Great, Rendo loses another superb artist and helpful person because of it's insane censorship rules.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2806504

how the hell is it logical to insist an obviously humorous cartoon-like alien with NO genitalia or breasts must wear underwear, eh? It's like saying Marvin the Martian must wear pants, duh!!

Maybe an idea to move Rendo's servers to Iceland, so less need for such censorship based on stupid local laws?

Not complaining about the moderators, they are nice folk, they are only implementing the forum rules, which are based off, it seems, the laws of the server's host state?

What happens if Rendo's host state goes Fundamentalist? "Christian Taleban"...and bans any bare skin, sees the Internet as "pernicious", bans non-Christian sites etc? And that isn't impossible, seeing the rise of the fundamentalist extreme religion across the globe including most definately the USA, alas :/

So can we please have some common sense on such issues, rather than kow-towing to pernicious extremism? :)

 Our TOS has nothing to do with Religion.  Our greater TOS, which includes the Thumbnail Guidelines and the Child Image Guidelines, includes humanoid characters in all aspects of the TOS.  The aliens in question are, indeed, humanoid, and therefore considered the same as regular human characters.  

In our TOS, nudity simply means unclothed.  It has nothing at all to do with sexuality, religion, or anything else.  If a humanoid figure is unclothed, the flag needs to be set, and a cropped thumbnail provided.  We do not state that the enclosed image is pornographic, nor do we ascribe to the idea that all nudity is pornography.  The majority isn't.  However, we do have rules, and they need to be followed for everyone.  Sometimes, we don't catch them at first.  When we do, rather than bogging a member down with a warning for each occurrence, if it is the member's first "offense", we don't even issue a warning at all.  

It's not censorship.  We're not saying "you can't post this here at all".  We're saying, "Sure, post it!  But, here are the guidelines."  If it were censorship, we wouldn't allow it at all.

I really don't see the problem with implementing the flag for nudity. It just means more people look anyway ffs...

It's not so much RO that makes the rules, it's internet rules as a whole. As it is, RO can still be construed as skating on the edge of a porn site of the powers that be in the country where the company exists. Porn sites are frowned upon by companies that supply merchant accounts, etc. Are the artists gonna change that?

I wish some would just get over the whole nudity tag thing. Big deal, so it has to be tagged and you have to make a thumbnail from a non-nude area of the image...sheesh. Screaming censorship just gets old. Censorship would be if you couldn't post it at all.

FWIW, I think having to tag nudity for a cartoon character is stupid too ;o). But as long as it can be posted, it's not really a huge issue. And it ain't censorship in the true sense.

Laurie

I disagree that those cartoon aliens are "humanoid".  They look like Gummy Bears and have zero indication of boobs and/or genitalia.

However, I don't make the rules and if the admins say that they are "nude" and need a non-nude thumbnail, then there is no arguing with them about it.

The images can still be posted, just not a nude thumbnail. As Laurie said, all he has to do is make a new thumbnail with no nudity in it and check the flag "nudity" and all is kosher.

The TOS is absolutely stupid in this case. I know it's your job to defend it (provided you believe in it), but c'mon. Less bigotry and more good ol'common sense.

I understand the principle of the rule, but I am sorry to say this is taking it to absurd proportions.

A 'nudity' flag has only meaning in a sexual context - meaning, to alert people that their sensibility may be hurt if they walk in on a picture with a nude character, where their sexual organs can be displayed directly or implicitly.

These gummy bear looking aliens are cartoon characters with no sexual organs displayed (not in any humanoid sense). They have no business being flagged with Nudity.

I could find many examples where a Nudity flag would be just as absurd :

• stick figures : humanoid, no clothing
• Donald Duck : humanoid, no pants
• An Ent (living tree) from Middle Earth: humanoid, no clothing
• any photo of apes or monkeys: humanoid, no clothing (as long as they sexual organs are not in full display, apes can hardly be considered 'nudes').

How would translucent gummy a-sexual aliens be any different ?

 Humanoid means "Resembling a human being".  It doesn't denote the color of the humanoid.

The fact is, the artist themselves put clothing on the figures in several instances.  Some risque, some pretty banal and mundane.  Regardless, the figures ARE humanoid, in that they walk upright, have a set of arms and legs, and a head with a face.  They DO fall into the guidelines.

Again, not saying they CAN'T BE POSTED.  Just that the flag needs to be set and a thumbnail provided.  This isn't bigotry, either.  We ask that the rules be followed.  We don't expect everyone to be happy with the rules or with us when we contact any of you for mistakenly breaking one.  Which is why we don't cart out the ban hammer on the first offense, we like to say "Hey, we don't allow it this way, but you CAN do this".

