Since everyone is demanding there be guidelines, here you go. These will probaby be temporary until the voting system is in place. 1) No depictions of physical arousal. 2) No genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting. 3) No rape or torture of any living or dead creature. Now I don't want to hear a bunch of complaints, you guys asked for them, you got them.

No depictions of physical arousal... Now that's what I call a rubber paragraph (germand word... a law paragraph that is as expandable as a rubber band)

I can't believe that you still want to put in the voting system BS.

Physical arousal applies to genitalia. -JH.

As an addition to my previous post, I think that the above guidelines pretty much cover what is needed. If you want voting, I suggest that you take input on the guidelines, list them, and take a vote on the guidelines. If every picture is put up to vote, you will get a lot more input from those that want the picture removed than those that think the picture is ok. That is the nature of our society.

That's more like it! At least if we have the guidelines we know where the buck stops. There should be no complaints of "But I didn't know" or "well so and so did it and his/her image wasn't taken down". I would like to believe that most of the forum members are adult enough to follow guidelines when it comes to the content of the images they post here, and as was said elsewhere in the forum, there are other places to post for those who just cant (or wont) follow the guidelines.

These are the guidelines? A few questions: 1) No depictions of physical arousal. Does this mean no erections? No hard-ons? No giant throbbing death-schlongs? The infamous "no-weenie" rule? Or does it include female arousal, too? And how do we determine (since we can't ask or otherwise check--even the eve/gen figure isn't that good) whether the female figures in question are, indeed, aroused? By the looks on their faces? If a nekkid Pfem is draped over a corvette and smiling come-hitherly, does that constitute unlawful arousal? Or do we assume she's faking it? What about kissing? Some people get aroused by kissing... How about light, above the waist petting? Is petting ok? 2) No genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting. That would seem to eliminate pants, bikinis, and most other non-crotchless, below-the-waist garments. Cool! My vote for the new site name? The New Improved All-Bottomless Poser Forum. But wait--on close reading, this guideline seems to imply that genital contact is ok as long as the figure is sitting--possibly on the object of desire, as it were. I think I could work with that... 3) No rape or torture of any living or dead creature. How about un-dead creatures? Can we rape and/or torture zombies, vampires and mummies? Can we can we can we? Please? How about consensual sex with a dead critter? How about consensual flogging/whipping/etc., as long as everyone's having a good time (but not too good a time)?

Mosca, I'm a really nice guy and it takes alot to piss me off. You're getting there really fast. It wouldn't be so bad if you were a regular contributing member of the forum, but you only seem to come out of lurk mode during a contoversy. -Jeff H.

I think Mosca's response is done with a good deal of the old "tongue in cheek"! I would not take it to seriously. I my-self and I hope everyone else around her understands what your intentions are. Christine

Lighten up, Jeff. Sheesh. That sitting thing cracked me up--I had to say something. My point is that maybe you guys should re-think the so-called guidelines a bit--I could make hundreds of images, if I really wanted to press the issue, that would fall within the guidelines and still be pornographic as hell. Also, why don't the guidelines address other types of violence? It's ok to show people getting shot/stabbed/whatever, but it's not ok to show them having sex? What's up with that? My concerns aren't valid because I'm not a regular contributor? Have you seen my work? I'd be tickled pink to upload a few images, both to the forum and the gallery--I haven't done so up til now because I assumed people would be offended. Should I regard this as a solicitation? Mosca (who loves a good contoversy)

I think if every "loop-hole" in the guidelines were to be covered the warning would be 8 pages long. You're right, my sense of humor has been on vacation since the whole forum split began. -JH.

I think this case is closed! Lets move on to something better! How about Macs are better than PC's? or is it PC's are better than Macs? Give me a break! I for one don't have the time for this shit! I don't know what has happened around here, but I don't like it. People are putting more effort into complaints and less into art. There is now a warning page before entering the Gallery and that works fine. LETS MOVE ON! I posted a image lastnight and got only 1 reply, was it that bad? or is it just that people are all worked up over this thing here and have no time for art anymore? I say lets drop it and move on to art. Spike

I'll second that!!

Thanks very much for posting the guidelines. Defining "pornography" clearly isn't the job of the forum administrators. Hell, the Supreme Court is struggling with that one. But, trying to help the "would-be" posters understand what WILL be removed and what can (probably) stay online on this site is extremely helpful. Thanks (again) for going "out on a limb" here and posting some general guidelines. Please help those that cross slightly over the border (i.e. not flagrant abuses) to understand by sending them a polite email explaing the problem and how to correct it. BTW: I found Mosca's post quite amusing too, JeffH. Taking it seriously is way too much work. But! I guess I'll just have to keep waiting for that "crotchless poser site" to appear... :) ===Underdog=== (not as much of a 3D thief as you think!)