Attached Link: Blood Angel

I have just been chastised by a moderator as follows:

*"This is in regards to your recent upload "Blood Angel"

This is just a friendly reminder to please not use the nudity tag for images that are not warranted, even in jest, as this makes the tags useless for what they are intended for..which is filtering out nudity for those members not wishing to see it.

I removed the violence tag as well, since the scene isn't graphic enough for that."

*Now, I happen to think that the "nudity" and "violence" tags are a good idea for a responsible site with responsible, mature contributors.  It is for this reason that I usually err on the side of caution when setting the tags.  I have previously been warned for not using the tags when an image showed "more flesh than would normally be covered by a standard bikini".  Hence the "nudity" tag here - I certainly haven't seen any bikinis as revealing as this in the Hull area.  Equally, I happened to believe that an image of someone apparently self-harming with a six-foot sword might just be considered as "violent".  How "graphic" do they want it?  The "in jest" comment has really irked me as well - why would anyone set a tag "in jest"?  I have previously speculated that people might use one or both of these tags to drive up traffic, but I'm not one of them - I prefer to rely on my artwork to do that for me!

Angry of Hull.......

According to their policy about nudity and violence, your image doesn't fit either of them.

There are no bare nipples or areola, and the fabric isn't see through so you can't see through to the nipples and areola.  The crotch is covered. There is no bare buttocks.

Just holding a weapon isn't indicative of violence. Now if she was splattered in blood and there was a dead body in the scene or she was holding a severed head, or someone was being blown up, then yes, that would be violent. Simply standing there and posing with a sword is not violent.

The reason they want you to remove the flags is because using them when they are not warranted negates the meaning of them completely.

OK, I stand corrected on what I understood "nudity" to mean, but I'm not sure quite how me being cautious on that subject  "negates them completely"......

As for the character "simply holding a sword", she has clearly inflicted an injury on herself and drawn blood which is in fact visible in the image.  Here's a cut and paste from the TOS:

• *No depictions of injury being caused to any living creature. This includes, but is not limited to, injury from either piercing or edged weapons/tools, projectiles, fire/chemical burns, blunt force trauma, punching, kicking, slapping, strangulation or crushing. This also includes accidents and self-harm.

• Weapons may be shown providing a) they do not have blood on them, and b) the injured victim is not visible.

Quote - I'm not sure quite how me being cautious "negates them completely"......as for simply holding a sword, she has clearly inflicted an injury on herself and drawn blood.

Ok, I didn't see the bloody hand with the blood drips.  Yeah, in my mind that should have a violence flag on it.  But I think Renderosity also has a policy about not allowing images of people harming themselves...but I could be wrong.
But she is in no way nude. She is scantly clad but no "sexual" parts are showing IE: nipples, aerola, crotch, bare butt.  So it doesn't warrant a nudity flag.   

Maybe ask the moderator to have the image reviewed by the staff for violence. What that means is they will post it in the staff area and the staff will look at it and give their input on it and a decision is made that way.

It probably depends on who's reviewing it. a Coupla years ago, I did a pic of someone through a niper scope. No one was harmed (yet..;) but ot got retroactively tagged. But no one bugged me about it.

You handled it well...some folks go ballistic over things like that.

Quote - Thanks for clarifying the nudity bit; gonna make composing a meaningful thumbnail a whole lot easier in future!

Also, one other thing to keep in mind.

When there is actual violence in the image, or nudity, you have to make a "cropped" thumbnail. Meaning it has to be a part of the image that excludes the nudity and/or violence parts.

In the case of this particular image, if they do change their mind after reviewing the image, and decide that a violence flag is warranted,  you will have to make a thumbnail that excludes the injured hand and blood.

So adding a violence and / or nudity tag requires you to make your own thumbnail and not rely on Renderosity to generate a  mini of the whole image.

If she were your 17 year old daughter and you caught her going out dressed like that, you'd say she were nude LOL.

IMHO she isn't so dressed and the violence is enough to make it an iffy situation, thus wise to err on the side of caution. 

Sorted now, thanks.  Got a new thumbnail, too (see above).

Just to add a Mod point of view....

When we review an image, we look at the whole thing.  For nudity, we make sure that no nipples or genitals are showing, and that the buttocks are covered enough to what a normal bikini bottom would cover.  In your image, even though portions of breast are shown through the top, the nipple is covered.  As for the violence...blood doesn't always equate to violence.  She's not shown running through an enemy with blood spurting everywhere.  The sword itself isn't bloody, and her expression isn't one of pain. 

