I'm very surprised and disappointed to see the banner promoting the Halloween contest. Isnt it is against the TOS to display explicit violence without tagging it for violence? Isnt it completely forbidden in a thumbnail so that people who do not want to be confronted with it dont have to see it?
Why is it OK for rendo's admin to put an image of a head oozing blood from his eyes and mouth in a banner at the top of the forum where I cant avoid seeing it?
I cant see any merits at all in this holiday. I think it has some Christian/pagan/religious origin, I dont know for sure. But it has definitely been blown out of proportion for commercial gain. I dont know why any religion would want to promote images and acts of violence. I dont know why any parent would allow their children to go around threatening their neighbors with tricks and demanding treats. (In the Jewish traddition, in the holiday of Purim children go around in costumes bringing sweets&cookies to their neighbors). But it is of course up to the people to chose what and how they celebrate. However, on Rendo, you're supposed to respect other people's beliefs and feelings and avoid posting violent images. Renso administration should not be exempt from respecting the diversity of their members.
I'm pretty sure it wasnt put there by the forum moderator/coordinator, but it is part of your job to ensure the TOS is enforced in this forum no matter who post it. So please query the powers that be.

It is also up to you the  vue community  to protest against violations of the TOS by Rendo itself. Post your opinion here or e-mail admin if you're too shy to express yourself in public on this issue.

"Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere' Gilbert K. Chesterton

I absolutely agree with you. In fact, just 1 or 2 hours ago, I sent a mail to the site admins about this.

I had also previously sent a mail to the site admins about one newsletter that came out on October 3rd, which also had a really horrible skull with worms all over, or whatever it was. Again, no warning, nothing, just bang! on my face. Disgusting.
I also receive newsletters from other similar sites (contentparadise, 3dcommune, runtimedna, etc) and Renderosity was clearly the most offensive.

Like I wrote in my mail to the admins, this site has a multi-cultural audience and Halloween is a mono-cultural tradition. I find it completely wrong to force it in such a gross way to everyone.

Halloween has origins in the ancient Celtic festival known as Samhain [pronounced: sow- wen] (Irish pronunciation: [ˈsˠaunʲ]; from the Old Irish samhain, possibly derived from Gaulish samonios). The festival of Samhain is a celebration of the end of the harvest season in Gaelic culture, and is sometimes regarded as the "Celtic New Year". Traditionally, the festival was a time used by the ancient Celtic pagans to take stock of supplies and slaughter livestock for winter stores. The ancient Celts believed that on October 31, now known as Halloween, the boundary between the living and the deceased dissolved, and the dead become dangerous for the living by causing problems such as sickness or damaged crops. The festivals would frequently involve bonfires, into which the bones of slaughtered livestock were thrown. Costumes and masks being worn at Halloween goes back to the Celtic traditions of attempting to copy the evil spirits or placate them, in Scotland for instance where the dead were impersonated by young men with masked, veiled or blackened faces, dressed in white.

-from wikipedia

Although the banner in question doesnt really bother me I see your point and agree.

I really don't give a damn about violence ( or nudity) personally. Is the banner violent? I wouldn't say so. Scary, but violent?
And what about Christmas images, are they offending non christians? Halloween doesn't mean anything to me, and didn't mean anything here in France until it meant lots of money for supermarkets and sweets manufacturers. As you said Pnina, 100% mercantile. And your Jewish tradition is a lot nicer!
That said, if this banner does violate the TOS admins never cease to pressure on us, then it should be removed.
But I really don't mind it.

Can't say as it looks violent to me particularly but then I may be considered to have peculiar taste anyway.
Looks a bit like a clown to me actually, now there's a creepy bunch! but yes, a TOS is a TOS - if any of you have firefox with the adblock plugin, right click the image and block it

IMHO, that is a clown with a bad makeup job. I prefer to reserve terms like 'violence'  for acts that actually inflict harm on others.

And considering what a fixture Don Tatro's Creepy Clown(tm) was here before his death, that is the essence of tame (CC vs The Dancing Baby. Ring any gross bells, out there...?).

I thought it was a clown as well - a vampire clown (it's got fangs) and lots of bright red make up.

Not violent at all IMO. I've seen lots worse.

My boundaries of "violence" and "sex" are pretty wide being a Celtic nutjob ;)

Kid shouldn't be on this bloody site without supervision, anyway. And any parent who does let 'em on the Net unsupervised below oh, age 12 or so?, needs a kick up their stupid backside, not the kid's! :p
So, it shouldn't be an issue to adults. Hell if we had to get in an uproar over every person and culture's mores, we couldn't show ANY image, ever!
That's not being offensive, it's simple plain fact.

I find the increasing purient prudity of a large section of American culture  (and thus Rendo who has to abide by such) a damn sad thing to see, while real horrors increase. 
Hey, can' t show a nipple on TV, but you can have some folk turned into mush by a 30mm cannon!
That kind of attiude is completely barking mad and hypocritically dangerous beyond belief.

I don't object to violence when it HAS to be done, but nude flesh is quite normal, wearing clothes is abnormal, actually.
Only we Humans could be so crazy, hehe

I consider myself a Christian but mostly in the Gnostic tradition and with big dislike of zealotry and ignoring the laws and facts of our reality...but going around with crucifixes...hey, would  folk wear electric chairs, bullets or gas chamber icons if Jesus been murdered today?
It is pretty damn grotesque after all, as it was a method of execution by torture and even in it's day was cosnidered incredibly brutal.
Yet, places display crucifixes and crosses without thinking of it, and how many cultures considered it abhorrant.

