforcing the law. I don't treat him like my friendly neighbor, and if he treated me like his buddy next door he'd get canned. I didn't say anything to insult cops.

M

Quote - Nobody elects Rosity administrators or those who write TOS...

No, God put them to watch what the perverted artists are doing. The TOS is like a Pope's Enciclica!

Tyger_Purr:

Quote - I don't remember ever seeing 'David packing a fire hose' or 'Mona’s unnaturally large antigravity breasts.'

Well, it's a style of art that comes and goes with the times and cultures.
http://www.2camels.com/photos/hounen-penis-fertility-festival.php
Or comes a few times and then goes...

The first trouble of all that mess: try to convince to all the funny people who manage banks online that nudity isn't evil. That nudity doesn't burn kids' retinas. That nudity isn't a strage state of human being but really clothes are the strange one

Remember: I'm sure a 90% of the new and recent nudity policies (nude faeries, nude in promos, nude in thumbnails) come from external forces different than Renderosity.The bank says: 'cut this or I'LL CUT YOUR ACCOUNT'. And surely Rosity started as a nice art community of innocent artists, but nowadays it's a market with some people livig and eating with  its bucks, and they don't want to search another bank online all over the world with the changes that it would carry. They prefer little changes that don't affect the site very much (I repeat: the site. Not artists) than a big one

And I've seen this before at sites like Renderotica and Erotic Illusions. And finally, The Bank Wins

EDITED
Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs are consideer Art all over the world. And he has lots of works with erected penis

I've been following this thread ever since it started, contributing small bits of wisdom, and having now a good laugh and now a fit of rage.

After all was said it is still incredible that in this 21st century we are discussing whether nudity should be allowed in a so-called artistic community.................!!!!!

I find this extremely demoralizing (and certainly not very promising for the days to come) –no offense intended.

My last contribution would be the wonderful slogan that the revolted students wrote on the walls of Paris during the May 68 events:

“L’Imagination au Pouvoir”

Which is, of course, a blatant contradiction in terms.

Gosh... I've just remembered... there are some NASA's space crafts and satellites flying to deep space with a disc with music and photographs of Earth and... oof... ulp... and... er... a drawing of a man and a woman fully naked...

... perhaps with a laser beam or a plasma missile...

:lol:

People like to ignore points, and completely disregard the fact that porn exists.  Good job being completely one sided and dogmatic in your views.  Then you refer to Renderosity and the mods as some kind nazi religious regime - yet you refuse AS ADULTS to even acknowledge small points.

Making snide comments along the way about ART that we all know is art, and if those thumbnail pages would have been cluttered with THAT, we wouldn't be dealing with this now - eh?  Or do some people just not get that there is a difference?  Apparently not as I noted nobody responded with thier definition of porn.

Now you guys want to talk about evil, and how nudity is evil.  Nobody said that.  However I do think the objectification of females is - and porn does that, not appreciation of females   (which I see often in nude art).  

For the record:
por·nog·ra·phy     /pɔrˈnɒgrəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pawr-nog-ruh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit. 

Gee, I wonder why an ART site doesn't want to be represented by that.  Go figure.
2+2=4

Lastly I will reiterate that I think the policy could have been implemented differently with more respect to all who would consider themselves artists.

Quote - > Quote - if giant breasted neandertal Victoria 3's dominate.. So be it, after all where did we buy the kits to make much of this "pronography"?  Most likely from your stores...

If it's good enough to sell, isnt it good enough to show?
(Hopefully thats not bannable, but these days..)

I just want to point out that you can show them all you want in your actual image.  All Renderosity is saying is don't show them in your thumbnail leading into the image.

This change does not affect the actual image. It only affects the thumbnails in the gallery.

The problem with that is I find renders of figures with breast so huge they need a wheelbarrow
to carry them to be boring and stupid. So when I saw a thumbnail of them I would just skip
over that picture.  Now I have no way of knowing if it is a normal looking woman or a silicone
freak just from the thumbnail.

Quote -
Making snide comments along the way about ART that we all know is art, and if those thumbnail pages would have been cluttered with THAT, we wouldn't be dealing with this now - eh?  Or do some people just not get that there is a difference?  Apparently not as I noted nobody responded with thier definition of porn.

...

For the record:
por·nog·ra·phy     /pɔrˈnɒgrəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pawr-nog-ruh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation–noun obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit. 

Don't take this wrong, but I love rants where people accuse others of things (like not defining pornography) and then proceeding to demonstrate that they can't do it either.

Your definition includes several terms, especially "obscene", that are purely subjective, depending on their time and place in order to say something falls in that category.

Now this isn't to say that I don't know porn when I see it:: given present North American standards and my own background I can tell when an image is porn or not, and I agree porn shouldn't be here.  That said this is not something that can be defined as black or white.

For instance, is a woman in a miniskirt and tight t-shirt, just standing there in a non sexually-suggestive pose, obscene and thus porn?  In fact, yes, it can be.  If you are a member of a social group or culture that sees any significant display of female skin as inappropriate the picture is obscene and designed to arouse.  Thus it is porn.

On the other hand you can have something which is meant to arouse sexually, involves nudity and the like, but is considered art today.  For instance in museums all around the world you can find art originating in India during the period when Tantric art was a common Hindu artistic and architectural motif.  It's all about the sex.  Yes, there's a religious aspect that the sex is for, but it's still about the sex.

Porn or not?  We think it's artistic today, but what would someone from another part of the world and another more repressed culture have thought at the time?  Obscene and not of artistic merit, surely.

As I said I'm not opposed to restricting porn in the galleries here.  But "porn" isn't a simple class of object that is easily defined.

Anyway, back to the thumbnail issue.  The solution (having a check for content for the thumbnail, thus allowing a person to filter their gallery that way, is the fairest solution all round.

I know that I said I wouldn’t post anymore on this thread but it turns out that I came up with this great idea that I’d like to share with you –and, hopefully, with the Administration.

Nudity, sex etc should be banned from the thumbnails in order to keep the site “clean” and protect the children and the breakfast eating people from having nipples thrown at their face. I agree!

Now, how about taking another step and do some more cleaning?

Guns are killing more people than nipples do every day –I don’t have any statistics handy at the moment but I am sure that we all agree on this point. Therefore guns should be banned from the thumbnails as well.

We all know how terrible tobacco smoking is –and how politically incorrect. Thousands of people are dying every day of lung cancer and other tobacco related diseases. Don’t you think that it is time to clean the thumbnails of all cigarette and cigarette smoking references? (Also to be removed from any avatars, like mine… :)

And what about alcohol? Alcohol is a ruthless killer and a family breaker (yet it still remains politically correct). Any reference to alcohol, bottles, glasses etc should be banned from the thumbnails.

Car accidents are killing more people every year than guns do. Cars are bad –and lethal. Cars should be banned from the thumbnails to prevent innocent children from using one some day.

Food can be another killer. Obesity is the curse of the 21st century city dwelling person. Food and food related objects should be banned from the thumbnails.

Let’s be bold and daring, comrades! Let’s be responsible Adults and propose all of the above mentioned changes to the Administration. This way we could sit at the breakfast table without fear of a nipple, gun, cigarette, bottle, car or sausage jumping at our face. And we’ll definitely end up having a very clean, family friendly and law abiding artistic community.