Some moderators are ridiculously zealous when it comes to applying the "nudity" tag.   Their subjective interpretation of nudity, on occasion, bears no relation to any dictionary definition of the word, but the warning e-mail from Renderosity is fired off on their say-so, complete with the implicit threat of expulsion from the site in the event of repeated "violations".   Where the original "violation" is entirely in the mind of the moderator, it's pretty predictable that anyone who doesn't want a repeat e-mail is going to err on the side of caution and is going to apply the "nudity" tag, even where it is not necessary.   Now we find that those posting images can also be hounded for applying the tags too widely.   The argument is that applying "nudity" tags to pictures which contain no nudity debases the meaning of the tags.   Plainly, that is nonsense.   Anyone who is already deterred by the tag will continue to be so, albeit sometimes unnecessarily.   Unless they defy the tag's warning, how will they know that it doesn't really apply?   Those who have not been deterred by the tag before will not be deterred by the tag now and may, as someone else implied, be disappointed to find no nudity, but I fail to see that that is going to deter them from clicking on other tagged images in future.    If those who should not, or have no wish to, view restricted images are deterred, I fail to see a problem, from Renderosity's angle.   If the owner of the image is prepared to sacrifice a proportion of his/her visitors, that's his/her choice.   The real solution to the problem is in Renderosity's hands and it comes down to the question of enforcing nudity rules and violence rules consistently and genuinely in accordance with the TOS, which is not happening now.