I've seen a lot of violence in RL and I don't like it at all. It should be limited to the dojo, or art, or games.
the banner above is macarbe, that is all. That's ok. Kind of reminds me of Stephen King's "IT" a bit, hehe.
Biiiig difference between that and seeing real blood flow and worse.

Oh and the old Scottish tradition of Halloween has died out and I'm annoyed about that :( you'd go around to relatives/friends' houses, and "dunk" for apples (they'd be put in a basin of water and you'd try to catch them with your moth with yoru hands held behind your back) etc etc, which was much more fun than just going around getting sweets, sigh.

Damn, I'm turning into an Old Fart!!! (tm) :P

anyway, I disagree with you ArtPearl, sorry :)

I must confess I'm puzzled by the statements of spedler and Dale B.

What's the visual difference between make-up and blood? If your criteria would be applied to Hollywood movies, then no movies would be rated violent because all movies use make-up!... Or do you believe the actors really bleed? ;-) You know it's make-up but that does that decrease the violence of the scene? Obviously it doesn't because movies are still rated violent by whoever rates them.

Another thing I'm puzzled is that you say it's a clown as if that decreases the violence of the character. Many famous violent movies use clowns. Surely I don't need to remind you of the Joker...
If you have doubts, take a look here:
http://movieodyssey.com/715/movies/9-movies-featuring-the-creepiest-clowns/

Silverblade, you're mixing two completely different things. This discussion is not about nudity. I also consider Renderosity too prude in what concerns nudity but I respect the rules of the site and I respect the fact that other people don't like nudity.

Violence is a completely different thing. Violence is bad, by whatever angle you look at it. There is no "good violence" but there can be "good nudity".

Anyway, fact of the matter is that that image violates the TOS. You can call it macabre instead of violent, that's just playing with words. Apparently for you violence begins with blood flow. Well, I do see blood in that character. Is it make-up? No, it's pixels. Whatever it is, it represents blood.

Um, it's jsut make up...it ain't real :)

Quote - I must confess I'm puzzled by the statements of spedler and Dale B.

What's the visual difference between make-up and blood? If your criteria would be applied to Hollywood movies, then no movies would be rated violent because all movies use make-up!...

Sorry but I just don't understand. The difference is fundamental. If that was a photograph of a real person with blood coming from their eyes, then I'm with you all the way. But it's just an image of something that doesn't exist in real life. For me, a movie is rated violent when it appears to depict what we know is faked violence as reality, but the image in question can't possibly exist in real life. And it's not violent anyway, there's no depicted violence there at all.

Quote - Another thing I'm puzzled is that you say it's a clown as if that decreases the violence of the character. Many famous violent movies use clowns. Surely I don't need to remind you of the Joker...

The fact of it being a clown simply serves to make it even less 'real', unless you believe that vampire clowns with bleeding eyes are reality. Not less or more violent, because it isn't a violent image anyway, IMO.

So, spedler, according to your criteria, a Hollywood movie with a vampire clown killing thousands would not be classified as violent, would it?

Silverblade, movies aren't real either, but someone classifies them as violent. Am I wrong?

Quote - So, spedler, according to your criteria, a Hollywood movie with a vampire clown killing thousands would not be classified as violent, would it?

Now you're moving the criteria. We're discussing this image, not a hypothetical movie. This image is not violent IMO, nor is it offensive in any way to me personally - though I accept that others  clearly find it so.

But I won't duck your question. Would such a movie as you've suggested be violent? It depends on the context. Lingering closeups of such a creature tearing the throat from a person, now that would indeed be violent (possibly excessively so). But in a completely different context, a movie with murdeous vampire clowns could be a comedy! (Shaun of the Dead might be considered violent but is extremely funny. So is Scary Movie.)

spedler, I'm not moving the criteria, I'm simply trying to understand what is your criteria of "violence".

For me, violence exists independently of whether the scene is real, unreal or surreal. Vampire clowns, aliens, superheroes, none of that exists, as far as we know but if any of these characters are involved in blood scenes or murders, for me that is classified as violence. And, I believe, for most of the people as well. Whoever rates the movies agrees with me, for example, and I like to think that they represent the majority of the people.

For me, it's also irrelevant if blood is represented by make-up, pixels or whatever method. It represents blood and that is sufficient for me. And it's also sufficient for whoever rates the movies because all movies use either make-up or pixels to represent blood but they are still classified as violent.

We all come from completely different backgrounds. I've lived a very peaceful life, fortunetaly. I'm 44 and I was never involved in any violent scene. I never fought with anyone, I never even saw anyone fighting near me. I never saw a real gun. Maybe because my life has been so peaceful, I detest violence. For me, an image of someone bleeding from his eyes and mouth is a violent image, regardlessly of anything else. And, quite frankly, I find it very hard to understand that some people find it a natural thing. This is probably a (bad) sign of our times.

It isnt important that all viewers of the banner see it as violence, it is enough that some see it as such.
Rendo rightly decided that it's members should have a choice not to see images they find offensive, be that in terms of nudity or violence.  In fact, I am not easily offended by either, but it is claimed that I(and all others) have a choice whether I want to watch these images or not. I have  been given no choice here, and that is what I object to. If some of you dont find this image objectionable makes no difference. It is offensive to some, and they shoulnt be made to watch it. The fact that it is 'only' an image, not reality makes no difference either. Maybe some think it is just a cheerful red painted clown. I think it is a person covered in blood. Except for the photographs, all images on the site are not real, but rendo's rules still apply.
I dont even object to violence in images in all cases -  sometimes it may serve a worthwhile purpose. To reveal war attrocities. To denounce gang related violence. To condem violent behaviour in families. If it leads to wider awarness of these problems, if it leads to  punishment  or deterant of  perpetrators, it is worth shocking the viewers. If it is done to increase the financial gains of a commercial entity it is absolutely appalling.
So if anyone wants to see the gory images in the competition - it's your right to do so. (Although I think the prevalance of such images serves to desensitize us, and then when it is a real image or event we arnt as socked as we should be).
The main thing is respect those who do not want to see it and dont post it in unavoidable locations.

Well, we're clearly not going to agree on this so I'll make this my last post on the subject. I find it very hard to consider something - movie, image, book, whatever - as violent when I know that it cannot be real, or when it is clearly 'comic book action' material of the kind you see in most movies. Movies with monsters, aliens, ridiculously pretentious serial killers - these don't disturb me because they're not real. For me (and I should say that my life has been as peaceful as yours from the sound of it) disturbing violence occurs when there is a clear attempt either to reproduce accurately scenes that have happened in real life, or when the movie maker/artist or whoever attempts to make the scene as realistic as possible.

For example, to my way of thinking Schindler's List was violent. The first 15 minutes of Saving Private Ryan - that is disturbingly violent IMO, redeemed by the fact that real men went through that appalling episode and I feel that we should, perhaps, have some idea what it was like.

But I just can't get upset about images etc. that are patently unreal, and given the popularity of such movies (and that hasn't changed since the days of the original Universal horror movies in the 1930s) I'm far from the only one. But we are all different and images will affect us all in different ways.

spedler, I guess we have to agree to disagree. :-)

I understand that for you realism is an essential factor for classifying something as violent. For me, it's not, it's only part of the equation but surely not the deciding factor.

See here what the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America, who rates the movies in USA and who has an international counterpart, MPA) says about something similar, in their site:

Q: Is cartoon violence assessed differently than realistic violence?
A: In reviewing a movie, the Rating Board will seek to assign the rating that most American parents would assign that same movie, keeping in mind various factors, including the level of violence. The realism of the violence may be one of the considerations. However, simply because a motion picture is animated does not mean that it is appropriate for children of any age. In fact, animated motion pictures have been assigned ratings from G to NC-17.

The movie's Spedler mentioned, Shieldler's list and Private Ryan are a good example  for my points - yes, they include violence, but they are rated R, if people dont want to see that, they dont have to. These movies have a message they present reality. If at all possible, people should go and see it. Perhaps humanity will learn from its past horrific mistakes.  A bloody clown/vampire/person to promote sales - no, that isnt worth the shock.
Shawn of the dead - I know some find it funny, I find it repulsive. I'd defend the right of the makers to make it, and your right to watch it, but only if I can make a decision not to watch it.
The image in the banner may be entertainment for some, it's offensive to others. We all should be able to make a choice whether to watch it or not.

Quote - I cant see any merits at all in this holiday. I think it has some Christian/pagan/religious origin, I dont know for sure.

It's more of a party day than a holiday.  But in California, it's a month-long event strictly to sell costumes (which users seem ok buying for their Poser and D|S figures) and candy and other party stuff.  It is not all that safe anymore to go trick or treating in neighborhoods.  That's why parties are the thing to do now.

Giant puppets in Germany are kind of creepy though to Americans.  It's not something seen ever.

Pnina is right if the banner does indeed violate the TOS which I honestly don't know nor care about. Violence in 3D can be seen as real violence, pixels or movies, I agree to this. But to be honest I also see this as a clown, and I know the Joker is not real. We are adults, or we should be.
I also think that this worldwide community is made out of artists who are from all over the world, have different beliefs, be it religious or way of life, and this should be accepted right from the start ( when you join Rendo), I think we are artists, and as such, we can tolerate a lot more things that average Joe ( which I don't mean as an insult, btw) Broad minds everyone!

Quote - Broad minds everyone!

Yes.  The show's over.  Everyone back to their nude V4 rendering now.  There's nothing more to see here.

Hi guys, sorry I'm late to the party but my pc was playing up last night so I didn't see this thread until this morning.
I will take your complaint to the PTB and see where we go.
In the mean time, discuss away but keep it civil and on topic please.

Pardon me if I wander off into a debating, folks, it's a great topic, IMHO :)

Well, I've seen folk putting "violence" warnings on weapons, military aircraft that are doing nothing at all...that is silly! ;)

An inanimate item, no matter how horrific it is, cannot be "violent" until it's doing something, classic example is a cross is neutral geometric shape, but showing someone nailed and bleeding on it, well...but that is considered a "norm" in many places.
But they can also be incredible pieces of art. Salvadore Dali's St John of the Cross is one of the most outstanding images I have ever seen, for example.
Then you have say, the pinyata a "helpless animal" being beaten apart...so you also have intent as an issue.

A gun can inflict horrendous injury, but, by itself, it is completley harmless, it cannot jump up and use itself, the oft said phrase "Guns don't kill,poeple kill" is 100% true, liek it or not. 
I'm not scared of guns, knives, sharp pointy sticks or any other inanimate object that is not inherently dangerous.
I'm scared of vicious, cowardly, scared, stupid, evil, mentally disturbed people with weapons.

It's not 'til a Human Being picks one up that it becomes dangerous. Doesn't matter if it's machine gun or a nail file, it's the person holding it who makes it dangerous.
Most lethal thing in creation everyone of us has...taps his skull ;)

I understand where ArtPearl is coming from, and it's not cool if she's upset by the image being too gory for her tastes. 
But it's 100% a make believe image, as a kid I used ot love using the "horror make up kits" to make meself look even worse than that, lol.
Hwoever, it's when folk cross the line, when they show real violence being done that you should get concerned.

I hear garbage that games etc cause violence, oh what a load of hairy male spheres! :P So, did Hitler play DOOM ? Ghenghis Khan play Command & Conquer?
Kids should NOT see realistic violence, it can affect them, but rela life violence in fornt of you is vaslty worse than images, but Tom & Jerry isn't real, anyone who thinks it is has a screw loose.
If you let kids too young play games, or play games too much, then you may have issues one psychological, other I suspect just too much sensory overload.

One of the most offensive images in the entire world is a very simple decal: the nazi swastika, because of what it represents, it has more blood and horror stained in than every film or image ever made combined.
Yet, the proper, unreversed swastika is a symbol of light and good.
 

I'd much rather there was the ability to self censor, than for there to be broad censorship which is IMHO, dangerous for a whole load of reasons.
ie ArtPearl has every right to not want to see that image, if so, ArtPearl should be able to turn it off somehow. That is the best solution? :)

Quote - "Violence in 3D can be seen as real violence, pixels or movies, I agree to this. But to be honest I also see this as a clown, and I know the Joker is not real. We are adults, or we should be."

Bruno, I  can also distinguish real from not real and, thanks for your hint, but I'm an adult. But, like I expressed above and showed with quote from MPAA (please read it), real or not real is not the only criteria to decide that something is violent or not.

Quote - "I also think that this worldwide community is made out of artists who are from all over the world, have different beliefs, be it religious or way of life, and this should be accepted right from the start ( when you join Rendo), I think we are artists, and as such, we can tolerate a lot more things that average Joe ( which I don't mean as an insult, btw) Broad minds everyone!"

Broad mind in order to easily accept gore and violence?? No, thank you. That is precisely a problem with most people in the society nowadays: they accept gore and violence too easily. We see it in the daily news, we see it in marketing banners and so we think it's normal and a sign of open mindedness to accept. It isn't! Violence is bad, whatever angle you look at it, I hope you agree to that.

We definitely should not have a broad mind to violence. We should have a very narrow mind to it and erradicate it.

Hi, All,

As Contest Manager at Renderosity, I do take very serious any and all complaints regarding our contests.  
The banner for this year's Halloween Contest does not contain any violence in it, as set forth in our Terms of Service, as clarified on the Thumbnail Guidelines Page:

"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.
Images of minor bruising, burns or bloody wounds that have already occurred are acceptable"

The banner above, and in every Renderosity Community, contains the same image, an image of a "Scary Clown".  The banner image is taken from last years' contest winner, by Penandink.  All entries, themselves, must adhere to the Terms of Service as a whole.  

I can understand not thinking that a holiday has merit, however, Renderosity has a history of holding this Community Contest on a yearly basis, and a great majority of our members look forward to it, if only to see the entries.  You'd be very surprised at how some folk interpret "Don't Go In There".  I know I have, on a few occasions, and very pleasantly surprised, I might add.  We also have a yearly Holiday contest in December for members who prefer Christmas/Hannukah/Kwanzaa/Winter Solstice style contests.  We also have various merchant-borne contests, held throughout the year, with prizes for MarketPlace items.  

Again, I'm sorry that you feel the banner contains violence, but, red makeup and teeth do not make it a violent image.  

Sincerely,

Jeni Burns
Renderosity Contest Manager

JenX, in an image how do you tell the difference between make-up and blood?

The TOS writes "Images of minor bruising, burns or bloody wounds that have already occurred are acceptable", which means that, on the contrary, major bruising, burns or bloody wounds are not acceptable. Where do you draw the line between minor and major? A guy bleeding from his eyes and mouth is minor or major?

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/contest/index.php?browse&archives&folder_id=44

Just like in any image, Rutra.  You can tell by whether or not it looks like it's flowing or caked, whether or not the consistency between the red and the white is different, and, finally, the color.  Yes, it is red, but not blood red.  And, if it were dried blood, it wouldn't be a violation.  The makeup design is meant to mimic blood, yes, but is not blood.  I, personally, have seen this design on Real-Life clowns and, while not my taste (clowns, actually, are not to my taste), the makeup is usually better imagined for "creepy clowns" than for the birthday-party variety (In my experience).

Rutra, I can understand that there is a personal preference, you don't like it.  I understand it, I really do, but the banner doesn't violate any tenet of the Terms of Service.  If you have further concerns, please take them to contests@renderosity.com or admin@renderosity.com where you will probably get the exact same answer.

 Rutra, I am about to lose my internet connection for the day, as I am behind a hotel firewall.  Please contact admin for further concerns.

Jeni

Quote - "You can tell by whether or not it looks like it's flowing or caked, whether or not the consistency between the red and the white is different, and, finally, the color.  Yes, it is red, but not blood red."

JenX, come on... So, we have to make an analysis to each image to see if it impacts emotionally on us or not?! You surely agree that immediate emotional impacts are not decreased by a later rational analysis. The TOS is there to protect viewers who do not wish to see violence because they're emotionally (negatively) impacted by it.
So, make-up or not is completely irrelevant for the matter at hand. It mimics blood and that is sufficient to create a negative emotional impact.

Quote - "If you have further concerns, please take them to contests@renderosity.com or admin@renderosity.com where you will probably get the exact same answer."

I already have, yesterday.

JenX, please don't forget my later post, about the 2008 contest.

Sorry for getting here way too late.
I have to agree with JenX. The image would have been pulled way before now if it was a problem.

As for images tagged as violent without obviously being so, we - the staff - deal with those on a daily basis. If anyone sees an incorrectly tagged image, you should report it so that we can deal.

Quote - "The image would have been pulled way before now if it was a problem. "

That's a circular argument. :-)
"If it's there, it's because it's ok to be there." I'm afraid this is not a valid argument. :-)

Excuse me?
I note that you have contacted Admin. I suggest you await their reply.

Quote - "Excuse me?"

You wrote "The image would have been pulled way before now if it was a problem."
What I mean is that this is a circular argument. Just because the image was not removed yet, it doesn't mean it's ok to be there. The existence of something is not a justification for its existence, and that is the essence of a circular argument.

Quote - "I note that you have contacted Admin. I suggest you await their reply."

I am waiting for it but that is independent from discussing it in this thread.

Well in my opinion the thread was a non-starter because the image in not violent.

Quote - "Well in my opinion the thread was a non-starter because the image in not violent."

You are entitled to your opinion. :-) And so are we. :-)

Rutra, since Renderosity is a forum with members from very different countries and cultures, it would be very surprising if all members would agree about what's violent, or what's considered to be nudity.

I can assure you that the staff tries to be fair and predictable in it's judgement. Images which are borderline are reviewed by several staff members per default. While it's probably not possible to be totally fair we try to be consistent in our decisions. I do understand that you feel different about this. Now, the staff has to follow the rules of the TOS and refer to previous cases when reviewing a borderline image.

The images mentioned here in the thread aren't violent, at least not in the way Renderosity defines it. Of course, you may disagree. You may suggest different rules to the admins. But please accept that we have to go by the current interpretation of the rules for now.

Rutra: Of course you are.

What seems to be developing here is another TOS bashing session. It has always amazed me that so many consider the TOS a bad thing, prudish, nitpicking, etc etc etc, when in fact without the TOS there wouldn't be a Renderosity.

90% of so called censorship that people complain about is due to the fact that we have rules that only deal with Thumbnails: the rules for which are simple and straight-forward. They cover subjects such as violence and nudity. BUT they do not for the most part deal with the images thumbnails link to.

Renderosity exists because it is supported by advertising. Those advertisers do not want to be associated with subject matter that would be better displayed at sites like Renderotica. For this reason we have the TOS and abiding by this is a small price to pay for something you guys all get for free.

What is also often misunderstood is that Renderosity exists only in Tennesee and it is the laws of that state which apply.

However, Renderosity tries very hard to take into account the feelings, views and mores of folks from all over the planet.  But you can't please all the people all the time. The question of the validity of a 'festival' called Halloween is irrelevent because it it mainly an American thing, though gaining in popularity here in the UK. We should expect that an American company would wish to endorse this if only for commercial reasons.

If you don't like halloween, Christmas, Easter or whatever, nobody is forcing you to take part or buy anything related to those festivals. By the same token,  we don't expect you to take offense simply because people with beliefs other than yours do wish to take part.

As for the banner in question displaying violence the answer is simple: it doesn't. And as far as I can see the link doesn't lead to violent images and trust me, as a Moderator some of the stuff I've seen folks here produce makes me feel sick to the stomach. We have rigorous proceedures in place to deal with all complaints, be they nudity or violence or whatever, but again, most of what we do deals with thumbnail images that are dealt with by a number of Mods and Co-ords (and Admin for that matter) rather than just one 'blinkered censorship zealot '. On top of that, we actually 'patrol' this site looking for images that might be a problem.

JenX has already explained how the halloween image got there. End of story.

The question of the validity of a 'festival' called Halloween is irrelevent because it it mainly an American thing, though gaining in popularity here in the UK

its a celtic festival!

This person has suffered quite a lot and his wounds are still very much fresh. This is a horrible image and I find it absolutely disgusting and very, very violent. I sincerely don't understand how can anyone find this "normal" or "just make-up". If someone does, then the world is far worse than I thought.

The TOS states: "Images of minor bruising, burns or bloody wounds that have already occurred are acceptable".
By no criteria can this image be considered as minor bruising.

The image that started this thread, at the top of this forum, has a man bleeding from his eyes and mouth. If it's make-up or not, it's irrelevant, it's the emotional impact that counts. A careful rational analysis doesn't decrease the negative emotional impact, it's too late for that.

Bryster, I absolutely fail to see how this thread is bashing the TOS. Quite the contrary, we are here defending the TOS and even saying that the site admins to do not apply it in a sufficiently strict way!

How you interpreted this in the completely opposite way, is beyond me. And quite frankly, I'm feeling even personally offended by your interpretation.

Rutra, the image was in the contest before I entered the staff, so I cannot comment about it. It does not look like fresh wounds to me, more like paint, but of course you may disagree. But please take in mind that the violence rules are made for living creatures, a dead body, even when bloody, isn't violence.

About the other image - where would you draw the line? Remove things for everything what could be blood? The person on the image does not look wounded to me. But that's not really the point.

I really understand your point of view. But the banners are usually part of the previous year's winner images, and so they obviously were not only found acceptable but were good enough to please many of the viewers. I would have problems to remove them, if they even got a vote majority.

If you want different rules for violence, fine. Make a suggestion in the Community forum, maybe even with a good wording proposal for the TOS. Find some people who support your point of view. If we have stricter rules, the staff will follow them. 

A lot to catch up here...

1. Starting and continuing this thread - Bryster, I'm very surprised at your attitude. You sound very judgmental and too quick to pronounce that the thread shouldnt have been started or that it shouldnt be continued. It is not for you to say. Being a moderator puts you in a position to stop a discussion if people disregard the TOS. Did I? did anyone else? I dont think so. The opinions posted were opposing but all fairly civilised. In this case I was supporting the implementation of the TOS not bushing it. We can continue it as long as we like, till we feel satisfied with the results or till we give up hope achieving anything. So please dont call my original post a 'non -starter', dont tell others to refrain from posting till admin says something, dont call me a 'TOS basher'. You're out of line.
2. Can violent images be posted in the galleries and in competitions?
   I think so. There are very many things in the galleries & marketplace & competitions I dont like, artisticlly or morally. None of my business though. I dont have the right to judge other people's work.  But I dont want such images shoved in my face. I approve of the rules in the TOS preventing members from posting such images without warning or in locations where I cant avoid them. This enables me to avoid what I find objectionable.
3. Is violence in images ever justified ?
   I think so. If it serves a moral purpose. Exposing its existance and condeming it. (But even on newsreport ,on decent channels, there is a warning before presenting violent scenes. ) The only  reason I expressed my opinion about Halloween in general is that the  only noticeable aspect of it is the  commercial aspect. This is not a good justification for an open display of violence.
4. Is the image that started this thread violent and is posting it on top a the forum a violation of the TOS?
   This can not be decided by a democratic procedure - it isnt a matter of what 'most' people think. The rules are there to protect minorities. The fact that a lot of people didnt see it as violent is'nt the main consideration. The first thing I felt when I saw it was shock and disgust. Considering the size of the image, all I could discern was blood oozing out of his eyes and mouth. This is violence. Artur presented compelling arguments both about what he felt, and about what is considered violence by the movie industry. As he said - even if it is just makeup it doesnt matter, it represents and is percieved as violence.
   I beleive Jenx and Bantha that they try to implement the rules consistently and fairly. The reason I posted is to draw attention to the fact that the good intentions failed here. Some people find the banner offensive and cant avoid seeing it whenever getting to the forum. I'm absolutely sure there are more people who object to it but didnt post. By the nature of the problem the people who find it offensive are more sensitive than average. Most of these will just try to avoid taking part (and being branded as 'not adult' at best.) I have pointed out a problem for some. Couldnt admin be considerate and avoid using this image? Couldnt you chose something more neutral for general locations? A pumpkin? a scarecrow? a ghost? a clown that isnt bleeding?
   On your main page, at the bottom left you have another clown image promoting the contest - he's still ugly and disgusting but his makup cannot be confused with blood, perhaps as a compromise and a show of good will  you could use that  on top of the forum? (and anywhere else that I cant avoid , like newsletters).

I understand that you do your best to apply the rules fairly, but once you have evidence that members are offended nevertheless, perhaps you can find a way to accomodate their feeling and use another image?
Thanks for listening and reconsidering.

My take on this is that watching people complain about an image breaking the TOS is marginally more entertaining than watching people being indignant that one doesn't.

One previous example -> http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2660683

Maybe the admins could do an infographic like the one for thumbnail nudity (-> http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2761249) to illustrate what's allowed and what isn't.

If the banner goes, I lot of visitors will have to change their similar looking avatars, too pobably.

*The question of the validity of a 'festival' called Halloween is irrelevent because it it mainly an American thing, though gaining in popularity here in the UK

its a celtic festival!

*Perhaps, but I'm talking about the way it is celebrated in popular culture, not in the religeous sense.

 
*Bryster, I absolutely fail to see how this thread is bashing the TOS. Quite the contrary, we are here **defending** the TOS and even saying that the site admins to do not apply it in a sufficiently strict way!  
 
How you interpreted this in the completely opposite way, is beyond me. And quite frankly, I'm feeling even personally offended by your interpretation.  
*  
Rutra: No offense intended.   What I said was that IT SEEMED to be developing into a TOS bashing session. I've seen many threads start with the greatest of goodwill and descend into flame wars. I've no wish to see that happen here. Indeed, I actually applaude the way this thread has been conducted to so far.  
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  
ArtPearl:   
*1. Starting and continuing this thread - Bryster, I'm very surprised at your attitude. You sound very judgmental and too quick to pronounce that the thread shouldnt have been started or that it shouldnt be continued. **It is not for you to say**.  
 
*Actually it is, although I would consult with other members of the staff first.  
It seems to me that you were judgmental by accusing Rendo of disregarding the TOS. You further incited Vue-ers to protest  either in public or via site/e-mail to Admin at what you appear to view as double standards; one rule for members and another for Rendo because you felt that the advert banner was 'in your face'.  
*  
So please dont call my original post a 'non -starter', dont tell others to refrain from posting till admin says something, dont call me a 'TOS basher'. You're out of line.  
 
*I did not call you a 'TOS basher', and if I thought that this thread was getting out of hand I would stop it.  This thread was unnecessary as complaints about adverts are properly dealt with by Admin.  
 
However, I do feel that whatever the subject matter, this thread is being conducted in a very civilised way.

Bantha, a lot to talk about here... :-)

Quote - "Rutra, the image was in the contest before I entered the staff, so I cannot comment about it. It does not look like fresh wounds to me, more like paint, but of course you may disagree."

Paint or blood? Make-up or blood? FX or blood? What does that matter?

All the hollywood movies use paint or make-up or FX to mimic blood but does that make the movies any less violent? Of course not. Everyone knows it's paint/makeup/FX but still the movies impress people, don't they?

This paint/makeup/FX versus blood is a false issue. When MPAA classifies a movie as violent, do you think they would change their evaluation if the movie producers would tell them "look, this is only FX and makeup, it's not real blood"? Bantha, tell me quite frankly, do you think it would matter?

When you first look at an image you do not know what it is, you just perceive blood. This is what matters: the perception of the viewers. When I look at any of the two images being discussed here, the perception is of blood and, consequentely violence.

But let's talk about the TOS. The sentence says: "Images of minor bruising, burns or bloody wounds that have already occurred are acceptable"

Now, imagine the following. Imagine I would create an image in Poser with a guy with wounds, blood, skinned alive (similar to the image I showed before). Now I would post it in the Poser gallery and use something similar to the image I showed before as thumbnail. In addition, I would not even rate the image as violent.
If a moderator would come to me and say "look, you're violating the TOS", I would reply "but this is not real blood, this is just a texture I made in Poser. According to Bantha and Bryster and JenX, it's ok to do this."

Bantha, tell me quite frankly, do you think the moderator would still allow me to post it like that? Shall we make a live experience and see what happens? :-)

Quote - "But please take in mind that the violence rules are made for living creatures, a dead body, even when bloody, isn't violence."

What?! Now I'm really surprised. A dead bloody body isn't violence?!... That doesn't make any sense at all. If I make a scene where I show a body completely ripped apart, blood and guts all over, if the guy is still alive it's a violent image but if the guy is already dead is not a violent image???

Bantha, do you honestly think this makes any sense??

Quote - "I really understand your point of view. But the banners are usually part of the previous year's winner images, and so they obviously were not only found acceptable but were good enough to please many of the viewers. I would have problems to remove them, if they even got a vote majority."

Of course you can show them... behind a "violent" sign and behind a thumbnail that respects the TOS. That way I'm warned and will not go there. Whoever likes that stuff will go.
See point 2 of Artpearl's post, just above. It applies perfectly to this. Renderosity can have violent images in their galleries as long as the TOS is respected.

Quote - "If you want different rules for violence, fine. Make a suggestion in the Community forum, maybe even with a good wording proposal for the TOS. Find some people who support your point of view. If we have stricter rules, the staff will follow them. "

No, I don't want different rules, I would just like the current rules would be strictly respected.

Rutra, you are quite right. The problem is that violence is taken to mean something that is occuring, not something that has already happened.  Stick a sword in a guy and that's violence. Show the guy in the middle of a sword-fight and that isn't violence. A pic showing a bullet heading for a guy's skull is not violence, the skull exploding because a bullet just hit it is.

Yeah I've often gone for the "there must be injury being CAUSED or grotesque injury afterwards in view" for it to be violence.
But some folk tell you they think it's violent...You can't win :p

An amuptee...that cannot violence, it happened long ago. The surgery itself though is another matter!
then, the physiotherapy the person goes through, no violence, but possibly incredible suffering..but for a good cause in the end.

Bryster:
"Actually it is, although I would consult with other members of the staff first.
It seems to me that you were judgmental by accusing Rendo of disregarding the TOS. You further incited Vue-ers to protest  either in public or via site/e-mail to Admin at what you appear to view as double standards; one rule for members and another for Rendo because you felt that the advert banner was 'in your face'.
I did not call you a 'TOS basher', and if I thought that this thread was getting out of hand I would stop it.  This thread was unnecessary as complaints about adverts are properly dealt with by Admin. "

When you post you need to distinguish between expressing your personal opinions and executing your job as a moderator.  I as a member as the community can express my opinions as I see fit.
(as long as I'm expressing it in a civilized manner, as you agree I did). It is absolutely fine for me to say I'm offended by this image. That is a fact. It is absolutely OK to call other members to express their opinion. We ALL can say what we feel about the subject.
It would have been OK for  you to express your personal opinion if you think it is or isnt offensive.
But if you dont specify that it is your personal opinion it's taken as a moderator's words. You have no reason or rights to cast negative judgments on what I say. It isnt right to call it non-starter because of what you think would happen. Moderators cannot   'tell us off' for something that might happen, just for what already did happen, if it is against specific rules. It isnt right to label my call for response 'incitement', it is a call for personal opinions.  It isnt right to imply that I cant post any comments pointing out admin may have done something wrong. In fact it is quite ridiculous. Admin isnt infallible, I can point out what I think they do wrong in private or in public. If I thought what is wrong affects only me I would use e-mail. But this is a general issue so I did it in a thread. If you think I have done/said something disallowed by rendo rules please point out the rule. If not - use your status as moderator very carefully and dont attribute to me negative intentions, and dont use negative adjectives/adverbs to describe me and my actions.

With regard to attributing the term 'violence'  depending on time - if the act hasnt happened yet, perhaps it cant be considered violence. But if it is in the process of being commited (the person is bleeding but still alive) or if the act of violence has been finished (the person is covered in blood and dead) makes no difference. I cant understand how someone whould think killing someone is less violent than wounding someone. *
**

Quote -
Quote - "Rutra, the image was in the contest before I entered the staff, so I cannot comment about it. It does not look like fresh wounds to me, more like paint, but of course you may disagree."

Paint or blood? Make-up or blood? FX or blood? What does that matter?

It doesn't matter if it's clearly lifelike. It does matter if it's looking like make-up instead of the real think. We would not call a photo of a kid violent just because the kid painted on a "wound" with felt pen or wax crayons. 

Quote -
This paint/makeup/FX versus blood is a false issue. When MPAA classifies a movie as violent, do you think they would change their evaluation if the movie producers would tell them "look, this is only FX and makeup, it's not real blood"? Bantha, tell me quite frankly, do you think it would matter?

I think it would still depend on the whole scene. The clown in this years Contest banner may look frightening, but he does not look wounded to me. There is more than the red below the eyes to it, his facial expression does not give me the expression that he is wounded, just that he wants to scare other people. The makeup is fitting for that, and this is not a TOS violation. I have no idea how the MPAA judges movies, but the FSK  here in Germany judges the whole thing.

Quote -
 But let's talk about the TOS. The sentence says: "Images of minor bruising, burns or bloody wounds that have already occurred are acceptable"

Now, imagine the following. Imagine I would create an image in Poser with a guy with wounds, blood, skinned alive (similar to the image I showed before). Now I would post it in the Poser gallery and use something similar to the image I showed before as thumbnail. In addition, I would not even rate the image as violent.
If a moderator would come to me and say "look, you're violating the TOS", I would reply "but this is not real blood, this is just a texture I made in Poser. According to Bantha and Bryster and JenX, it's ok to do this."

Bantha, tell me quite frankly, do you think the moderator would still allow me to post it like that? Shall we make a live experience and see what happens? :-)

Someone skinned alive would be a TOS violation, and most likely unsuitable for the site as torture, so a violence flag would not even be enough for that. A skinned dead body would be a different matter. But it would depend on the whole image, not on the thumbnail alone. I could do an image, which clearly does not need a violence or nudity tag, and cut a thumbnail from it which looks as if it would need one. 

Quote -
Quote - "But please take in mind that the violence rules are made for living creatures, a dead body, even when bloody, isn't violence."

What?! Now I'm really surprised. A dead bloody body isn't violence?!... That doesn't make any sense at all. If I make a scene where I show a body completely ripped apart, blood and guts all over, if the guy is still alive it's a violent image but if the guy is already dead is not a violent image???

Bantha, do you honestly think this makes any sense??

Well, try to see it the other way 'round: Does the image of a houswife in the kitchen, preparing the steaks for the next meal need a violence tag? Well, it's a bloody part of a body, right? Ok, so where to draw the line? This may seem ridiculous to you, but believe me, it isn't. There are enough users who try to stretch the boundaries of the TOS as far as possible. More nudity, more violence, things like that.

The rule from the thumbnail guideline references clearly a "living creature". It was not me who made this rule, and if it was my job to draw the line, I would draw it somewhere else. But that is not the point. Yes, the actual violence rules apply to living creatures only. Please take note that the "living creature" part refers to the violence tag, images which are considered unsuitable will be removed no matter if the subject is dead - so the "skinned Poser figure" you mentioned earlier would have to go even if it's obviously deceased, if it's blatant enough.

Quote -
Quote - "I really understand your point of view. But the banners are usually part of the previous year's winner images, and so they obviously were not only found acceptable but were good enough to please many of the viewers. I would have problems to remove them, if they even got a vote majority."

Of course you can show them... behind a "violent" sign and behind a thumbnail that respects the TOS. That way I'm warned and will not go there. Whoever likes that stuff will go.
See point 2 of Artpearl's post, just above. It applies perfectly to this. Renderosity can have violent images in their galleries as long as the TOS is respected.

The rules for the Hollywood Contest clearly state that every image entered needs to comply to the thumbnail rules, so no nudity and no violence. Since the image had been accepted in an earlier contest, the staff decided that it does not violate the thumbnail rules. Every single entry is appoved by a staff member before it shows up in the contest, to make sure that no real nudity or violence is in the contest. So I still think that my point is valid.

Quote -
Quote - "If you want different rules for violence, fine. Make a suggestion in the Community forum, maybe even with a good wording proposal for the TOS. Find some people who support your point of view. If we have stricter rules, the staff will follow them. "

No, I don't want different rules, I would just like the current rules would be strictly respected.

I had the impression that you did not like the "living creature" part. I further had the impression that you would like to add a rule for certain frightening content which does not require a tag yet. But I may be mistaken.