BTW, a content advisory thumb can be used in place of a custom-made thumb.  FYI.  No one has to go re-make anything.

 To say that the nudity flag is only used to alert of sexual situations is not only wrong, but absurd.  Sure, SOME people might have their account set to not view nudity because they find all nudity to be sexual, but some folks are just not into being bombarded with it, plain and simple.

Our TOS encompasses all humanoid characters, and has done so for over half a decade.  

I usually don't bother with these types of threads, but this is very different: whoever decided those aliens are humanoid enough to warrant nudity tags is obviously living in a very distant fantasy world, far detached from reality. That is absolutely the most retarded application of a TOS I have seen anywhere.

I think this needs to be reviewed again. No, it's not "censorship", but it's very nearly so. If you think it isn't, then henceforth I demand that you give a full 90 days notice any time you plan to use the word "the" anywhere, and you must provide one notice for each time you're going to use the word. Hey, I'm not stopping you from saying "the", I'm just making sure you don't overuse it to the point where it has no real meaning for you.

 Listen, I understand that this is frustrating.  It should be mostly frustrating to the original artist, but, I digress.

The simple fact is this; Hundreds of images are uploaded on a daily basis.  There used to be a time when almost every image had to be brought to the team for review because of one thing or another, usually to determine age of a nude figure.  That was a lot of work, and that was even 5+ years ago!!

Now?  We have a lot more work, because there are a lot more members, and a lot more artwork in the gallery.  

I HAVE looked at the gallery, in full detail.  The reason for my confusion on this is the inconsistency in the gallery...The ones appearing to be female (I may be wrong) are given breasts and are almost always clothed.  The ones appearing to be male are rarely clothed, and, when in images with the ones appearing to be female are dressed much LESS than the females.  

I LIKE the work.  It's actually really great, and brought a smile to my face this morning.  And it was sorely needed.  But, that doesn't mean he doesn't have to follow the rules we hold everyone else to.  He has subconsciously shown that his figures are indeed humanoid, and there are times when they need to be clothed.  I honestly think that, had he not done that, these may have remained overlooked by our very small Vue staff.  
But, when they appear unclothed, they are indeed nude.  And, to that end, the nudity flag, and either cropped or standard Content Advisory thumbnail needs to be used.  But members don't get to decide when they have and have not broken a rule.  You don't have to be happy about it.  And you may not think it's fair to him.  But it's fair on the whole.

 Well explained JenX...

I have no problem with the nudity flag and how it's implemented, and I try to abide to the rules as much as possible, also, I believe in the good will of the staff, but this, this is too much really.

So, following the TOS logic, If I make a cartoon character (think Donald Duck, Gummy Bear, who walk upright, have arms and legs, have an expressive face and talk and act human), I have to set a nudity flag? really?

And if I ever dare to make an "out of the bathroom" image and put a towel on the character, it's now portrayed clothed, therefore it's "naked" on every other image...

I'm sure the staff will hold their ground on this one, but please, reconsider your position in the future, this IS some kind of censorship.

 Censorship is telling people what they can and can't say, not "Hey, say it, just do this first".  HUGE difference.  We're not saying that it can't be posted, nor that it isn't welcome.

Whether or not the nudity flag will need to be implemented will depend on the figure.  There is a developer making a Howard the Duck style figure, and, if he's unclothed, he'll need a nudity flag.  However, if it's more ducklike than human, we'll take that into consideration.

The fact remains, these are human-like aliens, with the female-looking ones having breasts.  When they're unclothed, they are nude, and the nudity flag needs to be enacted. 

Kafka, come back, all is forgiven!! ;)

Donald Duck was banned in a country in Europe, because he did not wear pants.... so this is nothing new.

Attached Link: http://www.freakingnews.com/David-Underwear-Pictures-36437.asp

 Please don't insinuate that we do not allow nudity.  Nudity is allowed in the gallery and forums, we just ask that you use the flags.

I had to paint loinclothes on zombies for a Halloween contest once, LOL!

 WARNING. NAKED MONSTER POST.

The makers of this movie and many others did not censor their "naked" monsters or aliens on Broadcast TV commercials or cereal boxes in stores. The rule regarding thumbnails applying to fictional life forms that don't even have genitailia is rediculous.

So how does this refinement of the thumbnail nudity policy affect statues ?
Does the description humanoid apply to Woodie or other mannequins and dummies ?

 statues have never been considered for nudity flag, unless the intention was to, for lack of better phrasing, shove crotch in your face.
It does not apply to mannequins or dummies, they fall under statues (so does Woody)

 Can somebody explain to me why this is such a big deal?

I mean, set the flag, provide a thumb and all is fine. The tag is named "nudity", not "porn" (which isn't allowed here anyway) It's not a problem to post an image with nudity.

The rule is "humanoid figures", and we're pretty strict about it - even toon figures and strange Aliens need the tag if they're humanoid. Easy to understand. I can see your point, but we have to draw the line somewhere, and there will always be people who like the line to be somewhere else.

Again, what's the problem with tagging an image?

Quote - I had to paint loinclothes on zombies for a Halloween contest once, LOL!

As a Moderator in that comp it was so stated in the actual contest rules No Nudity, and due in fact to the nature of the contests tendency, as a Kiddie Holiday, to attract underage viewers.. ...

Where is the line drawn for a nude green skinned figure and a green skinned figure wearing a green skinsuit ?

 At the cuffs and collars mark...visible seams and pocket are good lines to include as well. They [pockets] don't tend to come built in to anything alive but marsupials, and being animals they don't need clothes in any case.. ...

When your on the outside looking in it allways looks different then the 'converts' say it is. Christians say they have only one dieity, one god. But to almost all Hindu's and every other non-middle eastern religion you have at least 3. More if your Catholic.
Even we athiest looking from the outside in can clearly see that your obsession about nudity is purely and strictly based on your religious opinions!!!!!!!!!!

You force them on all other. How would you feel if Muslim rules were imposed upon YOU!!!!!!

The ONLY fair course is the most liberal.
Let non-christians, the chinese, wicans and athiest ect... be equal in the eyes of your rules. Not just under the  imposition of them

While I agree this is a bit on the conservative side - really who gives a shit?  Flag the thing as nudity if that's the rule, it's just a checkbox.  What IS the big deal?

And see since I said "shit" I dutifully check the "language" box, even though in any other language those four letters are just gibberish - that's the rules so whatever ^^

 Very good example of how easy it is to be cooperative rather than combative Paul.. ...

Quote - When your on the outside looking in it allways looks different then the 'converts' say it is. Christians say they have only one dieity, one god. But to almost all Hindu's and every other non-middle eastern religion you have at least 3. More if your Catholic.
Even we athiest looking from the outside in can clearly see that your obsession about nudity is purely and strictly based on your religious opinions!!!!!!!!!!

You force them on all other. How would you feel if Muslim rules were imposed upon YOU!!!!!!

The ONLY fair course is the most liberal.
Let non-christians, the chinese, wicans and athiest ect... be equal in the eyes of your rules. Not just under the  imposition of them

um, yeah. My, my, my but you read a lot into it ;o).

Laurie

Quote - When your on the outside looking in it allways looks different then the 'converts' say it is. Christians say they have only one dieity, one god. But to almost all Hindu's and every other non-middle eastern religion you have at least 3. More if your Catholic.
Even we athiest looking from the outside in can clearly see that your obsession about nudity is purely and strictly based on your religious opinions!!!!!!!!!!

You force them on all other. How would you feel if Muslim rules were imposed upon YOU!!!!!!

The ONLY fair course is the most liberal.
Let non-christians, the chinese, wicans and athiest ect... be equal in the eyes of your rules. Not just under the  imposition of them

Considering many of us, including myself, are agnostic, athiest, pagan, and non-theist, I don't see where you actually have a valid point with this.

Is Porky Pig a humaniod without pants? Is an insectoid-humanoid without genitals nude? Is anyone really upset by the Michelan Man, by the Pillbury Doleboy, by Caspar the Friendly Ghost?  Why are all the moderators circling the wagons on this ridiculous position?

 Does Porky Pig look like a human?  Despite walking on his hind legs, no.  He's still a pig.  But, we're not talking about Porky Pig.  We're talking about aliens given human characteristics, ergo, humanoid.

You may see ours as a ridiculous position.  We feel it's ridiculous to fight over such a non-issue as setting a flag on an image.  

Quote - Christians say they have only one dieity, one god. But to almost all Hindu's and every other non-middle eastern religion you have at least 3. More if your Catholic.

Catholics are christian and they have only 1 God...

* Does Porky Pig look like a human?  Despite walking on his hind legs, no.  He's still a pig.  But, we're not talking about Porky Pig.  We're talking about aliens given human characteristics, ergo, human*

Porky walks on two legs, manipulates objects with his hands. In addition he speaks and has a human personality. Does Caspar the Friendly Ghost look like a human?

We're talking about aliens given human characteristics, ergo, human.

In this instance, you are talking about bipeds that have the bodies of Caspar the Friendly Ghost.

I feel it is anal to demand a nudity flag for this ridiculous non-issue that offended nobody (within the sane parameters, that is.)

I don't think it is unreasonable for the artist to be upset when requested to do something that seems ridiculous. It wouldn't hurt to back down once in a while. Are moderators perfect? 

Maybe there's the "dangerous precedent" factor at work here. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. The next thing you know the Poser users will be flooding the galleries with untagged renders of a green v4.

 Paloth, the reason for our blanket rule on issues such as this are multiple instances of members taking a mile when given an inch.  
For rules to be fair, they can't JUST be to make people happy.  They have to also piss some people off.  Most of our rules do that.  For instance, because of the ruling on "genital arousal" in the TOS, we also cannot allow medical diagrams of the reproductive system in every state (yes, we've had to remove some of those).  Because of the Child Image Guidelines, we've had to remove images with cherubs and other innocent creatures.
It DOES suck to have to remove these images.  It does suck to have to blanketedly enforce a rule.  But, it's fair.

Even if it is unreasonable in this case - and it is - well oh gosh golly gee willickers!  You have to ***mark a checkbox. *** Not like they make you drag a giant crucifix cross-country through all the continental US states.

Donald Duck was banned by the Argentinian military dictature   (1976-1982).
Their arguments:

1- He is dressed with sailor clothes, something that denigrates the image of the Navy.
2- He is always nude in the lower parts, something that is against the moral values of the country.
3- He sleeps in bed with his three offspring, a blatant act of pedophilia.

Well..., today these idiots are in jail for in life prison.

I agree that this is taking the rule to absurd extremes but that's what happens. If you have the rule and actually try to apply it with some degree of reason, then someone will complain about nude aliens and someone else will put green skin on Vicky and try to pass her off as an alien and therefore exempt, yada yada. It's far easier to err on the side of the absurd than to be rational when inevitably people are going to behave irrationally in either direction. It's unfortunate but I don't see a better practical way of dealing with it.

I'm sure this was a straight up, nothing to do with sex or porn or religion issue, but let's be real here. Nudity would not be an issue if it weren't for sex. The only reason people are offended by, obsessed with or turned on by nudity is because of sex, whether it's a Victorian lady teasing with a bit of ankle or a Muslim woman covering her face behind a veil, it's all about sex. Conservative attitudes toward nudity are for the most part ultimately down IMO to religion. It's virtually impossible to be completely immune to those views if you grow up in a culture with a strong conservative religious identification - even if you don't subscribe yourself. Thus, most of us would not go out on the street naked in the middle of a heatwave even if it were legal, religious or not - because we've been conditioned to see it as wrong.

My only point here is that if the artist sees his/her creations as innocent and non-sexual, then he/she might well view the events as related to an absurd and unhealthy obsession with sex and censorship, especially if he/she if not American because gee, somehow, we have a reputation for such things :-) So maybe that's why if might seem like a bigger deal to someone else. 

As to the issue of the figures sometimes being clothed, sometimes people put clothes on their dogs (or very compliant, unself-respecting cats). That doesn't mean they see them as being shamefully naked the rest of the time. I can't speak for the artist and I am only speculating here but I think it is good to try to understand where people are coming from, even if we don't share their views.

"Well..., today these idiots are in jail for in life prison."

And Argentina just legalized gay marriage, though I suppose those old Junta boys may already be familiar with that - being in prison and all :-) The wheels of justice grind slowly, but grind they do - sometimes at least.

I give a shit!
I don't like the current TOS. I don't like the current TOS. I don't like the current TOS!
I think the current thumbnail rule is stupid!
I will keep on complaining till you change the rule to my liking!

Take deep breaths...
Carry on!

Now mods and coords. Go do your job.
remember, if we don't complain, you'll be out of a job.

Quote - I give a shit!
I don't like the current TOS. I don't like the current TOS. I don't like the current TOS!
I think the current thumbnail rule is stupid!
I will keep on complaining till you change the rule to my liking!

Take deep breaths...
Carry on!

Now mods and coords. Go do your job.
remember, if we don't complain, you'll be out of a job.

I can't speak for all of them, but I'm sure some of the mods and coords would just love to be out of  a job...lmao.

Laurie

Okkkkk...

The TOS that you and I and everyone else agreed to be bound to when we signed up here is for everyone. Part of those rules we all agreed to abide by states that images of a humanoid type character {statues are exempt} that is without clothing must be tagged as containing nudity.

It has absolutely nothing to do with religion, politics, sex, etc....its a tag for nudity provided for those wishing not to look at nude images for whatever their reasons.

Renderosity has its rules, as other sites have their own rules. Any site on the internet has the right to say what can be displayed on their own servers..no matter who likes it or who doesn't. You can't go to a site and demand they allow you to post what you want...no moreso than you could go to your neighbors home and demand to be let do what you please in their home just because you want to, or because you don't like the rules of their home.

This discussion is going nowhere fast, and its quickly sliding into an argumentive thread so Im locking it down.