it was said that an image that actually did not have a nude figure would have to be tagged with a warning because it looked like the figure was nude behind a shield.  

I have heard and seen the extremes that some works were taken down due to the fact that the viewer could "imagine" that the subject might be nude beyond the scope of the viewable work.

This has been clarified and is not the case. 

PerfectN, we have stated over and over and over the reasons for the change. I listed them - again - on page 1 of this thread. If you choose not to believe them, that's fine. 

Mick - Here is the post; your ban was for setting the nudity, violence and language flags when your post contained none, despite repeated communications from staff (none of which you have ever replied to, as far as I am aware) requesting that you not do so and repeating and explaning the rules again and again. You can see that the post has been edited at 7.38am - that was me removing the tags. The email I sent you quite clearly stated what the ban was for. Not "asking questions". The post doesn't contain any question. Your ban was issued some hours later after discussion between myself and my colleagues.

We don't hang people for TOS violations (much as we might sometimes individually feel like it.)

---

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire