Shame about the pratfall Mike, but you gave up too soon, I think.  I'm a little late keeping this particular pot boiling, but never mind; it's been an amusing read :)

On the one hand we had;
"If your thumbnail gives the impression that the model is nude, no amount of ducking and diving . . . is going to work."

..and on the other;
"..his second thumb should have been allowed, because it wasn't clear whether the model was nude or not."

So, implying that a model is nude is taboo, but implying that the model just might be nude is OK.

So if the business-end of a boob is just out-of-frame, it's OK because she might have a pastie on.

Whereas if her hand is concealing a pastie but the boob/hand eclipse is not out-of-frame, that falls under Implication of Definite Nudity (not-OK), rather than Implication of Possible Nudity (OK)?

I think I'll go and lie down now...

Hmmm... you know, I think you're on to something there, pearce.
I think I got caught up merely in arguing and hadn't really noticed that.
Sloppy... very sloppy. I am hanging my head in shame.
There's not much more to add beyond that though, so I guess the next move is Theirs...

Maybe after this rattles around in my head a little longer I'll have something better to add, but I do believe you  have found what I was squinting at but not seeing clearly.

Pearce, you're a true inspiration, man. (he said with his voice cracking) sniff 

Heh.  I don't even do that nudie stuff.  It's just one of those interesting wrangles.  Though I doubt that even Wittgenstein could figure this one out (with or without the bolts in his neck) :laugh:

So, implying that a model is nude is taboo, but implying that the model just might be nude is OK.

Yep.

If the model appears to be nude, then it's not okay.
If it's a possibility that the model is nude, but a definite determination is not possible, then it's okay.

I'm not really sure what's confusing about that?

Otherwise, a head-and-shoulder shot of a model that didn't show bra straps/jumper/shirt or whatever would not be okay, and that would just be silly. (Or ditto a foot, hand, etc...)

**" If it's a possibility that the model is nude, but a definite determination is not possible, then it's okay.

I'm not really sure what's confusing about that?"**

What's confusing us is why a hand concealing a breast isn't in the latter category, i.e. possible but indeterminate and therefore OK, given that pasties are clothing; that's all really

And I'm certainly not implying that Rendo's rules could ever be silly..:lol:

Because with a hand covering the breast, the model appears to be nude.

Let me try and put it another way.
If you show an image of a model covering her boob with her hand to 100 random people and ask them "Do you think this model is wearing clothes?", what do you think they will answer? (apart from "Who cares!" or "Can I have a copy please?!" and other things of that nature, heheh.)

They will say "Sure she's naked, I don't see any clothes..." or maybe "Is this a trick question?" But my point is, a vast majority of people will look at a photo/image where a model is holding/covering her boobs with her hands and say "That's nude."

Now some people may not like nipple pasties, they may think that they're crude or insufficient, and I'm surely not going to argue that you wouldn't wear them to work - but then you wouldn't wear your underwear (only!) to work either, would you, or a bikini (unless you're a lifeguard!) But I don't think anyone would argue that a bikini or a bra is not clothing. As long as the pasties fully cover the nipple and aureolae, Renderosity is happy to accept them as clothing and happy with their use in thumbnails.

[Edited for clarity]

Hmm, now I am confused , All this talk of pasties has made me hungry and its lunch time , so I am gonna have lunch. I might even have a pastie , but I will look in the fridge , not on a boob.

This has been an irrelevant musing on the somewhat confusing English language .

Allrighty then!! ...my go!!

(ahem)........what if the figure is clothed and wearing an apron.

BUT!!

the apron is one of those "oh stop i'm laughing too much" comedy aprons, with a naked babe torso picture on it, so when you wear it, you look all noodie like? ...and with a fine looking pair of firm......er!...........anyway!!

now,
 
....as she is ( forgot to mention she was a she didn't I, and it would of been much quicker to just edit the earlier bit than write all this too!!...but on we go!...where was I?..oh yeah!!) wearing an apron, she may well be doing a spot of cooking, what's she cooking?...........that's right, you guessed it...........kippers!! ...only joking......of course pasties, good ol' "whoever invented them" pasties.

so,

we have our scene, but in our scene our character is still in the motions of making said pasties, and as such is constantly reaching around for pastie making utensils, during one of these reaching around moments, we hit "render" and a picture is born............

the resulting image is of a fully dressed woman, wearing a comedy noodie apron, her hand (now with recently reached spoon in it) is covering the image on the apron, right across the firm looking bits..........there are half made pasties all around!!

can we upload that picture to Rendo?

( Hey!! and don't give me any rubbish about your poor aching eyeballs!!, what about my poor aching fingers eh?, i just had to type all that crap up there!!)

How about this thumbnail in the galleries right now (and has been for over a week)?  The genital nudity is completely on screen, only obscured by a leg, and there's no indication of wearing clothing.

Quote -

How about this thumbnail in the galleries right now (and has been for over a week)?  The genital nudity is completely on screen, only obscured by a leg, and there's no indication of wearing clothing.

IMHO that one should have been pulled because there is no bikini bottom/pantie string showing at the hip to indicate clothing.

I know from experience that the Poser Gallery is time consuming to wade through and that each Mod takes their turn going through it. It might just be that they haven't been able to get through the whole gallery uploads for that day, and it might even be that someone edited their thumbnail after the fact too, meaning that the moderator saw another thumbnail when they went through the gallery. Edited images do not get bumped back to the new uploads.

There is a button below each gallery image that you can use to report offensive images or images in violation of the rules. 

Although that IS obviously a violation of the rules, in the same way the previous subject was or wasn't, depending on how you want to spin it.....
I suddenly find myself wondering... what does it even matter?

I mean, seriously - pasties, panties, grabbing, hands/no hands and all that. Covered is covered, period. I said that before and I'll say it again.

In the other example it was a hand covering. A hand that was clearly not "grabbing".
In this case it's a leg doing the covering.

There's an old saying which seems like it might apply here, in the form of an acronym - KISS : Keep it Simple, Stupid.
For those who never heard that, it essentially means undue complexity can cause problems.
We all know what the anatomical naughty parts are as far as this site is concerned. Making rules such as pasties are OK, obviously nude is bad, but possibly NOT nude is OK, hands can not cover....
It's silly and it's overly complex. As you can see, from time to time it causes problems.
Why not just say the naughty bits need to be covered by something that itself isn't another naughty bit?

Simple. But, I'm sure, unacceptable for some very very unquestionably good reason. probably because almost every rule ever made here has been unnecessarily complex.

The other simple alternative would be to just go all Stalin on the membership and declare no nudity in thumbnails, period, and ruthlessly delete them along with the image, and even make the offender take a few days off.
This is what I would do, to avoid this sort of thing entirely.
Sure, they'd whine and cry at first, but they'd get over it.
Besides, all this suggestive content in the thumbnails is only a ploy to get hits on the images, and then sit bake and rake in the gushing praise, which in and of itself is kinda silly too.

Quote - I mean, seriously - pasties, panties, grabbing, hands/no hands and all that. Covered is covered, period. I said that before and I'll say it again.

I won't disagree with you there :)

To me nudity is seeing the bare buttocks, genitals, pubic region or female breasts...in all their glory sans clothing.

If you can't see any of those things because a body part or prop covers it, then to me that isn't "nude".

If you see a thumbnail or image in the gallery that might be a violation, please use the report function instead of bringing it in the forums. That isn't the appropriate way to bring something to the staffs attention.

We do miss things from time to time but all you have to do is hit the "report" under the full image and let us know, we'll be glad to review it with the team.

Quote - the resulting image is of a fully dressed woman, wearing a comedy noodie apron, her hand (now with recently reached spoon in it) is covering the image on the apron, right across the firm looking bits..........there are half made pasties all around!!

can we upload that picture to Rendo?

Sure you can upload that image to the Rendo gallery...but you can't show the hands covering the nudie bits of the joke apron in the thumbnail..

Quote - > Quote - I mean, seriously - pasties, panties, grabbing, hands/no hands and all that. Covered is covered, period. I said that before and I'll say it again.

I won't disagree with you there :)

To me nudity is seeing the bare buttocks, genitals, pubic region or female breasts...in all their glory sans clothing.

If you can't see any of those things because a body part or prop covers it, then to me that isn't "nude".

Oh I agree.  But they can't do that because that would be too logical.

As for the latest thumbnail example, I won't report it b/c it doesn't bother me.  I saw what looks like a contradiction to what I understand the policy to be.  I'm not looking to punish people who may have slipped through the cracks  (hence the reason for me re-hosting and renaming the thumbnails).  If I see something in the gallery (especially after a week) I figure it's something that was deemed OK, and that I may be misunderstanding the restriction.

Quote -
Sure you can upload that image to the Rendo gallery...but you can't show the hands covering the nudie bits of the joke apron in the thumbnail..

See, that's what I mean by "going all Stalin..."  Unrepentant, inflexible adherence to the rules. Even had a little winky to indicate This Is How It Is.
Although, any good dictator will probably tell you the simpler the rules are, the easier they are to ruthlessly enforce without risking the natives revolting...

I bet it's a real PITA to run a website such as this, especially the Poser aspect of it, isn't it? ;-)

Honestly, though, this has become a rather fun argument as far as I'm concerned. Part of my real life job requires that I argue with people all throughout the day who are trying to put something over on me. Of course, that's always more clear-cut, less theoretical, and I always win, since I'm the boss. ;-)

So, although this is just amusement to me, I still have to say, I'd love to see a transcript of the discussion which led up to the decision of the whole pastie idea. ;-)

Quote -
If I see something in the gallery (especially after a week) I figure it's something that was deemed OK, and that I may be misunderstanding the restriction.

Yeah, well that's why we ask you to report it. It obviously bothered you enough to save it to your own server and embed it into this thread, but you're not going to tell us where to find it so we can fix it - and with 50 pages between today and last week, it's not something that any of our staff have time to do.

This does not help us with consistency, which naturally is a primary concern for many people. I'm sure you can understand our frustration.

It's so okay that my cats are pointing at the screen, and then to my credit card, hahahaha :lol:

Quote - Is this OK?

Hell yeah!

I think it's brilliant how you took the idea of Upload-Kitty-Picture and seamlessly integrated it with the subject at hand. Normally in 3D threads, the kitty pics come as an annoying non sequitor.

Pearce, sir, I am impressed.

Now I find myself wishing I had a great 3D model of a house cat with high res textures...

As they have a say here, at the faculty's secretary's door:

**'you shut up! or I'll bring democracy to your country!'  **   ;)

That's for Adm who deleted my post here at forum....

I know for certain it's not against the rules but does this really have to be on the front page with no control over whether it comes up or not?

One look at my gallery and my favorite artists will tell any of you that I've got absolutely no problems with giant in your face boobs (I even purchased the above advertised outfit!)...however, I (and I'm sure others) like to hit up the site at work to get to places like the forums, check my sitemail, or other view news posts.  The gallery is easy to avoid, and there's even controls to filter (somewhat) what pops up into view, and the forums have content warnings for threads that make them easy to circumnavigate.  But come on, let's be classy here...does there really have to be a gigantic pastied boob on the front page?  And being that it's in the advertisements, there's nothing that can be done about it popping up at inopportune times.  In fact I'm perfectly happy to see the giant boob...when I'm at home!

I've noticed that the marketplace advertisements have been allowed to get racier and racier as time has gone on since the implementation of the no-nudity policy in marketplace thumbs nearly, what, 2 years ago now?  Am I just going to have to cut Renderosity out of my daytime browsing or can we get some options here as to what type of marketplace advertisements we want to be subjected to and when?  Am I crazy to pine for something like this?

I'm not crazy about that being on the Front Page either, that is just my personal opinion though. :(  I will have another discussion with the admin team just to see about things like the Front Page and what comes up from time to time.

Thanks

I see that Giolon has raised an important question,

does this really have to be on the front page with no control over whether it comes up or not?

... and went on with a lucid discussion of the issue. 

I want to bring your attention to another issue that this image engenders ...

You see, whenever I see this sort of costume, or accessory, ... I always think ... 

     What holds it up?   OR   What keeps it in place? 

Before we get all excited about my question, I want to establish why this comes to mind ... my mind, that is. 

[1] I am a member of the SCA ... and members of the SCA are always interested in historical fashion ... garb ... especially good garb ... sometimes Renaissance Faire garb ... and that leads to discussions about bad garb ... bad Ren Faire garb ... and even Just Plain Bad garb.

[2] I also like Renaissance Faires ... often, at a Ren Faire, you will meet Elves or other shy, gentle, creatures with no historical documentation (that means that they can't be seen at SCA events).  The really good elves -- the Tolkiensque elves -- will have the characteristic pointed ears or long pointed ears as a permanent feature -- all day long, that is.  Well, the real elves are born that way ... so, there.  The other elves you might see at a Ren Faire must use Kryolan Extra Strength Medical Adhesive. 

Now that you know both [1] and [2], above you'll understand that when I see an image like the one Giolon brought to our attention, I try to imagine a barbarian princess using Medical Adhesive to ... "get dressed" each morning ... and I just can't get myself to make the concept stick in my mind. 

Well, there you are ... that's my 2 cents for the day ...

--
Martin

p.s. Similar reasoning applies to costumes (poser clothing) that conform to every curve (both positive and negative) of the model's body ... but with no apparent reason, no concession to gravity ,,, or fashion sense.