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.