We look at the overall image to gauge whether or not a violation of the TOS is happening and/or whether or not tags need to be flagged. 

As for the 'in jest' comment, I do apologize for the comment in your email.  However, yes, we do get quite a few people who will flag both the nudity and violence flags to get more views.  But I'll bring that comment up with my colleagues.

I hope that clears a few things up.

Jeni

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.

Aside from all of that - great image. :)

Quote - 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.

The nudity and violence tags activate a filter.  Activating nudity tags where the image is not nude or violence where there is no violence takes purpose away from the filter.  I don't see why that's so hard to understand, to be honest with you.

As for our angle on nudity, it's really simple. No genitals, no nipples, and if the buttocks are showing, they need to be covered about the same amount as an average bikini would cover.  For all intents and purposes, if you can't wear the item in public in MOST cities in the US without getting a citation for indecent exposure, it's gonna need a nudity tag.  (No, New York City is NOT "Most US Cities".  So, no, you can't have your female character topless just because you can legally do it in new york.)

As for our angle on nudity, it's really simple.

Yes, it really is.   That was largely my point.   Enforcing the TOS should not involve interpretation of the TOS on the part of moderators.   They should mean exactly the same thing to everybody here.   Plainly, however, a handful of moderators are applying idiosyncratic interpretations of the TOS.    Members are having to be extra-cautious in the use of tags, to avoid being unjustly penalised for supposedly demonstrating untagged nudity or violence, only to find that other moderators have seen fit to become ultra-pedantic in their application of the TOS, telling the same members off for using the tags too freely.  

Self-evidently, the problem here lies with the moderators and with no-one else.  

Actually, I don't know what you mean, offhand.  Each and every violation is discussed with the team before an image is pulled, so it's not that one or two are just off deciding things.  Images are not pulled without a team consensus, and sometimes a weigh-in by admin.  So, you may say that some of my colleagues are being too strict or interpreting on their own, but, you've never seen the arguments we get into over some of the images that AREN'T pulled.  Personal opinions should NEVER come into play when it comes to the artwork here.  It's strictly "Does this violate the TOS?".  Sure, once in a while, a mod gets overzealous, especially when first coming on the team...that doesn't mean they don't get knocked down a peg by admin.  So, no, you don't have to be extra cautious over the tags.  If female nipple or areaola, any genitals, or bare buttocks are showing, the nudity tag needs to be flagged.  That's not really that broad of a line.  If any part of genitalia is showing in the image, flag it as nude.  If it's not, don't.  I don't understand what's so difficult about that.  The TOS doesn't say anything about belly buttons, knees, or armpits.  Genitals.  That's it.

Getting a bit away from the subject here.   My original query was not to do with nude images not being flagged, but with my use of the flag on borderline images. 

The argument seemed to be that using a nudity flag on an image that didn't correspond with Renderosity's definition of nudity somehow 'weakens' the flagging system.  I personally don't buy that.  If I posted a blank white screen and set the nudity flag, the only effect, apart from people activley seeking out nudity being a leetle disappointed, would be that people would avoid viewing it if they weren't comfortable with nudity, which would be my loss if I was sad enough to count hits.  I suppose the argument could be made that people in the latter group might eventually decide that all flagged images were in fact OK to view, but it's a long shot, and I prefer to err on the side of caution.

I guess there's room for all shades of opinion!

Could Renderosity post a schematic of a butt cheek in its FAQ with a line mapped to establish the officially ‘normal’ bikini cut beyond which nudity is achieved? Until the element of subjectivity is eradicated, I don’t understand the hard line that moderators draw when it comes to invalid nudity and violence tags. Granted, the purpose of these tags is to keep the images from displaying for those who don’t want to see them, but what is the actual effect of an improper tag aside from less people viewing an image, (or more likely, hordes of disappointed viewers who use the tags as a stamp for preferred viewing?)

Maybe I just answered my own question…

How do people have problems following the nudity policy here?  I don't like it 100%, I don't agree with it 100%, but I'm able to FOLLOW THE DAMN THING 100%.  I have never had a image pulled from the gallery, and most of my images contain nudity.  It's like being a guest at a casino - you may not like their rules for poker, but the house sets the rules. 

Quote - How do people have problems following the nudity policy here?  I don't like it 100%, I don't agree with it 100%, but I'm able to FOLLOW THE DAMN THING 100%.  I have never had a image pulled from the gallery, and most of my images contain nudity.  It's like being a guest at a casino - you may not like their rules for poker, but the house sets the rules. 

Some of mine contain nudity, and unlike you, I agree with the nudity policy 100%, and I too have never had a gallery image pulled. 

If you read the thread properly you'd see that I, too use the flags, and don't have a problem with them in the slightest, (quite the reverse, in fact, which what kicked this thread off in the first place)   Please don't hijack my thread by making out that I can't FOLLOW THE DAMN THING.  This is not about not flagging nude (or violent) images, but about feeling it's appropriate flagging them only to have those flags removed by a third party.  Sorry for ranting, but I don't want my name attached to some argument other than that which I posted about.

I'm not really talking about you, you're being fairly reasonable and if anything you're trying a bit too hard to follow the policy.  Some of the other folks in the thread and in frequent others, not so much.  Examples spring to mind like "well is 2/3 of one labia 'genitals'?? is that nudity??" 

Ah well......better to get shot down for trying too hard I guess.......anyway, got to go to work now   TTFN!

E*xamples spring to mind like "well is 2/3 of one labia 'genitals'?? is that nudity??"

*Did someone actually ask that once?

Of course, the whole point of this thread seems to be a question of whether people should be cautioned for applying the nudity tag to their own work too stringently.  I don't think they should, considering that nudity is subjective at Renderosity because of some mysterious butt cheek demarcation line in bikini bottoms. 

Quote - Did someone actually ask that once?

Not in exactly those words but that was the gist of it, yes.  No matter how much they clarify the rules, they are still conveyed in words, and different people will interpret those words differently. 

Quote - Could Renderosity post a schematic of a butt cheek in its FAQ with a line mapped to establish the officially ‘normal’ bikini cut beyond which nudity is achieved? Until the element of subjectivity is eradicated, I don’t understand the hard line that moderators draw when it comes to invalid nudity and violence tags. 

There has been one up all along

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

However, they have relaxed on the top part of the bikini.  Breast tissue can be shown, just not the areola or nipple.  Even a few pixels of areola or nipple are in violation.  Pasties are considered clothing. so make sure that if you use them that the pasties cover that whole area.   

So based on the above picture, if your figure was wearing a thong pantie and had their back or most of their back towards the camera, that would be considered nudity because the panty doesn't cover the butt cheeks.

A nude figure that has their arms or legs or jail cell bars hiding their nude parts is still considered nude.

That pic probably needs to be updated, since I can think of several prominent merchant banners that don't follow it.

Ok, my above post expired and I can't modify it, so I'll add what I was going to say, to this reply :)

However, they have relaxed on the top part of the bikini.  Breast tissue can be shown, just not the areola or nipple.  Even a few pixels of areola or nipple are in violation.  Pasties are considered clothing. so make sure that if you use them that the pasties cover that whole area.   

So based on the above picture, if your figure was wearing a thong pantie and had their back or most of their back towards the camera, that would be considered nudity because the panty doesn't cover the butt cheeks.

A nude figure that has their arms or legs or jail cell bars hiding their nude parts is still considered nude.

Actual models of statues are not considered nudity.  However a figure such as V3 or M3 with a statue texture is considered nudity.

Second skins are determined on a case by case basis. A real second skin texture that is meant to be pants and a top or a body stocking etc.  are usually ok because they are clothing.  Taking a nude figure into the material room and applying a material to certain body parts is generally not ok because it is painting

Also, so far as nipples go. If the nipple is erect and shows it's shape through a top, that's ok.  The shape is fine. It's when the actual naked nipple is visible that is the problem, be it from complete nudity or from see through or lace material.

Quote - That pic probably needs to be updated, since I can think of several prominent merchant banners that don't follow it.

Yes, it does need to be updated.  The front bathing suit image should show a woman with a pasty on, that is more indicative of the actual rules.

And the bikini cut pantie shown above is not really the "norm" at least here.  Based on that image, all images with a female figure in a pantie would be considered nude. But it's clearly not the case.

Apparently, there's 'nudity' splashed across the front page of Renderosity every time I log on.