Can't really tell from the thumb but the dress or whatever looks pretty translucent, that's probably why.

Yep - regardless of how you may feel about it, even though that came from actually changing the skin in the Materials room rather than putting a translucent clothing outfit on, the image has the appearance of a young female wearing a translucent bodysuit.  You can argue about it if you want but you're wasting your time, that's among what they consider nudity here ^_^

If the nipples can be seen through the material - as here - then we ask you to tag the image and crop the thumb to not show that part of the image.

Please follow the instructions that Acadia sent you to have your image restored with a new thumb.

The policy is as stupid now as it was when it was insTITuted. I come here less often and post pics less often.

Quote - If the nipples can be seen through the material - as here - then we ask you to tag the image and crop the thumb to not show that part of the image.

Not to be argumentative, but I personally don't see any actual nipples.

I do see an area that's got some shadowing on the tip of the left breast, but that's not an actual nipple but an effect of the lights used, the breasts actually look rather smooth to me.

Well, I'm seeing SOMETHING in the nipple area and so did the other staff who viewed it... including one of the admins :-)

Modus, I think you're probably correct, but intentional or not the fact remains that whether it's a trick of lighting or part of the mat, it appears that her areolas are showing through the top. 

As much as I don't like the TOS nudity policy, it comes down to the fact that it is just another of the blossoming costs of doing business in the conservative US these days. Kinda make you long for the days of free love don't it...
     Huh how about it Karen? :biggrin:

lol j/k, anyhow I'm done blaming Rendo and the Admins here as they are just as much prisoners of the situation as we are. The price of being successful...

just as an aside, nude fairies are o.k. at thorne's site and sixus' site IIRC.

it would be great if there was a gallery site that you could actually put up an image without having to think about wishy washy interpretations of a shadow that looks like vaginal lips or methinks that may look like an aereola....geez....
And I don;t mean some erotic porn joint like that otica place ... just a regular ma and pa place that people can post their images without worrying about it or someone whining that their 5 year old saw nudity, or you cant show that because I surf at work....

I put a disclaimer at my site that put it right out front that there may be nudity or violence...so if you look and your kid sees a breast or your boss sees you looking at it, don't come whining to me....go somewhere else.

there are lots of site where you can put up nude's and nude faeries or other figures with wing and stafs and loads of NVIATWAS .. and so on and on .. but just not here...
Im not the biggest fan of the rules .. but im here so i must keep to them ...
 one person think a nude faeries is to much ..and some others think two kissing man or hugging man are over the limit...
R'O makes the rules ..and we can take it or leave it..

To think of it 2 kissing or hugging man are OK here .. now you all go get the signs to protest

Chris 

Basic poser knowledge: if it is a non-body texture containing poser shader applied to the matzones of the body itself (especially if it is identical shader for the torso and nipple matzones) there is no way to see the nipples through that. Because there are no nipples under the thing. Because there is nothing for anything to be under in fact :) Aiko is shaded exactly like that (aside from color) on DAZ Aiko3 page and those guys are far more strict on the nudity policy than Renderosity could ever imagine to be. Do we have to worry about possible interpretations of the thumbnail image now? Or some shaders and lighting conditions now are considered unsafe because they MIGHT make a person look nude? I am all for nudity control and the like, in fact you could see me defending the thumbnail and gallery changes rather err ... rabidly (?) back in the days. I am completely not into making nudes (as a clothing maker I have to advertise the benefits of clothing after all LOL) but this situation made me completely befuddled. Michal 4blueyes

I apologize if I seem prudish, but the term npples makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable. In the future, I would very much appreciate posters employing something a bit less tiillating. "Accoutramental mammarian protuberances" should serve quite nicely. For those vulgarians who prefer a shorter alternative, I suppose I could live with "bazooka buttons" or "knocker knobs."

What about teats? I guess I won't be able say n*pple anymore when talking about threaded pipe fittings. Somebody might get excited.

hur hur,'nipples' snarf

Attached Link: I couldn't post the thumb I wanted to here

How lame. At first I didn't have a problem with this nonsense, but I following it is ridiculous. The policy is way more unprofessional that any tit-centric renders or thumbnails.

Please give me some glasses, I can see no nbeep s or a*****beeep in this picture, only a shaded area that could be look like really wll formed  beeeeps . Sorry for my babarian european attitude to such weird, exaggerated views about natural facts of live.

The nudity policy doesn't bother me, as it is meant to protect younger visiters of this site.

However, I find that the standards for nudity labeling can be shifty sometimes.

I have two gallery postings tagged as 'contains nudity' by Renderosity last year.

One of them I can understand why, even though there is no nipples or genitals shown in the pic.

The other losts me -- the portrait image shows a lady from her shoulders up, but it's tagged as 'contains nudity' maybe because the viewer can imagine her as being naked?   
Hmm . . . interesting.  

Click on the two tags above, and see (and judge) them yourselves.

(PS:  I'm not complaining here -- just giving an example of interest.)

The only problem with the nudity issue is the thumb and the tag describing it... If you can even slightly see part of the area described by r'osity as nudity based then flag your image as such and crop the thumb... They don't want you to not display your work here, they just want people to be aware before clicking on an image if it contains nudity or not.

It's simple.

If a person's that concerned about nudity, they can turn the nudity filter on, and all images with nudity will have the content advisory thumbnail, letting those that can't see the "this image contains nudity" message under the thumb know that the image contains either violence or nudity.

I don't think my second example falls in r'osity's nudity description.

It's simple for me to see that.

@3DVim -- as the policy has been told to me by a mod (which I can not remember) the image doesn't have to show nudity to need the nudity flag, it only need to be such that the person represented is represented such that one could expect they are nude as such in the reality represented in the representation... a figure standing behind a representation of a sign that says "I am nude" that covered the representation of the figure from toes to chin would be considered nude for the purpose of policy. It matters not that it might be a representation of a decapitated head on a pike hidden behind the sign, or an otherwise non-anthropomorphic robot with a human head, or a neutered bear wearing a berka and a man's head as a hat, what matters is that the figure might be imagined by some people (most especially the images creator) to be nude behind the sign. Fortunatly most people are utterly incapable of imaging nude digital bodies beneath digital representation of clothing... but to be safe you might want to un-click visible on body parts of a figure "covered" by representations of clothes.

That said... it is RMP's gallery certainly... I just don't understand why the mods can't click the nudity tag and formulate some inoffensive e-mail that says "Dear Artist, an improperly flagged image in your gallery has been flagged for nudity or violence. Thank you for your continued participation in a galleries :)"

3DVim, Im not seeing anything in the records that shows a staff member ever tagged your images? Did you get a site mail or email? Regardless, that second image would not need a nudity tag, as there is no nudity in the full image.

Momodot, mods do tick the flag for many members...but we give that responsibility to the uploading members first.

Edited to change word {of-to} ;)

Holy crap this is a bunch of prudish nonsense.

Well, I am sure most of use are: young ,sexy, have fabulous bodies - but for those of us that don't - imagine how scary it would be if we suddenly posted pics of OURSELVES naked as a protest instead of poor digital Vickies and Aikos - arghhhhhhhhhhh!

there's several picts that are showing red xs in the msgs above. I reckon I done missed some nudie pix :lol:

Jumpstartme2 you probably ought to talk directly to Karen, because she evidently has a different opinion...

What?

Pjz, looks like you lost me and Karen both

Never mind, I see I was confused (thought you were talking to the OP, you were talking to 3DVim).  Sorry.

~ Whew~  ok, I was like..wha? :lol:

Quote - The nudity policy doesn't bother me, as it is meant to protect younger visiters of this site.

However, I find that the standards for nudity labeling can be shifty sometimes.

I have two gallery postings tagged as 'contains nudity' by Renderosity last year.

One of them I can understand why, even though there is no nipples or genitals shown in the pic.

The other losts me -- the portrait image shows a lady from her shoulders up, but it's tagged as 'contains nudity' maybe because the viewer can imagine her as being naked?   
Hmm . . . interesting.  

Click on the two tags above, and see (and judge) them yourselves.

(PS:  I'm not complaining here -- just giving an example of interest.)

The flag on the "Why" image is stupid. I see bare shoulders. Thats it I'm partly conservative and partly liberal. But clearly this site is operated by prudish conservatives

pjanak - as stated, 3DVim set the nudity tag himself on that upload.

So clearly, this site is operated by dangerously licentious liberals :lol:

Obviously the woman in Vim's picture is thinking about being naked. This is no different from being naked: "If you desire to sin, you have sinned." Personally, I think it's time we accept the simple fact that no matter what is interposed, underneath it is a naked, stinking, hairy, nasty person with... well, you know. Naked is naked, and clothes, signs, hedges, layers of burning tar make no difference.

We should all be grateful that we are allowed to post our filth here with just a few simple restrictions anyone Elect can understand.
M

I am thinking about being young, rich AND naked - preferably with the same of the opposite sex doing the nasty.....SO, this post of mine should be tarred and feathered, LOL!!!!! According to the nuns at the school of my distant youth, just thinking about it meant I will BURN IN HELL! So RR is doing a favor and saving us from our wicked thoughts and the corrruption of others with our naughty renders!

Well if your going to have a rule you need to be consistant and clearly you guys are not. There is a V3 gown thumbnail in the Dynamic clothing section that you would remove if you followed the same thought process as you did on ecko30's image. V3 is in a sheer gown where clearly she is nude underneath. There is nippledge via a shadow but you all would say that its not shadow. silly as that is.

Pjanak,

Check the date on that

"Wednesday, January 18, 2006"