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.

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori.